MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Control whether the "financial year," in his letter of the 9th day of December last, has the same meaning as the "ensuing financial year," in Sir Charles Trevelyan's letter of the 2nd day of December last; and, if not, by whose authority the change was made? Whether any Estimate of the charge of the Persian War for the ensuing financial year has been presented by the East India Company to Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, at what date it was thus presented, and when it will be laid on the table of the House? And whether any supplies or munitions of war, the property of Her Majesty, have been despatched from this Country, or from any British possession, in aid of the expedition against Persia?
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, in reply to the first question, that the words "the financial year" in his letter had the same meaning as the words "the ensuing financial year" in the letter from the Treasury. The fact was that one had been copied from the other, and that a clerical error had caused the omission of the word "ensuing." In reply to the second question, he had to state that an Estimate had been presented by the East India Company to the Board of Control. That Estimate was received on the 7th of February, and was submitted to the Treasury on the 9th. It had not been acknowledged, or examined, or assented to, by the Treasury. It was not his intention to present that Estimate to the House, believing that it would be unadvisable and inexpedient to do so. The Estimate which had been formed in this country was a rough one, and he trusted it would turn out that the calculations were erroneous, because it proceeded on the supposition that the Persian war would last until December, 1857. That, he hoped, would not be the case. But even if the war should last until that period, he should still object to the production of the Estimate, because it contained matters which ought not to be in possession of the enemy, and he trusted the House would not enforce the production of such a paper. With respect to the third question, he confessed that the object of that question was to him utterly unintelligible, and he could only answer it on a strict interpretation of the words, by saying "No." Expenses of the kind were incurred by the East India Company, 1724 and afterwards became matters of account. No munitions of war, the property of Her Majesty, had been despatched from this country. All such munitions must be purchased by the East India Company, and they might either be sent from this country or elsewhere. As he had before said, they would form matter of account, but did not proceed from supplies the property of Her Majesty.