Sitting of 13 March 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
2° Portland Harbour.
3° Customs' Duties; Racehorse Duty Act Amendment; Cinque Ports Act Amendment; Pauper Maintenance.

THE LUNDHILL COLLIERY ACCIDENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAYLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Florae Department whether he was able to furnish more information respecting the late catastrophe at the colliery near Barnsley than had yet been given to the public?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I am sorry to say that I cannot furnish any further information than the public are in possession of with regard to the very melancholy and lamentable accident at the Lundhill Colliery, and for this reason—that, as my hon. Friend knows, the pit has been closed with the advice of persons of the greatest authority and experience in these matters, as the best means of extinguishing the fire in the pit, and as, in fact, the only course which could under the circumstances be adopted until it was safe to reopen the pit to examine it. It is, I fear, impossible to obtain any further information at present. All that I have done is to take care that there shall be the fullest investigation into the cause of the accident, and I have no doubt that every possible means will be taken to acquire such information as may tend to prevent such accidents in future.

  ECCLESIASTICAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES BILL—QUESTION.
  MR. MACGREGORsaid, he wished to inquire of the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he had any objection to lay the Bill upon the table?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: A Bill, Sir, has been prepared founded on the Report of the Committee that sat last year to make inquiries respecting the operation of the Ecclesiastical Commission. It includes all those recommendations of the Committee which require legislative sanction. Some of these recommendations may be adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners without the authority of an Act of Parliament. I have referred the Bill to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I understand that they desire to introduce some additional provisions, but I have not yet received the Bill back from them. I therefore think that it would not be desirable to lay the Bill on the table this Session.

THE FOUNDLING HOSPITAL.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT RAYNHAMsaid, he would beg to inquire of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether the attention of the Charity Commissioners had been directed to the complicated state of the finances of the Foundling Hospital, and to the effects of the existence of that institution?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply, said, that the Charity Commissioners had instituted an inquiry into the state of that foundation, including both its financial condition and its management, and he believed that their Report would shortly be presented.

  BREVET LIEUTENANT COLONELS IN THE ARMY—QUESTION.
  MAJOR KNOXsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War whether a major, having been promoted to the rank of brevet lieutenant colonel for service in the field, is entitled (having afterwards succeeded to the command of his regiment) to reckon his service as brevet lieutenant colonel towards his promotion to the rank of colonel, although he was not in command of his regiment during that time.
  MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the case put by the hon. and gallant Member had not yet occurred, and no regulation had been made by the Horse Guards on the subject.

CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WILLCOXsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having expressed in that House his hopes that the Report of the Royal Commissioners upon the Civil Service Superannuation Act would be laid upon the table before Easter, he had intimated to them his expectations upon that point; and, if not, whether he will do so, reminding them, at the same time, that they have had this question in charge ever since October, 1856?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it would be impossible for him to give the Commissioners any instructions as to the time at which they should make their Report; but he understood that it would be ready before Easter. The Commissioners had, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee of last Session, called for a Report from eminent actuaries upon the subject.

  DANISH TRANSIT DUES—QUESTION.
  MR. G. DUNDASsaid, he wished to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with reference to the statement made by him that four-fifths of the Danish Transit Dues were to be abolished, he had considered the expediency, before any treaty was signed, of stipulating for the abolition of the remaining fifth also.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the question of the Transit Dues has been very carefully negotiated by our Minister at Copenhagen, and by the Ministers of other Powers who are interested in the remission of these dues; and I understand that the settlement embodied in the treaty about to be signed has given satisfaction, not only to our Minister, but also to the agents of the Hanse Towns and of other Powers more directly interested in the transit. I have every reason to believe that the stipulations contained in the treaty are reasonable and equitable ones.
  MR. G. DUNDAS: Is the treaty signed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It may be signed now, but it was not at the time our last advices left Copenhagen.

  THE WORKHOUSE OF ST. GEORGE'S, HANOVER SQUARE—QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT RAYNHAMsaid, he wished to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board whether casual poor are admitted on application into the workhouse of St. George's, Hanover Square; and, if so, for what purpose a notice is affixed to the walls of that workhouse, stating that on and after the 7th of July, 1856, the tramp wards of that house will be closed?
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that he had made inquiry, and had found that the notice referred to in the question of his noble Friend had been affixed to the door of the workhouse. He was also informed that such casual poor as were brought there by the police, or as the master of the workhouse deemed to be actually destitute, were received; but that what were called regular tramps were not admitted into the workhouse. As might have been expected, no tramps had, since the affixing of this notice, applied for admission.

THE SITE OF SMITHFIELD MARKET.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was able to give an assurance that the influence of the Government would be used to prevent the appropriation of the vacant site of Smithfield Market to any other purpose than that of the enjoyment and recreation of the public.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that since he last addressed the House upon the subject a letter had been received from the City Remembrancer, stating that the Markets and Improvements Committee of the Corporation of London had had the subject under their consideration for some time past, and he expected in the course of next week to be able to communicate with the Government. Therefore, they might hope speedily to be put in possession of the views of the City upon this matter.

THE TREATY WITH PERSIA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELLrose to call the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to that clause of the treaty concluded with Persia by which it was alleged that England was to abandon her right to protect Persian subjects. He dared say that benefits might arise from this stipulation which would counterbalance its disadvantages; but he understood that the only way in which we could obtain information from Persian subjects without compromising them with their own Government was to extend to them our protection. This country would be placed in a disadvantageous position if she made this concession, and other Powers did not do the same. It was rumoured that the Minister sent over to arrange the present difficulty, Ferukh Khan, was himself, though a near relative of the Shah, under the protection of Russia. Whether that was true or not, there could be no doubt that many Persian subjects were under the Russian protectorate, and likely, therefore, to act in the interest of Russia. He wished to know whether the noble Lord, in framing this treaty, had taken care that whatever was abandoned by England should be equally abandoned by other countries. The hon. Member said that to put himself in order he would conclude by moving, "That the House at its rising adjourn till Monday."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do. at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Monday next."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I must object to the hon. Gentleman's Motion, because I think it would be convenient for the despatch of business that the House should meet at 1 o'clock to-morrow, and sit for a short time to pass some Bills. With regard to the question that he has started, perhaps, he will allow me to say that it would be very inconvenient that hon. Members should discuss in this House a treaty of which they are not in possession, and more especially a treaty which, although already concluded, has not yet been ratified by the contracting parties. It is obvious that discussions of the supposed objects of such a treaty are calculated to have an injurious bearing on the conduct of those by whom it is negotiated; therefore I will not follow the hon. Member's example by stating anything with

