The Sun. — London, England, 1861-03-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. CHURCH RATES. A number of petitions against the abolition of church rates were presented. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Metropolitan Central Hotel Company Bill was read a second time. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Charing Cross Bridge (City Terminus); Portsmouth Water; Edgeware, Highgate, and London Railway; Price's Patent Candle Company ; Eastern Counties and Saffron Walden Railway; and Dewsbury and Batley Gas. QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICES BILL. Lord TAUNTON moved the second reading of this bill, I the object of which was to remove a certain declaration which was now required to be taken by every person appointed to any office under the Crown. The declaration at present required to be taken, bound the person never to use any power vested in him by virtue of his office to do anything calculated . to injure the Church as by law established. The bill he thought would have been agreed to without opposition, but he found that it was to be opposed. The dec l a rati on had for years been disregarded, and he doubted whether the noble earl opposite, when he took the high and respon sible office of First Minister of the Crown, subscribed to the declaration. [The Earl of Derby—l did.] (Hear, and laughter.) The noble and learned lord then who sat next the noble lord, when he was elevated to the woolsack, and had to dispense Church patronage, did not subscribe to the declaration. [Lord Chelmsford.—Yes, I did.] —(Laughter.) He was unfortunate in mentioning names, but he knew that although he (Lord Taunton) had held several offices under the Crown, he never made the declaration, and it was notorious that a number of the persons holding very high offices dispensed with it also, and a bill of indemnity was regularly passed every year to exempt such persons from the consequences of the omission. He knew many very sensible persons who thought it was highly ob jectionable, and who felt so scruphlous, that they thought it an infringement of the declaration to sign a petition for the abolition of Church-rates. He was of opinion that no danger could result to the Church by the abolishing the declaration, and he hoped their lordships would be of opinion that it ought no longer to be retained. Lord CHELMSFORD said, in spite of the strong appeal of the noble lord, he felt it his duty to oppose the bill, and he hoped the house would uphold its former decision. He thought the Dissenters had in years gone by received a benefit with a certain condition, and they were now, by objecting to make the required declaration, attempting to retain the benefit and get rid of the condition. For thirty years the declarationhad been in force, and now it was dis covered to be highly inconvenient. He had no sympathy with the members of the Church who had such sickly scruples as prevented them from taking the declaration, and he must say he was astonished at some of the remarks of the noble lord opposite as to the little danger likely to be apprehended by the Church by repealing this declaration, when it was well known that large bodies of persons were exerting themselves to the utmost to obtain a sever ance of Church and State. Lord DE GREY and RIPON was not surprised at the opposition of Lord Chelmsford, based, as it was, not on the merits or demerits of the measure, but upon the advo cacy of it by persons of extreme views. After a few remarks from Lords TEYNHAM and NOR MANBY, the house divided, when the numbers were, for the second reading, 38 ; against it, 49. So the bill was lost. The Red Sea and India Telegraph Bill passed through committee. Lord CLANRICARDE moved for certain returns in con nection with the administration of justice in Ireland. Lord GRANVILLE did not oppose the motion. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took th© chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading :—Kendal Fell, Llantrissant and Taff Vale Junc tion Railway, and Stockton and Darlington Railway (New Railway at Marske and Skelton, &c.) PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against the Parochial Assessment Bill and the Poor Law Removal Act, as well as the Metropolitan Improvement (No. 1) Bill, &c. BALLOT SOCIETY. On the motion of Mr. H. BERKELEY copies of a letter from the Secretary of the Ballot Society to the Postmaster. General respecting the alleged suppression of certain letters at Ripon, from the secretary of the same society to the Se • cretary of the Treasury, and of the letter on behalf of the Postmaster-General to the Secretary of the Ballot Society, and a reply to the same, inclosing a declaration, signed by 60 electors of Ripon, were ordered. SALMON FISHERIES. Mr. BAINES presented a numerously-signed petition from Leeds, Ripon, and different places in Yorkshire, expressing approval of the recommendations of the com mittee on this subject, and praying that the same should be carried out. lONIAN ISLANDS. Mr. MAGUIRE begged to give notice that on Thursday he would ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the state ment which had appeared in the French newspapers, re lative to the interference of the English Government in the affairs of the lonian Islands, were considered to be the great source of the difficulties in which these islands were placed; whether the cause assigned for the adjournment for six months of the legislature of those islands was correct, and other information on the same subject. NAVAL PENSIONERS. Colonel LINDSAY asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, if it was true that three pensioners, referred to in a letter to the Times of the 11th inst., have had the pensions awarded them for loss of limbs reduced from one shilling to nine pence a-day; and, if so, upon what grounds a sailor is treated uptin a different system from a soldier as to pension for wounds. Lord C. PAGET said the pensioners in question were awarded Is. a day. The regulations of the service were that an able seaman, having been wounded severely, should have a pension of 2s. 6d. a day ; but if he were able to make natural exertions for his support a pension would be allowed of 6d. a day. However, these men could claim admission to Greenwich Hospital, and under the new regu lations they would also receive 3s. a week. SEALED PATTERNS. Major lIA3IILTON asked the tinder Secretary of State for War, if there was any objection to duplicates of the scaled patterns being lodged in Edinburgh, in order that Scotch contractors may see them without having to send to London Mr. BARING said there would be no objection to the course proposed, as it would be beneficial to the public service. THE ARMY IN INDIA. In reply to Cob DICKSON, it was stated that arrange ments had been made for a local army in India, and also for the establishment of European cavalry for service in that country. MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES. Sir S. NORTIICO fE asked the Secretary to the Trea sury whether he would be able to lay the miscellaneous estimates upon the table before the Easter recess, so that they might be in the hands of members before the finan cial statement was made. Mr. F. PEFL said that in the course of Friday next he would lay th(.lse estimates on the table. ADJOURN3IENT OF THE HOUSE FOR EASTER RECESS. Sir G. C. LEWIS, in reply to a question, said that on Friday nest he would move that the house at its rising should adjourn until after the Easier holidays, instead of on Monday as originally proposed, the latter being the day appointed for the burial of her late Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent. MEXICAN BONDHOLDERS. Mr. BUTT asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Af fairs whether any official intimation had been received at the Foreign -office of the appropriation by the new Mexican Government of 50 per cent., or any other proportion of the customs duties or revenues, to the payment of the debts due to the holders of the State bonds ? Lord J. RUSSELL repeated i; substance the answer he had previously given on the subject. CONSOLIDATED FUND (£4,000,000) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. EAST INDIA (INCOME TAX). t Mr. CRAWFORD called the attention of the House to _he levy of income tax upon incomes and profits arising in l e r ±_cha, which were already subject to an income tax in that c u ,' . . l . ll trY ; and moved that the petitions from mer p."44tB and others of London and other parts of umpoentliticotedingdom, agains . t . the . levy . of an . income tax read 7 mss s and profits arising in India, which were al to the house te an income tax in that country, presented be refer red . o upon the 7th day of this instant Ma rc h, Property T ax i ' . the Select Committee on Income and attention of banit He said that this subject occupied the with India. 