said, he rose to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, in reference to the statement made by the First Lord, that, before carrying into effect the proposed scheme for the abolition of the rank of Master in the Royal Navy, it would be presented to Parliament and time given for considering it, Whether the final decision of the Admiralty on the subject will now be deferred till the next Session?

said, in reply, that it was not the intention of the Admiralty to take any steps with respect to the abolition of the rank of Master beyond what had been taken already. What had been done up to the present was simply to discontinue the entry of second-class Naval Cadets, and that discontinuance would be carried on; but, before any further step was taken, the new Parliament would have met, and time would be given to discuss the scheme when any Order in Council might have been issued.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether any Field Allowances has been granted to the Officers and Men who have applied for them from Aldershot? The officers wore put to great inconvenience, and the men wore out their clothes in consequence of the frequent marchings of flying columns.

in reply, said, as he had received no notice of the question of the hon. and gallant Member, he could not give a positive answer. His impression, however, was that field allowances were never granted unless when troops were before an enemy. He would, however, make inquiry.

said, he rose to call attention to the inadequate stipends of the Minor Canons and Non-Capitular Members of the Cathedral of Carlisle and of other Cathedrals of the New Foundation. He said the case was shortly this. The cathedrals of the new foundation were re-founded and established at the time of the Reformation, and the inferior members of them were not members of distinct corporations, as in the old cathedrals, but stipendiaries dependant for what they received on the general revenues of the chapter. Taking a prebendary as the general standard, these non-capitular members had stipends in proportion, the minor canons having one-half. During the last century all the payments fell into abeyance, and when the Act of 1840 was under consideration it was found that the deans and chapters were in receipt of the greater part of the revenue. When the Act of 1840 was passed the cathedrals were supposed to be of little utility, and therefore the claims of the non-capitular members were but little considered. Since then, however, it had been discovered that the cathedrals were of the greatest utility, and they had been restored to the position which they formerly held. Although the deans received large salaries, the non-capitular members, upon whom all the active duties of the cathedrals virtually devolved, were still in receipt of very small salaries. Under these circumstances, the subject had been discussed before the Cathedral Commission instituted by Lord Derby, in 1860, by that House during the passing of the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill, and since then by the Ecclesiastical Commission Committee, which sat during the Sessions of 1862 and 1863, when the evidence was very fully gone into, and both the Commission and Committee came to the conclusion that the position of the non-capitular members was unsatisfactory, and that some measures ought to be adopted for their relief. The law with regard to the non-capitular members of the cathedrals of the new foundation was in a very anomalous state. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had no power whatever to deal with them, and, therefore, if an application was made by those gentlemen to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for relief, they were told to apply to the dean and chapter, while, if application was made to the latter, they were told that all the revenues derived from their estates were paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that they had no power to interfere. It would be seen, therefore, that the law was in a very imperfect state, for the law which gave the Ecclesiastical Commissioners power to receive the surplus revenues gave them no power to apply them. The cathedral of Carlisle was a singular instance of what he meant. In 1850 the Dean and Chapter of Carlisle made over their estates to the Ecclesiastical Commission, in consideration of a commutation payment. That commutation payment was fixed at £5,680. By the scheme approved by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and made law by an Order in Council, the sum of £4,200 out of the sum of £5,680, was allotted to the dean and chapter, and £900 given to the non-capitular members. The cathedral duties of the dean and chapter, although they received so large a proportion of the revenues, were light, while the duties of the non-capitular members, particularly of the minor canons were exceedingly heavy, constant daily attendance being exacted from them. The number of minor canons in the cathedral had been reduced from five to two, but it must be obvious that two were quite insufficient to perform the duty. The Dean of Carlisle had written an able pamphlet on cathedral reform, in which he stated that three minor canons in his cathedral would be scarcely sufficient to perform the service. The Dean of Carlisle received an income of £1,400 a year and a house, the canons £700 a year and a house, while the two minor canons only received £150 a year less income tax, and had no house provided for them. Under the old system the five minor canons received £60 a year, yet each was allowed to hold a chapter living. By the new Act, however, a minor canon, although he received £150 a year, was not allowed to hold a living, unless within six miles, while a canon could hold a living not in the gift of the dean and chapter at any distance. It had been stated, that the Ecclesiastical Com- missioners were about to make a new arrangement relative to the revenues of the dean and chapter, whereupon Mr. Livingstone, one of the minor canons, applied to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to know whether they would recommend an annual payment to the minor canons more adequate to their wants and claims. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners replied, that they were unable to entertain the subject, and referred the writer to the dean and chapter. On making an application in that quarter he received a reply from the chapter clerk, stating, that the letter had been laid before the dean and chapter, and that he had been instructed to give no reply. It was only fair that the Government should see whether some remedy could not be applied. Another class of cases deserving attention was that of members of the foundation, such as grammar boys and choristers, who were all entitled to receive adequate allowances. By the statutes of Westminster Abbey the chorister boys were entitled to the same allowances as the Queen's scholars or boys on the foundation. They were to be educated under the college masters. They were to have a preference in the vacant scholarships on the foundation, and every inducement was held out to these boys to engage upon the choral service of the Abbey. Their present position was, however, miserable. The privilege of being educated in Westminster School had been withdrawn from them. They were now educated by one of the sacristans, and although no doubt the education they received was good of its kind, yet it appeared from a Return that the schoolmaster only received £100 a year, and the House would easily imagine that the education which they received was by no means in accordance with that to which they were entitled under the statutes. They received no allowances for board or lodging, and it appeared that only £138 was divided among sixteen scholars, being an average of less than £9 a year. It also appeared by a Return that the receipts of the Church amounted to not less than £60,000 a year. The dean was paid £2,000; some of the canons received over £2,000; others £1,600, and none less than £1,000. The dean and chapter had been compelled to raise the allowance to the Queen's scholars to £60, whilst these poor boys, who were entitled under the statutes to be placed in the same position as the Queen's scholars, had this wretched pittance of £9 a year doled out to them. In other cathedrals the chorister boys were much better treated. In St. Paul's, for instance, the sum paid to them in 1861 was £498, and in 1862 it was £567, and besides this gratuities were given to the amount of £125 for the purpose of placing them out in life. Under these circumstances he hoped the Government would undertake, in the course of the next Session, to introduce a Bill for the amendment of the law, or give an assurance that, if a measure on the subject should be originated by a private Member, the Government would keep the promise given by the late Sir George Lewis, and give the measure the best consideration. He wished to ask Her Majesty's Government, whether they intend next Session to introduce a measure to give power to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England to deal with and increase Non-Capitular Stipends in such cases as they may think fit?

said, that as the representative of a cathedral town, he could bear out the statements which had been made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The three minor canons at Peterborough received only £500 a year amongst them. They had no chance of preferment, and were expected to be in attendance at all times, whilst the canons were not required to be in residence more than three months. Surely it was discreditable to the Church of England that its revenues should be appropriated in such a way.

said, the House ought to know that the minor canons were in almost all cases a distinct corporation, and possessed distinct corporate property. By a Bill of last year, power was given to deal with the property belonging to certain minor canons, enabling them to commute their estates to the Commissioners, whereby they might be better administered, and the moneys of the minor canons might thus be increased. He knew no other property out of which provision could be made for the minor canons, than property transferred from the sinecure rectories and suspended canonries to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and property belonging to the capitular bodies. In many cases, he wa3 aware the minor canons were paid much less than their services merited. The difficulty was in knowing out of what fund you were to provide for their better payment. As an Ecclesiastical Commissioner he considered himself bound to take care that the additional payment should not come out of funds appropriated to give spiritual assistance where it was most required—that is to say, to make adequate provision for clergymen engaged in parochial duties. That was the trust imposed upon the fund administered by the Commissioners, and until it was discharged he should think it doubtful whether any portion of the property ought to be handed over to the minor canons. With regard to the property belonging to the different capitular bodies, it was not generally recollected that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had nothing to do with that property except by agreement with those bodies in cases where they might desire to commute fluctuating incomes for a fixed sum. At all events, if the capitular bodies were willing to charge their life interest in the capitular estates in order to provide a more adequate fund for the remuneration of the minor canons, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would raise no objection arising out of any interest which they might have in these estates. Some arrangement of this kind might be made for the benefit of the minor canons, but in the absence of any compulsory power to deal with the capitular bodies and their estates, he was afraid the Governments would find considerable difficulty in arranging the matter. If the Government, however, could see their way clear to the proposal of a measure next Session, providing a more adequate remuneration for minor canons in these cases, he should be glad to find that some satisfactory arrangement might be effected.

