The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-02-23 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS-MONDAY.

The adjourned debate upon the motion of Lord PAL-
MERSTON for leave to bring in a Bill for the better go-
vernment of India was resumed by
MT. ROEBUCK, who remarked in the outset that in the
acquisition of India we had broken through almost
every rule of morality; that we had exhibited great
valour and great intelligence, but not great virtue. Yet
he believed that our sway, however obtained, might be
turned to the great benefit of the people of India, who
were incapable of governing thems Ives. The question,
therefore, was what form of government was suited for
India, and whether this was the right time for the
change. There were, he observed, three courses,—that
of maintaining the present double government; or hand-
ing back the entire authority to the Court of Directors
of the East India Company; or adopting the Bill of
Lord Palmerston. With respect to the first course, the
double government destroyed all responsibility. As to
the second, there had never been • worse government
known to the world than that of the Court of Directors,
as testified by Lord Macaulay, a great defender of the
company; they were not, t erefore, the persons he
would trust with the government of India. There re-
mained only the Bill in question, which, with certain
°bulges indicated by him, he thought, would be the best
home administration for India.
Kr. WHITESIDE said his difficulty had been to find
out what was the principle, not of the Bill, but of Lord
Palmerston's speech. It might have been expected that
the East India Company would have been shown to be
indolent, apathetic, incompetent, or corrupt; but no
blame was imputed to the company, who were compli-
mented by Lord Palmerston, as they had been eulogized
by Sir C. Wood in 1853 • they were to be abolished
SHUply because they existed. He dwelt at some length
upon the speech of Sir Charles, which, he insisted, fur-
nished direct answers to arguments urged in support of
the proposed change, which would reverse the decision
of the House in i 853. Bo far from the interference of
Parliamnnt in 1784 having purified the Indian adminis-
tration, he asserted that any one who would go through
Mill's Hislorg of India must come to the conclusion
that the government under the Board of Control was
corrupt, demoralizing, and mischievous, and he read the
high ealogium pronounced by that historian upon the
company's government. In conclusion, he called upon
the House to stay its hand, and, although it might en-
large the basis of the edifice which had stood sonlong

not, upon the arguments used for that object, to over-
throw it.
' • ' .

Mr. Low]: contended that the direct agency of the
Court of Directors could be eliminated without incon-
venience; that a council could exercise more influence
upon the mind of the President than a court sitting in
Leadenhall-street, and which had been deprived of poli-
tical power and all important duties. The effect of the
indirect agency of the Court of Directors, he showed,
was to produce delay and embarrassment, and to pre-
vent the government being placed in the proper hands,
-namely, those of the Queen's Ministers. The Princes
of India felt themselves degraded in being the vassals
and tributaries of a mercantile company, and the natives
generally had a notion that they were farmed out to
that body. He contended that, looking at the immense
interests at stake, with the conviction forced upon their
minds by recent events of the unfitness of the existing
machine, the government were bound not to defer this
measure at • time when the Indian administration pecu-
liarly required unity and efficiency.
Mr. LIDDELL examined some of the details of the
measure, which he looked upon as an expression of weak-
ness on the part of the Ministers.
Mr. BLANEY supported the Bill. He believed that
the company, whatever their merits, had not the power
which this change would confer upon the government of
India.