1 , e1 : 0 1 : and others commercially connected by c : empl.oyed in planting coffee, tea, and sugar in India anies in this country had to pay a double income-tax, E k T, P d . considered that a great hard- Withship which pressed very he he 'r o instly on industrial operations. regard to India ended that a wide distinction should be drawn between it i g l a t te t i ec.: her colonies, for the latter had the power of regulatin own expenditure, while ry of state trcd of this country the former was entirely under the in that respect—the Secrete go being despotic, and his orders law. He did not wish to subj ec t as o d t b he debt to whether or no we should assume the lryiaboiNvltiotily: iicsispyroobiedret of India, and he believed that that country tailment of her expenditure, be ultimately enabled out of the revenue for her own contingencies. in bringing this question forward was merely to prevent 1 the Government interfering in the financial affairs of I n di a, in a manner calculated to operate injuriously on the inte rests of the latter; and he believed that such could be easily effected by introducing a bill to amend the India Income-tax Act, so that the double imposition of the income tax should be removed. He believed that the inevitable result would be that this country would shortly recoup itself for any I temporary loss it might sustai n i n th e re d uc ti on o f r evenue to the Treasury by a continuance of the present double tax. 1 He concluded by stating the substance of the petitions from the bankers and others on this subject, and contended that benefit must necessarily result from referring the same to a select committee. Sir M. FARQUHAR cordially seconded the motion. Mr. T. HANK EY opposed the motion, and said he could not see how the subject could be referred to the committee in question, which could only properly consider the question arising out of the levy of income tax in this country. The principle of income tax in this country was, that all incomes of a certain amount should be taxed, from whatever source derived. He did not want to enter into the question as to how far this principle was correct, his only object was to show that this double tax complained of was inseparable from the state of the two countries in reference to their financial position. He ad mitted, no doubt, that some difficulty might be experienced in obtaining money in this country for the construction of rail ways and other undertakings, but too much of that difficulty should not be attributed to the double taxation, and he contended that the house had nothing whatever to do with the subject. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to say that the Government had no objection to the motion of his hon. friend, though they did not in allowing the reference of the petition to the select committee, give any:sanction to the opinion that income derived from India should be exempted from taxation in this country, and he also concurred with his hon, friend (Mr. Hankey) in thinking that the question did not come within the immediate scope of the inquiry of the committee. He begged to say he was exceedingly sorry that his hon. friend the President of the Council of India was not able to be present in consequence of indisposition, because, as Secretary of State for India, he was much more largely interested in the question raised by the hon. mem • ber than he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was. It was one of great importance to Indian finance, and but very slightly affected that of this country. Whether the payment of double income tax was or was not conducive to the finan cial advantage of India, was a question upon which he was not called to enter. The question for him, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was a much narrower one, and he did not think that the select committee would be warranted in deal ing with the question as stated by the hon. member. One very important point connected with the assessing and the levying of the income tax was, that they taxed the pro perty of persons in this country, who had property any where ; and the argument of his hon. friend went to this, that property possessed in India by persons resident in: this country, should be exempted from the payment of the income tax in this country. Now, the levying of the in come tax was done by the Board of Inland Revenue, and they administered the law as they had done for the last twenty years ; and when the hon, gentleman charged the Board with illegal proceedings, he must remind him that the Board acted upon the advice of their legal adviser. The point which his hon. friend wished to refer to the committee was, whether persons who had property in India, and paid income tax there, should pay income tax upon the same property by their residing in England ; whether, in fact, they should cripple the payment of the income tax in England by not applying to property in India the rule which was applicable to property possessed by Englishmen in other countries. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not, however, object to the petitions being referred to the committee, as his hon, friend desired. His hon. friend contended that persons in this country should not be called on to pay a double income tax—one in England and another in India ; and he argued that, because the Government here had control in India, that country should be exempted, as regarded the income tax, from the rule which applied to all other countries. Well, the prin • ciple in favour of such an exemption would alter the whole basis of the levying of the income tax since 1842; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed that the parties who were represented by his hon. friend possessed so much good sense that they would soon reconcile themselves to the apparent difficulty, (Hear.) He did not object to the matter going before the committee, but he was afraid it would not come within the scope of the inquiry for which the committee was appointed. (Hear.) Sir S. NORTHCOTE said the question at issue, which was raised by the petitions, went to the basis of the whole system upon which the income tax was levied. It was one of great magnitude, and he did not see what result could arise from sending them before a committee. After a few words from Mr. KINNAIRD, Mr. DISRAELI expressed a hope that the house would pause before they gave their assent to the motion. It was, no doubt, one of the great privileges of her Majesty's sub jects to bring under the consideration of that house any grievance under which they considered they laboured. He was bound, however, to say that if this question should be sent to the consideration of the committee, it would not only complicate, but add to their labours, and clog the committee with the consideration of a matter which should be left to the house and the Government. (Hear, hear.) He was of opinion that there was no reason in the argu ment in favour of the exemption, and the whole subject of Indian finance would be brought before the committee which had been appointed for a very different purpose, if they gave their assent to the motion. He therefore hoped the house would not agree to it. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BRIGHT said he entirely agreed with what had been said by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli). Giving their assent to the motion would only do mischief to the committee, and although the right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) hid given his assent to the motion, he (Mr. Bright) would venture to ask his hon. friend the member for the city of London, after the discus sion which had taken place, not to press his motion. (Hear.) Mr. CRAWFORD replied, and said that from the obser vations of the hon. member for Buckingham, he saw rea sons for acceding to the suggestions of the hon. member for Buckingham. He therefore begged leave to withdraw the motion which he had made on the subject. THE AFFGHAN WAR. Mr. DUNLOP then rose to move for a select committee to consider the " Correspondence relating to Affghanistan," as presented to the house in 1839, and the same correspon dence as presented in 1858, and printed by special order of the house in 1859, and to report on the discrepancies be tween the two ; and also to inquire into the circumstances of the preparation of that correspondence for being presented on the former of these occasions ; and to report their opinion whether any, and if any what, precautions should be taken to secure that documents presented to this house by the Go vernment as copies or extracts of correspondence, or other papers, shall give a true representation of the contents of such correspondence or papers. The hon. member said he thought he should be able to show the house that this was one of the grossest cases of falsification of public documents which had ever occurred in the annals of our Parliamen tary history. (Hear, hear.) It might be said that the present complaint referred to an event which had occurred long ago, and that it was useless now to rip the matter up. It was quite sure that these papers were laid on the table in 1839,.m0re than 20 years ago; but they went out to . India before the unhappy death of Sir Alex. Barns, who witnessed the injustice which had been done him in the mutilation of his despatches. One or two of the actual despatches were sent home by Sir A. Burnes, and got abroad, and in 1842 a motion was made by the hon. member for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie), an 1 seconded by the right hon. member for Bucks, for the production of farther papers. That motion was lost by a majority of (July nine. Subsequently the hon. member for Sheffield, seconded by Mr. Hume, moved for papers, but this ma)tion was also lost. Such rejection was not to be wonder 4 at when it was consi dered that Lord Broughton, theme President of the Board of Control, gave an assurance that there had been no garbling of the despatches. In this country it was customary to place faith in what fell front the lips of a Minister on such subjects, and the statement of Lord Broughton was believed. But in 1851 the history of this fraud was exposed by Mr. Kaye, in his " History of the War in Affghanistan." The investiga tions of that gentleman put it beyond a doubt that there had been a great mutilation of these documents. The state ment en the part of the Government was still persevered in, and in 1858 the hon. member for Sheffield carried a motion for the production of further papers. But a struggle was still kept up against their being printed, and it was only in 1859 that these documents were published in a blue book, prepared under the superintendence of Mr. Kaye, in his official capacity, at the India House. In this blue book, prepared with great care and ability, the portions mutilated from the former papers were bracketed. He (Mr. Dunlop) confessed that he had read those later papers with mingled feelings of amazement, indignation, and shame—(hear)— with amazement at the extent and audacity of the falsifica tions ; with indignation at the injustice done to poor Sir A, Burnes ; and with great shame that a department could be found capable of resorting