said, he trusted that in the absence of the Foreign Secretary the noble Viscount at the head of the Government would answer the question, of which he had given notice—namely, What steps the Government have taken to ascertain whether the report of the murder of Captain Brabazon, of the Royal Artillery, by the Chinese, is true; and whether the information received is derived from the personal knowledge of the informants, or rested entirely on Chinese rumours? He had given notice of his question before he had read the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the mode of conducting the business of the House; otherwise he should have selected some other opportunity than the Motion for the adjournment of the House until Monday. Nor should he have volunteered to ask a question upon a subject which must naturally be painful to the feelings of the relatives of Captain Brabazon; but the fact was he had been requested to bring the matter before the House and the Government by Major Brabazon and his family. Major Brabazon, not satisfied with the evidence of his son's death, was on the point of going out to China for the purpose of offering a large reward for any information on the subject, when he was prevented from doing so by an interview which he had with the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, who undertook on the part of the Government to do everything that was necessary. Far from finding fault with the Foreign Secretary, Major Brabazon had commissioned him (General Peel) to express his gratitude to the noble Lord for the kindness he had shown him; but he complained, with some justice, that anything was left to be done in the matter. He complained that before the Earl of Elgin quitted Pekin he did not take every means in his power of ascertaining the accuracy or inaccuracy of the report of the death of Captain Brabazon. The Earl of Elgin, writing to the noble Lord on the 26th of October, stated that Captain Brabazon, together with a French gentleman, was beheaded, after the action on the 19th of September, by the directions of a Chinese General, who was wounded on that occasion. He added that he was inclined to credit the report, although he had no positive evidence of the facts, and that Captain Brabazon was an officer of much promise, who had held the office of Deputy Assistant to the Quartermaster General. Major Brabazon complained that every step was not taken to prove the truth of that report—that even the most obvious and common methods were not employed. It was reported that after the execution the body of Captain Brabazon was thrown into a canal. Major Brabazon complained that the canal was never dragged, although by such a simple expedient some remnant of clothing or something proving the accuracy of the report might have been discovered. He also stated the extraordinary fact that our troops entered the town where the execution was supposed to have taken place on the evening of the same day, that they remained there for ten days, held an open market, and were in constant communication with the Chinese, and yet that not a single whisper reached them of such an execution having taken place. It had, likewise, come to his knowledge that on the 1st of October, the day after the troops left, a British subject was executed by the Chinese, and that either the fact was not known to the English authorities, or they had not thought it worth their while to take notice of it. The man was a private of the 31st Regiment. Upon application to the War Office Major Brabazon was told that they knew nothing of the subject; that the only information they had received was that a man had died on the 1st of October; and it was only on referring to the depot of his regiment that Major Brabazon discovered the man was beheaded by the Chinese. Major Brabazon supposed, very naturally, that the execution of this private soldier might have given rise to the report of the death of his son. There were many other circumstances which led him to the same conclusion. Perhaps he was too sanguine in his confident belief that his son was still alive. We all knew how people were apt to cling to the last hope; but he so far agreed with Major Brabazon that, having read with the greatest attention all the evidence which had been produced on the subject, he thought there was no absolute proof of Captain Brabazon's death. He did not wish, of course, to raise any discussion as to the probability or improbability of Captain Brabazon being still alive; but the Earl of Elgin had not left the matter in a satisfactory state. As long as there was, he would not say a probability, but a possibility of Captain Brabazon being alive, it was the bounden duty of the British authorities in China to take every step in their power that no doubt should be left as to the accuracy of the report of his death. Captain Brabazon was a very distinguished officer, and his loss would be a misfortune to the public service as well as to his friends; but it would have been equally the duty of the authorities if he had been the humblest drummer-boy in the army to make every inquiry for the purpose of relieving his friends from a state of suspense, the horrors of which could hardly be exceeded by a knowledge of the reality however dreadful.

said, he was extremely sorry that he had been absent when his right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) had called attention to the fate of Captain Brabazon. It was a matter of great satisfaction to him that that subject had been taken up by one who was himself not only professionally connected with the army, but who had been a Cabinet Minister and a Secretary of State for War. He understood that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded to the story that Captain Brabazon, having been dismissed by the Tartar general, Sang-ko-lin-sin, and having met the Chinese general who was supposed to have been mortally wounded in a recent engagement, was by him condemned to decapitation, and was so decapitated and his body thrown into the canal at Pa-li-chiau. Now, the evidence which had been received of that story was of such a nature that no insurance-office in the kingdom would pay a life policy upon such unsatisfactory information. The story went that Captain Brabazon was beheaded, and that on the same day the British army marched to Pa-li-chiau, where he was said to have been executed, and remained encamped there for ten days. It was a singular circumstance, therefore, that while such an event as the decapitation of an English officer must, if it really occurred, have attracted the notice of the natives, yet, although our troops were in constant communication with the Chinese people, not a word ever reached their ears during the whole of their ten days' encampment that one of their comrades had been killed or thrown into the canal. Moreover, if it had transpired that he was thrown into the canal, the question naturally arose, how came it that the canal was not dragged for his body, or some part of his clothing that might have led to his identification? The answer made to that was, that the bodies of several hundred Chinese who had been killed in the late action were thrown into the same canal, so that it would have been impossible to tell whether Captain Brabazon was there or not. Now, he had been given to understand on the authority of a military officer of high rank that while our army lay encamped for those ten days he passed close by the canal daily, and never saw the least sign of a human being in it. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred to the case of two other Europeans who were decapitated at He se-woo, and whose bodies were subsequently discovered—a circumstance which might have given rise to the tale of Captain Brabazon and the Abbé de Luc's execution. That tale was, however, utterly unreliable, as might be seen from the papers in the blue book. The Chinese story was contradicted by Chinese authority. He would put the matter as plainly as possible before the House. The Chinese themselves had stated that twelve days after the reported death of Captain Brabazon that officer was still alive. It would be found from Mr. Parkes' despatch that Hangki spoke to him of prisoners detained in the camp of Sang-ko-lin-sin on the 3rd of October, whereas the story of the decapitation was fixed on the 21st of September. From the evidence of the sowar Jowalla Sing it was clear that Captain Brabazon and the Abbé de Luc were separated from the other prisoners, and kept in Sang-ko-lin-sin's camp. The despatch of the Prince Kong, the Emperor's brother, addressed to the Earl of Elgin, also stated that the Chinese had interpreters with them who were quite capable of discussing the points of difference between the two Powers, and among them he mentioned Consul Parkes and a French officer named "I," who was taken to be the Abbé de Luc. Prince Kung's despatch was dated the 3rd of October, while Captain Brabazon's decapitation was reported to have occurred on the 21st of September. To identify the person named "I" with the Abbé de Luc it should be observed that it was notorious there were no Frenchmen with the Chinese army who understood Chinese, and who were taken prisoners, except the Abbé de Luc, who was kept separate from the other prisoners, and placed in conjunction with Captain Brabazon. Whatever happened to Abbé de Luc happened to Captain Brabazon. They cannot be dissociated. No tale could be more absurd than that Sang-ko-lin-sin dismissed Captain Brabazon on the 18th or 21st of September, for the, date was variously stated. It could not for a moment hold water. We knew with what tenacity the authorities at Pekin had clung to their prisoners. Discussion after discussion took place between the British and the Chinese as to their surrender, and nothing but the threat to totally destroy the capital enabled us to extricate them from their clutches. Now, we had it alleged that Sang-ko-lin-sin was in possession of an English officer of artillery of high position, and had a foreigner who spoke Chinese along with him; and vet it was stated that, eighteen days before the other prisoners were delivered up by the Chinese with the greatest reluctance, Sang-ko-lin-sin dismissed that officer without any stipulation whatever. That story was almost incredible; and certainly not a stone ought to be left unturned before we abandoned our search for this unfortunate gentleman. For the sake of his suffering relatives the Government were hound to make every investigation in their power in order to obtain some trace of him. In his despatches Consul Parkes particularly alluded to the great anxiety of the Chinese authorities to inquire into the nature of our guns and bow far they carried, together with other circumstances connected with our army; and he remarked it as a very notable thing, that since General Sang-ko-lin-sin had held his command extraordinary attention had been paid by the Chinese to their artillery, which had undergone a marvellous improvement between the affair at Canton and the attack on the Taku Forts. It was, therefore, just possible that this young officer, being known to belong to our artillery, might have been separated from the other European prisoners, and put in conjunction with the Abbé de Luc, who was the only other person who spoke Chinese, for the purpose of assisting the Chinese to improve their own artillery. That was nothing but a mere conjecture; yet they ought not to rest satisfied until they had followed up every possible clue to the discovery of Captain Brabazon—an officer of the greatest promise, whom he had known from his boyhood. He could not sit down without paying a deserved compliment to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department for having shown himself, since the commencement of the unhappy business, most anxious and willing to render any information in his power in order to relieve the sorrows and to dispel the incertitude of a bereaved family.

