inquired, If it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Markets and Fairs (Ireland) Bill and the Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) Bill this Session?

said, it was quite impossible for the Government to make any arrangement when four hours were occupied that day in discussing two clauses of a Bill. It was his intention to proceed with the Markets and Fairs Bill, which was desired by the general trade of Ireland, although certain monopolists wished to continue the present state of things.

The hon. Member cannot enter into the subject of the Bill.

Why not, Sir?

The time to discuss the Bill is when the Question is put that the Bill be now read. The Question now is to fix the time to which it is to be postponed.

repeated his Question, and

said, it was the anxious desire of the traders interested that the Markets and Fairs Bill should be proceeded with, and he should do all he could to proceed with it. He should fix the Bill for Monday next.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, If any any answer has been given to a Memorial presented on the 10th day of January, 1862, by certain Army Medical Officers; and if he has any objection to lay upon the table the Report of the Committee to whom the Memorial was referred?

said, that no answer had been given to the Memorial referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. The Report of the Committee to whom the Memorial was referred was of an official and not of a public character, and he was not therefore able to lay it upon the table of the House.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, When he intended to proceed with the Committee on the Thames Embankment Bill?

said, it was his intention to proceed with the Bill on Monday next, for which day it now stood on the paper.

said, that in accordance with the opinions of several hon. Members of standing and influence in that House, he was about to take a course which he was aware was unusual, and for which he must ask the indulgence of the House. To put himself in order, he intended to conclude with a Motion. This Bill, which was to be brought on upon Monday next, and directly after the debate on Fortifications was concluded, involved matters of the greatest and gravest consequence. The evidence which had been taken before the Embankment Committee, which filled a thick folio volume, had been placed in the hands of Members only the day before; the Bill, which contained 80 clauses, had been sent round to Members only that morning; and yet they were expected to go into Committee upon it on Monday, after the debate upon Fortifications. There was another matter connected with the subject which he wished to bring before the House. The Thames Embankment Committee wag appointed a long time ago, and it had sat for twenty-five full days; for a month and a half they had been occupied in taking evidence. They were considered competent to receive evidence and to pronounce a judgment upon it; and yet after they had performed this enormous amount of labour, after they had deliberated and come to a decision, an hon. Member who had only just entered that House, who had never yet sat upon a Committee, and had not heard a word of the evidence in this case, the lion. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Doulton), gave notice, before the evidence was laid on the table, of a Motion declaring that the judgment of the Committee was fallacious and wrong. He gave that notice before the evidence had been laid on the table, and therefore before he had any means of knowing what that evidence was. Out of doors the public had been prejudiced on this question by a journal of such power and influence that it created opinion not only for this country, but also in other countries. He was not blaming the conductors of that journal for the course which they had taken. They, of course, obtained information from any source from which they could get it, and wrote articles upon that information. If they considered that a Committee had acted wrongly, it was their bounden duty to show up that Committee and to protect the public against its acts. He might, perhaps, be allowed to make a few observations on a mistake which had been made by that journal, its conductors having no means of obtaining evidence—because it was a point of honour with every member of a Committee not to furnish evidence to any one; and the papers which were given to members were given to them, not that they might give information to other persons, but that they might look them over and get up the subject. Those papers were delivered, in the strictest confidence, to members of the Committee alone, and it was understood that no one else should be made acquainted with their contents. The Committee had been charged by the journal to which he referred with subserviency; and it had been alleged that they were afraid of the name of a Duke, that they had betrayed the interests of the public, and that when a great work was proposed, they refused to carry it out, from fear of injuring a Duke, or in any way going counter to his wishes. He must protest against that allegation. He hoped that no Member of that House would be so base or so mean as to be actuated by any such motives, and certainly he could answer that no Member of the Committee would be. The convenience of the Duke of Buccleuch was never once considered. It was on public grounds that the Committee determined to recommend that the embankment should commence below the Whitehall Stairs. ["Order, order!"]

I must remind the noble Lord that it is an order of this House that a matter standing for discussion on a future day should not be made the subject of discussion, especially in the manner which the noble Lord is now adopting.

said, he would not allude further to that matter. He would merely say that there had been a great misapprehension with regard to it. But there was a story current in the House, which had reached every member of the Embankment Committee, and he thought it only fair and just to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works to relate the story to the House, in order that he might have the opportunity of explaining it, and, he trusted, of denying its accuracy. He had already given the proper notice to the right hon. Gentleman in private, in order that he might come down prepared with an answer. It appeared that a letter was written by the right hon. Gentleman, directed to a Mr. Higgins, containing minutes of evidence and information of what occurred in the Committee, that gentleman's attention being attracted to special passages thus— I wish you particularly to look at this part of the evidence; I wish you particularly to look at such a question asked by such a member." It sometimes happened, as they all knew, that the post did not always deliver letters with accuracy, and accordingly this letter, directed to one Mr. Higgins, went to another Mr. Higgins, a relation of the late Lord Chancellor, This Mr. Higgins read the letter, and, not knowing why he should be pestered with the proceedings of the Thames Embankment Committee, handed it to a member of that Committee, who told him to send it back to the right hon. Gentleman, stating that there must have been some mistake, and that he had sent the letter to the wrong Mr. Higgins. He did so, and the right hon. Gentleman accepted the letter. Full leave had been given by Mr. Higgins to every one to mention this story, and to make any use of it they thought proper. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory explanation. The Thames Embankment Committee, therefore, placed themselves in the hands of the House, and asked whether it was fair towards them, after they had spent twenty-five days upon a most stupid subject, in investigating very intricate questions, that they should be insulted out of the House, and have articles written against them upon information supplied by some member of the Committee. He asked the House to support the honour of that Committee, and to determine whether their labour was to be ignored, and their decisions spurned and laughed at. ["Question!"] The noble Lord concluded by moving that the House do now adjourn.

said, he certainly was acquainted with a Mr. Higgins, and until the other day he was not aware that there was a second Mr. Higgins; and from what had occurred he did not feel the least desire to increase his acquaintance with the second Mr. Higgins. He would state in a few words what had given rise to this question. Happening to observe Mr. Higgins in the Thames Embankment committee-room, on meeting him subsequently he naturally asked his opinion on what had occurred before the Committee. He then found that Mr. Higgins was very imperfectly acquainted with the evidence which had been given before the Committee. That evidence, the House would hear in mind, was given in public, was taken down by short-hand writers, and was daily published in the newspapers, though of course very imperfectly, because very concisely. He was sure every member of the Committee must desire that correct views of the evidence should go forth, and; that any mistaken notions should be corrected as soon as possible. Knowing that Mr. Higgins was a person of some influence in many circles, and was taking an interest in this question, he (Mr. Cowper) felt desirous that he should not be led away by any erroneous views of the testimony given before the Committee, and thereupon recommended him to get correct impressions by reading the evidence as soon as he could get it. That gentleman naturally expressed a wish for such information. He (Mr. Cowper) might have been considered to have acted improperly, and in breach: of the understanding in respect of the pro- ceedings in Committees, if he had given any of the evidence taken before the Committee during the time that it continued to sit. But after the Committee concluded their Report, and after the proceedings were closed, he did not suppose, and he did not now believe there was any reason why information relating to that evidence should be withheld. Therefore after the proceedings were all concluded, he picked up two or three papers of evidence which were lying in the committee-room, and sent them to Mr. Higgins, thinking it would he advantageous that he should have correct notions of what had been said. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Why?] He did not refer merely to Mr. Higgins, but to anybody. He should have been equally delighted to give similar opportunities to any other person taking an interest in the proceedings of the Committee, of knowing what the evidence really was that had been given publicly. The noble Lord (Lord R. Montagu) seemed to assume that he had written a letter containing something or other relating to the proceedings of the Committee. Now, he could assure the noble Lord that he had not written anything that could be properly described as a letter. He just put with the papers some references to the evidence, thinking they might enable Mr. Higgins shortly to get the information he wanted. He did not believe that he had done anything wrong —he was under the impression, that when a Committee finally concluded their labours and made their Report, there was no longer an objection to any member of the Committee using those printed papers which at the time were in the hands of the printer, the counsel, and the solicitors—which were lying about the committee-room, and which any reporter of any newspaper might have obtained—nor in making the use he did of them did he think he had violated any confidence whatever.

said, he did not think the subject on which the right hon. Gentleman had just spoken was one which either he or the House ought to treat with levity. The right hon. Gentleman said he communicated information to Mr. Higgins as one of the public. He asked him now to answer, in the face of the public, whether or not he communicated information to Mr. Higgins because he was a writer in The Times, and because he wished that information to be communicated to The Times? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman a second question. Did he communicate correct information to Mr. Higgins, and were the statements made by Mr. Higgins, on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, true statements? As a party interested, he wished to know if this was the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made to Mr. Higgins—

"The real reason put forward by counsel before the Committee was that the Duke of Buccleuch and one or two other noblemen and gentlemen who live between Whitehall Stairs and Westminster-bridge, wish to enjoy all the advantages afforded to them by a profuse expenditure of the public money in purifying The Times (great. laughter) —in purifying the Thames, and in constructing this embankment, without being exposed to certain imaginary disadvantages which they conceive may be inflicted on them by the proposed new thoroughfare along the banks of the Thames."

He hoped that statement was not made on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, because, from beginning to end, it was utterly void of truth, as the right hon. Gentleman must have known, though Mr. Higgins might not. [Mr. COWPER: Where is that from?] It was from the letter of a "West Londoner," taken from The Times of the 23rd of June. The second statement was to this effect—

"It appears that these noblemen and gentlemen hold Crown leases of the ground on which their houses are built. It is not pretended that these leases would prevent the construction of the proposed public quay; but it is pretended that a certain honourable understanding existed when the said leases were granted or renewed, which ought to protect their holders from such an innovation."

Was that communicated to Mr. Higgins? He hoped not; but he was sure Mr. Higgins never would have made that statement if he had known that from beginning to end it was utterly void of truth. He would not press the matter further at present, because it was not one which could be permitted to drop; but he must express his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman, an old Member of the House, should feel himself at liberty to get up and say that he, the Chairman of a Committee nominated by himself, before the evidence taken by that Committee was in possession of the House, had put himself in communication with a writer in an influential public journal, for the purpose of having statements put forward which had poisoned the public mind to such an extent that the right hon. Gentleman himself must now be made responsible for the misstatements lie had so propagated. No Member of the House could help feeling the degrading and humiliating position in which the Committee were placed on finding their own Chairman directing public opinion against them, furnishing the materials for charges against them of meanness and subserviency, and calling on the public to step in and control the action of the Committee, who, in subservience to the noble Duke, were sacrificing the interests of the public. The point, however, of most immediate importance to the House was the announcement which the right lion. Gentleman had made of his intention to bring on this Bill on Monday evening. This was plainly impossible. Till now the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, having the evidence before them, had matters all their own way. But now that it was published, time to consider it must be given to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had put the Committee and the Crown lessees upon their trial; they intended now to return the compliment, and to put the right hon. Gentleman upon his. What were the facts? The evidence was hardly yet in a complete shape, and the Bill had only been delivered that morning. There was no time to go through the measure in detail and to give notice of Amendments before Monday next. He therefore recommended that the Government should postpone it to a more distant day. There were still other matters which it was his duty to lay before the House. During last Session two plans were submitted to the Cabinet—one by the Chief Commissioner of Woods, and the other by the Chief Commissioner of Works, and it was the desire of the Government that these two should be laid before the Committee and the public in order that both might be discussed. But the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works set that intention at nought, and only one plan was laid before them. The Committee was appointed, and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) moved for the correspondence between the Treasury and the Chief Commissioner of Works, and between the Treasury and the Chief Commissioner of Woods. The right hon. Gentleman, having taken a day to consider, told the Committee that the correspondence was too voluminous. It was again asked for, the Committee being anxious to peruse it, especially the letters of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works then gave a different answer to the Committee. In reply to their demand for the correspondence, he said he had perused it, and that it was not relevant to the inquiry. However, when the Committee had come to the close of their inquiry, and came to consider their decision, it appeared to them that the correspondence was not only important hut was at the bottom of the whole question, and he thought that nineteen out of twenty Members who had looked at it, would agree that it was relevant. Instead of the Duke of Buccleuch and the lessees putting themselves in opposition to a particular plan, they only gave the preference to one of two plans— to a plan which the Committee thought right to adopt, and which he ventured to think would be approved by the House when all the facts were before them. But there was something further in the correspondence. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had incurred, and rightly, the remonstrance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the ground that while there was a conveyancer in his office, at a salary of £1,500 a year, he put this matter in the hands of Messrs. Baxter and Rose; and not only that, but in addition to that firm, he employed as agent a solicitor at Hertford, so that two parties, the Hertford solicitor and Rose and Baxter, were both employed in a matter for which the country were paying a conveyancer attached to the Board at the rate of £1,500 a year. Under these circumstances the House ought to have all the Correspondence before them, and they ought to hear how the Chancellor of the Exchequer had discharged his duties in connection with this matter. The hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had given notice to move on Monday for all the Correspondence, and therefore he hoped that the further proceedings on the Bill would be postponed to Thursday next, and that in the mean time the right hon. Gentleman would present the Correspondence, so that no further delay might take place. He believed the House would feel it to be necessary that all the Correspondence should be before them. This was not a question now between the lessees of the Crown and the Committee, but a question between the Government and Mr. Pennethorne's plan and the Correspondence relating to it; and it was also a question whether the Committee had discharged their duty in regard to the public interests in a matter where a large sum of public money was involved. He hoped there would be no attempt to proceed further with the Bill until Thursday next.