  2297
  regard to this particular treaty. With respect, however, to the point to which his observations were directed, I may say that great inconvenience has arisen, and is likely to arise, from the practice prevalent in Persia, under which foreign missions are entitled by prescription to exercise a protection over Persian subjects not employed in their service. For the permanence of friendly relations with the Government of Persia I think it is most desirable that that practice should be discontinued. At the same time, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would not be becoming in one country to abstain from a practice that would continue to be pursued by other Governments. The abnegation should be general; and I can assure the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government will be happy to renounce all protection in Persia over persons not actually employed in the service of our missions and our consulates, provided Russia and other Powers are ready to do the same.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he was very glad to hear what had fallen from the noble Lord, who had laid down a very just doctrine. The rule of granting British protection to persons who were not our subjects, and who used to be constantly getting us into trouble, had happily been withdrawn in the case of Turkey; and he rejoiced to find that the same right, which had been grossly abused, was to be relinquished in Persia. Individuals having no connection whatever with this country, and some of whom were actually members of the Royal family, often put themselves under British protection, and led our embassy into infinite difficulty and disgrace. Another important question, to, which, however, he was afraid he should receive no answer, was this—whether the terms which had been granted to us by the Persian Minister at Paris were not previously offered at Constantinople, and whether, in fact, the Persian Ambassador at the latter place had not been willing to give us even better terms than those which had been agreed to at Paris? He (Mr. Layard) believed that such really had been the case. The negotiations took place at Constantinople before active steps had been taken, and before it was known that our expedition had reached the Persian Gulf; and if the terms were then rejected which had lately been accepted the whole of the bloodshed that had ensued had been utterly in vain. The attack on
  2298
  Bushire would materially weaken our influence where it had hitherto been predominant. The chiefs of the tribes bordering on Affghanistan had, over and over again, taken sides with the British; but these tribes had lost many men in our attack on Bushire, and their chiefs, who never forgot such injuries, were consequently now converted into our blood enemies. This subject ought to have been discussed in that House long ago, because it affected the position of this country, and all other nations in Central Asia, and he thought that before England entered into a treaty binding her to certain guarantees in reference to Central Asia, that House ought to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon those guarantees. It might he inconvenient, pending the negotiation of this treaty, to debate its specific terms; but the question of policy as to our relations with Central Asia ought to have been discussed upon general grounds. He would not now trouble the House further, because he knew that other matters were under consideration, and that was not the time to bring about a discussion on such a subject; but he should like to know if what he had heard were true, that these terms were offered at Constantinople before the expedition sailed?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas understood to say, that it would be found that the treaty concluded at Paris was better than any likely to have been obtained at Constantinople. The negotiations at Constantinople were not broken off by the British Minister, but by the representative of the Persian Government.

  AFFAIRS IN CHINA—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYinquired whether the Government had received intelligence of any further disturbances in China?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The last accounts which have reached us represent the northern Chinese ports to be in a state of complete tranquillity.

  ELECTION PETITIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. VANCEwished to call attention to a matter affecting the character of the House, as well as the honour and the security of individuals. It would be in the recollection of the House that after the last general election in 1852, a large mass of petitions were presented, which, if their allegations were true, gave ground fur the belief that the constituencies were

  2299
  greatly demoralized by bribery and corruption. Many of these petitions went off upon some technical ground, but the majority met a different fate. Agents from the two great political parties conferred together, and agreed to pair off county petitions against borough petitions, a great number were thus got rid of, and many disappeared altogether. This practice was, however, improved upon in regard to Ireland, because not long after Parliament met every gentleman who had contested a borough or a county in that country, and had obtained a seat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, had a petition presented against him. These petitions could all be traced to the same laboratory. There was evidence to prove that they were the work of a man who had held a high position in that House—namely, the late Mr. John Sadleir, whose private solicitor, and the solicitor of the County Joint Stock Bank, were the dramatis personæ in the proceeding. Those two individuals used to exchange their parts, each acting as agent for the petitioners in one case and as surety for them in another. The result, as he had said, was that every Member on that side who had contested an Irish borough or county was petitioned against. This naturally produced a little retaliation, and petitions were also presented against nearly every Gentleman who had contested a seat on the other side. There was a meeting of the agents to arrange matters, when, and with two or three exceptions, the petitions were all amicably paired off, and not one against Gentlemen on his side of the House was proceeded with. His reason for bringing this subject forward was that they had no security against the same thing being repeated at the ensuing elections. It was most scandalous that every successful candidate for an Irish county or borough should indiscriminately be petitioned against; and he was, therefore, anxious to know whether Her Majesty's Government intended to propose any sessional order at the beginning of the next Session with a view to putting a stop to this system? Could they not either attach some penalty to the act of pairing off petitions, or obtain some security for their being proceeded with when presented? A remedy might be provided by rendering conduct such as he had described a misdemeanor at Statute Law.
  Motion for adjournment by leave withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT.

  COMMITTEE. RESOLUTION.
  The House having gone into Committee for the purpose of considering Her Majesty's most gracious Message in answer to the Address from the Commons relative to the retirement of Mr. Speaker—
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Mr. Chairman, I rise to propose to the House a Resolution for the purpose of giving effect to the gracious Message sent by Her Majesty to this House in reply to the Address praying that Her Majesty would be pleased to confer some mark of signal favour upon the present Speaker. Her Majesty's reply was, you will remember, that it would require the concurrence of Parliament to enable Her Majesty fully to carry out the wishes of this House: I therefore propose a Resolution That the annual sum of £4,000 net be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the said annuity to commence and take effect upon the day on which the Right Honourable Charles Shaw Lefevre, now Speaker of the House of Commons, shall cease to hold the office of Speaker of the House of Commons: to be settled in the most beneficial manner upon, and to continue during the life of him, the said Right Honourable Charles Shaw Lefevre.
  The Resolution was agreed to, Nemine Contradicente.
  To be reported To-morrow.