to such an expedient. (Cheers.) The Affghan war was an unrighteous and causeless war, but on that account the despatches should have been gi ven i n their integrity. The hon. member then proceeded to giv e instances in which the despatches had been garbled and falsi fied, prefacing the dissection by a reference to the supposed des i re a s s o of n for u Russia rn to e extendterentering upon her h dominionst ewar. It w t o India a s as being thethought necessary by Lord Auckland that D e a o i s d t e Mahomed toahtohme recoveryedKhan should be removed, and Shah Soojah be of his throne. The papers, as laid before Parliament in 1839, certainly upheld the policy of this view ; but if they had been given ungarbled and unmutilated they would have placed that policy in a totally different light. The hon. member referred to the first dispatch of Sir A. Burnes to show that everything which told favourably for Dost Mahomed Khan had been systematically expunged, and turned to the entire dispatch to show that Dost Mahomed Khan had spoken and acted with the greatest loyalty to our rule. He next alluded to a document written by the Russian ambassador at Teheran, of which our Government had obtained possession, but sup pressed, and which had come into the hands of Sir A.Burnes. Here was the confidential secretary of Dost Mahomed,who was represented to be already hostile to us and most friendly with Russia,aztually giving fo Sir A.Burnes the letter of the Russian ambassador at Teheran,and that fact was concealed. In a subsequent despatch of Sir A, Burnes those passages in which he spoke of the friendly feeling of Dost Mahomed were also suppressed. He now came to a remarkable des patch, connected with the appearance at Cabul of Captain vle "iellithe Rus s i an ambassador. That despatc h contained nine paragraphs,whereas all but two were suppressed. (Hear, Ameerhear.) onSira A ce . rt ß aju urn i ld i e . scribed ha visit he had with the mg ! with a letter in his held from THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY gVENING, IVIARdit 0, 1861. his son, reporting that the Russian agent had arrived in the city of Cabul—that Dost Mahomed Khan had said he did not wish to receive any foreign agent so long as he had a hope of the sympathy of England, and that he would order him to be sent away immediately. Sir A. Burnes felt it his duty,under the circumstances, to tender his advice to Dost Mahomed,which advice was that, inasmuch as that prince was on terms of peace with Russia, he could not properly refuse to see a representative of that power. That despatch was so garbled as to make it bear a different sense altogether to that which it really did. Then came a confidential despatch of Sir A.Burnes, addressed to the Governor-General, in which he proceeded to show the friendly character of Dest Mahomed as regarded British interests, and the reasonableness of his expectations. Slr Alexander then went on to relate the particulars of the arrival at Cabul of the Russian ambas sador, of his desire to see the Ameer, the confidential con versation he had with him on the subject, the desire of Dost Mahomed to refuse all intercourse with the agent of any power but that of England, and of his being dissuaded from such a course by the advice of Sir Alexander. The writer further stated that so anxious was Captain Vicovich to obtain the friendship of the Ameer that he offered to pay an annual sum of money if he could secure it; and Sir A. Burnes concluded his despatch by recommending to the Bri tish Government the adoption of certain vigorous measures to counteract Russian intrigue in India, and the exercise of all their influence to secure an arrangement of the affairs of the Shah of Persia. Now (observed Mr. Dunlop) who ever prepared those documents for presentation to Parlia ment must have been a man of genius. An ordinary person wouldfancy it impossible to distort the meaning of this de spatch by the suppression of passages. The meaning of it, however, was strangely falsified by garbled sentences taken from it and strong together in apparently consecutive order. It mentioned all the startling facts regarding Capt. Vicovich, his interview with Dost Mahomed, and the alluring offers made to the latter. The document then went on with the recommendation of Sir A. Burnes for the adoption of the most vigorous measures against the intrigues of Russia, but the nature of those measures was altogether suppressed. That despatch, so distorted from its original meaning, led to the most serious consequences, and mainly helped to crush the fortunes of Dost Mahomed Khan. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman at considerable length quoted from various other despatches written by Sir A. Burnes and Sir W. M'Naughten, for the purpose of showing that considerable portions of them had been omitted, and that those that were retained were of such a character as to give a wholly false impression of the policy and the advice of Sir A. Burnes with regard to Dost Mahomed. In fact, the chief object of those who produced the papers appeared to have been the striking out of every passage which could at all give a clue to Sir Alexander's real opinions and conduct towards the Ameers. That suppression was wilful, deliberate, and con tinuous. It was from the original despatches of Sir A. Burnes that he totally disapproved of the course taken by the Government towards Dest Mahomed ; and it was deeply to be regretted that notwithstanding that opposition a sense of duty, as a public servant, should have induced him to obey the instructions of the Government. If he had not gone to do so, his life would have been saved ; and it would have been out of the power of the Government of the day to load his memory with obloquy by garbling and falsifying his despatches. And now what did he (Mr. Dunlop) ask? He asked them to look at the evils which had been produced by the suppression of the truth and the circulation of these garbled documents. In the first place, look at what they had done to Sir A. Burnes. He, at least, was a faithful servant, and did his duty as our agent at Cabul, He was one of the first victims. His body was hacked to pieces by the Affghans, who lookedupon him as the agent of the British policy, and consequently their enemy ; and his reputation which ought to have been defended and maintained, had been hacked and mangled by the hands of those who ought to have been its defenders more cruelly than his body by the hands of the avowed enemy. He had been held up as the instigator and adviser of that unjust war, attended by so many calamities to this country, and all this was done for the dastardly purpose of screening themselves from the just con sequences of the policy which they had pursued and he had condemned. (Hear, hear.) Again, look at our conduct to Dost Mahomed. We had driven him from the throne, we set up an old pretender, we crushed his family ; and, not con tent with that, they had endeavoured to show in the des patches that he was faithless to us, and deserved all he got, instead of having acted loyally throughout. How had he acted towards us since ? Time came when he recovered his throne, and our empire in India was tottering, and he, with out implicating himself by fighting, but merely assuming a menacing attitude, might have created such an alarm on the part of Sir John Lawrence as to have prevented the recap ture of Delhi, and if that city had not been taken in time we should have had to reconquer the whole of India ; but Dost Mahomed, whom we had used so ill, instead of seizing the opportunity to revenge himself, showed a noble forbearance —Mahomedan as he was—which was worthy the admiration of a Christian people. It was universally thought that at least in the British Parliament papers were free from fraud ; and accordingly, in a history of this very war, published in Berlin, there was a chapter on " Sir Alexander Burnes the author of the war ;" and the writer remarked that the history might be confidently relied on, because it was compiled from British State papers. Well, but when a new edition came out, the author would have to unsay all he had said, and he must confess that the State papers published by the English House of Commons were just as useless as documents put forward by the most perjured despot. We had ai..-..Ucea cue authority of our avice papers throughout the world. Dis patches were daily produced in the house, but after what he knew of the papers to which he had been calling the atten tion of the house, he really felt a doubt if any value ought to be attached to any one of them. Further, he said the produc tion of such papers was an insult to the Sovereign. All these papers were laid on the table "by her Majesty's command." To alter then these papers, was like using the die of the Royal Mint, to stamp as genuine a false and spurious coin. Nay, it was worse. Her Majesty intrusted her confidential servants with the power of using her Royal name as a token of au thenticity and truth. Yet these confidential servants had not shrunk from using it as the voucher and cover of a lie Besides this, Ministers owed a responsibility to Parliament. The question in the case of the Affghan war was whether Ministers were justified or not. And instead of laying on the table docu.ments by which their conduct should have been judged, they sought to escape censure by the production of forgeries and fabrications. (Hear, hear.) These proceed•. ings had greatly tended to shake public confidence in the honesty of the departments of Government, and to restore that confidence it was necessary to have a committee to in quire into the whole circumstances. That investigation was also due to the memory of Sir Alexander Burnes and in justice to the character of Dost Mahomed. An inquiry ought also to take place as to the way in which these papers had been published—he did not say for the purpose of punishment--that was out of the question after such a lapse of time ; but if they shrunk from exposing the wrong that was then practised they would in fact