said, the question which be intended to address to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government was one which deeply concerned the comfort and convenience of that numerous class of Englishmen who during the summer vacation were in the habit of travelling on the Continent. The matter did not concern Captain Macdonald alone. If it did, perhaps it would be unfitting that he should take up the time of the House with it; but, unfortunately, it concerned every English passenger who travelled through the territories of Prussia, and was, therefore, important enough to be brought under the consideration of the House. He wanted to know precisely the amount of protection which Englishmen were to expect from their own Government in case of need, and the amount of oppression which they would have to bear from foreign Governments when unfortunate enough to fall into their hands. The case of Captain Macdonald, through the agency of the press, was tolerably well known to the House, and, therefore, he should be absolved from stating it in any detail. Captain Macdonald was a passenger on the railway from Mayence to Cologne. At Bonn the train stopped, and his sister-in-law, her child, and a nurse left their places to get some refreshments. During their absence a Dr. Parow entered the carriage and seized their places. Captain Macdonald represented to him that the seats were occupied, and protested against the intrusion. Dr. Parow replied by calling him a "lout." Thereupon Captain Macdonald called the station master, who unfortunately was a man personally dependent on Dr. Parow, and when he came up, at once took the side of his countryman, and summoned Captain Macdonald to leave the carriage. Not satisfied with that summons he attempted to pull him out. Captain Macdonald, with an instinct natural to an Englishman, resisted; but we had the evidence of German witnesses, totally unconnected with Captain Macdonald, that his resistance had no character of violence. He simply pushed the stationmaster back. No sooner, however, had he laid hands on the sacred person of the stationmaster than several railway officials dashed by the opposite door into the carriage, seized him by the heels, and pulled him out upon the platform. Having done so Captain Macdonald stated, but his evidence was not corroborated by other witnesses, that they maltreated his sister-in-law and the child. He was then ordered to lay down 10 dollars on the spot. Captain Macdonald demurred to that demand and asked what authority they had to demand 10 dollars; but that was a question which Prussian officials were not in the habit of answering; and, instead of producing their authority, they seized Captain Macdonald and threw him into prison—into what Englishmen described as a filthy prison, but what Prussians described as a decent prison. The precise state of things could, of course, be imagined by the House. In that prison he was left for six days. At the end of that period he was brought before a court of justice. They acquitted him of the alleged assault, but they imputed to him what was never charged against him—that he had insulted the stationmaster—on the sole and unsupported testimony of the stationmaster himself, contradicted by other German witnesses; and for this they fined and dismissed him. The House would observe, in the first place, that even according to the Prussian law the treatment of Captain Macdonald was absolutely illegal. The Prussian law, like our own, was very jealous of the liberty of the subject. It provided that every person arrested by the police should, within twenty four hours of his arrest, be examined before a magistrate, and that the magistrate should sign a warrant for his further detention. But that law was in reality a dead letter. The police were in the habit of constantly disregarding it, and in this case it was treated as of absolutely no avail. Captain Macdonald was thrown into prison, and remained there, without authorization. This was a very serious state of things. It showed that it was competent for any Prussian authority to throw an English traveller into prison, and keep him there for six days, on the simple allegation that he himself had been insulted by that English traveller. Captain Macdonald was not intimately acquainted with the German language, which was the case with many of the gentlemen who travelled on the Continent; what possible security had they that any railway stationmaster might not consider himself insulted by some unwitting word or act on their part, and that they would not be thrown into prison and kept there for six days without bail? It had been asserted in the German newspapers that Captain Macdonald had assaulted the stationmaster and Dr. Parow, but that accusation had been found to be without any foundation whatever. But there was more than this danger. It was not only that a railway official might seize a man against whom he, or anyone in whom he had an interest, happened to have a spite; but, unfortunately, the whole course of proceeding showed that there was a special animus against English travellers among the authorities who bore rule in Prussia. He did not mean to cast the slightest blame on Her Majesty's Government, or on the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs; he thought that noble Lord had behaved in a very worthy and dignified spirit; but he did wish to impress on the House, and through them on the public, the fact of the hostile spirit in which the Prussian authorities dealt with the subjects of the Queen, and the danger which all English travellers ran in the present state of feeling in that country. In the first place, it was hostile enough, when a man objected to his place in a railway carriage being forcibly occupied by another, that he should be dragged out by the heels to the platform and thrown into prison. That by itself was evidence of hostility, but it did not stop there. No sooner was Captain Macdonald thrown into prison, than the British Consul at Bonn went to the proper authorities and offered bail for his appearance. In England that bail would have been accepted at once, but what was the course taken in Prussia? Consul Crossthwaite went to the State Procurator Möller, and, in writing to Lord Bloomfield the Consul said—

"He expressed great indignation at the Captain's conduct, and alluded to the manner in which the English generally conducted themselves on the Continent, as it they were not in a civilized land. I replied that perhaps a few might misconduct themselves, but such a complaint could not be made against all. He said at all events people who travelled must know they cannot strike down a railway officer in the execution of his duty. I pointed out to him that I understood Captain Macdonald was an officer of Her Majesty's Body Guard, and, setting aside his rank, it was a serious thing to arrest a British subject and to send him to gaol like a felon—that unless he were speedily released it might have serious consequences. To this Moller replied, 'We will run the risk of that.' I asked if Captain Macdonald could be released on bill, offering to deposit cash to any amount. To this he replied, 'I will not take bail; but if you like to petition the Court and offer to deposit 500 thalers, you can do so, although I tell you beforehand that I shall oppose it. I quite understand what you want—to get the Englishman out on bail, and then he will run off to England, not caring about the money. No; we must make an example of him.' "

That was the spirit in which the representatives of the Prussian Government at Bonn wished to proceed against the English. This functionary considered them as a species of vermin to be hunted out of the land; he stigmatized all Englishmen, and denied the commonest justice to Captain Macdonald because he was anxious to gratify his spleen against the English. But that was not all. The case came on for trial, when Möller, who was conducting the prosecution on the part of the Prussian Government, made a general attack on English travellers on the Continent. Now, there was not a particle of evidence against Captain Macdonald except that of the stationmaster who declared that he had been assaulted; all the other German witnesses—independent people, who had no interest in the matter—declared that Captain Macdonald had done nothing contrary to the law. But in spite of their evidence, the stationmaster declared that he had been assaulted, and the tribunal preferred believing him rather than the independent witnesses. To enforce the evidence Möller made a violent speech against all Englishmen travelling on the Continent, and in language which was well known, having been widely commented upon, he charged them with universal blackguardism. The exact meaning of the word used was a little controverted, and linguists declared that "lubberly" was the true translation. He did not know whether English travellers would prefer to be called blackguards or lubbers; but, whatever was the precise equivalent of the original, it was clear that Möller was animated by a desire to blacken the character of English travellers to the utmost extent. What did the Prussian Government do? Of course, that Government were not bound by the acts of their subordinates if they disavowed them; but they did nothing of the kind. Instead of disavowing Möller, they allowed a prosecution to be brought against the English travellers residing at Bonn for venturing to express their opinions on the subject. They had not inflicted the slightest censure on the stationmaster who had acted in such an arbitrary and violent manner. He did not mean to say that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary should raise this matter to the dignity of an international difference. He had already expressed himself in terms quite as strong as the circumstances deserved, and which did the noble Lord great credit. The noble Lord said—

"The Prussian Government has not thought fit to temper its justification of these extreme acts by any expression of regret, and Her Majesty's Government cannot but regard its conduct as too clearly evincing a disregard of international goodwill."

