Sitting of 16 July 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Police (Scotland); Canada and New Brunswick Boundaries; Chelsea New Bridge.
2° Assessments (Scotland); Loan Societies; Commons Inclosure; Dulwich College; Public Works (Ireland).
3° Fraudulent Trustees, &c.

HUNTINGDON COUNTY ELECTION.
The names of the Five Members appointed to try and determine the matter of the Petitions complaining of an undue Election and Return for the County of Huntingdon were called over; and Sir Edward Dering not being in the House, Mr. Speaker informed the House, that he had received a Letter from Sir Edward Dering, stating that his health rendered him incapable of a protracted atttendance upon the Committee, and that Dr. Latham was prepared to give evidence at the Bar that his attendance from day to day would materially injure his health. Letter read, as follows:—
"House of Commons,
"July 14, 1857.
Sir,—I have been selected by the General Committee to serve on the Huntingdon Election Committee, and I beg to submit to you some reasons why I venture to hope that the House may be pleased to dispense with my attendance. I was sent abroad last year on account of my health, and the result is, that I am now quite competent to discharge the ordinary duties of attendance in the House, but as the Huntingdon Committee involves a scrutiny of a very protracted nature, I think it only fair towards the Committee, as well as to myself, to express my conviction that I am not at this moment physically capable of undergoing the labour attendant on a lengthened investigation. My medical adviser (Dr. Latham) is prepared to state at the Bar of the House that he is clearly of opinion that a close attendance from day to day for a considerable period would materially injure my health, and be likely to bring back those infirmities for which he sent me abroad last year. Under these circumstances, Sir, I beg to leave my case entirely in the hands of the House, and to express my entire readiness to abide cheerfully by their decision.
"I have the honour to remain, Sir,
"Your obedient Servant,
"EDWARD CHOLMY. DERING.
"The Right Hon. The Speaker,
&c. &c. &c.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the best course would be to summon Dr. Latham to the bar and examine him, and he should move accordingly.
Motion agreed to.
Dr. Latham was called in and came to the bar; but afterwards, on the Motion of

1551
Sir GEORGE GREY, he was ordered to withdraw, and he withdrew accordingly.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) as the Chairman of the General Committee of Elections, whether he was satisfied that the House had the power now to entertain these objections. Ought they not to have been made to the General Committee and decided upon by them?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the General Committee were hound to proceed according to the provisions of the 11 & 12 Vict., c. 98. After a Committee had been selected to try a particular election petition, it was the duty of the General Committee to give notice to each of the Members so selected. On the following day, hon. Gentlemen might attend the General Committee and state their reasons why they should not be required to serve. The only objections, however, which could be urged were those contained in the 56th section—namely, "by reason of having voted at the election, or by reason of being the party on whose behalf the seat is claimed, or related to him, or to the sitting Member, by kindred or affinity in the first or second degree, according to the canon law." The usual course, when the objection was founded on the ground now taken, was to write to the General Committee previously to the selection, stating the facts on which the claim to exemption was based; the claim would then be recognized by the General Committee, if made before the Select Committee was chosen; but they had no power to do so afterwards, and, as the case of Sir Edward Bering was only submitted to them yesterday, all they could do was to report to the House the Committee as they had chosen it. The House, however, had the power of dealing with the subject under the 71st section of the Act, which enacted that "if on the day first appointed for swearing the said Committee sufficient cause be shown to the House, before its rising, why the attendance of any Member of the Committee should be dispensed with, the said Committee shall be taken to be discharged." The case of the Huntingdon election was a peculiar one. There had been a double return, two of the candidates having polled an equal number of votes; it was likely to be a long inquiry, and it was extremely important that the members of any Committee appointed should be fully qualified to attend from the beginning to the end of the proceedings, in order that the scrutiny
1552
might be properly conducted. Now, if it appeared from Dr. Latham's evidence that the health of one of the hon. Members was likely to break down before the Committee had terminated its labours, it would be very desirable that the Committee should be discharged and a new one appointed; therefore the best course they could now take was to call in Dr. Latham, and examine him as to the health of Sir Edward Dering.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, there could be but one feeling on this subject, and that was, to consult as much as possible the feelings of hon. Members in such a case; but when they were proceeding under an Act of Parliament it was essential that the course adopted by the House should be sanctioned by that Act. Now, the 69th section enacted, that if any Member of the Select Committee did not attend in his place on the day appointed for swearing the-said Committee, or left the House before it was sworn, he should be ordered into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms for such neglect of his duty, and should be otherwise punished or censured at the discretion of the House, "unless it appeared to the House, by fact specially stated, and verified upon oath, that such Member was, by a sudden accident, or by necessity prevented from attending the House." In the present instance, however, there was no plea of "sudden accident or necessity;" the words of the Act were strict and specific; Sir Edward Bering was in his place; and, that being so, it appeared to him (Sir George Grey) that the hon. Baronet must be sworn. The clause quoted by his right hon. Friend seemed only to give the House power, upon cause shown, to dispense with the attendance of any Member on the day fixed for swearing in the Committee.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, this inconvenience would follow if the course of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted; the Committee would have to go on in this important case with four Members. If the clause could be brought to cover the case, through the evidence of Dr. Latham, it would be the best course to discharge the Committee.
SIR GEORGE GREY: If it can be done legally I have no objection whatever.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, there was a sufficient reason why Sir E. Dering's attendance should be dispensed with, if Dr. Latham's evidence was sufficiently strong as to his ill health.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he thought the clause might well bear the interpretation, that if the fact were stated to the House that the hon. Member in question could not attend to the duties of the Committee, that alone might be considered a sufficient cause for the House to dispense with hon. Members attending to be sworn at the table. He was of opinion that Sir E. Dering ought not to be called to the table to be sworn. Of course, the Committee of Elections only wished for the opinion of the House on the subject.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he concurred with his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Walpole) that Sir E. Dering having been once nominated, the Committee of Elections could not now entertain the objection made, and that it was for the House itself to deal with it. If Sir E. Dering was present at the table, and assigned such a reason as had already been assigned for his non-attendance, it would be competent for the House further to inquire and to examine Dr. Latham, and then, the evidence being sufficient, to dispense with his attendance. It was most important that the House should adhere to the words of the statute, or else the proceedings of the Committee might be afterwards held to have been coram non judice, and the whole inquiry fall to the ground.
SIR JOHN HANMERsaid, the same thing took place last year in reference to the case of Mr. Lascelles, when the medical man was examined. The Committee was, in that case, discharged and re-appointed, and he did not see why the same course should not be here pursued.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that with a view to regularity in the discussion he should move that Dr. Latham be called in and examined at the bar.
SIR GEORGE GREYobserved, that he would not offer any further objection to that course, having given his opinion as to what ought to be the course of proceeding.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, it seemed to him that the House was about to subject Sir E. Dering to a system of torture. The right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) appeared to think that Sir E. Dering ought to serve on the Committee until he broke down. Now, surely that was a course which the House in its humanity—to say nothing of its common sense—would not adopt. The House was the sole judge in this matter, and was free to determine whether upon the evidence of Dr. Latham it was probable
1554
that the hon. Baronet could serve upon the Committee.
SIR EDWARD DERINGsaid, he was exceedingly sorry that his ill health should have taken up so much of the valuable time of the House of Commons, but he should be still more sorry if the House could, for one moment, suppose that any statement in the letter he had addressed to the Speaker was not true to the letter. He did not know that he could add anything to the statements contained in that letter. If this had been an ordinary Election Committee he should not have attempted to shirk the duty imposed on him; but hearing that it would involve a scrutiny and the investigation of 240 separate cases, he thought it was only right to express a conviction that he was at this moment physically incapable of serving upon such a Committee. However, if the House thought he ought to serve, he would do so as long as he had any strength; but if the House dispensed with his attendance, he should feel grateful. He would act according to the pleasure of the House, and submitted himself to their pleasure.
Question, that Dr. Latham be again called, put, and agreed to.
Dr. Latham was accordingly called in and examined upon oath, in relation to the health of Sir Edward Dering. In reply to questions from the SPEAKER, witness stated, that he had attended Sir E. Dering last year, and had advised him to go abroad during the winter. Had been consulted again within the last few days, and was of opinion that Sir E. Dering had begun to show the infirmity for which he sent him abroad in 1856. He greatly feared that Sir Edward's health would be likely to sink under a protracted attendance, day by day, on a Committee.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that after hearing the evidence of Dr. Latham there could hardly be a doubt as to the course which ought to be taken. He begged, accordingly, to move, that the attendance of Sir E. Dering on the Committee appointed to consider the Huntingdon County Election Petition be dispensed with, and that the said Committee be taken to be discharged.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the attendance of Sir Edward Dering upon the said Committee be dispensed with, and that the said Committee shall be taken to be discharged."
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he wished to point out that the Committee in question

1555
had not yet been sworn. There was no one in the House who must not assent to the wish that Sir E. Dering should be discharged, but he thought the course more conformable to the statute would be to swear him first, and to excuse him after. His sole object was to maintain the legality of these proceedings. He denied altogether the assertion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) that It was wholly in the power of the House to deal with such a question. The whole object of the 11 & 12 Vict., c. 98, was, to take it out of the power of the House.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the following Amendment:—
"That it appears to this House that sufficient cause has been shown why the attendance of Sir E. Dering as a Member of the Huntingdon Election Committee should be dispensed with."
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had no objection to withdraw his Motion in favour of that submitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Resolved, "That, in the opinion of this House, sufficient cause has been shown to this House why the attendance of Sir Edward Dering, as a Member of the said Committee, should be dispensed with."

FALKIRK ELECTION—PETITION.
MR. COBBETTsaid, he rose to draw the attention of the House to the circumstances stated in the petition of James Merry, esq., as they concerned the privileges of the House, and at the same time he would express a hope that the House would accede to the Motion that the General Committee of Elections appoint a Select Committee of five Members to inquire into this petition, and to have power to send for papers, persons, and reports. To this subject he had yesterday adverted, when he presented the petition, but he must now enter upon it at some further length. A petition had been exhibited to Mr. Rickards, the examiner, with recognizances on the 19th of May, but between that time and the 21st either a totally different petition had been substituted, or the original petition had been so far altered by erasures and interlineations, as to be wholly different from that filed in the first instance. He had inquired closely into the facts, and he would state the nature of the evidence to be given before the Committee for the appointment of which he asked. It was thought at first this
1556
petition concerned some informality as to recognizances, which informality was cured; but the defect was not a mere informality, and a question arose whether or not there was a petition at all subsisting, regarding the Falkirk district of Burghs. There could be no doubt the recognizance was entered into in this case on the 19th of May last, before Mr. Rickards. Mr. Rickards would prove this. Mr. Rose, agent for the petitioner, would prove that after the petition had been shown to Mr. Rickards, as it appeared to have been in some respects objectionable, it was sent back to Falkirk, and another petition sent back and presented to the House on the 21st of May—but there was this extraordinary fact that the signature of Mr. Rickards was alleged to be to both petitions. He did not impute any fraud, but only mistake. It was proper, however, in order to prevent the recurrence of such inconveniences in future, that investigation should be made. It ought to be ascertained whether or not the petition now existing was not wholly invalid, inasmuch as no recognizances had been entered into in the subsequent or second petition.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the General Committee of Elections, that they do appoint a Select Committee, consisting of fire Members, to consider the case of the Petition of James Merry, esquire, relative to the Falkirk Burghs, presented on the 15th instant, and to whom the said Petition shall be referred."
SIR GEORGE GREYobserved that, assuming all the facts in the petition to be as stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, the objection arose that there were no recognizances at all. If, then, such were the case, the Act prescribed a clear and distinct course—namely, that within ten days after the presentation of the petition, the parties ought to have had their complaints before the examiner of recognizances, who was bound, within five days, to inquire and examine witnesses on oath; and the decision of the examiner of recognizances, as to their validity, was, under the Act, final and conclusive. No reason had been assigned why the parties had not taken this course; the events referred to had taken place two months ago; and yet no complaint had been made till the very day when the Committee was to be sworn. It was quite clear the petitioners should have followed the course pointed out by the Act of Parliament, and the House could not now entertain the matter. Such was his deliberate opinion,

1557
as the provision of the Act making the decision of the examiner final and binding had been passed purposely to keep inquiries of this kind out of the House.
MR. WALPOLEasked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oldham not to press his Motion to a division. The parties who petitioned or complained had not complied with the requirements of the statute, and the House would not be justified in acceding to the Motion. The remedy was clearly before the examiner. The case had been decided four or five years ago. The Act specially provided that if the parties did not take their objection in time, the decision of the examiner should be binding to all intents and purposes, and that costs might be recovered under such recognizance. He hoped the House would set its face most strenuously against this sort of objection being taken—by giving them no encouragement.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he concurred entirely with his right hon. Friends (Mr. Walpole and Sir G. Grey), and denied there was any valid ground for the Motion. The question was as to the recognizances, and this objection was disposed of by mere lapse of time under the words of the statute.
MR. COBBETTsaid, the parties had not ascertained what the facts were until the very day before the petition was presented. This was a question not of recognizances, but of petition or no petition—a genuine or a spurious petition. His reason in bringing forward the matter was that the sitting Member could not within the ten days have objected to the recognizances, because he was unaware of the actual facts. He would not, however, persevere with his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That the said Petition do lie upon the Table.

SLIGO BOROUGH ELECTION—PETITION.
MR. BUTT presented another petition from John Patrick Somers, esq., Member for Sligo, and moved that it be read by the clerk at the table—
It stated, that in his Petition presented on the 15th instant, he alleged as fact that an Action had been brought in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland by Charles Sedley against John McGowan, Returning Officer of the Borough of Sligo, for unfairly rejecting the Vote of the said Charles Sedley at the last Election for that Borough;
1558
that the Petition complaining of the Return of that Election, alleges that the Mayor of Sligo did at the last Election unfairly reject Votes which ought to have been received; that he has seen a Copy of the Plaint filed in the said Court, and that it appears that the Action was brought as stated; that at the trial of the said Action the whole proceedings at the Election were made matters of discussion and evidence; that at the trial the Attorney for the Plaintiff stated that he had brought the Action at the expense of the Right honourable John Wynne, and that he had received £100 from him to cover his expenses; and that the Petitioner has this morning received information that application has been made to the Judge at Sligo for liberty to send up Bills of Indictment against the Mayor and some of the Poll Clerks for a conspiracy to procure his Return, and prays for inquiry.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the facts of the petition were so different from those in the petition presented the day preceding, that he would ask whether it would be right to ask the House to come to a vote on the two petitions without the second petition having been printed?
MR. BUTTsaid, he did not intend to press the consideration of the second petition, but he proposed to move a preliminary Resolution that the proper officer of the Queen's Bench in Ireland should make a return of all the proceedings in the action mentioned in the petition; and he should first move that the Resolutions of the House of 1703 (26th January), be read from the Journals.
Entry in the Journal of the Proceedings of the House of the 26th day of January, 1703, in relation to the Aylesbury Election, read.
MR. BUTTsaid, he now rose to move that the proper officer of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, should make a return of the copies of the documents in question as regarded these actions at law, which had been commenced in the case of the Sligo election. He (Mr. Butt) was no party to the election, but about two years since he had presented a petition from the sitting Member for Sligo, which resulted in a prosecution of several persons; and felt, therefore, that he should be wrong in refusing to present the present petition. He thought, moreover, that the House would approve of the course taken by the hon. Member for Sligo, in not bringing forward his own case, In the last election,

1559
Mr. Somers was elected for the borough of Sligo, against which return Mr. Wynne petitioned. That petition was still pending; but two actions had, nevertheless, been brought in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland against the returning officer for not receiving certain votes, and also a criminal prosecution for conspiracy had been commenced for the same. He (Mr. Butt) therefore, as they bore upon the question now at issue, had moved that the clerk should read the Resolutions come to by the House in 1703 in what was known as the Aylesbury case. In that year a person brought an action against the Mayor of Aylesbury for refusing his vote. Three Judges thought the action did not lie; Chief Justice Holt thought otherwise, and the House of Lords was of the same opinion. Thereupon the House of Commons came to the Resolutions just read. In the next Session of Parliament, new actions having been brought by other electors against the same returning officer, the House interposed with a high hand, upon which a memorable contest ensued, ending in what might be called a drawn fight. The House of Commons committed the parties who had brought these actions. An attempt was made to release them by habeas corpus, and the Commons committed the parties who brought the writ. The House of Lords then interposed; long conferences were held between the two Houses, in which the Commons steadily maintained their privilege that no other tribunal should decide upon questions of this kind; reasons of great weight were adduced on both sides; but at last a prorogation of Parliament put an end to the imprisonment of the parties, and so far the authority of this House was defeated. From that hour to the present, however, the Commons had never surrendered the privilege which they then claimed, and had never assented to the right of any Court of law to try the claims of persons to vote at elections. If the House now assented to the principle contained in the Resolutions it was necessary that they should stop the proceedings commenced against the Mayor of Sligo. The facts were still stronger than those in the Aylesbury case. There it did not appear that any election petition was pending, while in the present instance not only was an inquiry about to be made, but the petitioner (Mr. Wynne) was the very man who had been the means of bringing the question, before another tribunal. No
1560
doubt the decision of the House of Lords in the case of "Ashby and White" established the right of a party to bring an action against a returning officer for refusing his vote. But he thought there was an analogy between this case and the injunctions of a Court of Equity. A man had an unquestionable right to bring an action in a court of law; but then Equity interposed and said, "If you bring such an action we will treat it as contempt." Again, Equity would not allow an action to be brought against its officers without its leave, because they were subject to the authority of the court which could punish them if it thought necessary. In like manner the House in 1703 justified its exclusive jurisdiction over returning officers, assuming the power of committing them to Newgate if it thought proper; but on the other hand it considered that it was bound to protect them against a multiplicity of suits and the insupportable expense to which they might thus be put. It was evident that if these questions came before other tribunals while pending in this House the most conflicting decisions might be arrived at. A jury might determine one way, and mulct a returning officer for doing one thing, while a Committee of this House might commit him to prison for not doing the very same thing. The mayor of Sligo might be a material witness for the sitting Member, and how could he come before a Committee of that House if, in the meantime, a jury sitting in the very county where this election had taken place, and where the excitement and party bitterness engendered by it still, perhaps, prevailed, branded him with the stigma of a conviction? He contended that until this petition was disposed of the proceedings taken before other tribunals were a direct interference with the privileges of that House, and an attempt to prejudge and influence the case. He should therefore move that the proper officer of the Queen's Bench in Ireland return to the House a copy of all the proceedings in the actions mentioned in the petition, and that the further consideration be postponed until Monday next, when he should propose the appointment of a Committee on the subject.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proper Officer of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland do forthwith return to this House, Copies of the Summons and Plaint, and other proceedings in the Action that now is or was lately depending in that Court, in which Charles Sedley is plaintiff and John M'Gown, mayor of the town

1561
of Sligo, is defendant; and also Copies of the same in the Action in which James Ferguson is plaintiff and the same John M'Gowan is defendant."
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought this a very proper subject for consideration by the House, but it ought to be very cautiously and solemnly considered, so that they might not commit themselves to the assertion of exclusive jurisdiction and privileges without full knowledge of all the circumstances. He was far from saying that the Resolutions of January 26, 1703, did not still embody the deliberate opinion of the House, but it should be remembered that since then several Acts of Parliament had been passed regulating the proceedings upon, controverted elections, and he was not prepared to say that the case brought under notice by the hon. and learned Gentleman might not fall within the exceptions referred to in these Resolutions, which merely affirmed the general right of the House, subject to any exceptions which might be created by special Acts of Parliament. It would be premature to assume that these actions involved a breach of privilege before a preliminary inquiry had been instituted. He should therefore move, by way of Amendment, that Mr. Somers' two petitions should be referred to a Committee, who should inquire into the facts of the case and report to the House, after looking into precedents and examining the state of the law on the subject, whether, in their opinion, the facts as ascertained by them involved any breach of privilege. At the same time, he did not propose that they should delegate to any Committee the decision of the question whether a breach of privilege had really been committed.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "That the" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Petition of John Patrick Somers, esquire, presented upon the 15th and 16th days of this instant July, be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into the matters stated therein, and to report their opinion, how far there are any circumstances in the case affecting the privileges of this House."
MR. HILDYARDsaid, it was a most inconvenient course to encourage these applications, and he thought it desirable to deal with them at once. He entertained objections to referring a question of privilege to a Committee, as it was a matter with which the House itself ought to deal. He contended also that the Resolutions of the House in "Ashby and White" did not apply in this case, and that, even
1562
assuming them to be in accordance with the law—an opinion to which he by no means subscribed—the hon. and learned Gentleman was incorrect in stating that that House had never abandoned the principle of these Resolutions. Lord Holt laid down that every one who possessed a right of necessity had a remedy, and that therefore a person obstructing an elector in giving his vote, whether maliciously or not, was liable to an action for damages. At the same time the Resolutions were passed, there were as many kinds of franchises as there were boroughs, and the House of Commons saw that if every one had the right of action as against the returning officer, it would make the courts of law the arbiters of the return of Members of Parliament. Since then, however, the whole reason for these Resolutions had ceased, for the right was exercised under the statute law of the land, and the House had recently delegated to the Court of Common Pleas the right of determining who was entitled to vote. Moreover, for nearly a century the House of Commons had abandoned the principle of the Resolutions come to in 1703—at all events to this extent, that it would not interfere to prevent these actions being brought wherever malice on the part of the returning officer was alleged. In the case of the "Mayor of Hastings" the plaintiff obtained a verdict for £200, the defendant's malice being a part of his case. The case came on for discussion on a writ of error in Easter Term, 1786; but the Judges would not hear any objections taken to the action, declaring that the case of "Ashby and White" was conclusive on the subject. The House of Commons acquiesced in that decision, and took no steps to assert its privileges, nor, though such actions had been more than once brought since that time, had the House interfered. In the present instance, malice was of the essence of the action brought; the returning officer was declared to have acted unfairly; and there was thus no analogy between the case and that of "Ashby and White." Then, again, this very right was established by statute. The 76th section of the English Reform Act laid down that if returning officers wilfully contravened its provisions, they should be liable to an action and a penalty of £500, there being a proviso that the remedy thus given against the returning officer should not supersede any remedy or action against him according to the law

1563
heretofore in force. Here, then, was a distinct recognition of the right of action against a returning officer, and the Irish Reform Bill contained a similar provision. There was also a similarly distinct recognition of the right to institute a criminal proceeding, it being enacted that every returning officer who should by due course of aw be convicted of having acted corruptly or partially in the execution of his duty should be adjudged guilty of a high misdemeanour, and imprisoned for a period not exceeding three years. This was under the I Geo. IV., c. 11, s. 25.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he believed that in the present instance the indictment for a conspiracy against the Mayor of Sligo was a proceeding at common law.
MR. HILDYARDreplied that the Legislature at all events recognized the right of bringing these actions. There was, then, no pretence for the assertion that the privileges of the House were in jeopardy; and as to the statement that these proceedings were taken while a petition was pending, there was no limitation in the Act as to the time of instituting such actions.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman had only confirmed him in the impression that the course proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) was the best course to be pursued in this case. He, therefore, should give his assent to that coarse, always on the understanding that the House, in referring the question to the Committee, was not relinquishing its right in the matter.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he hoped the House would agree with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for White-haven and decide the matter at once. All the Committee could do would be to ascertain the fact of actions having been brought, which, was sufficiently known to the House. Unless malice was alleged and proved as the ground-work of the action, the verdict against the returning officer might be act aside in the courts of law. Why then should the House interfere? The proceedings at law would not at all affect the decision of the Election Committee; for the indictment against the mayor could not be tried till the next spring assizes. In 1847, an action was brought against the mayor of Abingdon for refusing a vote ("Price v. Fletcher," 3 and 4 C. P. Rep.); the most eminent
1564
counsel were engaged; the case went from one court to another; but it was never once suggested that such an action was stopped by the Resolutions of that House in "Ashby v. White." The so-called privilege of the House was one which every right-thinking man would be glad to get rid of, instead of raking up a string of Resolutions of 1703 to support it. The public would never tolerate the re-enforcement of those Resolutions, whereby parties might be sheltered from the due punishment of their crimes. Had the defendant in this case chosen to do so, he might have applied for a postponement of the action, on the ground that the matter was about to be inquired into by a Committee of that House. Most likely he had wished to take the advantage of a verdict in his favour, if he got one.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that the question decided in the action, and the one to be decided by the Committee, were essentially different. On that and other grounds he thought it desirable not to proceed further in the House, but to refer the matter to a Committee.
MR. BUTTsaid, he should offer no objection to the reference, but thought it most desirable that the proceedings of the proposed Select Committee should not clash with those of the Sligo Election Committee, but ought to be concluded before the latter sat. He acquiesced entirely in the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He might remind the House, however, that if a Committee were appointed, they would still require copies of the proceedings in the Irish Courts. He also would beg to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland whether the statement was true that the Crown would proceed by indictment against those concerned in the election for the borough of Sligo?
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDobserved, that he had no official knowledge of the matter to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded. All his information was derived from what appeared in the Irish correspondence of the papers of that morning. In the papers which had been laid before him regarding the Sligo election he directed that there should be no prosecution by the Crown pending the election petition, and had so directed the Crown Solicitor, except in breaches of the peace. He did not think the statement in the

1565
papers was correct that prosecutions were instituted by the Crown Solicitor; but, probably, indictments had been preferred by private parties. In reference to the general question, he thought the house was about to take the proper course in following the recommendation of his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey), and in abstaining altogether from discussing the merits of the case. As to the criminal prosecution, it raised some grave and important questions; as, for instance; first, whether, pending an election petition, such an indictment could be prosecuted, and whether persons who would be witnesses before the Committee could be the subject of that prosecution. That was a question for the grave and serious consideration of the House. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghal would agree at once to the course recommended by his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEremarked that he hoped the Amendment of Sir G. Grey would be acceded to, and that the discussion might for the present be allowed to drop.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived; Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That the Petition of John Patrick Somers, esquire, presented upon the 15th and 16th days of this instant July, be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into the matters stated therein, and to report their opinion, how far there are any circumstances in the case affecting the privileges of this House.

LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4,
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he wished to call attention to the abominations which the evidence showed existed in the Scotch private lunatic asylums—a state of things disgraceful to a nation of Christians. In one asylum a poor insane female was found lying in a dark cell, perfectly naked.
  MR. CUMMING BRUCEremarked, that he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman in his observations upon the private mad houses in Scotland, which were utterly disgraceful to the country, but not to the Board of Supervision, which had pointed out the evils which
  1566
  ought to be remedied, and this, too, upon more than one occasion. Private lunatic asylums ought to be subjected to a very vigilant and sharp supervision, which would well and faithfully discharge its duty. He did not place entire credence in the Reports of the Lunacy Commissioners, and thought it was quite necessary in this case to bear in mind the maxim "audi alteram partem."
  MR. BAGWELLexplained.
  MR. BAILLIEsaid, he should be glad to see a clause introduced, rendering illega the confinement of pauper lunatics in private asylums.
  MR. MACKIEsaid, he would enter his protest against the creation of a new Board, and the new and expensive machinery contemplated by this Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM DUNBARobserved, that he also thought the constitution of a new board unnecessary, and uncalled for. He would assert, that though there were instances where lunatics had been treated with peculiar cruelty, yet that was the fault of the Legislature, and the Scotch people were, upon the whole, not by any means to blame for the isolated cases which had taken place. No country had subscribed proportionately more liberally than Scotland for the care and good treatment of lunatics, and the existing system in that country was sufficient to ensure all that was required.
  SIR JOHN OGILVYsaid, a strong feeling existed in Scotland that the Board of Supervision furnished an efficient machinery capable of supplying all the defects of the present system without the creation of any new Board.
  MR. HOPE JOHNSTONEremarked, that he also had representations made to him from every quarter in opposition to the appointment of a new Board.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that the question was not so much what would be the most expensive as what would be the most efficient machinery. There were plenty of representatives of the ratepayers in that House, but no representatives of the lunatics of Scotland. They seemed to have no friends there, while really they were the persons who stood most in need of being represented.
  COLONEL SYKESobserved, that as regarded the female found in a lunatic asylum naked, he could wish that it should be ascertained whether or not this female had not shortly previously torn off her clothes, as was often the case?
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 16 were then agreed to.
  House resumed. Committee report progress to sit again this day.

FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what course Her Majesty's Government intended to pursue with regard to the Report of the Commissioners on the Fishery Board (Scotland)?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas understood to say that he would on Monday next state what course was intended to be pursued.

  TROOPS FOR INDIA—QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the ships are taken up for the conveyance to India of the additional troops required for service there; and, if so, what amount of tonnage of both sailing and steaming?
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that advertisements had been issued for tenders for ships to convey the additional troops. As soon as the tenders should be accepted, he would present a return of the amount of tonnage.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, he would then give notice, that as the ships were not yet taken up, he should to-morrow call the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the best means of transporting the troops.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he would now beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if, in the event of the Government deciding to send troops to India by steam, he has one screw ship in either Sheerness, Portsmouth, or Plymouth in commission, fit to carry troops, and ready for immediate service.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: Certainly not. We have not a single screw ship of the line in commission fit to carry troops to India. The ships in commission at home are calculated for home service.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL—QUESTION.
  LORD NAASsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will give a day for the discussion on the Superannuation Act Amendment, and whether the noble Lord
  1568
  will allow the Second Reading to be taken pro formâ to-night, and the discussion to take place in Committee at a morning sitting. He believed that such an arrangement would be productive of considerable convenience.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that it was impossible to assent to the proposition to read a second time, as a matter of form, a Bill, the principle of which must be discussed, more especially as he was not prepared to agree to the Bill of the noble Lord. He might, perhaps, be able to give the noble Lord a morning sitting, when the more urgent business at present before the House should be disposed of, but he could not, in the existing state of business, consent to postpone any Government measure to make way for it.
  LORD NAASsaid, that under those circumstances no other course was open to him than to move the second reading of the Bill that night, and he gave notice that he should do so at whatever hour it might come on.

  INDIA—AMNESTY—QUESTION.
  MR. W. VANSITTARTsaid, he would beg to inquire whether it is true, as reported in the Indian newspapers just received, that the Lieutenant Governor of the North Western Provinces of India has issued a proclamation, in which he offers an amnesty to all the mutineers who will lay down their arms; and that on the Governor General of India expressing his severe displeasure at that proclamation, and issuing an order for its immediate withdrawal, the Lieutenant Governor tendered his resignation.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he believed it was substantially correct that the Lieutenant Governor of the North Western Provinces did issue such a proclamation. The Governor General of India, with that promptitude and vigour of mind which distinguished him, immediately disapproved it, and issued an order, withdrawing it, except for the interval between the issue of the order and the proclamation, which exception was necessary for the maintenance of good faith. He had not heard that the Lieutenant Governor had resigned in consequence, and he saw no grounds for his resignation. The Lieutenant Governor's conduct had generally, except in this single instance, been marked by judgment and decision, and he trusted that the report of his resignation was not true.

  EDUCATION—NOTICE.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to give notice of the course he intended to pursue with regard to national education. At that period of the Session he did not think, after the discussion on the subject which had already taken place, that he should promote the object he had in view by moving such a Resolution as that of which he had given notice, and therefore it was his intention, whenever the noble Lord at the head of the Government placed a day at his disposal, to move an Address to the Crown for a Commission of Inquiry into the state of national education.

  GALWAY TOWN WRIT.
  COLONEL FRENCH COLONEL FRENCH moved, that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a new writ for the electing of a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the town of Galway, in the room of Anthony O'Flaherty, Esq., whose election has been determined to be void.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, that in the absence of the Chairman of the Galway Election Committee, he should move that the issue of the writ be suspended till Thursday next, in order that the evidence might be in the hands of hon. Members, who would then be able to judge whether or not it would be advisable that a further suspension of the writ should take place.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "the Writ for the Town of Galway be suspended until Thursday next," instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he concluded that if the Committee had thought it desirable that the writ should be suspended, they would have reported to that effect. Galway contained a population of 30,000, and a constituency of 1,300, and the Committee had reported that only seventy voters had been bribed by small sums. Under these circumstances the borough ought not to be left without representation, for the suspension of the writ would be contrary to the constitution of the country, according to which the representation of the country ought to be maintained in as complete a state as possible.
  SIR GEORGE GREYobserved, that he thought this was just one of the cases alluded to the other night, when a Resolution was carried requiring the suspension of the issue of writs in cases where the seats were vacated for bribery. It was then stated, that this suspension would give an opportunity to Members of the Committee to state whether or not it would be desirable that the House should be in possession of the evidence before the issue of the writ. He thought it desirable that that course should be followed in the present instance, especially as he understood that the noble Lord spoke for the Committee in the absence of the Chairman.
  LORD LOVAINEbelieved that hon. Members would find, when the evidence was printed, that there was sufficient reason for the short delay proposed.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would not in that case persist in his Motion.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLremarked, that he thought that before the Motion was withdrawn they ought to understand that the writ would not be moved before Thursday.
  LORD LOVAINE, at the suggestion of Sir G. GREY, then moved that the issuing of the writ be suspended till Thursday next.
  MR. WALPOLEsuggested that the better way would be for the noble Lord to give notice of such a Motion.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Ordered, That the Writ for the Town of Galway be suspended until Thursday next.

  MAYO WRIT.
  MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, he rose to move, "That Mr. Speaker do not issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Knight of the Shire to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Mayo, before Thursday next." As there were stronger reasons for the suspension of the writ in the case of Mayo than in the case of Galway, he need not further occupy the time of the House. He was not, however, without some fear that the evidence given before the Election Committee would not be delivered in sufficient time before Thursday for full consideration by the hon. Members, but in that case he felt confident he should be supported in asking for a farther suspension of the Writ.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that after the decision of the House in the last case, it was not his intention to oppose the Motion; but there were facts connected with the case to which he wished shortly to call the attention of the House in addition to some facts which it was already in possession of. The Election Committee, towards the end of the proceedings, thought it necessary to acquaint the House with a letter, stating that certain persons had made an attack on witnesses examined before the Committee. The Committee stated that a letter, duly verified, had been placed before them, representing that a witness named Gannon, who had given evidence before the Committee, had been seriously injured by a mob led on by John Sheridan; and he (Colonel French) complained that without proper inquiry such an imputation was thus thrown upon a most respectable gentleman, for the allegation respecting Mr. Sheridan was wholly untrue. On seeing the statement, Mr. Sheridan immediately came to London, and presented himself before the Committee, who told him they had nothing to say to him, and referred him to the House. Mr. Sheridan then came to him (Colonel French), and produced to him a letter from Mr. Kearney, a magistrate of the district, addressed to the Chairman of the Committee; and, as the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield) had not referred to that communication, he (Colonel French) might perhaps be permitted to read it to the House. The letter was as follows:—
  "Ballinvilla, Castlebar, Mayo,
  "July 11, 1857.
  "Sir,—As the magistrate who investigated the case of Gannon (a witness examined before your Committee) against several people for riot, and against one in particular for stabbing him in the eye with a rod of iron, I take the liberty of addressing you. I have held to bail the parties charged with the riot, and I have committed to prison the boy charged with the latter offence.
  "Having heard yesterday that Mr. John Martin Sheridan was reported as the instigator of this outrage, I considered it my duty to call at the county infirmary and see Gannon upon the subject; and I beg to give you, from memory, the conversation that took place between us.
  "I said to Gannon I heard there were some parties (not included in his sworn information) who had taken part in the attack upon him on the evening of the 7th instant. He answered that there was a boy named Murphy who struck him with a shovel on the right arm, and whose name he did not recollect when swearing his information.
  "I then asked him if there was any person in a higher rank of life whom he could accuse of instigating the mob, or pointing him out to them.
  1572
  "He answered not (no), and added that he was very sorry to hear a report that morning that he had accused Mr. Sheridan; that the report was a false one; that Mr. Sheridan was the most active in bringing the offenders to justice; had called to see him in the infirmary after the occurrence; and ended by saying that Mr. Sheridan was his best friend. I have in addition made inquiries among the constabulary and others, and I find that a more unfounded and audacious charge was never made than the present accusation against Mr. Sheridan; and, in justice to that gentleman, I have the honour of addressing you upon the present occasion."
  He (Colonel French) believed the Attorney General for Ireland had investigated the facts, and would confirm his statement that there was not the slightest ground for the charge against Mr. Sheridan.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he had read the informations in the case to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had allud ed, and could state that no person named Sheridan was mentioned in them, or was charged with being a participator in the offence. He might observe, however, that a man named Sheelan was charged with being concerned in the assault, and that circumstance might, perhaps, have occasioned the mistake.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that, as a Member of the Committee, he wished to state, with reference to the statement of the hon. Member (Colonel French), that they had not made sufficient inquiry before bringing this subject under the notice of the House, that they had done all they could do to satisfy themselves of the truth of the matter. A letter was produced before them, and the gentleman to whom it was addressed proved its receipt upon oath. The Committee had just learned that one of the witnesses who had been examined before them had been insulted the day before in the lobby outside the Committee-room by the Rev. Peter Conway, and they were considering whether it was not their duty to bring that circumstance under the notice of the House when they were informed that a witness named Gannon, who had given evidence, and who had returned to Ireland, had been assaulted and seriously injured. As he had stated to the Committee his apprehension that as soon as he returned home he should be insulted on account of his evidence, they felt that not a moment should be lost in reporting the fact to the House, in order that means might be taken for insuring to the other witnesses the protection to which they were entitled.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, he had been requested to make a statement to the House, on the part of one of the persons inculpated by the Report of the Committee, who was charged with conduct derogatory to his character as a clergyman. He referred to the Rev. Father Conway, who requested him to state to the House that it was utterly untrue that he ever used any sort of curses, or any such expressions against those who voted for Colonel Higgins, from the altar, or anywhere else.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he rose to order, and to submit to Mr. Speaker whether, as they were not now discussing the Report of the Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled to enter into statements which appeared to be in contradiction to that Report. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to afford any explanation on the part of Mr. Conway, or any other person, he apprehended the proper time for making such statements would be when the Report of the Committee came regularly under discussion.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it certainly would not be regular for hon. Members to refer to a Report which was not at present before the House, and the contents of which could not therefore be accurately known.
  MR. MAGUIREwished to say, that on a future occasion he would be prepared to show that the Report of the Committee contradicted itself; and he would endeavour to prove that there were what he considered marked—and what some persons might call gross—omissions on the part of the Committee.
  MR. SPOONER MR. SPOONER rose to order.
  MR. MAGUIREresumed his seat.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do not issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Knight of the Shire to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Mayo, before Thursday next.
  Order for going into Committee of Supply, read.

COLONEL MUNDY'S PENSION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for War a question with regard to the retiring allowance of Colonel G. C. Mundy, late of the Department of the Minister for War.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that
  1574
  Colonel Mundy had been Secretary to the War Minister; but his office was abolished when a consolidation of the Departments of the Army was effected. It was considered, however, that as Colonel Mundy had held a permanent office under the Crown he was entitled to receive compensation; and a pension of £1,000 a year was awarded to him, on condition that if he received any appointment under the Crown, whether military or civil, and his emoluments from such office amounted to £1,000 a year or upwards, his pension should remain in abeyance; and also that if the emoluments amounted to less than £1,000, he should only receive so much of his pension as would make the whole amount which he drew from the public purse £1,000 a year. Colonel Mundy had recently been appointed Governor of Jersey, and, as the emoluments of that office amounted to more than £1,000 a year, of course he did not receive any portion of his pension.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he wished to know how long Colonel Mundy had served in the War Office?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDEN: Two years, I believe.

  THE MILITIA—QUESTION.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, an Order in Council appeared in the Gazette on Tuesday last suspending the calling out of the Militia during the present year. That Order is dated the 25th of June,—a date, as the House will recollect, previous to the arrival of the disastrous news from India. I wish to inquire of the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether the publication of that Order in Council, dated the 25th of June, but which appeared in the Gazette on the 14th of July, was a matter of inadvertence, or whether it was sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, that order was issued by no means inadvertently, but upon full consideration, and upon reasons which I think perfectly good. The greater part of the militia were assembled during the last two years of the war, and it was therefore deemed unnecessary to call them out for training this year with any view of maintaining the discipline of the regiments. It was thought they had received sufficient training to admit of their not being called oat daring the present year. Another very strong reason for not adopting that course arose from financial

  1575
  considerations. The House is aware that, "cutting our coat according to our cloth," Her Majesty's Government were compelled to make very great reductions in the effective service of the country for the purpose of bringing the expenditure of the year within its income. Before the unfortunate accounts arrived from India, it was therefore determined not to call out the militia during the present year. I presume the right hon. Gentleman means to ask whether the news from India ought not to have caused a change in our intention. I reply that there seems to be no reason why that intelligence should cause any change. If anything had happened in Europe which had threatened to involve this country in a war with any European Power, and which rendered it probable that we should have occasion to provide for the defence of the country, it might undoubtedly have been necessary to call out the militia, as a great number of our regular forces must be sent to a distant station; but as, fortunately, Europe appeared to be perfectly tranquil, and as there was no apprehension in any quarter that we were likely to be involved in any European dispute, unless the Government saw reason to change their minds from considerations arising out of the state of things in India, they did not think it desirable to call out the militia. The chief purpose to be answered by calling out the militia at present would be with the view to facilitate their volunteering into the line, but that would have been a most expensive method of raising any given number of troops. It would have been a wasteful expenditure of the public money, and would not have at all assisted the objects we have in view.

  THE ASSIZE CIRCUITS—QUESTION.
  MR. WARRENsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Commission for Inquiry into the arrangements for taking the assizes in England and Wales are likely to make their Report, and whether any proposed redistribution of the circuits will be effected by Act of Parliament. The House was aware that a Commission had lately been issued to inquire into the state of business in the Superior Courts of common law, and especially the distribution of the circuits. He had just returned from attending the Northern Circuit at York, and was able to speak from his own knowledge
  1576
  of the strong feeling of curiosity which existed among the members of the bar on that circuit, and, indeed, he might say of all persons interested in the welfare of the county of York, in reference to the proposed redistribution of the circuits. He knew, also, that a similar feeling prevailed in Lancashire. He had been told, for instance, that York was to be taken From the Northern Circuit and united to the Midland, or rather, he should say, that the Midland Circuit was to be united to York. He also understood that various other alterations were in contemplation, such as that Manchester was to have an assize of its own, and that Liverpool was to be transferred from the northern to some Welsh circuit. Seeing that at present the grand juries and the members of the bar belonging to the different circuits were collected together in the various assize towns, he hoped the Home Secretary would be able to give the House some authentic information as to the conclusions at which the Commission had arrived.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that not being himself a Member of the Commission to which his hon. and learned Friend had referred, he had communicated with one of the Members of it, and had been informed by him that the Commissioners were now considering their Report, and that they hoped to be able to present that Report at a very early period. He had no doubt that when that Report was presented he should receive Her Majesty's commands to lay it before Parliament, and he thought under those circumstances he was not at present justified in saying more on the subject.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, as he was a Member of the Commission in question, he might be permitted to state that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warren) had evidently received very erroneous information in reference to what was likely to be the nature of the Report of the Commission. The Commission had agreed to the substance of the Report, but it was not yet drawn up, and he was sure the House would not think it necessary or desirable on his part to enter into any details on the subject.

EAST INDIAN RAILWAYS.

  POSTPONEMENT OF RESOLUTION.
  MR. WATKIN, who had given notice of a Resolution on the subject of railways in India, said he did not wish to detain

  1577
  the House from the important question before them—although he was prepared to show that if proper energy had been displayed railways might have been long since completed to the scenes of the recent mutiny; and if they had been it would have been crushed at once. With the permission of the House he would postpone his Resolution.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

THE PERSIAN WAR.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. ROEBUCK: I wish, Sir, the Resolution I am now about to move had fallen into more able hands than mine; for it appears to me that never in the whole history of the House of Commons was a more important subject submitted to its consideration. Sir, we are now about to consider the conduct of an Administration with regard to the House of Commons, and I am prepared to say. Sir, that this conduct has been such that, if allowed to pass without comment, it will go far to jeopardize the authority of this House and to diminish its influence with the country, on the very matters which are peculiarly within its province. It may be said that the prerogative of the Crown is to declare war and to make peace. With that proposition, Sir, I entirely coincide; but I say that this House has a privilege with regard to that prerogative which it ought not to abandon. The Crown may declare war when it pleases, and if the Crown can carry on that war without application to the House of Commons it is perfectly justified in doing so; but the moment it comes to this House to ask us for money to enable it to maintain that war, then the whole war and everything connected with it become subjects of consideration for the House of Commons. It appears to me that this is peculiarly the mode by which the House of Commons has arrived at its present position, and if England is now distinguishable from the nations around her by one thing more than another it is by this very power of the House of Commons. To that power we owe our liberty, to that liberty we owe our laws, and to those laws we owe our happiness. If the House of Commons should ever be depreciated in the eyes of the country—if its power should ever be diminished,
  1578
  then, indeed, the power of the country will be diminished also; and the charge I bring against the noble Lord at the head of the Government is this—that he, being a so-called Liberal, has done that with regard to the House of Commons which no Minister has ever yet dared to do; that the two Pitts, in the plenitude of their power, did not dare to do what the noble Lord has done. And what is that? I will shortly describe what I conceive to have been the conduct of the noble Lord. He has laid upon the table of this House a book containing papers regarding our relations with Persia. Those papers begin as early as the year 1851, and the very first of those papers refers to the conduct of Persia with reference to Herat. In proceeding in the investigation of those papers we soon learn that the British Government supposed that the Persian Government had designs upon Herat which were inimical to English interests. From 1851 to 1857 negotiations were carried on with the Persian Government, but not until December, 1856, did the English Goverment think it requisite to take such steps with regard to the Government of Persia as should lead to war. In December, 1856, this House was not sitting, but in that month the Governor-General of India issued a proclamation equivalent to a declaration of war. No means were taken to call this House together, and things went on. War was declared against Persia, and then began a system which has led, as I believe, to the disasters we are now suffering in India. Our forces were taken from India and directed against Persia. I am told—I do not know how correctly—that the Government was warned on that occasion that denuding India of the forces of England would endanger the very existence of our Indian Empire. I must call to the recollection of the House and of the noble Lord the prophecies—if I may so call them—of the late Sir Charles Napier many years ago upon this matter. He pointed out to the Government of India, and through the Government of India to the Government of England, that there were causes which should alarm all farseeing Ministers with regard to the army of India, and he took such steps as he thought precautionary to prevent mischief arising on that occasion. Those steps incurred the displeasure of the then Governor General, Lord Dalhousie. Sir

  1579
  Charles Napier resigned, but his warning remained. Lord Dalhousie returned home, and Lord Canning went to India as his successor. I am told—I do not know how correctly—that the demands made on him for forces to be directed towards Persia raised in Lord Canning's mind such alarm that he communicated that alarm to the Government of this country; and not only did he do so, but I am told that the Commander in Chief in India did the same, so that the Government of this country was fully aware of the danger likely to arise if India were denuded of troops. Now, I appeal to this House, if there be a shadow of truth in that statement, whether this was not a very important matter. This House has certainly been called together on less important occasions; for let me say for this House, that the empire of India is in fact the empire of England; that we should not allow our empire in India to slip from our grasp without making every effort which a people can make to preserve it, because, if conquered in Asia, we are reduced to nothing in Europe. This, then, was a very vital question to the empire of England, and if the Commons of Parliament were ever to be called together in an extraordinary manner, that was an occasion when they ought to have been so called together. But the noble Lord at the head of the Government, having that confidence in himself which a long series of successes in life has enabled him to obtain, disregarded altogether the existence of Parliament, and determined, without consulting us, to wage war upon his own account. He therefore directed that troops should be sent from India to Persia. They were sent. War was undertaken. War was prosecuted. A battle was fought, and the Persians were so reduced that they thought of peace. Peace was concluded in March, 1857. In February, 1857, this House met, but no communication was made to this House. The noble Lord, still holding on in that course which has distinguished his career—fully confident in himself, and prepared to conduct this matter without the House of Commons—determined to and did conduct it to a peace without the House of Commons. And the first real intimation that we have had of these transactions is the Bill which is this night to be presented. What is that Bill? We learn for the first time that it amounts in the whole to £1,800,000.
  1580
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with that dexterity which belongs to all Chancellors of the Exchequer, began by assuming it at £500,000, but the last paper laid on the table of the House shows that our share of the Bill will be at least £900,000. But it does not stop there; £900,000 is only an instalment, and I believe it will be found that the expense of the war with Persia will amount to at least two millions of money. Now, I cannot help thinking that if ever the House of Commons had a right to complain it is upon this occasion. A war has been undertaken. A war has been prosecuted. Engagements have actually been taking place between our troops and those of Persia. Peace has been concluded, and all without consulting this House. And this very night the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets up and asks you, Sir, to leave the chair, in order that he may present the Bill to the House of Commons. I ask the House of Commons, did anything of that sort ever take place before? I recollect being in the House upon a solemn occasion. The war declared against Russia was declared in this House, and I shall not forget my own emotions, nor the appearance of the House on that occasion. When the person who officially made that declaration made it at the bar, the countenance of every hon. Member wore a solemn expression. They felt that England was entering into a contest which involved great interests, which might lead to disastrous consequences, and they felt that it was a solemn, and, if I may use the phrase, an awful occasion. But the war with Russia was not a more awful or more solemn event than the war with Persia. Persia, indeed, was an inferior power to Russia, but the consequences we now see. The mutiny at Delhi may be traced to denuding our Indian empire of forces on that occasion, and when Her Majesty's Government declared war and determined on that expedition to Persia, they undertook the risk of losing our Indian empire, and undermining for ever the power of England in Europe. I say that these two occasions are equally important, and if the war with Russia were important, and should be communicated to this House so was the war with Persia, considering events which followed it, and of which I say the Government had notice. I have no doubt the noble Lord, if he deigns to answer me, will say that all this is past,

  1581
  that the war with Persia has come to an end, that peace has been made, and that our relations with that country are upon the best possible footing. I am not going to enter into the question of our relations with Persia. That is not my cause of complaint. My complaint is, that the House of Commons, upon this occasion, has been entirely passed over; that the House of Commons, exercising the privilege of providing for the expenses of an expedition, has an undoubted right to inquire into the principles upon which the expedition is undertaken and the expenses are incurred. I say that a more contemptuous course than this was never pursued towards the House of Commons. We are now called upon in the coolest manner possible to supply nearly a million of money. The House is called upon, on the ipse dixit of the noble Lord, to furnish sums, and no explanation is offered of the expenses incurred. I say, if the House of Commons is prepared to undergo this insult—for insult it is—we had better shut that door and go back to our constituents. I know the power of the noble Lord. I know that he has—God knows how!—obtained in the country a wonderful dominion. Why the people concede to him that dominion I cannot for the life of me imagine, but I fully acknowledge that he is allowed to do things which others dare not do. Fancying I have a duty to perform, I will, however, raise my voice, feeble as that voice is, and call upon my countrymen to point their finger at the conduct of the noble Lord. I point my finger at the conduct of the noble Lord, and I say no conduct since the House of Commons has been a House of Commons was ever so insulting as that which the noble Lord has pursued on this occasion. When Charles I. came down to the House in order to seize five of its Members, he certainly did commit a breach of its privileges. Since I that time many changes have been gone through in our constitution, but the great result of all the revolutions connected with this House has been, that no course of conduct can be pursued by the Government over which we have not an immediate control through the finances of the country. I am not at all surprised at the conduct of the noble Lord. It is the result of the great confidence which he has in himself, but I think late events ought to have served as a warning to him. I regard the state of India at the present moment as one of the most striking evidences of the
  1582
  mistakes of the noble Lord. Events are occurring there which involve the interests of England. If we lose our empire in India—and we may lose it—[Cries of "No, no!"]—I understand that exclamation, it is a thoroughly English "No!" No man can join in the feeling which dictates it more heartily than I do. You believe yourselves able to meet even this great emergency, but you will not deny that it is a great emergency. I have that confidence in my countrymen—in their indomitable spirit—that I have no doubt, in spite of the error—I use a mild word—of the noble Lord, they will overcome the present difficulty. Nevertheless, I say the noble Lord has made a great mistake. I may even use a stronger word. India is now the opprobrium of the noble Lord's administration. He has reduced India to its present position, and we must not forget that if we lose India we lose the world. My charge against the noble Lord, therefore, is not a small one. First, I say that he has insulted the House of Commons—that he has pursued the course of utterly passing it by—that he has declared war, undertaken an expedition, and made peace without asking your approval or consulting your wishes. He has acted as if you were not in existence. The House of Commons is, in the opinion of the noble Lord, an utter cipher. Such is the first charge I bring against the noble Lord. The next is, that he has chosen an occasion for thus treating the House of Commons the most dangerous to England that has occurred since the Declaration of Independence by America. By a want of care, by a want of foresight, by that sort of rashness that constant success engenders, he has denuded India of her defences, and thus led to all the dangerous consequences that have occurred. Far be it from me to take up the time of the House by unnecessary observations. I move the Resolution which I have placed upon the paper with a full knowledge of its importance, with a full knowledge, too, of the vituperation and sarcasm to which I may subject myself; but, having before my eyes my duty as a representative of the people, I say that upon this question of the Persian war the noble Lord has been an enemy of the House of Commons and of England. I shall therefore conclude by moving, as an Amendment—
  "That the war with Persia was declared, prosecuted, and concluded without information of Such transactions being communicated to Parliament;