Mr. CRAWFORD, who had seconded the amendment of
Mr. Baring, said Le was aware of the anomalies of the
present system, and was not unprepared to consider
them; but he bad looked for better explanations than
he had received from the policy of the proposed
measure. In referring to preceding organic changes in
the constitution of the East India Company, he had
omitted to state that all those changes have been pre-
ceded by •committee of that House, and, looking at the
nature of this Biil, he thought there should have been a
previous inquiry.
Sir H. RawciiimotS observed that the change of the
Government of India was two-fold; in England, by the
abolition of the double government, and in India by
proclamation of the Queen's name. To show the com-
plex and dilatory machinery of the double government
at home he described what he termed the gestation of
an Indian despatch, and he asked whether there could
be a more obstructive and unbusinesa-like system. The
sooner the double government, therefore, was done
away, in his opinion, the better. With respect to the
change in India he believed that, with the exoeption of
a very small section of the oovenanted civil servants,
the European community and the officers of the Indian
army would prefer the government of the Crown to
that of the Company. In considering the effect of the
change upon he natives of India he observed that
among the great mass of the population, owing to their
docility and susceptibility, individual character and in-
fluence had more effect than any abstract question of
government. But among the educated classes it was
different ; he believed that they understood the distinc-
tion between the Crown and Company as well as we
did, and he never heard a doubt of their preferring the
government of the former. With regard to the most
important question—that of the time, it was his honest
opinion that it was favourable for the change, and that
ttejiroolamation of the Queen's name would produce
effects. By approving the principle of the Bill and
deprecating delay, however, he did not commit himself
to an unqualified approval of its details, there being
parts to which he could not went.
Sir J. WALSH argued that the double government
contained useful element.; that it brought local know-
ledge to bear upon the supreme board. He complained
of the extent of the patronage which the Bill would
vest in the Government, who would have the disposal
of a revenue of £30,000,000, with only a phantom of
control on the part of that House. The consequence of
the measure would be that public opinion would be
brought to bear upon the Ministry, and might force upon
them • line of policy with respect to the extension of
Christianity in India that would lead to the destruc-
tion of our Empire. He should vote for the amend-
ment.

Mr. A. MILLS considered that a ease had been made
out for • change of • system under which, he said, he
had been unable to &mover where the initiative and
responsibility rested.
Mr. SKYMOUR insisted that the present system de-
served the epithet " cumbrous." The minds of the
natives of India, he said, might be reassured upon the
subject of their religion, which would not be interfered
with by the Government, and as to their employment in
offices of trust. The settlement of independent English-
men in India, to which the Company were opposed,
would be encouraged by adopting the sugFestion of Sir
C. Metcalfe, who considered colonization indispensable
to the prolongation of British rule in India.
Mr. ADAMS observed that no charge of mismanage-
ment had been alleged against the East India Company.
Whatever need there might be hereafter for a change,
the time, he thought, was most inopportune for Rich •
measure, the effect of which upon the war in India
would be moot disastrous.

Mr. Mawr could not conscientiously vote for the
Bill. An object of the measure stated by Lord Pal-
merston was to bring the affairs of India more under
discussion in that House, but he thought no greater
misfortune could happen to India.
Colonel SYKES moved that the debate be adjourned,
and this motion was carried upon a division by 280 to
32.

—After some further business the House adjourned at •
quarter to 1 o'clock.
TUESDAY.

In reply to an inquiry by Mr. GRIFFITH, whether it
was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to sug-
gest to that of France the publication in the Monitgur of
the letter from the French Ambassador expressing the
regret of the Emperor for the appearance of certain ad-
dresses in that paper,
Lord PALMERSTON asked the House whether it was
its wish that those friendly and confidential relations
which now happily subsisted between England and
France should be maintained, or whether it desired to
infuse into those relations a spirit of irritation, bitter-
ness, and animosity by personal attacks in that House
upon the Emperor of the French and the French nation.
If the House chose to pursue the latter course, it must
take the responsibility of doing so upon itself; if, on
the other hand, it attached importance to the main-
tenance of friendly relations, he entreated the House to
discourage these incessant personal attacks upon the
Emperor, who was the spontaneous choice of the French
nation. It was not, he said, the intention of Her
Majesty's Government to pursue the course referred to
in the inquiry, which would be highly improper and
excessively absurd.
In answer to Mr. MILNES
- . .

