Mr. D'Israelisaid, that as the observations which he was about to make involved a personal charge against a right the had now stated to the House as to hot). Member of that House, he hoped that he should be listened to. He trusted that the House would recollect that in the third Session of the last Parliament the right hon. Gentleman, in his official capacity as President of the Board of Control, laid before Parliament a number of state papers and despatches. The object of these papers was to explain and vindicate the course taken by the Government relative to that portion of India known by the name of Central Asia. The most important of these despatches were those written by a person accredited by the Indian government to the court of Cabool. It appeared, however, that several despatches from that officer to the Government had been printed in India, but they had been suppressed here. Other despatches had been made public, parts of which had been omitted in the papers laid before Parliament. The despatches which had been printed in India were accompanied by a letter written by the late Sir Alexander Burnes. In that letter the writer states that the conduct of the Government, with respect to these despatches, had been a piece of trickery and fraud. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman why he had adopted such a course with respect to the despatches of a British Minister at a foreign court, as to induce that person to say that the proceeding was a piece of trickery and fraud?
Sir J. Hothouse,in reply to the question of the hon. Member with respect to the letters and despatches alluded to, and as to the reason which had induced him to abstain from laying certain of them before Parliament, would observe that the hon. Member went on the assumption that the papers which had been laid on the Table 1022 of the House purported to contain the whole of the despatches of Sir. A. Burnes. Quite the contrary. The hon. Gentleman could not have looked at the book without seeing that they only purported to be extracts; but of the number of letters, which he believed was about thirty-six or a few more, not less than thirty were distinctly described to be extracts. It was never intended to lay the despatches in extenso, of the above individual, before Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman looked into the matter, he would not find a single statement in these despatches which justified him in using the language which the omissions in these despatches. If the hon. Gentleman would have the goodness to look at the letters of Sir A. Burnes, written in 1837, which contained official opinions as to the best mode of settling; the affairs of Affghanistan, and which referred to the princes on the throne of Cabool and Candahar, and also to the letter of March, 1838, in which he still expressed similar opinions as to those brothers, he would see that there was no wish to conceal, or, as the hon. Member called it, suppress any of these letters which could be safely laid before the House. Omissions, he admitted, there were, and omissions were almost always made in despatches of this nature when laid before Parliament. It was a matter utterly impossible to lay the reports of accredited agents at full length before Parliament, who were sent on delicate missions like that now alluded to. As for any alterations in these despatches, they were only such as were positively called for by a due regard to the public interests. If all despatches were printed as sent to this country, personal offence would often be given in quarters which would lead to the most serious results Nothing, however, had been omitted which affected the spirit of the despatches. If all despatches of this nature were to be presented to Parliament, but few of a confidential nature, and containing the most important information, would be laid before Parliament. He said this because he knew that confidential agents would be afraid to correspond with the authorities at home, or to give the Government such information as it required. They would not be able to do it, nor be safe in doing it, if there was to be an unreserved communication to Parliament 1023 As to the private letter to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, he thought the gentleman who published that letter had very little regard for the memory of the excellent officer who wrote it. It seemed to him an utter violation of public duty, and a contempt for the usages of private life, for a public functionary to correspond with a person in the exercise of an official charge, and then publish the correspondence. He considered that the late Government had exercised a sound discretion in presenting these papers to the House exactly in the way they had been presented; but if the present Government thought there was any further correspondence which ought to be published for the illustration of this question, they had it in their power to publish it. It would be a matter of extreme indifference to him if they were to present to Parliament all the papers that the Board of Control had ever received or sent out. The hon. Gentleman was aware that there was a notice on the paper for the 26th of June of a motion for the production of the whole correspondence of Sir A. Burnes in 1837, as well as of some of the correspondence of the government of India, on which occasion the hon. Gentleman would have a further opportunity of speaking on the subject.
§ Conversation at an end.