be inviting a repetition. A more delicate question remained, to inquire what security could be taken against the mutilation of these papers. He would not suggest any plan, but he thought it was a fair subject of inquiry. The hon. member concluded by moving for the committee. Sir j, WILLOUGHBY seconded the motion. After a pause, Lord PALMERSTON said it was usual when a member • had to reply to a speech on a variety of topics to compli ment the previous speaker on the temper and moderation with which he had stated his case. He was sorry he could not pay that compliment to the hon. member for the speech he had just made; for he thought he would have displayed more judgment, and not have recommended his motion less to the attention of the house if he had abstained from that violent vituperation, which he took leave to repudiate in terms not less strong than those the hon. gentleman had used —such words as falsehood and perjury —words which were not commonly used by those who took part in the debates of the house. If might have been thought that topics of foreign policy belonging to the present time had sufficiently occu ( pied the attention of Parliament ; and a stranger casually entering the house would hardly have expected to find them engaged in discussing the operations in Affghanistan 20 years back. However, he did not dispute the perfect right of the hon. member to bring this question before the house. His speech divided itself into two parts —one as to the policy of the Indian and British Government with regard to the operations in Affghanistan and Central India ; the other with regard to the personal character and regard for the memory of Lieut. Sir A. Burnes. He would take up the latter question, and he would say at once he did not admit that the papers laid before Parliament in 1839 conveyed a false impression, as the hon. gentleman asserted, with re gard to the manner Sir A. Burnes performed the duties im posed upon him in Affghanistan. The whole argument of the hon. member went on the erroneous and totally false assumption that Sir A. Burnes was to direct the Governor - General, and that he and not the Governor-General was to be the master of the policy of the Indian Government. He said that Sir A. Burnes' opinion was that Dost Mahomed was in favour of the British interest, that his fidelity might be relied on, that there was no intention on his part to form an alliance with Russia, and therefore the hon. gentleman argued that the Governor-General was to blame, and that the British Government was guilty of an atrocious crime in not allowing themselves to be guided by Lieut. Sir A. Burnes, whom they had sent on a special mission to Cabul, but that they insisted on judging for themselves, as having a larger range of facts within their knowledge. Why, there was no doubt that Sir Alexander Burnes was a most respectable man, of great energy and activity, but he fell into a mistake which subordinate agents are vary apt to commit, that of identifying themselves with the govern ment to which they are sent, of being too easily misled, of believing everything that was said to them, perhaps in his case from the natural simplicity of his character, but also perhaps from not having a large range of facts which he might compare with what he heard. From these causes he did believe implicitly in the friendship of Dost Mahomed towards Great Britain, and recommended that the demands which Dost Mahomed ma4le on the Indian government should be complied with. Now let the house test the value of those opinions by what the hon. gentleman stated. He said that when the Russian agent, Vicovich, arrived at Cabul Dost Mahomed informed Sir Alex. Burnes of the fact, and offered to send him back again. Sir Alex ander asked what M.-Vicovich-had come about, and the Dog replied that he knew nothing about it. Why, the fart was that this Russian agent . h4 *aught _tp Cabui_an swers to letters which Dost Mahomed himself had written long before to St. Petersburg. Dost Mahomed had applied to Russia, to Persia, and he (Lord Palmerston) believbd to Bokhara, for assistance in the war which he was about to make on Runjeet Singh, and yet this Ameer, whoso word was to be so implicitly taken, assured Sir A. Burnes that he knew nothing about the object of the Russian agent's visit. There was another instance of the simplicity of Sir A. Burnes mentioned by the hon. gentleman. Post Ma homed, as a proof of his confidence in Sir A. Burnes, showed him a copy of the reply he was about to write to the letters brought by M. Vicovich, and at the suggestion of Sir A. Burnes he made some alteration, and this Sir Alexander Burnes accepted as a proof of good faith. Why nothing was more easy to conceive than this—the draft of the letter shown to Sir Alexander Burnes was one thing, the letter actually sent was one of a totally different character. As to the alteration of the despatches, he would take first of all those on which the hon. gentleman did not seem much dis posed to dwell—such as substituting Russia for the Em peror, and otherwise omitting words which tended to iden tify the Emperor himself as being engaged in personal communication with Dost Mahomed. Why he contended that was perfectly right, because if they wanted the Russian Government to desist from and disavow their policy of fomenting intrigues on our frontier, nothing could be so foolish as to pin the Emperor personally to such policy, to drive him into a corner, and force him, out of mere pique, to pursue the policy on which he had entered. He did not apprehend any one would recommend such a line of policy. What was the history of the whole transaction ? Dost Mahomed and Runjeet Singh were enemies. Run jeet had got possession of Peshawur, and Dost Mahomed wanted it back. Runjeet Singh was our friend ; Dost Mahomed they could not at any time rely on. He drew a distinction between that time and this, because all these disputes had passed away, and at the present moment the Indian Government was on the best possible relations with Dost Mohamed. But it was not so then. The Dost applied for aid to Russia, to Persia—which was then an instrument in the hands of Russia—and to Bokhara. At that time Russia was actively engaged in hostile purposes towards our Eastern power. She had entered into, close communications with Persia, urging her to take possession of Herat, which in that case would have become a mere Russian outpost, and she sent her agents, Vicovich and Simonivieh, to in clude the Post in the general alliance hostile to the British power. All this was known—it did not depend upon Sir A. Burnes; the facts were perfectly known to Lord Auck land and the British Government, and tho course they were to follow, therefore, did not depend on tho opinion of Sir A. Burnes as to the fidelity of Dost Mahomed, or his disposition to be friendly with England. No doubt when Sir A. Burnes arrived at Cabul it gave a turn to Dost Mahomed's calculations. Before that time he was relying solely on Russian and Persian support against Runjeet Singh ; then he began to consider whether he could not have the support of England, which would answer his purpose better than the support of Russia, and he induced Sir A. Burnes to recommend to the Indian government that they should agree to his terms. But the Indian government, who saw farther and looked deeper into the facts than Sir A. Burnes, did not chose to throw over an old and steady ally like Runjeet Singh for the wavering and inconstant friendship of Dost Mahomcd ; and they refused that which was the condition of his alliance. When that was communicated to Dost Mahomed he de clined the English alliance, and reverted to his original policy of alliance with Russia and Persia. Sir Alexander Burnes was obliged to quit Cabul, the policy of the Gover nor. General was adopted, and Dost Mahomed was treated as an enemy because he allied himself to those who were at that.time the enemies of England and attacked a power which was her ally. The• whole argument, therefore, rested on the assertion that the opinion of Sir Alexander Burnes ought to have guided the government of India, and that that government deserved all those epithets of vitu peration he had lavished on them out of his plentiful vocabulary; because the policy which Sir Alexander Burnes recommended was not that which the responsible govern ment adopted. The question, therefore, really was in what degree was the Parliament misled, or the memory of Sir Alexander Burnes injured, by the omission of parts of his despatches which contained his personal opinions, which arose from his over credulity, and which were at variance with the opinions entertained by the Government. The dispatches contained enough to show the policy on which the Government acted ; and if the opinions of Sir Alex ander Burnes were omitted, it was to be remembered, as an hon. friend of his once before remarked, that on the other hand a very severe dispatch, written by Mr. M'Naughten by the orders of Lord Auckland, cen suring the conduct and disavowing the policy of Sir Alexander Burnes, was also omitted. When a Government pursued a certain policy:they stated the par ticular reasons which induced them to follow it; but they did not enter fully into all the reasons why they did not fol low another course of action. In a despatch written by the Governor-General of India he found fault with Sir A. Burnes for having entered into an arrangement with the Queen of Candahar, by which he committed the Indian Government beyond what he had authority to do. The Governor-General • said he would not call upon him to make a public disavowal, but that he must take an opportunity of showing that the Indian Government were not prepared to make good the engagements which Sir A. Burnes had said the Govern mentswould enter into. So with regard to Runjeet Singh, It had to be intimated to him that tho policy .1. 