Lord PALMERSTON stated that Watts, the engineer of
the Cagliari, had been delivered over to the British
Consul, and placed in the British Hospital at Naples.
Mr. GROGAN moved for a select committee to inquire
into the system of management of the Dublin Metropo-
litan Police Force; but the motion was negatived upon
a division by 200 to 105.
Mr. BAILLIS called attention to "the causes which
have led to the rebellion in Her Majesty's dominions in
the East." The general opinion of our fellow-country-
men in India—which they were unable to express owing
to the restrictions imposed upon the press—was that the
rebellion had its origm among • portion of the Mahom-
medan population, who had taken advantage of the
state of India, though • policy which had been pursued
there with a reckless disregard of consequences. Emi-
nent Indian statesmen had recorded their opinion that
the wholesale annexation of native States was alike im-
politic and unjust. He cited condemnations of that
policy by the late Duke of Wellington, Sir T. Munro,
Mr. M. Elphinstone, and Lord Ellenborough, and enu-
merated the States which since 1833, when the annexa-
tion policy commenced, had been incorporated with the
British dominions in India. The annexation of Oude
had been carried into effect by the derangement and dis-
location of all the ancient machinery of administration
in that province, and reflected the greatest discredit upon
Lord Dalliousie and upon the Government. He traced
the history of this measure, in which, he Raid, Lord
Dalhousie had merely been an instrument, and con-
demned in severe terms the plea for pretext for seizing
the possessions of the King of Oude—namely, the op-
pressiveness of his government—which, in his opinion,
was more disgusting than open violence. He concluded
by moving for certain papers.
Mr. V. SMITH observed that there had never been a
policy of annexation, which would be • policy of acquisi-
tion, and no Government had laid down such a policy.
He was sorry to hear Mr. Baillie say that the annexa-
tion of Oude was discreditable to Lord Dalhousie. That
measure had long been before the House, and he con-
tended that Lord Dalhousie had acted in the transaction
with great discretion. The King of Oude had been dis-
tinctly warned by Lord W. Bentinck and Lord Hard-
inge that if he refused to reform his government he
would forfeit his throne. The oppression of his people
was the ground of his deposal, and all the authorities in
India which the Government consulted at the time were
in favour of the measure. He made no opposition to the
motion. _ . _

Lord J. Roseau, said Lord Dalhousie had governed
India for six or seven years with great ability, devoting
thereto his time, his talents, and his health, and he (Lord
John) thought it unfair that unjust imputations should be
made upon that nobleman's character. The case of
(hide was one of half • century's duration. The mis-
government of (hide was as notorious in 1801 that Lord
Wellesley found it neoesaary to interfere, and he con-
cluded a treaty with Nawab Vizier which pledged the
Prince to act in conformity with the advice of the Com-
pany. That treaty was constantly violated, and the
subsidiary form, under British officers, was employed in
the odious office of enforcing the misrule of a corrupt
and viaious Court. It had been • question whether the
troope should be withdrawn from Oude, or the adminis-
tration of the territory assumed by the British Govern-
ment; the home authorities determined upon the latter
course, and Lord Dalhousie, whatever his own opinion
might be, could not refuse obedience.
Lord J. MANNERS discussed at considerable length the
question whether the annexation of Dude was just or
unjust, and defensible or not under the treaty. In con-
clusion, he made a strong appeal to the House to do
justice in this matter, expressing his deliberate opinion
that our course of safety lay in • course of justice to-
wards the native Prinoes.

Mr. MANGLES, as • member of the Court of Direc-
tors, took his full share of responsibility for the annexa-
tion of Oude, which, he believed was a just and neces-
sary measure. He did not believe that the annexation
of Oude had any appreciable effect upon the mutiny,
and he read a letter from Sir John Lawrence, stating as
his opinion that, although it was possible the King of
Chide might have had something to do with the mutiny,
the Hindoo population of Oxide were in favour of the
annexation, and that the mutiny sprang from the
Sepoys themselves • in his opinion, it was • military
mutiny from the beginning.
Colonel SYKES, likewise • director of the Company,
spoke of the disorganisation of the Oude territories,
which were governed, he said, by an ignorant and
voluptuous King, who took no part in public affairs.
General THOMPSON thought that religious
.agency,
and what he termed the colonial and planter spirit, had
• good deal to do with the mutiny, and he cautioned the
Government against the dangers arising from these
sources. He raised • cry of dissent by characterizing the
slaughter of the native Princes at Delhi as the foulest
murders on record.

Mr. PALK said he had never expected to have his
feelings so outraged as they had been by the speech of
General Thompson, or that those who had dishonoured
women, tortured children, and degraded every feeling of
humanity should have found a defender in that
House. -

The motion for papers was agreed to.
Mr. Meoulas obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
provide omopensation to tenant farmers in Ireland
for improvements made by them upon lands in their
occupation, and to limit the power of eviction in certain
owe.