hoped the House would permit him to say a word of explanation in reply to a question put to him by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. The right hon. Gentleman said he would put him on his defence. The right hon. Gentleman, being personally interested in this question, as occupier of one of the houses in the locality, might have reasons for attacking him (Mr. Cowper) and making him a defendant; when, according to the rules of the House, he was unable to answer the right hon. Gentleman's charge fully, but he should be prepared to meet it on the proper occasion. In answer, however, to the question addressed to him, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the letter which had given rise to the noble Lord's question never reached the Mr. Higgins for whom it was intended, but was intercepted by the other Mr. Higgins, and therefore could have had no influence on the gentleman to whom it was addressed, in respect of anything which he had said or written, An extract had been read from some comments on the proceedings of the Committee that appeared on the 23rd of June; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman, that as his letter to Mr. Higgins was written subsequently to that date, it could not have influenced him in anything he did before the 23rd of June.

remarked that he had not received a satisfactory answer to his question as to when the right hon. Gentleman meant to bring forward the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said he would bring it on after the Fortifications Bill on Monday; but as that discussion would occupy a long time, he hoped, now that the noble Lord at the head of the Government was present, that assent would be given to the postponement of the discussion till Thursday, when it could commence at half-past four.

said, that as a member of the Committee, he must express his opinion that the fact of the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Committee, having corresponded with a gentleman who was well known to he a correspondent of The Times, was another instance of the way in which the Committee had been treated by the right hon. Gentleman. The truth was, that from first to last the matter had not been placed before the Committee in a fair, open, and impartial manner. The truth was, they had before them only one scheme, and— he said advisedly—there was an intention to place the Committee in an unfair position; and he defied any one to read the blue-book and come to a different conclusion. The whole question had been one of dispute between the heads of two departments—the head of the Office of Woods, and the head of the Office of Works. The Treasury was the department which had the control over both these, and it was the duty of the House to see that the Treasury had exercised its power in this matter. Even on the information the House had, it was clear that the Treasury intended that both schemes should be placed before the Committee. Only one was brought before it, and the alternative plan of Mr. Pennethorne was never before it at all. The Committee also intended that the whole of the correspondence should appear; but when the appendix came out, it appeared that the whole of the evidence had not been produced. He proposed, on Monday next, unless the Government assured the House of their intention to give the correspondence, to move that the same should be laid upon the table of the House. It was right he should tell the House, and, although it did not appear in the evidence, it was a fact that would be corroborated, that the Committee unanimously, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman, insisted upon the whole of the correspondence appearing. The House could not come to a fair and just conclusion without the whole of this correspondence before it. This was a matter of too much importance to be decided in an off-hand way by any Government; the House ought to have the subject brought fully before them. He therefore protested against any attempt to force on this Bill after the House should have been fatigued by a long discussion about the national defences. As regarded the correspondence with Mr. Higgins, he should like to know why Mr. Higgins was to be informed more than anybody else—why he could not wait until the evidence was printed and in the hands of the Members? If he had waited patiently until the Members had the Report, he could have then sifted the evidence and made any comments he thought proper. If the right hon. Gentleman decided to go on with the Bill on Monday, it would be another instance of his unfairness towards the Committee.

observed that there was no greater waste of time than to discuss what they were going to do on a future day. But as the Report of the Committee, with the evidence, had only been circulated that morning, he thought it not unfair to ask that the discussion on the Bill should be taken on a later day than Monday. He should therefore suggest to his right hon. Friend to fix it for Thursday.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have a plan showing Mr. Pennethorne's diversion of the road at Whitehall Stairs, prepared before Thursday, and that he would also lay upon the table a sketch of the works submitted to the Select Committee.

said, that when this Bill was being referred to a Select Committee he took the liberty of suggesting, that in order to secure impartiality, the Committee should be selected in the same way that Committees on private Bills were selected. He got no support for that suggestion; but he thought what they had just heard was sufficient to show that it would have been well had it been adopted. He would only say that the sooner the House changed its practice in appointing Committees on hybrid Bills the better.

cordially assented to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, that these Committees ought to be chosen in some different manner. As an old Member of that House, he had had frequent occasions to serve on Committees, but he had never suffered so much pain as from the mode in which the business before them was conducted. A long discussion must take place when this question came on, and as the noble Lord at the head of the Government had assented to postpone the matter until Thursday, a debate at the present moment was unnecessary. He thought, however, he had heard the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) contradict an hon. Member on the Opposition benches as to some proceedings before the Committee with regard to a portion of the correspondence which had not been laid before the House. The decision of the Committee was solemnly taken, and was unanimous that this correspondence should appear in the form of an appendix, and that the alternative plan which the Treasury correspondence contemplated would be laid before Parliament. That correspondence had been promised, but did not appear in the Report; and he trusted that before Thursday all the correspondence referring to this alternative plan would be fully before the Committee.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the bluebook, he would see it staled that the plan would be delivered as soon as it was ready. It was in the printer's hands, and it was not his fault if there had been any delay. All the correspondence referred to in the decision of the Committee had been produced:—at least, he was not aware of any further correspondence; but if there were such he should be ready to produce it.

rose to address the House, but was stopped by cries of "Spoke, spoke."

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that all the rows this Session had been English rows. ["Oh! "] If the House did not interrupt him, he would not detain them long, for he had no wish to spoil sport, though he should be glad when it was all settled. He had read the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), and the Duke of Buccleuch, and he observed that the right hon. Member for Stroud disclaimed all private interest. The Duke of Buccleuch's evidence was to the same effect, except that he said he would stand on his rights. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) had insinuated that a private and confidential matter had been communicated by him in a letter to Mr. Higgins, the information contained in which had been made use of by the person into whose hands it fell for the purpose of attacking the Committee. The Mr. Higgins into whose hands the letter fell was not, however, the Mr. Higgins for whom the letter was intended. Now, it had happened to himself occasionally that letters not intended for him had fallen into his hands. He had considered that in such cases it was his business to forget everything that he had read in those letters, and to send them either to the person who wrote them or the person to whom they were addressed. He could not, therefore, understand how this letter could be made use of in the House of Commons.

said, it had been stated that the Committee had deliberated on a Resolution which was not reported in the proceedings among the Resolutions considered by the Committee. He wished to ask the Speaker who was responsible for the non-appearance of the Resolution in the proceedings, and what steps the House ought to take to possess itself of this Resolution. The House had a right to know what became of the Resolution put by the Chairman of the Committee from the chair, and whether it ought not to have been recorded and reported. The House was entitled to have this Resolution before it, because it might materially bear upon the question before the House. -He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman in the chair would inform the House how it might deal with this very serious question; because if the House lost confidence in the solemn records of the proceedings of its Committees there would be, until this matter were cleared up, an end to all respect for their Resolutions.

The Committee clerk attending the Committee is responsible for taking down everything that occurs in a Committee.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. S. Beaumont), who had given notice of his intention to bring under the consideration of the House the failure of the negotiations with the Belgium Government for a commercial treaty, had once already postponed his Motion for papers. He had now to ask his hon. Friend once more to defer his remarks, as a discussion of the subject at present would only prejudice the object which his hon. Friend had in view.

said, that he could not refuse to comply with the request of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. At the same time, the Session drawing to a close, and the matter being a very important one, he should await with some anxiety the result of the negotiations.

said, he wished he ask Mr. Attorney General, When it way be expected that any Report will be made from the Commission appointed to inquire into the procedure of the Irish Courts; and what progress has been made in the execution of that Commission?

was understood to state that the Report of the Commissioners was being prepared, and that it would soon be in the hands of hon. Members.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether it is still his intention to proceed with the Parochial Assessments Bill during the present Session?

expressed a hope that the right hon. President of the Poor Law Board would fix some other day than Tuesday next for the Committee on the Poor Law Assessments Bill, inasmuch as many of the country Gentlemen would on that day be attending the Quarter Sessions.

said, that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with this Bill at a morning sitting; but as hon. Gentlemen would be engaged at the Sessions next week, he would defer the sitting to a later period.

said, it would be in the recollection of the House that the claims of certain Reserved Officers of the Navy had been occasionally discussed, and a good case appeared to have been made out in their favour and some high legal authorities had given an opinion in their favour. The Admiralty, however, had submitted their claims to the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown who had decided against them. He thought the gentlemen whose claims were thus decided upon were entitled to know what case had been submitted to the Law Officers, or to have a Select Committee appointed to see upon what grounds the decision to which he referred had been given. The captains themselves had submitted their case to very high legal authority, whose opinion was quite different from that of the Law Officers of the Crown. He begged, therefore, to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the case of the reserved Captains.

seconded the Motion.

assured his hon. and gallant Friend that the Admiralty had given the most careful consideration to the case of these officers, and the more so because it had been stated that the Order in Council by which their positions were fixed was not clearly worded. Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman suppose that the Admiralty had laid an unfair statement of the case before the Law Officers? [Sir JOHN HAY said he had not made any such imputation.] He was glad that his gallant Friend did not impugn the honesty of the Admiralty. The Admiralty had given the Law Officers every information in their power; they stated the case fully, for as well as against the captains; and the Law Officers, after carefully going into the facts, gave their opinion. It was not usual to produce the opinion of the Law Officers, and he regretted that circumstance in the present instance.

paid, as the noble Lord seemed to admit that there had been a misunderstanding, that circumstance should operate in favour of these officers.