If the British Government were not able to defend English travellers from such unjust, arbitrary, and illegal attacks, they were bound at least to warn them against the dangers they incurred. He thought Captain Macdonald ought to have received some reparation from the Prussian Government. It was a deep injury that had been inflicted upon him, and it was a reflection on the English people that the Prussian Government not only refused him reparation, hut allowed Möller to remain without any reprimand, and the author of the whole undisturbed in his office. What he wanted to ask the noble Lord was this—whether he would take any measures to acquaint English travellers with the dangers they ran when they travelled on a Prussian railway? They ought to be acquainted with what was the law of that country—that a stationmaster at any station might, for an imaginary insult, have them dragged by the heels out of the railway carriage on to the platform, throw them into prison, keep them there for six days, and on his sole, unsupported, and contradicted evidence have them punished with fine and imprisonment, even when actively supported by their own Government; the temper and spirit in which Prussian law was administered being specially hostile to all subjects of the Queen of England. English travellers ought to be informed that while travelling in Prussia they were liable to dangers to which they were not subject in any other country in Europe. Wherever passports were issued there ought to be a statement made public of the brutal and barbarous conditions to which travellers in Prussia must submit.

said, it was necessary for him to ask the House to revert to the question which had been put by his noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) in connection with the ill-treatment of Captain Macdonald in the Prussian territory. From a personal acquaintance with Captain Macdonald he could positively assert that that gentleman was a most unlikely person to offer offence to any one, and was incapable of any conduct which could at all palliate the gross outrage to which he had been subjected. Captain Macdonald was travelling from Mayence to Coblentz, as bad been stated by the noble Lord. When the train arrived at Bonn his party got out for some refreshment, and at that time there were two seats of the carriage only which were covered by cloaks to show that they were occupied. Dr. Parow came and took one of those seats, and when Captain Macdonald demurred he was dragged out by the heels, and after having been subjected to the indignity of imprisonment for six days, he was placed upon his trial, and acquitted. There was one point, however, so utterly repugnant to English law, that he wished to revert to it, and that was that Dr. Parow had never himself been produced at the trial. It was almost inconceivable that an officer in Her Majesty's army, an Exon in the Body Guard, should have been treated in such a manner—kept in prison for six days, treated almost like a felon, and the offer of the British Consul to deposit a sum of money as security for Captain Macdonald's appearance flatly refused, the Prussian official accompanying the refusal by designating the English travelling in Prussia as blackguards. What could be the cause of such wanton insult? He (Mr. Malins) did not believe there was any unfriendly feeling on the part of the Prussian people towards us. Could it be possible that the Prussian authorities were less enlightened than the people? It appeared that it was only an accident that Captain Macdonald was in prison only six days, as he might have remained there ten days longer without trial. In addition to that he had since been insulted by the Prussian papers, which called him a low man, and declared that he had been expelled from the clubs on account of his behaviour towards the railway official. He trusted that it would be clearly understood by the Government of Prussia that the people of this country entertained a strong sense of the indignity which had been put upon an Englishman. He did not think that there was any country in Europe where such treatment would have been experienced, and he hoped that the noble Lord would make known to the Prussians their opinion of it. If Captain Macdonald had been guilty of an assault, by all means punish him for it, but in this case he was acquitted of that charge. Captain Macdonald's object was now, not to obtain compensation for the indignities to which he had been submitted, but he did desire to stand well in the opinion of his fellow-countrymen. But after those proceedings another event occurred. The English residents in Bonn, including among them the Rev. Mr. Anderson, a gentleman well known and esteemed, protested against the conduct of the Crown Prosecutor in styling Englishmen blackguards. For that offence every one of those protesting residents was prosecuted by the Prussian Government, and fines were inflicted, varying from 100 thalers to 20 thalers. Sinco then he believed the Prussian Government had thought fit to remit those fines, but those were proceedings on the part of a friendly power against which he, as an Englishman, felt bound to protest; and he hoped the noble Lord would be able to say that more would be done than had been yet done to make plain to the Prussian Government the opinion of the country upon these transactions.

said, he had given notice of a Motion upon the present state of the Syrian question, but in consequence of the unfortunate absence from illness of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary he should defer it until a future evening. He had been induced to give that notice from a strong sense of the importance of the matter, and, considering also that the greatest anxiety was felt by the European inhabitants of Syria as to the state of the country after the departure of the French troops, that no circumstances should occur which might imperil the integrity of Turkey, or necessitate any further foreign interference in the internal government of that country. He, therefore, begged to ask the noble Lord whether the recommendations of the International Commissioners upon the affairs of the Lebanon had been finally arranged, and the proceedings of the Commissioners closed; also, whether, in the opinion of the Government, there existed a prospect of a stronger government being established in Syria?

said, he wished to call the attention of the House and the Government to a statement which appeared in the Indépendance Belge of the 20th instant, and which appeared to be confirmed by a correspondent, in the same paper, of the 22nd, to the effect that in the event of the abdication, removal, or death of the present Pope, Cardinal Wiseman was during the interregnum to be appointed Pope to all intents and purposes under the title of Pius X. It was further stated that in this country he was to convene what was termed as œcumenical council to decide on the election of the successor of the present Pope. He should have thought little of this but that the correspondent of the Bel- gian paper stated that there had been a difference of opinion among the cardinals on this subject, that it was not Cardinal Antonelli who had carried out this decision, but Cardinal Alfieri, whose function it would under ordinary circumstances be to convene the electors of a future Pope in the event of the Papal chair being vacant; and that several of the cardinals were opposed to this undertaking, but the majority of them were in favour of it, and that thus for a time at all events Cardinal Wiseman was to be the successor of the Pope. Now, he (Mr. Newdegate) need hardly say that that could not be agreeable to this country, where they had Cardinal Wiseman already bearing titles and exercising powers contrary to our law, and to international law, hereafter exercising the full functions of the Papacy, pending the appointment of the successor to the Pope, no one knowing how long this interval, for it could scarcely be called an interregnum, would last, and with power to summon an œcumenical council. The Indépendance Belge of the date of the 20th April contained the following statement on the subject:—

"With reference to the affairs of Italy the following details respecting a project conceived at Rome are derived from so good a source that I have no hesitation in transmitting them to you, though I do not at 'the same time pretend to guarantee their authenticity. I am assured that the Holy Father has already, some months ago, made all the arrangements in the event of his death, in the event of his deposition, or even in the event of voluntary abdication. The case of his death is particularly provided for. By a decision approved of by twenty-one cardinals, Pius IX. is said to have nominated as his successor or his representative, until the regular election of a new Pope, chosen at Rome by all the cardinals met in conclave, Cardinal Wiseman, Primate of England. Cardinal Wiseman, whose position in the Church is considerable and exceptional, would thus become invested with all Papal powers, especially with that of summoning at London a great (ecumenical council. The difficulties of the situation lead one to suppose that if St. Peter's See should be vacant, there would probably be an interregnum of tolerable length before the regular election of a new Pope. It is during this interregnum that Cardinal Wiseman will administer the affairs of the Church under the name of Pius X. This arrangement is now no longer a mere project, it is a thing definitely settled; and it has already—such is the statement—been promulgated in the Church in order that no accident may endanger the Catholic hierarchy. The Pope, it is asserted, has frequently been tempted to abdicate in order to retire to a monastery; but this project is still vague, whilst the deed of the transmission of the Papal powers to the first Prelate of England has been actually signed. This arrangement of Pius IX. is of a character to create surprise for various reasons. That England should thus be chosen as the moral refuge of Catholicism—as the harbour into which St Peter's barque runs for safety amidst storms—is certainly quite unexpected."