Captain ANNESLET moved an address for a copy of
the report of the medical officers of the Foot Guards
which states the average mortality in that brigade. •
Mr. S. FIEBBERT gave explanations upon the subject
of the report, and suggested an amendment of the
motion, which was adopted, and, after a short discussion,
the motion was agreed to. •
The House adjourned at a few minutes to 1 o'clock.

WEDNESDAY.
Sir J. TRELAWNY moved the second reading of the
Church-rates Abolition Bill. Church-rate, he observed,
was not a tax upon land or property; it was • cl loge in
personam, not in rein, and the remedy was ineffective,
being slow, cumbrous, and expensive. As it had been
decided by the House of Lords that a minority of
parishioners with the churchwardens could not make •
valid rate, parishes were involved in litigation and strife,
suits ran through a long succession of courts, the fabric
of the church meanwhile falling into disrepair. The
grievant*, he said, was not so much that of dissenters as
of churchmen, and he thought it would hardly be desired
by any one that such • state of things, and an unwork-
ble law, should be continued.
The motion was seconded by Colonel THOMPSON, who,
as the Bill did not provide any mode of supplying the
deficiency, suggested that it might be made up by a
land-tax. _ . . .

Lord B. CECIL moved, by way of amendment, to de-
fer the second reading for six months. Ile urged that
where e. rate was voted by a majority in a parish there
was no injustice in levying it upon the minority, while
it would be repugnant to every principle of justice to
allow a minority to control the majority. Although
the law might be anomalous, the disease, in his opinion,
would cure itself.
. .

Sir A. ELTON, as a churchman, supported the second
reading of the Bill, but thought there should be some
proviso= by the State towards the maintenance of the
fabric of churches.
Mr. BALL argued that dissenters would willingly make
voluntary coutributions for the repairs of churches if re-
lieved from a compulsory tax that weighed upon their
conscience.

Mr. DROYMOND wu reminded of the decision of the
House of Lords in the "Braintree case." The history
of England, he said, could not furnish a more scandalous
decision, more contrary to all law and equity. If we
were to have a national church at all the fabric of the
churches must be sustained.

Lord STANLEY had always heard from the warmest
friends of the establishment that its endowments were
inadequate, and that voluntary efforts must be relied on.
He believed that from a very large majority of the
population of England church-rates were not actually
levied. If so, here was a grievant* requiring legislative
interference, and he felt that he had no option but to
support this Bill.
Sir G. GREY objected to the total abolition of these
rates, and thought the wisest course was to fall back
upon the compromise he had formerly proposed. His
opinion was that, in legislating upon the subject, the
House must reoognise as an accomplished fact the actual
abolition of these rates in certain parishes, yet should
not deprive other parishes of the power of levying them.
He should propose, likewise, to exempt Dissenters hav-
ing conscientious scruples from payment of church-rates,
to empower churchwardens to place a rent upon a cer-
tain number of pews, and to give power to landholders
to charge their estates with the payment of a contribu-
tion by way of rate towards the maintenance of the
church. These provisions he proposed to embody in a
Bill, and he objected to the almond reading of the pre-
sent Bill.

After some observations from other hon. gentlemen
and a reply from Sir J. TRILAWNY, who declined to
accept the compromise proposed by the government, the
House divided, when the second reading was carried by
213 to 160.

The Bill was then read • second time.
The House adjourned at half-past 5 o'clock.
THURSDAY.
—••- - -

The adjourned cleli;t-e';:tise motion of Lord
Palmer/don for leave to bring in a Bill for the better
government of India was resumed by
Colonel STICKS, who, after repudiating the character
of an apologist of the Court of Directors, noticed the
conflicting reasons assigned by different members of the
Government for introducing this measure, especially
Lord Palmerston and Sir C. Lewis, the latter of
whom, he said, had affirmed that the East India Com-
pany had done nothing at all towards the acquisition of
our magnificent Indian empire. Colonel Sykes declared
that he had seen in one street in England more human
misery than in • whole province in India. He then dis-
cussed the objection offered to the existing system
founded upon the alleged inconveniences attending the
double government, showing, also from official evidence,
the celerity with which the prodigious mass of business
was despatched by the Court of Directors. Upon the
subject of the mutiny he had no doubt that it was a
military one, arising from a religious panic; but he
believed there was no symyathy, no complicity, in the
Bengal army at large until the punishment at Meerut.
He defended the East India Company against the charge
of indifference to the extension of Christianity, detailing
the numbers of missionaries, of schools, and scholars,
and the general progress of Christian labour in India, to
which the Indian Government, he said, offered no ob-
struction whatever. Highly approving the propagation
of our holy religion there, yet, for our own sakes, he
recommended that the prosecution of that object should
be conducted with caution, prudence, and circumspec-
tion, remembering the inflammable materials we have
to deal with. He urged, from examples, the danger of
leaving in the hands of the Ministers of the Crown the
uncontrolled appointment of high officers in India,
insisting that the present RIII3 not the proper time for
introducing the Queen's name into the government of
India.