said, he was not acquainted with the facts of the case, nor accurately acquainted with the law, until the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was placed on the paper; but on communicating then with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he found that in 1850 the number of minor canons connected with the Cathedral of Carlisle was fixed at two, and that their income was from £150 to £200 a year each. He was informed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had no power to increase these incomes, but that it was in the power of the Dean and Chapter to do so. As his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had suggested, the difficulty was to know out of what fund the increase of these stipends was to come. In many cases the duties performed by the parochial clergy were more important than those performed by the minor canons, and the surplus funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were appropriated as they ought to be—namely, in providing spiritual instruction for the people at large. If, however, the object of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bentinck) was to enable the Dean and Chapter, out of the funds belonging to them, to make provision which now they have no power to make for the minor canons, he should be glad to consider a Bill on that subject. He quite agreed with his right hon. Friend that it would be objectional to divert any portion of the funds which were now applicable by law to the increase of small benefices, and apply it for the benefit of the minor canons. But if the capitular bodies were inclined to make such a provision out of the capitular estates, and were now prevented by the law from doing so, it would he only reasonable to remove any such obstacle.

said, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) stated the other day, in answer to the hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), that the remuneration of Dr. Sutherland was fixed at £3 3s. a day, and was afterwards "continued at the same rate so long as he was completely occupied upon these duties." The noble Marquess added, that Dr. Sutherland's time had since been entirely occupied on the details of the business of the Sanitary Commission, and he therefore continued to receive the above rate of remuneration; that his salary was charged in the Vote of £20,000 taken for sanitary services, and that this arrangement was generally approved by the Treasury. It appeared from the papers since published that on the 5th of June, 1858, a letter was written from the War Office to the Treasury, by direction of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Peel), with reference to certain Committees and sub-Committees appointed to assist in organizing the hospital and sanitary arrangements of the army; and in this letter occurred the following passage—

"As there are expenses for travelling and attendance arising out of the same, and as the subcommittees are offshoots and extensions of the Royal Commission, I am to request the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury will authorize the charges incidental thereon, being issued temporarily from army funds, and reclaimed, as in the case of Royal Commissions, from the Vote for Civil Contingencies."

It appeared that Dr. Sutherland was now altogether employed. He was therefore drawing £3 3s. a day for every day in the year, and had been doing this for several years past. There was, however, no appearance of this charge in the Army Estimates, and therefore the House had been voting about £1,100 a year to Dr. Sutherland for some years past without the slightest knowledge that it was voting anything to that gentleman. The sanction of the Treasury, given through Sir Charles Trevelyan to the arrangement proposed by the War Office, appeared to him a mere form, and of no value whatever, except as sanctioning a merely temporary arrangement. He wished, therefore, to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that the sanction of the Treasury has been given to this payment of £3 3s., as a salary, to Dr, Sutherland, and whether he approves such a construction being placed upon the Treasury sanction of the "expenses" of the Sanitary Commission?

said, that in the only document which had issued from the Treasury on the subject—namely, the letter of the 11th of June, 1858, signed by Sir Charles Trevelyan—the question raised was considered one quite of departmental routine and practice, and was not, therefore, referred to the political officers of the Government. In looking at the letter of Sir Benjamin Hawes, he was bound to state that he did not see any reference to a salary to Dr. Sutherland, or anybody else, but only to expenses for travelling and attendance; and he certainly should not have inferred that the payment of members of the Committees was included in its terms. That document was received before the present Government were in office. He had no official knowledge whatever on the subject, but he believed his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War was prepared to justify the proceeding.

said, that the letter of Sir Benjamin Hawes was written in consequence of an account having been sent in certified by Lord Panmure as President of the Sanitary Commission, for the sum of £500, at the rate of three guineas a day to be paid to Dr. Sutherland. That was before he (General Peel) came into office, and all he did was to ask the Treasury how the money, the charge for which had been sanctioned by the President of the Sanitary Commission, was to be paid?

said, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman (General Peel) that his sanction to the transaction embraced a little more than a reference to the Treasury as to how the money was to be paid, for, on a discussion respecting the accounts sent in, the question was brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice, and the accounts included the charge of three guineas a day, as originally fixed by Lord Panmure. He was not sure what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Herbert) objected to in this matter. As to the appointment itself, he (the Marquess of Hartington) had no more to say than he had said the other day. Dr. Sutherland was in the Crimea, and on the Sanitary Commission, and had great experience. He was employed by the Home Office on questions of this nature before he was sent to the Crimea. Without disparagement of the Army Medical Department, he thought Dr. Sutherland's knowledge better fitted him for such a position than any gentleman connected with the Army Medical Department, however great his experience might otherwise be. As long as the work performed by the Army Sanitary Commission was to be done, it was impossible to place a more useful member on the Committee than Dr. Sutherland. The Committee was not to be permanent, and the appoint- ment of Dr. Sutherland to attend the Committee and work out the details was not intended to be a permanent appointment at all. No doubt the labours of the Committee extended beyond what was originally intended by a reference to them of several questions relating to Indian sanitary matters. The work might not be brought to an end for a considerable time, but they should not give any ground to Dr. Sutherland for the assumption that his office was intended to be permanent or that he should have a claim for superannuation and additional allowances on the abolition of the office. Dr. Sutherland was perfectly aware of the position in which he stood, and that the office was not permanent. There was no more reason for an application being made to the Treasury since the date of the correspondence then there existed before. It was not referred to the Treasury for formal sanction, because it was not intended to be permanent. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would find, on reference to the debates on the Army Estimates, that some years ago the appointment of Dr. Sutherland was referred to in the House, and it was moved that the sum paid should not be allowed, which showed that there was no concealment of the appointment of Dr. Sutherland. The Audit Office asked for an explanation regarding the payment to Dr. Sutherland, and received it from the War Office, and as the Commissioners of Audit made no further objection, it was to be presumed that the explanation was satisfactory.

I rise, Sir, to call attention to a matter of great interest to a considerable number of families, and which would be a subject of interest to the whole country if the circumstances were as generally known as it might be expected they would have been. I refer to the imprisonment of some of our fellow-subjects in the kingdom of Abyssinia. At the present moment the English Consul accredited by Her Majesty to Abyssinia, two English missionaries, and several British subjects are in confinement in that country, and most of them have been in confinement for a period of some eighteen or nineteen months. The first news of their imprisonment came to this country with the statement from Consul Cameron that he and other persons were at the time he wrote (February 14, 1864) in chains at Gondar. On the 27th of May, 1864, Mr. Flad, whom I do not understand to be a British subject, wrote, while in confinement, that Mr. Stern, one of the missionaries, was still bound, as were also Mr. Cameron and all his English servants. Mr. Rosenthal was free and living with his wife and children near Gondar. A little later, I find, by the intelligence which came to this country in November, and which probably left Abyssinia in the previous summer, the Emperor appeared to have taken some fresh offence. The statement was that his Majesty had gone the length of putting the prisoners, including Consul Cameron, to a kind of torture. I find next that a German missionary, writing in August, states—

"No change for the better has taken place in the state of Abyssinian affairs. The captives, Messrs. Stern, Rosenthal, and the English Consul, have not only not been set at liberty, but have suffered from great violence."

And Mr. Rassam, our Assistant Resident at Aden, appears to have discovered—

"that our unfortunate countrymen were confined in a tent next to that of the Emperor, all intercourse with them being forbidden under the severest penalties. Besides this vigilant watch, each European was chained to a trustworthy dependent of the Imperial household, who was relieved at short intervals. The chain being only four feet long, the prisoner could scarcely move without the knowledge of the guard."

The House will allow that this is a strange and startling state of circumstances to have occurred in reference to an English Consul and a number of English subjects. Well, where has this taken place, because, although we may have some general knowledge about Abyssinia, many Members may have lost the trace of its recent history? The present monarch of that country, who professes the Christian faith, and rules over a people who are also Christians, came to the throne by deposing his predecessor in 1855, and has reigned there ever since. He is a man of civilization, he has had intercourse with this country and with British subjects, and has always professed the greatest friendship for England, and the greatest admiration for everything English. Consul Plowden, the predecessor of Consul Cameron, was his Majesty's particular friend, and was loaded by him with every mark of favour that could be conceived. And not only that, but Mr. Bell, another Eng- lishman, was very high in rank in the military forces of the Emperor Theodoros, a Prince addicted to warlike objects, and who professed to be greatly guided by Mr. Bell's advice. I find also that the predecessor of the Emperor Theodoros entered into a treaty with this country, which was laid on the table of this House in June, 1852, by which, among other things—and I ask particular attention to one of its articles—Her Britannic Majesty engages—

"To receive and protect any Ambassador, Envoy, or Consul whom his Majesty of Abyssinia or his successors may see fit to appoint, and will equally preserve inviolate all the rights and privileges of such Ambassador, Envoy, or Consul."