  THE CHELSEA BOARD OF GENERAL OFFICERS AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL—EXPLANATION.
  On the bringing up of the Report of Supply,
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: Sir, I was not in my place last night when the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) made some observations in reference to the Board of General Officers lately sitting at Chelsea. I find it reported that the hon. and gallant General said that I had imputed a political bias to the General Officers who sat on that Board in the conduct of their proceedings, and in the decision at which they arrived. I wish to state distinctly that I never made any such charge; in fact, what I said was exactly the reverse. The only occasion on which I had to refer to the politics of the General Officers was in defending myself here against exactly the same

  2301
  charge made against me elsewhere, and I then said that I did not believe that they had been influenced by any political bias, and that I had not collected anything from what they said during the whole of the proceedings which could give me the least idea as to what their politics were. I believe that the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon did not impute that to me, and I only regret that upon that occasion, stating what I had heard, I should have said that they were all on the Conservative side. I regret that I was in error in that respect, and that that error has been made use of for the purpose of charging them with political bias. Although my statement was made seven or eight months ago, I never heard any complaint on the subject until two or three weeks ago, when the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon informed me for the first time that three of those General Officers thought themselves aggrieved by that reference, and I understand that Sir Alexander Woodford, General Knollys, and General Bell have all declared themselves not to be of the Conservative side. I regret very much that I should have imputed that to them, though I am very glad to hear that it is not the case.

THE ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STAFFORDwished to put again to the Under Secretary for the War Department a plain question, to which, however, he would confess at once he did not expect a more favourable answer than that which was offered by the hon. Gentleman last night, for if he had had any real reform to announce, he probably would not have been silent upon it. His question had reference to the Army Medical Department. What he complained of was, and what he entered his most earnest and mournful protest against was, that, with respect to the thousands of troops now being sent to China, on their disembarkation the new hospitals there would be opened upon precisely the same principles—if, indeed, principles they could be called—subject to the same confusion of departments—to the same clashing of authority, which had made Scutari what it was. All the expectations held out to the people of England two years ago—all the hopes entertained by the medical department—were, it seemed, at an end; all the promises made by the Government when they;
  2302
  first came into office—promises proceeding from the mouth of the Prime Minister himself—were now worse than ever. It was right to bring such a question forward at the moment when they were discussing the military estimates, because it related to that most precious commodity the life of the British soldier. As was well known, the mortality amongst soldiers was higher than that in any other class of the community, and, therefore, as a matter of economy—as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence—this subject ought not to have been held of such slight importance as not to have been dealt with a long time back. He would, therefore, repeat his question to his hon. Friend, whether he was prepared to state that the Government were ready to assure the House that hospital accommodation upon new and proper principles would be ready for the reinforcements about to proceed to China. He thought that the medical profession generally had a right to complain of the manner in which the medical staff of the army had been treated. And his recommendation— not to the Government, for it would be hopeless to make any recommendation in that quarter—but to the officers of the medical profession, would be to demand of all those who either through their own agency or the agency of their friends were returned to Parliament, to see that justice was no longer denied to the claims of the army medical staff.
  MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, the question now put to him by the hon. Gentleman was not exactly a repetition of that which he asked last night. The question asked by the hon. Member last night was whether the Government had taken or contemplated taking any steps to carry into effect the Resolutions agreed to by a Committee of last Session with reference to the state of the Army Medical Department. Since last evening he (Mr. F. Peel) had read those Resolutions, and he found that the more important recommendations contained in them were, that there should be an increase in the scale of pay of medical officers, and that additional facilities should be afforded for their retirement upon half-pay. He agreed with those Resolutions. He would not deny that the advantages offered in other services had the effect of preventing the most able medical men from competing for employment in the Army Medical Department, and he was anxious that the medical officers of the army should possess at least equal advantages

  2303
  with those enjoyed by the same class of persons in other services. The hon. Gentleman was aware that the amount which the Government could expend upon the army was restricted, and it was necessary to make a selection among the various improvements that were suggested. Those improvements, which were regarded as of the greatest importance, were first carried into effect, and others which, though important, were of less pressing necessity, were postponed. This was the reason why the improvements to which the Resolutions referred had not been carried into effect. The hon. Gentleman had expressed his confidence that there was no prospect of anything being done by the Government. He (Mr. F. Peel) did not know on what grounds the hon. Gentleman could justify such a statement. He believed that the hon. Gentleman was as well aware as he was himself that it was the intention of the Government to issue a Commission to inquire what alterations and improvements could be effected in the existing arrangements of the Army Medical Department, and he (Mr. F. Peel) confidently believed that the recommendations of that Commission, coupled with the Resolutions of the Committee of last Session, would enable the Government to deal with this question in a manner which would be satisfactory to the medical officers and beneficial to the service. The hon. Gentleman had indulged in very gloomy predictions with regard to the sanitary state of the troops who were about proceeding to China. The climate of that country was undoubtedly unfavourable to European constitutions, but he was confident that all possible arrangements for preserving the health of the troops would be made, so far as that object could be effected by the provision of ample hospital accommodation, the supply of all requisite medical stores, and the sending out of a numerous body of medical officers.
  MR. STAFFORDhad said nothing about the unhealthiness of the climate of China; what he had stated was, that the defective organization of the general hospital system was one of the chief causes of the mortality at Scutari, and that that system had not been improved.
  SIR WILLIAM WILLIAMSsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) had referred to the inefficiency of the hospitals at Woolwich; but he could assure the hon. Member that he had been totally misinformed on that subject. He (Sir W. Williams)
  2304
  invited the hon. Gentleman, and any other Members of that House, to visit those hospitals. A few weeks since he had the honour of escorting Miss Nightingale over the whole of the establishments, when she expressed herself highly pleased with the arrangements; and on the following day Colonel Lefroy wrote to him expressing the great gratification Miss Nightingale had derived from her visit to the Artillery and Cadet Hospitals, and her opinion that they were the best military hospitals she had seen, with the exception of that of the Guards at Windsor.

CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS TO CHINA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he had seen it stated that the Transit, Sanspareil, and Himalaya steamers were being prepared for the conveyance of reinforcements to China. Now, he believed Gentlemen in that House had had some experience of one of these vessels, the Transit, and he should say nothing about her. But it was also very well known that the Sanspareil was one of this very worst sailers in the navy. With regard to the Himalaya, she, no doubt, was a vessel of great capacity, but it had been stated that her engines were defective. He thought, therefore, that these were scarcely the ships which ought to have been selected for such a purpose.
  SIR MAURICE BERKELEYwas understood to say, that every care had been taken that human ingenuity could devise to fit out the vessels going to China as efficiently as possible. With regard to the Sanspareil in particular, she had been tried, and was found to be admirably suited for the purpose, as her engines had been much improved, and she was a very good sailer.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, with regard to the ships going to China, he most earnestly hoped they would be in somewhat better order than was the Megæra when she was taken up to convey troops to the Mauritius. And perhaps he might here be allowed to renew a question which he had put some time back to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War, namely, whether any compensation would be allowed to the officers who incurred upon that occasion a very great expense and a great loss of property by the unsatisfactory manner in which the Megæra

  2305
  had put to sea? The 85th did not leave Newcastle until it was reported that the vessel was fit for sea; but when they arrived at Portsmouth she was not even then ready, so that the regiment was detained nearly a week before sailing. But when they did sail, she sprang a leak, and the officers' property was greatly injured in consequence. He would ask, therefore, whether any compensation would be afforded to the officers for their detention at Portsmouth, and the injury to their property?
  MR. FREDERICK PEEL: If the right hon. Gentleman would renew his question upon a future day, he would be prepared with a categorical answer to it.
  MR. STAFFORDwished to make an explanation, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Calne (Sir W. Williams). He had no doubt that when Miss Nightingale went over the Woolwich Hospital she found everything there in a most satisfactory condition. But was the hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to say, that in the opinion of medical men the hospital at Woolwich, either as regarded its situation or ventilation, was what it ought to be? That was all that he had implied against Woolwich Hospital, and he had not intended to say a word against the medical officers there.
  On (13.) £76,000 for Educational and Scientific purposes,
  MR. COWANsaid, that the Vote included a salary to the Professor of Medical Surgery in Dublin. That chair had, two years ago, become vacant in Edinburgh; yet two other chairs which had become vacant in the meanwhile, had been filled up. He had heard a report that it was not intended to fill up this chair. He knew that a requisition to this effect, had been sent to the Government; but, considering the great importance of the medical school in Edinburgh, second to none in the world, he trusted that it was not the intention of Government to suppress the chair. Economy would not be an object, the salary was only £100 a year.
  MR. FREDERICK PEELwas happy to be able to give a satisfactory answer to the question. The Government had appointed a successor to the late Professor, and the arrangements would be completed in a short time.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  On the bringing up of the Report of Ways and Means,
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was right in believing that the unfunded debt of the country had increased since 1854 by £12,041,000?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot answer the question of the hon. Baronet off-hand. I should say, however, his calculation is correct. There were about £6,000,000 of Exchequer bonds issued, but I cannot charge my memory with the amount of the Exchequer bills. However, I will look into the matter, and inform the hon. Baronet later.
  Resolution reported;
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of £21,049,700 be raised by Exchequer Bills, for the Service of the year 1857."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. FITZROY, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. WILSON.

  WAYS AND MEANS—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee of Ways and Means, Lord MONCK in the Chair.
  Resolved, "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of £13,007,200, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again on Monday next.
  The House resumed.

RACEHORSE DUTY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  On Question that the Bill be now read 3°,
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked, whether horses employed at yeomanry races would be charged duty as racehorses? At present those who received the duty did not charge it against yeomanry horses.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the object of the Bill was

  2307
  simply to make an alteration in the manner of collecting the duty. It was not intended to add to the stringency of collection, or to apply to any case where the duty was not enforced at present. Yeomanry horses employed in horseracing were now, strictly speaking, within the terms of the Act; but the Commissioners of Inland Revenue did not intend to make any alteration in their system under the present Bill.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the question was, whether every horse that ran a race was a racehorse? The duty could only apply to what were strictly racehorses.
  Bill read 3°, and passed.
  The House adjourned at a Quarter before Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Income Tax; Indemnity; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c.; Extra Parochial Places; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.
2a Commissioners of Supply (Scotland) Act, 1856, Amendment.

PRIVILEGE OF REPORTS.

  THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  LORD CAMPBELLbegged to state, that, on account of the approaching dissolution of Parliament, he should not proceed further during the present Session with the Committee to inquire how far the privilege now given to reports of the proceedings of courts of law might be extended to the reports of the proceedings of Parliament and other public assemblies; but he begged to give notice that immediately on Parliament reassembling he should move the reappointment of the Select Committee. On mature consideration of the subject, he could not at all think that their Lordships would agree that a rule should be laid down of complete immunity for the publication of everything spoken at every public meeting. He believed such a rule would be inconsistent with public safety and destructive of private character; but, at the same time, he was still of opinion that the grievance of which journalists complained might to a certain degree be remedied; for there were certain public meetings the proceedings of which he thought might be placed on nearly the same footing as the proceedings of courts of law, and it was possible that some definition might be made of the public meetings with respect to which the same privilege of reporting might be extended as applied to courts of law. At present, the mischief which might be expected to arise from the present state of the law was greatly mitigated by the circumstance that if juries only gave nominal damages no costs followed. Formerly, and until a very recent period, if an action for libel was brought and damages

  2277
  to the amount of one farthing were recovered full costs followed, and thus a multiplicity of pettifogging actions for the recovery of costs was encouraged; but, at present, unless substantial damages were given no costs followed, and the temptation, therefore, to bring actions for the sake of recovering costs was taken away. Nevertheless, an action brought against a respectable journal caused great anxiety, and saddled the defendant with his own costs. It was possible that some expedient might be found whereby, if no real injury had been sustained, the costs of bringing the action should fall on the party bringing it; and if it should be the opinion of the jury that no real damage had been sustained they might find a verdict for the defendant; or if nominal damages only were given, then, with the approbation of the Court, not only no costs should be recovered, but the plaintiff should pay the costs of the defendant. These were matters which might fairly be submitted to the consideration of the Select Committee, when it reassembled.
  He wished also to give notice that, with the view of expediting and generally improving the proceedings of Select Committees of their Lordships' House, he should at a future time move a Standing Order to the effect that the oath to witnesses should be administered, not necessarily at the bar of the House, but, when deemed fit, before the Select Committees. At present the greatest inconvenience resulted from its being necessary that witnesses should be sworn at the bar of the House. Judicial business was sometimes interrupted in consequence of a crowd of witnesses being collected at the bar, and the expedient was occasionally resorted to of hearing witnesses unsworn before Select Committees, and swearing them afterwards, if it were thought necessary.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he was glad the noble and learned Lord had called attention to the mode in which witnesses before Select Committees were sworn. He had, however, been informed that an alteration of the practice could not take place by a mere Standing Order of the House. It was absolutely necessary, in order that false witnesses before Select Committees might be punished for perjury, that the oath should be administered either under the authority of the statute made for the purpose, or according to the invariable usage and precedent of the House. In consequence of the inconvenience resulting from
  2278
  the present mode of swearing witnesses, a practice had obtained, which was open to much objection, of sometimes hearing before a Select Committee witnesses who had not been sworn at the bar of the House, and calling them on a subsequent day to the bar, and swearing them to the whole of their evidence, written out from the shorthand writer's notes. He also thought it desirable that the Committees should have power to send for persons, papers, and records as in the Commons, without obtaining the previous order of the House.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had no doubt as to the power of the House to administer the oath in the manner he had suggested. The House could not assume by Resolution any power which did not belong to it; but their Lordships had the power of directing the manner in which the oath should be administered, and might order it to be done by one of their officers, or by Committees. The other House could not administer oaths at all, except under the provisions of certain acts of Parliament.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORhad no doubt that it would be a great advantage if Committees could be empowered to administer oaths, but he did not see his way quite so clearly as his noble and learned Friend to the assumption that their Lordships could delegate to other persons the power of administering an oath. It might be matter for consideration whether an Act of Parliament would not be necessary. As at present advised, he should feel a difficulty in drawing an indictment against a person who had taken a false oath before a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, exercising a delegated power to administer oaths.