  1583
  while expensive armaments were equipped without the sanction of a vote of this House.
  "That it is the opinion of this House that such conduct tends to weaken its just authority, and to dispense with its constitutional control over the finances of the country, and renders it requisite for this House to express its strong reprobation of such a course of proceeding."
  MR. AYRTONseconded the Resolution.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
  "The War with Persia was declared, prosecuted, and concluded without information of such transactions being communicated to Parliament; while expensive armaments were equipped without the sanction of a vote of this House," instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman has, with one remarkable exception, been confined strictly within the limits of the notice which he has placed upon the paper. His Motion refers simply to the mode in which the war with Persia has been conducted—to the course of conduct pursued by the Government, and not to the merits of the war itself. In the course of his speech, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman has introduced a question to which I shall presently advert, founded upon the alleged connection of the Persian war with the late disastrous transactions in India—a connection which would not have occurred to him if the Motion had not been so long postponed. I shall begin by stating, that having come to the House prepared to hear the policy and justice of the war questioned—prepared to defend the policy and justice of the war—prepared, if necessary, to state in detail the grounds upon which hostilities were undertaken against Persia, I do not think I should be justified now in going into that part of the question, inasmuch as the hon. and learned Gentleman not only has not questioned the policy of the war, but by his silence has appeared to approve it. [Mr. ROEBUCK: No, no!] Well, Sir, all the papers relating to the Persian war have been for some time upon the table of the House, and full opportunity has been given to hon. Members to found a Motion upon them. It was not necessary to wait until a vote was proposed in Committee of Supply before calling upon the House for the expression of its opinion on the subject. Without, therefore, going at length into the policy of the war, I shall, with the permission
  1584
  of the House—as the hon. and learned Gentleman states that he did not by his silence admit the justice of the war—shortly state the grounds upon which it was undertaken. It is well known to those who have followed the transactions in Central Asia for some years past, that it has been recognized as a cardinal point in our Asiatic policy, that the town of Herat should not fall into the power of Persia. That question excited great interest at the time when the affairs of Central Asia occupied so large a share of the attention of the people of England; when events scarcely less disastrous than those which now occupy our attention were about to occur in Afghanistan. At that time it was recognized as a matter of national policy, about which all political parties were agreed, that it would not be safe with reference to our Indian Empire to allow Herat to fall into the hands of Persia. It is unnecessary for me to remind the House that Persia is a weak power—that it borders upon the great military monarchy of Russia, which overshadows all Northern and Central Asia—and that the territorial position of the two countries necessarily places Persia in a state of semi-dependence upon Russia. In fact, it is no disparagement of the weakened monarchy of Persia to say, that it is a vassal kingdom of Russia.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAM: What! Persia a vassal of Russia! Do you really mean to assert that as a fact?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Well, I shall not insist upon the word, but the power of Russia is so preponderating in central Asia that Persia is necessarily guided in its foreign relations by the influence of its mighty neighbour. We have lately been engaged in a great conflict with the Russian empire. Unhappily, that conflict led to a fearful struggle, but most happily that conflict has now been terminated, and it is far from my wish to say anything which might revive asperities that have passed away, or which might even seem to indicate an unreasonable jealousy of the influence and power of Russia. Still, it is necessary for us to bear in mind that, as far as regards Central Asia, England and Russia have not coincident but to a considerable extent rival interests, and that it is as much as ever important that we should maintain the cardinal point of our Asiatic policy—namely, the independence of the territory intervening between Persia and our Indian boundary. It

  1585
  was on that account that, acting upon a principle recognized in 1838, when the siege of Herat took place, acting upon the principle which led to the naval expedition that occupied the island of Karrack, on the coast of Persia—an expedition which may be regarded as the forerunner and type of the recent war—acting upon the principle subsequently recognized by Lord Malmesbury when he broke off diplomatic relations with the Persian Minister in this country, on account of the threatened occupation of Herat, and, acting upon the principle embodied in the engagements entered into between Colonel Shiel and the Persian Government, Her Majesty's Government, when they saw that the independence of Herat was threatened, called upon the Persian Government to give an explanation of that movement, and either to withdraw their troops or to incur the perils of war. Such was the main ground upon which the war with Persia was undertaken. Undoubtedly, there had been during the war with Russia certain differences of opinion between our Minister and the Persian Government, which may have produced feelings of bitterness between the two countries; but these differences, to which I need not now allude in detail, could not of themselves have given rise to hostilities, though they might at the time have led to a continued suspension of diplomatic intercourse. Those were the grounds upon which the war was commenced. Now, Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman says that, without disputing the policy of the war, into which question he would not enter, the course which was pursued was unprecedented, that it was an insult to Parliament, and that no Government before had ever entered upon a war without first calling Parliament together. [Mr. ROEBUCK: No, no!] I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that no previous Government had entered upon a war without first giving notice to Parliament, or, at least, not without giving such notice as soon as circumstances permitted. The hon. and learned Gentleman says we violated the majesty of Parliament by applying the public money for the conduct of a war without obtaining the consent of Parliament to such a course. Let us consider how far precedent and practice justify those statements. If we look back to the case which furnishes the closest comparison with the recent expedition—I refer to the occupation of Karrack and Bushire in 1838—we shall find that no such communication
  1586
  as the hon. and learned Gentleman desires was made to Parliament. I have looked carefully through the printed correspondence of that period, and I am scarcely able to find, even in the declaration of the Governor General, any distinct allusion to that transaction. Lord Auckland made a declaration respecting the war in Afghanistan, which was afterwards adverted to in the King's Speech to Parliament, but no special communication was made upon the subject, nor was Parliament assembled at any unusual period upon that account. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not impugn the right of the Crown in declaring war; indeed, I believe we are all agreed that there is no doubt as to the prerogative of the Crown in that respect. Supposing, then, that the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman censures the Government for not adopting had been adopted, what object would have been gained by a mere communication to Parliament of the fact of the expedition having been sent? Parliament was not called upon then to vote any money on that account. The cost of the expedition was, in the first instance, defrayed from the Indian treasury, and the only effect of following the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion would have been, that Her Majesty would have informed Parliament of the expedition a few months earlier; in fact, in December, instead of in February. Beyond that, nothing could practically have been done by the Government. The declaration of the Indian Government was, I believe, made public at the time, and therefore was known in this country. The hon. and learned Gentleman compares this war with the war against Russia, the announcement of which, he says—and most justly says—was received with awe by this House; but not only morally is there a vast difference between a war with a great empire like Russia, and one with an Oriental monarchy like Persia, but also constitutionally is there a difference. The funds for carrying on the war with Russia were to be supplied in the first instance by this House, whereas in the other case the cost in the first instance, and to a great extent ultimately also, came from the Indian treasury. I presume there is no doubt of the power of the Governor General of India to declare war without making any communication to Parliament. There is no doubt that Lord Wellesley's wars and numerous others were begun, continued, and ended in India without any communication to this House. In

  1587
  the case of the late war with Persia, there was a distinct mention of it in the speech of Her Majesty at the commencement of the last Session, and the fact of the conclusion of a treaty was announced through the same channel. I am therefore unable to see upon what constitutional grounds the hon. and learned Gentleman founds his censure. Practically, it was open to Parliament to have taken cognizance of those transactions at an earlier period. They were informed of the expedition by Her Majesty at the beginning of last Session, and it was competent at that time for the House to have addressed the Queen, praying her to communicate further information upon the subject; but no such Address was carried to the foot of the throne, nor was any Motion for such an Address made in this House. I am really at a loss, therefore, to understand how the hon. and learned Gentleman, looking at precedent on the constitutional bearing of the ease, can maintain that any irregularity has been committed, or that the slightest disrespect to Parliament has been evinced. What is still more, I am convinced he cannot show that the least inconvenience has been caused, or any check that might have been imposed upon the Government has been prevented by the course that has been pursued, or that any opportunity for criticism or condemnation could have been offered beyond those opportunities which have existed since February. Having made these remarks upon so much of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech as refers directly to the subject of his Motion, I will now pass to that portion of it in which he attempts to connect the late disasters in India with the Persian expedition. In the first place he said, as a matter of fact, that the withdrawal of regiments from India had been remonstrated against by the Indian Government, and that the Government of Her Majesty at home had been warned against that step as weakening the defence of India. I confess, Sir, I am totally ignorant to what the hon. and learned Gentleman alludes; whether he refers to any papers upon the table of this House or to something within his own cognizance. I do not know; he has quoted no authority for his statement, and I can only say that I am ignorant of any such warning, and do not believe that any communication of the kind was made by the Indian Government last autumn, when the expedition was ordered to be got ready, nor
  1588
  that any remonstrance was, in short, ever made. That being the case, is it a fact that there is any connection between the mutiny at Delhi and the withdrawal of regiments from the Bombay Presidency? There is nothing better established in the accounts which have reached us than that the mutinous spirit has been confined to the Bengal army, and that whatever the causes—at present imperfectly explained—they appear to be peculiar to the army of Bengal and the north-western provinces. That bad spirit seems to spring from some sudden impulse affecting the feelings and sentiments of the native soldiery: but, whatever the causes may be, they do not appear to be common to the troops of the presidencies of Bombay and Madras. The House will remember that the regiments draughted for service upon the Persian expedition were taken from the Bombay army, and not from the Bengal army. Now, if instead of arguing, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has done, upon hypothetical grounds to prove the connection between the mutiny in the Bengal army and the expedition to Persia, we argue upon more general grounds, surely it would have been natural to expect, if there were such connection between the two events, that the mutinous spirit would have shown itself in the army which was weakened by the withdrawal of a portion of its regiments from India. But, so far from that being the case, there has not been, so far as we know, any symptom of any outbreak in the Bombay presidency or its neighbourhood. That circumstance alone must be considered as raising a strong presumption against the theory of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it was the mere abstraction of a few regiments which caused the present danger. There were some native regiments sent to Persia in company with two or three European regiments. Did those native regiments exhibit any spirit hostile to the interests or the authority of England? Surely upon landing in a foreign country, in the face of an enemy, had they desired to weaken the power of England, then was the opportunity for manifesting a hostile spirit; but so far from that, they behaved with as much readiness and bravery as the other troops engaged upon that service. The European regiments by this time have returned to India; and there does not appear from the accounts we have received the smallest ground for supposing that the native regiments in Persia hare any connection,

  1589
  or even any sympathy with the mutiny at Delhi. The outbreak of disaffection in Bengal, as far as we can at present judge, has its origin in religious feelings of wounded superstition, and quite unconnected with any political calculations of weakening the British power during the absence of a portion of its forces. I think, therefore, that the House will not be willing to yield assent to the connection which the hon. and learned Gentleman has assumed to exist between the Persian expedition and the mutiny at Delhi and other portions of the north-western provinces of India. If this Motion had been made when the papers were first laid on the table, it is scarcely necessary to say that no such idea could have entered into the head of any hon. Member of this House, inasmuch as they were wholly unprepared for any such result as that which has taken place. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman says we were warned against the issue of this expedition, I feel confident that no person, two months ago, really expected that any such consequence would have been produced. But the hon. and learned Gentleman does not stop there. He attempts to augur the worst consequences from the late events in India, and he holds the Government responsible for what he seems to contemplate as a not improbable result—the destruction of our Indian Empire. [Mr. ROEBUCK: No, no!] Certainly my ears must have deceived me if he did not hold out to the House as a not improbable hypothesis, the ruin of British dominion in India. I rejoice, however, to find that I mistook the hon. and learned Member, and that he repudiates any such gloomy anticipation. I am sure, also, the House at large will concur in repudiating the contemplation of any such event as probable. However much we may lament the disastrous intelligence lately received from the East, we cannot have failed to observe that the mutinous spirit has been confined to the army—that the population at large has not joined the mutinous soldiery—and that a rising of this kind which stops short in its commencement, and does not spread like a conflagration, may be regarded as having already failed. I confess, therefore, judging as far as one's limited means of judgment permit, from the imperfect accounts which the last two posts have conveyed, that I cannot consent to place the continuance and the permanence of our Indian Empire on a hypothesis. I look forward to that permanence
  1590
  with confidence. Nor can I in any way admit the justice of the censures of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or allow that the recent events in Northern India have been in any material or perceptible degree precipitated by the expedition to the Persian Gulf, and the consequent withdrawal, for only a short period of a year, of a few regiments from the Bombay Presidency. I cannot consent that he should connect these two events; and, denying the probability of his anticipations—narrowing, as I think we are justified in doing, the probable evil in the North of India—admitting, nevertheless, those evils to be of the gravest character, and to portend a future in India which will deserve the most anxious vigilance and attention of Parliament—I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government is in any manner responsible for those events, or that even the ingenuity of the hon. and learned Member will succeed in convincing this House or the public that that the expedition to the Gulf of Persia contributed in any sensible degree to the recent outbreak in India.
  MR. NISBETsaid, that having held an important civil appointment in India for many years, he might be allowed to state his opinion of the causes which had led to the present outbreak. He was in India in 1824, when the 47th Regiment of Native Infantry mutinied at Barrackpore, only fourteen miles from Calcutta, where there then were two European regiments and a corps of artillery. That regiment refused, in the presence of European troops, to ground its arms, and it did not obey until it was fired upon. A considerable number of the men were killed, and the regiment was struck out of the Native army. He was, therefore, inclined to attribute the present mutiny not so much to the absence of an European force as to the particular class of soldiers who composed the Native army—he meant the men of high caste. During the Burmese war he had held the principal civil situation on the frontier of Assam, when a body of at least 10,000 Native troops passed through under his superintendence, and hardly a single regiment could be induced to march without giving the greatest trouble. Unfortunately, the Government had been too indulgent to the Sepoys of high caste, who declared that they were soldiers, and had not enlisted to go on board ship. The Government humoured them in this respect, and tried to send them by land; yet that did not satisfy

  1591
  them. These men said that their business was to fight, not to work; and it was not easy to bring them to a state of due subordination. Another great cause of this mutinous spirit was the extreme paucity of European officers in the native regiments. At present, officers were employed all over the country upon civil services, and too much of the work of Government rested upon them. Although it was true that they were recalled to their regiments in time of war, yet this practice was most injurious; as the direct consequence of their absence was, that the soldiers did not know their officers, nor the officers their soldiers. He had, however, known regiments go into action with only six officers, most of whom were mere boys. The fact that this insurrection broke out at Meerut, where there were European troops at the time, showed that the presence of a European force was not sufficient of itself to prevent the recurrence of mutiny. The system of withdrawing officers from their regiments and appointing them to civil situations ought to be abolished. A regiment of Sepoys required as many and even more officers than a Queen's regiment, and true wisdom would dictate the diminution of the Native army by one-half and the doubling the number of Europeans.
  MR. BAILLIEsaid, he would express a hope that the question before the House would not be converted into an Indian debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made an able defence of the policy of the Government in reference to the Persian war; and that defence had proved all the more effective because it so happened that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had never once attacked that policy. The subject under consideration might be divided into three parts:—First, there was the constitutional question whether any Minister was justified in spending the public money without the cognizance or consent of Parliament? The second question related to the object of the Persian war, and to whether that object had been attained. The third question involved our past policy with respect to Persia, and what ought to be our policy for the future. With regard to the first point, no one could doubt for a moment that the public money bad in this case been spent without the consent or the cognizance of Parliament. It would be in the recollection of the House that in the month of February last he had put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the President
  1592
  of the Board of Control—namely, whether it was true that the order for the expedition to the Persian Gulf was issued in the course of the July preceding, at a time when Parliament was sitting, and without any communication being made to Parliament on the subject. The answer was, that provisional orders were sent out to Bombay in July last, but the order for the expedition to sail was not sent out till September. Now, he found that those provisional orders, as they were called, were given by Lord Clarendon on the 19th of July, 1856, and that they were to this effect:—
  "Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that he Shah has clearly shown that he is determined to persevere in the policy on which he has rashly entered as regards Herat; and as the success of that policy would be opposed to the interests of Great Britain, it appears necessary to lose no time in providing means for compelling the Shah, by coercive measures, to desist from his present schemes of aggrandizement. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, consider that instructions should at once be sent to the Governor General of India to collect at Bombay an adequate force of all arms, and provided with the necessary means of transport, for occupying the Island of Karrack and the city and district of Bushire; and to hold such force in readiness to depart from Bombay at the shortest notice. But the Governor General should be informed that the expedition is not actually to set out until the receipt of further orders from Her Majesty's Government."
  Those orders, then, involved the expenditure of a large sum of money; they comprised the hiring of transports, the purchase of stores and provisions, the embarkation of those stores, and the withdrawal of troops from Bombay; and there was no reason why the House of Commons should not have been informed of it, because the House was sitting at the time. The Minister might have said that the Government found it necessary to make a demonstration against Persia, and he might have explained the measures which he was about to adopt. It had been said by an hon. Member that the idea of the House of Commons being the guardian of the public purse was all moonshine, and he (Mr. Baillie) was really inclined to think that, according to the practice of modern times, it was so; but certainly that was not the opinion of the constituent body, who sent their Representatives to that House to look after their interests, who regarded them as the protectors of the public purse, and who no doubt would think that they merited censure if they failed in their duty in that respect. It might be asked what

  1593
  was the utility of bringing forward Motions of this sort when the noble Lord at the head of the Government had such a majority to support him. He (Mr. Baillie) knew perfectly well that the noble Lord was very powerful in that House. He did not know, however, that the support, which the noble Lord received, was of so servile a nature as to enable him to dispense with all the forms of Parliament and of the constitution. If it were so, all that he could say was, that he would rather live under an acknowledged despotism—such, for example, as that which existed in France or Russia—than under such a system; for there the chiefs who were acknowledged to be supreme acted at least under a deep sense of responsibility, whereas the noble Lord, who was practically supreme in this country, contrived, while following the bent of his own inclinations, to throw all the responsibility of his acts upon the Parliament which supported him. But he did not wish to dwell longer upon this subject; he had rather leave it in the far abler hands of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring). The House would remember that a few days ago that right hon. Gentleman called to task the First Commissioner of Works because he had ventured to appropriate the sum of £11,000 without the consent of Parliament to effecting what every one must admit to be a great benefit to the citizens of London. He could not doubt, therefore, that upon this occasion the right hon. Baronet, with his accustomed eloquence, and the weight of his long official experience, would denounce an act which he (Mr. Baillie) was certain that he must regard as most unconstitutional. He came now to the second question—namely, what was the object of the Persian war, and had that object been attained? They had often been told in that House that the object of the war was to compel the Persians to evacuate the city of Herat; but since the papers had been laid upon the table by command of Her Majesty he found that that was not the sole object of the war, and that there were many other demands made upon the Persian Government. He would state to the House what the real demands were. It seemed that in the autumn of last year, Ferukh Khan, the Ambassador of Persia, was on his way to Paris. He stopped at Constantinople, and there entered into communication with Lord Stratford
  1594
  de Redcliffe. His overtures were received in the first instance with some haughtiness, but ultimately he induced Lord Stratford to tell him what were the demands made upon Persia by the British Government. Those demands were embodied in the following declaration which Ferukh Khan was to sign:—

  "1. Persia engages immediately to withdraw all the Persian troops from Herat and its territory, and to pay compensation for all damages done by them therein.

  "2. Persia shall enter into a formal treaty with England, by which Persia will renounce all pretensions of any kind to interfere in the affairs of Herat, or of any portion of Afghanistan; will engage not to receive at any time overtures to interfere in their internal affairs; will recognize their absolute independence; and will agree to refer to British mediation any differences which. Persia may hereafter have with them.

  "3. Persia shall negotiate and conclude a new treaty of commerce with England, by which all questions which have hitherto given rise to discussion between the two Governments shall be settled, and the right be conceded to England of appointing consuls in any part of Persia.

  "4. All debts due to British subjects shall forthwith be paid, and an understanding come to on disputed claims.

  "5. Persia shall make an arrangement respecting Bender Abbas, satisfactory to the Imaum of Muscat, the friend of England.

  "6. His Majesty the Shah, in consideration of the part taken by the Sadr Azim in the late differences between the two countries, shall dismiss him, and replace him by a Minister more likely to maintain a good understanding between England and Persia."

  Those were the terms demanded at Constantinople before the war began, and to ever one of those conditions Ferukh Khan consented, with the exception of the one which demanded the dismissal of the Sadr Azim, or Prime Minister; and he said that it was impossible for him to agree to that, because the actions of that Minister had been in accordance with the directions of the Shah, and it was impossible for the Shah to dismiss a Minister for obeying his orders. To everything else, however, Ferukh Khan agreed. But it seemed that Lord Stratford was bound by his orders—he could not dispense with the dismissal of the Persian Prime Minister, and on the 12th of December, 1856, he wrote to Lord Clarendon—
  "All my endeavours to prevail on Ferukh Khan to redeem his pledges have failed. Before sending to Tehran by express, and consenting to stay for the reply, he requires a promise that no expedition shall meanwhile land in Persia, and that nothing shall be added to the present ultimatum, not even a demand of indemnity. I undertook if he would do without more hesitation whatever he had offered or accepted, to submit the conditions of his

  1595
  stay to your Lordship by telegraph. He now insists on my writing home first, and I send him word that I have nothing to add. The terms of the ultimatum continue to tie me down. The Sadr Azim's dismissal is a great obstacle."
  Four days after that was written, but, of course, before it had been received, there was a despatch from Lord Clarendon, dated December the 16th, which put the matter beyond doubt. It ran thus:
  "Nothing will be added to the present ultimatum, provided that its conditions are complied with, but delay will give rise to more stringent demands. The Ambassador's request that our expedition to Persia may be delayed cannot be listened to. We must insist upon the dismissal of the Sadr Azim."
  It was quite manifest, therefore, that the war had been undertaken for the dismissal of that Minister, because every other term was agreed to, and not for the evacuation of the city of Herat. The negotiations were then broken off, and the Persian Ambassador, after stating that he withdrew all his concessions, proceeded to Paris; but in the meantime the war was begun, the expedition was sent out; it arrived in the Persian Gulf; success followed its operations, Bushire was captured, and those events took place with which they were all familiar. Arrived in Paris, Ferukh Khan entered into communication with Lord Cowley, and negotiations were again commenced; but Ferukh Khan made none of the concessions at Paris which he had offered at Constantinople. The war having been begun, and we having been, as we had been told, successful, were yet obliged to give up every one of those conditions which had been offered to us at Constantinople—at least, all those which were offensive to Persia. We gave up, for example, all compensation to the people of Herat; we abandoned the question of the dismissal of the Prime Minister; we gave up our friend the Imaum of Muscat; and, after a great sacrifice of money in the Persian expedition, and after the loss of many valuable lives, we ended by obtaining much worse terms than we could have had before the war was undertaken. That was the way in which this successful Persian war was brought to a conclusion. Now, he would read what Lord Cowley stated with respect to the negotiation which took place in Paris. He said,—
  "The undersigned comprehends from the note of His Excellency Ferukh Khan, coupled with the verbal explanations which the undersigned has had the honour to receive from his Excellency, that the King of Persia makes it a personal request of the British Government that the first
  1596
  of these conditions should not be insisted upon; that with regard to the second his Excellency has learnt, that since the engagement which he contracted at Constantinople considerable sums of money had already been sent by the King of Persia to Herat, and that consequently more profit than loss has accrued to the inhabitants of that town from its occupation by Persian troops, and he hopes, therefore, that he may be released from the promises which he made on this point at Constantinople. With respect to the mediation of Great Britain in the matter of Bender Abbas, his Excellency Ferukh Khan observes that the question is already satisfactorily settled between the parties interested, and that consequently no mediation is necessary. The undersigned cannot but regret that his Excellency Ferukh Khan should not have repeated in writing that which he has so often given the undersigned to understand while conversing on these matters, namely, that if these conditions were persisted in by Her Majesty's Government, and agreed to by the Persian Government, the King of Persia's dignity and independence would be greatly compromised in the eyes of his subjects, because it is for this reason that Her Majesty's Government have determined on desisting from them, being most unwilling, by insisting on obnoxious stipulations, not absolutely necessary to the attainment of peace, to do aught that would either influence the sentiments of the Persians towards their sovereign or injure the power and welfare of the Persian dominions. It is the desire, as it is the policy, of Her Majesty's Government that Persia should be strong, prosperous, and independent, and they cannot give a greater proof of their sincerity in this respect than by the moderation of their demands while in possession of a valuable portion of the Persian territory. The undersigned has, then, the pleasure to inform his Excellency Ferukh Khan, that Her Majesty's Government will not insist on his acceptance of the three conditions to which his Excellency's note refers."
  It appeared to him that if those stipulations were not just and reasonable they ought not to have been proposed, but having been proposed, and war having been declared because they were not complied with, it was contrary to the character and honour of this country to accept, under the circumstances which occurred, less favourable terms. So much for the second part of the case as regarded the object of the Persian war, and the way in which it had been attained. Now he would go to the third part of the question—namely, the past conduct and policy of this country with respect to Persia, and what ought to be the policy of this country towards her for the future. It was impossible to reflect on the past conduct of the country with respect to Persia without some degree of humiliation. It was very well known that previously to the last Persian war with Russia, England was on terms of the greatest friendship and alliance with. Persia.