The House could not forget the measure passed last Session to prevent the necessity of the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty being compelled to resort to the Courts of Rome in matters arising out of disputes relating to Roman Catholic trusts. Recollecting the feelings which arose in this country in 1851, when English law was set at defiance, and when the independence of this country was invaded by an usurping authority, he naturally looked with anxiety to the possibility of the recurrence of such aggression, under aggravated circumstances, especially when he remembered that the only premonition of the aggression consummated in 1851, reports current in 1850 of what was about to happen which afterwards turned out to be correct. The reports now prevalent also were characterized by much particularity, and he would quote the further statements of the Paris correspondent of the Indépendance Belge of the 22nd of April—

"One of my colleagues in the task of correspondence has already transmitted to you information respecting a decision of the Holy Father, approved of by twenty-one cardinals, which institutes Cardinal Wiseman, the Primate of England, as representative of the Papacy, in the event of the decease, the deposition, or the abdication, whether forced or voluntary, of the Sovereign Pontiff. The information which I have received completely harmonizes with that already given. It is now in my power to complete it by additional details. It is not Cardinal Antonelli, who, as might have been supposed, has undertaken the working out of this decision (to which the Church attaches the highest importance), but Cardinal Alfieri, camerlengo of the Church; and who, in the event of Pius IX.'s death, is to summon the conclave. The number of the cardinals adhering to the arrangement far exceeds the number of twenty-one, whilst those who still express some hesitation are not above five or six."

The writer then went on to comment upon the opinions of the various cardinals, several of whom he named. He would also call the attention of the House to the fact that the Comte de Montalembert, in his work on the political future of England, boasted that acts were committed on the part of the Ultramontane power in England which would not have been attempted in Naples, even under the former regimé. He thought it right to call the attention of the noble Lord to these Reports, and to ask whether he could furnish the House with any information on the subject?

said, he wished to put a question in reference to the proceedings under the Convention between this country and Brazil. During the last Session he had asked the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary the reason why the proceedings under that Convention, by which the interests of many mercantile firms in this country were affected had been suspended. The noble Lord could not give any answer at that time, because some questions that had arisen had been referred to the law officers of the Crown. From information that had since arrived in England he understood the affair was in this position:—Brazil had under the Convention made some claims of an extraordinary character against this country, created by the exertions of England to suppress the slave trade with Brazil. The result of these claims was that the British Minister at Brazil wailed for instructions from home, and in the interval the proceedings under the Convention were suspended. He wished to ask, Whether it was likely these proceedings would recommence, and whether there was any reason why the claims of Brazil against this country should not be asserted in the usual way; also whether the Government would object to lay on the table any papers showing the nature of those claims?

Sir, I quite go along with the right hon. and gallant Officer opposite in the feelings he has expressed with regard to Captain Brabazon. It is very painful for the relatives of that gallant officer to be kept in a state of doubt as to his fate, more distressing than a certainty adverse to their hopes. 1, therefore, entirely sympathize with the anxiety the right hon. and gallant Officer has so well expressed to ascertain, if possible, the real truth as to what has happened to that gallant and distinguished officer Captain Brabazon. But, putting together all the circumstances from which we can draw any conclusion, I am afraid we cannot arrive at the conclusion expressed by my hon. Friend on this side of the House. I am afraid the friends of Captain Brabazon can only receive this consolation, that, by the suddenness with which his fate was sealed we may conclude he escaped those lingering and barbarous torments to which his still more unfortunate comrades were subjected in their last hours. At the same time, if it is possible to entertain any hopes of his surviving, I can assure the gallant General and the House that my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office has taken every means that can be taken to clear up this mystery. As far back as February the noble Lord sent out most stringent instructions to Mr. Bruce to take every means, official and unofficial, for the purpose of ascertaining distinctly the fate of Captain Brabazon; and I am bound in justice to the Russian Government to say that, as it was sending a new Minister to Pekin, instructions were given to him by his Government that the first duty he had to perform was to use every means in his own power, and to co-operate with Mr. Bruce in clearing up the fate of this gallant officer. At the same time there is no kindness in endeavouring to encourage hopes so likely to prove unfounded; it is better that those interested in the fate of Captain Brabazon should, if possible, take the darkest view of the matter till the certainty can be arrived at. And there is also this circumstance to be considered—I believe the Chinese authorities have accounted for all the prisoners except two—Captain Brabazon and the Abbé De Luc. They either sent them back living, or their bodies were produced; and if the bodies of these two gentlemen were thrown into a canal, as represented, that will account for their not being produced after the demand for them. I should be too happy if the supposition of my hon. Friend should turn out true. If so, I have no doubt the influence of the British, French, and Russian Governments will effect the release of those two gentlemen from the duresse in which my hon. Friend supposes they may have been kept by the Chinese authorities. With regard to that point, my noble Friend has taken the steps I have described, and I am not aware that any other steps can possibly be taken in the present state of the matter. With respect to the other question put by the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) on the transaction in which Captain Macdonald was concerned, the whole of that transaction is explained in the papers that have been laid before Parliament. I can only say, I do not think that any expression used by my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office during the discussion is a bit too strong to stigmatize the conduct of the Prussian officials. It is not for us to stand here and bandy vituperation with M. Möller or any one else; but I only say that I agree with the opinion expressed by the noble Lord in his concluding despatch; and though we are told by the law officers of the Crown that the whole proceedings were within the limits of the Prussian law, I think they were of a most unfriendly character, and most unworthy of a Government in alliance with England. I must say I am astonished that a Government like that of Prussia, represented in its foreign department by a distinguished nobleman, who spent many years in England in a diplomatic capacity, and who should himself, therefore, know the feelings and habits of the people of this country—I am astonished that the Prussian Government, looking, as it was bound to look, at the circumstances of the case, should not at once have said, "Our officials have not overstepped our law; we are bound to tell you that; but, summum jus summa injuria. We know that if a similar case had occurred in England, you, the English Government, would have gone before our demands to make every honourable apology and every compensation—if compensation were necessary—and we feel it due to ourselves, as a great Power in Europe, to tell you that we entirely condemn the conduct of our officials, and are ready to make every satisfaction which, as between gentleman and gentleman, Captain Macdonald could require." The Prussian Government had every motive for doing this. It is impossible to cast your eye over the face of Europe and to note the relations of the different Powers to each other without seeing that it is the interest of Prussia to cultivate, not the friendship of the English Government only, but the good opinion and the goodwill of the English nation; and, therefore, I should say that their conduct in this affair has been that which a distinguished French diplomatist has described—it has been a blunder as well as a crime. I am asked what steps the British Government have taken, or can take in this matter. It was impossible to have demanded from the Prussian Government either compensation or apology if they were unwilling to make it, because we were told by the law officers of the Crown that, however harsh, unjust, arbitrary, and violent their proceedings were, yet those proceedings appeared to be within the limits of the Prussian law. One regrets, for the sake of the Prussians, that they should have such a law. But that being the case, it was impossible for the British Government to press any demand upon the Government of Prussia. Well, then, what warning are we to give to British subjects who are about to travel in Prussia, as to such acts? Sir, I think the notoriety which this transaction has received, both through the newspapers all over the country, and through the discussions in this House, will prove as great a warning as could be given individually to gentlemen desiring passports for Prussia. I think, however, that a warning will also have been given to the Prussian Government when they know, as they will, the universal indignation with which this proceeding has inspired every Englishman; and, whatever influences may operate, as they no doubt do—party influences, for instance—upon the feelings of persons in authority, I think that that which has happened is not very likely to happen again. With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson) respecting Syria, I am sorry to say that I do not think it would be consistent with the public interest to produce any papers on the subject to which his question relates—namely, what Government is to be established in Syria as a permanent arrangement? These arrangements are not yet settled. They are still under discussion by the members of the Commission—by the Turkish Government and the different Powers represented in the Commission—and until the Commissioners have come to some conclusion and a settlement is made it would not be desirable or useful to produce the different arguments which each party may have urged in favour of the particular modification supposed by him to be the best. I can only say that I. believe all the Powers are equally desirous of accomplishing the same ultimate object—namely, that of securing to Syria the authority and the Government most likely to prevent the recurrence of those unfortunate events which have led to the occupation of Syria by a French force. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) has asked me a question founded upon a paragraph which he has read from the Indépendance Belge, stating that certain contingent arrangements have been made with reference to the death of the Pope, his abdication, or other cessation of his authority. This statement was copied into one of the English papers, where I have seen it, hut all I can say is that the Government have received no information in any degree bearing out the statement. Of course i cannot pretend to know what are the rules and laws by which the Papal Government is directed, but I should very much doubt whether it is in the power of an existing Pope to make during his lifetime arrangements for carrying on the Government, ecclesiastical or temporal, after his death. That, however, is a matter on which I am not competent to form an opinion. I can only repeat that we have no information which at all corroborates the statement of the Belgian newspapers. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Hugh Cairns) asked a question respecting the discussions that have gone on between the British and Brazilian Governments as to certain claims made on the part of British subjects. He is quite right in saying that the conferences have been suspended. They were suspended in consequence of the Brazilian Government putting forward claims which we think totally inadmissible—namely, that losses sustained by Certain Brazilian subjects engaged in the slave trade, and whose ships were captured and disposed of under the provisions of the Act of 1845, should be part of the losses dealt with by the Commission. We contend that these captures have nothing whatever to do with the matters for which the Commission was appointed. We hold that no question can arise with regard to what was done under the Act of Parliament; that we were acting within our own powers, and are not accountable to Brazil in respect of this; and we, therefore, entirely repudiate the claim of Brazil to mix up this matter in the questions which were to be considered by the mixed Commission. An answer to that effect went not long ago to our Minister in Brazil. We have not yet received the answer of the Brazilian Government, but I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that while the question is pending it is not consistent with the public interest to give papers respecting it.