By the preceding article the Emperor of Abyssinia reciprocally engages to receive and protect any Ambassador, Envoy, or Consul which England might send to that country. The Emperor of Abyssinia was dealt with in that treaty as a Sovereign worthy of every respect and consideration, and as a person with whom a treaty ought to be made and observed in its integrity. Well, what was the origin of the Emperor's change of feeling? If some of the statements which are made be correct—and they come from a quarter which leaves no room for doubting them—they show what serious consequences may spring from a very small cause. I observe, from the papers very lately laid on the table of the House, that the Emperor Theodoros addressed an autograph letter to Her Majesty, dated at the end of 1862, but received in this country on the 12th of February, 1863. We have that letter given us in the form of a translation, written in very intelligible style, but of course presenting all the peculiarities which you would expect to find in an autograph communication proceeding from an Oriental Sovereign. It begins thus—

"In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, one God in Trinity, chosen by God, King of Kings, Theodoros of Ethiopia to Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England. I hope your Majesty is in good health. By the power of God I am well. …. Mr. Plowden, and my late Grand Chamberlain, the Englishman Bell, used to tell me that there is a great Christian Queen, who loves all Christians. When they said to me this,' We are able to make you known to her, and to establish friendship between you,' then in those times I was very glad. I gave them my love, thinking that I had found your Majesty's goodwill. All men are subject to death, and my enemies, thinking to injure me, killed these my friends. But, by the power of God, I have exterminated those enemies, not leaving one alive, though they were of my own family, that I may get, by the power of God, your friendship. I was prevented by the Turks occupying the sea-coast from sending you an embassy when I was in difficulty. Consul Cameron arrived with a letter and present of friendship. By the power of God I was very glad hearing of your welfare, and being assured of your amity. I have received your presents and thank you much. I fear that if I send Ambassadors with presents of amity by Consul Cameron they may be arrested by the Turks. And now I wish that you may arrange for the safe passage of my Ambassadors everywhere on the road. I wish to have an answer to this letter by Consul Cameron, and that he may conduct my Embassy to England. See how the Islam oppress the Christain !"

It appears that Captain Cameron, who, I believe, served on the staff of Sir William Williams when the latter was our Commissioner with the Turkish army, was appointed Consul to Abyssinia in 1861, and proceeded in 1862 to his post at Massowah, on the Red Sea. But Consul Cameron was intrusted with presents to take to the Emperor, and it was incumbent on him, in the first instance, to go inland to the capital to present them. He went accordingly, and offered these tokens of goodwill and friendship on the part of the Queen of England towards the Emperor of Abyssinia. In his autograph letter it would be seen that His Majesty proposed to send an envoy or ambassador to be received by the Sovereign of this country, as the treaty provided that any such Ministers should be received. He said he feared that if he sent ambassadors with presents of amity by Consul Cameron they might be arrested by the Turks, and he asked that arrangements might be made for the safe passage of his ambassadors everywhere on the road. This was a despatch coming to this country, as to which I do not presume to offer the least opinion whether the proposal ought to have been accepted or not, whether the embassy ought to have been encouraged or not, except that I find in the treaty a positive stipulation on our part to receive and give every protection to any ambassador or envoy whom the Sovereign of Abyssinia might see fit to appoint. Yet one thing was, I think, incumbent on Her Majesty's Government, and the omission of which, I fear, has led to serious consequences. King Theo-doros, I should have thought, was entitled to an answer in some shape or form to the communication which he had sent. The despatch containing the Emperor's autograph letter was received in England on the 12th of February, 1863, and the papers that have been laid on the table state that no answer was returned until the 26th of May, 1864, or a period of more than fifteen months; and then the answer was not conveyed through any Britsh Consul in Egypt, but through Mr. Rassam, our assistant resident at Aden, himself a subject of Turkey—the very Power towards which, if the Emperor of Abyssinia was not actually at war with it, he at all events entertained feelings of considerable hostility. What was the result? The Emperor of Abyssinia had sent to France a similar communication to that which he had sent to this country, and from the French Government he had received an answer. Towards the end of 1863 he became greatly irritated at not obtaining any answer from the British Government. I do not at all pretend to justify the course which he took; certainly his acts were not warranted by the offence which he supposed had been offered him. But, smarting under a feeling of irritation, all the stronger because among Eastern nations such slights are more keenly felt than among Western races—wounded at what he thought the contemptuous reception of his communication and the rejection of his proposal to send an embassy to England—wounded also at what he might have taken to indicate a change of sentiment towards his country on the part of Great Britain, the Emperor arrested Consul Cameron, the two English missionaries to whom I have referred, and the other English subjects who were in his capital at this time, and put them in such confinement as I have described. That there may be no doubt that I am warranted in my inferences as to what led to the imprisonment of these persons, I will take the opinion of Sir William Coghlan, one of the most competent authorities on this matter, who was consulted in regard to it by the Foreign Office, and who drew up a memorandum for the guidance of that Department. The subject of that memorandum was the Abyssinian difficulty, and how to get out of it; and it is most interesting. If some advice had been obtained from the same quarter before the Foreign Office got into this difficulty it might not, perhaps, have been much amiss. But, however, Sir William Coghlan sets out by advising the Foreign Office how best to get out of it. He says—

"There are probably several causes for the altered demeanour of the King of Abyssinia towards Captain Cameron, the British Consul. It is understood that his dignity is grievously wounded by the silence, which he accepts as an affront; and this sense of injury, coupled with other circumstances, has led to the deplorable state of affairs now existing at Gondar. Also, there is reason to believe that the King refuses Mr. Rassam's mission as one which is not of sufficient dignity: that Mr. Rassam is, in fact, a mere messenger, and not an Envoy; hence the contemptuous silence with which his letters and requests have been treated,"

I stated to the House that in May, 18G4, an answer was sent to the communication which had been received from the Emperor, but it was sent by Mr. Rassam, who was a resident at Aden and an Ottoman, which nation was particularly distasteful to the Emperor in every shape and form. The statement of Sir William Coghlan is that Mr. Rassam was not of sufficient dignity, being, in fact, a mere subordinate, resident at Aden. Sir William Coghlan goes on to say—

"Inquiry into the 'other circumstances' alluded to in paragragh 9 would inconveniently lengthen this memorandum, which is intended only as a brief statement of the existing difficulty, and a suggestion as to the best means of overcoming it. If any further effort is to be made to release the captives, it must be by means of an Embassy, headed by an officer of rank, who should be supported by such a suite as would give dignity to his mission; a secretary (a military officer), two or three officers of the scientific corps or departments, and a medical officer, should be of the party; these could be supplied either from England, or from Bombay, or from Aden."

Well, then, to corroborate what Sir William Coghlan says as to the cause of offence being perfectly notorious, I have here an extract of a letter from Egypt, dated the 3rd of June in the present year. It is to this effect—

"Theodoros is reported to have expressed himself very indignantly that the Queen's Government should have sent an Asiatic—a more subordinate—on a mission to him, and, it is said, he does not intend to take the least notice of him."

He has not taken the least notice of him. The Emperor has refused to receive him, and has even treated it as an aggravation of the first offence he supposed he had received. I do not desire, far from it, to say one word in justification of the course taken by the King of Abyssinia towards these unfortunate prisoners. It was a violation of all that was proper as regards any of them, and especially as regards the British Consul. But it is only proper that we should know all the circumstances and facts of the case. It was suggested in another place, where some notice was taken of this question, that Consul Cameron had exceeded his duty in staying so long as he did at the capital of Abyssinia, instead of remaining at Massowah, the port on the sea-coast; but he could not present the gifts he bore to the Emperor without going to the capital. It is besides impossible to know whether he remained too long in the capital, because the papers carefully withhold all letters written by Consul Cameron to the Foreign Office explaining what his reasons were, and we have nothing but replies from the Foreign Office to Mr. Cameron censuring him for not returning to Massowah. I do not propose to enter on that question, nor does it really at all bear on the object I have in view in bringing the subject before the House. Suppose Consul Cameron committed an error in judgment, still the question now is, what is to be done with reference to these unfortunate persons? They have been confined for upwards of eighteen months. They have suffered great hardships, and the only step which the Government have taken, so far as I am aware, is that they have sent Mr. Rassam, who was not received by the Emperor, and treated as a mere messenger unworthy of notice. I would submit to the Government that this is a case in which, admitting to the fullest extent that the acts of the King of Abyssinia were a flagrant outrage on International Law, we can confess that there has been a certain amount of neglect, a certain degree of indecorous treatment of a Sovereign with whom we have a treaty of alliance, in refusing to answer a despatch sent by him to the Sovereign of this country for a period of a year and a half. It seems very easy to make an admission of that kind, and not to solicit but accompany it with a demand for the release of those persons who have been kept in confinement. In a case of this kind where the liberties, if not the lives, of our fellow-subjects are concerned, I cannot help thinking the time has come when the advice of Sir William Coghlan should be taken in some shape or other, and that a mission of some sort or nature acceptable to the King of Abyssinia should be sent him. I think it would be an act which the Sovereign of this country should be advised to do, seeing there had been an undesigned but unfortunate neglect of the communication sent by him for so great a length of time, and I should hope that overtures of that kind would not be unavailing. At all events it does seem to me that before Parliament separates some active and energetic steps should be taken to set these unfortunate persons at liberty, and I do hope that some announcement may be made which will relieve the anxiety which is felt by so many throughout the country on this subject.