  1597
  Previously to that war England had made a treaty with Persia, by which she bound herself specifically to defend Persia, if Persia should be attacked by Russia. Well, the day of trial arrived during the Administration of the Duke of Wellington. Russia declared war against Persia, and invaded the Persian territory. Of course, she found some pretence for war, the wolf was never without that; but England stood tamely by, and allowed Russia to deprive Persia of her fairest provinces without lifting a hand in the defence of Persia, or raising even a remonstrance. How could any one be surprised that Persia, under such circumstances, lost all confidence in England, and threw herself into the hands of a Power which she was totally unable to resist? That was the natural consequence of the conduct of England on that occasion. Since then there had been more or less of estrangement between this country and Persia, and that estrangement had been increased by the bungling diplomacy of this country. England thought it necessary to take part in all the quarrels of the Affghans and Persians on their frontier. For years those countries had always had disputes of the kind, and whenever Persia attempted to resist the insults of the Affghans, by marching to the city of Herat, England interfered, and said that if the Persians went there she would be prepared to declare war against them. This state of things had been going on for some fifteen or twenty years. The importance attached by the British Government to the city of Herat arose, he imagined, from a supposition that it might some day or other be made the base of Russian operations against India. Therefore the great object of England was to prevent Herat falling into the hands of Russia; but then the question arose, was the course taken by England the best to attain that object? Three courses were open. England might have given Herat to the Persians or to the Affghans, or have given it, as she had done, into the hands of an independent prince. Let the House consider the expediency of the three propositions. England had said that Herat should be put into the hands of an independent prince, together with a small territory around it. Well, suppose that accomplished, and suppose an immense Russian army, well equipped and capable of invading India, had, with the aid and assistance of the Persians, marched through the Persian territory and
  1598
  arrived at Herat. Did any one believe that the independent prince of Herat could resist such an army? Then, where was the great object in quarrelling with the Persians and Affghans in order that this petty prince might be placed in that city? That was the question as it now stood, and now let the House consider the case of Herat being given to the Affghans. He thought that in discussing this question they might fairly assume that both the Affghans and Persians, being semi-barbarous people, were not likely to maintain either treaties or friendly relations with this country for a moment longer than their interest or inclination dictated. If Herat were given to the Affghans, would it be the inclination or interest of the Affghans, in the event of Russia invading India, to take part with the British? He would show that it would be both their interest and inclination to take part with the Russians. It was known that they entertained the most vindictive feelings towards the British, who had laid waste their country, burnt their territory, and destroyed their crops. This, as naturally might be expected, was exemplified in the last Punjab war; when our general appeared in some difficulty about the time of the battle of Chillianwallah, the army of the Affghans descended from the mountains and joined their hereditary enemies, the Sikhs, against the British; and when Dost Mahomed was accused of treachery, he declared that it was no fault of his, but a spontaneous act on the part of the people, which he was unable to prevent. He believed that Dost Mahomed stated no more than the truth; and so much for the inclination of the Affghans towards England. Now, let the House consider what would be their interest. The British held at the present time the Affghan city and fortress of Peshawur, with a certain territory, which they were incessantly demanding to be restored to them. In case, then, of a Russian invasion of India, the first thing the Russians would do would be to promise the restoration of Peshawur to the Affghans; and therefore it would be the interest of the Affghans to side with the Russians. Consequently it would not be advisable to give Herat to the Affghans. Now, the Persians were the only people in the world mainly interested in the maintenance of the British power in India. It was only by the existence of that that the Persian Empire could be maintained for six months, for Russia might march and

  1599
  take possession of it without any European Power being able to prevent that catastrophe. The Persians, therefore, were the people to whom naturally the British should have given Herat, and he believed that the inhabitants of Herat would much rather be under Persian than Affghan rule, for many of them were Persians, the city having formerly been Persian. If that course were pursued, the Persians would be found to continue on the most friendly terms with England, and if at any time the Russians should be anxious to invade India, they could only accomplish the object by marching through one of the most barren and difficult countries on the face of the earth. Concurring, therefore, neither in the policy which had led to the war, nor in the manner in which it had been concluded, and conceiving also that Her Majesty's Government had not acted towards the House in a manner accordant with the spirit of the constitution, he should support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, though he very much regretted to be obliged in truth to support any Motion likely to embarrass the Government at the present time.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he did not think the present a proper time to throw any difficulty in the way of the Government, when a great portion of the Indian empire was in arms against the British. He felt that the Government ought to have every aid afforded them, so that their hands might be strengthened at a time when the prestige of their power was shaken in the East. Therefore he could not concur in a Resolution condemning the Government, though, at the same time, he could not think it a right course that a war should be begun and finished without the House being allowed an opportunity of expressing its opinion. He was one of those who altogether entertained objections to diplomatic relations with semi-barbarous people, for he thought such relations never tended to the interest or honour of the country. As a representative of one of the great commercial cities of this country, he condemned the war in toto, because he thought it was not based upon a just cause, that it could not serve any good purpose, and that it involved a waste of England's blood and treasure. He could not see how the interference of this country could be justified, even on the ostensible ground of securing the frontiers of India from foreign invasion. Previously to 1814 France, and since that period Russia, had been the
  1600
  objects of our fear. He thought our mission to Teheran had been proved by history to be a mistake, diplomatically and financially, and that the danger against which it was intended to guard was extremely chimerical. In the reign of James I. a Persian ambassador presented his credentials for the first time at the British Court, but he was followed by a second Minister, who declared the credentials of his predecessor forgeries, and kicked him down stairs. The diplomatic intercourse between the two countries then ceased for a century and a half, and was renewed by Lord Wellesley, who seemed to fear that French intrigues were carried on at Teheran, and that Napoleon might lead an army against our Indian frontier. A mission was sent to Teheran, which succeeded in inducing the Persian Government to issue a proclamation forbidding all Frenchmen from entering Persia on pain of death. In 1808, another mission was sent to the Persian Court, and from that time until 1814, Sir John Malcolm and Sir Harford Jones were engaged in arranging the preliminaries of a treaty with the Shah. The treaty now in force was eventually concluded. Sir Harford Jones was a somewhat choleric gentleman, and was accustomed from his age, and from his experience at the Court of the Shah, to indulge in a freedom, both of language and action, which was not usual in civilized society, and especially in diplomatic intercourse. After the treaty had been ratified, the Vizier said something that offended Sir Harford Jones, who, to use his own words, "punched the Vizier's head against the wall," kicked out the candle which was on the floor, seized the treaty, sprang upon his horse, and galloped off before any one could stop him. By the ninth article of that treaty it was provided that in the case of a war between Persia and Afghanistan, the British Government should not interfere unless requested to do so by both the belligerent States. Something had been said of a convention which had abrogated that treaty, but the Shah—one of the contracting parties—declared that such convention was never signed; and he (Viscount Bury) thought, therefore, they must conclude that the treaty of 1814 was still in force, and that England had no business to prevent Persia from going to Herat. Without, however, pretending to unravel the knot into which this question had been worked, he would shortly call the attention of the House to the

  1601
  possibility of an invasion of India from that quarter, upon which question alone the importance of Herat was rested. He had always thought the fear entertained of such an invasion chimerical. Russia was the power from which, since 1814, encroachments had been apprehended; but the ability of Russia to invade India was easily tested. Some years ago, a picked army of 20,000 Russian troops, under General Petrovski, attempted to march to Khiva, but they encountered the Turcomans, and were compelled to retire into the mountains near the Caspian Sea, with a loss of nearly a third of the invading force. The Russian people were very indignant at this repulse, and the subject was referred by the Czar to the late Duke of Wellington, who said General Petrovski could not have done otherwise than retire, and that by sacrificing one-third of the army he had saved the remainder. On the western side of the Caspian, the Russians had been engaged for fifty years with the mountaineers of the Caucasus, but had never been able to reduce them to submission. Now, the distance from the shores of the Caspian Sea—of which Russia had full command—to the nearest point of our Indian empire was at least 1500 miles, the greater part of the intervening country consisting of an arid desert, where neither provisions, water, nor fuel could be obtained, and it would be utterly impossible to convey artillery through the rocky mountain passes. But, supposing the Russian forces to have an ample supply of food, fodder, water, and fuel, and roads upon which artillery and ammunition could be moved, it was not likely that they would progress more rapidly than our Indian army; and when General Harris marched upon Seringapatam over 137 miles of country, chiefly British territory, under favourable circumstances, the journey occupied twenty-seven days, so that the troops proceeded at an average rate of five miles a day. It would, therefore, take a Russian army about ten months to move over the distance of 1500 miles to the nearest point of our frontier, and they would then have to encounter a British army. During this march, too, the Russians would have to meet more than seventy nomad and barbarous tribes, not including the Affghans, who would dispute every inch of ground. When the House remembered that in little more than a month after news of the Indian mutiny reached this country a number of troops sufficient
  1602
  to quell it had been despatched, and that in four or five months a large army could be conveyed to India, he thought they would admit there was no reason to apprehend any danger from Russia with regard to our Indian empire. He considered that the Government deserved great credit for the prompt and efficient measures they had adopted to quell the disturbances in India; he did not think the present was a time when the House should express an opinion adverse to their policy; and therefore he could not vote with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he believed the opinion of the noble Lord (Viscount Bury) that the present was not a time for embarrassing the Government, would meet with the concurrence of a large majority of the House. A crisis had occurred in India, which he hoped would have no serious consequences; and it had been admitted that Her Majesty's Government had taken most vigorous measures to afford aid to the representatives of British authority. The question was, whether the Government were right in proclaiming war with Persia without communicating their intentions to the House; but he would ask how the Government could have been expected to call Parliament together at so unusual a time of the year, and to give an opinion on a war that was essentially an Indian war; for the war was not undertaken on account of any mere minor questions, but because Persia chose to take a course that was in direct hostility to our empire in the East. All the minor points at issue might have been arranged, had it not been that Persia sent an army to invade Herat. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie) had told them that in the event of a Russian invasion of India the Affghans would side with Russia, and not with this country; but such an idea was contradicted by history, and by what were the true interests of Affghanistan itself. The Affghans had felt and knew our power; they knew that we had conquered their country, and that but for an unforeseen disaster we might have retained it. It was a poor country, which it was not our interest to retain, as the Affghans readily admitted; but with its natural strength and its warlike population it was just such a country as we should wish to see placed between the two greatest countries in the world. Were the Affghans favourable to Russia during the late war? Did the attitude of Dost Mahomed during

  1603
  that war look like partiality towards her? Did he send an ambassador to St. Petersburg, or offer to join the Russians in an invasion of India? No! He showed himself the friend of India. He met a distinguished Indian officer on the frontier, and even gave his consent to the passage of English troops through his territory. It was known that, before the fatal invasion, Dost Mahomed and all the Mollahs were favourable to England, and although we then committed acts which were indefensible, they still retained a wholesome reverence for our courage and. our power. The hon. Gentleman said the Persians were the only people interested in the preservation of India, but in that he wholly disagreed with him. The people of Affghanistan were as much interested in the maintenance of the present position of affairs in the East as those of Persia could possibly be. Persia held the same position in the East that Austria did in Europe. She was an internal State surrounded by other Powers, and, though not what she once was—though she had greatly shrunk within the limits that anciently belonged to her—she still possessed no small amount of prestige, and her power was great even in countries that did not belong to her. It was no doubt the interest of Persia to cultivate the friendship of the large States by which she was surrounded; but when the two greatest empires in the world went to war, when she attempted then to take advantage of her position—when, assuming an attitude of neutrality, she proceeded to break that neutrality, insult our Ministers, and violate her solemn engagements, by advancing upon a city which, was prohibited to her troops, what in such a case was the proper attitude of the great empire she had insulted? Surely it was not to give in to that weak Power, but to say to her, "Distant as you are, you shall be made to feel the power of our arms." Such was the course taken by the Government in the case of the Persian war. Persia had grossly violated her engagements, and she was at once told that, though we were at war with Russia, we still had the power to look after her, and compel her to fulfil all her pledges. It was not till all the means of negotiation had been exhausted that the Government resorted to force, and succeeded in establishing a peace which he trusted would be long maintained. The moment Parliament assembled the papers were laid on
  1604
  the table. China and other matters had certainly occupied the attention of the House, but why should the affairs of Persia have been neglected till now? Why should an increase in the Estimates make any difference? They were told in the first instance that the estimated cost of the war was £250,000, and at that time no fault was found, but a tacit assent was given to the course which had been pursued; but now, when they had a larger bill to pay, the question was taken up and discussed, though the principle which was involved could not in the least degree be affected by any increase of the Estimates. The time for calling in question the propriety of the war had passed; he could not but regard it as unfair and ungenerous to the Government to raise the question now, and he trusted that the House would not sanction by its vote such a mode of transacting public business.
  MR. WILLOUGHBYsaid, he must express his surprise that there was any difference of opinion with respect to the maintenance of the independence of Herat. The policy pursued towards Persia had been the same in all Administrations for many past years, and, though he concurred generally in the wisdom of that policy, he differed from the Government as to the mode in which they, in 1838, attempted to carry it out. They were, however, now only following up the policy laid down by the Government of the Earl of Derby. It would be seen by the papers on the table that the Earl of Malmesbury, Foreign Secretary under the Earl of Derby's Government, inculcated on our ambassador at Teheran a course which ended in a convention with Persia, in which that State solemnly agreed to abstain from sending troops to Herat. In these circumstances what course could the Government take when Persia declared that Herat was no longer to be left inviolate? In his (Mr. Willoughby's) opinion, the moment the Sudar Azim informed Lieutenant Colonel Shiel that the Persian Ministers considered Herat, not Afghanistan, to be a province of Khorassan, and the protection of Herat, and the people of Herat to be their duty, immediately following up this declaration by despatching a military force to occupy it, Her Majesty's Government had no alternative but to adopt vigorous measures for frustrating their design. Of course, with regard to the mode in which the Government had carried out its policy in this matter, opinions might vary. Some

  1605
  might think it would have been better to advance directly to the object in view, others, to make the demonstration which has been made on the coasts of Persia. Be that as it might, he should certainly not discuss the merits of either of these modes of proceeding; but the course pursued by the Government had at least the merit of success, and he thought it a matter for congratulation that the Government had obtained a stipulation by which, in future, Persia renounced all claim to the occupation of Herat. He submitted, however, that the present was not the time for arraigning any course of action which Her Majesty's Government had felt it their duty to pursue with respect to Persia. A great crisis had arisen in India to which no man at all acquainted with that great empire could be indifferent; still he thought it afforded no cause for despondency or anything like unmanly alarm. At the same time it was the duty of every one at this particular time to do all that in him lay to strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and to enable the authorities in India to put forth their whole energy in crushing the rebellion. It would be premature to attempt to enter into a consideration of the causes which might have combined to bring about the present crisis; but he could not refrain from observing, that the discussion the other day, founded on a memorial from certain Missionaries at Calcutta, was most injudicious. He yielded to no one in his respect for the gentlemen from whom that memorial emanated, but he thought they would have done wisely had they acted on the principle which they avowed in 1843 in an exceptional case—relating to the Gates of Somnauth, namely, the principle of never interfering in matters of State policy, or with the measures of the Supreme Government; and that ought to have been the answer to the memorial in question, when it was brought under the notice of the House. With respect to the charge brought against the covenanted servants of the East India Company, in reference to the abominable system of torture, he should not then attempt to show that that charge was utterly unfounded, though he had the fullest proof within his own knowledge and experience that it was so. Torture in India is denounced as a crime and punished as a crime whenever detected; and at a more convenient season he would prove from the Report of the Madras Commissioners that the charge preferred against the Company's
  1606
  European Officers in this House, and reechoed by a portion of the public press, is altogether without foundation. He begged to thank the House for the patience with which they had listened to the few remarks he had ventured to address to them.
  SIR FENWICK WILLIAMSsaid, he could not on the present occasion reconcile it to his conscience to give a silent vote on the Motion before the House. For ten years he had been employed in a public capacity in various parts of the East. He was engaged for five years in negotiations at Erzeroum relative to differences between Persia and Turkey, and for five years subsequently he travelled in all parts of the Persian territory. He had, therefore, many opportunities of becoming acquainted with the opinions of almost all classes of the people, and he could assure the House that in his communications with Persian princes, Turkish dignitaries, and the peasantry of both those countries, the relative position of Russia and England was the constant theme of conversation among them. They weighed the military power of Russia against the naval power of England, and they talked almost continually of the possibility of Russia going to India. That idea was also inculcated on the minds of the people by every Russian agent who visited their territory, and it was said by those emissaries that Russia would establish herself in India step by step, and that one of the first of those steps would be the capture of Herat. That being the case, he thought the House might safely affirm the policy of the war with Persia. The war with Russia ensued, and every one knew what had taken place in Asia. After the fall of Kars, he (Sir Fenwick Williams) went as a captive into Russia, and there, as in Persia, he found the invasion of India through Persia to be the universal and favourite topic. Under these circumstances, he was firmly convinced of the policy of the Persian war. With respect to the expedition to the Persian Gulf, which had been admirably arranged, in his opinion it was the best move ever made by England. For ten years, to obtain the transfer of Mohammerah from the Turks to the Persians had been the object of ceaseless negotiations, and therefore it might be inferred that to the latter people the place was of great value, and when he (Sir W. Fenwick Williams), in the course of his duty, placed Mohammerah in the hands of the Persians from the Turks, he little thought that he should have witnessed its

  1607
  being taken by British troops. It was said, that the finger of Russia was seen in the capture of Herat, and in the same way it might be affirmed that the finger of England was seen at Mohammerah, and the House might depend upon it that for one hundred years to come its speedy capture would not be forgotten by the Persians. It was said that the Persians would not give up Herat. He should like to see them retain it, as we should then retain Mohammerah, which, being seated on an embouchure of the Gulf, was the great entrepôt of their trade. He mentioned these circumstances to justify the policy of the war, and to show how successful and wise had been the negotiations for peace.
  MR. LYGONsaid, they were not there to discuss the policy of the war with Persia, but the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with that House, and he must observe, after all he had heard from the Ministerial Benches in the nature of defence, that he was left completely in the dark as to the motives which had prompted the treatment of the House by the Government in reference to the conduct of this war. They had heard from that quarter of the House some valuable historical accounts of the way in which England had dealt with Persia in previous times, but nothing about the question really before them—namely, the attempt to deprive that House of its constitutional control over the finances of the country. He ventured to express a hope that, during the remainder of the debate, hon. Members would keep more strictly to the question under consideration. They were not called on to discuss historical subjects, but, as he had already said, a great constitutional question, which was especially dear to every Englishman, and indissolubly bound up with the privileges, the dignity, and the honour of the House of Commons.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, in the event of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) dividing the House on this occasion, he should be constrained to vote in favour of the Motion. His reason for that course was not at all influenced by the policy which dictated the Persian war, but solely by what he considered was the unconstitutional course pursued on that occasion by the Government. He had entered that House perfectly unfettered, and had heretofore given his support generally to the Government; but this was a case in which they had committed an oversight;
  1608
  for he thought, in all instances where large sums of money were to be expended, the representatives of the people should be summoned and consulted on the subject. He did not mean to say that the prerogative of the Crown did not give the Government power to declare war, but he would remind them that Lord Kenyon had laid down the maxim that the prerogative of the Crown should always be exercised for the benefit of the people.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid: There are two questions before the House. They have both been discussed with great moderation, and I certainly do not wish to alter that tone. The one question is that to which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) almost entirely confined himself—namely, the control over grants of money by this House; the other question is, the policy of the Persian war. With regard to the first of these questions, I think the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and several other hon. Members who preceded him, even the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who spoke with so much ability, have a little overlooked the precise facts connected with the delay. I may say that, with regard to the latter part of the delay, from the month of February to the production of the papers, this House was, in my opinion, a consenting party. I believe that, on the 3rd of February, the very day when the late Parliament met, a communication took place between Lord Cowley and Feruhk Khan, the Persian Ambassador, which was made the basis of negotiation. It then became a question with Her Majesty's Ministers whether it would be conducive to the sucsess of that negotiation to produce, at that time, papers explanatory of the causes of the Persian war. They stated to the House very fairly and temperately that, in their opinion, the production of papers might embarrass that negotiation; but it would have been in the power of this House, if this House had thought otherwise—it was in the power of any hon. Member, if he had thought otherwise—to make a Motion for papers, and if that Motion had been successful, the papers would no doubt have been produced. It was, I think, the wisdom of this House which induced them to refrain from pressing for any such papers. They concurred in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, and no such papers were asked for during the course of the negotiation. That accounts for the whole period, from the beginning of the Session

  1609
  until the signature of the treaty of peace. It may be that the Government carried their reserve too far, in not producing the papers until the treaty was ratified: but every one knows that the moment the signature of the treaty took place, the late House was menaced with dissolution. Every one was thinking much more of the elections which were about to take place than of the affairs of Persia, and no great good would have followed their production. As soon as the ratification took place, the papers were produced. This explanation with reference to time explains the greater portion of the delay. With regard to the former portion of the delay, I do not think that the Ministers were altogether justified in not calling Parliament together at an earlier period. I do not think it would have been wise, it would not have been expedient, with a view to the success of any operations, that, immediately the orders were given for the collection of troops and ships at Bombay, Parliament should have been called together, and notice thus given of the exact operations which were to take place. But I think that when the 1st of November came, and Ministers were informed that the Governor General of India had, by desire of this Government—not of his own proper authority, but by the desire of the Government at home—declared war, they ought to have called Parliament together. When I reflect, however, that the charge is now made in the middle of July, and that the deficiency of Her Majesty's Ministers—the delay in performing their duty to Parliament—took place during some six weeks before the 3rd of February. I cannot think that it amounts to such a grave charge as makes it at all necessary for this House to come to a Resolution upon it. I cannot concur in the opinion that Ministers are altogether without blame, yet, considering the long time that has elapsed, and considering, moreover, the gravity of the circumstances in which we are at present placed, I do not think we should be justified in coming to the strong Resolution which we are asked to adopt. With regard to the second question—the policy of the war—I shall be very brief. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie) has gone into details with respect to the negotiations, and I own I cannot see that it is at all true that we might not have had as good a settlement as we have obtained without
  1610
  any declaration of war. Lord Clarendon repeatedly declared, not perhaps in the very Words, but to the same effect, that the sine quâ non of peace was the dismissal of the Persian Minister. That, I think, was an extravagant demand, and it was not persevered in. But if that demand had not been persisted in at Constantinople, Lord Stratford had in his hand powers of complete compliance with all the demands which were then made, and the hon. Member for Inverness-shire has shown that, under that compliance the advantages would have been fully as great, if not greater than were afterwards obtained. Admitting for the moment, and I am quite ready to admit, the importance of the affairs of the East, I cannot see that we should not have obtained all the advantages which we have obtained without the extremity of going to war. I cannot think lightly of any war. I do not think that the Government is justified in going to war without being thoroughly satisfied that objects essential to the interests or to the honour of the country cannot be obtained by other means. The Secretary of the Board of Control said, that all means of negotiation were exhausted. He did not attempt, however, to prove that proposition, and I do not think it is a proposition which can be proved out of the papers which are laid before us. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Calne (Sir F. W. Williams) says, he found on the frontiers of Russia, of Persia, and of India, the notion prevalent and much favoured by Russian speculators, that it was the intention and destiny of Russia to conquer from us our possessions in India; therefore, he says, our policy towards Persia was right. I must say, I never saw so short a cut in logic as that of my hon. and gallant Friend. I am quite ready to admit all that he has asserted of his own knowledge and authority with respect to general speculation in the East—a very natural speculation for ingenious and political theorists—upon the future destiny of India, but that he should thereby conclude that our policy towards Persia has been justified, and has been dictated by sound views is rather too sudden a leap for me at once to take. I should have thought from the premises that, supposing that the Russians had designs of advancing to India, it would be our object to conciliate as far as possible the Government of Persia. To be sure, it is said that the Persian Government had

  1611
  violated treaty engagements in its proceedings with regard to Herat. There was a very vague and undefined convention with regard to Herat, with many loopholes in it of which the Persian Government could take advantage. There was one thing, however, tolerably clear—that we never could pretend that Persia was always to neglect her own interests with regard to Herat; that if the ruler of Herat made continual invasions, seized Persian subjects, and destroyed Persian property, the Shah was always to remain passive; that if Dost Mahomed advanced from Candahar and threatened Herat, the Shah of Persia could overlook that circumstance with a due regard to his own interests. The Prime Minister of Persia said, that the Persian Government were ready to act upon the same policy which the English Government approved. They were ready to allow an independent prince to rule over Herat. They did not insist that he should be a Persian. That is exactly what we say ourselves. We do not choose that the Governor of Herat shall be a Persian prince, or that Herat shall be brought under the sway of the Governor General of Affghanistan, and therefore, if it had not been for a trumpery quarrel which had arisen between the mission at Herat and the Persian Government, the probability is, that by the usual diplomatic means—by means of explanation, by stating fairly what it was we wished, by asking the Persian Government to state fairly what they wished, by telling them what we considered essential to our interest, and hearing patiently what they considered essential to Persian interests, we should have come to an understanding, and this war might have been avoided. I say again, I consider this war no matter of indifference. You may tell us that it is only a question of a million, or at most of two millions of money. I do not undertake to say, as the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield does, that the mutiny of the army of India is owing to the taking away of those troops. At the same time these wars disturb men's minds, and tend to put into men's heads speculations upon conquest to which Eastern imaginations are prone, and disturb that quiet in India which it ought to be our policy to maintain. Let me say generally, and I hope I am not saying anything quite contrary to the wishes and views of Her Majesty's Government, that it does seem to me that last year—when we had
  1612
  obtained peace with Russia, when we had obtained by that peace, according to the declaration of the Government, in which the House concurred, all the objects for which we contended—was a time to bear in mind a policy of peace, to conciliate all the great Powers, to consider Russia, after she had made peace, as much a friend as any of the Powers of Europe, and not to be endeavouring for ever to raise up jealousy and suspicion, but to endeavour to tranquillize the world, which had been disturbed by a contest not of our seeking. It was a contest which we did not seek, but which was necessary, though not, as the President of the Board of Control would seem to insinuate, for the sake of India. I should say it was not at all for the sake of India that we went to war with Russia. It was for the sake of England—it was for the sake of Europe, of which this country forms so great a part, and is so great a power: and, having concluded that war, I cannot but think it was our interest that pacific sentiments should be cultivated, and peace established throughout the world. We have interests all over the world. There is no part of any sea, to the east or to the west, to the north or to the south, in which we have not some interest or other, and in which we have not some agent—occasionally not very fortunately chosen—in whose hands a great deal of power is placed. It is impossible to avoid little disputes, trifling quarrels, in some parts of the world. The only way in which we can keep at peace is, by telling our agents, in all cases, to endeavour to come to some rational conclusion, and, while they do not sacrifice any of our treaty rights, or any of our great interests, to recollect that it is neither our interest nor our wish to inflame these petty quarrels, but to smooth them down. These are the views which I entertain. I venture to hope they are not altogether adverse to the sentiments of this House, or to those of Her Majesty's Government. However much we may regret that the war with Persia and the hostilities with China ever took place, we must all, of course, be ready to vote the sum of money which is now asked; but I do hope that it will be the desire and object of our Government to do all in their power, without sacrificing the honour and the interests of the country, to keep that peace which we have obtained at such cost.
  CAPTAIN SCOTTsaid, that he rose with

  1613
  the usual diffidence of a new Member, who addressed the House for the first time, and with more diffidence than the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Lygon) had reason to feel, for he spoke clearly and well. He intended to support the Government upon the present occasion, thinking that, instead of finding fault, they ought to put all their shoulders to the wheel in these troublous times in India. We had brought the present difficulty upon ourselves. Having resided in India from 1827 to 1842, and mixed much with the natives, he knew their feelings very well. He had, therefore, no hesitation in saying that hogslard and cartridges had nothing to do with the mutiny in the Bengal army. That plea was what the natives called "shuma shum," in our language "humbug." The Sepoys saw that we intended to take possession of all the territory in India, and hence their disaffection, which was still further increased by a restriction of the privileges which they formerly enjoyed in respect to furloughs.
  MR. KERwas understood to say that he should vote against the Resolution, believing that the Government had adopted a wise course in dealing with Persia. Asiatics were so untruthful that it was more difficult to treat with them than the noble Lord the Member for London seemed to imagine.
  MR. WALPOLE: The noble Lord the Member for the City, has very properly recalled the attention of the House to the only two points which are really before us—namely, the policy of the war, and the conduct of the Government in withholding from this House information which it ought to have received. With respect to the first of these questions—the policy of the war—I am inclined to agree with almost everything that fell from the noble Lord, and I, therefore, shall not repeat what he has said in much better language than any I could employ. But I own that upon the other question—the constitutional question raised by the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield—I was somewhat disappointed at the tone taken by the noble Lord, for I have always been accustomed to look up to him as one of the greatest authorities upon such subjects, not only of those who are alive now, but of those who have preceded him in this House. If we were lightly to pass by the great constitutional question, which the conduct of the Government during the past year has raised for the first time, we should not only be
  1614
  guilty of a gross neglect of duty, but establish a precedent which, if once recognized, could not fail to lead to very dangerous and lamentable consequences. Upon that question there are some things which the House ought to bear in mind. The only justification of the conduct of the Government which I have heard, consisted of a statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that in former Indian wars, no announcement was made to Parliament, and that in the late war with Persia the Government had followed these precedents. But I defy the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other Member of the Government, to point out to me a time when that course was adopted in the case of a war which was not, in fact, an Indian war, for which the instructions proceeded from the Home Government, and of which the proclamation, when made by the Governor General in Calcutta, was expressly stated to be made pursuant to directions from England. Why, the very agreement which you said had been violated was not entered into by the Indian Government with Persia, but by an accredited agent of the mother country; and it may be asserted, indeed, that every circumstance connected with the late war takes it out of that class of cases in which Indian wars have been undertaken for Indian purposes, by Indian authorities, and at Indian expense. Before the prorogation of Parliament last year, we had an Indian budget from the President of the Board of Control. Upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman intimated to the House, but in the most cursory manner, that it was possible there might be hostilities commenced by Persia against Herat, and that, if so, means would be taken by this country to deal with the difficulty when it arose. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman had, at the time that speech was made, in his possession a despatch which had been sent to him by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, and which contained, not a vague intimation that hostilities might possibly be commenced by Persia against Herat, but a distinct announcement that he was to take means for suppressing them. The despatch even pointed out the course which he was to pursue. But let me first mention that that despatch was preceded by one written by the Earl of Clarendon to the Persian Minister, dated July 11, in which the very aggression is noticed, and in which it was stated, means would be taken to resist it.