Sir C. WOOD contended that since 1784 the Court of
Directors had not been the exclusive and independent
government of India, and that by the Act of 1853,
whifli he had introduced, the Court ceased to be an in-
dependent body, one-third of the members being nomi-
nees of the Crown. A larger number of European
troops must be maintained in India; these troops
should be Queen's, and, in order to put an end to jea-
lousies, the whole army in India should be the Queen's
army. And it would be wise to place the government of
India at once, and especially now to carry it on, in the
name of the Sovereign.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY insisted upon the great advantage
of an independent body like the company being inter-
posed between the Crown and the local authority in
India, and denied that there was a defect of responsi-
bility in a double general government, which was not
singular in our system of administration. The patro-
nage in India was now distributed upon just principles;
we were reaping the fruits of such a system, and he
could not think favourably of a measure which would
make a change in that system. He pointed out the ex-
tent of patronage which the Bill would place in the
hands of the government without a check, and the in-
fluence with which it would arm an unscrupulous
minister. He protested strongly against the charge
brought against the company's government, even in the
pulpit, of ignoring our faith in India, in refutation of
which he read a passage from a sermon of the late
Bishop of Calcutta.
Mr. CAMPBELL was satisfied that the natives of India
were favourable to the transfer of its government from
the company to the Queen of England. The merit of
most of the improvements introduced into India, for
which the company took credit, was due, he said, to
their Governors-General.

Sir E. BULWER LYTTON characterized the measure as
,Panolidti"hel
changes
oinngooomripelnetabte,
were
munw.cornsiscluseredpec
argued that the peculiar state of India at this present
time, and the circumstances under which the measure
was brought forward would aggravati suspicion. It was
alleged by Lord Palmerston and Sir C. Lewis, that,
under the existing system there was no responsibility;
whereas the argument of Sir C. Wood, whose slieech
that night had answered his speech in 1853, tended to
show that the whole responsibility rested upon the Pre-
sident of the Board of Control. Supposing there were
defects in the present system—supposing the 'node of
communication between the two boards to be two pro-
lix, conld not these defects be cured without destroying
the East India Company? Pass this Bill and the House
would never actually interfere in the affairs of India un-
less it were for the interest of some party to assail the
government through the Indian Minister.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not consent to leave this
matter in doubt for another year; because the ques-
tion was, whether there should or should not be •
change in the government of India, and Ihe approached
this question he said, with the deepest sense of its im-
portance. lieferring to the elements of weakness and
, danger which existed, according to the highest authori-
ties, in the native army, he observed that the Bengal
army was now no more, and this required some view on
the part of the House as to what was to be done in
future. They could not wish to raise up another Ben-
, gal native army we must have • Europetn army, a
Queens army. then, if that change were made, the
very foundation of the East India Company would be
broken down, and this alone showed the urgency of
legislation. Whatever might be the perils of dealing
with this great subject, he saw no alternative but to look
it in the face, and to come to a solution of as Large a
question as ever came before that House,—What was
the system of government that would best secure the
welfare of a great empire and the happiness of millions
of people? He trusted they would do that duty well;
he was sure they could not avoid it.
Mr. DISRAELI said, there was one object which had
been lost sight of in this discussion, namely, the financial
part of the question. It was idle to pretend that there
would be, after the proposed change, any distinction
between the finances of India and those of England;
that if the exchequer of India was empty that of Eng-
land would not be liable. If this be true, before the
House agreed to the introduction of this Bill, it should
ask what were to be the financial relations between
England and India? At this moment there was • deficit
in India at about £2,000,000, and that deficiency would
be necesaarily doubled and quadrupled. Before the
House and the country incurred this responsibility they
ought to know the resources of India and how they
were to be managed. What was wanted was • total
change in the local administration of India itself. The
revenue derived from the land could not be increased,
and it was raised in • manner which rendered it pre-
carious. The affairs of India had hitherto not created
much interest in the House and in. the country because
Englishmen had never had to pay for India. That '
illusion would now be at an end.
Lord PALMERSTON, in reply, observed that Mr.
Disraeli had endeavoured to frighten the House by a
financial difficulty. Nothing, however, was more con-
trary to the fact. The Bill would make no change in
this respect; the distinction between the two exchequers
would remain, but would be made more clear and pre-
cise. Upon the general question, he said he could un-
derstand that those who approved the existing system
should desire its continuance, but he could not under-
stand how those who pronounced it to be defective
should, nevertheless, wish to prolong its existence at a
period when vigour and unity of action were so much
reqTm:heered.
RoHß.oonuseuseuelhadavijoon:g divided,
dotiltfityhtehatemaoinmnuemtend.monpend:ytt whleasosh,anome,ildg:
nega-
tived by 318 by 173.
Leave was given to introduce the Bill.
FRIDAY.
present a petition complaining of a breach of the privi-
leges of that House by • member (Mr. Isaac Butt), and
move for • committee to inquire into the allegations in
the petition.
After • brief conversation, at the suggestion of the
Chair, Mr. ROEBUCK modified his notice, consenting to
present the petition on Monday, and move that it be
printed, and then to name a future day for moving the
appointment of • committee.
On the motion that the House at its rising do adjourn