Sir, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that if Her Majesty's Government have refrained from entering fully into this painful subject, it is from no desire to screen their own conduct, or avoid full inquiry into the whole facts of the case. The reason why my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the other House of Parliament, and myself in this House, have declined to enter into the subject was simply this:—In the first place, we feared lest anything should be said which might be conveyed—and it certainly would have been conveyed—to the Emperor of Abyssinia, which might lead either to the death of those unfortunate persons who are now held in captivity by him, or to their being treated with even greater severity than that with which they have hitherto been visited; and, secondly, I felt it would scarcely be fair to Consul Cameron, before receiving a full explanation from him, that statements should be made reflecting on his official character. But, after the statements we have heard to-night, and after the gross misstatements which have been made in a certain portion of the press, I think it my duty, if the House will kindly permit me, to enter at some length into the subject. I shall endeavour, as far as possible, to avoid anything that would lead to unfortunate results; but if anything does happen from what I shall state tonight, the responsibility must entirely rest upon those who have forced the Government to make these explanations. Before going further, I would make one remark on what I before stated with reference to the Pall Mall Gazette having published a statement derived from official sources. My statement has given pain to the members of the Foreign and Indian Offices. I have now to state that the information in question was not furnished by either of those offices, but it was furnished from Government confidential sources, and I trust I shall be enabled to ascertain who it is that has been guilty of a breach of confidence which may lead to serious consequences. I do not wish to go into a history of Abyssinia. If any hon. Member wishes to read an authentic account of what has taken place of late years in that country, I would refer him to two articles in the Revue des Deux Monies, written by M. Lejean, a gentleman who was French Consul there at the same time as Mr. Cameron was in Abyssinia. The Emperor of Abyssinia was formerly somewhat in the same position as the Mikado or Emperor of Japan—a mere puppet; the country itself being divided into several almost independent kingdoms, each governed by a great feudal lord, owning a mere nominal dependence on the Emperor. The principal of these chiefs, Ras Ali, reigned for several years over a large part of Abyssinia, waged many successful wars, and attained to considerable power. Two Englishmen, Messrs. Plowden and Bell, had assisted him materially with their advice in the conduct of his wars. Mr. Plow-don came to this country some years ago. He described Abyssinia as very rich in natural resources, and represented that it would be very important that friendly relations should be established between that country and England. In consequence of his representations the Government appointed him Consul at Massowah—not an Abyssinian town, but a Turkish port on the Red. Sea. Abyssinia is separated from the Red Sea by a broad tract of arid plain, forming a kind of petty kingdom under a chief who owns himself a vassal of Turkey, and there is no entrance to Abyssinia except through Turkish territory. Mr. Plowden, while Consul, was allowed to embark in trade, and the object of his being sent to Massowah was to extend British trade. But he did not remain there, but returned to Ras Ali, and, in company with Mr. Bell, appears to have continued to give him advice and assistance. In 1855 the present King Theodore, who had married the daughter of Ras Ali, rose against his father-in-law, defeated him, waged a series of wars against other feudal chiefs of Abyssinia, was very successful, and in a short time completely conquered the country. The treaty to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, was concluded, not with the present King of Abyssinia, but with Ras Ali. It was repudiated by the present King. This, as it will be shown, is very important. The present King never accepted it. This son-in-law of Ras Ali, Kassai, as he was called, was not of royal birth, but was a successful adventurer, and one of those enthusiasts who have often risen in the East. He took the name of Theodore because there was some pro- phecy current in Abyssinia that an Emperor of that name would defeat the Turks, recover Jerusalem, and found a great Ethiopic Empire in the East. A very curious description of this Theodore is given by M. Lejean and others who have written on Abyssinia. He is described as waging continual wars, and killing not only his tens, but his twenties of thousands in cold blood. In fact, the accounts given of his deeds reads very like those Assyrian records which have been translated of late years, He carried off men, women, and children into captivity, and committed many horrible acts, which, it is to be feared, have been of common occurrence amongst those who have ruled in Abyssinia. Unfortunately, Mr. Plowden, our Consul at Massowah, instead of attending to the object for which he was placed there, that of encouraging commercial intercourse between Great Britain and A byssinia, plunged into local intrigues. He and Mr. Bell sided with King Theodore, and Mr. Plowden is stated to have actually commanded some of his troops. When information reached home that Mr. Plowden was thus mixing himself up in local conflicts, and acting exactly in opposition to the spirit of the policy which he had been placed there to carry out, Her Majesty's Government at once sent out instructions for him to return to his post at Massowah, and no longer to interfere in Abyssinian affairs. Unfortunately, before these instructions could reach him, Consul Plowden had been killed by a native Abyssinian chief. Before Mr. Plowden's death it had become known to us that the King of Abyssinia desired to send a mission to Europe, and this mission was heralded by letters written, not only to Her Majesty, but to the Emperor of Russia, the Emperor of the French, and some of the Gorman potentates, calling on them to help him in a great war against the Mahomedans, and to place him as ruler over the whole of Abyssinia and Ethiopia, and over all the dominions belonging to the Turks. Her Majesty's Government had, of course, no desire to engage in any undertaking of the kind, and accordingly wrote to Consul Plowden that they would receive no mission from King Theodore except he gave

"a distinct assurance that he renounced all idea of conquest in Egypt and at Massowah; for that Her Majesty's Government had latterly remonstrated in the strongest terms against the intentions of the Viceroy of Egypt to attack Abyssinia, and that the then reigning Viceroy had not only put a stop to such proceedings, and had confined himself within the limits of his own dominions, but that he had set free the Abyssinian prisoners reduced to slavery by his predecessor, so that Her Majesty's Government would subject themselves to grave suspicions if they received an embassy from a Sovereign whose designs against the Sultan, Her Majesty's ally, were previously known to them."

said, he wished to ask whether the despatch from which the hon. Gentleman was reading had been laid before the House?

It has not been laid before the House, but if the hon. Member so desires it shall be furnished. Such was the nature of the instructions sent to Mr. Plowden. The fact upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) relies—namely, the existence of a treaty, which entitled King Theodore to send a mission to this country and bound us to receive it, is entirely at variance with the facts; for when Theodore came to the throne, the first thing he did was, as I have stated, to refuse to acknowledge the treaty entered into with his predecessor. As Ras Ali was not the Emperor of Abyssinia, but held a position somewhat similar to the old French maire du palais, in order to avoid all doubt as to the validity of the treaty, the signature of the puppet Emperor was also affixed to it. I believe that even at this moment Theodore admits he is not the real Emperor, and that the descendant of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba is living, to whom he owes a nominal allegiance; though, at the same time, he calls himself "King of Kings." Consul Plowden having been wounded and taken prisoner, was ransomed, but shortly after his release died from his wounds. This ransom of £200 was at first believed to have been paid by the King of Abyssinia; but I have received a letter from Mr. Plowden's brother, in which he states that, so far from the ransom having been paid by Theodore, it was paid by Consul Plowden's family, through M. Baroni, the English Vice Consul at Massowah. At that time, at any rate, the Government had reason to believe that Mr. Plowden had been ransomed by the King. Upon the death of Consul Plowden, Theodore wrote a letter, addressed to Lord Russell, and not to Her Majesty, as it has been asserted, stating that he had taken signal vengeance for the death of Mr. Plowden, whom he described as his personal friend. I may mention that that letter was never received in England, although we received information of its contents—it appears to have been lost by the way. Lord Russell, in reply, thanked King Theodore for what he had done with regard to Mr. Plowden, and sent him, in the name of the Government, some presents. Sir William Coghlan, the Political Resident or Governor of Aden, being then at Bombay, advised the Indian Government to lay out £500 in some further presents to the King, which was accordingly done, and some handsome carpets and other ornaments were sent to Theodore. But what were the services to the British Government, for which Theodore took credit? He stated himself to Captain Cameron that he had massacred in cold blood 1,500 persons in revenge for the loss of Mr. Plowden, and as a special mark of friendship towards Her Majesty. The French Consul estimates the number at 1,700, and even Dr. Beke, in his pamphlet, which is no doubt in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns), writes on the authority of Mr. Stern—

"On the 31st of October, 1860, 3,000 rebels, with their leader, Gerat, were defeated by the Royal Troops near the western bank of the Taccazy, and mercilessly butchered in cold blood; in fact, so inexorable was the King, that even their wives and children—contrary to former custom—were indiscriminately condemned to perpetual slavery. The other statement is that of M Lejean, who, in the Revue lies Deux Mondes for the 1st of November, 1861 (p. 234), states, that the prisoners, 1,700 in number, were taken by the Emperor to his camp at Dobarik, and there cut to pieces, and their bodies left unburied on the plain of that name, which three years afterwards was still covered with their bleached skulls."