THE WAR WITH PERSIA—INCIDENCE OF EXPENSES.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE,in rising to move for correspondence relative to the cost of the war with Persia, said that, as Parliament was on the eve of a dissolution, it would not be proper to invite their Lordships to discuss this question at any great length. It appeared, however, from all the documents that had been laid before Parliament, that the finances of India were in a most unsatisfactory state. It was intended by the Government, as their Lordships has been informed, that half the expenses of the late war should be charged upon the revenues of India. This

  2279
  intention was communicated to the Board of Directors, who expressed their entire satisfaction with the proposition. But they appeared to have overlooked the ways and means by which provision for such expenditure was to be made, nor did they state in their reply what portion of the resources of India were available for the war, or how they proposed to raise the funds. He thought it must be admitted to be improvident to charge a proportion of the expenses of the Persian war upon the Indian revenue without seeing how to provide for those expenses. The normal state of Indian finances in time of peace seemed to be a state of deficiency. The deficiency had now gone on for four years, and it had been recommended by an ex-Governor General (the Marquess of Dalhousie) that there should be a continual deficiency every year for public works. The deficiency, it was to be observed, which amounted to £2,000,000 annually, was not, however, caused by any expenditure upon railways. The debt had increased more than £7,000,000, and the recent financial operations of the Indian Government had resulted in complete failure. A loan of £2,000,000 at 4½ per cent had been closed and the money of the subscribers returned, because the amount of subscriptions was comparatively trifling. A new loan at 5 per cent was opened, but, according to the correspondent of The Times, whose authority was unimpeachable, a very small amount had been paid into the Treasury, and the loan was being taken up very slowly. No one would wonder at it when they knew that money could be invested in railway shares with 5 per cent interest guaranteed by the same Government, and the chance of larger profit if the speculations were founded on sense and reason. On the other hand, the Indian Government offered only 5 per cent for the loan, which was all the lender could ever hope to receive. He had not said a word about the Persian war, because that had nothing to do with the question of the capability of the finances on which a portion of the cost was to be charged. He believed that to put Indian finances in proper order the Government must resort to proper economy. The noble Marquess, after expressing a hope that an Estimate of the cost of the war would be appended, concluded by moving—
  "That there be laid before this House, Copies of any Correspondence that may have taken place between the Court of Directors and the Board of
  2280
  Control, or between the Board of Control and the Treasury, respecting the Proportion of the Cost of the War with Persia to be charged upon the Indian Revenue, or relating to the Ways and Means by which Provision for such expenditure is to be made in India."
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, in the present state of public affairs it appears to me of great importance that the people and the Parliament should at least know something about this Persian war. Up to the present time it has been a sort of myth—at least, although its existence is unfortunately undoubted, its history and origin appear to be involved in mystery. We know nothing of the original quarrel. We know nothing of the negotiations which must have followed that quarrel—because I assume that Her Majesty's Government did all they could to prevent collision. We know nothing of the answers of the Persian Government to the appeals of Her Majesty's Government. We know nothing of the orders given to the troops, or of the preparations to carry on the war when war was declared in so very unsatisfactory and irregular a manner. We know something, it is true, of the operations at Bushire; but after that we know nothing except, from the public papers, that negotiations have been carried on in Paris by Her Majesty's Ambassador and the Persian Envoy. We do not know whether the latter had authority to carry on negotiations, but we are told a satisfactory treaty has been concluded between him and Lord Cowley. The noble Viscount at the bead of the Government is accustomed, as is very well known, to treat things and men very coolly, and certainly he makes no exception in favour of the two Houses of Parliament. If the noble Viscount does not happen to obtain the confidence of one House on any point of his policy he sets aside its decision by saying its opinion is opposed to the opinion of the country. If the other House appears not to be in a satisfactory state with respect to his Administration he dissolves it. It may be that he acts within the four corners of the constitution, but I am not so certain that the noble Viscount is within the four corners of the constitution when we consider the manner in which he has begun, continued, and ended this Persian war, without any explanation whatever to Parliament, and without putting on your Lordships' table a single paper in relation to those affairs. First of all, it was acknowledged that this war was going on. We were promised an account of the negotiations