said, that the noble Viscount had not entirely answered the question put to him respecting Captain Brabazon, namely, whether the information received of that officer's death was derived from the personal knowledge of the informants, or rested merely on Chinese rumours? The noble Viscount was inclined to believe that there could be no possible hope. But the friends of Captain Brabazon complained that the belief expressed in his death rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, and that no pains had been taken to discover the real facts. The Earl of Elgin in his despatches said that the silence of the Chinese respecting Captain Brabazon led him to believe that that officer must have met with a violent death. That was the only evidence the Earl of Elgin seemed to have relied upon to satisfy himself of Captain Brabazon's fate; but surely, as that young officer had been sent on a most peculiar and dangerous mission—one which had been declined by another officer until he got the written order of the Commander-in-Chief—he deserved even more consideration than another. It was said that his body had been thrown into the canal. Then, why was the canal not dragged and some means taken to find out his real fate? Instructions, it appeared, had been sent out by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary in February, and the noble Lord had evinced the utmost kindness and sympathy. The Russian Government also, when its Ambassador was sent out in March, directed him to make every inquiry, and to use every exertion to ascertain Captain Brabazon's fate, and that showed that in their opinion there was a probability of his being still alive. He agreed with those who thought there was just a hope that Captain Brabazon might have been spared and carried up the country, and retained for a purpose which had been already suggested, particularly as they had from Prince Kung himself an assurance that the Abbé de Luc was alive a fortnight after both those gentlemen were supposed to have been murdered. He implored the noble Lord to use every diplomatic engine, and all the means which the wealth and influence of England placed at his command, to solve the horrible mystery, and, if possible, to restore a noble son to his afflicted father and a gallant officer to his country.

said, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to some Returns which bad recently been laid before them in respect to the floggings inflicted on children in the various gaols of England. Hon. Members had just been expressing their indignation at the barbarity of the Chinese; but be hardly knew whether indignation or pity was more roused in considering the subject to which his question referred. That, in this nineteenth century, children who ought to be under tender surveillance, of the ages of 8, 9, 10, 11, and upwards, should be ar- bitrarily exposed to the lash in private in our gaols was an abuse of law which ought no longer to be tolerated. At Knutsford, according to the Return (and he would only take a few cases), a child of eight got 24 lashes; at Faversham two boys of nine got 15 lashes each; at Spilsby three boys of eleven, ten, and eleven got 10 and 12 lashes each with the cat, an instrument which inflicted immense pain. At Leicester a boy of eleven got 20 cuts with the cat, and when the wounds inflicted by those cuts were healed he had 14 more. At Morpeth a child of ten got 10 lashes with the cat, and another of ten 6 cuts with a new kind of instrument—a leathern strap. At Newcastle there was a perfectly scandalous list of floggings ordered by petty sessions. A child of eight was ordered 8 strokes with the eat, another child of eight 4 strokes, two children of ten and eleven 6 strokes, and three children of thirteen 15 strokes each. At Oxford two children of nine were ordered 24 strokes with the rod, and at Petworth children of seven, nine, and nine years were ordered 13, 10, and 15 strokes respectively. He had had forwarded to him an account of a private flogging at one of the gaols, written by a magistrate, which he would read to the House—

"I saw a boy marched along in custody, and was told that he was going to he flogged. His age was said to he eleven, but he was a little and delicate-looking child. He was committed the day previous for three days and to be once whipped for stealing. The boy was ordered to take off his trousers, and he was fastened by his wrist to the halberds, arms extended, and further secured by straps. The person who had to administer the punishment was a strong, stalwart man, and he was armed with a huge birch rod, about two feet six inches in length. The child received eight strokes, and then presented a picture of agony and terror, his eyes almost starting out of his head. I inquired how many such strokes constituted a flogging, and was told eighteen, and that that number was always inflicted if the prisoner's physical power would admit of it. I appealed to the surgeon, who said he could not interfere, so long as the boy was physically capable of enduring the punishment. I asked whether we, as magistrates, could not prevent its proceeding further, and was then told that we had the power to mitigate the sentence. This, of course, we at once did, as we should certainly have done at the first stroke had we received that intimation previously. I never witnessed so pitiful a scene, and hope I never shall again."

Here was another instance—

"I once witnessed its infliction with the birch on three youths of about eighteen or nineteen. They had eighteen strokes each, and their screams, and writhings, and cries for mercy, testified to the severity of the punishment. One of them, after violent and fruitless struggles, fairly groaned with pain. The foregoing punishment is light compared with one with the cat, which a friend gave me an account of."