All this was in revenge for the death of Consul Plowden, who had no business at the place where he was killed, who had been warned against taking any part in the affairs of the country, and met his death mainly through neglecting his instructions. It is not a pleasant thing to reflect that 1,500 innocent persons, more or less, have been put to the sword to revenge the death of one British subject; it is not a thing one can think of without horror. When it became necessary to send out some person with Lord Russell's letter and with the presents, to which I have alluded, Captain Cameron, who had been appointed Consul at Massowah, was chosen to take them to the King. Captain Cameron had served with distinction at Kars, and had held a consular post in the Russian territories in the Caucasus. Before proceeding to his post he came to London, was shown all the correspondence with his predecessor, was made acquainted with everything that had occurred in the case of Mr. Plowden, and received instructions himself, which will be laid before the House. He was directed most positively to refrain from interfering in any way whatever in the internal affairs of the country; to refrain from mixing himself up with intrigues, or attaching himself to any party in the country; he was merely to go to the King to deliver the letter and the presents, and then to return to Massowah, and there promote by every means in his power the trade of England with Abyssinia. I must now refer to some circumstances which have an important bearing upon this question. There were in Abyssinia at this time three missionary establishments, and I am sorry to say that, as usual, they were intensely jealous of one another. These establishments consisted of a German mission from Basle, a Protestant mission from this country, and a French Roman Catholic Propagandist mission. The Basle missionaries hated the English with an intensity of which some conception may be formed from the pages of the Standard, in which some letters on this subject have recently appeared. The Roman Catholics hated all the others. The King had no love for any of them. He soon put an end to one of the missions, and said, "I will have nothing to do with preaching the Gospel; but if you can be of any use to me, I shall be very glad that you should stay." In consequence of that decision the members of the Basle mission were compelled by the King to turn their attention to the manufacture of muskets; but as they produced very bad weapons he made them devote themselves, and with better success, to manufacturing brandy. Mr. Stern was allowed to preach to Jews and Mahomedans, but was strictly prohibited from converting any native Abyssinians. The Roman Catholic mission, with a bishop at its head, was expelled the country. Mr. Stern, who had been sent as a missionary from this country had returned to England, and having, while here, written an account of his adventures in Abyssinia, in which he did not speak in very complimentary terms of King Theodore, he had had the great imprudence to go back to Abyssinia. Such was the state of things when Consul Cameron reached Gondar. He found that the King had established his rule over the whole of Abyssinia, though there were still some rebels here and there, and that the missionaries were quarrelling among themselves and with the King. He presented Earl Russell's letter, together with the presents, to the King, and at first was well received, but shortly afterwards got a strong hint to leave the country. His provisions, which had at first been sent to him daily from the palace, were gradually diminished, until he was nearly starved. He was surrounded by spies, and every effort was made to induce him to leave Gondar, which, according to his instructions, he ought to have done immediately after delivering Earl Russell's letter and the presents. Instead of doing this, however, Consul Cameron began to open negotiations with the King, which might certainly have had the effect of leading him to believe it not impossible that he might receive support from England in his struggle with the Turks; and to our great astonishment, we one day received at the Foreign Office a despatch from Captain Cameron informing us that he was entering into formal and official negotiations with the King. [Sir HUGH CAIRNS: Is that despatch on the Table? The reason why the despatches of Consul Cameron have not hitherto been produced is that they contain passages which might tend greatly to jeopardize him. Consul Cameron wrote to say—

"I wrote immediately (to the King) stating that I was deputed to present him with certain gifts and a letter of introduction; also to discuss with him regarding the future; that when Mr. Plowden was killed there were two points under discussion—namely, one, a treaty; two, the sending an embassy to England. I offered to take these up where Mr. Plowden had left them."

Now, that was altogether contrary to the instructions he had received. So far was Consul Cameron from being instructed to propose an embassy to England from the King, that he was distinctly told that Her Majesty's Government would not entertain the idea of a mission unless he gave up all idea of conquering the Turks and invading Turkish territory. So that Consul Cameron was not justified in making such a proposal to the King. It appears that the King, thinking that Consul Cameron might induce Her Majesty's Government to assist him in exterminating the Mahomedans, wrote the letter to Her Majesty which has been quoted by the hon. Gentleman. It is one of those things you do not like to state in a person's absence, but I have reasons to think that this letter was suggested by Consul Cameron, who wished to come to this country with the embassy. I am quite under that impression; Sir William Cogh-lan is also of this opinion, I believe, and the letter hears that construction. The King, after writing this letter, ordered Consul Cameron to leave Gondar at once, and to go to Massowah. He had declared from the first that he would not receive a Consul; that one of the reasons for his refusal to ratify the treaty was, that it provided for the residence of a Consul at Gondar, and that he knew that with European nations the appointment of a Consul was only the first step to conquering a country. In spite of this warning Consul Cameron remained—most imprudently remained—in the country. Shortly afterwards we received a despatch from him stating that he had gone eastward, and that he was shut up in a kind of sanctuary, where he was surrounded by rebels, and that he had lost all his papers. A few days afterwards we received another despatch, stating that he had got out of the sanctuary and gone to the Egyptian frontier, and had extended the protection of the British flag to the tribes on that boundary. All this was so contrary to his instructions and so alarming that we wrote out without delay to desire him to refrain from all interference in Abyssinian affairs, to confine himself to his duty of promoting commercial relations with this county, and to return at once to his post at Massowah. A great deal has been said as to no answer having been sent to the letter from the King. I will ask any impartial person—whether having Consul Cameron's despatches such as I have described them before us—knowing that that letter originated after a distinct understanding with the King that Her Majesty's Government would not receive a mission until he had given up all idea of conquest upon Turkey—after the King had rejected the treaty which authorized him to send a mission to Europe—whether, under such circumstances, we were under any obligation to answer that letter at all? I can only say that even now, after what has passed, if the letter were put into my hands I should say it did not require an answer. The first letter of the King had been answered, and we did not wish that Consul Cameron should come home with a mission from the King. Having no wish to answer that letter, we sent it to the India Office to know whether they wished to answer it, because, it must be remembered, our relations with Abyssinia have been at all times more an Indian than an Imperial question. The India Office had, it appears, no wish to do so. They did not think it necessary that a mission should be sent to this country, the object of which was to get us to go to war with Turkey. What happened when an answer was sent to a similar letter from the King? As I have mentioned, the King wrote, not only to Her Majesty, but to the Emperor of Russia and the Emperor of the French. The latter sent a civil answer, through his Minister M. Drouyn de Lhuys, by a Consul, M. Lejean, stating that he was very glad to receive the King's letter, but all that the French Government begged of the King was that he would be more tolerant in his dominions, and not oppress the Roman Catholics. When M. Lejean presented that letter, the King of Abyssinia said it was signed by M. Drouyn de Lhuys, of whom he had no knowledge, and not by the Emperor. He then quarrelled with the French Consul, threw him into prison, and loaded him with chains He released him after five or six weeks, and then ignominiously expelled him from the country. The day he was expelled from Gondar, Consul Cameron appears to have asked him how he liked the feel of Abyssinian chains. M. Lejean replied, "You may be able to judge yourself in a day or two's time." Consul Cameron, according to M. Lejean, answered "Very likely." One would have thought that after these repeated warnings he would have gone away with Consul Lejean, instead of which he remained in Gondar, almost inviting a similar fate. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) has mixed up several facts and dates. He wishes the House to believe that Consul Cameron and the missionaries were imprisoned because no answer was sent to the King's letter. Nothing of the kind. The two events had nothing to do with each other. The missionaries were imprisoned when Mr. Stern returned to Abyssinia, and sometime before Consul Cameron. It is not quite clear what took place between the King and Mr. Stern, but the latter was directed to leave the country. He did not go, and at a subsequent interview the King said Mr. Stern was not to blame because he did not know the customs of the country which made it necessary that the King's orders should be immediately obeyed, but that his ser- vants were to blame because they did. He then ordered them to be so severely bastinadoed that they both died during the night. While they were undergoing their punishment, Mr. Stern, horrified at the sight, bit his thumb. The King perceived this gesture, which in Abyssinia is supposed to infer an insult and a threat. He had Mr. Stern beaten, and his books and papers were seized. The book which he had written and these papers were translated for the King by some Europeans, who appear to have borne no goodwill to Mr. Stern. Amongst other things, Mr. Stern had stated that the Queen's mother had at one time of her life sold in the streets a bitter medicine much used in Abyssinia. The King was exceedingly angry, and Mr. Rosenthal's papers having also been seized, both were thrown into prison. He next called a Court of all the Europeans at Gondar to judge Messrs. Stern and Rosenthal. The Court condemned them both to death, but recommended them to mercy; the reason given by the Europeans being that if they had not condemned the prisoners to death they (the prisoners) would certainly have incurred that fate, whereas by condemning them and recommending them to mercy they hoped that the prisoners would escape death. It appears that they were right. Messrs. Stern and Rosenthal were condemned to perpetual imprisonment on the finding of the European Court. But to return to Consul Cameron. Not only had he got into trouble with the Abyssinians, but he had actually got into trouble with the Turks also, for he wrote to us to say that so angry were the Turks at his interference at Bogos that he should not be surprised if they had another "massacre of Jed-dab," that massacre having taken place shortly before. It appears that Consul Cameron went soon afterwards to Tigré, and he wrote on the 31st of March to say that the King had stated that if anything happened to him he would reduce Tigré to a desert, and he added that the King would have kept his word. Thus perhaps tens of thousands of innocent persons might have been slaughtered because of the indiscretion of one Englishman. Could the Government do otherwise than tell Consul Cameron to go back immediately to his post at Massowah, and can blame be attached to them if their despatches to that effect were intercepted by the King, and made an additional cause of grievance, as it is asserted, against the British Government? I now come to the imprisonment of Consul Cameron. Dr. Beke, who cannot be suspected of being anxious to exonerate Her Majesty's Government, has published a letter in which he says that the Emperor Theodore's ill treatment of Consul Cameron was caused by the altered policy of the Government with regard to the relations between Abyssinia and Egypt, and that he (the Emperor)hoped to induce Her Majesty's Government, by holding our Consul and British subjects in captivity, to retrace its steps, and continue to afford him material aid against his enemies. M Lejean, moreover, positively declares that the imprisonment of Consul Cameron had nothing to do with the non-receipt of an answer by the King to his letter to the Queen. When we first received the news of the Consul's imprisonment, we consulted Sir William Coghlan, a gentleman of great experience of the East, and long British Resident or Governor at Aden, but who is now living in England. He knows a great deal of Abyssinian affairs, and he agreed with us in thinking that the first thing to be done was to endeavour to obtain the liberation of Captain Cameron, by sending a letter from the Queen to King Theodore, and to intrust that letter to Mr. Rassam. Mr. Rassam's character and position have been much misunderstood. Mr. Rassam's brother has for a long time been British Vice Consul at Mossul. Although a Chaldean Christian, and a native of Mossul, he was brought up in this country, was educated at Oxford, and in every respect—manners, dress, and appearance—is like an English gentleman. He was with mo during the whole of my explorations in Assyria, and without Mr. Rassam's assistance this country would not, perhaps, now be in possession of that valuable collection of Assyrian antiquities which are deposited in the British Museum. Mr. Rassam was at first sent to Aden in a very subordinate position, but, by his ability and attention to his duties, he raised himself to be Assistant Resident or Lieutenant Governor of Aden, was made an English magistrate, and the country round about Aden, which before was almost inaccessible to Europeans, was reduced by him to perfect peace. What does Sir William Coghlan say of Mr. Rassam? He says—