  1615
  Then comes the communication from the Earl of Clarendon to the President of the Board of Control, dated July 19, in which this strong intimation appears:—
  "Her Majesty's Government, therefore, consider that instructions should at once be sent to the Governor General of India to collect at Bombay an adequate force of all arms, and provided with the necessary means of transport for occupying the Island of Karrack and the city and district of Bushire; and to hold such force in readiness to depart from Bombay at the shortest notice. But the Governor General should be informed that the expedition is not actually to set out until the receipt of further orders from Her Majesty's Government."
  Now, I think that when so strong an intimation had been given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, something more ought to have been told to the House than the vague intimation which fell from the President of the Board of Control, especially as in September it was followed by a further announcement from the Earl of Clarendon to Mr. Consul Stevens, that a naval and military expedition would be immediately despatched, with a view to operations against the Persian territory, for which preparations had been some time in progress. It is perfectly clear that the Government had at that time decided upon entering into the war, and were even incurring expenses long before any intimation of the fact was given to Parliament or the country. It is quite true, as the noble Lord the Member for London has told us, that in the Queen's Speech, delivered in February, we were hold, not that the Indian Government had entered upon a war, but that British forces had been sent on an expedition against Persia. It is true that from that time Parliament had a knowledge that war was going on, and that expenses would be incurred, but it was not until a question was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie) as to by whom these expenses were to be borne, that we had any particular mention made of the matter by any Member of the Government. My opinion is, if these expenses were partly to be borne by this country, Parliament ought to have been called together as soon as those expenses were resolved upon; and unless you look upon the matter in some such light, you will have other wars undertaken at future periods, involving this country in, perhaps, greater expenditure, without Parliament knowing, until it is too late, either the causes or the circumstances in reference to which those expenses will be incurred. Sir, I must say this is a constitutional
  1616
  question of the gravest character, which is now raised for the first time, and which does require that we should seek from the Government some more satisfactory explanation than we have hitherto received. There is one other point to which I would address myself, and to which I desire to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I mean the amount of the expenses incurred. There was an unfortunate announcement contained in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in the Committee of Ways and Means, which seems to have kept Parliament in ignorance of the amount they would be called upon to pay. In the Committee of Ways and Means my right hon. Friend said—
  "I think that portion of the expense of the Persian war which is by agreement with the East India Company to be charged upon revenue, and which agreement was that the Exchequer should pay half the expenses of the war, will amount, for the Estimate I propose to take of expenses incurred up to the 30th of April next, to £265,000. That is all I intend to ask for on account of the extraordinary expense in the ensuing year."
  That was all he intended to call for that year, but when the Estimate is laid on the table—the agreement between the Government and the East India Company being that the former should pay one-half the expenses—I find that already those expenses amount to nearly £2,000,000. I find, also, that the Vote which is asked is only one-half of the moiety—namely, £500,000, and I therefore conclude that another moiety will be asked for hereafter. Putting all these things together, I think the Government ought to give us, even before we go into Committee, some further explanation as to the expenses which this country will ultimately have to bear, and also whether the Estimate now before us is or is not all we shall be called upon to pay. Sir, as to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is very difficult to deal with it. For the reasons I have given, I certainly am glad that this Motion has been brought forward. I should have extremely regretted to have been, as a Member of this House, a party to establishing a precedent which—from everything I have seen or heard—and I have given to the question the best consideration in my power—I believe to be fraught with the greatest danger, unless the House, at least in discussion, at once declares against it. At the same time, I am by no means insensible of the great danger, in the present state of affairs, of

  1617
  making divisions in this House which are not necessarily forced upon us. I am not insensible to the wisdom of the policy which proposes to strengthen the hands of the Executive Government whenever a great danger threatens them, and I am not one who looks upon the peril as now passed away. I wish, indeed, I could be as sanguine as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the mutineers in the Bengal army; but, believing as I do, the peril to be great, then, I say, this House must raise itself to the level of the magnitude of the serious difficulties with which it is surrounded, and if the Government will give us an intimation that this case is not to be drawn into a precedent, it is our duty, under such circumstances, not unnecessarily to press upon them, and afford anything like a manifestation of a diversion or division of opinion in this House. How, then, can we deal with this question? We are asked whether we will go into a Committee of Supply, or whether we will adopt the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield? The question that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair will be first put, and in voting for that we shall not be negativing, the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. "We shall simply be saying that we are not prepared to go into that question at the present moment. If we do this, we shall avoid a difficulty; but I shall only do this upon the distinct understanding that I, for one, will never consent, and think this House ought never to consent, that the Government shall be permitted to involve this country in expenses for a war without calling Parliament together to know whether it will sanction and support those proceedings.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield confined itself to a single and definite object—namely, a censure of Her Majesty's Government for having acted unconstitutionally in having carried on a war and spent the resources of this country without the sanction of Parliament. It did not at all embrace the policy of that war, or the present lamentable state of India. It would be impolitic to embarrass the plain and simple question before the House by entering upon these two other questions. The question raised was, whether Her Majesty's Government had done wrong in what they had done—that was to say, whether, inasmuch as on the 19th of July
  1618
  a communication was made to the India Board that there was a possibility of a war between Persia and India in consequence of the aggressive policy of the Shah of Persia, the House ought to have been consulted, or should have continued to sit, until it was ascertained whether there was any necessity to order an expedition to counteract that aggression? In the first instance, a simple notification was sent to the Bombay Government, warning it to prepare for an expedition against Persia. It was not until the 22nd of September that final orders were issued for the sailing of that expedition. In the meantime the Bombay Government was perfectly prepared for the result of those orders, and when they arrived that Government showed what the Government of India was always able to show, that when called upon to display the resources of India for aggressive or other purposes, it was able to perform efficiently what it was called upon to do. That expedition was despatched from Bombay with all its accompaniments of ordnance, commissariat, troops, cavalry, and transports, without the slightest let, hesitation, or difficulty, and it landed upon the shores of the Persian Gulf without the loss of a single man and without the slightest difficulty. It would be well if England had manifested the same efficiency on an occasion nearer home. Why should Her Majesty's Government be blamed because it had not appealed to the House of Commons on the 22nd of September, when it was found necessary to give orders for that expedition? The House of Commons was not sitting at that time—it had been prorogued. And suppose the House had been summoned, was it likely that hon. Gentlemen would have left their grouse-shooting parties to discuss such a question? He thought that such a summons would have produced but a very thin House. But Her Majesty's Government did call Parliament together when it was absolutely necessary to act with promptitude and energy. And what had been the result of the promptitude and energy displayed by us in the Persian war? Continued success, until the war was brought to a termination equally honourable to this country and advantageous in its results, because, whereas Persia before the war suspected our policy towards her, she now felt that the only friend on which she could rely for her defence was the British Government. He had that statement from the mouth of the Persian Ambassador

  1619
  himself. After the treaty was despatched from this country doubts were very generally expressed whether the Shah of Persia would ratify it, in consequence of the influence of Russia. He had a long conversation with the Persian Ambassador, and himself raised that very objection. The Persian Ambassador's reply was, "We are thoroughly satisfied, from the manner in which you have conducted this war, that our only hope of preserving the integrity of the Persian empire is the friendship of the British Government." The war was brought to a successful termination almost before Parliament could be brought together again after its prorogation last year. Was it at all necessary, in the midst of an uninterrupted success, to consult the Members of that House as to what ought to be done? To have done so would have been more prejudicial than otherwise, for "quot homines, tot sententiœ," and the debate in that House might have produced dissensions which would have weakened our cause. At the head of the expedition was placed a man (Sir James Outram) in whom confidence might well be reposed, and who had given ample proofs of the excellence of the choice. Every minute particular of his plan was laid down before he started on the expedition. He (Colonel Sykes) would not touch upon the policy of the war, but he would say that he entirely concurred in the propriety of a measure to prevent Persia from taking possession of Herat, which had been known for ages as the key of India. Whatever Power possessed Herat had a passage open to the purple plains of India. It, therefore, had always been our policy that there should be a kind of buffer between Affghanistan and Persia, so as to make them innocuous to each other. That policy had been established by our recent treaty with Persia. He should, therefore, vote for going into Committee as against the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield.
  MR. VERNON SMITH: Sir, the tone of this debate has been so much more of gentle remonstrance than of violent objurgation with reference to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government that I should not have thought it all necessary to rise on the present occasion if it had not been for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole). The subject, as he says, has been very properly divided into two questions; first, the constitutional question raised by the hon. and learned
  1620
  Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), namely,—whether Her Majesty's Government were justified in going to war without having first given information to Parliament; the other question is one that regards the policy of going to war with Persia at all. Now, so far as regards the policy of going to war with Persia at all, I cannot help thinking that even my hon. and learned Friend, old as he is in Parliamentary experience, has shrunk from discussing that policy; for otherwise he would not have confined himself to presenting the mere constitutional question to the House, but would have discussed the higher question as to the policy of the war. My noble Friend the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) has defended Her Majesty's Government in the course they have pursued with so much ability and with so much greater weight than I could possibly hope would attach to anything that I might say, that it would, perhaps, have been needless for me to enter upon any defence myself, had not my noble Friend made one or two little omissions. As regards the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in not having called Parliament together, and consulted it on the policy of the war; I beg to state that Her Majesty's Government are most anxious to submit to the opinion of Parliament all acts which they constitutionally are bound to submit to them; but I cannot go the length of saying, with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, that it is the duty of any Ministry to consult Parliament before they go to war, or to consult Parliament before they make peace. At all events, I have not so read the constitution of my country, and I do not believe that any constitutional lawyer or statesman will venture to say that such are the relative positions of the legislative and executive part of our institutions. It is the duty of the executive to declare war and to make pence. It is certainly their duty as soon as possible after that declaration of war to submit to Parliament the question of the expenditure connected with that war; and upon a declaration of peace, and a ratification of that peace, to submit the treaty to Parliament. Now, let me say how Her Majesty's Government have complied with the first part of this duty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge hardly went far enough back when he mentioned the interrogatories that were put to me. The

  1621
  hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie), was not the first person who put a question to Her Majesty's Government as to who was to bear the expense of the war. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) put that question to me in March, 1856, after I had answered a question put to me by Mr. Layard. My answer was that it would have to be decided thereafter, and that the proportions in which it would have to be paid would depend upon whether it was an Indian war, or an Imperial war, or a mixed war—Imperial and Indian. It is evident, therefore, that the House must at that moment have anticipated that there would be something like a war with Persia. That question was again asked more distinctly, when the knowledge came to this country that the Persians had advanced upon Herat. My noble Friend (Lord John Russell) very properly says that Parliament made itself responsible by its silence on this subject. I am not responsible for the inaction of Parliament on that occasion. Nothing was said or asked for; no papers were asked for; no questions were put; no Motions were made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge says, that a few days after I received a letter from Lord Clarendon calling upon, me to send out provisional instructions as to a declaration of war against Persia, I brought forward the Indian budget, without making any statement to the effect that it was probable such a war might occur. On the contrary, I did so advisedly. There were very few hon. Members present on that occasion. I have no hope of arresting very much the attention of the House on the Indian budget, because it never has been the good fortune of any gentleman who has brought it forward to arrest the attention of more than a very small portion of the House. But it did so happen that an hon. Gentleman, not in the Present Parliament, who always took a great interest in these questions, Mr. Otway, rose and said that my speech contained warlike indications. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge is therefore in error on that part of the subject. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie) says that immediately upon the provisional declaration of war going out to Bombay we ought to have called Parliament together in order to give them information of the war, and to ask them to make provision for the expense.
  1622
  But does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that we are bound to give the enemy information of every step we take even before we make war? I must say, I am surprised at the position assumed by the hon. Gentleman, seeing that he was, himself, Secretary of the Board of Control, under the Government of Lord Derby, the Members of whose Administration certainly held a very different opinion. In 1852 there is a letter from. Lord Malmesbury, who held the office of Foreign Secretary to the then President of the Board of Control (Mr. Herries), in which he distinctly intimates that the island of Karrack ought to be occupied by our troops as secretly as possible, in order that fortifications might not be made by the Persians against the invasion. Now, Parliament was sitting at the time Lord Malmesbury wrote that despatch, and it was written on a remarkable day, and may be considered in some degree as a testamentary document, for it was written on the 15th of December, and on the 16th of December the defeat of Lord Derby's Government took place, upon which they went out. [Mr. BAILLIE said that Mr. Herries refused to act upon that despatch.] Yes; but it shows what opinion the Foreign Minister of Lord Derby's Government had upon the assertion that you ought not to take your enemy by surprise, and that you ought to come to Parliament and make an announcement as soon as yon have sent out a provisional declaration of war. The orders of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the expedition, went out on the 26th of September, 1856, and arrived in Bombay in October; and on the 1st of November the Governor General issued his proclamation declaring war against Persia. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge says that there is no similar instance of a Governor General declaring a war out of India, I say that the same course was followed in declaring war against Afghanistan. On the 1st of October, when Parliament was not sitting, Lord Auckland issued his Simla proclamation declaring war against Affghanistan. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the two cases run on all fours, except that in Affghanistan the war was not, although it ought to have been, followed by a Vole proposed to Parliament for bearing part of the expenses of the war. That expense ought to have been partly thrown upon Parliament, and I say that

  1623
  we have behaved with much greater deference to Parliament than the Ministry in office upon that and previous occasions. I thought it would be an undue stretch of power that Parliament should not have knowledge of this Anglo-Indian war, and I recommended that the expense of the war should be divided, in order that the House of Commons might have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the matter. Well, the Governor General declared war against Persia on the 1st of November, and on the 17th of December, 1856, the proclamation arrived in this country. Parliament then stood summoned to meet on the 3rd of February. I do not entertain the opinion that Parliament ought not to he called together before the usual period, if it be convened upon grave occasions; but there are great inconveniences in the sudden meeting of Parliament without sufficient occasion, and a hasty proclamation that Parliament was to meet before the usual period would affect not merely the Ministers and Members, but the public—it would affect the funds and commerce of the country, and ought not to be done unwisely, hastily, and unwarily. The constitutional question, therefore, is reduced to this,—whether Parliament ought to have been called upon to meet between the 17th of December and the 3rd of February, or whether my noble Friend at the head of the Government was right in leaving it to meet at the natural time. Parliament did meet on the 3rd of February, and it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the matter should be referred to in the Queen's Speech, and that the papers should be promised to be laid on the table. That, however, was not done, because the negotiations were resumed at Paris. Papers were not laid upon the table; and the House acquiesced in the opinion that while negotiations were pending it would be unadvisable to call upon the Government to produce despatches which might have invited discussion and prevented an amicable settlement of the differences at issue, and Parliament itself thus took upon itself the defence of Her Majesty's Ministers. The papers were produced as soon as the treaty was ratified. My noble Friend says they ought to have been produced as soon as the treaty was signed. That is a matter of minute detail, and I do not think it is a question in which Parliament will take a great interest. The papers were produced in due time; and from that time no notice
  1624
  was taken of the matter, and I am inclined to think that no notice would have been taken of it now even by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but for the improper course which he has pursued in connecting these transactions with recent events in India. Such an opinion is utterly unjustifiable, for there is not the slightest reason to suppose that there has been any connection between them—they have not the slightest bearing on each other. The mutiny at Delhi and the expedition to the Persian Gulf no astuteness of reasoning can connect together. On the contrary, our successes in the Persian Gulf were calculated to put an end to any tendency to mutiny, and disorder, if any had existed, either in Bengal or elsewhere. As regards the Persian war itself, it must not be supposed that Her Majesty's Government undertook it lightly. My noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) says we went to war too soon. But the whole conduct of the Persian Government to us was one series of aggression and insult. I will not enter into the detail of these differences, but of late years the Persian Government has always been dealing with us in a manner that required notice, if it were not so insolent as to require redress. There has not been a single Minister sent from this country of late years whom Persia has not insulted. The Persian Minister, in a statement he prepared for the perusal of Europe, said that Colonel Sheil's conduct was harsh and barbarous, that his predecessors, Mr. McNeil, and Mr. Thompson, were as bad, and that Mr. Murray was worst of all. There is not one of our Ministers that Persia has not quarrelled with and insulted. My noble Friend, who says we went to war with Persia too soon, cannot, I think, have read the blue-book, the first half of which is entirely occupied by negotiations in which Her Majesty's Government sought every means to avoid war, and it was not until Herat was taken that war was declared. My noble Friend does not perhaps recollect that in 1854, when he was himself in office, and when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) were in office with him, the same stereotyped course was followed, and the Government desired the island of Karrack to be seized. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] I have the letter in my hand. It is not in the blue-book. It is dated January 9, 1854; but, if the right hon.

  1625
  Gentleman does not wish me to read it, I will not do so: but I will leave it to the right hon. Gentleman's recollection whether, in January, 1854, an expedition was not ordered to take possession of the island of Karrack, in the same manner as had been done in the present instance. From 1830, when Sir. J. M'Neil struck his flag, to the dispute with Mr. Murray, in 1857, there was always the same menace of the seizure of the island of Karrack and Bushire. We extended the expedition to the occupation of Mohammerah. I am surprized to hear, for the first time, the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman. (Mr. Baillie), who said the best course would have been to give up Herat to Persia, for that nothing would please her so much. Very likely; and there are other Powers, much more powerful and important, which would be delighted to see Herat given to Persia. That would be an easy solution of the question; but I affirm, and no Indian authority will question, that Herat ought to be in the possession of an Affghan chief, chosen by the Heratees themselves. My own belief is, that our best defence on that frontier is, that Affghanistan should be in the possession of its several tribes: and it would be the height of impolicy to allow Persia to gain a footing there. I do not think very highly of the power of Persia; but if the power of Persia extends to Herat, that city will be more or less in the hands of Russia. I do not feel any excessive alarm about Russia either, and I rather believe, with the noble Lord the Member for Norwich (Viscount Bury), that too much has been said on this subject; but we cannot disguise from ourselves that Russia has shown an intention of contemplating an attack upon India by way of Affghanistan. But that is not my opinion alone. It is the opinion of Sir John M'Neil, deliberately given, that Herat is the gate to India, and that it is through Herat alone that any formidable invasion of India can take place, and that the first step of any invading Power must be the seizure of Affghanistan. I therefore maintain that we ought always to look with considerable jealousy upon the occupation of that city by any other Power. If Persia, for instance, were to retain possession of it, what would be the consequence? Why, the diminution, if not the total destruction, of our glory in the East. The point is one which, for a considerable length of time, has been held to be of the highest importance. Do you not
  1626
  imagine, then, that to yield Herat up to Persia, and through her to Russia, would be deemed by those possessing the quickness by which the inhabitants of Eastern nations are characterized as the result of inability upon our part to prevent such an occurrence ? Yes, they would immediately come to the conclusion that you had abandoned it from cowardice, and I think the House will agree with me in thinking that it is by no means desirable that such an Impression should be produced. But, to pass from that point, I may observe that the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie) is the only person who has this evening entered into the question of how a peace with Persia might have been more rapidly concluded. He pins his faith upon the movements of Ferukh Khan, and contends that we ought to have made peace upon his arrival at Constantinople. The hon. Member must, however, bear in mind that there was strong reason to suppose that Ferukh Khan, when at Constantinople, was not in possession of full powers to treat, and that he signed no written declaration in answer to the demand which was made by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe as to his intentions. That noble Lord was prepared to go further than he did, if Ferukh Khan had verified his powers, and if he had not demanded that the Persian expedition should be withdrawn at the moment when Sir James Outram had arrived in the vicinity of Bushire. Now, when Ferukh Khan reached Paris, he did verify his powers, and we had the advantage of the assistance of a most able Company's servant—I mean Captain Lynch, who, owing to his great powers of conciliation, was mainly instrumental, under the guidance of Lord Cowley, in bringing about the treaty into which we have entered. That, I maintain is a very good treaty, and I deny that one of an equally advantageous character could have been obtained at Constantinople. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire has also alluded to the demand for the dismissal of Sadr Azim, as a sine quâ non, and has observed that we receded from that demand at the solicitation of the Shah. Well, it is true that we did give up that point; but I deny that it was a sine, quâ non—the sine quâ non was the evacuation of Herat. We were right in making the demand in the first instance, and we receded from it at the solicitation of the Shah; and I think the House will be of opinion that, in doing so, we took that course which it was most desirable to

  1627
  adopt. The hon. Gentleman asks in what position with respect to Persia do we now stand? My answer to that question is, that our position is a very good one. All parties are satisfied with the arrangements which have been made, and I confidently entertain the hope that Persia will come to the conclusion that in this country, and not in Russia, she will find her most natural ally. I believe Persia has much more to fear from Russia than from England; and Persia would do well to place her reliance on us. We can attack her only from the south, while Russia can march against her from the shores of the Caspian; and an adherence to us would therefore, in my opinion, be the best policy which she could adopt. My noble Friend the Member for London says we entered into this war too soon; but that is a statement in the justice of which I, for one, cannot concur—inasmuch as it was quite evident that delay was the object of Persia, and that she had no intention of entering seriously into negotiations. The preliminary negotiations were mere oriental rigmarole, and there was no serious intention of offering redress until the war was actually entered upon. I should be the last man in the world to maintain that our policy towards Eastern, should be different from that which in the case of European nations we pursue. On the contrary, I am of opinion that we should, in dealing with the former, exercise a stricter supervision over our acts than in the case of the latter would be necessary. The inhabitants of the East are comparatively false and ignorant, and our conduct in their regard should be proportionately modified by truth and knowledge. But while I entertain that sentiment, I am prepared to contend, that when you come into contact with a people so situated you must exhibit, with respect to them, a greater degree of vigour and firmness than in your proceedings in reference to more polished nations you would be called upon to exercise. By the inhabitants of the East conciliation is looked upon as cowardice; the calm clemency of conscious power is construed into timidity. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) has, indeed, observed that it is the policy of England to trample upon the weak and to yield to the strong. I shall not enter further into that question than to remark that if we had acted towards one of those Eastern nations as we acted towards America, in not sending away Mr. Dallas when our Minister was dismissed.
  1628
  from that country, our conduct would have been attributed to the influence of poltroonery, instead of to the dictates of a spirit of magnanimity, as it was felt to be by the people of the United States, such as the mighty and nobler country could alone afford to pursue. I may now say a word or two with regard to the question of the expense of the war. It has been observed that several different statements have been made upon that subject. I must remark that the estimate could only be an approximate calculation, and not a minute statement of expenditure. I am, however, happy to be enabled to inform the House that the expense attendant upon the prosecution of this war is likely to be rather less than the calculations which have been made would seem to indicate. At the end of the papers which were presented to the House this evening, it is stated that the Indian Government found it to be impossible to arrive at an accurate estimate at once of those expenses which had been incurred; but, as a larger number of troops have been despatched from the Persian Gulf than was anticipated at the time when the Estimates were drawn up, when it was supposed that they would remain there until the evacuation of Herat had taken place, and as the European troops have all been sent to Bombay, and as the cavalry under General Jacob is about to proceed to India, already there is every reason to suppose that the expenses of the war will be less than was originally contemplated. Now, as it has been intimated that this Motion is not likely to be pressed to a division, I shall abstain from entering so fully into details as I might under other circumstances have deemed it desirable to do. I have, I may add, felt so much anxiety since the intelligence of the recent occurrences in India has reached this country that I have not had time, to use the language of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, "to potter over blue books." I can only say I am no advocate of war, and think the policy of England ought to be to settle her disputes with other nations by means of negotiation rather than by a resort to arms. My great ambition has been since I entered upon the discharge of the duties of the office which the good opinion of my noble Friend at the head of the Government rather than any merits of my own has called upon me to fill, to contribute, as far as lay in my power, to the diminution, of the deficiencies in revenue