rose, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the amount of European Forces maintained in India. He believed, that the more any one studied Indian affairs, the more profoundly convinced he would become of the truth of a remark made by Mr. Kaye, the celebrated advocate of the East India Company, that "it would be well that it should be clearly understood how, at the bottom of all our misdoings, and all our shortcomings, is the miserable want of money;" and that it was absolutely impossible for us to have an overflowing exchequer, and avoid the disas- trous evils that had arisen from the want of means of the Indian Government, in any other way except by reducing the army to the lowest possible point consistent with the entire security of the Empire. Being deeply impressed with the dire necessity (if India was to attain the prosperity to which she was entitled) of reducing the military force far below its present amount, he brought forward the subject in 1859, and again last year. He had the happiness now, which lie had not on those occasions, of acknowledging that so far as the Sepoy force went the Indian Government had been making very considerable exertions in that direction. Within the last two years the Native army had been reduced from 350,000 to 130,000 men, and he was sure he was only expressing the feeling of all who took an interest in Indian affairs in saying how deeply thankful they were to the Government of India, and especially to Colonel Balfour and his colleagues of the Military Finance Department, for that immense reduction. But in the amount of European force the reduction had hitherto been comparatively small. Mr. Laing, indeed, in his budget, spoke of a reduction in two years from 90,000 to 70,000 men; but he regretted to say that that statement would be extremely illusory if taken literally. The actual amount of European force maintained on the 1st of last March at the cost of the Indian Government, was 84,327 men. Of these 72,796 were in India, and 11,531 were in the depôts at home. This, then, was the fact with which they had to deal, that the amount of European force maintained by the Indian Government amounted to just 85,000 men, and apparently there was no intention of bringing it below that amount. At any rate troops to the amount of 2,423 had just received orders to embark for Calcutta, 870 for Bombay, 772 for Madras, and 224 for Kurrachee, amounting in all to 4,300 men. This did not look like a reduction of the 85,000. Now, this amount exceeded by no less than 5,000 men the amount proposed to be maintained in India by the Commission which inquired into the subject of the Indian army soon after the mutiny. That Commission recommended a force of 80,000, and possibly, he thought, the Secretary of State might meet him by saying that he proposed in due time to reduce the force to that amount. He earnestly trusted that this might be done, and done soon. That, however, would not by any means content him. The more care- fully he examined into the subject the more cordially did he join in the opinion of those Indian statesmen who looked with consternation at that proposal of the Commission, and who entirely denied the necessity for the maintenance of so vast a force. In fact, no Commission ever made a recommendation seemingly with less care and thought, or one less borne out by the evidence before them. The truth was, that that Commission was entirely absorbed by what they deemed to be the important question as to the amalgamation of the two armies; and although, unhappily, they made this recommendation, they did not take the trouble to assign any reason of any sort or kind for putting the amount at that point. They put a question to some of the witnesses as to what amount of force they would suggest; but in no single instance did they require the witness to give any ground for his suggestion. More than this, not only did they supply no reasons whatever, either of their own or of the witnesses examined by them on the subject, but the conclusion they came to was condemned by the greater number and the greater authority of the. witnesses whom they examined. For instance, the Commissioners recommended 50,000 Europeans for Bengal. Now, two-thirds of the witnesses examined before them, and men of the highest position, recommended an amount considerably below that point. Still more remarkably was it that the Commission recommended a force of 15,000 Europeans for Bombay. Now, not a single witness suggested such an amount, and General Griffiths, the most important witness on the point, only demanded a force of 7,000. Again, as to Madras, they recommended a force of 15,000 Europeans, though Earl Canning placed the amount at 10,000; and no single witness went beyond that except a civilian of the name of Thomas. He (Mr. Buxton) said, then, particularly that the recommendation made by the Commissioners was neither justified by any reasonings of their own, nor by the evidence placed before them. Why then, it might be asked, should they have recommended so vast an amount of force? Never was any phenomenon more easy of explanation. The Commission consisted of ten Generals and only one civilian; and he remembered, on a former occasion, quoting Napoleon's observation to his brother Joseph, that "there never was a General who did not cry out for a large army." The noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord Stanley) was the only civilian on the commission; and if the noble Lord would get up in his place and say that he believed a force of 80,000 Europeans was necessary for the safety of the Indian Empire, why he (Mr. Buxton) acknowledged that that must have great weight with the House. But his conviction was, that the reason why the Commissioners recommended that force was simply that ten Generals were allowed to decide for the country what amount of army it should maintain, and that accordingly, without any reference to the general statesmanship of the question —without any regard to the broad and far reaching interests of India and of England, they naturally made a professional recommendation of an army far beyond what really was needed. Was there any human being who would doubt that under such circumstances an army would he maintained far beyond the real requirements of the country? Well, then, this having been the composition of the Commission, he maintained that the fact of their suggesting 80,000 men was almost in itself a demonstration that 80,000 men was far more than was really necessary But what should they say when they found that an estimate which there was so much reason, à priori, to regard as extravagant, was itself actually now exceeded, and largely exceeded, by the force which the right hon. Gentleman now maintained in India? The Secretary of State for India was not content with raising the European force to that immense amount—he was maintaining 5,000 men beyond it, and was in the very act of sending out 4,000 men as a relief to the regiments now there, instead of bringing them home without supplying their place till that point was reached. Well, then, finding that neither the witnesses examined by the Commissioners, nor the Commissioners themselves, afforded any ground whatever for a judgment on this question, and entirely denying the wisdom of allowing ten Generals to decide for a country what amount of army it ought to maintain, they were driven to examine for themselves into the point; and he could truly say that he had spared no pains and research and thought to arrive at an answer to this question, whether so great a force was really necessary for the security and maintenance of our Indian empire. And here he would put to the Secretary of State, in the most definite way he could, a ques- tion, which he ventured to address to him three years ago in making a Motion with reference to the reduction of the Native force, but to which he could not at that time elicit any reply. He trusted that on this occasion he would do him the honour to give as definite an answer as the case admitted of. What he wanted to know was, against what enemy this force was provided? In the answer to that lay the gist of the whole matter. Happily India was one of those countries which need not at present entertain the smallest apprehension of invasion from without. The miserable fear that Russia would have the madness to march across Asia, and would seriously endanger our Indian possessions —that cowardly fear had passed away. He believed it never was entertained by more than a very few individuals, and even they, after the incidents of the Crimean war, must come to perceive that a wilder enterprise, or one whose failure could be more inevitable, could not be conceived; besides which, if Russia did make such an attempt, we could send troops to oppose her with infinitely more rapidity than she could march them thither over land. No one dreamt that Persia, or any of our other neighbours, would attempt to assail us, or at any rate would attempt it in such strength as to require us to be for ever keeping up so vast a force to guard against such a contingency. Again, should war unhappily arise between England and any other country, we could then, if necessary, send troops to India in time to protect that country against any assaults from them. In short, they might entirely dismiss the idea that this army of 85,000 Europeans and 130,000 Natives, in all 215,000, was intended for the protection of India against a foreign foe. The only object of it was to preserve order, to prevent any uprising against our own rule. Now, let the House seriously examine whether so great a force was necessary for that purpose. They must remember that for 100 years our empire in India was not only maintained, but was constantly pushed further and further by an army the European portion of which never, he believed, numbered 50,000 men, and was often much below that mark. We had infinitely less cause now than we had formerly to apprehend war with the particular rulers within the boundaries of India, who formerly were our dangerous neighbours, but who had since either become our peaceable subjects, or who had disappeared altogether. Yet we had now nearly twice the number of European soldiers that we used to keep in those days No doubt some apprehension might be felt as to some of the warlike nations on our north-west frontier. In that part a large European force—25,000 or 30,000 men, must always be maintained. But as to all the rest of India, and above all the experience since the mutiny demonstrated that nothing more serious than a local riot need be feared from the unarmed Native population. In short, the only enemy whom we need really fear, the only enemy who could seriously threaten the Indian empire, was the Sepoy force, armed and trained by ourselves. But now it was a most important fact that this Sepoy force had in the last two years been reduced by no less than 220,000 men. It now stood at only 130,000, including a large body of military police, from whom no danger could arise, owing to the absence of regimental organization among them. It was considered, he might add, by most Indian statesmen that it would be quite safe to have three or four Sepoys to one European soldier. The Commission, however, had placed the proportion at five Natives to two Europeans; but at that rate 130,000 Native troops would only require about 52,000 European troops to keep them in check. The result, then, of a minute examination of the subject showed that we had far less need than formerly to apprehend attack. And not only was the strength of our only possible enemy so greatly reduced, but we should also remember that in other respects our power of suppressing insurrection had been greatly increased since the mutiny of 1857. Taught by that lesson, we no longer intrusted to Native hands our forts and our arsenals, without the possession of which no mutiny or rebellion could stand for a week. The artillery force had been greatly augmented, and amounted last March to 11,760 Europeans, a portion of the army which he, for one, had no wish to reduce. The troops throughout were supplied with the Enfield rifle, with which no weapon that any rebels could obtain could compete for a moment. At the same time, the immense extension of railways and telegraphs would enable the Government to concentrate our troops upon any point where alarm arose, with a rapidity unknown before; so that nothing but the most scandalous folly and neglect on the part of the authorities could prevent us, even with a force of one-third of that now maintained, from instantly bringing to bear, at any threatened point, an overwhelming force of Europeans that could drive any rebel force to the winds. And let them remember the experience given by the mutiny, and indeed by the whole history of our Indian Empire with regard to the impossibility of any of the Natives of that country resisting our arms in whatever numbers they might contend with us. When they remembered the prodigious exploits performed during that mutiny, when they remembered how in many eases the rebels, though armed by ourselves, though equipped by ourselves, though trained to warfare by ourselves, yet were invariably overthrown by a force, in many cases not one-tenth, in some cases not one-twentieth of their own amount— remembering all that, he thought it was not prudence but timidity to keep up an army so largely in excess of any Native force that could possibly take arms against us. Now, were he asked how much he would suggest that the European force might be reduced, he should reply that he only presumed to call the attention of the Government to the facts he had referred to, but could not venture to express an opinion upon that point. He would only say that he confidently expected some day to see an expenditure of only £10,000,000 instead of £13,000,000 per annum on the army of India. He would now show how disastrous was the maintenance of so vast a force, both to India and ultimately also to England. The cost of our army, both European and Native, amounted, according to Mr. Laing last year, to no less than £12,800,000—a much larger amount than was, not many years ago, thought necessary for the defence of England herself, with all her colonies, notwithstanding the proximity of her mighty rival across the Channel, and notwithstanding the enormous claims upon her strength arising in every quarter of the globe. The effect of this extravagant outlay upon the finances of India was most disastrous. There might, perhaps, be some justification for it, if the treasury of India were overflowing; but they had to remember that in the last twenty years the national debt of India had increased by fifty millions; that in scarcely one of those years had they escaped a deficit; that in the three years ending with I860 the deficit amounted to £36,000,000 (taking the three years together); while, to use Mr. Laing's words, "all the efforts of the Government, aided by the imposition of new taxes which convulsed Indian society, had still left them in 1861 with an apparently hopeless deficit estimated at six millions." It was true that, according to Mr. Laing's budget, it had been expected that this year at any rate we should at length have arrived at a surplus; but they were now informed by the Secretary of State for India, the surplus proved to be a deficit, estimated at no less than a million. Now, he was sure that no one worthy of the name of statesman could look upon such a state of things, in which the income of the country was regularly and to a very great extent exceeded by its expenditure, without alarm; and the result was that we were in every possible way pressing upon the impoverished inhabitants of India to endeavour to squeeze from them more money; and no less than £5,000,000, according to Mr. Laing himself, was raised now by taxes recently imposed. This was a most important point to observe, that in the last few years they had added taxes that drew no less than £5,000,000 out of the pockets of the Indian people. These new taxes mainly consisted of the income tax, which had been found to be doing an incredible amount of harm in the country; and again of the enhanced duties on salt, on stamps, and on customs. Now, every one who was acquainted with Indian matters was aware of the immense evil it was to the people of India to have any salt tax at all, insomuch as one could hardly conceive how, under British rule—professedly and intentionally a benevolent one—a tax that cut so deeply into the daily comfort of the people could be maintained; much less could one have expected that it would in the last year or two have been largely enhanced. They all knew that to a people living, as the Natives of India mainly did, upon rice, salt was one of the very first essentials to health, and strength, and happiness; the want of it inevitably created serious indigestion, and all the multitude of diseases which indigestion was liable to cause; and the consequence was that the people of India had a sort of craving for salt, of which people in England were almost unable to form any conception. There could be no question whatever that if the people of India could obtain salt at a much lower price than they now did, the health and strength of the people would be largely augmented; and yet upon this vital necessary of life, vital as bread itself to them, we raised last year three-and-a-half millions sterling, the tax being no less in Bengal than eight guineas per ton; and Colonel Cotton had shown that the result was, that whereas the people required at the very least about 20lbs. weight per head, they in reality only obtained, upon an average, 7lbs. weight per head. In fact, he gave reason for believing that a large proportion of the population did not get a tenth part of the salt really necessary not for their comfort alone, but for their health; and that while in England it was not anything like so great a necessary of life as it was in India, the lowest price in India for salt was thirty-five times what it was in England, and the people, of course, would be far less able even to pay the same price as that which people paid here. But again he saw that Mr. Laing proposed, and he believed that the Secretary of State for India had agreed to lower the customs duties from 10 to 5 per cent. This would be an immense boon, not only to India, but to England. Even 5 per cent, however, upon her cotton goods placed England at a serious disadvantage, because this was a customs duty upon an article manufactured in the country without any excise to correspond with it in the interior of the land; and it was obvious at once that a duty, even a duty of 5 per cent, must operate in such a case as a direct protective duty to the Native manufacturer, and must have all the injurious effects which a protective tax could never fail to engender. In this case they had this strongest possible reason for a still further reduction if possible, that now the people in the manufacturing districts were in such deep distress—to which he feared there was no reason to hope a speedy termination—and that if they could extend the market for their cotton goods in India, it would be an invaluable boon to those suffering people and to the whole of this country, while of course it would create a reciprocal traffic in the productions of India itself with England. He would not detain the House by dwelling upon the great evils that followed from the other taxes, all of which might be diminished, some of which might be repealed, if they could but make a considerable reduction in our military expenditure. But it was not merely in the pernicious influence of the taxes which it involved that this military expenditure did such infinite harm. It stayed the hand of the Government in conducting those improvements in the country from which such mighty results might be expected. It not only wasted so great an amount of our present wealth, but its most serious effect was in hindering us from opening up those vast sources of wealth by which one might else believe that our Indian revenue would, in the course of a few years, he doubled or possibly trebled. There was one other of the many evils arising from the maintenance of so great a force, to which he could not forbear calling the attention of the House, and that was the frightful amount of loss of life and of health which was inevitable in such a body of European troops quartered in that country. He did not believe it was at all generally known in England how fearful the mortality was amongst the English soldiers stationed in India. As one of the witnesses stated to the Commission, "The sacrifices in men and money caused by the climate are astounding;" and again, "The medical statements would almost stagger belief." In fact, the statistics laid before the Commission showed that out of a force of 80,000 Europeans, nearly 6,000 would perish every year; while the permanent loss of health to thousands upon thousands more was not less painful to reflect upon. He would not, however, go so fully as he was tempted to do into the unbounded mischiefs inevitably engendered by the maintenance of so vast a European army. To sum up briefly, he thought the Government ought not to submit their judgment to the ipse dixit— based neither on evidence nor on reason— of the Commission to which he referred. If they examined for themselves what enemy they had to provide against, they would perceive that there was but one enemy from whom peril could really arise —namely, the Sepoy force—and that had been immensely reduced, at the same time that our military position had been greatly improved. Consequently the time had come when we might effect a reduction of our European force, which, besides causing a fearful waste of life amongst those European troops themselves, cut deep, by its expense, into the prosperity of India, without in the slightest degree endangering our Indian empire. If that course were adopted, the prosperity of India would, he believed, be greatly enhanced, and the 130,000,000 of people under the rule of England would find their daily comfort greatly increased.