"Mr. Rassam's antecedents, his status, and his qualifications are greatly misunderstood and mis- represented by a portion of the press of this country. He has been variously styled Levantine, Greek, obscure Armenian, Turkish subject, nondescript, &c. In answer to these assertions it is but just to a very deserving public servant to say what Mr. Rassam really is. He was born at Mossul, of Christian parents (his brother is British Vice Consul there), he received his education in England, he is a gentleman in manners and conduct, and his qualifications for the peculiar line in which he has been employed during the last ten years cannot be surpassed. I speak with confidence on this point, for Mr. Rassam was my assistant at Aden during many years of trouble; a part of that time he held charge of our political relations at Muscat, and acquitted himself to the entire approval of the Government which placed him there. In short, Mr. Rassam's whole previous career well justified the expectation which Her Majesty's Government entertained in appointing him to the delicate and difficult mission on which he is now employed. The disappointment of that expectation is not attributable to any fault of his."

That is the opinion of Sir William Coghlan in a letter addressed to me, which he has authorized me to read to the House. A letter has been written to The Times, by a great authority on such matters, Sir Gardner Wilkinson, stating that we ought to have consulted the Coptic Patriarch. We have not omitted to do this, but it must be remembered that there are great differences between the Abyssinian Patriarch and the Coptic Patriarch, and there is great doubt whether the assistance of the latter would have been of any avail, or whether any interference on his part might not have had a prejudicial effect. But we did get letters from him for Mr. Rassam for the chief Bishop of Abyssinia. It is all very well to say that we ought to have sent a great mission, with Sir William Coghlan at its head. But suppose we had sent a great mission, and it had shared the fate of Consul Cameron and the missionaries, what could we have done? On arriving at Massowah Mr. Rassam wrote to King Theodore to tell him that he was the bearer of a letter from the Queen, and that if he sent him a proper escort he would go up to him, The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) has stated, on the authority of Sir William Coghlan, that Mr. Rassam being an Eastern was not a proper person to be sent to King Theodore. But such is certainly not the case. The King had no reason to know that Mr. Rassam was anything but an English gentleman, which he is in every respect, and a proper person, from his rank and station at Aden, to be sent on this mission. It was said that the Emperor was displeased at the small- ness of Mr. Rassam's mission. But the mission did not consist of Mr. Rassam alone; he was accompanied by a medical man and other gentlemen, and had with him a small vessel of war. So far from the Emperor having been displeased by the smallness of the mission, I have reason to believe that he was frightened by the vessel of war. The only explanation that I can give of the delay which has taken place in Mr. Rassam's departure for the interior, and the refusal of the King to answer the letters which have been written to him, and to give Mr. Rassam permission to visit his court and a safe conduct, is this—During the last two years the King has been waging war against his subjects, there has been an almost general rebellion in the country, his capital is at the present moment in the hands of the rebels, his power is greatly reduced, and his communications with the coast are cut off. Mr. Rassam's messengers had the greatest difficulty in getting through, and Mr. Rassam is of opinion that the King would not invite him to go up, because he would then see the state of the country, and might perhaps fall into the hands of the insurgents. It was not until Sir William Coghlan found that Mr. Rassam could not go up to Gondar, that he advised that a great mission should be sent, and he offered to go himself. Now, we have consulted Sir William Coghlan during the whole of these proceedings, but we could not agree with him on that point. After all the responsibility lies with us, and not with him. Suppose Sir William and his suite had been thrown into prison and ill-treated by the King, what would have been our position? We know that Consul Cameron and the missionaries have only themselves to blame; but if we sent up Sir William Coghlan with a large mission, and they had been imprisoned, the blame would have been entirely ours. I can assure the House that I have it on the highest authority—an authority which for various reasons I can not now name—that if we had sent up such a mission its members would have been thrown into prison; and the reason has been rightly given by Dr. Beke—namely, that the King thinks he can coerce us by holding our agents as captives into giving him assistance against the Turks. If he had thrown Sir William Coghlan and his suite into prison, would you have gone to war with the King? Remember that there is no sea-board, and that you would have to send an army across most unhealthy and inhospitable plains, to scale lofty mountains before they could reach Abyssinia—to do what? To avenge the imprisonment of a mission we had ourselves sent in spite of the warning we had received, and thereby sacrificing a large number of valuable British lives. If we had done so you would have justly condemned Her Majesty's Government. It appears, therefore, to me that the most prudent course was to decline to accept Sir William Coghlan's proposal. Sir William Coghlan is not responsible for the results, but we are. We had a great many other proposals; among others, that of Dr. Beke, who proposed to go to the King to preach to him on the advantages of free trade and to tell him what valuable coal and iron mines he possessed. But assuredly that is not the kind of lesson to teach King Theodore. Propositions of this kind are all very well coming from irresponsible persons, but her Majesty's Government are responsible, and if Sir William Coghlan or Dr. Beke had been thrown into prison would be held responsible for having exposed them to it. The hen. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) has spoken of such an event as the imprisonment of a British subject as if it were a thing quite unheard of. But we had a similar case not so long ago. The House will remember the case of Colonel Stoddart and Captain Connolly, who, sent on a political mission, were imprisoned and put to death by the King of Bokhara. Did we send an army to the centre of Asia to avenge their death, or even a special mission to the tyrant who had caused it? In this case Consul Cameron exceeded his instructions; he might have left the country, but he mixed himself up with its affairs. At this moment it is impossible to say why he is imprisoned; but any one who reads the papers that have been laid upon the table will see that no one is to blame for what has happened but himself. All I can say, in conclusion, is, that everything which can in prudence be done for his release and that of the missionaries will be done. We had received intelligence up to the end of May from them, and, though still in captivity, they are in good health, and, as far as Captain Cameron is concerned, he is in good spirits. I trust that in a short time we shall hear good tidings. I have now made my statement respecting the case, and after this statement I hope it will appear to the House that the Government are not to blame, but that up to this time they have done all that they could do. The only reason for not making this full statement before was lest it might prove prejudicial to those for whom we all feel so deeply concerned.

Will the hon. Gentleman lay upon the table the documents from which he has quoted?

Yes.

Sir, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, in the opening of his remarks, threw on my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns) the responsibility of any consequences that might arise from this discussion. I trust those consequences will not be serious, but I should like to point out that if responsibility rests on this side of the House for inquiring into the fate of imprisoned British subjects, a much greater responsibility attaches to the words and expressions of the Government on this occasion. Regarding this as a delicate matter, in which we are engaged in delicate negotiations with an irascible Sovereign, who has irresistible power over the captives, I think it would have been more prudent if the hon. Gentleman had not indulged in such terms as "puppet King" and similar expressions of that kind.

The expression was not applied to the Emperor Theodore, but to the supposed Emperor of Abyssinia.