  1629
  and the improvement of the moral and social condition of the people of India. But, while such are my sentiments, I contend that the war with Persia was one into which it was necessary to embark for the protection of our Indian empire. It was my belief that that empire would be open to invasion if the Czar of Russia was allowed to possess himself of Herat with the paw of Persia; and, believing that to be the case, I deemed it to be my duty to forego that peace, and that prosperity the result of peace, to which I had with so much pleasure looked forward. In this contest the Indian army has distinguished itself in the most eminent degree, and the glory it has achieved in the Persian Gulf will long be remembered in the East. Long will the rapidity with which the Persian expedition was fitted out be sung in story on those shores. Long will the inhabitants of India bear in mind the gallantry with which the work which it had to execute has been performed. When Persia is again disposed to offer us an insult, she will pause before she does so, when she reflects upon the renown of those few gallant soldiers whom her own thousands were unable to resist. She will call to mind the victories which General Outram has achieved, and the bravery which upon the part of the youngest lieutenants in the service has been so conspicuously displayed. The result of these victories and of that bravery will, I trust, be beneficial to the country; and I have, in conclusion, simply to express a hope that the explanation which I have just given is satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman opposite and to the House. I can only add, that the course which has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government, in reference to this war, was entered upon without the slightest intention on their part of acting in derogation of the authority of Parliament, and in the confident supposition that they were not exceeding those powers which by the principles of the constitution belong to the Executive.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The question which has been submitted to us to-night by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield is, in my mind, one of extraordinary gravity and interest. I am not disposed to exclude from the view which I take of this question the verdict which I admit has recently been given by the constituencies of this country with reference to the Administration of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. On the contrary, I
  1630
  feel that he is entitled to urge before this House that the acts for which he is now arraigned were acts which took place during the existence of the last Parliament, and which, therefore, must be presumed to have been under the review of the people of England at the time when the late Parliament was dissolved. I, however, for one, am thoroughly convinced, even in the middle of the nineteenth century, when, as it appears to me, the principle of constitutional liberty has greatly retrograded, of the value of the privilege of this House, and of its control over the Government through the medium of the finances. Not only is that privilege of importance, but it is of such overwhelming importance that without it, in my humble judgment, we have no guarantee for the liberty, the glory, nay, for the very safety of this country. I must frankly say that, as far as my feeble judgment is concerned, I take an unfavourable view of the policy of the Persian war. I am sceptical as to the doctrine laid down and so dogmatically pronounced by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Board of Control; I am sceptical as to the enormous, the worldwide importance which has been attached to the possession of the city of Herat. Recollecting what the position of Persia is, recollecting that that empire is heir to the most ancient traditions of the world, I am not surprised that she should be disposed to urge doubtful claims of supremacy over neighbouring territories. I think it easy, therefore, to find another explanation for these claims with respect to sovereignty over Herat, than that which has filled Her Majesty's Government with so much alarm, when they refer them to intrigues against our Indian Empire, whether on the part of Russia or Persia. I cannot express how much I regret portions of the language which has to-night been used by Members of the Government; and I trust—I confidently trust—that the noble Lord at the head of the Government when he rises to speak will do something to qualify that language. Surely it is not wise for a Member of the Government to rise in his place and maintain that which really is not true, and which, even if it were true, it would be unwise thus to assert, that Persia is a vassal kingdom of Russia. It is not wise, I say, to proclaim that the object of Russia is the destruction of our Indian Empire by encroachment through Affghanistan. It is not by modes like these, if I have the least understanding

  1631
  of the act of right Government that that power is to be maintained and consolidated. The power of England is great—I at least think it is so great, and so firmly based, that we have nothing to fear as long as we exercise that power with moderation and justice. But if, on the other hand, we allow ourselves to become the dupes and victims of vain chimeras—I if, by putting the worst construction on every act of those we may suspect, we encourage extravagant theories—if we raise imaginary dangers, those dangers, from being imaginary, may become real, and may assume gigantic dimensions; and then, indeed, the difficulties and dangers created by our own folly may be such as may exhaust the almost inexhaustible resources of this country. Let me, however, come to the question which is now individually before the House. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has proposed two Resolutions, in the first of which he recites certain acts which are not denied, and in the second of which he states that the conduct which is described in the first deserves the strong reprehension of this House. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of his speech, and other hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this debate, have mingled with the constitutional question, to which alone the Motion relates, other subjects of the greatest importance. The hon. and learned Gentleman sees an immediate connection between the deplorable events which have recently occurred is India and the policy pursued by the Government in China and elsewhere. Such a connection may be in some degree presumable, but whether presumable or not, it forms no part of the question now before the House, and I do not think that we can be called upon to affirm the Resolution now under discussion upon entirely extraneous grounds. Again, with regard to the policy of the Persian war, that is a subject of vital importance, but at the same time it is not embraced in the terms of the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I should have been content, therefore, not to touch upon that subject, but, as that policy has in the course of this debate been assailed by some hon. Gentlemen and vindicated by others, and as it has taken a prominent place in the discussion, I must venture to record respectfully, but determinedly my disapproval of the course which has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government. I do not believe in the necessity of proceeding
  1632
  to such extremities. I do not think that their views were sound as to the importance to be attached to the possession of Herat; but at the same time I am willing to admit, that they did not act upon any novel idea of their own, but that they only gave effect to a theory which may, in a greater or less degree, be regarded as traditional to this country. I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Smith) into the peculiar defence which he has made with regard to the proceedings connected with the commencement and termination of the war, but the facts before us are simple and broad enough. It stands upon record, and I think is beyond all doubt or question, that we have made peace in the month of March upon terms decidedly less favourable to us and less unfavourable to Persia than those which Persia herself offered some time before. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has made the anxiety which he feels in connection with present events in India—events which I deeply deplore—an excuse for his imperfect recollection. [Mr. VERNON SMITH: No.] Well, the modesty of the right hon. Gentleman modifies my statement, and I will not enter into a discussion upon that point, but I wish the House to understand—and it is a most material feature in the case—that the right hon. Gentleman, whether from the pressure of present anxiety or from some other cause, has not given an accurate representation of the state of the case on a most vital point. What, I ask, were the objects for which we went to war? What did we propose, and what was it the refusal of which rendered necessary an appeal to arms? What is it we have gained by making peace that we could not have gained without resorting to the last extremity? These questions do not admit of any answer, because, as the case stands, we went to war for objects which were withdrawn, and which it was not considered expedient to pursue when we came to negotiations for peace. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the dismissal of the Persian Minister was not a sine quâ non in the negotiations before the war. [Mr. VERNON SMITH: No.] I hope I do not misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but I am in the recollection of the House, and I think that he stated, that the dismissal of the Persian Minister was asked for, but that it was not made a sine quâ non. Now, I might quote many sentences from the blue-book in refutation of a statement thus lightly made, but I shall

  1633
  content myself with referring to one from which I find that in December, 1856, not only was an ultimatum hung over the head of Persia, but that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who in vain manifested his reluctance to proceed in the matter, was directed by the Earl of Clarendon to insist on the dismissal of the Persian Minister. Lord Clarendon, in a despatch dated December 16, 1856, thus writes to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe:—
  "Nothing will be added to the present utimatum provided that its conditions are complied with, but delay will give rise to more stringent demands. The ambassador's request that our expedition to Persia may be delayed cannot be listened to. We must insist upon the dismissal of the Sadr Azim."
  That, Sir, is the despatch of the 16th of December. Then, says the right hon. Gentleman, it was Ferukh Khan who broke off the negotiations. They were proceeding, but he, after having in many ways given grounds for suspicion of the bona fides of his acts, took advantage of the commencement of hostilities to desist from pursuing his diplomatic communications with Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. Turn to page 223 of the blue-book, and observe what Lord Stratford de Redcliffe says upon the receiving the lines of the 16th of December, which I have just read:—
  "On the receipt of your Lordship's instructions of the 16th inst., I could not fail to perceive that my communications with Ferukh Khan had reached their final term."
  "On receipt of your instructions of the 16th of December." What instructions? Those which I have just read containing the remarkable words, "We must insist upon the dismissal of the Sadr Azim." But who was it that urged the breaking out of hostilities—I don't say unfairly or unwisely urged it—as a reason for waiving the prosecution of the negotiations? Not Ferukh Khan, but Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, for after saying that his functions were virtually brought to a close by the receipt of the instructions of the 16th of December, he continues—
  "This conclusion was the more evident, as the latest newspapers received from India had published the Governor General's formal declaration of hostilities against Persia, issued on the 1st of November, under instructions from Her Majesty's Government."
  As far as the information conveyed to us in this book throws light upon the history of this singular case, it appears that in the month of May, 1856, certain terms were placed in the hands of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe as necessary to be conceded by Persia, and that with the exception of the
  1634
  stipulation with regard to Sadr Azim Khan, which was ultimately withdrawn by Lord Stratford on his own responsibility, these terms had been accepted by Ferukh Khan at the period when we broke off the negotiations. They were broken off because, instead of adhering to our stipulations of the month of May, we had at the close of the year framed a new document by way of ultimatum, containing six heads, which it is not necessary to mention in detail, but several of which were entirely novel as being beyond the purview of the terms required in the month of May. The state of facts upon which the negotiations with Feruk Khan were broken off were, that he had then conceded more than we had now obtained, because not only had he promised the evacuation of Herat, but he had conceded the principle of compensation to the people of that town for whatever injury they might have suffered from the Persian invasion. The negotiations were broken off, war was made, and no sooner had the war commenced than, owing to some happy change of counsels, with the result of which I am too well satisfied to be careful in investigating its cause, an entire change took place in the views of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the conditions necessary to be obtained from Persia, and a treaty was concluded in March which might with greater facility have been concluded in the preceding month of November. So much, Sir, for the Persian war, with respect to which I won't enter further into details which might trouble the House and occupy its time at too great length. But, then, there remains the constitutional question; and here, so far as I understand the case, the facts alleged by the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman have not been disputed. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer adverted to certain precedents. He sought, and not unnaturally sought, to find in the previous passages of our Indian history cover and authority for the recent proceedings. Now it appears to me, that if cover and authority adequate to the justification of the recent proceedings could be extracted from that history, the plea might greatly avail towards the excuse of Her Majesty's Government; but instead of showing that the system was sound and safe, it ought rather the more to waken our jealousies and to render us alive to the fact that we have erected in India a vast and powerful machinery of government, armed with and

  1635
  supported by a splendid army, and that the liberties of this country and of its Parliament are, indeed, greatly curtailed, if we are to be told that, although war cannot be made with the Queen's army except under the immediate sanction of Parliament, yet that whatever can be done by the Minister, through the medium of the Indian army, of Indian finance, and of the Indian Executive, may be begun, continued, and concluded without the assent, either express or implied, of this House. Why, Sir, no doubt there has been a practice, and it has been an absolute necessity of our Indian empire, that powers of war and peace should be exercised by the Company under the control of the Government, and with reference to purposes strictly Indian. In a country enclosing, as British India does, the territories of many native Sovereigns with whom we have constant relations and numerous points of contact and irritation, it would no doubt be absurd, when by our Acts of Parliament we have established for Indian purposes a principle of government separate from a Parliamentary system, to say that that Government, with reference to every Indian purpose of peace and war, should be subject to the immediate and direct control of the House of Commons. But is there any fair or candid man who will tell me that the war which has been waged against Persia is in any proper sense an Indian war? On the contrary, is it not plain that this important question is one of that great group or family of questions which relate to the position of Russia in the East? The relation between them is not to be denied. It is not a mere local war. Persia is not a frontier Power; you go beyond your own borders; you travel to a great distance from them with your Indian forces, and the purpose for which you do so, whether rightly or wrongly, is not an Indian purpose in a narrow, local, and municipal sense. It is, without doubt, a portion of the purpose and the policy upon which you act in the conduct of your relations with foreign States. Therefore, I entirely protest against the doctrine that such a war as this which has been waged against Persia ought to be considered a war exempt from the control of Parliament. If I had any doubt upon the question that doubt would at once be removed when I find that in the month of October last communications passed between the Government of Her Majesty and the East
  1636
  India Company, which recognized in the most direct and unquestionable form this fact—that the Persian war was a matter of British, and not merely of Indian consideration. I guard myself against being supposed to admit that every war which you carry on at the expense of the East India Company is a merely Indian war in the sense of having a claim to be exempt from the control of Parliament; but the converse I most confidently assert—viz., that when you yourselves have admitted by your own acts that the war you are about to wage is not an Indian war, when it is to be paid for either in whole or in part out of the English Treasury, in consequence of a Vote of the House of Commons, you then clearly pass that line which divides the doubtful ground from that which is the subject of no manner of doubt, and you bring that war just as much within the jurisdiction of Parliament as if it were a war waged upon the soil of the Crimea or upon the soil of France. Now, Sir, the question is, what course are we to take? We have at present nothing to do with the second Resolution of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The question which you have put from the chair relates simply to a recital of facts, and I apprehend that the matter substantially before us is this:—Do we consider that the case which has arisen is one which demands Parliamentary notice, or can we afford altogether to pass it by? I will frankly own to the House in a few words the state of my own mind. I think that as regards the derogation of the privileges of the British House of Commons which has taken place words of decisive censure might be justified. At the same time, adverting to the fact, which I regard as material in the case, that these circumstances occurred prior to the dissolution, I may, for my own part, be willing to waive the pressing home of that point, provided only I can secure that the liberties and privileges of the House of Commons shall be guaranteed against the formidable dangers which are involved in the precedent which has been set. Upon that matter I confess I entertain the greatest anxiety. I came to the House to-night with the hope that Her Majesty's Government might have been disposed to rest their vindication rather upon the specialities of the case, which made it difficult for them, we will suppose, to obtain the opinion of Parliament, rather than upon the broad assertion of the principle that, without reference to circumstances

  1637
  of extenuation or circumstances of difficulty, the course which they have pursued can be vindicated upon its own merits, and involves nothing that tends to disparage the dignity or to endanger the prerogatives of the House of Commons. To my mind it seems so clear as to be beyond argument that that dignity is disparaged—that those liberties are endangered by the making of war at the charge, in whole or in part, of the British Exchequer, at the uncontrolled discretion of the Ministers of the hour; without the observance of that great security which we always have that the charges of these wars and the preparation of the force necessary for conducting them should be submitted to our free judgment, not after the fact, when everything is in the past, and when no question remains except that of pronouncing our opinion upon the conduct of the Government, but before the fact, when the operations have not yet been undertaken, and when the policy about to be pursued may fall within our view, and may be dealt with according to our independent judgment. Therefore, while I am not at all convinced of the necessity of recording our censure upon the Government, I must yet frankly own that I think it would be inconsistent with the character of this House—if I may presume to give my opinion of what its character requires—and inconsistent, also, with that jealousy with which this House has always held it to be its first duty to watch the preservation of the liberties won for it by so many generations of glorious predecessors, were we to permit these circumstances to pass without notice, and to remain as matters of indifference, wholly unworthy the vote of this Assembly, either by way of censure of the past or of security for the future. I, for one, should have been satisfied had the declarations of the Government amounted to this:—"While defending our own motives and proceedings, we grant that there is danger to the public weal in this precedent, unless it is strictly noted and marked out as a matter not to be extended or even followed, but as requiring special justification, and in the absence of such justification to be condemned." Had they given us this door of escape, I should have thought it expedient to leave the case where it is, and should have advised the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his Motion. But if we are told—as I think up to the present stage of the debate we have been, told—that everything
  1638
  has been right, that the course of regular precedent has been observed, that the Government have not stretched the discretion of the Executive, have not impaired the rights of the popular branch of the Legislature; if that ground is taken, then, reserving my own freedom as to the second Resolution of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and as to the terms in which it may be proper to characterize these transactions, I, for one, whether few or many agree with me, cannot, by negativing this Motion, affirm a principle so detrimental to liberty and to the English character as this, that the House of Commons is willing to see the produce of the taxes of the people, which it is our exclusive right to vote, disposed of in the East for the purposes of a warlike policy, at the discretion of the Minister of the Crown, and without the knowledge, assent, or control of the representatives of the British nation.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I cannot approve either the constitutional doctrine or the constitutional conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has moved these Resolutions. If I understand the doctrine which he has endeavoured to lay down, it is this—that the Crown has no right either to make war or to make peace without previous communication with, and without the previous concurrence of, Parliament. Now, Sir, I deny that that doctrine is any part of the British constitution. I contend, on the contrary, that our constitution wisely and properly vests in the Crown the prerogative and the discretion of declaring war and of making peace, with this reserve, however, which I readily admit, that when the advisers of the Sovereign have deemed it their duty to counsel the Crown either to engage in or to put an end to war, it is incumbent on them to lay before Parliament, if it is sitting, the grounds upon which the one course or the other has been adopted; or, if Parliament is not sitting, when the interests of the country are deemed to be such as to require recourse to be had to war, I frankly and freely admit it to be their duty to take the earliest opportunity of calling Parliament together in order to submit to it their reasons for resorting to hostilities. I should be the last man to deny that general proposition. I maintain, however, that in the case to which the Motion alludes, there were circumstances which rendered it a special case, and excepted it for the

  1639
  moment from the application of that general rule. And here I must observe, that there is a wide distinction between the doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) and the doctrine of the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone). The hon. and learned Gentleman declared, if I understood him, that when a war is undertaken in which the co-operation of this House is not required, and of which no part of the expense has to be paid out of the revenues of this country, the matter is one with which Parliament has no particular ground to interfere; whereas the right hon. Gentleman holds that even in the case of an Indian war, confined within the peculiar limits of Indian operations, and in respect of which no charge would be thrown on this country, the principle to which I have adverted would apply. I leave it to the hon. and learned Member and the right hon. Gentleman behind him to settle between them which of those conflicting doctrines they would wish the House to adopt. With regard to this particular case itself, I freely admit that it does involve a question which Parliament is well entitled to have explained to them, and which, if left open to any interpretation that might be put upon it, would perhaps be turned into a precedent which might be attended with injurious consequences in future. But the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last—who cannot, I think, have been present in the course of this evening—is quite mistaken in saying that no explanation has been given by any Member of the Government of the peculiar circumstances which make this case an exception to the general rule. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Control have both stated in great detail the reasons why Her Majesty's Government thought this an instance in which the immediate convocation of Parliament was not required. Some have contended that Parliament ought to have been called together when the first order was sent to Bombay for the preparation of a force to be ready in case it should be wanted. The answer given to that by my right hon. Friend appears to me quite conclusive. It would have been the height of absurdity to proclaim through Parliament to the world that we were making preparations which in a certain event would be carried into effect, with a view of either preventing or repressing a wrong which the Government of Persia might have in
  1640
  contemplation. Then it is said Parliament should have been summoned later in September, when the order was forwarded to the Governor General to send the expedition. But even then such a step would have been premature, because it was impossible for the Government to know whether circumstances might not occur in India which would prevent the Governor General from immediately acting on the orders so communicated to him. The earliest moment at which it would have been right to call Parliament together with the view of stating to them the course of proceeding with regard to Persia was the 16th of December, when it is acknowledged that the declaration of war was actually issued. Parliament then stood summoned for the 3rd of February. The Christmas holidays were approaching, and the earliest period at which it could have assembled would have been the first or second week in January. Therefore the only laches, if laches it was, would refer to the short interval between the middle of January and the 3rd of February, on which day Parliament met. If the war had been one with a European Power, involving great and serious consequences, and likely to require the immediate cooperation of this House, I admit that even that brief delay ought to have been avoided. But, considering the remoteness of the scene of action—considering that no immediate requisition was necessary to be made to Parliament for the purposes of the war, we thought it would be attaching more importance to the matter than it intrinsically deserved to anticipate the period for which Parliament stood convoked, and to issue a proclamation calling it together a fortnight sooner for the purpose of announcing to it that operations were going on in Persia. But we did in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the Session communicate to the Legislature the fact of these disputes with the Shah, as well as the naval and military operations which had taken place. Why, Sir, where was the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield then? Where was his constitutional jealousy—where was the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford—where was the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge—where were those constitutional champions? Silent as the grave! Where was the vote of censure—where the reprobation which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes now to call down upon us from this House? There are

  1641
  some things, Sir, which are said, like the oak, to require a long time to attain to maturity; but when they do attain to maturity, their strength, vigour, and substance, are proportioned to the length of time they take to develope. So it is with the indignation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He might have risen with boiling blood on the first or second day of the Session, and said, "Why, here you have got us into a war with Persia, and you did not call Parliament together a fortnight ago. I will call the attention of the House to the circumstances, and move a vote of censure upon you." He might have recorded, in a Resolution couched in the mild and gentle terms for which he is so distinguished, the sense of the House upon this flagrant violation of its privileges. But he has thought well on the matter, he has brooded over his indignation from February to July, and he comes forth now, not with a vote of censure, but with a vote of reprobation, the strength of his Resolution having increased in a degree proportionate with the time that it has been suspended and with the heat of the weather which has intervened. But, Sir, if I know anything of constitutional principles, I think that the country will not applaud him much for his constitutional conduct; and the delay which he has permitted to elapse between the original wrong and the moment chosen for redress, shows that he is not a very safe and ready champion of the constitutional privileges of England. But what is the moment which the hon. and learned Gentleman has selected for his Motion? He has waited until the feelings and anxieties of the country have been roused and agonized by the accounts received from India; he has waited till the time when he thinks that the Government are engaged with all their mind and all their thoughts in providing for the difficulties of the moment; and then he has not even given to the House that notice of his Motion which it is usual for hon. Members to give when they are about to propose any measure which they consider to be of great importance. No, Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman suddenly bethought himself at six o'clock yesterday afternoon, that he would draw the attention of the House to the illdoings of the Government at the end of last year, and he gave notice then of what he was going to do at five o'clock this afternoon. I say that that also was a
  1642
  departure from the ordinary custom of Parliament, because, if he proposed to call the attention of the House to a matter of great importance, it was due to the Members of the House—I do not talk of the Government, because, of course, we are ready at all times; but it was due to the House, and especially to the new Members of the House, that he should have given them an opportunity of reperusing the papers on the subject, which had probably been laid aside by everybody, thinking that the matter had gone by. The hon. and learned Member did not do that, and I think that in omitting to observe that practice, he failed somewhat in proper respect to the Members of the House. I come now to those who have contended that the only question before us is the course which the Government have pursued. That is, no doubt, the main point of the Resolution—of the reprobation which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to call down on the Government. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has mixed up other topics with his speech. He has been pleased to say, that he does not much anticipate the success of his Motion, because the Government and the person who is at the head of it have acquired—unduly, as he thinks, and why, he cannot imagine—the general confidence of the country. Sir, I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman one thing, which has given us the confidence of the country. His Resolutions, his votes of censure; and I am very sure that the Resolution which he now proposes will not have any greater effect in shaking the confidence which the country has in the Government than that celebrated Resolution which led to so signal an exhibition of popular and national feeling upon a recent occasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman was interrupted during his speech when he was anticipating the possibility of the overthrow of our power in India by a cry of "No!" from hon. Gentlemen on the other side. "Aye," he said, "those are British noes. "Sir, I wish that I could say that the hon. and learned Gentleman's speeches and resolutions were British speeches and British resolutions; but it is because the country has felt that the spirit which animates the hon. and learned Gentleman in these matters is not a British spirit, and that his thoughts and feelings are not the thoughts and feelings of the people of England, that his votes of censure have

  1643
  recoiled upon himself and upon those who have been found ready to support him. Many hon. Gentlemen have made light of the causes of the war that we entered into with Persia, and I am surprised at the language which some Gentlemen have held upon the subject. Were we the only Government that attached importance to Herat as a position the independence of which from Persian authority was essential to English security? Why, every successive Government for a length of time has held the same opinion—the Government of the Earl of Derby, the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen, the Government of Viscount Melbourne did so; in fact, there is no Government of late years that has not felt that Herat in the possession of Persia was a great additional danger to our Indian empire. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford has deprecated the allusions which have been made in the course of the debate to Russia, as instigating Persian aggression in the direction of our Indian frontier. Well, but is that a matter of opinion or of inference? Does not he recollect that on a former occasion, when a Persian army besieged Herat, and was only prevented from taking it—first by the heroic defence which was made by Major Eldred Pottinger, the gallant British officer who directed that defence; and afterwards by our entrance into Affghanistan—does he not recollect that the person who conducted that siege was a Russian general, General Simonitch, and that another Russian agent, Lieutenant Vico-witch, was sent on a mission to Cabul and Candahar, to organize a combination against the British power in India? We wish to be on the best terms with Russia. The war is over, and I trust that the animosity arising from that war will be effaced from the minds alike of Englishmen and of Russians; but it is one thing to wish to encourage friendly relations with a foreign Power—it is one thing to forget the asperities of war—it is another thing to blind yourself to the great and important interests of your country. If there were no Russia on one side of Persia, and no British India on the other, it would be a matter of the most perfect indifference to us whether Persia occupied Herat, or Herat were an independent State; but knowing that Herat is a great fortress, which leads by Candahar and Cabul to India; knowing that Persia, a weak Power,
  1644
  stands next door to Russia, a greater Power; knowing that the possession of Herat by Persia would facilitate its occupation at any time by Russia, whenever the political relations between Russia and England should lead Russia to contemplate an invasion of British India; knowing that the existence of Russian Power in Herat would so shake that public opinion in the East on which our authority so much depends; knowing all that, I say that any Government which shut its eyes to that danger, and which tamely permitted Persia to get possession of Herat would be guilty of great neglect, or of an utter disregard to the interests of the country. Then, admitting that, it was said that we might have obtained the evacuation of Herat by means of negotiation. I say that the course of events proves the contrary. When the Shah issued a proclamation annexing Herat to the Persian territory, when he boasted openly that he would take it and keep it, and that nothing should induce him ever to surrender it, I say that negotiation had failed to accomplish the evacuation, and that it was necessary to resort to force. Then it was said, "Your negotiations at Constantinople might have come to a successful issue if you had been content with the terms which Ferukh Khan was prepared to agree to." But in the first place Ferukh Khan never signed those terms in a manner to bind his Government to anything which he consented to adopt; and in the next place he made it a condition that we should suspend the expedition that was going forward. Hon. Gentlemen have said, and I think my noble Friend fell into the same mistake, "You made war because Ferukh Khan would not agree to the dismissal of the Sadr Azim." That assertion, however, assumes a totally different condition of things between the two parties from that which existed. If the declaration of war and the order to send the expedition had not been made before Ferukh Khan's negotiations at Constantinople had commenced, if the question of peace and war had depended upon the issue of those negotiations, and if, on account of his not agreeing to the whole of the terms which we proposed, we had sent the order to Bombay for the troops to proceed to Herat, then I admit that it might be urged that war or peace depended on the acceptance or refusal by Ferukh Khan of the conditions; but that order had been sent