The place were these floggings took place was a vaulted chamber under the gaol, where no sound could reach beyond those present. He could scarcely believe that such a thing was possible. The Returns, which he was glad had been printed for general circulation, read more like old tales of slavery, or of Eastern torture than of anything which could take place in England. It could scarcely be said that such punishments were necessary; for they were con fined to a few districts, mostly in the north, while in other districts they were not used at all. He did not deny that, in extreme cases, the thing ought to he done; but, that it should assume this ordinary character, and be inflicted on children of such tender years, who were often not themselves to blame, because they had been brought up in misery and crime was a national disgrace, and could never have been intended by the Legislature. He should be glad to hear from his right hon. Friend that he had had the subject under his consideration, and that he would be prepared to take some steps to put a stop to the practice.

said, he wished, before the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary rose to reply to ask him a question on the subject of the practice of flogging in prisons. The Returns already referred to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Kinnaird) near him related to 137 prisons, in sixty-three of which no flogging whatever had taken place either by sentence of the Courts or by order of the visiting justices. In twenty-two others there had been no corporeal punishment by order of the visiting justices. In twenty-six others the punishment had been inflicted partly by order of sessions and partly by the visiting justices, and in the twenty-six remaining prisons the punishment had been by order of the visiting justices only. Now, he submitted that it was never intended by the law that the punishment of whipping should be indiscriminately inflicted upon our criminals by order of visiting justices only. Another matter of which he complained was that no limit was placed on the visiting magistrate as to the number of lashes he might direct to be administered, or as to the instrument—cat-o'-nine-tails or birch—with which the punishment was to be inflicted; and, furthermore, that the punishments were inflicted in private, by which the public eye was drawn away from them; and the press was not allowed to report the proceedings. In many of the cases to which he had directed his observations, the infliction of the lash, no doubt, took place according to the caprice and temper of the visiting magistrate, and not in accordance with justice or the actual merits of the case. In the West Riding of Yorkshire prison, at Wakefield, whipping was entirely abolished, and, with few exceptions, that degrading punishment was disallowed in the county of York. He hoped, therefore, that the attention of the Home Secretary would be at once directed towards abolishing a power which in itself was manifestly tyrannical and susceptible of such great abuse.

said, that before the question was answered, he wished to ask the hon. Member whether, before a flogging was ordered to be inflicted, an examination must not take place on oath before the visiting magistrate; the proceedings taken down on paper; and the whole matter conducted in a proper and judicial manner? He also wished to ask whether any complaint had been made by the Inspector of Prisons as to the severity of the punishment inflicted by order of the visiting justices? Whether he was not aware that the birch-rod, and not the cat-o'-ninetails was the instrument usually employed in the punishment of boys? And, finally, was he not aware that the children of the nobility and higher classes were subjected to corporeal punishment, inflicted generally in private by the head master of public schools, in a much more severe form than that employed in public prisons?

said, that he should lose his self-respect if he remained silent with the convictions which he had in reference to the subject introduced by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird). They often indulged in vituperation of foreign states, and talked of the cruelties practised in the gaols of Naples and Austria. He would plead for the infants, children of tender age, in English gaols. Could it be believed that not a birch-rod, but a cat-o'-nine-tails, was laid on a child? It should be remembered that one stroke of the cat gave nine lashes, and, therefore, twenty strokes inflicted 180 lashes. [Laughter] It might be a matter of merriment to some hon. Gentlemen, but no one would be allowed to treat an animal with such cruelty. He hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, that a change was intended which would put an end to such disgraceful proceedings.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the matters alleged in, the petition of Lieutenant Colonel John Henry Keogh, presented to the House on the 14th day of March last. It appeared that the petitioner was entitled to two estates—one in the County of Carlow and the other in Kildare. A petition was presented to the Encumbered Estates Court, Dublin, for a sale of the property to pay debts contracted by the petitioner's father, and an order was pronounced in August, 1851. The Kildare estate was sold in 1852, and it was found to realize more than sufficient to discharge all the claims of the creditors, and amongst them the particular debt which was the subject matter of the petition. It was a judgment debt in the penal sum of £2,000, the bond having been given to one Anne Garstin. The gum due on the bond was £1,061, principal and interest, and the Judge ordered that that amount should be set aside for the personal representative of Anne Garstin, and directed that letters of administration should be taken out to her. That was done in May, 1853, at which time there was no legal personal representative. By the practice of the Encumbered Estates Court, when once the money was allocated by the Court the petitioners received no further notice with regard to it, and did not know when it was drawn out. The trustee of the judgment debt was a clergyman who proceeded to take out administration on the 8th of December, 1853. But before the representative could obtain payment of the money other persons wrongfully did so from the officers of the Court, and when those persons were called upon to refund it, it was found that they were insolvent, and, consequently, only £60 was obtained from their estates instead of £1,100. The trustee of the judgment then applied to the Encumbered Estates Court for an order to sell the estate in Carlow, and the Court could not refuse to make such order on the ground that money had once been allocated for the payment of the debt. Proceedings were then, by order of the Encumbered Estates Courts, commenced in the law courts by the trustee, and the result was the Court of Common Pleas held he was entitled to judgment for the amount claimed, the Judges saying that the money having got into the hands of the wrong person was no answer to the case made by the trustee, who was the right person, and that Lieutenant Keogh must obtain redress elsewhere. That gentleman had had to pay the sum of £1,650 10s. 5d. to the trustee, and £222 16s. 10d. costs to his attorney, in consequence of an error committed by an officer of the Encumbered Estates Court. The reason why Colonel Keogh could obtain no redress was that the 15th Section of the Act of Parliament enacted that neither the Commissioners of the Court nor any person acting under the authority of the Court should be liable for anything bonâ fide done, or omitted to be done, in the exercise of the provisions and powers of the Act. The officer having acted under the powers of the Act, there was no redress at law to Colonel Keogh, and the question was whether he was to have any redress rendered to him elsewhere—that was to say by that House? If there was a fund in court Colonel Keogh ought to be paid out of it; but if there was no such fund, then, as the House had compensated Mr. Barber for injuries done to him, so the Government ought to put Colonel Keogh's name upon the estimates for the amount which he had lost through negligence of an officer of the Court. There could be no doubt that a grievous injustice, under the Act of Parliament, had been done to Colonel Keogh, and he hoped the Government would give a satisfactory answer with regard to it.

said, that there could be no doubt that a great hardship had been done to this gentleman. He had to pay twice over a sum of money through the negligence of a public department, and had failed to obtain redress, in consequence of an Act passed by that House. He (Mr. Cogan) thought it was a fair case for the interference of the House, with the view of affording some redress for the wrong that gentleman had sustained. He believed there were funds at the disposal of the Court by which that gentleman might be compensated without putting any burden upon the country. If the Secretary for Ireland saw any difficulty in dealing with the case now, he (Mr. Cogan) trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) would be granted a Committee to inquire whether public justice could not be done?

said, that his part in the case of Colonel Keogh was a very slight one. Such a case, indeed, had no connection with the ordinary departmental discretion of the Treasury. The case of Colonel Keogh was certainly a very grievous one, and he should feel himself unable to oppose an investigation with a view, in the first instance, to the establishment of the facts. At the same time the matter involved many difficult and important questions which could not be decided off-hand. It would be impossible to take any step which, by recognizing any claim upon the public in such a case, would simply announce to the officers of courts of justice that they might with impunity commit any neglect or misconduct as long as it could not be proved wilful fraud. The difficulty of such cases was increased by the fact that officers of courts of justice were not under the control of the Executive Government. The vote of the House in the case of Mr. Barber was proposed with doubt and misgiving; but it was clearly established in that case that the wrong inflicted upon Mr. Barber was inflicted by persons who were under the direct control of the Executive Government. In the Irish cases to which reference had been made no claim upon the public was recognized.

said, as he could not address the House again, he would answer by anticipation a question of which notice had been given by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets—namely, Whether it was his intention to lay before the House the Bill regulating the imposition of the Duties on Traders mentioned in the 8th, 9th, and 13th Resolutions before taking the opinion of the Committee on those Resolutions? In reply he had to say that it was not in his power to present the Bill to the House until the Resolutions had been passed and reported.

stated that last Session the right hon. Gentleman first read a somewhat similar Bill the second time, and then passed his Resolutions on the subject in Committee of Ways and Means. He wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to pursue the same course on the present occasion? He wished to know the grounds on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had selected the three classes of traders mentioned in his 8th, 9th, and 13th Resolutions specially as the subjects of taxation? and he thought the best mode of obtaining that information would be from the Bill itself; but, as the right hon. Gentleman declined to lay the Bill on the table, he would put the question in another shape, which would enable him to get the information he wanted in an oral form.

said, he did not rise to pursue the subject of flogging. Most hon. Members who had been at public schools had had the advantage of personal experience of what a flogging was before they entered that House. The question he had to submit to them was a much more important one; it related to the postponement of the Appropriation of Scats Bill. That seemed to be the only Reform Bill they were to have during the Session, and it had hardly met with the respectful treatment from its parents which it had a right to expect. It received a second reading on the 25th of February, and was put down for Committee on March 7th. It then stood No. 1 on the Orders, but it was postponed to the 11th; then it was postponed to the 14th, and then to the 21st of March. Before the 21st came it was postponed to April 15th, when it stood low down among the Orders, and it was then postponed to the 25th, when there was no chance of its coming on. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had stated that the Bill would not come on until after the financial statement had been disposed of, but, as there was no chance that the debate on the Budget would be over before the following Thursday it was evident that a still further postponement must take place. Under those circumstances, and as the measure was one which excited considerable interest, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would fix some day definitively for its discussion. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that independent Members had not the same inducement as the occupants of the Treasury bench to remain in the House until two o'clock in the morning to watch the Bill.