said, that as he had taken no part in the discussions which had occurred this Session regarding the precise number of European troops to be maintained in India, he hoped the House would allow him to offer a few observations on this occasion. In doing so he could not help expressing the feeling of alarm with which he regarded the course which was being pursued by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton) and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) to effect a reduction of the European force in India. For his own part, he frankly confessed that he was not one of those who were carried away by the wild and Utopian notion that India could be governed and held without a strong European force. On the contrary, it appeared to him that those who entertained that opinion were not sufficiently mindful of the circumstances of India and its past history, and that their amiable but mistaken views were calculated to provoke another rebellion similar to that which occurred in 1857. Looking to the enormous extent of our Indian territories, over which were scattered so many unprotected stations, occupied by mere handfuls of our countrymen, their wives and their children, and to the warlike character of the inhabitants of Oude and the Punjab; looking to the fact that the Artillery in future was to be composed wholly of Europeans, and the arsenals to be manned by them; looking, again, to the, comparatively speaking, large Sepoy army we were obliged to keep in our pay, and to the vast levies of Native police, which required to be controlled more or less by Europeans; and, lastly, to the unfinished state of the railways, it seemed to him, he confessed, a somewhat hazardous proceeding to reduce the European force at the present moment. It should not be forgotten that the mutiny which occurred in 1857 was in no small degree attributable to the Government of that day diminishing the number of European troops, contrary to the earnest entreaties and remonstrances of those distinguished and deeply-lamented noblemen, the late Marquess of Dalhousie and Earl Canning. It appeared to him that the opinion of an individual Member of that House as to the proper amount of force to be maintained must necessarily be wholly speculative; he could not possess the same accurate information as the Secretary for India and his Council, who were responsible for the safety of that country, and who probably arrived at their decision after a conference with the local Govern- ment. The House knew, upon the authority of the right hon. Baronet, that in the summer of 1861 the Indian Government sent in an estimate for 92,000 men; that the military Members of the Home Council reported that a less number than 80,000 would not be sufficient; and that the right hon. Baronet, on his own responsibility, had cut down these two Estimates to 70,000 men. It seemed that the Native army was to be gradually reduced to 124,000 men. Assuming, therefore, 80,000, as proposed by the Council, to be the correct number, the proportion of two Europeans as against three Natives would be still unbalanced by 2,666 Europeans. Knowing full well the hate and the fanaticism of the Mohammedan population, and the impossibility of calculating for any length of time on the preservation of peace in a country so full of combustible materials as India, fringed by such savage and fiery tribes, as was now exemplified by the war raging on the north-eastern boundary, he had always maintained that the European force for nil India should consist of not less than 80,000 men; and if we allowed the English army to be reduced as it was before the mutiny of 1857, and neglected the sacred duty of affording the same protection to our brethren out there as we did to those in England and in our colonies, we were unworthy to be intrusted any longer with the possession of India. Under these circumstances, without entering into the financial part of the question, which might be more conveniently reserved for the debate on Mr. Laing's budget, he would conclude by protesting against the dangerous policy of the hon. Members for Maidstone and Aberdeen— a policy which, if carried out, would, he believed, have the effect of not only imperilling the lives of those who were so earnestly and devotedly engaged in the discharge of their public duties, but compromising most unjustly the honour of Her Most Gracious Majesty, in whose name our magnificent Indian territories were now governed.

agreed with every word that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; and with regard to the views of the hon. Member who introduced the subject, although he believed that his intention was good, and that his only wish was to economize the resources of India, he was inclined to think that the time had not arrived when they could with safety act contrary to the experience of those who had studied the question, who had themselves lived in the country, who knew the Native character, and who were better acquainted than the hon. Gentleman could possibly be with the arguments and necessities for the employment of so large a force. The hon. Gentleman had drawn a beautiful picture of happy and peaceful India, but he appeared to have forgotten what had occurred within the last few months; and though he (Mr. Kinnaird) trusted that by an adherence to a conciliatory policy towards the Natives, to that policy which Lord Canning during the last years of his administration had I carried out, they might look forward to a reduction in the European army, he thought that to force such a course upon the Government now would neither be wise nor economical in the end. Great and sudden reductions entailed, in moments of necessity, a very great cost in order to recover that which a wise expenditure would have maintained. It was true that in past years there had been great loss of life in the Indian army; hut he believed that through the sanitary measures taken by the Government, with the assistance of the railroads, by which they were enabled to keep the troops in healthy districts, there would not in future be that fearful mortality of which his hon. Friend spoke. Looking, moreover, to the circumstances of our colonial possessions, and particularly to our relations with China, he did not think that it was any disadvantage to this country to have in India a body of acclimatized troops ready to perform any service that might be required of them. He believed that at present 80,000 men were necessary for the maintenance of our Indian Empire; and he trusted that the Secretary of State would not be induced by the temptation of adopting the more popular course of reduction, to abandon the line of conduct which had been recommended by the experience of so many great and able men.

said, that as a member of the Commission which sat four years ago to consider whether, and in what manner, the Royal and Company's armies in India should be amalgamated, he then expressed the opinion, which he did not now hesitate to repeat, that no great importance could be attached to vague general estimates of the number of troops which might he required some years hence, pier-haps in totally different circumstances, for the defence of India, If there was one time at which it was especially difficult to make such an estimate, it was during the height of the Indian insurrection, when almost every one was more or less excited, and when, more than at any other moment, it was difficult to obtain a dispassionate judgment. At the same time, be did not entirely agree with the statement of the bon. Member (Mr. Buxton), that India was now exposed to no serious danger either from within or from without. It was true that there was no power on the frontier of India at all equal to cope with the force which we could bring to bear; but semi-barbarous tribes did not always calculate the consequences of their actions, and we might at any moment have disturbances in Affghnn-istan, in Nepaul, or in the territories of the Nizam, which, although they might not permanently endanger the security of our empire, might, if they were not immediately suppressed, occasion much mischief before they were put an end to. Then again, although all agreed as to the necessity of governing India, as far as possible, upon a conciliatory system, it was impossible to speak of a country containing 180,000,000 of population — a country which we had acquired by the sword, and which we governed, as Asiatic nations were governed in the main, by the sword—as if it were perfectly free from all danger of internal disturbance. We really knew very little of what was passing in the Native mind. If he gave an opinion, he should be inclined to say that for the present, after the exhibition of British power, and after the measures which had been taken to conciliate the Native chiefs, we were in a position of greater security than we had occupied for a long time past. At the same time, however, he knew that for years before the insurrection of 1857 the same feeling of security existed, and experience had shown how unfounded were the opinions then entertained. Allusion had been made to the pacific character of the people; that was undoubtedly true of Bengal, and might be true, perhaps, of the greater part of India but there were particular districts which from time immemorial had been inhabited by races whose chief occupation and pleasure consisted in war. And therefore he protested against any general conclusion that because the country was now peaceable there was no longer any danger of serious disturbance. At the same time, a reduction of expenditure might fairly be looked forward to, when, by the completion of the telegraph between England and India, the military reserve at home would be nearer by one half to the seat of operations, while the railways would enable a smaller force to act with greater efficiency. Something had been said about financial dangers; but although this was not a financial debate, he must observe that in the worst times of difficulty he had never desponded, and he certainly did not now despond of the future of Indian finance. Bearing in mind the extent of the population, and the very slight degree to which, comparatively speaking, the enormous natural resources of that country had hitherto been developed, it appeared to him that in future years India would not only be able to bear her present liabilities, but, twenty or twenty-five years hence, if no great wars intervened, she would be able to hear a much heavier burden than that which, he admitted, now taxed all her energies. The population directly subject to British sway, was more than four times that of the British islands; while if the native States, who contributed to the customs duties, were added, the number would amount up to 180,000,000 —nearly six times the amount of the British population. The whole debt of India, excluding the advances to railroads, which were reproductive in their character, was about £100,000,000, or one-eighth of the British national debt, and the pressure which it inflicted upon the people per head was about l–30th or l–40th of that which was felt at home. It should be remembered that for the last fifty years India had been engaged in almost continual warfare; it was impossible to point to a period when a sufficient interval of peace was given for the full development of the resources of any one district. Even with the present amount of revenue the Indian debt did not amount to more than three year's income, while that of England amounted to twelve years' income. These figures showed, that whatever the present pressure of Indian finance, there was reasonable ground for supposing that a few years of prosperity would enable that country to bear much heavier burdens. Though he believed it might be possible in time to come to diminish the number of European troops in that empire, he should be sorry, either in that House or anywhere else, to lay down prospectively any fixed number as that which should be maintained. And against the saving by this probable diminution he was afraid the House must set the cost of various sanitary reforms which had been strongly urged upon the attention of the Government. A return would, doubtless, be obtained for expenditure under these heads in a diminution of mortality, and in the increased efficiency of the force kept up; but these were consequences which could only follow after the lapse of a certain time, and after the expenditure had all been incurred. Although on the score of humanity there might be a considerable gain, he did not think that for a considerable time to come the House could safely calculate on much reduction of expenditure, consequent on decreased mortality. He had for the last two years been sitting upon the Sanitary Commission of which Lord Herbert had been Chairman. He hoped that they would produce the result of their labours in a very short time: when they did so, the House would see that by proper means great reduction could be caused in the death-rate of Europeans employed in India; but, as he had already said, this could only be done at an increased expense.

thought the question of army reduction in India might safely be left in the hands of the Executive. But he wished to obtain from the right lion. Gentleman the Secretary for India some explanation of the circumstances under which, during the years 1858 and 1861 inclusive, upwards of 400 young officers were sent to join the army in Bengal, though the greater number of the regiments they were to have commanded had mutinied; the officers, moreover, who had remained after the defection of those troops being more than sufficient to command the remnant of the Native force. To Madras 88 young officers were sent during the same period, though a reduction of the Native force was contemplated; and 120 others were despatched to Bombay. He could imagine nothing more miserable than the position of a European officer in India without any regular employment, and in his opinion it almost amounted to cruelty to send out young officers without there being duties on which to employ them. The Government had stated that 190,000 Minie rifles had been set apart for the army of India, which was a number far in excess of the European force there; but he hoped to hear that none of these arms had been put into the hands of the Native soldiers.

desired to call atten- tion to the fact that a great many invalids were sent home from our army in India, very imperfectly provided for, after having served their country well in India. Many might be seen about the country asking assistance, and some showing evidence of good and faithful service. In some instances they had received one or two years' pay; and they asked with good reason why they were turned adrift after ten or twelve years' service? He referred to the case of John Orris, of the 75th, whose certificates of discharge stated that he had served in India five years, had been engaged in putting down the rebellion, and was discharged in consequence of being wounded at Delhi; and yet he would receive only 8d. a day for a few months longer, though his character was certified to have been very good. Certainly, when India was increasing in wealth, something could be spared for those who had rendered such good service there.