  1645
  before, and it was the knowledge that Ferukh Khan acquired at Constantinople of the declaration of war by the Governor General, and of that which had taken place, which made him break off the negotiations; because he said, "It is now no use to go on negotiating; you have declared war, and it is for my Government to say whether the altered state of things does not render all that has passed of no value." Therefore it is a total misrepresentation of the facts to say that peace or war depended on the acceptance or refusal by Ferukh Khan of the conditions offered to him. Undoubtedly, if he had stated that he had full powers, then the treaty of peace would have been signed at Constantinople instead of at Paris; but war would equally have taken place before that treaty was signed, because the war took place before the negotiations with Ferukh Khan came to an end. But we are taxed with having made a worse treaty of peace at Paris than we might have made at Constantinople; and why? Because we relaxed certain conditions, which we found on communication were likely to be peculiarly painful to the Shah. Thus, at one time we are accused with being too exacting in our terms and too harsh in our conduct to the weaker Powers, and at another time we are reproached with making concessions to soothe the feelings and save the pride of a weaker Power, with whom we wish to be on friendly terms. I say that those who contend that we ought to be friendly towards Persia, and that the alliance and friendship of Persia is of value to England, ought to approve of our conduct in waiving terms not essential to our perfect security—terms which we were perfectly justified in demanding in the outset, but which were not absolutely necessary, and were at the same time grating to the feelings of that Power we were desirous of making our friend by a treaty of peace. I repeat that we ought to be praised rather than censured for making such concessions. The hon. and learned Gentleman has now found out that this Persian war is one of the causes of the calamities which have broken out in India. Why, I say the very contrary is the truth. In the first place, no man in his senses can maintain that the mere detachment of 5000 men from Bombay could at all weaken the British military power in the presidency of Bengal and the North Western Provinces, where those troops were not. But if it be true, as I
  1646
  think it is, that the power of England in Asia depends upon opinion, what, I ask, would have been the effect on opinion in the East if it should have been seen that England, after making great efforts in 1838 to prevent Persia acquiring Herat—after having, under successive Governments, protested against a Persian occupation of Herat—after having at one time prevented it by our forces, and at another by negotiations—at last, after having measured swords with Russia, and when all the nations in the East knew that these demonstrations of hostility by Persia arose from the efforts of Russia to create embarrassments to England during a time of war, shrank from the position which she had so long assumed, and tamely acquiesced in the possession of Herat by Persia, in despite of all our remonstrances and treaties with that Power? That would have had the most fatal effect on the reputation of England throughout the whole of the East, and so far from the mere detention of 5000 troops in Bombay being of any advantage, we should have suffered a loss of character highly injurious to the country. On the other hand, the effect of the war in Persia must be greatly advantageous to British interests throughout the East; for when the Asiatics see that we are capable of despatching so rapidly an expedition to Persia, which has been attended with such great and signal success that even on the extremity of the Persian territory we have been able, by that expedition to coerce the Persian Government to evacuate Herat, and to agree never again to occupy it; that, I say, is a triumph of British arms and diplomacy over Persia. Persia, however, we are told, is liable to be swayed by Russia; well, then, over Persian aggression and, if you will, over Russian instigation. This must be of the greatest value to the reputation and power of England among the Asiatics. Therefore, so far from admitting the justice of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observation, that the Persian expedition had contributed in the remotest degree to bring about those unfortunate events which we all deplore, I maintain that its tendency was to have prevented rather than to have accelerated them. But the hon. and learned Gentleman's own argument deprives him of the power of' taking up that position, for he represents those events in India as the result of long previous combinations. In that case, they could not have arisen in consequence of the simple

  1647
  detachment of 5000 men from Bombay. Those 5000 men have returned, and for some time have been again on the shores of India; and, therefore, if the British forces were weakened by the original detachment of those troops, they are now strengthened, not only by their simple return, but by the glory they have accomplished, by the character and honour their arms have acquired, and by their distinguished performances on the Persian territory. There is, then, no ground for the Resolution moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman. There is no ground on constitutional principle, because we do not dispute that principle, but we contend that in this particular case to have followed it would rather have been a piece of pedantry than a substantial compliance with the rights and privileges of this House. There is no ground for the Resolution on account of the policy which led to the expedition to Persia, because that policy has been consecrated by the unanimous opinion of every successive Government which has conducted the affairs of this country. It was the policy of the Earl of Malmesbury as well as of the Earl of Clarendon. Therefore I say, that for this House to agree to a Resolution which directly or indirectly asserts it to be a bad and insufficient policy on the part of the British Government to maintain Herat free from Persian authority would be a fatal mistake, and might be productive of the most injurious consequences to our Indian interests. On these grounds I trust that the House will pass to the Committee of Supply, and if the hon. and learned Member, on full consideration and after the discussion which has taken place, should still think it necessary to divide the House, I hope the House will deem it not to be a Motion expedient to be carried.
  MR. DISRAELI: I hope the House will permit me for a few moments to trespass on its time while I explain the course which on this occasion I think it my duty to adopt. I will at once dismiss all that vexed question of Persian politics, with respect to which I still venture to believe that I entertain more accurate impressions than appear to prevail on the Treasury bench. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Persia is the vassal of Russia; according to the President of the Board of Control, it is with great difficulty that he can prevent Persia from falling into the hands of England, her natural ally. With dogmas so discordant,
  1648
  and opinions so contrary, maintained by two eminent Members of the Cabinet on the vital question as to what led to the war and caused the expenditure, Her Majesty's Ministers must excuse me if I do not place implicit confidence in their views of Persian politics. But the opinion of the House on Persian politics is not, I believe, the question which to-night engages our attention, nor do I think it necessary to enter into the other question, which, borrowing the epithet used to-night, I may call the "awful" question of the present state of India, though it has been adverted to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and dwelt on by the First Lord of the Treasury. We at least have this advantage from this discussion, that we have received the mature and solemn opinion of the Government on the cause of the present condition of our Indian empire. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed us that India at the present moment is suffering only from a momentary and unexpected impulse arising from superstitious causes. This insurrection, which extends from the Punjab to Calcutta, is, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the creation of a sudden impulse. Sir, I have heard, but I can hardly believe that such grave consequences have arisen from so accidental a cause. I can hardly believe that that class, of all others, in our Indian empire which, by its education and interests, and by every motive which can influence the loyalty of men, ought to be most devoted to our Government, should be suddenly found in a state of open insurrection, from the cause alleged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must be permitted to say that I believe the cause of the present state of India to be much graver and deeper-than appears to be conceived by Her Majesty's Ministers. I believe the present state of India has been occasioned by long years of misgovernment; and if it be the opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers that the condition of India is attributable to such temporary and unexpected causes as alleged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should have much less confidence than I would willingly entertain with regard to the remedial measures they have proposed, and the further measures which I trust they are prepared to submit to Parliament. But, dismissing Persian politics—dismissing also the grave question which must soon engage our consideration—let us consider the real question we have to decide to-night—

  1649
  namely, the course which, independently of passion or of party, we ought to pursue. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has proposed some Resolutions by way of Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, in order to provide for the expenses of the Persian war. Those Resolutions may be couched in strong language. That is of course a question of degree of little moment, but no hon. Gentleman will pretend that they do not embody a constitutional principle, or that that principle is not expressed in proper and Parliamentary style. Whether the Resolutions apply to the circumstances of the case—whether the inference which the hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn is sufficiently sustained by the premises, are questions meet and fit for Parliamentary discussion; but for proposing these Resolutions, which assert the privileges of Parliament and express a constitutional principle acknowledged even by Her Majesty's Ministers to-night, the hon. and learned Gentleman is assailed in tones of vituperation, and is told he is taking an un-English course. The First Lord of the Treasury, speaking of the Shah of Persia, said he had a habit of boasting in his Durbar. Well, there are other great men who have the same habit, who boast in places which we were once fain to hope were almost as august as the Durbar of a Persian king of kings; but if the policy the noble Lord recommends were pursued, I think the influence of Parliament would be so much diminished that we might perhaps have to veil our glories before the superior authority of a Persian sovereign. The noble Lord, having been accused of being a most popular Minister, yields to the soft impeachment, and in the Persian style says, "True it is, I am most popular; true it is that I possess the confidence of the country, but what is the cause? I know why I possess the confidence of the country. It is," said the noble Lord to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, "in consequence of your Resolutions." ["Hear, hear! "] Of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite will cry "Hear!" and in making this remark I intended they should cry "Hear!" Now, what were the Resolutions of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield? I remember several memorable occasions on which the hon. and learned Gentleman, unsupported by any personal following in this House, has
  1650
  proposed Resolutions. I need scarcely remind the House of what was, perhaps, the most memorable occasion on which the hon. and learned Gentleman brought forward a Resolution. It was a Resolution for an inquiry into the state of the English army before the walls of Sebastopol. Was that an un-English Resolution? Was it an unconstitutional Resolution? Why, the noble Lord, who was one of the guilty Ministers, yielded to the vote when that Resolution was carried. Another Resolution, almost equally memorable, and which I am sure the noble Lord cannot have forgotten, was also proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The occasion was when the "turbulent and aggressive policy" of the noble Lord was properly brought under our consideration by an eminent Member of this House, and when a large and powerful party, asserting, as I believe, sound principles of policy, called upon the House of Commons to seal with its strong reprobation the injurious policy of the noble Lord. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield then came forward with one of his un-English Resolutions, and by the aid of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and by a scant majority, the mischievous career of the noble Lord was continued. Now, as the noble Lord has alluded to the younger Members of this House, I think they may learn from this instance what gratitude they will experience if, in future moments of delusion, desirous to save a Minister from a difficulty or to extricate him from a scrape, they come forward and propose Resolutions to assist the policy or to vindicate the conduct of the noble Lord. A few years will pass, and they will then he held up to the Scorn and ridicule of the House as the movers of un-English Resolutions. Those who vindicate the privileges of Parliament—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—aye, many of the hon. Gentlemen who in their present zeal utter those murmurs, and who I dare say are now only too eager to come forward to vindicate the noble Lord, will learn from the lesson of to-night the future that awaits them. Now, let us see whether the premises of the hon. and learned Gentleman justify the conclusion at which he asks the House to arrive. Seriously speaking, that conclusion is a very grave one. ["Oh!"] Why, surely, you would not have me speak seriously of light matters? I have been answering the light part, of the noble Lord's speech, and I am now about to address myself to what ought

  1651
  to have been the grave portion of it. The conclusion suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman is one of great gravity, and I am not prepared to say that if that conclusion were established—grave as it is—I, for one, should shrink from the responsibility of voting for it. I think we should place ourselves in a very false position if we asserted our belief that the privileges of this House had been violated by the Ministry, and yet shrunk from the responsibility of condemning their conduct; but at the same time it is necessary that we should scrupulously look to facts, and see whether the conclusion we are called upon to adopt is justified by the circumstances or premises alleged. What is the language of the Resolution? It calls upon us to say—
  "That the war with Persia was declared, prosecuted, and concluded without information of such transactions being communicated to Parliament."
  Now is that the fact? I perfectly agree that the House has not been treated in this matter with that candour which I think it would have been wise if the Minister—however popular and however powerful—had exhibited towards us. I cannot, however, get over the fact that on the meeting of Parliament, which might have been too long deferred, and after an ambiguous silence had, perhaps, been too long maintained on the part of the Government, there was an announcement in the Speech from the Throne of a war with Persia. I feel that that was the occasion—at the time the Address was moved—when this question ought to have been mooted. It is impossible not to feel the force of that argument. I do not at all agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer or other hon. Gentlemen, who maintain that this or any other Indian wars do not require notice from Parliament; but the fact that at the commencement of this war an appeal was immediately made to the Exchequer of this country, marks it out from usual Indian wars. I cannot, however, agree that, as a general principle, all Indian wars are to be taken from the control of this House, even if an immediate appeal is not made to the British Exchequer. The basis of Indian finance is the credit of England; and at this moment, when we hear of the treasuries of India being plundered, when no one can tell by what machinery the revenue of India can for some time be collected, we should have acted in a most indiscreet
  1652
  manner—even if this had been purely and strictly an Indian war, without any immediate appeal to the English Exchequer— if we had allowed the war to pass without criticism and discussion. There is, then, before us the important fact, that at the beginning of the last Session of the last Parliament we were apprised that this war had been undertaken. I cannot under these circumstances agree to a Resolution which alleges, "that the war with Persia was declared, prosecuted, and concluded, without information of such transactions being communicated to Parliament. "I think the Government acted unwisely and erroneously in not communicating their policy to Parliament at an earlier period; but I cannot agree that the late Parliament was itself free from blame in allowing the conduct of the Government to pass so long unnoticed. Does it, then, become an assembly that has been backward in the fulfilment of its duty to agree to a Resolution of so uncompromising a character as that proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman? I confess I cannot but feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right in calling the attention of the House to this subject. I wish he had done so in a manner which would have allowed the expression of our opinion to be of an unanimous character. I cannot suppose that, whatever may happen, this debate will be without profit to our privileges, but I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman would not call upon us to divide upon this issue. It is not for me to counsel the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I shall follow the course which I think it is my duty to follow. I do not think the premises in this case justify the severe and sweeping conclusions at which he has arrived, and therefore my course will be to vote that the House do go into Committee of Supply.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes 352; Noes 38: Majority 314.

  List of the AYES.

  Adams, W. H.

  Baring, T. G.

  Adderley, C. B.

  Barnard, T.

  Akroyd, E.

  Bernard, hon. W. S.

  Alexander, John

  Bass, M. T.

  Anderson, Sir J.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Annesley, hon. H.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Antrobus, E.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Archdall, Capt. M.

  Beale, S.

  Bagwell, J.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Ball, E.

  Bentinck, G. W. P.

  Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

  Berkeley, hon. H. F.

  Baring, hon. F.

  Berkeley, F. W. F.

  1653

  Bethell, Sir R.

  Dutton, hon. R. H.

  Biddulph, R. M.

  Ebrington, Visct.

  Black, A.

  Egerton, E. C.

  Blake, J.

  Ellis, hon. L. A.

  Blakemore, T. W. B.

  Esmonde, J.

  Boldero, Col.

  Evans, T. W.

  Botfield, B.

  Ewart, W.

  Bouverie, hon. P. P.

  Ewart, J. C.

  Bovill, W.

  Fagan, W.

  Bramley Moore, J.

  Farnham, E. B.

  Bramston, T. W.

  Farquhar, Sir M.

  Brand, hon. H.

  Fenwick, H.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Ferguson, Col.

  Briscoe, J. I.

  Finlay, A. S.

  Brocklehurst, J.

  FitzGerald, rt. hon. J. D.

  Brown, J.

  FitzRoy, rt. hon. H.

  Bruce, Lord E.

  Fitzwilliam. hn. C. W. W.

  Bruce, H. A.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

  Buchanan, W.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Buller, J. W.

  Forster, C.

  Bunbury, W. B. M'C.

  Foster, W. O.

  Burke, Sir T. J.

  Fortescue, hon. F. D.

  Bury, Visct.

  Fortescue, C. S.

  Butt, I.

  Freestun, Col.

  Buxton, C.

  Gallwey, Sir W. P.

  Buxton, Sir E. N.

  Galway, Visct.

  Byng, hon. G.

  Gard, R. S.

  Calcraft, J. H.

  Garnett, W. J.

  Calcutt, F. M.

  Gaskell, J. M.

  Campbell, R. J. R.

  Gifford, Earl of

  Carden, Sir R. W.

  Gilpin, Col.

  Castlerosse, Visct.

  Glover, E. A.

  Cavendish, Lord

  Glyn, G. C.

  Cavendish, hon. C. C.

  Glyn, G. G.

  Cayley, E. S.

  Greenall, G.

  Cheetham, J.

  Greenwood, J.

  Child, S.

  Greer, S. M'C.

  Cholmeley, Sir M. J.

  Gregory, W. H.

  Clay, J.

  Gregson, S.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Grenfell, C. P.

  Clifford, H. M.

  Grenfell, C. W.

  Clive, G.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Close, M. C.

  Grey, R. W.

  Cobbett, J. M.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Cobbold, J. C.

  Gurdon, B.

  Codrington, Gen.

  Gurney, J. H.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Hackblock, W.

  Colvile, C. R.

  Hall, rt. hon. Sir B.

  Coningham, W.

  Hanbury, R.

  Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

  Handley, J.

  Coote, Sir C. H.

  Hankey, T.

  Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

  Hanmer, Sir J.

  Cowan, C.

  Harcourt, G. G.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Hardy, G.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Harris, J. D.

  Curzon, Visct.

  Hastie, Arch.

  Dalgleish, R.

  Hatchell, J.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hay, Lord J.

  Damer, L. D.

  Headlam, T. E.

  Dashwood, Sir G. H.

  Heathcote, hon. G. H.

  Davey, R.

  Heneage, G. F.

  Davie, Sir H. R. F.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Dering, Sir E.

  Herbert, H. A.

  De Vere, S. E.

  Hill, hon. R. C.

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Hodgson, K. D.

  Dodson, J. G.

  Holford, R. S.

  Du Cane, C.

  Holland, E.

  Duke, Sir J.

  Hopwood, J. T.

  Duncan, Visct.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Duncombe, hon. A.

  Horsfall, T. B.

  Dundas, G.

  Horsman, rt. hon. E.

  Dunlop, A. M.

  Hotham, Lord

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  1654

  Howard, Lord E.

  O'Connell, Capt. D.

  Hudson, G.

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Hughes, W. B.

  Osborne, R.

  Hutt, W.

  Ossulston, Lord

  Ingestre, Visct.

  Owen, Sir J.

  Ingham, R.

  Paget, C.

  Ingram, H.

  Paget, Lord A.

  Jackson, W.

  Palmer. R.

  Jermyn, Earl

  Palmer, R. W.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Palmerston, Visct.

  Johnstone, hon. H. B.

  Patten, Col. W.

  Jones, D.

  Paull, H.

  Keating, Sir H. S.

  Pechell, Sir G. B.

  Kendall, N.

  Pennant, hon. Col.

  Ker, R.

  Perry, Sir T. E.

  Kershaw, J.

  Philips, R. N.

  King, J. K.

  Philipps, J. H.

  King, E. B.

  Pigott, F.

  Kinglake, A. W.

  Pinney, Col.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Platt, J.

  Knatchbull, W. F.

  Portman, hon. W. H. B.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, E

  Potter, Sir J.

  Knight, F. W.

  Price, W. P.

  Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

  Pryse, E. L.

  Langton, W. G.

  Pritchard, J.

  Langton, H. G.

  Pugh, D.

  Legh, G. C.

  Puller, C. W.

  Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.

  Ramsden, Sir J. W

  Locke, Jno.

  Ramsay, Sir A.

  Lockhart, A. E.

  Raynham, Visct.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Rebow, J. G.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Repton, G. W. J.

  Luce, T.

  Ricardo, O.

  Macarthy, A.

  Ridley, G.

  Mackie, J.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  Mackinnon, W. A.

  Roupell, W.

  M'Clintock, J.

  Russell, F. W.

  M'Cullagh, W. T.

  Russell, Sir W.

  Mainwaring, T.

  Rust, J.

  Malins, R.

  Sandon, Visct.

  Mangles, R. D.

  Schneider, H. W.

  Mangles, C. E.

  Scholefield, W.

  Marjoribanks, D. C.

  Sclater, G.

  Marsh, M. H.

  Scott, Capt. E.

  Marshall, W.

  Seymer, H. D.

  Martin, C. W.

  Shafto, R. D.

  Martin, P. W.

  Sheridan, R. B.

  Martin, J.

  Sibthorp, Maj.

  Massey, W. N.

  Smith, M. T.

  Matheson, A.

  Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

  Matheson, Sir J.

  Smith, A.

  Melgund, Visct.

  Smith, Sir F.

  Merry, J.

  Smyth, Col.

  Miles, W.

  Smollett, A.

  Miller, T. J.

  Somers, J. P.

  Mills, T.

  Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

  Milnes, R. M.

  Spooner, R.

  Milton, Visct.

  Stafford, A.

  Moncrieff, rt. hon. J.

  Stapleton, J.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Stephenson, R.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Stirling, W.

  Morris, D.

  Stewart, Sir M. R. S.

  Mostyn, hn. T. E. M. L.

  Stuart, Lord J.

  Mowbray, J. R.

  Stuart, Col.

  Napier, Sir C.

  Sullivan, M.

  Newark, Visct.

  Sykes, Col. W. H.

  Nisbet, R. P.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Noel, hon. G. J.

  Tancred, H. W.

  Norreys, Sir D. J.

  Taylor, S. W.

  Norris, J. T.

  Tempest, Lord A. V.

  North, F.

  Thorneley, T.

  O'Brien, P.

  Thornhill, W. P.

  O'Brien, Sir T.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  1655

  Tollemache, J.

  Westhead, J. P. B.

  Tomline, G.

  Wickham, H. W.

  Townsend, J.

  Willcox, B, M'G.

  Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.

  Williams, M.

  Trueman, C.

  Williams, Sir W. F.

  Turner, J. A.

  Willoughby, J. P.

  Vansittart, W.

  Wilson, J.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Wingfield, R. B.

  Vivian, H. H.

  Wise, J. A.

  Vivian, hon. J. C. W.

  Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

  Waddington, H. S.

  Woodd, B. T.

  Walcott, Adm.

  Wood, W.

  Waldron, L.

  Wyld, J.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Wyndham, Gen.

  Walter, J.

  Wynn, Col.

  Warburton, G. D.

  Warre, J. A.

  TELLERS.

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Hayter, rt. hon. W, G.

  Western, S.

  Mulgrave, Earl of

  List of the NOES.

  Baillie, H. J.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Biggs, J.

  Nicoll, D.

  Blackburn, P.

  O'Donaghoe, The

  Bowyer, G.

  Pevensey, Visct.

  Bruce, Major C.

  Salisbury, E. G.

  Burghley, Lord

  Scott, H. F.

  Burrell, Sir C. M.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Christy, S.

  Smith, J. B.

  Clive, hon. R. W.

  Thompson. Gen.

  Cox, W.

  Trelawny, Sir J. S.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Warren, S.

  FitzGerald, W. R. S.

  Watkin, E. W.

  Gilpin, C.

  White, J.

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

  Williams, W.

  Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Willyams, E. W. B.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Willoughby, Sir H.

  Hildyard, R. C.

  Wortley, Maj.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  Hume, W. F.

  TELLERS.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Roebuck, J. A.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  MR. DISRAELIasked if the papers relating to the mutiny in India would be laid on the table to-morrow.
  MR. VERNON SMITHwas understood to say they would be laid on the table on an early day.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  House in Committee; Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should not at that late hour (a quarter to one o'clock) ask the House to agree to the two Resolutions which stood on the paper in his name. He should move them to-morrow evening in a Committee of Supply.
  House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL CONTINGENCIES.
  On the bringing up of the Report of the Committee of Supply.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was not aware the other night that the
  1656
  Civil Contingencies were coming on, and he should, therefore, avail himself of the bringing up of the Report to make a few observations. There had been a great increase in the amount of the Civil Contingencies which had been spent, and this year it had reached £94,000. But he wished to ask a question of the Secretary to the Treasury; he wished to know what was done with the balance of the Civil Contingencies, whatever it might be. In the last four years, £100,000 had been voted every year for Civil Contingencies, a large portion of which, amounting to £148,000, had not been expended. He would beg to ask, therefore, what was the practice with regard to that part of the Civil Contingencies which was not spent? Was it returned into the Exchequer, or was it retained and expended on the authority of the Treasury in loans and grants? If so, it was a most objectionable outlay of money voted for one purpose which was applied to another, as, in his opinion, all expenditure of money ought to be authorized by a vote of that House. He wished also to know if the expenditure of the Civil Contingencies was subject to any audit, and if not, why not? He also wished to know if the Treasury claimed or exercised any power to expend this money without any examination at all?
  MR. WILSON,in reply to the first question, said there could be no doubt that there was an annual Vote of £100,000 for Civil Contingencies, and as the expenditure on that account had not in any year reached that amount, there was a large accumulation of balance out of the Civil Contingencies. The hon. Gentleman would recollect, that in the Committee on public moneys last year it was shown that the Treasury did not draw any of the balance of these Votes of £100,000, but that he (Mr. Wilson) had returned them into the Exchequer as a saving of £70,000, and a Return had been laid on the table, showing an account current for the last ten years of the amount voted and used for the Civil Contingencies. Last week he laid a similar Return for the past year on the table, and that practice he intended to follow every year, showing the state of the accounts for ten years. In answer to the second question, he said that the Treasury did not assume or exercise any right to appropriate the Vote for Civil Contingencies to anything which did not appear in the accounts, or to which Parliament had not

  1657
  given its sanction; any expenditure of the money voted for Civil Contingencies was to be found in the accounts annually presented to Parliament. With regard to the third question, the hon. Gentleman was aware that under the present system the Civil Service accounts were not audited by the Audit Board, which was a fault in the system which, he hoped would now be amended.
  Resolution agreed to.

  JUSTICE AND POLICE FORCE (DUBLIN) BILL—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALD MR. J. D. FITZGERALD moved that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair in order to go into Committee upon this Bill.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. VANCEobjected, as he had only just received some Amendments from Dublin.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDoffered to postpone proceedings on this Bill to another day, if all the orders of hon. Members which followed were also postponed.
  MR. GROGAN MR. GROGAN moved the adjournment of the House.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONremarked, that he agreed that it was unreasonable at that hour (one o'clock) to expect the House to go on with opposed Bills; but if they were to sit, and there were to be debates, it was only fair the debates should be on the subjects as they stood in order on the paper.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and negatived.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.

SUPERANNUATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  POSTPONEMENT OF SECOND READING.
  LORD NAASsaid, that he objected to postpone the order for the Second Reading of this Bill, on the ground that Government were in a very different position from private Members. The Government could fix the business as they pleased, but a private Member had no such advantage.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the House would meet again to-day at twelve, and it was rather hard, after sitting at twelve yesterday, to keep hon. Members there until two or three in the morning. It was only
  1658
  reasonable that after twelve o'clock they should not proceed with Bills which were likely to be opposed.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, that the Civil Service Superannuation Bill was viewed by the country with deep interest. He hoped that an opportunity would be given for its discussion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked that the Government were disposed to give a day, but they were unable at the present moment to fix any time.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDhoped that the noble Lord would not be content unless the Government named a particular day for the discussion of his Bill.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsuggested to the Government that they might easily get over the difficulty by agreeing to the second reading.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,said, that as Thursday morning next seemed to be unoccupied, the discussion on the Civil Service Superannuation Bill might be taken then.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next, at twelve o'clock.
  The House adjourned at a Quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Militia Ballots Suspension; Bill Chamber (Scotland); Glebe Lands (Ireland).
2a Prisoners Removal; Turnpike Trusts Abolition (Ireland).