Sir, I am not conscious of having behaved, as the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins) has alleged, with any want of respect to the House in regard to the Bill for the Ap- propriation of seats. In the beginning of the Session an opinion was expressed, somewhat in terms of censure, that the Government were to blame if they did not introduce their Bills at an early date. In accordance, therefore, with what I thought the general wish of the House I introduced the Bill in question at a comparatively early period of the Session, and it has been read a second time. If I had seen an opportunity for the consideration of the Bill in Committee, I should not have failed to have availed myself of it. The House, however, is aware that the Government are in a more unfavourable position than private Members with regard to the consideration of their Bills at that period of the year. A private Member can put down his Bill for Wednesday, and if sufficiently high on the list it will come on, but it is impossible for a Government Bill of this kind to be taken up when there is important business on the paper, such as Committee of Supply, when a couple of nights are sometimes occupied with preliminary Motions. I am not aware that I have failed to avail myself of any opportunity of bringing on the Bill, or that I have postponed it on any occasion when it could seriously have been expected to come on; I can only repeat that as soon as the financial business shall have been concluded I will fix a day for the Bill. As to the flogging of prisoners I would observe that there are two classes of cases in which that punishment is inflicted: one is where the Judges at assizes or quarter sessions have pronounced that sentence after an indictment. The law in certain cases allow this punishment to be inflicted on adults, and more frequently on children. That is the sentence of a competent Court; and it is inflicted by the gaoler, just as a capital sentence would be if pronounced by a competent Court. In that case, then, it is not in the power of the Executive Government to interfere with the mode of its infliction, although the Crown may remit it. As far as legislation on this subject is concerned it is under the consideration of the Committee which is now sitting on Offences against the Person. This punishment, more than any other, has been under the consideration of that Committee. They will, no doubt, make certain recommendations which will come before the House, and without anticipating their decision, I think the House may dismiss the subject, leaving it to the consideration of the Committee. The other class of cases is where flogging is administered by order of visiting magis- trates on prisoners for prison offences. There is obviously a difficulty with respect to prison offences, because punishment has to be inflicted on those who are already in a state of punishment. Ordinary modes of punishment being thus taken away the law confers on the visiting justices the power of flogging for prison offences. Before inflicting that punishment the visiting justices, as has been correctly stated by the hon. Baronet (Sir Baldwin Leighton) take evidence as to the offence, which is accessible to the prison inspector. I am not aware that any case of excessive flogging by order of the visiting justices has been reported by the prison inspectors, or made the subject of special complaint to the Home Office. If any such complaint had been made it would, of course, have been attended to. From the returns it appears that a boy of a tender age has been subjected to flogging with the cat, which is certainly a severe instrument of punishment. In the New Bailey Prison, Salford, in November, 1857, a boy aged fourteen years seven months, was sentenced to eighteen lashes with the cat. His offence was, "shouting repeatedly in his cell at night, after having been cautioned by the watchman, this being the seventh report since conviction in May, 1857." He was probably an incorrigible boy, who had given a great deal of trouble to the prison authorities. In March, 1858, in the same prison, a boy eleven years old was sentenced to thirty-six lashes with the birch-rod, for "shouting loud in his cell to other prisoners, this being the ninth similar offence in four months, in addition to other disorderly conduct." In April, 1858, in the same prison, another boy, thirteen years eight months, was sentenced to forty-eight lashes with the birch for whistling and shouting in his cell, that being "the third similar offence (incorrigible), and eighth offence in seven weeks." That is the nature of the offences for which corporeal punishment is inflicted on prisoners by direction of the visiting justices. If the House thinks fit, it can, of course, impose some restriction on the discretion of the visiting justices by defining the instrument to be used in different cases, and limiting the number of lashes to be administered. It would be competent for the Home Office to inquire into any particular case of cruelty and to take steps in consequence; but not to issue a circular letter to the visiting justices, limiting their discretion in the execution of the law. I will, however, consider whether I can make any suggestion on the subject. It certainly appears that in some prisons this punishment is inflicted more frequently than in others, but that is sometimes owing to the defective construction of the prisons, and not to any fault of the officers.

said, that last Session he had brought this subject under the notice of the House, when he had shown that the system of flogging children was most tyrannical, brutal, and of a disgusting nature. In the army a court-martial, which could order a soldier to be shot, could only direct the infliction of fifty lashes. But in Lancaster gaol there appeared to be no limit to the authority of the visiting magistrates. He had never heard of a boy being flogged with a cat-o'-nine tails in the army at all. A soldier entered the army at the age of eighteen, and must be a most accomplished blackguard to earn a flogging within a year. So that it might be said that nineteen was the earliest age at which a soldier was liable to flogging. But the Return before the House showed that a lad of fifteen years and two months had received forty-two cuts with a cat-o'-nine-tails for defacing some books in prison. Another boy, of sixteen, for refusing to work had received sixty cuts with the birch. He observed that 190 of the floggings took place in Lancashire. The hon. Member for Birmingham, therefore, would have been much better occupied in his own county than in dragging before the country General Sir Richard Dacres, the commandant at Woolwich, for having flogged the greatest ruffian that ever disgraced the army. It was all very well to talk of the brutality of flogging in the army, but what could equal the brutality they had heard of that evening? If he commanded a regiment at Oxford, he, as colonel, could not flog any man in the regiment without a regimental court-martial; but as a visiting justice, he could go to the prisons and flog as many men as he pleased. He was an advocate for flogging in the army, because he did not believe they could govern the men without it; but he would never consent to place it in the power of any one man to subject another to the lash, except in a case of mutiny when instantaneous example was necessary to suppress it.

said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Why a large number of Staff Assistant-Surgeons have been placed upon half pay and bow long it is probable that the state of half-pay as regards these officers will be continued? He knew it was said that they had been placed on half-pay because the present Vote was not sufficient; but why was the present Vote not sufficient? It seemed hard that a number of officers just entering on their profession should be placed on half-pay, and their prospects of promotion in the army retarded, when they themselves were not in fault. He did not blame the War Department; he believed they were inclined to be liberal. He hoped they would take the case into consideration, and, perhaps, do something to remedy the evil.

said, that with reference to the notice which had been given by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel North), be wished to call attention to the reduction of the second assistant-surgeons of regiments of the Line. He bad mentioned the other evening that this reduction had either commenced or was anticipated. The importance of the subject had been felt very deeply, for the addition of a second assistant-surgeon to regiments of the Line had been recommended by the Commander-in-Chief and nearly all the important witnesses before the Sanitary Commission on the Army. To some extent the House had been deceived by the statement made the other night by the hon. Under-Secretary of State. He was far from attributing to him any intention to mislead, but the fact was that what had been stated by him in Committee, was, so far as he could learn, the reverse of what had actually taken place. An order had gone out reducing in several instances the second assistant - surgeons of regiments serving at home. The question was not, perhaps, quite understood by the hon. Gentleman, for the reply that was wished had not been given. When an hon. Member stated that the order had gone out for the reduction, the hon. Under-Secretary said, if such an order had gone out it had not gone out from the War Department. He (General Lindsay) was extremely anxious to have the matter cleared up, and if an order had gone out without the knowledge of the authorities, that it should be reversed as soon as possible. The sanitary interests of the private soldiers made this a matter of no ordinary importance, as no officer was so useful to them or so well acquainted with their wants, and it involved in a great degree the comfort of medical officers themselves. He thought it a great hardship that a medical officer could not have leave of absence, in consequence of the great responsibility which devolved upon him, without employing another practitioner to perform his duties.