with Monday, among other inquiries,
oFfizlLTrortelatoyf
of Paris.
the Treasury J.
Lord PAL MANNERS
relating
in reply, stated that an application
had bee: tin madeon
but, as the
MANNERStingS ptoutthqeuesl2ttiohnsatrotia the e
French forces during the war, they were not entitled to
claim any assistance from us as allies; and, as the course
rted with the English and
Black Sea, our interference with Russia in their behalf
would not be justified. He further stated that the 12th
Chofirocasspaiansis dad ibdy notceextend to the eastern shores of the
not
tai
tro-nope Cirarc"Bilw
article of the treaty provided that the waters of the
Black Sea should be neutralized, and that the ports
should be opened to the commerce of neutrals; but the
Russian Government had opened three ports only at
which commerce could be permitted, Custom-houses
being established only there. .Her Majesty's government
had remonstrated, and communications were still going
on, the Russian Government alleging that the restriction
was only temporary, until Custom-houses were esta-
blished at the other ports.
The motion for adjournment WU agreed to.
Lord PALMERSTON, in moving the second reading of
the Conspiracy to Murder Bill, observed that gre at pains
had been taken to diffuse a notion that this was an
Alien Bill. It was no such thing. It gave the govern-
ment no arbitrary powers whatever, nor any powers
that did not apply to all Her Majesty's subjects. It did
not interfere with the laws of hospitality. Any
foreigner, whatever his political offences might have
been, would, under this Bill, as well as without it, en.
joy a secure asylum within this realm so long as he con-
formed to the law of the land. An objection had been
taken to the course pursued by Her Majesty's govern-
ment on the ground that a written answer ought to have
been sent to the despatch of the French Minister. That
despatch was given personally by the French Ambas-
sador to Lord Clarendon, who explained to him that a
change of the law in regard to asylum to foreigners must
not be expected. A written reply must have been con-
troversial, and was in other respects inexpedient and
I unnecessary.
1 Mr. Gresos moved, by way of amendment, a resolu-
tion to the effect that the House had heard with meek
concern that recent attempts upon the life of the Em-
peror of the French had been devised in England, and
expressed its detestation of such guilty enterprise.;
that it was ready at all times to assist in remedying any
defects in the criminal law proved to exist, yet re
that Her Majesty's Government previously to inviting
the House to amend the law of conspiracy, had not
made sours reply to the despatoh received from the
French Government, dated January the 20th, 1858.
He thought that a matter like this, affecting the
character of the nation, ought not to be left to mere
1 conversation ; that the answer to the despatch should
'be put upon record; and the Parliamentary meaning of
his resolution was to express the opinion of the House
upon the subject. The despatch of Count Walewski,
he considered, reflected on the mode in which England
granted asylum to foreigners, and it was the duty of
this government to have replied courteously, with dig-
nity, but firmly, and to have placed upon record the
great principles upon which was founded the policy of
England in reference to the right of asylum. If no
answer was given to the despatch, it was a tact ad-
mission that with our eyes open, we sheltered and
favoured assassins. It was becalm he thought the
mode in which this affair had been conducted was calcu-
lated to involve us in • dispute with France that he
called in question the &bastion which had been exer-
cised by the Government in this matter.
Mr. BAINas said the amendment raised two quer.
tions, first, whether the measure introduced by the
Government was a right one; second, if, being right,
there was say valid reason why it should not be im-
mediately proceeded with. The Bill made no
in the constitutional principles of oku:trarrisprnderst,
merely assigned to an offence of a and malignant
character, which was now placed the lowest category
of crime in this country, a due punishment. Then, if
the measure was right in itself, having seen this exe-
crable crime Donnelly committed in this country, edald
demand
French reasonrldre.dptweth:tip
oh:wdwteei
;:nueßar p
oes,
ihnhof.
dow
without
allegationsl
contended dt.
awnh nooh requisition,
bewe rbeighjtustthiliatedthinere"thadPb7n an imalungtepworothpeotiesor,nto.bi:ehHietnemygwaiphdliloped:kou-enedi
etwuisidhnery that the
contrary
courseallowancetn hte despatchtoebetshihteeovoultr
truth,
and believed
made.
ration would imply to the minds of the people of
that no farther step would be taken with this Bill until
there had been put upon record • complete vindication
of our honour.
SIR G. GREY, in reply to Mr. Walpole, observed that
the French Ambassador had been flatly told that it was
not the intention of this Government to OM the
slightest additional restriction upon the right of asylum,
and although no written reply had been sent, there was
not • shadow of doubt as to the understanding of the
French Government upon the subject.
Mr. MIIAHON argued that the objects of the Bill
could not be, as alleged, to Bemire • more adequate.
punishment or • more certain conviction, as the existing
law_ was more effective for both.
. . . . .