11. Indian CtuvuLnweut was not that which Sir A. Burnes recom mended them to pursue. There was another despatch omitted, in which Sir A. Burnes was taken to task for hay ingcommunicated while in Affghanistan to the Indian news papers information with which he was entrusted on account of the Government. That was a reproof of which Sir A. Burnes was well deserving. He did not mean to say that these things were serious cause of blame to Sir A. Burnes. No doubt ho acted according to the best intentions in what he did, but he contended that the views of Sir A. Burnes were short-sighted. He wished to show that on that policy the Indian Government did not choose to act; and that though Sir A. Burnes might entertain strong opinions, yet that he was 'not the Governor-General. (Laughter.) What was the object of laying papers before Parliament ? It was to show the reasons why Government had followed a particular course of policy, and it must be shown that the Government acted on sufficient reasons, otherwise they could not justify themselves. But the proceedings in Affghanistan were•discussed fully at the time, and he was not aware that the result of those discussions was to throw blame on the Government for the course then pursued. (Hear, hear.) That course of policy was most important ; it was no doubt followed by the disaster at Cabul, but that was not in any degree the natural consequence of those proceedings. There was a force at Cabul sufficient to hold the ground. He did not wish to speak otherwise than well ' of those who were gone, but that force was commanded by a general who, from physical infirmity, was incompetent to • meet the demands necessary under very trying circum . stances. But if the army had taken the Bala Hissar of Cabul, his opinion was that that disaster could never have happened ; the town of Cabul would have afforded pro visions to last for the winter, and if any persons had had to suffer it would have been the inhabitants of the town, and not the" British army in the Bala Hisser. Therefore it was fair to say, post hoc ergo propter hoc, that because a disas ter in the retreat followed the occupation of Cabul, there fore it was the consequence of it ; if things had been better ordered that disaster would not have taken place. But then the question was whether the Government of India were justified in proposing, and the home Government in adopting the course that was taken. Russia was making alarming strides at that time towards our Indian frontier; Persia was at the command of Russia; Russian officers directed the operations at the siege of Herat; Russia was seeking to make Persia the instrument of her designs, and a Russian lieutenant was despatched to win over, not only Dost Mohamed, but Runjeet Singh. If that had sue , ceeded it would be evident in what danger of disturbance our Indian possessions would have been placed, especially considering how different the position of India was then compared to what it is at present. The decision of the Go vernment of India to resort to measures of force for the purpose of thwarting that combination, was a course justi fied by the best re card for the interests of the country; and if they had failed in doing so, despite the opinions of Lieut. Burnes and other subaltern agents, theywould have deserved the epithets which the hon. and learned gentleman had that evening so undeservedly levelled against them. Tho hon. ana learned gentleman, in the simplicityof his nature, seemed to have taken for gospel everything an Affghan chief might happen to say ; but the truth was, that there was a complete labyrinth of intrigue which it required a good deal of saga city to unravel, and with which the Government had to deal. At that time there were differences between the members of Dost Mahomed's family and the Birders of Candahar. If the British Government could not rely on the steadiness of Dost Mahomed, who, because he did not get all he wanted, threw himself into the arms of Russia, it was their natural course to adopt Shah Soojah, who had been on the throne, and who had been expelled by one of those revolutions so com mon in eastern countries ; the natural coarse was to endea vour to place him as the ruler of Cabul, he being friendly to English interests, rather than to have an enemy placed there relying upon Russian and Persian assistance. There fore, there was nothing unnatural in the course the Indian Government took to give effect to this policy. (Hear.) Then he was at a loss to see what the particular committee to which this question was to be referrel was to have in view. Was it proposed to refer to a committee in this year 1861, to consider whether the Indian andßritish Govern ments were right in 1837-38 in entcringupon the opera tions conducted in Affghanistan ? (A cry )f" No.") The hon. gentleman said " no." Then that charly was not the intention. (Laughter.) Then he presimed the object would be to see in what degree the passage left out altered the tendency of the policy which the Govemments of India and England then pursued. Would these passages, if put in, have formed a condemnation of the poky pursued, as suming that the papers without them forme( a justification? The only additional passages they gave wire the opinions of Sir A. Burnes, and it was not upon then that the Go. vernment had made their decision. The question was whether the Governor-General and the Iritish Govern ment had been justified in looking upon Dot Mahomed as an enemy, aid whether they had been well 'ounded in the opinion that Shah Soojah was a preferable ally ; and the conduct of the Government of the day upor that question was the only thing that could be inquired ino. (Hear.) Mr, BRIGHT said he observed when the noble lord rose) that from his countenance and from his language he seemed to be suffering somewhat front the passion of anger. Lord PALMERSTON—Not much. (Laughter.) Mr. intlOHT—The noble lord said not much. He ad mitted that in the course of his speech the noble lord calmed down; but he was so far led from what he (Mr. Bright) thought was a fair course, as to charge the hon. and learned gentleman with making a violent and vituperative speech, and he spoke of that vocabulary which he appeared to be master of. Now he (Mr. Bright) undertook to say he was only speaking the opinion of every gentleman in the house who heard the speech with which the question was intro duced, when he said that rarely was delivered there on any subject a speech more strictly logical, more judicially calm, or more admirable than the one they had heard that night from the hon. and learned member for Greenock. But the fact was, the noble lord felt himself hit. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord was on his trial in this case, and it was on that ac count that he (Mr. Bright) expected that at the conclusion of the debate the noble lord would not feel himself at liberty to object to the appointment of this committee. After a few sen tences the noble lord touched on the case of Sir A. Burnes, and he made a very violent denial of the:misrepresentations which were charged against the Government of that day in the case of that gentleman. But he went on to say, after ail, these things were of no importance—as to what was in or what was left out was of no importance—but he would like to ask the noble lord, then, what was the object of that minute, ingenious, and he would say unmatched, care which he had taken in mutilating the despatches of a gentleman whose opinion was of no importance, and whose despatches would not make the slightest difference in the opinion of any person concerned ? (Hear, hear.) And the noble lord, too, had stooped to conduct which, if ho (Mr. Bright) were not in that house, he would describe in words which if be used there possibly might transgress the rules usually observed in the discussions of that assembly. But the noble lord had stooped so low, as throughout the whole of his speech to heap insult on the memory of a man who died in the execution of what he believed to be his public duty—a duty which was pressed upon him by the mad and obstinate policy of the noble lord, and while his blood cried to heaven against that policy the noble lord in that house, during three-quarters of an hour, had scarcely ceased to heap in sult on th© memory of that man. The noble lord said throughout that Sir A. Burnes was a man of the greatest possible simplicity of character. He (Mr. Bright) could not, however complimentary he might be disposed to be, retort that on the noble lord. (A laugh.) He said that Sir A. Burnes, an eminent political agent, whom he spoke of in that contemptuous manner, when at the court of Dost Ma homed, WAS so bewildered by the treachery of that Asiatic ruler, that he took everything for truth which he heard, and that in point of fact he was utterly unfit for the position he held at Cabul, and yet Sir A. Burnes remained there, and for two years after those despatches were written, and until that perilous hour when not himself only but the whole army of the subjects of the Queen fell victims to the policy of the noble lord. He would tell the noble lord what the proposed committee was not to do, because every mem ber of the house who heard the speech of the hon. and learned member for Greenock and who listened to the noble lord, must have seen that from the first the noble lord avoided the whole question. (Hear, hear.) He endeavoured to lead the house to believe that the hon. and learned gen tleman was going into some antiquated researches about the policy of the English and the Indian government 20 years ago, and that it was proposed to have a committee to dig up all the questions about the designs of Russia at that time. His honourable and learned friend had no such in tention, and no man was more ccgnisant of the fact than the noble lord, who had endeavoured ingeniously to give a contrary impression to the house, It was not the policy of the war, ncr was it as to whether Sir A. Burnes or Lord Auckland was the Governor. General. They knew that Lord Auckland was Governor-General and that he, like Governor- Generals, being hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles from where events were transpiring, had to rely on