it, and that it was not relevant to the inquiry. However, when the Committee had come to the close of their inquiry, and came to consider their decision, it appeared to them that the correspondence was not only important but was at the bottom of the whole question, and he thought that nineteen out of twenty Members who had looked at it, would agree that it was relevant. Instead of the Duke of Buccleuch and the lessees putting themselves in opposition to a particular plan, they only gave the preference to one of two plansto a plan which the Committee thought right to adopt, and which he ventured to think would be approved by the House when all the facts were before them. But there was something further in the correspondence. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had incurred, and rightly, the remonstrance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the ground that while there was a conveyancer in his office, at a salary of £1,500 a year, he put this matter in the hands of Messrs. Baxter and Rose; and not only that, but in addition to that firm, he employed as agent a solicitor at Hertford, so that two parties, the Hert ford solicitor and Rose and Baxter, were both employed in a matter for which the country were paying a conveyancer attached to the Board at the rate of £1,500 a year. Under these circumstances the House ought to have all the Correspondence before them, and they ought to hear how the Chancellor of the Exchequer had discharged his duties in connection with this matter. The hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had given notice to move on Monday for all the Correspondence, and therefore he hoped that the further proceedings on the Bill would be postponed to Thursday next, and that in the mean time the right hon. Gentleman would present the Correspondence, so that no further delay might take place. He believed the House would feel it to be necessary that all the Correspondence should be before them. This was not a question now between the lessees of the Crown and the Committee, but a question between the Government and Mr. Pennethorne's plan and the Correspondence relating to it; and it was also a question whether the Committee had discharged their duty in regard to the public interests in a matter where a large sum of public money was involved. He hoped there would be no attempt to proceed further with the Bill until Thursday next. MR. COWPER hoped the House would permit him to say a word of explanation in reply to a question put to him by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. The right hon. Gentleman said he would put him on his defence. The right hon. Gentleman, being personally interested in this question, as occupier of one of the houses in the locality, might have reasons for attacking him (Mr. Cowper) and making him a defendant; when, according to the rules of the House, he was unable to answer the right hon. Gentleman's charge fully, but he should be prepared to meet it on the proper occasion. In answer, however, to the question addressed to him, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the letter which had given rise to the noble Lord's question never reached the Mr. Higgins for whom it was intended, but was intercepted by the other Mr. Higgins, and therefore could have had no influence on the gentleman to whom it was addressed, in respect of anything which he had said or written. An extract had been read from some comments on the proceedings of the Committee that appeared on the 23rd of June; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman, that as his letter to Mr. Higgins was written subsequently to that date, it could not have influenced him in anything he did before the 23rd of June. MR. KER SEYMER remarked that he had not received a satisfactory answer to his question as to when the right hon. Gentleman meant to bring forward the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said he would bring it on after the Fortifications Bill on Monday; but as that discussion would occupy a long time, he hoped, now that the noble Lord at the head of the Government was present, that assent would be given to the postponement of the discussion till Thursday, when it could commence at half-past four. SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, that as a member of the Committee, he must express his opinion that the fact of the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Committee, having corresponded with a gentleman who was well known to be a correspondent of The Times, was another instance of the way in which the Committee had been treated by the right hon. Gentleman. The truth was, that from first to last the matter had not been placed before the Committee in a fair, open, and impartial manner. The truth was, they had before them only one scheme, and than to discuss what they were going to do on a future day. But as the Report of the Committee, with the evidence, had only been circulated that morning, he thought it not unfair to ask that the discussion on the Bill should be taken on a later day than Monday. He should therefore suggest to his right hon. Friend to fix it for Thursday. MR. GARNETT hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have a plan showing Mr. Pennethorne's diversion of the road at Whitehall Stairs, prepared before Thursday, and that he would also lay upon the table a sketch of the works submitted to the Select