Mr. BYNO felt bound to vote for the amendment.
He believed that the existing law was amply sufficient,
and should the measure pass he feared it would pro-
duce ill effects in France and in other countries.

---
Mr. SPOONER thought the Government were right in
not answering that despatch, and that the Bill was •
good, just, and necessary measure.
Lord H. VANE approved Mr. Gibeon's resolution pee.
se, but he could not vote for it as an amendment to the
second reading of the BilL
BINTINOL could not support the amendment.
The Bill should rest upon its own simple merits, with-
out reference to any diplomatic correspondence.
Sir R. Peat observed that the s of Lord Palmer-
ston was calculated to lead the House astray from the
question at issue, and it was remarkable that he should
have proposed • Bill opposed by all the most distin-
guished Liberals in the House. The proceedings against
M. Bernard proved that the present law was adequate,
and be believed that the Bill was only a sham; that the
real truth was that, under cover of an alteration of the.
law, • Bill was submitted to Parliament at the dictation
of others. He read, with • critical commentary, *pm-
sages from the despatch of Count Walewsky, winch he
declared to be the shallowest diplomatic document he
ever read. The addresses from military officers were, be
said, put in the Moniteur for the purpose of intimi-
dating this country to pans • Bill wbigh he regretted
that Lord Palmerston (upon whose suppb.sa change of
political views he commented with some severity) had
condescended to submit to the House at the dictation of
others. By passing such • Bill, which bore upon the
face of it, be said, the stamp of meanness, meekness,
and a sense of shame, the House would do what, in his
opinion, would be injurious to the best interests of the
country.
Mr. HENLEY could not give his assent to this Bill
without an answer being given to the despatch of Count
Walewski.