the in formation he received from the political agent on the spot. It was clearly, therefore, of some importance to know what Sir A. Burnes said and wrote. It was not intended to in quire into the policy of Russia, at that time, nor inte the policy which sacrificed 20,000 human lives of the subjects of the Queen of England ; nor was it intended to inquire how far the loss of more than fifteen millions sterling had affected for all future time the finances and circumstances of the Government of India. Those were crimes—the whole of that policy was a crime—of a nature that never could be answered for, and the perpetrators of which no committee of that house could adequately punish. He was sure that his hon. and learned friend had not the slightest idea of going back 20 years to bring even the noble lord or anybody else to the bar of public opinion on that account. But i was worth while to inquire whether the Government of tha, time was worthy of the confidence that was placed in it whether members of the Government of that day were mem hers of the Government of the present day. It was worth while knowing whether there was a man in a high position in India or in England who had so low a sense of honour and of right that he could offer to that house mutilated, false, and forged opinions of a public servant who had lost his life in the public service. Conceive any man at this moment engaged, it might be in the most perilous service, who might to-morrow or the next day, or next year, have to lay down his bones in that distant land—conceive the position of such a man, being liable to have his letters mutilated and altered so as iv cre.toy /its meaning, and then, when they were altered, being presented to that house. The noble lord knew as well as the hon. and learned member for Greenock knew, that there had been garbling mutilation, practically and essentially, falsehood and forgery, in those despatches that were laid before the house. The original despatches had probably been given after 20 years, because it was supposed that after such a lapse of time nobody would take the trouble to go into the circumstances. The hon. member for Sheffield reminded him that the genuine despatches were given by the noble lord the member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), when he was in office. He tendered the noble lord his thanks for the course he then took. Ho was quite sure that the noble lord would be the last man to be mixed up with a transaction of this kind—(hear)--except with a view to giving the public full information with regard to it. The object of the committee was to find out who did this false thing—who supplied the information, knowingly false and knowingly forged. If they added to or took from any thing in a note or a coin, that was forgery, and that was precisely what somebody had done with regard to these dispatches. That was an odious offence committed against that house and against truth, and they wanted to know wh3 did it. The noble lord said that the alterations wore trifling, and that the opinion of Sir A. Burnes was not worth much. If that were so would the noble lord tell them who did it. Lord Broughton, in his evidence before the Indian salaries committee, took the entire responsibility of the Affghan war on himself. The noble lord at the head of the Government was then at the India Board, and so was the noble lord the member for the City of London. But the noble lord at the head of the Government was also Foreign Secretary. He (Mr. Bright) did not suppose he would be wrong in saying that the question lay between the noble lord and Lord Broughton. It was not done by a subordinate who could not be found out. His honourable and learned friend said that marvellous care had been used— so much so that it must have been done by a man of genius. (Laughter.) There were men of genius in very objection able walks of life. (Laughter.) They knew that the noble lord was a man of genius, or he would not have been on that (the Treasury) bench for the last 50 years. (Laughter.) They know also that Lord Broughton was a man of very varied accomplishments. He (Mr. Bright) would like the noble lord to tell them who did it. Was it his right-hand or Lord Broughton's right-hand man, or some clever secre • tary in the India Office who did the work ? Ho wanted to know, because he wished to drag the criminal before the public. They wanted to vindicate the character and honour of Parliament in a matter involving the loss of £0,000,000 of money and 20,000 men, and he did not believe that the ho ts° would ever consent to sit down quietly withou making any inquiry into the matter. Mr. DISRAELI—After all which has occurred on this subject I hardly like to be silent. The noble lord the First Minister has talked of the lapse of 20 years which havo elapsed since this question was discussed. I can remember 20 years ago, when nearly in the very place now occupied by the hon. member for Greenock I supported a motion of my noble friend near me to call the attention of the house to this subject. Twenty years upon my head has done that for me which I suppose it has done for all of us, it has saddened our life and softened our spirits, therefore it may be sup posed that in asking the house to consider this question I, at least, bring to the subject no prejudice, but am prepared to consider the motion before us with the advantage that may result from some previous acquaint Ince with the subject and some subsequent pondering on its nature. In discussing the Affghanistan war I cannot for a moment admit that we are to take refuge in any myete- rious entity called the Indian Government. The persons responsible for that war were the English Ministers at the time, and he would be unworthy of being a Minister, and almost unworthy of being a member of this house, who under any circumstances, or after the lapse of any time, would shrink from such responsibility; there fore any remarks I make upon the matter affect the English Government, and that Government alone. The name of a gentleman of high character has necessarily been brought into discussion in respect to this question ; and here let me say that I had no personal acquaintance with Sir A. Burnes, and can only form my opinion upon that public servant, as we must form opinions upon others, by the public docu ments of their public life. 'I here I found great energy, great devotion, great research, and a character admirably adapted to the circumstances in which he was called upon to act. I cannot, therefore, agree with the noble lord in his obserTa tions upon Sir A. Burnes. On the contrary I admire his career and lament his loss. This question has been before Parliament on previous occasions, and every one is almost acquainted with its details. What, then, is the motion of the hon. gentleman—a supporter of her Majesty's Govern • ment ? It is not merely a vote of censure, it is not merely a vote of want of confidence, but it is both united ; it is absolutely asking the house to declare that the Ministers are not only unworthy of confidence, but that they have perpetrated conduct with impunity, years ago, which ought to be held up to public reprobation. It becomes, then, the duty of this house to deal with the question calmly. and not to be entrapped into a resolution which they may after wards regret. There were two points to be considered ; first, as to the policy of the Affghan war, and, secondly, as to the information in vindication of it laid before Parlia ment. He thought the policy of that war erroneous and dangerous. But this was 20 Years ago, and an inquiry into that policy was a line which the house, in his opinion, ought not to pursue. Then, what were the reasons for the omissions in the information ? Mr. Bright's accusation im puted a crime. But these omissions were no recent discovery, and if they deserved censure, how came Mr. Bright and his friends, less than two years ago, to express confi dence in Lord Palmerston ? The house should lay down some principle as to what amount of information should be given. Was all to be given, or was the Minister to have the privilege of omission and suppression ? No man would say ho ought not ; the question, then, was one of discretion and management. The discretion might be wrong, the management bad ; but was the house to say that a crime had been committed ? The adoption of the motion would lead to inconvenient consequences, and the house must push the matter much further. Although he con sidered the policy of the invasion of Affghanistan wrong, and that the information laid before Parliament had been somewhat shorn of its fair proportions, he believed that, though the Minister might have acted erroneously, he had acted conscientiously, and he could not vote for the motion. Mr. WALPOLE observed that the questton was whether the discrepancies between the papers laid before the house 20 year .s ago and two years ago being brought to its notice, Parliament was to shut its eyes to the fact without inquiry. On this ground he ehould vote for tire motion, except the latter part. Lord J. RUSSELL totally denied the charges of any criminal intention on the part of the Government, or that these omissions had been made with a view to deceive Par - liament. After some remarks by Col. DICKSON, Mr. HORSMAN observed that the question was what was the rule and principle as to the information which the Ministers of the Crown had to present to Parliament on subjects respecting which it ought to be informed. Mr. Disraeli said it was a matter of discretion and manage ment; but he contended that it was a matter of confidence and responsibility—the confidence which the house placed in Ministers and their sense of responsibility. He cot n• plained of the system of secrecy which prevailed, and which was inconsistent, he said, with the responsibility of the Government. Two sets of despatches had been laid before the house, and they differed. The subject had been brought before the house ; and, being so, they were invited to make inquiry, and he should vote for the