said, the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Windsor had no connection with the subject before the House, nor, in point of fact, had they anything to do with the Indian army. Whatever these men, who were both in regiments of the line, might be entitled to was adjudicated to them by the Commissioners at Chelsea under the pension and gratuity regulations of the British army. The Indian finances contributed a certain gross sum in respect of these soldiers, but with the distribution of it the Indian Government had nothing to do. Consequently, these cases could not be brought forward as cases of grievance against the Indian Government. The hon. Member for Carrickfergus (Mr. Torrens) had asked him to state the number of young officers who had been sent out to India of late years. He could not at once give the numbers. It would be remembered that it was the practice of the Court of Directors and the Secretary of State to give nominations to young men who educated themselves for the purpose of going into the Indian service, and who took up their commissions after a certain interval. When he assumed office three years ago, he immediately put a stop to that system, and neither he nor any Member of his Council had since given a single appointment. At the same time, while putting an end to the practice altogether, he felt that he could not, without a breach of faith towards those young men to whom promises of commissions had been previously given, take the extreme step of stopping their nominations. In any army there must be a constant succession of young officers, and he did not believe there would be any want of employment for the young men who had been sent out to India. He must further observe that he and the Members of the Council had voluntarily given up their right of appointing to commissions by nomination. He had to state, in reply to another question, that Enfield rifles had not been placed in the hands of the Native troops. With respect to the Indian revenue, it would be his duty before long to call attention to the financial state of India, and he thought it would be better to defer till that occasion any observations which he might have to make upon the financial part of the question introduced by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton). Whatever might be the state of Indian finance, it would always be our duty not to maintain in India one single soldier more than was necessary. He would not repeat what had already been so well said on both sides of the House as to the absolute necessity of maintaining an adequate force in India. It was nonsense to suppose, that because everything now appeared to be quiet and smooth in India, no danger could possibly occur again. One week before the recent mutiny broke out there was no English resident in India who would not have said that such an event was impossible; and therefore to contend that there was no danger in India now, because there was no outward and visible sign of it, was arguing against all experience. We must always be on our guard. The real question, however, was, what might fairly be called an adequate force to be maintained in India with a view to the safety of our dominions and the preservation of peace? It had been said that there were no arguments to support their estimate of 80,000 men used in the Report of the Commission which sat on the Indian army. He could not understand by what arguments a matter of this kind was to be settled one way or the other. It was a question of opinion, and could be decided only by authority. He had a great respect for the hon. Member for Maidstone, and on many points would be glad to be guided by him; but he did not think the hon. Gentleman was more competent than others to say what was the precise force which ought to be maintained in India. Upon such a subject he must defer to those persons who, with the best means of knowledge, had also the responsibility of governing the country. He never proposed to proceed upon the Report of the Commissioners, who were appointed for a different purpose, though he submitted that the opinion of eight or ten general officers, most of whom were acquainted with India, was one entitled to considerable weight. Recently published despatches contained the estimates which at different times within the last few years had been made by the best authorities in India. So recently as 1860 combined estimates of the Governments of India, of Madras and of Bombay made the gross aggregate of troops to be maintained in India 92,000. He thought this number excessive, and after communicating with the military Members of his Council, with Lord Clyde, and other officers whose opinions on such subjects were valuable, he wrote to India stating that he thought a smaller number would be sufficient, but, of course, leaving it to the authorities in that country to decide ultimately on the point. He was of opinion that the ultimate decision ought to lie with them, because they were on the spot, they knew the danger, and were responsible for the Government of India. He should be taking upon himself a responsibility from which he ventured to say the boldest man in that House would shrink if he discarded the opinion of the Indian Government on the important question of the number of troops to be maintained in India. Well, so late as last May the opinion of the Indian Government was that 73,000 was the number that ought to be maintained in India. His hon. Friend had spoken of the number of recruits that had been sent out. Every one acquainted with military arrangements in India knew that recruits were sent out at one period of the year only—in June and July. They arrived in September and October; and when they arrived, the number of troops in India must, in order to maintain the requisite number on the average of the year, be a certain percentage above that required for the year. The different authorities had now arrived at the conclusion that at least 71,000 troops must be maintained in India as the average number throughout the year. After the arrival of the recruits the total number ought to be about 5 per cent above the average. In December last year the total was only 74,419, which was not quite 5 per cent above the ave- rage, which would have been 74,550. It was therefore an error to suppose that any extravagant number had been sent out. His hon. Friend said that the Government were going to send out 4,000 recruits this year. Certainly they were, and why was that? Because the Artillery was 2,000 below the minimum of that force which the Government of India had stated to be necessary. It was necessary to supply 2,000 men to the Artillery, besides making up the losses by casualties. Two years ago the Indian Government recommended that the Artillery should number 20,000. They had since reduced their demand to 13,000. He doubted whether they had not fixed it at too low a figure: for every one knew that it was important to have a large artillery force in India, hut no more would be sent than were required to make up about 13,000. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that it was desirable to keep the total military force in India down as low as possible; but he thought it would be a culpable neglect of duty if they kept the number a single man below the strength adequate to afford protection for the lives and properties of our European fellow-subjects in that country. He believed some of his hon. Friend's views were founded on a misapprehension, but he could assure him that the Government would not maintain in India more troops than were considered to be absolutely necessary to afford that protection to which he had just referred.

^* In rising, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the notice which I have given, I think I ought in the first place to say in a few words why I seek to bring under the notice of the House a matter respecting which it can exercise no direct authority. That there are precedents enough for such a course it is hardly necessary to remark. To go no further back than the present Session, our attention has, and so far as I can judge with general approval, been directed to the Government of Italy, to the wrongs of Poland, to the threat of foul outrages which was uttered against the women of New Orleans. At the same time, no hon. Member can feel more strongly than I do that this practice of travelling beyond our own jurisdiction ought to be confined within strict bounds. And, perhaps, it may be thought that the right limit between those cases where it may, and those where it may not be properly followed is this:—When there is no reasonable probability that any remarks made here will produce a useful result in the country to which they apply, then such remarks are a mere idle exercitation. When, on the contrary, there is a fair chance that what is said here will work good in the country referred to, then the House will probably he inclined to give to these matters a small portion of its time. That there are cases falling within the latter description will not be disputed. In a late memorable instance we were reminded, in language of which I should try in vain to imitate the force and eloquence, but of which, I think, I can state the effect, that as between country and country moral support or influence is no mere shadow, but is a real power in Europe; and that it is an important sign of advancing civilization, that even as to things with respect to which there is no possibility that sword will clash against sword, the minds of men in one country act upon, and procure the recognition of great principles by the minds of men in another. I can assure the House that I am now addressing it from no vain wish to make my voice heard, but because it has been confidently stated to me by persons having an intimate knowledge of the condition of Russia, that so great is the respect felt by the governing classes there for the opinion of our country, that there is a real chance that an expression of sympathy in this assembly may exert a beneficial influence on the fate of the surviving victims of the persecution to which I desire to direct attention. I have to make one prefatory remark more, in order to remind hon. Members that the party which I hope no longer is, but which has been, predominant in the Russian Government, appears to have entertained the opinion that it could add to the strength of that empire by forcing the persons belonging to the various races and creeds that are to be found among its subjects into one homogeneous mass. For that purpose disfavour, often amounting to persecution, has been shown to all religious bodies not belonging to the established Greek Church, whether those bodies consisted of Protestants, or Catholics, or Jews. It is necessary to bear this in mind, in order to understand what would otherwise be unintelligible, the determination shown in part of the proceedings to which I have to refer, to condemn the Jews under accusation, without evidence or against evidence. I proceed shortly to state the facts of the case, of which it is one remarkable feature that the Council of the Empire, more than seven years after the alleged offence, condemned the remaining prisoners, in opposition to the opinion of each of the tribunals by which the matter had previously been considered, and to that of the Ministry of Justice. Saratow, as hon. Members may recollect, is a town on the western bank of the Wolga, and is the principal place of one of the remotest and most easterly provinces of European Russia. At Saratow, in December, 1852, and January, 1853, two Christian boys of the age of about ten years, named Sherstobitow and Maslow, whom, to avoid repeating Russian names, I will refer to as the first and second boy, were missed. Nothing could be ascertained respecting them, except that a lad named Kanin stated that he had been with the second boy, when he was enticed away by a person looking like a workman on the barges. In March, 1853, the body of the second boy, and in April that of the first, were found on the ice of the Wolga, almost without covering. From this circumstance it might have been inferred that they had been murdered by some person in want, for the sake of their clothing. But from certain appearances supposed to be connected with Jewish religious ceremonies, suspicion was directed against about forty Jewish soldiers, who seem to have been almost the only Jews at Saratow. These soldiers were paraded before Kan In, who fixed upon one named Schliffermann, not as being the man, but as being like the man, who had enticed away Maslow. And as this was treated as proof of identity, it may be worth while to read to the House what has been furnished to me as an exact translation of Kanin's statement—

"He is like the man who enticed away Maslow, only the other had a rough voice, as if he had a cold; and, besides, this one has not such a fiat nose as he. Otherwise, he is like the other in stature and hair, but the other spoke good Russion, and this one has a lisp."

Now, this statement appears to me to be distinct evidence, not of identity, but of similarity coupled with non-identity. Yet, as I have said, it was treated as proof of identity; and this may be looked upon as sample of the spirit in which the evidence generally was interpreted. Nothing, however, that could be regarded as sufficient proof against the suspected persons could be discovered by the local authorities, and in the latter part of April, 1854, a Commission was sent from St. Petersburg to inquire into the affair. At this time Mr. Lanskoi was Minister of the Interior, and Mr. Skripitzine (who was known as having directed measures of persecution against some of the Christian sects of Poland) was at the head of the department of that Ministry known as the board of dissenting, or, as they are called in Russia, foreign religious bodies. Mr. Lanskoi, at the suggestion it is believed of Skripitizne, placed Mr. Durnowo at the head of the commission of inquiry. Durnowo, very soon after his arrival at Saratow, let it be understood that he believed the Jews to be guilty, and invited evidence against them. He threw into prison several persons, and among them a distiller named Jushkevitcher, who appears to have been almost the only Jew at Saratow above the rank of a common soldier. Durnowo's investigation lasted several months, during which he collected hundreds of sheets of extravagant and contradictory evidence, and displayed such a leaning against the Jews as to excite the disapprobation of Kovshernikow (then vice governor of the district of Saratow) and of the local authorities generally, both civil and military. The witnesses on whom Durnowo seems to have chiefly relied, were three persons who stated themselves to have been accomplices with the Jews in the mutilation, murder, and disposal of the bodies of the two boys—Bogdanow a soldier, Lokotkow a young imperial serf, and Krüger a subordinate civil functionary. In the course of the investigation each of these witnesses travelled through a whole series of self-contradictory statements which I cannot detain the House by particularizing but of which I will trouble it with a specimen or two. The principle witness, Bogdanow, began by charging as his accomplices two persons only, Jushkevitcher and another. Then he included in the charge a third and fourth, afterwards a fifth, and at last a sixth and seventh, one of whom was Schliffermann, the soldier who had been detained on the extraordinary evidence of identity to which I have already referred. As to the mode in which the death of the first boy had been caused, Bogdanow first stated that it was by loss of blood from a wound in the shoulder. A medical examination having afterwards shown that there was no important wound, certainly none that could have occasioned death, he said that although he had been present at the time of the death, he did not know how it had been caused, as he had lost consciousness at the time, from horror, if I understand rightly, at the previous mutilation. So many indeed are the tales of each of these witnesses, that the report of the Senate of Moscow, to which I shall in a few moments refer, speaks of them as having at last, as it is translated to me, "fixed" or "settled down" upon one statement. It must, not however, be understood from this, that all the witnesses at last "settled down" upon one statement; but only that one statement was at last "settled down" upon by each witness, the final statement of each being, however, in important particulars both inconsistent with the final statements of others, and full of the wildest absurdities. These I must not detain the House by enumerating; but some few I may, perhaps, be permitted to mention. Bogdanow's statement, as relied on in the final sentence of the Council of the Empire, declared that he had caried the bodies of both boys from Jushkevitcher's dwelling to the Wolga. Lokotkow's statement, as cited in the same sentence, was that he had killed the second boy, and carried his body from the corn-warehouse to the Wolga, thus differing from Bogdanow, both as to the person by whom, and the place from which, the body of the murdered child had been carried to the river. Krüger accounted for his having been present at the murder of the second boy by saying that he (Krüger) had intended at the time to become a Jew himself, having been told by the soldier Schliffermann, that if he did, he should be made a rabbi. A woman, Gorochow (whose evidence is also relied on by the Council of State as corroborative of the guilt of the accused), stated that she had been told by Jushkevitcher's wife that both boys had been killed by being pierced in various parts of their bodies with a knife of a peculiar shape (the medical evidence, it will be remembered, showing that there was no wound of any importance); and, further, that Juskevitcher and Schliffermann had received for the murders six millions of roubles (or nine hundred thousand pounds sterling). This mass of extravagant and contradictory evidence having been brought at the beginning of 1854 before the military authorities at Saratow, and before a local board called the Department of Highways (which had jurisdiction in the matter), that board, in accordance with a report of two officers of rank, dated 30th January, 1854, acquitted the accused, and declared the informers to be liars; and the military authorities seem to have sentenced Bogdanow to corporal punishment for perjury. This decision was not satisfactory to the Ministry of the Interior. On the 6th of June, 1854, Mr. Lanskoi issued a second commission of inquiry, at the head of which he placed Mr. Guirs. To what result it was intended that this second commission should lead was soon made manifest. Almost simultaneously with its appointment, Kovshernikow, the vice governor of Saratow, who had disapproved of Durnowo's proceedings, was dismissed, and Durnowo was appointed to succeed him. Several other officers, civil and military, who had ventured to doubt the guilt of the accused, were also dismissed or removed to other stations; and thus the field was left free for the operations of the new commissioner and of the ex-commissioner, now appointed vice governor. And vigorous enough these operations were. The stick, and it would seem other and worse instruments, were used as auxiliaries in interrogating many of the numerous victims who had by this time been thrown into confinement; and indications of the result are to be found in several entries in the appendix to the Senate's report, of persons having "disappeared" and "suddenly died" in prison, which I understand to be Russian euphemisms for being tortured to death, or driven by suffering to suicide. After a long delay, of which no explanation has been furnished to me, the mass of evidence collected by Durnowo and Guirs was brought in 1858 before the Senate of Moscow; and notwithstanding the stringency of the means employed in obtaining it, was not thought to furnish sufficient grounds for condemning the accused. The Senate, on the 8th of June, 1858, decided that the prisoners were liable to suspicion of murder, but that their guilt was not clearly proved. The Senate accordingly recommended that they should be set at liberty. Against this decision Count Panin, then Minister of Justice, protested, not because he was of opinion that the evidence warranted a conviction, but because he thought that it did not even warrant suspicion, and that the accused ought to have been fully acquitted. In consequence of the difference between the views of the Senate and of the Minister, the question was again, after an unexplained delay, brought before the Council of the Empire. In March 1860, that council, not agreeing with the local tribunal which had acquitted the accused— nor with the Minister of Justice who thought that they ought to be acquitted— nor even with the Senate of Moscow, which had held that there was ground for suspicion, but not for conviction—proposed on the same evidence to decide that there was clear ground for their absolute condemnation. The draft of this proposed decision was communicated to Mr. Samiatnin, deputy of the Minister of Justice (an office which is, I believe, analogous to that of an Under Secretary of State). Mr. Samiatnin made a report, containing an elaborate examination of the evidence, in which he pointed out several of the contradictions and absurdities that I have mentioned, and a number of others with which I have not troubled the House, and he concluded that such evidence could properly lead to no other result than an acquital. The Council of the Empire, however, persisted in its first intention, condemned the accused, and sentenced Jush-kevitcher and Schlifferman, and a soldier named Jurlow (whom it treated as the three principal criminals) to loss of civil rights and hard labour in the mines of Siberia, in two cases for twenty, and in the third for eighteen years. It also sentenced others to minor penalties, whilst it suffered the perjured informers, who stated themselves to have been accomplices in the murders, to escape with almost nominal punishments. I will not detain the House with any minute examination of the attempts at reasoning by which the Council of the Empire sought to refute the clear and convincing arguments of Mr. Samiatnin; but I can give two examples, which may be very briefly stated. The council treated, not indeed as one of the most convincing proofs, but as corroborative evidence against Jushkevitcher, a note which, after his arrest, he had written to his daughter, and in which he simply requested her to inform the Jewish congregation of his misfortune, in order that they might pray for deliverance from false accusations, adding —"Be firm, my dearest daughter, I beg this of you and your brother." To many persons this note may seem to have some touch of pathos; but I cannot perceive how any one could suppose that it was more likely to have been written by a guilty than by an innocent man. Yet, as corroborative evidence of guilt was it treated by the Russian council. But, perhaps, the council's idea as to what might serve to corroborate the veracity of the accuser Bogdanow, is more singular still. Besides his various tales which I have already mentioned, this man at one time included in the charge of being one of his accomplices in the murders an army surgeon named Gubitski; but when last examined he admitted his accusation against the surgeon to be wholly unfounded. After referring to this, the decision of the council actually contends that "this circumstance very strongly brings to light the sincerity of the last statement." That is to say, in other words, that if a witness first makes, and then withdraws, a false charge against A., this circumstance does not weaken, but strengthens, the credibility of a charge which the same witness makes and persists in against B. Such is the logic of the Russian council. Whether the council was itself not quite satisfied with the arguments of which these are specimens, or for what other reason the execution of its sentence was delayed I do not know; but, in fact, it was not until May 1861, that the unhappy prisoners were despatched to the Siberian mines, where they are believed still to linger. Since the decision of the Council of the Empire was pronounced, and in part since it was executed, changes have taken place in the Russian Government. Mr. Lanskoi is no longer Minister of the Interior. Count Bludow (who as Chancellor is considered to have been peculiarly responsible for the decision of the council, and one of whose last ministerial acts was, I lament to say, to appoint that very Mr. Guirs who presided over the second Saratow commission, to an important office peculiarly connected with the affairs of the Jews) is now travelling for the benefit of his health, and is not, I understand, likely to resume active employment. He has long served his country according to his own conscientious views; and as I certainly wish him no harm, I can only desire that his travels may be productive of as much benefit to himself, as I believe they will be to all, not being members of the Greek Church, who, if he had remained at home, would have been subject to his influence. But changes more important than those of a personal character have also taken place in the Russian Government. They have, as I believe that the Jews of Russia are quite ready to acknowledge with gratitude, modified and somewhat humanized the laws that had till lately pressed upon and almost crushed that numerous class of the Emperor's subjects. But they have done nothing towards revising the unjust sentence of the Council of the Empire in the Saratow affair, or towards the relief of the sufferers. Now, we are ready to make all due allowances for the difficulties besetting the Government of a country where society is half dissolved, and is seeking to reconstitute itself. Hon. Members may call to mind those two lines of the old Roman poet, where he refers to the pleasure which a man, looking from the shore on a tempestuous sea, derives from contrasting his own ease and security with the toils and perils of the storm-tossed mariner. It is with no such cold or selfish feeling that, from the harbour of long-established constitutional freedom and well-administered laws, we look upon the struggles of those nations that are still painfully striving to attain the same haven of safety. On the contrary, we warmly spmpathize with their efforts, and we desire that they may as easily and speedily as possible secure to themselves the blessings which we enjoy. It is in accordance with this sympathy and with our consciousness of those difficulties, to bear in mind that the Russian Government cannot be expected at once to remedy all the evils resulting from past misrule. But I think that hon. Members who have favoured me with their attention will be of opinion, that no more important steps can he taken towards bestowing on the Russian people the inestimable advantage of confidence in the administration of justice, than by getting rid of three of the greatest abuses revealed to us in this Saratow affair. Difficult as it may be to free from the influence of religious prejudice the proceedings arising out of the criminal law, the public prosecutor at least should not set the example of yielding to such prejudice. The use of the stick and similar instruments as auxiliaries in the interrogation of prisoners should be at once and for ever abolished. And the practice should also be abolished of following accused persons from a court which acquits them, to a court which declares them liable to suspicion, and so on from tribunal to tribunal, till a condemnation (in the justice of which, under such circumstances, no reliance can be placed) is at length obtained. I think we shall also be of opinion, that many as the claims must at this moment be upon the time and attention of the Imperial Government, it is still desirable that they should find leisure to reconsider the decision of the Council of the Empire, and to relieve the persons who are suffering under a sentence obtained by means of such procedure, and founded upon such evidence, as those which I have described. It now only remains for me to thank the House for having listened to my statement, and to put to the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) a short and simple quesiton. I am aware, that as the persons concerned are not British subjects, the British Government can have no right to make any official representation respecting them. But I wish to inquire, whether Her Majesty's Government is inclined to offer, with regard to the transactions I have referred to, any unofficial and friendly suggestions to the Government of his Imperial Majesty.