THE INDIAN MUTINY—FINANCE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to call the attention of the noble Earl opposite to a notice which has been issued by the East India Company for tenders for steam vessels of not less than 1,000 tons burden each to convey troops to the number of 6,000 to Calcutta, the freight to be paid in India at the rate of 2s. 0¼d. per rupee. About a fortnight ago I called the attention of the noble Earl to another notification on the part of the East India Company ordering a rate of exchange which would force remittances from India. It appears to me that the object of this proceeding is precisely the same, and I protest on the part of the Government of India and of the public service against any measure, the effect of which is to compel payment in India at the present time by the Calcutta Treasury of sums which might be better paid here, I know the difficulties in which that treasury must be involved. The Government of India is at present deprived of all financial resources from the North-Western Provinces. Madras pays for itself, but cannot help you. Bombay is subjected to heavy charges on account of the war with Persia, and will not pay more than its own expenses. The whole additional charges arising out of the military operations connected with the mutiny must be defrayed by the treasury at Calcutta, out of the revenues of Bengal alone. These charges will be enormous. I think the noble Earl is in error when he supposes that the Government of India will be capable for a considerable time to meet them. The noble Earl is in error when he supposes that there is a balance of £10,000,000, or anything like so large a sum in the Calcutta Treasury. The whole of that sum of £10,000,000, if it exists, is not in the Calcutta Treasury, upon which alone these expenses will fall; but in the treasuries of Madras and Bombay, as well as that of Calcutta. Some of the treasure which
  1534
  belongs to Bengal is scattered all over the Presidency, and a considerable portion is in that part of the Upper Presidency which is now in the possession of the insurgents. I believe, indeed, that three or four of these local treasuries have fallen into the hands of the mutineers in consequence of the delay in the advance of our troops, caused, as I stated the other night, by the heat of the weather, and by the want of carriage, but, as I now learn from authentic information, from the desire of General Anson to bring up a battering train. The whole of the treasure at Calcutta would not appear to be available for the purposes of the war. I understand that a large part of it has practically been appropriated, while another portion is in paper, and is, under present circumstances, of little or no value. The only fund really available is the coin, and that, I believe, forms no very considerable part of the entire amount. Now, very heavy charges have to be borne by the Bengal Treasury in respect of freight. I judge from this notice that the same system has been pursued in regard to other transmissions of troops; and in all cases it is agreed that this freight should be paid in India. First, there is the freight of 6,000 men, 3,000 of whom are of the Queen's service and 3,000 of the Company's service, who are going out as recruits to supply vacancies in the ranks of the army and not as reinforcements. Then there is the freight of eight regiments, which we are given to understand have already been ordered to proceed to India. Next the freight of the five regiments from China now comes due by India, to which has to be added the expense of conveying six regiments more. There will also be the freight of the artillery and the cavalry, if they are sent out, as I trust they will be. The charge for these different items will be enormous, and if they are all to be paid in India, and not here, depend upon it the Government of India will be perfectly unable to meet the heavy burden that will be thrown upon it for providing the means of transport for so vast a number of troops. This is a very serious consideration. The point of the most essential importance is, that the Government of India should have the means of making movable the force sent to them. If they cannot do that, the force might as well not be sent at all. I therefore trust this matter will engage the close and serious attention of Her Majesty's Government. For my own part, I feel

  1535
  satisfied that the moment is come when Her Majesty's Goverment must intervene with the credit of this country to enable the Court of Directors to pay their own expenses for a considerable period without any remittances from India. India is incapable of making those remittances without crippling her own resources—resources which it is absolutely necessary should be appropriated to furnishing the means of movement for the army, and for operations in the field. I hope Her Majesty's Government will afford that assistance without delay. It should be given to the extent of £5,000,000 sterling. The whole of that amount need not, however, be all paid down at once. If a loan of £5,000,000 were contracted for under the guarantee of Her Majesty's Government, it would only be requisite that a sum of £600,000 should be paid in the first month, the remainder to be raised by subsequent instalments of £400,000 each succeeding month until the entire amount is paid. It is my firm belief that a measure of this kind is indispensable, because it will be found that the draughts and remittances from India will cripple the power of the Government of that country, and render it incapable of doing that which is imperatively demanded by the interests of the empire.
  EARL GRANVILLE, who spoke in a very low tone, was understood to say that he had had no opportunity of personally communicating with the authorities of India on the subject to which the noble Earl had referred. He was unable to state what was the exact amount in the Calcutta Treasury; he had, however, received information that the proposed mode of paying for the conveyance of these troops was in strict accordance with the usual practice; and he also understood that the Governor General had ample means at his disposal for defraying the charges for freight. The subjects to which the noble Earl had adverted were of the greatest importance, and he could assure their Lordships that they would receive the careful attention of the Home Government.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I do most earnestly hope that the noble Earl and the noble Duke opposite, who manifest so deep an interest in the affairs of India will take the trouble of looking into this matter themselves. They may depend upon it that they cannot safely trust to clerks either at the India House or at the India Board. Unless they
  1536
  examine into these affairs personally, and have before them a statement of the funds actually in the Treasury at Calcutta and in all the other treasuries of India at the very latest period at which the account was rendered; unless they ask questions with respect to those funds and ascertain how far they are really available for the purpose of military operations,—they may rely upon it that, with the best possible intentions, they will fall into the most grievous and fatal errors.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control was not back-ward in fulfilling the duties imposed upon him by the present emergency; on the contrary, he was at that moment devoting his utmost energy and attention to the consideration of every measure adapted to meet that emergency.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, that may be the belief of Her Majesty's Government; but I communicate very extensively with gentlemen connected with India, and I never meet one man among them who has not the most thorough distrust of the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Board of Control.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (CAPITAL) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a with the Amendments.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he wished to refer to the circumstances under which this measure came before the House. The object of the Bill was, to settle from what fund the losses sustained by this company through the frauds committed by Leopold Redpath, lately one of its own officers, should be made up, and the proposal was, to throw upon the preference shareholders in the company the liability for a portion of the losses occasioned by the Redpath frauds. There could be no doubt that the directors of the company were well acquainted with the antecedents of Redpath, and aware of his extravagant habits; to such an extent was his extravagance carried, that, although he was only a clerk at a salary of £200 a year, he lived in most affluent style, and thought proper, at the Paris Exhibition, to compete with the Emperor himself for the possession of a work of art, which he succeeded in obtaining at a cost of 700 guineas. Yet this person was allowed to commit frauds to the extent of

  1537
  a quarter of a million of money—and those frauds were vast in number, and spread over several years; and during all that time the directors shut their eyes, and did not take even ordinary pains to inquire into and ascertain the state of their share list. What was a railway company but a large partnership? and what would be said of a partnership, the members of which did not know who were their partners, or to whom the dividends of profits were payable? The shares which Redpath had forged, it had been thought prudent by the company to acknowledge; but, as yet, he had not heard any argument to show that, in point of law, those shares were to be created at the cost of the preference shareholders. The chairman of the company was a gentleman of great respectability, whom he had the pleasure of knowing; and he (Lord St. Leonards) had impeached the conduct of that gentleman as a public director of the company in connection with his co-directors without the use of unseemly language; but that gentleman had acted otherwise, and in bringing his (Lord St. Leonards') name prominently forward at a recent meeting of the shareholders had spoken of him, though certainly much to the distate of the meeting, in a most disrespectful manner. He actually stated, although he had an accurate report before him of what he (Lord St. Leonards) had said, that he (Lord St. Leonards) had himself advised the repudiation of the stock. Now, he begged to say, that he had never uttered a word of the sort. What he did say was, that as the company were not legally bound, it was merely a question of policy as regarded the Stock Exchange, whether the forged shares should be acknowledged or not. The question then arose, how these frauds should be met. The directors at first proposed to capitalize the amount of the loss, making it represent so much additional capital. He (Lord St. Leonards) had been charged with speaking from interest on this subject, but he had directed the whole of his interest in the company to be sold, and it was only because a small portion of it would not fetch near its value that it alone remained unsold. He was willing to sustain a loss rather than be exposed to this charge. No man, indeed, who valued his property, would choose to leave any portion of it under such a direction. His noble Friend the Chairman of Committees (Lord Redesdale) thought that, as there had been great neglect on the part of the directors, the
  1538
  proper way would be to withhold all dividends upon the stock which they held by way of qualification until the loss was made up. But the directors now proposed to meet the loss by appropriating the whole of the half year's dividend, amounting to nearly £250,000, to the extinction of the forged capital, by buying up so much of it as would reduce the capital of the company to the amount at which it stood before the forgeries took place. But, if such a proceeding could be equitably taken, the loss might have been thrown over several half-years, since there were many persons, including women, whose whole dependence was upon the dividends of this company; and the loss and inconvenience to such persons from cutting off an entire half-year's income could scarcely be overrated. The arrangement which the Bill proposed to carry into effect would, no doubt, operate very well upon the Stock Exchange, but it dealt with the interests of the preference shareholders in a manner which he trusted their Lordships would not sanction. He, for one, was prepared to maintain that, according to the correct view of the obligations into which the directors had entered with those shareholders, they were entitled to receive payment before the other shareholders, and he apprehended that no reasonable doubt could be raised by anybody as to the justice of the opinion that the Act of Parliament provided, that each year should be made to answer its own particular engagements. If that were the case, then the loss occasioned to the company by the frauds which had been committed ought, at all events, instead of being thrown over one-half, to be extended over the whole of the current year. He must warn their Lordships that, if they were to strike at the interests of the preferential shareholders by passing the Bill as it stood, they would, while conferring a benefit upon certain parties, do much damage to the railway interest in general. Upon public grounds, therefore, he should call upon their Lordships not to take that course. The Bill, as it came up to them from the House of Commons, simply provided, that the money in the hands of the company should be devoted to making good the defalcations which had taken place; but the interests of the preferential shareholders were left untouched—at least there was nothing in the Bill to negative them; but the Committee of their Lordships' House, to whom the Bill had been referred, instead of allowing

  1539
  the clause which had been framed with that object to continue as it stood, had added to it certain words to the effect that the payment should be actually binding and conclusive on all the shareholders. Now, the effect of that proposition, if carried out, would be, that no preference shareholder, whatever his right at law might be, would be in a position to prosecute that right either against the directors or against the company generally. Nothing, therefore, he should maintain, could be more unjust than the adoption of the recommendation of the Committee. The preference shareholders, in acceding to the Bill as it had been brought up from the other House of Parliament, considered that they were submitting to what was a very grievous burden; and their Lordships must bear in mind that, at the last meeting of the shareholders, a majority, although a small one, of those who were present were opposed to the measure as it stood. It must also be taken into account, that the number of ordinary was much greater than the number of preference shareholders, so that, of course, the latter were completely overruled by the former. As for the proxies, there was very little reliance to be placed upon them, inasmuch as those who had signed them had been told that they would not receive a dividend at all if the Bill did not pass. The subject was one in reference to which he had had a great number of letters addressed to him, and it had excited great public interest; and he could only say, in conclusion, that if their Lordships were to pass the Bill in its present shape, the infliction of a great hardship upon the preference shareholders would be the result. The promoters of the Bill, it was true, had the opinion of the Attorney General in their favour; but he had the opinion of other counsel to the effect that the preference shareholders were entitled to a full year's interest. Under these circumstances he should move that the words added by the Committee of their Lordships' House, and to which he had referred—namely, "And therefore the said sum of £243,923 5s. 8d. shall be considered to have been duly divided among all classes of the shareholders of the company," be omitted, and the Bill thus allowed to stand in the position in which it was when it had come up from the House of Commons.
  Moved, To leave out from ("respectively ") to the end of the clause.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, that, like his noble and learned Friend, he unfortunately
  1540
  was a preference shareholder in this company, but not to a considerable extent. When he understood what the measure was which had been, introduced into the House of Commons, he and the other preference shareholders petitioned against it. Their petition was not successful. When the measure came on for a second reading in this House, he thought he had a right, as a Member of Parliament, to express an opinion that the loss ought to come out of the annual profits. The effect of the measure as it now stood was unjust. He wished not to be precluded from any rights he might have at law by any decision of their Lordships.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMINSTERsaid, the point they had before them at that moment was, whether they should consult the views and interests of the preferential shareholders, or the interest of the shareholders in general. The Attorney General had given his approval of the Bill, and it was then placed before the Committee of the House of Commons, and received their unanimous sanction. The noble and learned Lord opposite talked of the hardship of depriving the preferential shareholders of their dividends; but was it not also a hardship to deprive the ordinary shareholders of their dividends? And this ought also to be considered, that by the arrangement proposed by the noble and learned Lord, the preferential shareholders would receive the whole and the others get nothing; whereas, by the Bill as it stood, the preferential shareholders would not suffer as much as the ordinary shareholders, but would not receive the full amount of their interest. The Committee of the House of Commons and the Committee of their Lordships' House had come to the unanimous conclusion that this course ought to be followed, and he trusted it would receive their Lordships' support.
  THE EARL OF STRADBROKEwas understood to support the Bill as it stood. If the proposition of his noble and learned Friend was carried, the preferential shareholders would altogether escape from the loss.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that he had not argued in favour of the preference shareholders; his only object was to restore the Bill to the state in which it came from the House of Commons.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that when the first Bill was introduced upon this subject, it was proposed to capitalize the amount with which the company had been

  1541
  fraudulently charged. He conceived that that was a principle of a most dangerous character, and he added to his disapproval of this measure the expression of his Opinion, that the directors were greatly to blame, and that if Parliament were applied to to permit the loss to be carried over a length of time, it would be very proper that the dividends payable on the directors' qualifications should be suspended during that time, and applied as part of the funds to make good this loss. As concerned the Bill as it now stood, he confessed he was disposed to adhere to the decision of the proprietors, who had come to the conclusion that the loss should be paid out of the dividend of a single half-year. The preference shareholders were by no means an unimportant minority of the proprietary, and, as this decision had been come to, he was not disposed to interfere with it.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he was inclined to concur in what had been said by his noble Friend, and to regard these words as merely explanatory of what was the view taken by the House of Commons. A preference shareholder had no right to be relieved from his share of any burden imposed upon his brother proprietors, over whom he had no advantage except as to the priority of title to dividend when the receipts were not sufficient to satisfy the claims of all shareholders. The object of this Bill, which was approved by a large majority at a meeting of proprietors, at which the preference shareholders were well represented, was to prevent further litigation, and he therefore thought that their Lordships would do greater justice to all parties by allowing the Bill to remain as it had been altered by the Committee than by omitting these phrases, which were only supplemental words put in to carry Out the intention of the other House of Parliament.
  On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 43; Not-Contents 7: Majority 36.

  CONTENTS.

  Newcastle, D.

  Chichester, E.

  Cowper, E.

  Breadalbane, M.

  Essex, E.

  Westminster, M. [Teller.]

  Fortescue, E.

  Glengall, E.

  Granville, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Lucan, E.

  1542

  Romney, E.

  Dacre, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Bolingbroke and St.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  John, V.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Melville, V.

  Mostyn, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Torrington, V.

  Panmure, L.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  A veland, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Broughton, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Byron, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Manchester. D. [Teller.]

  Congleton, L.

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Wensleydale, L.

  Dungannon, V. [Teller.]

  Wynford, L.

  On the Motion of Lord WENSLEYDALE the following proviso was added to Clause 5—
  "Provided, also, that nothing herein contained shall in any way affect the right, if any, of the company or the proprietors of the shares therein to recover against their directors or officers of the said company for any neglect or misconduct on their part in the matters in the recital of this Act mentioned."
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CROWDED DWELLINGS PREVENTION BILL.

  COMMITTEE ON RECOMMITMENT.
  House in Committee (on recommitment) (according to order).
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that a justification of the additional powers which the Bill would grant to remedy the evils of crowded dwellings would be found in a Report of the Commissioners of Police on the subject. The Act of 1851 had been beneficial beyond expectation. A better class of lodging-houses had sprung up, and accommodation of a higher standard was provided without increased payment. A case that had occurred under the amended Act furnished an example of the nature and extent of the evils which arose in lodging-houses not controlled by law—
  "At a house No. 17 Lincoln Court, St. Giles's, in one room ten feet square, wherein three persons would be allowed by the regulations now enforced, seven men, nine women, and one child, were found huddled together in a most filthy

  1543
  state; the bedding dirty beyond description, no partitions or ventilation; and a, few minutes before the visit of the officer one of the women had been confined. The keeper was summoned on the 24th of October, 1854, to Bow Street Police Court, and fined £4, or six weeks' imprisonment."
  Not less than forty-eight medical men, being the metropolitan medical officers of their several districts, and living in the most densely crowded parts of the metropolis, attested the beneficial effects of the law. They stated that there had been a complete cessation of fever in these lodging-houses, that there had been, a great diminution in other diseases, a disappearance of vermin, and an increase of cleanliness, decency, and order. Forty medical men from the provincial districts gave their testimony to the same effect. The Report of the Commissioners of Police issued a few weeks ago stated—
  "The Act (says the Report of 1857) for the well-ordering of Common Lodging-houses has now been in operation since the year 1851, and has been attended by most beneficial results. Before this enactment the evils existing in the lodging-houses of the poor were beyond description. Crowded and filthy, without water or ventilation, without the least regard to cleanliness or decency, they were hotbeds of disease, misery, and crime. Under the operation of the Act the evils attending such houses have been in a great degree removed or abated. It must, of course, be a work of time to establish a complete system of supervision, and there will be need of constant vigilance to maintain it; but a vast amount of improvement, sanitary and moral, has been already effected. The houses are now much improved and daily improving, the keepers are of a better class, and, without increase of payment, the accommodation provided for the poor is, in all respects, of a higher standard. These results will, without doubt, follow in greater degree as the operation of the law extends itself and becomes more searching and complete."
  He remembered the state of the lodging-houses of the metropolis before the Act of 1851, and he could assure their Lordships that the change approached the marvellous. Instead of dirt, impurity, and indecency, there was now cleanliness, decency, and order. He would take one sample. In Mint Street there was a lodging-house called "Jack Sheppard's house," which used to be frequented by such a desperate class of inmates that the police seldom dared to visit it even in the discharge of their duty. This House used to be a hotbed of vice, crime, and disease, but it was now precisely the reverse. He paid this house a visit not long ago, and he found in it eighty inmates in the common rooms, all peaceful and orderly, some engaged in cooking, others in eating, reading, or conversation. He next went upstairs, where
  1544
  he found everything sweet and clean, and when he spoke to the inmates they said that the change had been greater than, they could have supposed it in the power of any Act of Parliament to produce. The Scripture readers and city missionaries now had access to these houses, and a great effect was produced by their ministrations. On the Sunday before last one of the missionaries went his round through one of the most populous districts of the metropolis, which used also to be one of the most degraded. He found every one of these lodging-houses vacant, the whole body of the inmates having gone to attend the evening service in Exeter Hall. He felt bound to express his deep gratitude to the Commissioners of Police for the manner in which they had carried into effect the provisions of the statute. The labour thereby imposed upon the police had been very great. The Commissioners stated in their Report—
  "In enforcing the provisions of the Common Lodging-houses Act, great care has been taken to impress upon the minds of the officers engaged in this duty the necessity of consideration and forbearance. The result of this system has been highly gratifying. During a period exceeding five years ending 1857, about 700,655 visits have been made, both by day and by night, among a class of persons deemed almost incorrigible, without the occurrence of one assault on any of the officers, and without one just complaint of intrusion into a 'private dwelling.'"
  The weekly distance travelled by the police in carrying out this Act was 800 miles, exclusive of the labour of mounting upstairs, diving into cellars, going to fetch medical men, and making their reports. Every night from 40,000 to 50,000 persons slept in these registered lodging-houses, and whenever he had paid night visits to these places he had found the Act duly carried out, and the rooms strictly sweet, wholesome, and well ventilated. There was, nevertheless, something to be done, and it was necessary that a certain class of houses and rooms should be brought within the beneficial regulations of the Act. These were tenement houses or tenement rooms as they were called, which were occupied by a number of persons professing to be members of a single family, one of whom paid the rent. The principle of English law, that "every man's house (or room) was his castle," was here grossly abused. The magistrates, whom he did not blame, had ruled that although a single room might be tenanted by a vast number of people, yet that if the person who hired the house or the room,

  1545
  and who paid the rent, declared that all the persons living with him were members of the same family, that was a private room or house, and could not be brought within the Act. The Report of the Metropolitan Police for 1857 gave the following description of one of these tenement rooms—
  "In the occupation by families of single rooms all the evils incident to the crowding of persons together without regard to age or sex are produced. On visiting a house in Church Lane, St. Giles's, soon after midnight, there were found in a room, measuring 14 feet 6 inches by 14 fret 6 inches, no less than thirty-seven men, women, and children, all lying together on the floor like beasts, with scarcely any other covering than the clothes taken from their persons, which they had worn throughout the day. On opening the door leading into this loathsome place the heat was so great and the odour so offensive as to make it nearly unsupportable. No means whatever were employed to ventilate the room, except the chimney."
  Dr. Letheby, the able medical officer of the City Board of Health, said in his valuable Report for the present year that there were—
  "Numerous instances where adults of both sexes, belonging to different families, are lodged in the same room, regardless of all the common decencies of life, herding together like brute beasts; where all the offices of nature are performed in the most public and offensive manner, where every human instinct of decency is smothered—a woman suffering in travail in the midst of males and females of different families that tenant the same room, birth and death going hand in hand."
  A scientific man would tell their Lordships that "in such a polluted atmosphere it was not surprising that epidemic and other infectious maladies should almost decimate the population." These persons, occupying tenement houses or rooms, as he had stated, were excluded from the operation of the Bill, because they declared that they were all members of the same family. The definition of the word "family," as given in the Bill, embraced within its compass the relations of grandfather and grandmother, and must, he thought, be regarded as sufficiently liberal in its character. It would, in fact, leave a large number of homes which would be untouched by the law; and yet the testimony of the inspecting sergeants of police, as well as of medical men of the greatest eminence throughout the country, was to the effect that, unless those houses containing single families were brought under the control of legislation, the ravages which fever and disease committed
  1546
  among the lower classes could never effectually be put an end to. But, although he felt that the Bill did not go so far as it was desirable that it should, he had to a great extent paid regard to the dwellings of private families notwithstanding; but it was his opinion that no great hardship would be inflicted upon them if they were, as far as possible, brought under the operation of the Common Lodging-houses Act, and thus enabled to enjoy the advantages of an improved ventilation and greater cleanliness. The 4th clause of the Bill gave to the Commissioners of Police the power of calling upon the local authorities to put into operation the Nuisances Removal Act of 1855, section 29, and having stated thus much he believed he had put their Lordships in possession at least of the substance of the measure. It was one of a character very simple and very short. It conferred no new powers, although it assigned some new duties, and if it were permitted to pass into a law it would, he felt assured, conduce to the removal of many evils, the magnitude of which could be ascertained by personal observation alone. In making an effort of that kind their Lordships had to deal with a class of people who, however degraded they might seem, were good at the bottom, and who were animated by aspirations nobler than their position enabled them to carry into effect. In helping these persons, so far as to give them the power to help themselves, their Lordships would be conferring upon them a great boon, and he felt assured that every effort which was made in that direction would be amply repaid by the increased industry and comfort of which it would be productive, and by the gratitude which it would inevitably evoke.
  Amendment made. The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD WENSLEYDALE LORD WENSLEYDALE moved the insertion of a clause to the effect that judgment creditors should not be deprived, as the Bill proposed, of that priority of claim which the fact of having obtained a judgment under the operation of the existing law conferred. His Lordship added that the creditors of the Newcastle Bank complained of the measure in that respect, and

  1547
  were the advocates of the Amendment which he suggested.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORopposed the clause. The Bill had received the approval of the other House, and was intended to remedy a defect in the existing law which enabled every creditor of a bank to bring an action against the company, and then to take out execution against each of the shareholders, thus multiplying the proceedings to an unlimited extent. This Bill now adopted the provision in the late Bankruptcy Act, by which five-sixths of the creditors could make an arrangement which would bind the other sixth, with a view to a settlement of their claims, and in such a case the whole assets would be placed in one common fund and distributed rateably among the creditors. He thought that the proposition made by the noble and learned Lord came somewhat ungraciously from the creditors of the Newcastle Bank, who had already received 2s. in the pound upon their debts, and he therefore trusted that their Lordships would not listen to it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Amendment made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

THE NATIONAL SURVEY.

  MOTION FOR COMMITTEE.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, in rising to move that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the question of what was the proper scale for a national survey, said, that he was inclined to bring the subject before their Lordships by what had taken place in the other House of Parliament. At one time the 1-inch scale, at another the 6-inch scale, and at another the 25-inch scale had been approved, and each in turn had been condemned, and he thought that it would be most desirable that the question should be finally set at rest by the Report of a Commission of persons whose experience qualified them to form a correct judgment on the subject. The national survey had been lingering on since the year 1827, when the southern counties of England had been surveyed on the scale of one inch to the mile. In 1824, when for the purpose of valuation of town lands in Ireland it was necessary that that country should be surveyed, a Committee of the other House of Parliament, presided over by Lord Monteagle, then Mr.
  1548
  Spring Rice, had decided that a survey on the 1-inch scale would be useless, and they recommended, and the Government adopted their recommendation, that the survey should be on a scale of not less than six inches to the mile. The survey of England was therefore suspended; and when resumed, the 6-inch scale was adopted for the northern counties, and for the whole of Ireland. In 1840 it was proposed that Scotland should be surveyed on the 6-inch scale. Now, the 6-inch scale was too large for military or geographical purposes, but was not large enough for other purposes, such as tithe computation or valuation, as had been proved by the survey of Ireland on that scale having been found useless for those purposes. In Ireland, for the purpose of valuation, a new survey had been made; and if the original survey had been on the 25-inch scale, it could have been made at a less cost than had been caused by the 6-inch scale. He believed that the cost of a survey on the 25-inch scale was about 11¾d. an acre, while that on the 6-inch was 10¼d., so that the difference in the original expense was not very great. As to the idea that Scotch landowners wished to get their estates surveyed at the public cost, such an idea was absurd, inasmuch as their estates had already been surveyed; but he felt that, for general purposes, a survey on the 25-inch scale would be most advantageous, as had been proved in France and other continental countries.
  Moved,"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject of the National Survey, and upon the Scale or Scales on which it should be made and on which, it should be published."
  LORD PANMUREsaid, he entirely approved the object of his noble Friend's. Motion. It had been stated in another place that this survey was a job. He could not see upon what ground that assertion was made, because, in his opinion, a great national survey could be of no interest to any single individual so much as to the public at large, who were to benefit by it. The survey was originally commenced on a small scale, which was afterwards extended. It had proceeded to a certain length in England when it was stopped, in order that the survey of Ireland, which a Committee of the House of Commons had decided should be on the 6-inch scale, might be completed.

  1549
  The 6-inch scale had been found inapplicable to the national purposes of a survey, and, acting upon that experience, Colonel James, the able superintendent of these operations (than whom there was no one better qualified to direct them), suggested the adoption of a 25-inch scale for the remainder of England and for the whole of Scotland, the survey of which country had not been commenced. It had been said that the adoption of this scale for the north of England and Scotland was a job to satisfy the country gentlemen of that part of the empire. Now, he would undertake to say that there was not a landed proprietor in that part of the country who had not already been compelled to survey his estate for his own purposes. The maps so produced, however, were not maps by which the public could be guided, and if there were to be any national document at all, there ought to be a national survey of the whole country eventually carried out upon one scale, but which he would not take upon himself to say. The other House of Parliament had decided upon the scale three or four times, and each time it had pronounced a different opinion. He therefore thought that the course proposed by the Motion of his noble Friend opposite was the most sensible one which could be pursued in this matter. An hon. Member of the other House had said that he should have no confidence in any Commission which might be appointed by the Government, If a Commission was appointed, however, it should consist of such men as the Presidents of the Royal and Geographical Societies, joined with others eminent for scientific or legal attainments. It would then be for that Commission to decide, once for all, on what scale the national survey should be conducted, and for the House of Commons to say at what rate the public money should be expended for conducting it upon that particular scale. All he could do, pending the labours of the Commission, was to complete the survey on the 25-inch scale of such parishes as had already been begun; he could not undertake any fresh surveys upon that scale. He consented to the Motion of his noble Friend, and would take the greatest possible pains to form a satisfactory Commission.
  After a few words from the Duke of BUCCLEUCH,
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at Eight o'Clock till To- morrow, half after Ten o'clock.