  2281
  which preceded it, of the cause of the war, and of the position of the Government with respect to Persia. We had a victory at Bushire. The Persian Ambassador appeared at Paris, and my noble Friend said it was not a convenient or proper opportunity to produce the papers. I never could understand, nor do I understand now, why we could not have had an account of the cause of the war and the means which Her Majesty's Government took to prevent it. I do not see why we could not have had those papers, whether the war was going on or was concluded by treaty. What chance is there of our having any history of this war? In a few days Parliament will be dissolved. A new Parliament will not assemble for two months. The treaty of peace will not be ratified for four or five months. It will be a stale story, and we shall be as ignorant of the events, and more ignorant than we are of the Wars of the Roses. The noble Viscount has carried on a private war with Persia, and this country has had no notice of it whatever. In 1853, when the Government of my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) went out of office, Herat was in the possession of the Persian forces. We did all we could to persuade the Persian Government to withdraw; but to this hour I do not know when they retired or why they did so, or what means our Minister used to persuade them. There has been some allusion to a treaty, but it has never been laid before us; and now at the eleventh hour, having been at war seven or eight months, very important negotiations having been carried on, a treaty of peace having been concluded at Paris, we are still without any information from Her Majesty's Government. Candidates for seats in the other House will be compelled to appear before the electors, and if asked about the Persian war, its causes and its consequences, will be unable to give any explanation at all upon the subject. It is only this morning that for the first time an apparently official statement has been laid before the country. I perceive that my noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) expresses his dissent, but I am unaware of any previous information which has been afforded us. An important journal has this morning published a detailed account not only of the Treaty which has been signed at Paris, but also of one which ought to have been signed at Constantinople but for some fancies on the part of our ambassador at that capital. I
  2282
  would ask my noble Friend whether he does not think, under the circumstances of the country, it would not be quite proper and decent to give at least a sketch of the Treaty which we are told has been concluded? I know that technically that Treaty cannot be laid before Parliament until it has been ratified; but I would submit that it would not be right, proper, and decent to allow this Parliament to be dissolved without giving to us some information as to what is the present state of things, or at least some notion of the causes of the war, and the nature of the Treaty of Peace.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, there was no objection on the part of the Government to place upon the table the papers his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) required; but he trusted their Lordships would not consider him disrespectful if he declined to follow him into the large subject of Indian finance. He thought his noble Friend had misinterpreted some expressions which had been made use of in the Court of Directors with regard to the expenses of the war. They had expressed their satisfaction at the smallness of the expense, nothing more. It was not possible at present to place upon the table an estimate of those expenses—and, even if the Government had been prepared to do so, it would be utterly useless, inasmuch as the expenses were calculated for the whole year, on the anticipation that the war would have continued.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I cannot regret that my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) has put this question to me, for I can assure your Lordships that it has been to us a matter of deep regret that a sense of public duty should have compelled Her Majesty's Government to withhold that information with respect to the Persian war which Parliament and the country were entitled to expect. Nothing but a sense of public duty has prevented us from laying before Parliament those papers upon the subject which had been prepared before the Session commenced. My noble Friend, however, is not quite correct, when he says that no information has been given as to the causes of the war. I felt it to be so necessary to give such information that on the very first night of the Session, in replying to a speech of my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Derby) I adverted to some causes of quarrel which had arisen between the Persian Government and Her Majesty's Minister at

  2283
  Teheran. I said that quarrel was to be set aside, and could not be considered one of the causes of the war; and that although Mr. Murray had been compelled to leave Teheran, yet we did not proceed to hostilities upon that account. We thought that time and reflection would bring the Persian Government to better views—that they would perceive that it was their interest to remain on good terms with this country, and we did not doubt that when the peace with Russia was made known in Persia the Government of that country would seek to resume amicable relations with us. It was only when the Persian Government showed a determination to attack and possess themselves of Herat that we thought it necessary, notwithstanding we had no diplomatic relation with that Government, to make a direct communication upon that subject, warning the Persian Government of the consequences of their proceeding and requesting them to desist from carrying out their intention. In order that there might be no doubt of the views of Her Majesty's Government and of the notice given to the Persian Government, I, on the first night of the Session, took the liberty of reading at length a letter addressed by me to the Sadr Azam, upon the subject of the siege of Herat. Thus, it cannot properly be said that your Lordships are in entire ignorance of what were the causes of the war; for, if the whole of the papers had been before this House those causes could not have been more distinctly stated, nor could the warning given to the Persian Government of the course which Her Majesty's Government would feel it incumbent upon them to pursue in case they refused to listen to our remonstrances have been more plainly stated. The answer which I received to that letter from the Sadr Azam entirely avoided the subject of Herat, but stated that an Ambassador was about to proceed to Paris upon a complimentary mission, and that he would be instructed to enter into communications with our Ambassador at Constantinople. Although we had no reason to believe that such communication would lead to any satisfactory conclusion, yet Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, the British Ambassador at Constantinople, was instructed to receive any communication which Ferukh Khan might make respecting, not only any offer of reparation for the insult and injury inflicted upon our Minister at Teheran, but also upon the subject of more pressing importance—the siege of Herat. I can assure my
  2284
  noble Friend that the rupture of those negotiations arose from no fault upon the part of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople. We made known to our Ambassador at that capital the terms upon which alone we thought an honourable and satisfactory arrangement could be made, and we directed him to make known those terms to Ferukh Khan. The Persian Ambassador said he would not be justified in assenting to those terms without first referring them to his Government. That was not unnatural; and he then asked whether we would wait until he could receive a reply from his Court, and whether, in the meantime, we would send out orders to India to suspend all hostile operations? We replied that it was impossible to suspend the execution of orders which had been sent out long before. Herat then fell, a declaration of war by the Indian Government followed, and the Persian Ambassador then declared, before receiving any answer from Teheran, that all negotiations were at an end. Our Ambassador at Paris did not at once enter into communication with the Persian Ambassador; but shortly after his arrival in Paris, war being declared and the negotiations being at an end, Ferukh Khan solicited an interview with Lord Cowley, stating that he had full powers to negotiate a peace, and had received an answer to the communication he had addressed to his Government. We had every wish to conclude peace; we had no desire to humiliate Persia; we had no personal objects to gain. We therefore desired Lord Cowley to listen to any proposals which Ferukh Khan might make. When negotiations had been commenced at Paris we thought it would be most mischievous, if not fatal, to lay papers before Parliament, a discussion upon which might prevent a settlement, or at least might complicate the negotiations. That was the only reason why the papers have not been presented to this and to the other House. When my noble Friend says that we are still in ignorance as to whether the Persian Ambassador had full powers to treat, he surely must have forgotten an answer I gave a few nights ago to two questions put to me by himself. The noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) asked me, first, whether it was true that a treaty of peace with Persia had been concluded; and, next, whether the Persian Ambassador had full powers to negotiate such a treaty? I said that, before commencing negotiations, we had examined the powers