said, he trusted that the concluding request of the hon. Baronet would be complied with by Her Majesty's Government. They had interfered on behalf of Spaniards who, as was alleged, had been persecuted on religious grounds, though, in fact, political questions were mixed up in the matter; while, no doubt in the case of the Jews, the persons who had been ill-used had been persecuted from the senseless aversion of the Russians to the Hebrew people. He visited the Russian empire about ten years ago, and could testify to the existence of the persecuting spirit which had been referred to by the hon. Baronet. Upon the slightest pretence prosecutions were instituted against Jews, and he had seen many of them sent to Siberia on suspicion of having committed offences, some of which were of a very trifling character. On one occasion he saw fifty Jewish youths sent in chains to the Russian navy, because some people in the village in which they resided were suspected of having been engaged in some smuggling transactions. Great hopes had been entertained that on the accession of the present Emperor changes favourable to the Jews would be made, and he much regretted that those hopes had not been realized. He hoped that a remonstrance from Her Majesty's Government would produce some effect, or at any rate that the strong expression of the feeling of that House might have some effect.

said, he rose to call attention to the general dissatisfaction existing throughout the country regarding the Laws for licensing Houses for the sale of spirituous and fermented Liquors, and to the necessity for the immediate revision thereof; also to the expediency and justice of permitting the Inhabitants of any parish or place to decide whether the common sale of such liquors shall be carried on within the locality. The question on which he wished to address the House was one of considerable importance. It was generally felt that the existing licensing system required considerable alteration, and during the present Session an immense number of people had petitioned the House, stating the grievance under which they lay, and suggesting the remedies which they desired to see adopted. What he desired to do was to explain that grievance, and to point out the remedies referred to. The licensing system, in its present state, could hardly be defended by any one. Almost all the hon. Gentlemen who might be considered authorities in the House had spoken strongly against it, and their opinions would carry more weight than anything he could say. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, two years ago, that his opinion was very unfavourable to the present system under which the drinking-houses were licensed and managed in this country, and he went on to say that the present system imposed upon magistrates duties which it was impossible for them to discharge. The Secretary of State said, alluding to the evidence given before the Committee in 1834, that a more efficient control ought to be given over the licences of both classes of houses, meaning public-houses and beer-houses. The Chairman of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Villiers), who was the Chairman of that Committee, said that the magistrates themselves admitted that they had no proper evidence to guide their opinion as to whether they should grant licences. Mr. W. Brown, who was at the time Member for South Lancashire, said that magistrates, magistrates' clerks, licensed victuallers, and brewers, wereall demoralized by the licensing system. Thirty years ago, when the Beer Act was introduced, it was said that that measure would give working men good beer, and that it would take them from dens of infamy to places where they would enjoy themselves. Well, he did not suppose that the history of legislation contained a more lamentable failure than the Beer Act. The Committee of 1834 described the evils of intoxication in the strongest language; they described drunkenness as the cause of the immense majority of the crimes committed in this country and one of the great causes of the misery of the poor, and they recommended the introduction by the Government of some general and comprehensive law for the suppression of the existing facilities for intemperance. That was in fact a recommendation of the Maine law in all its integrity. Still stronger evidence was given before a Committee of the House of Lords in 1850, but nothing was done. Then there was the Committee of 1853, presided over by the President of the Poor Law Board; but still no legislation took place. In 1860 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not satisfied with the trial of free trade in beer established in 1830, suggested that an additional supply of wine would make people sober; the wine duties were reduced, and refreshment houses with wine licences were established; but he had not heard that the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman had done anything towards checking drunkenness. In fact, in the following year the quarter sessions in Lancashire presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord Stanley), agreed to a petition stating that the greater portion of the offences punished at petty sessions were attributable to intoxication, and that the facility of obtaining licences to sell intoxicating liquors increased the immorality of the people. That position was carried by forty-six votes to one. In spite, however, of all the recommendations and petitions on the subject, nothing had been done to apply a remedy to this terrrible disease. Seeing that the Legislature did not take any steps to prevent this great evil, a plan had been suggested which had taken a great hold on the public mind. It was to have a permissive law enabling any town or district, by a majority of two-thirds, to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors. Now, he held two things, first, that the plan he had suggested of entirely prohibiting the sale of liquors in any district would be effectual; and, secondly, that it was just. With regard to the first point, they found that crime and pauperism and lunacy existed in any district almost in proportion to the facility of obtaining intoxicating liquors. But they had illustrations of the opposite state of things. Mr. James Gray, chairman of the Edinburgh parochial board, said at the Town Council, on the 23rd of October, 1849—

"There are thirty-four parishes in Scotland without a public-house, and the effect upon the parishioners is that they have not a penny of poor rates in one of them."

He said that he once lived eight years in a parish where there was no public-house, and during all that period he never saw a person the worse for drink. There were no poor rates in the parish then; but now there were five public-houses and a poor rate of 1s. 8d. in the pound. Then the report the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland by their committee for the suppression of intemperance, dated 31st May, 1849, stated that—

"The returns made to your Committee's inquiries clearly prove that the intemperance of any neighbourhood is clearly proportioned to the number of its spirit licences, so that where there are no public-houses nor any shops for selling spirits there ceases to be any intoxication."

He thought it was just because he could see no injustice in permitting the inhabitants of a parish to decide whether the common sale of liquors should be carried on within their several localities. A hundred years ago, he might add, great distress prevailed, and a law had been passed imposing a check upon distillation, the result being that, notwithstanding the dear-ness of provisions, the people were absolutely better off than in more prosperous periods. These facts clearly showed the advantages of a prohibitory policy. It might be said that such a law would be an inconvenience to many people. Why, of course, if it were not so, they would not want a law; but the inconvenience of a few ought not to be allowed to weigh against the wishes of the many. All the people asked, and all he asked for them, was the power to protect themselves from evils of the sale of intoxicating liquors. It might be said that this was a crotchet, but it was a crochet shared in by 200,000 people. From Glasgow there had been a petition signed by 27,000 persons in its favour, and from Lancashire one signed by 20,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had, he believed, as good as promised that he would not allow another Session to pass away without taking some steps to alter the licensing system. He did not wish to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman what shape a measure for that purpose should assume, but he thought it ought, at all events, to embody the principle for which he contended, which was supported by 200,000 people. He entreated the Home Secretary to consider during the recess whether he could not embody this principle in a Bill, to be introduced next Session, and he was convinced that by so doing the right hon. Baronet would promote the peace and prosperity and ensure the gratitude of thousands of his poorer fellow-countrymen.