The LORD ADVOCATE observed that with regard to
the amendment two things were clear ;—first, that the
carrying it would be fatal to the Bill; second, that the
amendment had nothing whatever to do with the Bill,
it being no amendment of it. If that despatch had con-
tained anything insulting to the people of this country
or the government, the insult should have been imme-
diately repelled. The depatoli, on the contrary, was
perfectly friendly, and to some extent the fiats were
true; before making a reply, therefore, the Government
had proposed this Bill, and he thought the despatch.
ought not to be answered till it was =en what became
of the amendment.
Mr. GLADSTONE, referring to the French alliance, de-
clared that we ought to give to the French government
every oonfidenoe, every good office, and every claim far
the purposes of justioe that could be demanded upon the
principles of international law and =ratty by The most
ancient and the freest governments. 'Then, Witfi re-
gard to the despatch in question, had it been antrivered,
he asked, and, if not, dicl it require an 'enterer ? Lord
Palmerston had told the House that it had been an-
swered verbally, and Sir G. Grey that it should be an. ; yet the Lord Advocate insisted ' that 'the
amendment had nothing to do with the Bill. But did
the despatch reqUire an answer? He contended that it
contained allegations—such as that usainditaticin hdd
been elevated to doctrine and preached openly% lb*.
land—which was totally untrue, and most injurious to
this country, and that it was the duty of the govern-
ment to have given an answer to 'them. ' The law' of
misdemeanour left a great discretion in the mind of the
judge, because under the name of " misicsneencsir"
were included acts of the slightest and the gravest cri-
minality, and there was no limit to the amount of
punishment that might be inflicted by fine and impri-
sonment. This state of our law should have been made
known to the government of France, and should hese
been vindiftted.

The ATTORNET-GETTERAL said, he had reoommended
this measure to the Government, and at the time hi did
so he had not seen or heard of the despatch of Count
Walewaki. He had proposed it to the government for
English interests and for the benefit of English institu-
tions, and he invited the House to try the Bill by that
criterion. By the existing law foreigners were able to
do in this country what British subject& could not do.
and this Bill pieced both on the same footing. Having
given a detailed exposition of the taw of conspiraoy,
appealed to the House whether that law was imflimatit,
and this Bill a superfluous piece of legislation, and
whether Count Walewaki had not some ISMS= to expresso
himself as he had done in his despatch.
Mr. DIERAELI argued that there Was no facondstency
in voting for the introduction of this Bill wader the
circumstances, and upon the present occasion supporting
the amendment. The question now was not between
this country and France, but between the Howie of commons and the English Minister. The despatch so
often referred to bad not only been written to the Am-
bassador of Franoe in England, who had delivered a copy to the English Secretary, but had been published in the
Moniteur, made known to the people of France, and
copied probably in every official journal of Europe.
Where was the answer to that deepen*? How could
the suspicions of Europe be removed ? What latisrao-
tion was it to the country that some indefinite words
were dropped in a conversation? The whole affair was
cloaked in mystery; the government had acted in a
perplexed, timid, and confused manner, deficient in
dignity and self-respect. He was of opinion that that
deepateh ought to have been answered in A spirit worthy
of the occasion. He thought • great opportunity tad
been lost of &melting the principles of public law. The
real question now before the House was not diplomatic
or political; it waa • question between the House and
the servants of the Crown. Had they, or had they not
done their duty 1
Lord PALMERSTON having made a spirited reply, the
House divided, when the numbers were—For the
original motion, 215; Againat it, 234; Majority against
the government--19.
The amendment was then agreed to, amid loud cheers
and waving of hate. After souse further business, the
House adjourned at half-past 1 o'clock until Monday.

Snica ma Hos. Esse Isnu Ookirsirri Commercial Charter
ceased, the supplies otTes ham not been of a reliable quality,
the Chinese producers as the withdrawal of the Tee Inspectors
from Canton, having made up the low priced sorts to appear
like the beet. The most prevalent, and certainly the most ob-
jectionable method adopted to accomplish it, is the um of
powdered colour to I. nod ace of the leaves, to hide the
withered appearenee of Um AutunanwLatherlng, thee pier
Into the hands of the plitleer flaw)Ten, instead if titi
valuable spring Math all this tends to the met of the
Chinon and others, but it atunificte the filtered of the British
consumed% ROTIATosa & Co. London, in order to avoid hating
the withered sorb, rind it needful to Import Tee without the
usual powdered oldest oe Ike mesas Timer par* lak• ye sold
In pecitets by authorised Amato in ibis totenty, lutvertitel
In our coluatat.