inquiry on principle. Mr. DUNLOP, in reply, disclaimed the idea of being in • fluenced in any degree by a feeling of bitterness in bringing the motion under the netice of the house. He might add that in compliance with the wish which had been expressed in the course of the discussion, he was willing to modify the motion by the omission of the last part of it. Mr. BAILLIE lamented that the noble lord at the bead of the Government had spoken in disparaging terms of Sir A. Burnes. One of the last letters ever received from that gentleman complained of the manner in which his despatches had been misrepresented in the House of Commons, and it was this circumstance which led him, after that gallant officer had died in the service of his country, and in a war of which he disapproved, to move, in 1842, for the produc tion of the papers. (Divide.) Mr. DUNLOP said he wished to leave out the concluding part of his resolution, and to end at the word " - opinion." The SPEAKER said the motion could neither be wholly withdrawn nor altered in part without the consent of the house. _ _ Mr. BAXTER, in order to raise the issue desired by the hon. member for Greenock, would move, by way of amend ment, that all the words after the word " opinion " in line 7of the resolution be omitted. (Hear, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL—I think the resolution without the concluding words would be lame and imperfect. (Oh, oh.) The motion as originally proposed by the hon. gentleman takes a very consistent view, and I shalltherefore vote against the omission of the words. (Oh.) Mr. BRIGHT—Do I understand the noble lord to object to the withdrawal of the last words ? Why, the noble lord at the head of the Government specially argued agal:rist the impropriety of such an inquiry—(hear, hear)—and the right hon. gentleman who has thrown his shield over the noble lord objected also. (Hear, hear.) The hon. mem ber for Greenock is but acting on the opinions which they expressed. Ido not think I ever saw a spectacle so re markable as that of a leading member of the Government and a candidate for the Prime Ministership—(hear, hear, and laughter)—who, after speaking on behalf his colleague, now rises to object to the withdrawal of part of a resolution in deference to the opinions of several eminent members of this house—(hear, hear)—the specific question which was brought forward remaining untouched. Mr. DISRAELI—In a motion like that which 'occupies us to-night the house ought not, in my opinion, to consider the convenience of Ministers,but rather the principles which should guide the action of this house itself. I objected to the resolution which was brought forward, but it is now sug gested that it would perhaps be expedient to adopt a por tion of that resolution. In that case the house ought clearly to understand the character of the proposition. This reso lution, which is very well drawn, contains two distinct pro posals. One is to consider the correspondence as presented, and to report on the discrepancies, and the other is to in- quire into the circumstances of its preparation 20 years ago, and what steps should be taken to prevent the same results in future. I said before that I regretted the matter had been revived, and after an interval of 20 years that it would be inexpedient to institute such an inquiry as was proposed; but I intimated—though I did not formally propose it— that, without pledging ourselves to any vote as to our future course, we might examine how these discrepancies had occurred. (Hear.) If the house is disposed to agree to that suggestion, it ought to stop at the end of line.four of the resolution, which would then contain a complete propo sition, but the motion made by the hon. member for Mon trose would leave the resolution so garbled in language, so imperfect, and incoherent in sentiment as to lead to a very unsatisfactory result. Lord PALMERSTON—I wish to say that I did not mean to speak disparagingly of Lieutenant Burnes ; I think, on the contrary, I did justice to his energy, ability, and to his qualifications. But what I did say was that Lieutenant Burnes, neither by his position, experience, nor by the extent of his views, could be quoted as an authority whose opinions could be set agaiiist those of the Governor- General, who had far more ample means of knowledge, and was far better able to decide any question of great national policy. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the motion made by my hon. friend to cut, mutilate, and garble this resolution—(laughter)—to commit forgery in respect of part of it—(laughter)—for it has been held to-night that forgery consists in suppression, I must protest against it—(oh, and hear, hear)—and I will state my reasons. When a member thinks fit to bring before this house a serious motion—for this motion is a serious one in its intentions—(cheers)—and when he conveys his proposal in language such as the hon. member has thought fit to use, and which, though he may have since forgotten, I have not—(hear)—for it was of much too serious a nature to be dealt with ae lightly as he wishes to do—when a member, I repeat, on full deliberation, has thought fit to make the sort of motion which he has pro posed, it is not becoming or respectful to the house that he should run away with it, and content himself with only an introductory passage, which is of no value whatever except as leading to the serious conclusion with which he ends it. (Cheers.) To inquire into the discrepancies ? Why, the house knows them. (Hear, hear.) They are in the posses sion of every member. (Hear, hear.) If any proposition is to be submitted to the house at all, it ought to bo a resolu tion not to inquire into discrepancies which are already known to every hon. gentleman, but to express an opinion upon them. It is mere idle trifling to move for an investi gation which cannot add to our stock of knowledge, or lead to any useful result. (Hear.) Mr. DUNLOP said his motion contained three Proposi tion. The first was for a report upon the discrepancies be tween the two sets of documents; the second was for an inquiry into the circumstances attending the preparation and presentation of the despatches in 1839; and the third related to the precautions which ought to be taken in future for preventing the mutilation of public papers. He wished to depart from the third, but the third only, and would, therefore, have no hesitation in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Montrose. The house then divided— For the amendment Against it .. Majority —97 The house then divided on the original motion, when the numbers were,- 49 For the motion 159 Against it —llO Majority against it.... PRESENTMENT SESSIONS IN IRELAND. On the motion of Mr. BUTT, leave was given to bring in a bill for the better regulation of Presentment Sessions in Ireland. COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND). On the motion of Mr. CARDWELL, leave was given to bring in a bill to enable grand juries in Ireland to increase the remuneration of county surveyors, and for other pur poses. QUEEN'S PRISON, &c. Mr. CLIVE obtained leave to bring in a bill for the abo lition of contributions by counties for the relief of prisoners in the Queen's Prison, and for the benefit of Bethlehem Hospital. ANNOYANCE JURORS (WESTMINSTER). Sir J. SHELLEY obtained leave to bring in a bill to re• peal the acts relating to the nominating and appointing householders of Westminster to serve as !Innoyancejurors and to make other provisions in lieu thereof. RECOVERY OF DEBTS BILL. This bill was read a second time. TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. BUTT moved that this bill should be read a second time. Mr. VANCE objected to the eccond reading of the bill and asked that it should be postponed until after Easter. Preparations were made for a division, but none took place, and The motion was agreed to. METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Mr. TITE, in moving that this bill should be read a second time, stated that it was similar to one which he introduced last year, but the progress of which was stopped by a dia cussio4 as to a re-appoin.traent of debt. The provision as to such re-appointment had been omitted from this bill, and had been made the subject of another measure, which also he should ask the house to read a second time that night. Mr. LOCKE rose to move that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. He complained that the hon. member for Bath had given no explanation to the pro visions of this bill, some of which militated very seriously against the principle of local self-government. The endea vour was to take from the vestries throughout the metro polis the power which they had hitherto enjoyed, and to place it in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. It was, therefore, a question for the house whether that board had discharged the duties for the performance of which it was established and whether it deserved the con fidence of Parliament. The Metropolitan Board of Works was established in the year 1855 to carry out the drainage of the metropolis, and he defied anyone to say what had as yet been done towards the completion of that work. If they had done literally nothing for the improvement of the metropolis they had not forgotten to do something for themselves, because they had erected a magnificent palace for themselves in Spring-gardens which would cost from £40,000 to L 50,000 to the public. He wanted to know upon what grounds of public benefit the Metropolitan Board of Works sought the right of levying rates without the inter vention of the vestries. An hon. MEMBER. drew the Speaker's attention toidhe fact that there were not 40 members present. It was f i rund that such was the case, and the house therefore immediately adjourned at 25 minutes after. 