said, he should be prepared to discuss the question more fully when the hon. Gentleman moved the second reading of the Permissive Bill. It had long been prepared. It had been accepted at public meetings; and if the feeling in favour of the measure was as strong as the hon. Gentleman represented, the House of Commons, unreformed though it was, would not be deaf to the voice of public opinion. The gentlemen out of doors who advocated the Maine Law were not satisfied with the position which they held. The organ of the Alliance attempted last week to mislead its readers. He observed a paragraph in it, headed "Mr. Lawson's Motion," in which Members of Parliament were urged to be in their places to support the Motion, and ladies, it said, would do noble service, too, by writing to M.P.'s. The gentleman were well versed in the arts of agitation, but, unfortunately, there was no Motion before the House. The hon. Member on Friday night—the omnium gatherum night —called attention to the licensing system. The words of the Motion were ingenious and mixed up very distinct things. It referred to the general dissatisfaction at the laws which regulated the sale of spirituous liquors. The dissatisfaction arose from the facts that the views of the Public-house Committee, of which he was a member, had not been adopted. Those views were very distinct from the views of the hon. Member. He still adhered to the opinion of that Committee. He was for free trade, as he understood it. He was for abolishing the present magisterial discretion, which the magistrates could not satisfactorily exercise. Under the present law, the beershop-keepers were kept in an inferior position, and that was the reason that the beershop system was a complete failure. The licensed victuallers, quite unconsciously, had often played the game of the Maine Law men. When a new man applied for a licence, they got up a memo- rial, and employed a solicitor to show the magistrates, that although 100 licensed houses were good for a district, 101 or 102 would be very injurious to the morals of the community. The advocates for the Maine Law might well say, if 101 are injurious, why not 100, or why not 99, and so on until it ended in complete prohibition. That was not his view. He did not care how many public-houses there were, provided they were well regulated and conducted by persons of good character. There had, no doubt, been many petitions in favour of a Permissive Bill; but an organized body, with funds at command, could get up petitions with ease, and once a petition signed by hundreds of thousands had been presented in favour of the Charter, but it did no good, and they heard very little about the Charter now. It was said that the meetings were unanimous. Persons did not care about opposing views advocated by worthy people from religious and laudable motives, and they did not like to put their heads into a hornets' nest; for if teetotallers abstained from strong liquors, they certainly made up for it by indulging in very strong language. He was glad to see that the hon. Gentleman was an exception. The speech of the hon. Gentleman on a recent occasion, at a public meeting over which he presided, was marked with great good taste, and he gave him credit for it, knowing how difficult it was in addressing a one-sided audience, who cheered everything that was said, to speak with moderation. They ought not to overlook the lessons of experience. Some years ago there was a strong agitation for closing the Post-office on Sundays. Meetings and petitions were unanimous; the Government of the day acceded to the proposal; but the inconvenience was found to be intolerable, and the regulation was at once rescinded. He was inclined to believe, that if people thought there was the slightest chance of the Maine Law passing, the meetings would not be so unanimous as they were at present. The hon. Gentleman said there was no injustice or tyranny in the majority acting for the minority. Unlikely as it was that in any district there would be a majority for the Maine Law, he contended that the majority had no right to dictate to the minority. The only country in which it had been tried upon a large scale was the Northern States of America, and they must draw a distinction between a demo- cratic country and a free country. In a democratic country the majority ruled the minority with a rod of iron. In a free country the majority determined the general policy, but respected the rights of the minority; and nothing more excited the admiration of foreigners than the manner in which we avoided pushing matters to extremes. We might not be strict logicians, but we were excellent politicians. We tolerated anomalies, but we escaped revolutions. How absurd it would be to see a cosy town councillor, with his bins full of crusted port, voting that the poor labouring man should not go and buy a glass of beer. The poor man could not lay in a store; be must depend upon getting his beer as he wanted it: and to prohibit him from getting it in the only way open to him would be an act of tyranny and the grossest class legislation. Supposing there was any chance of such an enactment, the most formidable agitation would be the result. The publicans had shown themselves strong enough already to maintain an exceptional position, for they were the only protected trade in the country. The beershop-keepers would, for the first time, unite with them; the apple growers, the barley growers, the maltsters, the brewers; and not only the drunkards, who were few, but the great mass of the temperate men, would be against such a Bill. The case was not so extreme as to justify such legislation. The Maine Law men thought that a person who drank a glass of beer was on the high road to drunkenness. Alcohol in every shape they called poison, although it must be very slow poison. The great majority of men who drank beer, wine, or spirits, were temperate. The teetotallers were possessed with a kind of odium theologicum. He believed that they hated temperate men more than drunkards, because they knew a drunkard might take the pledge, and be very wise in doing so, but temperate men never would. The hon. Member in his notice had used the word "inhabitants," whereas the Maine Liquor Bill said "ratepayers." But this was more than a ratepayers' question, and therefore he liked the word in the notice much bettor than that in the Bill. Nothing less than universal suffrage would do upon such a question. Manhood suffrage would not be enough, because you had no right to say to a young man of twenty, "You shall not drink a glass of beer." To show the tyrannical spirit of the Bill, he would read the mar- ginal note of the clause—"Drunkard compellable to declare the place where the liquor was obtained." The result was, that if a man were found drunk in the street, he might be taken charge of by the police, and when sober might be called upon to swear where he got drunk; and if he declined, he was to be confined during the pleasure of the magistrates. It was said that there was a precedent for such legislation in the Gaming-house Act. How this might be he did not know; but if so, it showed how careful Parliament should be not to adopt exceptional legislation even to accomplish a good object. Instead of agitating for an Act of Parliament, the advocates of the new law should confine themselves to the legitimate means which were at their disposal. They had the pulpit, the platform, and the press. Let them use these to inculcate temperance. In such a work he wished them God speed, for he was a sincere opponent of drunkenness; but let them not attempt by legislation to deprive the labouring man of the power to buy a glass of beer.

said, the proposal advocated by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lawson) was to modify the system of licensing the sale of liquors, which had been in existence for a long period, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ker Seymer) himself admitted that it might be improved. But the hon. Gentleman, with his great influence and ability, had been trifling with the subject. There could be no doubt that one of the greatest evils of the day was the facility afforded for obtaining intoxicating drinks by the humbler classes of society. It was the cause of nearly all the misery which existed in this country. He was willing that the decision of the question should be left to the drunkards themselves, being assured that in their sober moments they would vote in favour of any measure which would prevent them from doing that which destroyed their character, and deprived their families of comfort, and who, he believed, would earnestly desire to be relieved from the temptations of the beer and liquor shops.

Sir, as there is no Motion before the House, I should hardly have thought it necessary to trouble the House at all upon this question, if it were not that I might be supposed to be wanting in respect to my hon. Friend and to those of whose opinions he is the exponent. To a certain degree I entirely sympathize with them in the premisses which they lay down, and upon which they found the remedy they propose, but which I believe to be a mistaken one. I agree with them that the abuse of intoxicating liquors is productive of infinite mischief; that it is the parent of many other crimes; and that to diminish these crimes would be to confer the greatest benefit upon the country, and especially upon the working classes. I agree also in thinking that there are great defects in the licensing system, and I very much concur in the recommendations of the Committee which was presided over by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Villiers), and which suggested very material changes in that system. There are great difficulties in dealing with that question, owing to the extensive interests engaged in the trade; but I am quite willing to admit that it is a subject which deserves consideration, and I shall be glad if at some future time, I am able to bring forward a measure for improving the licensing system. I cannot, however, hold out to my hon. Friend any hope that such a measure would embody the opinions entertained by those who are anxious to see the Maine Liquor Law established in this country. It would be entirely useless to make such an attempt. You cannot legislate effectually in opposition to the feelings and habits of a great majority of the people, and unless the law harmonizes with the settled opinions and habits of the people you cannot enforce it. It is said that the majority ought to control the minority. In many cases that is perfectly true. For instance, some years ago, as the House is aware, an Act was passed which left it optional with the parishes to establish public baths and washhouses; and where this is done, however strenuous may be the opposition of the minority, they are bound to contribute by the payment of rates towards the maintenance of those places. That is all the hardship; but the proposal of my hon. Friend is a totally different one. He would not merely impose upon the minority the payment of a rate, but would force them to change their habits of life, and to abstain from doing what no one can say is an unlawful act—from using beverages which are no doubt injurious when taken to excess, but which, taken in moderation, are wholesome and invigorating. For the majority to use such compulsion as this would be an act of tyranny, and far exceeds any fair application of the principle that the minority should yield to the will of the majority. I have not had the advantage of seeing in print the Bill which is supposed to embody the principles of the law advocated by my hon. Friend, but I have not been able to satisfy myself that those principles should be sanctioned in this country; and if they were embodied in an Act of Parliament, I do not believe they could be practically enforced. Even in America I believe that drunkenness exists to a great degree, and that by prohibiting legitimate means of purchasing drink you only drive people to illicit means of obtaining it, and perhaps, thereby lead them to indulge in it to a greater extent than they would have done if the sale of these liquors had been placed under proper and reasonable restrictions.

rose to call the attention of the House to the expediency of transferring the seat of Government in India to some place more eligible than Calcutta. When they had so recently laid that great man, Lord Canning, in the grave, he thought it was not inopportune to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it was not possible to make arrangements for carrying on the central administration of India in some spot which would induce a smaller sacrifice of European life. If the death of Lord Canning had been an isolated event, no argument could have been drawn from it, but it was by no means an isolated event. He would refer the House to a letter which appeared a few days since in the leading journal, signed "Mountaineer," in which it was said, "Wilson, Ritchie, and Lord Canning are dead; Mr. Laing is ill; Mr. Beadon has been indisposed; Colonel Baird Smith is dead, Lady Canning is dead, Lady Wells is dead, Lord and Lady Dalhousie are dead." It was not surprising that Calcutta should be unhealthy, standing as it did upon a delta, with salt water on one side and a lake upon the other, raised but a little above the level of the sea, with a supply of water which, if copious, was far from wholesome. All deltas were unhealthy, and the only great city so situated besides Calcutta was the notoriously unhealthy city of New Orleans. Sir R. Martin spoke of Calcutta as enjoying three seasons—the hot season, during which all new arrivals suffered; the cold season, in which all old Indians suffered; and the wet season, in which everybody Buffered. "It was true that it might be said that Calcutta had risen from a small village into a great city, with a trade of £20,000,000 annually, and that until recently we had lost no Governor General in India, except Lord Cornwallis, who was an old man and infirm in health when he arrived. As to the first argument, it might be replied, that according to the opinion of many old Indians, whether from a change of habits among the residents, or from the extension of the city, Calcutta was becoming more and more unhealthy. With respect to the second argument, he might be reminded that we should be in future sending out a greater number of men of mature age to carry out the working of our new institutions in India. In was also said that it was important that the seat of Government should be within easy reach of reinforcements from this country; but they were told that next year the Government subsidy to the Peninsular and Oriental Company would cease, and that Company's steamers would also cease to run to Calcutta. Mr. Marshman, the great advocate of Calcutta, had given several reasons why that city should be continued as the seat of Government, but none of them appeared to be unanswerable. The removal of the records, which was put forth as a difficulty, was merely a matter of detail. But it was said that it would be impossible to remove the Financial Secretary, the Treasury, and the Mint from Calcutta; but he could not perceive the impossibility, especially as he believed there was also a mint at Bombay. It might be that in removing the seat of Government from Calcutta private interests might suffer; but even if that were the case, it could not be set against a strong public necessity. It was said that it would be expensive to erect new public buildings in the new seat of Government, and to throw away the money that had been expended in Calcutta but he was informed that most of the Government buildings in Calcutta were merely rented. The time might come before long when we should be so committed to the chance capital of Calcutta that we must accept it as an accomplished fact; but he did not think that that period had yet arrived. No doubt Calcutta would always remain, not only a great commercial centre, but a great military post which must be held strongly with a view to the preservation of our Indian Empire; but that was no sufficient reason why it should continue to be the seat of Government. The Commander-in-Chief was generally at Simlah, Calcutta being about the last place which he thought of entering. But if Calcutta were no longer to be the capital, what other place should be chosen in its stead? To Agra, Simlah, and Mussoorie there were strong objections. Bombay, too, though healthier than Calcutta, had not such a decided advantage in that respect as to justify its selection as the new capital. There remained, however, Poonah, one of the most salubrious of our military stations in all India. It had a great historic name as the seat of power of the Peishwah, once the head of the Mahratta Confederacy. It was only eighty miles from Bombay, and was not likely to be cut off, even temporarily, from communication with the sea, which must ever be the true basis of our power in India. These and other advantages induced him to think Poonah entitled to the preference. He did not, however, pretend to speak dogmatically on that point, nor even to assert absolutely that they ought to leave Calcutta. But he hoped, that if that capital were to be retained, good reasons would be shown for doing so. He trusted also that at least the Council would no longer be obliged to remain in Calcutta, but would be permitted, as contemplated by the Act of last Session, to move from time to time, so that the most valuable European lives need not necessarily be exposed to the unhealthiness of that capital during the worst part of the wet season.