  2285
  of Ferukh Khan, and found that they were ample. A treaty has now been concluded, and will, I hope, be ratified in a shorter space of time than the noble Earl seems to think will elapse; but in the meantime I have no hesitation in informing the House what are exactly the terms which have been agreed upon. They are these,—that all Persian troops and authorities shall be withdrawn from Herat and every part of Affghanistan within three months of the ratification of the treaty; that the Shah renounces all claim of sovereignty over Herat and Affghanistan; that he will abstain from all interference in their internal affairs, and recognizes the independence of both Herat and Affghanistan. In the event of any difficulties arising between Persia and Herat or Affghanistan, the Persian Government is to have recourse to the good offices of England before resorting to acts of war; and England on her part engages to use her best efforts to effect a settlement of any such differences in a manner honourable and satisfactory to Persia. The Shah also engages that if it shall be necessary for him to repel aggression from Affghanistan, he will not make any use of the hostilities in which he may engage for that purpose for any other object, and that as soon as he attains his object, and immediate satisfaction has been given, he will withdraw within his own frontier. Again, the treaty of commerce we had with Persia was by no means so satisfactory as the treaties made by Russia and France with Persia; and it is now stipulated that all our commercial relations and our arrangements in reference to consular appointments shall be placed on the footing of the most favoured nations. It is also stipulated that Mr. Murray, on his return to Teheran, shall be received with certain ceremonies which have been agreed to by the negotiators. There is likewise another stipulation in this treaty which I think will go far to put an end to that fruitful source of difference which has so long existed not only in Persia, but throughout the East—I mean the system of giving protection to the Native subjects of a Foreign State. That, I say, has been a constant source of quarrel and dispute, not only in Persia, but throughout the East. I took the liberty, with reference to our future relations with Turkey, to bring that question before the Congress in Paris. It was well received there by the representatives of the different Powers, and they all undertook to review the present
  2286
  system and endeavour to place it on a better footing. We have introduced a similar clause into our treaty with Persia, and we engage no longer to protect the subjects of the State, except those in the immediate service of the embassy or the consulate. I hope and believe that other foreign Powers will engage to do the same thing; but, at any rate, England in that as in other matters will now be placed on the footing of the most favoured nations. I have no reason to doubt that Russia and France will consent to a stipulation of this kind, which will do more than anything else to remove this cause of difference. We have likewise entered into a stipulation on the subject of the slave trade. A very considerable slave trade is carried on in the Persian Gulf; our present treaty with Persia on that subject ends in 1862, and we have engaged that it shall be prolonged for ten years more from the date at which it would expire, as matters would otherwise have stood. It is also stipulated that hostilities are to cease immediately on the exchange of ratifications, and that our troops are to be withdrawn from Persia immediately that the Persian troops are withdrawn from Herat. Ferukh Khan has sent letters to the Persian Commander near Bushire, to inform him of the negotiations and of the treaty, and to invite him to take part in the proposed armistice, and similar instructions have been forwarded to General Outram. A general amnesty is to be published in favour of all persons who may have taken part with or in any way assisted our troops in Persia. I believe, my Lords, I have not omitted to state anything that is of importance in the treaty; and I think you will agree that by that treaty we shall obtain all that it is important for us to obtain, which is the withdrawal of the Persian troops from Herat and an engagement to respect the independence of Herat and Affghanistan, as far as possible, with the view to prevent quarrels between Persia and those States, and, as far as possible, to maintain a neutral territory between Persia and India. I think you will also agree that there is nothing in the treaty contrary to the interests or the honour of Persia; and if it is faithfully carried out, as I am sure it will be, in the spirit in which it has been negotiated, I think we may look forward to a great improvement in our relations with Persia.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYasked if the treaty contained any stipulation as to coaling-stations in the Persian Gulf?
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, the Government had not sought to obtain any stipulation on that point.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, as it was of great importance that we should have had before us ample information on which to inform our judgment with respect to this transaction, it is matter for common regret that it has not been possible to place these papers before your Lordships' House. At the same time it would be uncandid in me and would show a want of fairness if I did not admit that, looking to the proclamation of the Government of India, and assuming that the facts stated there are correct, I think the Government of India were perfectly justified in resorting to hostile operations against Persia. I will say more than that. If there had been no treaty in existence, it would have been the bounden duty of the Government of India to resort to hostile operations to prevent the occupation of Herat in the name of Persia. I say that, because it is as much the interest of the Government of India to maintain Herat in the hands of some independent State as it has been considered the interest of the Western Powers to maintain the Bosphorus in the hands of an independent State. It is essential to the safety of India that that gate to India— that passage through which alone on the side of Persia hostile operations can be directed against her—shall be in hands in which we can place confidence. But, at the same time, it would be uncandid in me if I did not state at once that I do not think our quarrel has really been with Persia. The real question has been, not with Persia as an independent Power, but with Russia, under whose dictation Persia has acted. I say that those operations against Herat have been begun, continued, and completed, not during the war with Russia— although during that war the design of those operations must have been matured for the purpose of effecting a diversion—but after the conclusion of the peace with Russia; and I think the treaty recently concluded with Persia is the complement to that which was concluded a year ago with Russia. I take it as a satisfactory admission on the part of Russia that for the present at least she will abstain from approaching the frontier of India, and that she defers her designs against that country. I think it is a satisfactory admission on her part that she has reconsidered her position, that she thinks her interests demand at the present moment that there shall be
  2288
  a good understanding between her and England in Europe, and that she feels that a good understanding never can exist while she carries on operations in Asia, the object of which must be a hostile approach to the frontiers of India. With respect to the officer said to have been sent to Cabul, it is not on information like that on which I ground my opinion of the policy of Russia in Asia. I ground my opinion on her patent acts in advancing to Khiva and to other points on the road to India—an advance totally inconsistent with common sense, unless it was done with the ultimate object of approaching the Indian frontier. I conceive that no State, swayed by anything like reason in its councils, would do what Russia has done unless she had that ultimate object in view. I will not at this time, or at any time, in this House discuss the probabilities of success on the part of Russia in any such ambitious design against our power in India. But this I will say, that I should consider we exposed ourselves to the most imminent danger if we were at any time to regard the advance of an army directed by Russian officers towards the frontiers of India in the light of an absolute impossibility. My Lords, I cannot believe that to be impossible which has so often been accomplished since the time of Alexander. I will say this also, that unless we take care to place in India the ablest man we have in the direction of our military power—if we imagine we can send any one out to that country to command an army, a man who knows nothing whatever of military operations, a respectable gentleman, it may be, in a civil office, a respectable Member of Parliament, but not a soldier—if we imagine that we can so far carry our party habits as to indulge in an appointment of that description, I say, my Lords, there is danger; for you may depend upon it that it is only by great ability that the Russian troops will be directed in the event of their making any hostile approach to the frontiers of India. My Lords, we hear a great deal about the construction of canals and railways in India, and about the necessity for legislation founded on that of the civilized countries of the West. But, depend upon it, it is not upon any civil improvements that the security of that country ultimately depends. Our empire in India has been founded by the sword, and by the sword it must be maintained. It is only by a disciplined army—an army well equipped and well commanded—that that empire can be secured. And, my Lords, I confess