I think the hon. Gentleman should have been more discriminating in his expressions considering the consequences that might ensue to the persons imprisoned. But, Sir, I have heard with the greatest satisfaction the altered tone of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Layard), from which I think we may derive an instructive lesson. The House is in the habit of hearing many discussions on Oriental matters, but the Foreign Office is now, it appears, impressed with the expediency of a non-interfering, a non-meddling, policy with respect to these semi-civilized Sovereigns. I cannot help thinking that the Sovereign of Abyssinia must have heard of our policy in China and Japan, and that those feelings of jealousy have been excited by the past history of our conduct with regard to China. The Sovereign has had the greatest objection to an English envoy obtaining entrance to his capital. I cannot help thinking that the beginning of these transactions was coincident with an attempt—happily frustrated—for the establishment of an English naval officer in a high position in China for the purpose of intermeddling in the affairs of that country and wresting power from the hands of the proper authorities. I hope and believe that after to-night this description of policy will no longer be pursued with Oriental Sovereigns and semi-civilized nations. But we have other warnings. How is it that a person distinguished only as a military officer is chosen to fill the office of Consul? It may have been a proper reward for services, but the selection is evidently unfit. The responsibility of such appointments rests with the Government, and I trust that for the future persons better qualified will be chosen. It is perfectly evident that the matter must rest with the Government, and possibly the less said on the subject the better. I hope that our fellow-countrymen will be rescued from the position of danger and peril in which they are placed, and that in this respect the efforts of the Foreign Office may be crowned with success.

said, that Consul Cameron had been a long time in the Consular service on the east coast of the Black Sea, had acquired great influence in that part of the country, and had shown himself well fitted to deal with half civilized tribes. He was not aware that he was a captain in Her Majesty's service, though he had been a volunteer in the defence of Kars. He thought his appointment as Consul a proper one. As a friend of that gentleman he protested against the course taken in quoting from despatches which had not been laid upon the table, reflecting upon Mr. Cameron. That was a most unusual practice, and his hon. Friend was not justified in resorting to it. As it was, Mr. Cameron would run the risk of being-condemned on the faith of his hon. Friend's speech, but the House would do well to suspend its judgment until the despatches were laid upon the table, and hon. Members could judge for themselves. Mr. Cameron was sent out to Abyssinia in 1861, his instructions being to make Massowah his headquarters, and obtain a knowledge of the political state of Abyssinia. Now, if a gentleman was not to travel in the interior how could he make himself acquainted with the political state of the country? and if he was instructed to make Massowah his headquarters, did this not mean that he should travel elsewhere? His instructions really authorized him to go to the capital, Gondah, and the only charge made against him was that he stayed there too long; but no despatch had been received by him telling him to return. Mr. Cameron's despatches ought to be produced unmutilated, and it was to be hoped that they would be laid on the table. The Consul was found fault with for endeavouring to make a treaty with King Theodore and for encouraging the King to send an embassy to Europe, because it was supposed that he would ask our help in a war against Turkey. As to the treaty, it was difficult to understand why Mr. Cameron should be blamed for trying to do that which his predecessor had tried to do. With regard to the proposed embassy, the Under Secretary had spoken with a strong animus; but what had we to do with the question whether King Theodore was or was not at war with Turkey? It was only right to have heard what the King had to say on this subject before refusing his embassy. But, besides this, such a refusal was a piece of bad policy in treating with a country with which we had been on friendly terms. In the case of such a country as Abyssinia, an embassy to England encouraged friendly intercourse, and did great good; and the grounds alleged for refusing this embassy were wholly insufficient. He thought that good would have resulted from an embassy from Abyssinia. Merchants of eminence had assured him that advantages arose from the Japanese embassy, and he could not understand why this embassy from King Theodore had been refused. Then, no good reason had been shown for not answering King Theodore's letter, which was a most civil one. The Emperor of the French had been more polite, and it would have been quite possible for us to have sent an answer, giving King Theodore to understand that we were the friends of all nations, and that our wish was to cultivate commercial relations with his people. As to Mr. Rassam, he (Mr. H. Seymour) knew that gentleman, and had the highest opinion of him; but it was natural that when the King was at war with Turkey, he should be prejudiced against an Envoy from the English Government who was not a British subject, but a native of the country with which the King was at war. He thought, therefore, the selection of Mr. Rassam an unfortunate one. He should like to know the course the Government intended to pursue with regard to Captain Cameron. Did they intend to leave him in exile for an indefinite period because it was supposed he had misunderstood his instructions? Such a course would be rather severe. Nor did he understand from his hon. Friend that any attempts had been made to penetrate Abyssinia through Egypt. He should like to hear what steps the Government intended to take on the question.

said, he wished to call attention to conduct on the part of the Secretary of State for India (Sir Charles Wood) which amounted, in his opinion, to a denial of justice, and an attempt to overrule the prerogative of the Crown as exercised by the Queen in Council. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to be present to-night from illness, but he understood that the Attorney General would represent him. The subject to which he wished to call the attention of the House involved a great delay of justice, and it concerned the property of the Begum Somroo. She had always been a faithful friend of the British Government, but on her death, in 1836, her estates were seized, and up to this time the Government of India had prevented the dispute which arose in consequence of that seizure being brought to a termination in the courts of law. To show the character of that lady, he need only refer to a letter from Lord William Bentinck, written to her the day before he left India, in which he spoke in the warmest terms of her charitable and benevolent disposition, and expressed a wish that she might long be spared to be a solace to the unfortunate. At her death, a large portion of her estates was seized by the British Government. They seized her papers also, and to this day had refused to give them up or allow copies to be taken of them. Mr. Dyce Sombre, her adopted son and her heir, who had received this property partly by deed of gift and partly by will, protested against this seizure, and furnished the Government with copies of the engagement between the Begum in 1805 and Lord Wellesley, and of other documents which showed that the property was his. Some delay occurred at the time. The matter was brought before the Home Government and the Court of Directors, and at length the Court of Directors decided that they were the owners of this property and refused to give it up. Mr. Dyce Sombre left untried no means of obtaining restitution, and when he became insane, the Lord Chancellor, acting on his behalf, instructed his solicitors in Calcutta to take the necessary proceedings against the British Government. This was in the autumn of 1847. When he died, the Government denied the rights of those who succeeded him, but that was got over, and the heirs-at-law of Mr. Dyce Sombre went on with the proceedings against the Government. But, though twenty-nine years had elapsed since the seizure was made, the case was still even unheard. This long delay was explained by the fact that the Government in India was accustomed to interfere with and control the highest Judges in India, in a manner which would not be tolerated here in the case of the meanest magistrate. They even selected Judges to try the cases in which they themselves were interested. The proceedings in this case furnished ample illustration of this kind of misconduct. When, after many difficulties interposed by the Government, it appeared that the case was at length about to be brought to trial, they adopted, in the first instauce, the manœuvre of selecting the Judge who was to try it, and selected not the Judge who in ordinary course ought to have tried it. On the 13th of October, 1863, a telegram was sent by the Secretary at Bengal to the Commissioner at Delhi to this effect—

"The Supreme Government have deputed Mr. Moorfield to conduct the Dyce Sombre case. You are to instruct Mr. Thornton to try it."

Mr. Thornton was at that time the Judge of the Small Causes Court at Delhi. And he was not the regular Judge who ought to have tried it. The person who ought to have tried it was Mr. Cooper, C.B., the Deputy Commissioner at Delhi, an eminent man among the Judges, and an officer of nearly seventeen years' standing; but the Government had ascertained that Mr. Cooper had already expressed an opinion on the merits of their case, to the effect that they had no case at all, and that restitution of the property ought to be made. The 3rd of November was fixed by Mr. Thornton for the trial of the case, but subsequently, being importuned by the Government, he postponed the hearing until the 2nd of January, 1864. He also called on the plaintiffs to produce the documentary evidence which they wished to supply, and ordered them to file fresh plaints in the case. Their plaints, in fact, had been filed seventeen years before, and the extraordinary ground assigned for the order was that the former plaints had been lost while in the custody of the Court. The plaintiff lost no time in filing fresh plaints. The pleas put in by the Government filed on the 4th of September, 1848, were partly objections to the jurisdiction of the Court, and also that the Statute of Limitations ran against the heirs of Dyce Sombre, and that the Court on that account could not try the case. They also pleaded that as the case had occurred in a certain district it ought to be tried there. The Government also pleaded that, twelve years having elapsed since the seizure, the question could not be tried at all. The courts in India decided against the Government on the question of jurisdiction, but on the plea of time gave a decision in favour of the Government. Upon appeal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided against the Government on the question of time, and the whole matter was remitted back to the courts in India, to proceed in the suit. He had mentioned the fact that delays were opposed to the progress of the suit by the conduct of the Judge selected in India; but he did not blame the Judge in any degree so much as Her Majesty's Government, because he found the Government over and over again asking for time, first for one period of six months, and then for another period of six months. In 1859 a memorial was presented to the Secretary of State praying him to cause the case to be decided under a certain clause in the India Act in this country; but that request was denied. Arbitration was proposed by the plaintiff, but refused by the Secretary of State because the papers were not in this country, but in India. But what took place in India? When the suit went on there, the Government made an application to the Court for six months' delay, on the ground that the papers were in England. He was sorry to. say that the Judge of their own selection decided in their favour, and when Mr. Thornton, who had decided three or four times in favour of the Government on questions of delay, was promoted, nobody was surprised. On the 8th of October the case came before a new Judge—Captain M'Mahon—and the counsel acting for the Government was the Judge who had replaced Mr. Thornton in the Small Cause Court, and he applied for a further adjournment of six months, because the documents wanted from England had not yet arrived. However, the Judge would only grant a postponement from October to December. The Government then appealed against that decision to a Court which, he was informed, had no proper jurisdiction in the matter, and, up to the present moment, no decision had been given, so that, by lapse of time, the Government had obtained a greater delay than they at first applied for. The case was subsequently brought before another Judge—Mr. Nisbett—selected by the Government, instead of before Colonel Hamilton, the Commissioner at Delhi, a gentleman of great experience, because that gallant gentleman had been consulted by the Government, and had frankly given an opinion against them. Therefore, for the second time, the Government adopted a course disgraceful to themselves and destructive of the fair course of justice, and placed the case before an inferior Judge of their own selection. He had carefully abstained from going into the merits of the case, but he called on the Government, if they had any regard for their own character and the due course of justice, to give up their technicalities and to insist on this case being tried on its merits. It might be urged that the Queen in Council had already ordered the matter to be proceeded with, but the last plea put in by the Secretary of State for India, and filed on the 27th of April, 1865, set forth that the matters mentioned in the plaint were things done by the Government of India in their political capacity and as matters of State policy, and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction with regard to them. No doubt the Secretary of State had great power and influence, but he very much questioned whether the suit could be stopped in that way, seeing that the Queen in Council had ordered it to be proceeded with. He thought that a matter like this might fairly be brought before the House, and he asked the Secretary of State to re-consider his policy, and to direct the suit to be carried on with all possible dispatch.