said, that having resided for some years in Calcutta, he could speak from personal experience of its climate, which he thought had been represented as worse than it really was. He fully shared the feeling of universal regret excited by the untimely deaths of the last two Governor Generals, which the hon. Gentleman had instanced as proving the deleterious effects of the climate; but he (Mr. Gregson) believed they were only isolated cases. Lord Dalhousie had suffered from a constitutional complaint, and had worked very hard—perhaps too hard—in this country before proceeding to India. Lord Canning, he understood, was perfectly well when he arrived at Marseilles on his way home; but he caught a very severe cold, and having undergone immense anxiety and some exhaustion in India, his system was unable to resist the attack. The deaths of these distinguished persons were therefore rather due to the wear and tear of mind, occasioned by the labours and responsibilities of office, than to the climate. As to the letter in The Times from "Mountaineer," he knew from private information that its author had never resided at Calcutta, but spoke of it in entire personal ignorance. There was as good water at Calcutta as could be found in all the world. The hon. Member had referred to the evidence of Sir R. Martin, who had lived as a physician for years in Calcutta. He did not know a healthier man than Sir R. Martin himself, who certainly spoke of the comparative healthiness of the capital at different seasons of the year. It was impossible to transfer the whole system of the Indian Government to the Upper Provinces. Allusion had been made to the evidence of Mr. Marshman, who had been so many years in India. He stated, that if the seat of Government were removed for the sake of health, it must be removed to the hills; but if they were to remove all the officers, Government would collapse. Besides, there were diseases in the hills which would render it unadvisable for the Government to reside there all the year round. Lady Canning died of the hill fever, coming from the hills. The Governor General ought not to be in the hills, secluded from all society. As a proof that the climate at the seat of Government in India was not so bad as had been represented, he could name several Governors General who had lived many years after their return to this country. Warren Hastings, Lord Cornwallis, Lord Teignmouth, Lord Wellesley, the Marquis of Hastings, Lord William Bentinck, all lived many years—Lord Teignmouth 38, Lord Wellesley 37 years— after they left India; and there was Lord Ellenborough, who was still living, and he was happy to say looked extremely well, when he saw him in the House of Lords the other evening. The Secretary of State for India had now in his Council five men who had been in India more than thirty years. Sir James Hogg, formerly a Member of that House, had been thirty-three years in Calcutta; Mr. Elliot Macnaghten, Mr. Ross Mangles, Sir Frederick Currie, all twenty-five to thirty years at Calcutta. Then there were Governors of Bengal—Mr. Wilberforce Bird, who was thirty years at Calcutta, and died at seventy-two; Sir Frederick Halliday, thirty years at Calcutta, and who was more like a farmer than a man who had been long in India. The late Governor of Bengal, Sir Frederick Currie, was still in perfect health. Then there were the Indian judges—Sir Edward Ryan, Sir Lawrence Peel, Sir James Colville, Sir Arthur Buller, who had been all ten years in Calcutta to entitle them to their pensions. The hon. Member then read a letter from a gentleman who must have been ten years in Calcutta, and who gave it as his opinion that Calcutta was on the average just as healthy as any other part of India. He described the Government House at Barrackpore, the grounds extending over 260 acres, and the drives as most attractive and beautiful. He could also from experience speak of the climate of Calcutta as salubrious, and he did not think it was at all desirable that any change should be made in the seat of Government.

said, he was glad that this subject had been brought forward, though it was not likely to be attended with any immediate practical result. No one would deny, that if we had just obtained possession of India, Calcutta was the last place that would have been selected for the capital. It was the most distant point of the empire and the most difficult of access; and although the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Gregson) had given so glowing an account of its salubrity that any one would be led to believe that it was the healthiest place in the world, and that hon. Members who were suffering from the labours of the Session could not do better than hasten to Calcutta to seek the restoration of their health, he could hardly admit the truth of the picture. Readmitted that the question of the seat of Government must be decided, not on considerations of health alone, but also by reasons of policy; and he thought that the question of distance alone was sufficient to settle the question against Calcutta. In his opinion, no better place could be chosen than Poonah, the climate of which, although like that of all other parts of India, uncomfortably hot during the summer, was during the cold weather and the rains most charming. He did not wish to press the Government for any immediate decision upon this subject, but he hoped that they would take it into their most serious consideration.

said, that all must regret the risk to which our officials were exposed by service in India in consequence of the unhealthiness of the climate; but this risk was not confined to Calcutta, which was not the most peculiarly unhealthy part of our Indian Empire. Al- though we had recently lost Lord Canning and Mr. Wilson, we had also been deprived of the services of Lord Elphinstone, the Governor of Bombay, Sir Henry Ward, the Governor of Madras, Colonel Baird Smith, who had spent most of his time in the North West Provinces, and Generals Anson and Barnard, who had both lived in the most healthy parts of India. The question of the removal of the capital of a great empire could only be decided upon grave and serious considerations; and, as it appeared to him, the hon. Gentleman who had introduced this subject had not come to any conclusion in his own mind either as to the policy of removing the capital, or as to the place to which it should be removed. He had himself decided against both the Hills and Bombay; and although he appeared rather to favour Poonah, yet the arguments which he had advanced against Bombay would apply equally to Poonah. Governors General of India would, of course, upon sanitary considerations, be inclined to select for the seat of Government the healthiest spot in the empire, and yet the last four Governors General had all given their opinions against the removal of the capital from Calcutta. Lord Ellenborough and Lord Hardinge were both examined before the Committee of 1853, when Lord Hardinge said—

"I should not advise a change of the seat of Government from Calcutta. With the prospect of having railways and electric telegraphs, and also looking to the other great consideration, that the present seat of Government is not liable to be attacked, is close to the sea, ready to receive reinforcements, and far removed from those emergencies and crises which will occur in India, such as occurred on the North Western frontier when I was there, the further the Government is kept from these emergencies the better for the tranquillity of India."

Both the succeeding Governors General, Lord Dalhousie and Lord Canning, have expressed similar opinions. Under these circumstances he thought that the House would be of opinion that no sufficiently strong reasons had yet been advanced for making a change in the capital of India. The loss of Lord Canning might partly have been occasioned by the circumstances of the time having required that he should remain for a very long time continuously at the seat of Government at Calcutta. Such a necessity did not exist in ordinary periods, and it was hoped and anticipated that in future, in quiet times, the Governor General would be able to visit other parts of the empire, and make himself acquainted both with the country and with those who were carrying on the Government in various parts of India. On the whole, he hoped that the House would be of opinion that it was not at present desirable to change the capital of our Indian empire.

I have to apologize to my hon. Friend (Sir F. Goldsmid) for not having replied to his observations when he sat down; but I was waiting for another Question, from the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Freeland), which I now understand is, on account of the lateness of the hour, not to be put to me to-night. My hon. Friend drew the attention of the House to the case of two Jewish soldiers in the Russian service, who, according to his view, had been very unjustly punished for crimes of which they had not been guilty. I quite agree with the observation of my hon. Friend, that although it is not desirable that this House should, without some strong cause, offer opinions as to matters which pass in other countries, yet there are cases which fully justify such a course—cases like those which he has mentioned. As regards broad principles of government, by which large masses of men have their interests affected, it is easy to express an opinion; but when you come to scrutinize particular instances in which individuals have been brought before a judicial tribunal for an offence of which they were supposed to be guilty, and begin to discuss the value of the evidence and the justice of the sentence, this House, even in cases which occur in this country, feels a disinclination to pronounce a decision; because, whatever opinion we may entertain upon the general view of the matter, so much depends on the details of the evidence, which can only be judged accurately by the tribunal adjudicating upon the case, that it is exceedingly difficult for the House to be very satisfied that any opinion they may give will be right. With regard to this particular case, our Ambassador at St. Petersburg was instructed by ray noble Friend to make inquiries, in order to ascertain the history of the case. Of course, he could only institute those inquiries with great delicacy and forbearance; and he was informed that these persons, whether rightly or not I do not pretend to say, were subjected to the proper course of law in Russia, and condemned to the punishment which they afterwards underwent by competent legal authority. I do not stand up here to maintain that the legal arrangements of Russia, are not capable of improvement; I have no doubt that they are; but with regard to the treatment of Jews as a body, I am happy to say that the present Emperor has very much relaxed the severity to which they had been previously exposed; and I have no doubt that the enlightened mind of the Emperor of Russia—which appears to be directing itself to various improvements in his great and extensive empire—will, from being coupled with the goodness of his own disposition, lead him to go still further towards placing the Jews on a footing of equality with the other subjects of his realm.

said, he wished to bring to the attention of the House the fact that a clause in the Piers and Harbours Act Amendment Bill, which had been defeated by a considerable majority, was re-introduced totidem verbis in this measure. That clause gave to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests the same power of interfering in relation to works connected with existing harbours as was properly enjoyed by the President of the Board of Trade. Communications had taken taken place between himself and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and the result was that the Government consented to withdraw this and another clause; but now a clause was introduced which would have the effect of directly reversing the decision of the House. This re-introduction of the clause seemed to him rather sharp practice; and if technical reasons had compelled the President of the Board of Trade to make the proposition anew, he ought to have called attention to the point on the second reading of the Bill, and not have exposed the House to be taken by surprise. The clause had reference to Carrickfergus Harbour, and he doubted whether the people of Carrickfergus knew how far this clause affected their interests. As this clause stood, not a single stone could be put upon another for the improvement of the harbour until the consent of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests was obtained; and, from his experience of the Woods and Forests, he was persuaded the Commissioners would not consent to the improvement of any harbour without a money consideration. It was the duty of the House to protect the public from such a system of petty extortion, and he moved that the Bill should be committed that day six months.

seconded the Amendment.

said, there was a general Act of Parliament which required that no provisional order should be made by the Board of Trade for the construction of a new harbour, or the improvement of an old one, without the consent of the Woods and Forests. It might be right or wrong that the Commissioners should have such a power, but, in making the provisional orders which the present Bill was intended to confirm, the Board of Trade had no option but to proceed according to the directions of the Act of Parliament. The House, in fact, might as well reject a private Bill because its promoters had complied with the Standing Orders as agree to the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

said, that if the Bill were extended to Scotland, it would in juriously affect the interests both of the public and the proprietors in that country.

said, there was no analogy between a provisional order which was made by the Board of Trade, on an ex parte statement and a private Bill, and he hoped the House would at once repudiate any such doctrine.

hoped that this Amendment would be withdrawn; but still he trusted that the House would support him, when the Bill reached the Committee, in an endeavour to put an end to these exactions on the part of the Woods and Forests. That Department had no right to tax the promoters of beneficial schemes in the manner they proposed to do. No one would dispute that a great portion of the shore was the property of the Crown. He would not now go into the question whether those shores which were the property of the Crown were held in trust for the public or to produce revenue. He did not believe that they were held for the latter purpose; but however that might be, a great many shores now belonged to private individuals, to whom the Crown had granted or sold them. He thought attempts like this on the part of the Woods and Forests were nothing less than extortion. The Woods and Forests were nothing more than the administration of the property of the Crown; the Board of Trade and the Admiralty were intrusted with the supervision of the works.

said, that nothing was more generally admitted than that the system of conditional orders was a very great improvement on the old system. It applied to enclosures, piers, and harbours—it saved a great deal of expense, facilitated public improvements, and was a great accommodation to all parties interested. With respect to the course pursued by his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson), he had no choice in the matter, as the law required that the assent of the Woods and Forests should be obtained. The property was vested in the Crown, but he quite admitted that it was held for the public; it was necessary, therefore, to see that no use was made of it which might be detrimental to the public interest. The Woods and Forests required a very small acknowledgment, not at all a heavy tax upon the parties concerned, but by way of admission that it was Crown property; and he thought that in so doing they were only maidtaining a right intrusted to them.

said, he was glad to hear the noble Lord's admission that the Crown held the foreshores for the public interest.

said, that the question before the House was not whether the Woods and Forests should exercise the right referred to, but whether a Bill to confirm certain provisional orders should pass. If any objection was felt to the authority of the Woods and Forests to issue these provisional orders, the issue ought to he fairly raised by a substantive Motion.

thought it was a fallacy to assert that the Crown was in all cases the owner of the foreshore.

moved to omit the 13th paragraph of the schedule. The clause as it stood gave the Woods and Forests power to interfere with works which the Admiralty and the Board of Trade had sanctioned. This was, in other words, giving them power to extort money from those who were making these harbours in the interest of the public.

said, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests ought not to be allowed to have the power, or allowed that interference over the harbours which this clause would give them.

supported the clause, and said, it had been framed in accordance with the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and that there could be no sound objection to it.

trusted the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. Ellice) would be agreed to.

said, the proper mode of proceeding, if hon. Members thought that Parliament had given too much power to the Woods and Forests, was to introduce a new Bill to repeal or amend the Act under which those provisional orders were made.

said, if the Committee consented to the clause, they would be acting directly in the teeth of the Act of last Session, and of the decision of the House in the present Session also.

said, the Woods and Forests would give their sanction, upon condition that a clause which would protect their rights was introduced in the particular Acts. They did not assert their claims beforehand. What they said was, "We give our sanction to your proposed plans; but we reserve to ourselves the right, when you come to execute those plans, to put in our claims." The real question before the Committee was, whether, by excluding the paragraph, they would not do an injury to the promoters.

said, the Woods and Forests wanted to attach to their consent a condition by virtue of which they should have the right of approval of the works which were to be constructed under the provisional orders; and what his hon. Friend wished was, that the Committee should say whether the Woods and Forests were right in attaching that condition. He did not think either the interests of the public or the rights of the Crown required such a condition. In many cases, moreover, it was monstrous to require the consent of the Woods and Forests, for the property did not always belong to the Crown.

hoped that the Government would give way on this point, as it was one on which there could be no doubt.

said, that the Board of Trade had acted strictly in accordance with the Act of Parliament, which required the consent of the Woods and Forests to be given. The Woods and Forests had given their consent with a condition; but if the Committee did away with the condition, then the Woods and Forests could not be said to have given their consent. The condition was not an unreasonable one, and was in accordance with Parliamentary practice, because it was inserted in every private Bill.

said, that the adoption of the Amendment rendered necessary the omission of four other consequential clauses.

said, that after the expression of opinion just given by the Committee, he would omit the part in each of the other provisional orders in the Bill similar to that which had just been struck out.