said, he would state to the House precisely what he had intended to say and what he believed he had said the other evening. He meant to say two things; the one was that the second assistant-surgeons of the battalions of of Guards would not be taken away from them as they were included in the Estimates for 1861-62; and the other was that no second assistant-surgeons of Line regiments would be placed on half-pay. He did not intend to say that they would not be taken away from their regiments. It was considered by the noble Lord the Secretary of State and by the Commander-in-Chief that the second assistant-surgeons in regiments at home were no longer necessary. As the gallant officer had mentioned the Report of the Sanitary Commission, and the opinions of those supposed to be most conversant with the wants of the soldier in regard to medical treatment, he must say that no one, in whatever position, had paid more attention to that subject than Lord Herbert; and no one was better qualified to decide how those wants could best be attended to. His opinion was that second assistant-surgeons should no longer he attached to regiments at home. The House itself was able to judge whether three medical officers were required to attend 800 men between the ages of eighteen and thirty, and whose complaints were mostly of a character which, though rendering them for a time unfit for service, did not require very serious treatment. Lord Herbert, therefore, held the opinion, in which his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief concurred, that second assistant-surgeons for regiments at home were no longer required; and in the Estimates for this year only one assistant-surgeon was taken for regiments at home. It was to be regretted that it should be necessary to place any medical officers upon half-pay; but the Chinese war having ceased the services of a certain number of them could be dispensed with. In effecting reductions the rule was to deal with the junior officers, and twenty-nine assistant-surgeons had been placed on half-pay, none of whom were the second assistant-surgeons of regiments, all of them being on the Staff. He hoped it would not be requisite to keep them on half-pay for any great length of time, it being intended to give them active employment as vacancies occurred. The change had been made entirely with a view to the efficiency of the medical service. He (Mr. Baring) did not mean to imply by what he said upon a previous occasion that those assistant-surgeons were idling away their time from any fault of their own, but that with three medical officers for one battalion there was not a proper opportunity for them all to improve themselves in their profession.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there is any prospect of inducing the French Government to consent to an extension of the time allowed for the deep-sea oyster fishery in the English Channel? He thought this the proper opportunity for asking the question, because on the following Wednesday a great annual injustice would again take place, and several hundreds of as gallant and skilful mariners as ever risked their lives in assisting a stranded vessel—men who in time of need might do good service to their country at sea—would be thrown out of employment in an arbitrary and unnecessary manner. The facts were simply these:—In 1839 a Convention was made with France, chiefly through the instrumentality of the noble Lord now at the head of the Government. That noble Lord, he understood, prided himself upon it, and justly, for it settled many disputed points between the two countries. Among others the distance which the French fishermen were obliged to keep off the English coast. There were also provisions with regard to the oyster fisheries. These were, of course, intended to apply to the oyster beds in shallow water near the coast, which were the only ones then known. Since then, however, other oyster beds of a different character had been discovered in deep water in mid-channel, to which the regulations were held to apply, and this was the hardship. Because, with regard to those oysters the spawning season did not begin for a month or two later than it did in the shallow water, and what was quite right for the protection of the one was unnecessary for the protection of the other. The fishing for the deep sea oysters was a much more hazardous and difficult operation than that for the others; and in boisterous weather there were several weeks sometimes during which it could not be pursued. So that, after a stormy winter like the last, it frequently occurred that the supply brought into the Shoreham River, the Adur, and other rivers on the south of England was quite inadequate to the demand during the fence months, and this was a very serious thing. No one could mistake the two kinds of oyster who had ever compared those served up at the clubs, for instance, with those sold in stalls in the streets; but few hon. Members knew how great the consumption for the latter was. They were cheap, and a favourite food with the poorer classes. They were sent all over England, and were found at every fair and racecourse, and throughout the manufacturing towns of the north. The Brighton Railway Company cleared many thousand pounds annually by their carriage. The French apparently did not appreciate them, nor did they like the rough work of deep-sea dredging. It should be fully understood that the English and French could only debar each other by arrangement from dredging these beds. They were not in the jurisdiction of either power, and he understood that the Dutch and others fished there with impunity during the fence months. This constituted a peculiar hardship to our fishermen on the south coast. He had presented a memorial to the Board of Trade last April, praying for an extension of time to, at the earliest, the end of May. He had also been with more than one deputation to the President of that Board. Their representations had met with the courtesy and attention always given by the right hon. Gentleman. In July last he (Mr. Cave) had received a communication from the Board of Trade to the effect that Her Majesty's Government intended making strong representations to the Government of France. Their hopes, which had been raised by this, were destroyed by another letter dated at the end of October, which stated that the French Government, having considered the matter, were of opinion that the concession could not he made without danger to the fisheries. They had heard a great deal lately of the liberality of the French Government, and he was not going to question it, but he thought that that Government had been misled by officials, who were perhaps afraid of an increase of trouble from any new arrangement. The French had lately paid great attention to the oyster beds on their own coast, and were probably afraid of depredation, but they ought to watch those beds themselves, and not require our Custom House to assist them by overhauling our fishing-boats. Besides, they could not protect their oyster-beds by merely excluding us from a ground which was open to all other nations. He believed that if the French fairly understood the matter they would no longer insist upon an arrangement which was felt to be a serious grievance on the south coast, and pressed most cruelly upon a large number of our most enterprising and hardy fishermen.

said, that in consequence of representations which had been made to Her Majesty's Government, the Government of France had been invited to consider whether it would be practicable or right to modify some of the provisions of the fishery Convention now in force between the two countries, with a view to allow oyster fishing in the deep-sea during May, June, and July, which were called "fence months." The reply they had received was that the French Government, having carefully examined the matter, had come to the conclusion that it was not advisable, even for the interests of the fishermen themselves to permit such fishing during those months, and that they did not think it would be right to depart from the stipulations of the Convention.

said, his object in rising to make a few observations in reference to the case of Captain Macdonald was to express a hope that no course would be taken by the Government that would seem to imply a causa belli, so that the good feeling which existed between the two countries would he disturbed. He believed the case had been wholly misrepresented to the House, and as the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department might have to deal seriously with the subject, he (Mr. Vincent Scully) hoped he would take the trouble to inform himself upon it before he came to the conclusion that the British Government was in the right and the Prussian Government in the wrong. That Government had no opportunity of giving any answer or being heard in that House. He thought that every Member of the House, on the evidence which had been presented to it, would come to the conclusion that there was no ground for blaming the conduct of the Prussian Government, which had done what it could consistent with not setting aside the laws and institutions of that country. The case had been tried three times, and the evidence was of a most contradictory nature; yet our Government had assumed that the Prussian evidence was all false. In many cases Prussian officials had been strictly punished, short of actual imprisonment, on complaints of a similar character. It was clear that personal violence had been used by Captain Macdonald, for it had been sworn that he put his hand on the shoulder of Dr. Parow's wife to remove her from the railway carriage, and that he had given the station-master a violent blow on the chest, which he had felt for some days afterwards. He thought Captain Macdonald's punishment a very lenient one. He could not but complain also of the arrogant tone of the despatches of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, which was calculated to sow the seeds of misunderstanding between two friendly Powers who were closely allied. There was no fear of British subjects being ill-treated when travelling abroad if they properly conducted themselves.