  2289
  when I look back to the events of the last few months I do regard with dismay the prospect before us, if principles similar to those which have been recently acted upon are continually to form the basis of our administration. We have had two wars—we have now a war with China; we have had a war with Persia—and both are owing to bad appointments. No one can doubt that it is Sir John Bowring who is the author of the war with China. I will not say with the same absolute certainty that the incompetence of Mr. Murray for the important situation for which he was selected is the cause of the Persian war, but I will say that it must very materially have contributed to that war. I can recollect a state of things very different. I can look back to the influence exerted by Sir John Malcolm and Sir John Macdonald upon that country. Then, too, everything is in our favour at the Court of Teheran. It is our interest to maintain Persia as a strong Power; we should desire above all means to preserve her honour and secure her independence. There is not a Persian but must feel satisfied that we are the natural friends of his nation; and, looking at the conduct and at the conquests of Russia, and at the manner in which her influence is established at Teheran, can we doubt that Russia is the natural enemy of Persia? I say, then, that any man of ordinary ability, suited to the management of affairs in the East, should avail himself of these natural advantages, and ought to be able to obtain for his country a decided influence in the councils of Persia. I trust that in future that will be the case. I do not dispute the ability of Mr. Murray; I believe he is a very talented man; but I must observe that the kind of ability which has great influence upon society in England may be utterly useless in the administration of affairs in the East. The talent required to manage Orientals is altogether peculiar. All influence in the East is personal. The influence exerted by Sir John Malcolm and Sir John Macdonald was a personal one. Many a man distinguishes himself greatly in the East, obtains great influence, effects great changes, and carries out measures of the greatest possible benefit, who, when he returns to England, is useless here because his talents are of a character unsuited to his own country. And so it is with men of great ability, ability well established and recognized here, who, however, fail utterly when sent out to the East, where the habits and customs
  2290
  of the people are new to them, and where, in fact the whole construction of the human mind is different. Depend upon it that if this country is to secure the influence which it ought to possess at Teheran such influence will only be acquired by a man who has shown his ability to deal with Orientals, who is thoroughly acquainted with the people, and who has the tact to manage them. My Lords, under different circumstances I should have been desirous of entering further into this question; but, at all events, I did not think I should have been dealing fairly by the House if, upon the first regular occasion on which this subject has come before us, I had hesitated at once to declare my conviction that the war has been a just one; that if there had been no treaty it would have been equally politic and necessary, and that in reality we have been contending, not with Persia, but with Russia.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I cannot allow the attack which the noble Earl has just made upon Mr. Murray to pass quite without notice, and I think, upon reflection, he himself will regret that he has made such an attack. The noble Earl has said in effect that the war was caused by Mr. Murray's unfitness, and he grounds his charge of unfitness on the assumption that that gentleman has had no experience of Orientals. Now, it was exactly on account of Mr. Murray's acquaintance with Orientals and of his skill in dealing with them that he was appointed as Minister to Persia, and for no other reason whatever. He had been for upwards of six years in Egypt, had obtained very great influence there, had given entire satisfaction to the Government under whom he had served, was an excellent Arabic scholar, and within three months of his arrival at Teheran was able to converse and conduct his own interviews with the Persian officials. I venture to say that altogether there is not a single person who has a better claim to his appointment, and on the very grounds which the noble Earl has stated should guide the Government in their selection for Eastern appointments.
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEsaid he entertained no apprehension of Russian aggression in India, but did not think it necessary to enter into that subject at the present moment, because he hoped in the next Parliament to have an opportunity of stating the reasons why he differed from the noble Earl opposite in respect to it. He did not, however, like the present occasion to pass without calling attention for a

  2291
  few moments to the financial condition of India. If he thought it probable he should find the distinguished nobleman who had lately been Governor General of India in his place in the House he should defer his observations; but, as this did not seem likely, he wished to be allowed to state now, taking as he did a lively interest in all that related to India, how much he deplored the financial blundering of the late Governor General. In a minute which had been laid before both Houses of Parliament it was stated that the Marquess of Dalhousie had increased the Indian finances from £26,000.000 to £30,000,000. Now, on looking to the state of the net revenue of India at the period to which he called attention, (1854–5) he found that the revenue was£20,366,000, consequently, if Lord Dalhousie's views were correct, there must have been in liens and charges upon revenue no less a sum out of this £30,000,000 than £9,633,420. In another part of this minute the noble Marquess stated that he had added £4,330,000 sterling to the revenue by territorial acquitions. If this were correct they would naturally expect that it would show itself in the net revenue of the country, but it had all vanished into thin air, The net revenue in 1851–2 was £21,764,512; in 1854–5, as he had already stated, it was £20,366,580; so that, instead of its being £4,330,000 more, it was £1,387,932 less than it was before these annexations. In 1852–3 the revenue was £22,343,920. so that the deficiency, as compared with 1854–5, was no less than £1,976,340; in other words, we were nearly £2,000,000 the worse off instead of £4,330,000 the better for the annexations. So much for the financial results of the "beggar-my-neighbour" policy advocated and founded by the late Governor General. One word now on the subject of Indian credit. It was little more than two years since the late Governor General declared that he had converted a 5 into a 4 per cent. debt. Shortly afterwards a new loan at 4farc12; per cent, was negotiated, and, as he was informed, there were most extraordinary solicitations to obtain subscriptions. That loan, however, turned out a miserable failure. What he wished to point out to their Lordships was that when the 4½ per cent, loan was announced the stock of the 4 per cent, loan fell to a discount, so that while the Indian Government netted between £300,000 and £400,000, the proprietors of the 4 per cent stock, who were principally absentees or administrators of
  2292
  trust property, received 15 s. 9d. for every pound which they had advanced on the security of the honour of the Indian Government. Eventually a loan of 5 per cent. was originated, but it was doubtful now if money could be procured even upon those terms. Such was the state of the finances of India, and he, as one interested in the welfare of that country, felt that it was necessary that the financial policy of the late Governor General should be made known, in order that his successors might be warned against falling into similar errors.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, half-past Ten o'clock.