Committee. show that it would have been well had it been adopted. He would only say that the sooner the House changed its practice in appointing Committees on hybrid Bills the better. he said advisedly-there was an intention to place the Committee in an unfair position; and he defied any one to read the blue-book and come to a different conclusion. The whole question had been one of dispute between the heads of two depart ments the head of the Office of Woods, and the head of the Office of Works. The Treasury was the department which had the control over both these, and it was the duty of the House to see that the Treasury had exercised its power in this matter. Even on the information the House had, it was clear that the Treasury intended that both schemes should be placed before the Committee. Only one was brought before it, and the alternative MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, that when plan of Mr. Pennethorne was never before this Bill was being referred to a Select it at all. The Committee also intended Committee he took the liberty of suggestthat the whole of the correspondence ing, that in order to secure impartiality, should appear; but when the appendix the Committee should be selected in the came out, it appeared that the whole same way that Committees on private of the evidence had not been produced. Bills were selected. He got no support He proposed, on Monday next, unless for that suggestion; but he thought what the Government assured the House of they had just heard was sufficient to their intention to give the correspondence, to move that the same should be laid upon the table of the House. It was right he should tell the House, and, although it did not appear in the evidence, it was a fact that would be corroborated, SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE cordially that the Committee unanimously, with the assented to the opinion of the right hon. exception of the right hon. Gentleman, Gentleman, that these Committees ought insisted upon the whole of the correspond- to be chosen in some different manner. ence appearing. The House could not As an old Member of that House, he had come to a fair and just conclusion without had frequent occasions to serve on Comthe whole of this correspondence before it. mittees, but he had never suffered so much This was a matter of too much importance pain as from the mode in which the busito be decided in an off-hand way by any ness before them was conducted. A long Government; the House ought to have discussion must take place when this questhe subject brought fully before them. He tion came on, and as the noble Lord at therefore protested against any attempt to the head of the Government had assented force on this Bill after the House should to postpone the matter until Thursday, a have been fatigued by a long discussion debate at the present moment was unabout the national defences. As regard- necessary. He thought, however, he had ed the correspondence with Mr. Higgins, heard the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. he should like to know why Mr. Higgins Cowper) contradict an hon. Member on was to be informed more than anybody the Opposition benches as to some proelse-why he could not wait until the ceedings before the Committee with reevidence was printed and in the hands of gard to a portion of the correspondence the Members? If he had waited patient- which had not been laid before the ly until the Members had the Report, House. The decision of the Committee he could have then sifted the evidence was solemnly taken, and was and made any comments he thought pro- mous that this correspondence should per. If the right hon. Gentleman de-appear in the form of an appendix, cided to go on with the Bill on Monday, and that the alternative plan which the it would be another instance of his un- Treasury correspondence contemplated fairness towards the Committee. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON observed that there was no greater waste of time unani would be laid before Parliament. That correspondence had been promised, but did not appear in the Report; and he trusted MR. COWPER said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the bluebook, he would see it stated that the plan would be delivered as soon as it was ready. It was in the printer's hands, and it was not his fault if there had been any delay. All the correspondence referred to in the decision of the Committee had been produced at least, he was not aware of any further correspondence; but if there were such he should be ready to produce it. that before Thursday all the correspond- | the proceedings, and what steps the House ence referring to this alternative plan ought to take to possess itself of this Rewould be fully before the Committee. solution. The House had a right to know what became of the Resolution put by the Chairman of the Committee from the chair, and whether it ought not to have been recorded and reported. The House was entitled to have this Resolution before it, because it might materially bear upon the question before the House. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman in the chair would inform the House how it might deal with this very serious question; because if the House lost confidence in the solemn records of the proceedings of its Committees there would be, until this matter were cleared up, an end to all respect for their Resolutions. SIR JOHN SHELLEY rose to address the House, but was stopped by cries of "Spoke, spoke." MR. SPEAKER: The Committee clerk attending the Committee is responsible for taking down everything that occurs in a Committee. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. SUPPLY. Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." OBSERVATIONS. MR. SCULLY said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that all the rows this Session had been English rows. ["Oh!"] If the House did not interrupt him, he would not detain them long, for he had no wish to spoil sport, though he should be glad when it was all settled. He had read the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), and the Duke of Buccleuch, and he observed that the right hon. Member for Stroud disclaimed all private interest. The Duke of Buccleuch's evidence was to the same effect, except that he said he would COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH BELGIUM. stand on his rights. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) had insinuated that a private and confidential matter had been communicated by him in a letter to Mr. Higgins, the information contained in which had been made use of by the person into whose hands it fell for the purpose of attacking the Committee. The Mr. Higgins into whose hands the letter fell was not, however, the Mr. Higgins for whom the letter was intended. Now, it had happened to himself occasionally that letters not intended for him had fallen into his hands. He had considered that in such cases it was his business to forget everything that he had read in those letters, and to send them either to the person who wrote them or the person to whom they were addressed. He could not, therefore, understand how this letter could be made use of in the House of Commons. MR. LAYARD said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. S. Beaumont), who had given notice of his intention to bring under the conside ration of the House the failure of the ment for a commercial treaty, had once negotiations with the Belgium Governalready postponed his Motion for papers. He had now to ask his hon. Friend once of the subject at present would only premore to defer his remarks, as a discussion judice the object which his hon. Friend had in view. MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONT said, that he could not refuse to comply with the request of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. At the same time, the Session drawing to a close, and the matter being a very importthe result of the negotiations. ant one, he should await with some anxiety MR. AYRTON said, it had been stated that the Committee had deliberated on a Resolution which was not reported in the proceedings among the Resolutions con- PROCEDURE OF THE IRISH COURTS. sidered by the Committee. He wished to QUESTION. ask the Speaker who was responsible for MR. BUTT said, he wished to ask the non-appearance of the Resolution in Mr. Attorney General, When it may be SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR. SIR JOHN HAY said, it would be in the recollection of the House that the claims of certain Reserved Officers of the Navy had been occasionally discussed, and a good case appeared to have been made out in their favour and some high legal authorities had given an opinion in their favour. The Admiralty, however, had submitted their claims to the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown who had decided against them. He thought the gentlemen whose claims were thus decided upon were entitled to know what case had been submitted to the Law Officers, or to have a Select Committee appointed to see upon what grounds the decision to which he referred had been given. The captains themselves had submitted their case to very high legal authority, whose opinion was quite different from that of the Law Officers of the Crown. He begged, therefore, to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the case of the reserved Cap tains. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the case of the Reserved Captains of Her Majesty's Navy," -instead thereof. ADMIRAL WALCOTT seconded the Motion. LORD CLARENCE PAGET assured his hon. and gallant Friend that the Admiralty had given the most careful consideration to the case of these officers, and the more so because it had been stated that the Order in Council by which their positions were fixed was not clearly worded. Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman suppose that the Admiralty had laid an unfair statement of the case before the Law Officers? [Sir JOHN HAY said he had not made any such imputation.] He was glad that his gallant Friend did not impugn the honesty of the Admiralty. The Admiralty had given the Law Officers every information in their power; they stated the case fully, for as well as against the captains; and the Law Officers, after carefully going It into the facts, gave their opinion. was not usual to produce the opinion of the Law Officers, and he regretted that circumstance in the present instance. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, as the noble Lord seemed to admit that there had been a misunderstanding, that circumstance should operate in favour of these officers. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided :-Ayes 108; Noes 92: Majority 16. BRITISH FORCES IN INDIA. MR. BUXTON rose, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the amount of European Forces maintained in India. IIe believed, that the more any one studied Indian affairs, the more profoundly convinced he would become of the truth of a remark made by Mr. Kaye, the celebrated advocate of the East India Company, that "it would be well that it should be clearly understood how, at the bottom of all our misdoings, and all our shortcomings, is the miserable want of money ;" and that it was absolutely impossible for us to have an overflowing exchequer, and avoid the disas trous evils that had arisen from the want fully he examined into the subject the more of means of the Indian Government, in cordially did he join in the opinion of those any other way except by reducing the army Indian statesmen who looked with conto the lowest possible point consistent with sternation at that proposal of the Commisthe entire security of the Empire. Being sion, and who entirely denied the necessity deeply impressed with the dire necessity for the maintenance of so vast a force. In (if India was to attain the prosperity to fact, no Commission ever made a recomwhich she was entitled) of reducing the mendation seemingly with less care and military force far below its present amount, thought, or one less borne out by the evihe brought forward the subject in 1859, dence before them. The truth was, that and again last year. He had the happi- that Commission was entirely absorbed ness now, which he had not on those occa- by what they deemed to be the important sions, of acknowledging that so far as the question as to the amalgamation of the two Sepoy force went the Indian Government armies; and although, unhappily, they made had been making very considerable ex- this recommendation, they did not take the ertions in that direction. Within the last trouble to assign any reason of any sort or two years the Native army had been re- kind for putting the amount at that point. duced from 350,000 to 130,000 men, and They put a question to some of the withe was sure he was only expressing the nesses as to what amount of force they feeling of all who took an interest in In- would suggest; but in no single instance dian affairs in saying how deeply thankful did they require the witness to give any they were to the Government of India, ground for his suggestion. More than and especially to Colonel Balfour and his this, not only did they supply no reasons colleagues of the Military Finance Depart- whatever, either of their own or of the ment, for that immense reduction. But in witnesses examined by them on the subthe amount of European force the reduc- ject, but the conclusion they came to was tion had hitherto been comparatively small. condemned by the greater number and the Mr. Laing, indeed, in his budget, spoke of greater authority of the witnesses whom a reduction in two years from 90,000 to they examined. For instance, the Com70,000 men; but he regretted to say that missioners recommended 50,000 Eurothat statement would be extremely illusory peans for Bengal. Now, two-thirds of the if taken literally. The actual amount of witnesses examined before them, and men European force maintained on the 1st of of the highest position, recommended an last March at the cost of the Indian Go- amount considerably below that point. vernment, was 84,327 men. Of these Still more remarkably was it that the 72,796 were in India, and 11,531 were in Commission recommended a force of 15,000 the depôts at home. This, then, was the Europeans for Bombay. Now, not a fact with which they had to deal, that the single witness suggested such an amount, amount of European force maintained by and General Griffiths, the most important the Indian Government amounted to just witness on the point, only demanded a 85,000 men, and apparently there was no force of 7,000. Again, as to Madras, intention of bringing it below that amount. they recommended a force of 15,000 EuAt any rate troops to the amount of 2,423 ropeans, though Earl Canning placed the had just received orders to embark for amount at 10,000; and no single witness Calcutta, 870 for Bombay, 772 for Madras, went beyond that except a civilian of the and 224 for Kurrachee, amounting in all name of Thomas. He (Mr. Buxton) said, to 4,300 men. This did not look like a re- then, particularly that the recommendation duction of the 85,000. Now, this amount made by the Commissioners was neither exceeded by no less than 5,000 men the justified by any reasonings of their own, amount proposed to be maintained in India nor by the evidence placed before them. by the Commission which inquired into the Why then, it might be asked, should they subject of the Indian army soon after the have recommended so vast an amount mutiny. That Commission recommended of force? Never was any phenomenon a force of 80,000, and possibly, he thought, more easy of explanation. The Comthe Secretary of State might meet him by mission consisted of ten Generals and saying that he proposed in due time to re- only one civilian; and he remembered, duce the force to that amount. He earn- on a former occasion, quoting Napoleon's estly trusted that this might be done, and done soon. That, however, would not by any means content him. The more careVOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] observation to his brother Joseph, that "there never was a General who did not cry out for a large army." The noble 2 P |