said, he should be unable to give more than a general reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, as there were many things which no one but the Secretary for India could deal with. He could only deal with general principles and the facts with which he was acquainted. He must, however, in the first instance, protest against any attempt to induce that House to pronounce an opinion upon matters still in progress of litigation, especially when the statements upon which it was asked to decide were ex parte, and made only in the interest of one party. Nothing could be more inconvenient than for the House to enter into such discussions of pending suits upon the invitation of any one party to the suit who could find an hon. Member to introduce the subject. It was totally impossible that under such circumstances the real facts could be known, and therefore it was simply an attempt to prepossess the minds of the House with ideas that might turn out to be utterly fallacious. He was not altogether unacquainted with the facts of this case, because he had been counsel for the plaintiff in the successful appeal before the Privy Council in] 858. The facts were briefly these. The Begum had been a feudatory of a Native Prince, and was allowed to retain her territory when the East India Company obtained possession of the country. Upon her death the Company took possession of that particular district of land, and of certain arms which they alleged to be public property, vested in her only as an incident of her feudal government, but the title to which on her death became extinct. A length of time elapsed before the question of right was raised, and for that delay the Indian Government were not responsible. At last two suits were instituted, one for the land and another for the arms, which were met, in the first instance, by the objection that they were barred by the lapse of time—twelve years having passed over. The decision of the Court in India upon that point was against the plaintiff, who then appealed to the Privy Council; but, instead of prosecuting the appeal with diligence, it was not until 1858 that it was heard, twenty years after the death of the Begum. The Privy Council, under the peculiar circumstances of the insanity of Mr. Dyce Sombre during a portion of the time, threw a certain part of the time out of consideration, and reversed the judgment of the Court in India upon the point of the Law of Limitations, leaving the other questions of jurisdiction and whether this was an Act of State, untouched. The case then went back to India, and the defence taken was that the property sued for was public property, and that consequently the Court had no jurisdiction. The instructions authorizing that defence to be taken went out from this country in November, 1859, shortly after the change of Government, and they were the result of a consideration of the case during the tenure of office of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), than whom all would admit no one would be more candid, dispassionate, and just. It was the opinion of that noble Lord, or of those whom he consulted, that primâ facie the property in dispute was public property, and that the suits should be defended on that ground. Since then there might have been delays, no doubt caused in part by the necessity of making use of papers, some of which were in India, and some in England; for the papers were of course distributed over both countries. Moreover, in the meantime the Government of India had been changed, the mutiny had broken out and been suppressed, and the judicial system of the country had been altered, and possibly delays might have arisen from those causes. A pamphlet had been published upon this subject, which had been sent to Sir John Lawrence, who, in a letter to the Indian Government, stated that he was satisfied the Government could have no object in delay; but he believed there had been greater delays than ought to have occurred, which, however, he thought were attributable to the plaintiff as well as to the defendant, It really was most unreasonable to ask the House to form an opinion of the merits of a case like this, arising in a far distant country, after the lapse of many years from the occurrence of the events, and when the litigation was still proceeding. There could be no doubt that for the first twenty years the delay was attributable to the plaintiff. Litigation, whether with a Government or between individuals, generally occupied more time than was desirable, because its prolongation necessarily led to expense, and therefore it was for the advantage of all parties concerned that it should terminate as soon as possible. He thought the House would agree with Sir John Lawrence, who said it was absurd to suppose that the Government had endeavoured to cause delay for the sake of delay, and not to search for materials which it was very difficult to get together. He hoped there would be more dispatch in the future.

said, he agreed that it was inexpedient to call upon the House to consider questions which were being litigated before judicial tribunals, but would have been glad to have heard from the Attorney General a statement that the rights of the parties in the case would not be withdrawn from judicial investigation, but would be left to the decision of a judicial tribunal without further delay.

said, that the Government did not seek to withdraw the case from the judicial tribunal. The merits of the case depended upon the fact whether it was an act of the State. If so, of course the judicial tribunals had no jurisdiction.

said, if it were an act of the State the Government might say there was no remedy by the ordinary tribunals, but in some recent cases it had been shown that where, by an act of the State, injustice or wrong was done there was a tribunal to which appeal could be made—the House of Commons. In the case of the Nawab of Surat such an appeal was made, and the result was the passing of an Act of Parliament. He admitted that the time had not come to consider the merits of this case, but he hoped one result of the discussion would be to prevent further delays, and to lead to some speedy and satisfactory termination of the suit.

said, that he had been counsel for the plaintiff in the appeal. He would not enter into the merits of the case, as they would probably have to be considered at a future time, when the House would be surprised to learn the remarkable conduct of the Indian Government in connection with a suit in which they were the defendants. He would only venture to hope that the suit might be allowed to proceed without further delays, and that if justice were not done in India the parties would be enabled to obtain it at the hands of that House.

said, that he had given notice of his desire to bring another subject connected with India before the House—namely, the course the Government was taking in setting up a steam communication between this country and India; but, in consequence of the absence of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India (Sir Charles Wood) he was unable to proceed with it. The subject, however, was a most important one, and he was unwilling to postpone it without making a few observations. A Committee, presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), was appointed some years ago to consider the question of our transport service, and the Committee came to the conclusion that it was not desirable that Her Majesty should maintain a separate transport service, but that the Government should avail itself for this purpose of our commercial marine. Her Majesty's Government, however, instead of carrying out the recommendations of the Report, set it entirely aside, and had, in fact, commenced a transport service of great magnitude and cost. It was ascertained that the transport service, when performed by the Government, was attended by nearly double the expense which was incurred when the service was performed by contract. Not only, however, had the Government proposed entirely to dispense with the use of the mercantile marine, but one Department of the Government had actually entered into competition with another. The Secretary of State for India had, in fact, entered into active competition with the Postmaster General and the resources of the Treasury. This competition could not but increase the already heavy expenses incurred by the course which the Government had determined upon adopting. After destroying the Indian Navy, and incurring large expenditure in the shape of pensions, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India now proposed setting up a quiet little marine of his own on the other side of the world. There were many other questions in connection with this subject which deserved a full consideration at the hands of the House, and none were more worthy of attention than was that of the postal communication between this country and India and China. While, however, he did not press on the subject at the present moment, he wished it to be distinctly understood that if he had the honour of sitting in the ensuing Parliament it would be his first concern to move for the appointment of a Committee upon this subject, and he trusted that the Government would not imagine that because he now abandoned it he had not any intention of proceeding with it at a future time.

said, that as a Member of the Committee to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, he could not but think that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not read the evidence adduced before that Committee or its Report. He assured him that the Report of the Committee did not in any way recommend that the whole transport service should be conducted by the merchant service instead of by the Government. The evidence upon this point was very conflicting, and the Committee came to no conclusion whatever upon the subject. It was therefore clear that the proposal of the Secretary of State for India, which was now being carried out—namely, that the transport service of India should be carried on by the Government, was not in the least inconsistent with any recommendation of the Committee. On the contrary, he believed the policy of the right hon. Baronet to be a sound one. The course proposed to be adopted had been recommended by the military authorities and Government in India, and had received the approbation of the Indian Council. Their sending the troops by the overland route to India would be far more economical to the revenue, while at the same time it would give greater power of disposing of the whole force of the Empire. He could not understand the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Secretary of State for India and the Postmaster General had entered into active competition. If the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the passengers carried in the Government transports, he might state that those passengers would be the military troops, and the Government servants, and in proposing such a course there was surely nothing unfair. He could only say that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India was perfectly ready to discuss the subject, and he felt convinced that the House would feel that the course pursued was the most economical one as well as one which would secure the greatest efficiency to the public service.

said, he could assure the House that he was right in stating that the Transport Committee reported in favour of the employment of the commercial marine for the transport service, instead of Government vessels.