12. COUNTRY .31ARKETS. LIVERPOOL-MAR= 19. There was rather a thin attendance of both the town and country trade at this morning's market, and we had but a limited business doing in wheat, at about the former rates for most descriptions. Oats and oatmeal slow of sale, but still at the previous currencies. Barley and peas were also unchanged. Indian corn held for 37s 3d per qr for mixed, and 38s 6d to 39s 6d for white, with an inactive demand. Egyptian beans, is dearer. More inquiry for flour, at an advance of 6d on the week. LEEDS—MARcH 19. Our market to-day was fairly attended by millers, and the trade in wheat was of a fair character. Fine English wheat must be noted at is over the rates of last week; in ferior sorts still hang hea% ily on hand. Barley brought late rates. Beans and oats unaltered. BRISTOL—AIAncH 19. At our market to-day there was a fair attendance, and a moderate business was doing, at prices is to 2s per qr ad vance on the week. Flour was is higher. NEWCASTLE-UNDER LYNE-MARCH 18. At this corn market there was a limited show of wheat. The trade was very steady, and prices were is to 2s ad vance on last week—white making 60s to 765, red b6s to 68s. The demand for barley was limited, but at no reduction in value. Oats were in fair supply, with a slow sale, from 24s to 32s per 24 stone. Beans steady, from 40s to 50s per qr. LYNN -MARCH 19. A moderate supply of wheat to-day, which was 'in fair demand, and prices is to 2s higher. Barley quiet, with a midling show. Oats in retail. Beans firm. Peas a dull sale. Old white 56s to 62s I Old red 51s to 56s Barley . . . 38s to 43s I Oats .2os to 265 Beans .38s to 44s I Peas 485 to 54s NORWICH CATTLE. The show of store cattle to-day was large, but, there being a small attendance, business was dull throughout, at barely last week's rates. At the close more than one fourth remained unsold. Scots, 4s Od to 4s 6d ; shorthorns, 3s 6d to 4s ; Irish, 3s Od to 3s 6d ; Devons, 4s to 4s 6d (estimated weight when-. fat). Fat beasts a small show, and sales firm, at 8s Od to 8s 6d per 141 b. Sheep—There was a good supply of sheep in the pens. Fat sheep, Os Od to 9s 6d per stone ,• prime, 10s Od Pigs—A fair supply. Store pigs, 18s to 22s ; fat pork, 7s 6d to 8s Od per stone. THE MAILS. MAILS DUE. Australia, Ceylon, and Mauritius (via South- ampton) Mar. 21. Do. (via Marseilles) April 12. Brazil and Cape Verds .. April 4. Buenos Ayres, Monte Video, &c. Cuba and Mexico .. April 1. Canada, &c. (via L'derry) March 20. Cape of Good Hope, &e. .. April 1. China, Penang, and Singapore (via S'ampton) Mar. 21. Do • (via Marseilles) Mar. 29. Gibraltar (via Southampton) .. .. Mar. 21. India(Calcutta), Ceylon, &c. (via Southampton) Mar. 21. Do. (via Marseilles) Mar. 29. India (Bombay), (via Southampton) .. Mar. 28. Do. (via Marseilles) .. Mar. 22. Lisbon Mar. 21. Malta, Egypt, and Aden (via Southampton) .. Mar. 21. Do. (via Marseilles) .. Mar. 22. Vigo, and Oporto .. .. Mar. 21. United States, California, &c. Mar. 20. Western Coast of Atrica, Madeira, Tenerife .. April 10. West Indies and Pacific, Carthagena, Cuba, &c. April I. THE Iv EATIIER.—It continued to blow very hard all yesterday at Portsmouth from N. W. to W.N. W ~ blow ing the water into a perfect mist during some of the passing squalls, and raising a heavy see in the tideway. The baro meter stood, at 8 a.m., at 28 and 9-10ths ; at 3 p.m. it stood at 29 ; and at 6 p.m. it had further risen to 29 and nearly 2-10ths. A large number of vessels have put into St. Helen's, the Motherbank, and Spithead for shelter, in addi tion to those named in our report of yesterday. Among them are the following :--The Telegram, for Bombay, leaky, sails split, boats stove, and maintopsail gaff broken ; the Gratitude, for Salem, United States, with loss of fore yard and bowsprit cap, and sails split ; the Julia, from the coast of Africa for London, w ith loss of foremasthead, fore topmast, sails, and pumps choked ; the Harrisons, from Swansea for Dieppe, with loss of foretopmast, maintopgal lantmast, sails split, and other damage ; reports having ex perienced very heavy weather of the. Land's End ; the Ma rina, for Lisbon, with loss of anchor, &c. ; the Falkland, for Liverpool, with loss of crossjack-yard and sails split ; the Adele, for New , York; the screw steamer Malaga, for All- : cante ; the screw steamer Agnes, from Troon for Bristol' the Ocean, for Oporto, &c. [ADVERTISEMENT.I—Perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, refreshing sleep, and functional regularity restored, without medicine, purging or expense, to the meat disordered or enfeebled by Du Barry's delicious health re storing Revalenta Arabica Food, which removes indiges tion (dyspepsia), habitual constipation, flatulency, diar rhoea, dysentery, nervousness, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, catarrhs, colds, noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, steepness, acidity, palpitation, heartburn, headache,.debi lity, dropsy, despondency, cramps, spasms, nausea, and sickness, sinking, fits, cough, asthma, bronchitis, con sumption, epilepsy, paralysis, also children's complaints. Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment, and expense may be avoided by using Du Barry's. Food which, at a few pence p er day, saves SC times its cost in other remedies, removing effectually, without purging, constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious and liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Ure, MD., F.R.S., Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr. Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the high Court of Chancery under a penalty of 15,000 against Alfred Hooper Novill and his agents ; and the pretences that Nevill has a patent for Arabica Food and that Du Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly fake. No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, ontheseal and wrapper. Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins 11b. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6d. ; 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The 121 b. and 241 b. canisters are sent carriage free on receipt of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Re gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co. ; Abbie, 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Ox bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopsg ate street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement Phillips and CO. tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co., King William-street, City ; at 127 LEA rlnlbnra ; and all zrocars [ADYEnrismarrr.]-liolloway's Ointment andyllla.-- Comfort for all.—The pieyalenee of 'external disease is mournfully attested by •multitudes whom riches cannot gladden, and whom poverty cannot cow. To all such it should be known that this cooling Ointment will arrest any outward inflammation, stay the progress of corruption, and heal the terrifying wound. After promiscuous trials by thousands of sufferers, not one has ever yet complained of its having ;once failed. Holloway's Ointment has con quered and cured inflammatory disorders in all parts of the world, and saved the precious lives of thousands. , In diseases which have afflicted the frame for a long rime, or contaminated the blood, Holloway's Pills should always be taken, as they act internally as favourably as the Oint ment externally. BIRTHS. ABERCROMBIL—On the 18th inst., Mrs. H. D. Abercrom bie, 12, Upper Fitzroy-street, of a son. Corr.—On the 18th inst., at West-hill, Highgate, the wife of George N. Colt, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, of a daughter. RIDGWAY —On the 19th inst., at 11, Clifton-road East, St. John's-wood, the wife of T. G. Ridgway, Esq., of a daughter. • MARRIAGES. MATTIIEWS—.WILLIAMS—On the 14th inst., at Highgate rise, Tom Martin, eldest son of Martin Matthews, Esq., Liskeard, Cornwall, to Elizabeth Terrell, only dauetter of Jno. Williams, Esq Tavistock, Devon. SANDERSON - M'WHINNEY.—On the 14th inst., at St. George's, Everton, John Sanderson, Esq., to Elizabeth, only surviving.daughter of the late T. M'Whinney, Esq., merchant, Kingston, Jamaica. DEATHS. ACTON.—On the 15th inst., at Acton, Katharine, the wife , - ;_f Robert James Acton, build er, Aoton, iddleeex, a --cd ' 7 3. ' Be.ADNE`t.. —On the 16th inst., at Bath, the Rev. John H. Bradney, , of Major-General A. Gibsone, of Leigh House, Br adford, Wil ts. , 15th inst., Prinsted Lodge, Ems • GIBSONE —On tne worth, Margaret, w Zolloway, Fi e ld Wade, its, al R. M. A. WADE.—On i Esq., aged 77 the 1 6th inst., WINDER.—On the 17th in at Elm-lodge, t..ordship-denet T o tt en ham, ti's in- Wnder, Esq., aged 75. LONDON : Printed and Published by 311.71tD0 YOUNG , a t No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TIIE bur; Office, No. ff2,trand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the Coun t y of MiddleseX Wednesday, Match 20, UAL Cin E On TRAIL Wester (Fares Barnsti and Te and To V?s• an gram NEI N NA,RyOT] at the 0 In the c be s l ubm 186 , at Crease ti 01' Am ( §: in twe g et bearing ( ) faces c To anth 4 m oney t the) Corn received SaPital ...*** 'll Troia April, ai GOvE R THE rates, IS ten Revenue other pu and per! Furth( With gm Forme Office, N THE Oinces 1 Londoi bonnie Thi s the Inel revenu e X 1,260,00 The p line of. moue losg clai Ohara The R e 4 dditlon l Ystent oi of Partn( antount c t he Insur Settalnty e Inten, o Nixxsr Annua7 ,0l A 8 t 700 Th e pa , Every fa, *table th vettent, 1 IRE the 9th cl -"' MIL] JJ ad d er s ag 4 RE. LO. Just r )Is entio aleraber c And PubIII By the sac by post entitled LIFE heg powers if their no] assisting General a ductive c r , cause of t rfours liointmen The ab -4u.or ge _ Bi Por qu2 1 . Gal Paovlet°ll,°il:ll uOtbol ettoes nag IPopei 4 13 : : e Or 131elli:lian}1 „The /n o ~i onotr h the Drilla The ph 4,gulatitt a uei r E tteinov ? tien—ese 62, Their Oh otho ee4 • Their Cal Once by ( TO b Adria Dr. Cul lioner Lb hove). DR. & • MEI NER " Il et Pat In a eel sent po MAN i o , r kp et t el, INTR( Btn icturc t , CRAP "441'11,vii CRAP Pon Marrif ies a VRAP Oonorrh( The Bc eases, to "Curt! should bi 23d 3t arc , " Attle The wcs oaich pr a ge . , " This Arotessic /ld By m hn bi l I.Xcesses -48 rbe ti F OR Co TATI( ASTR - 9 , Bra