The Press.
London, England, 1857-05-30 00:00:00

TORTURE IN INDIA.

Lord C. HAMILTON rose to ask the President of
the Board of Control whether any investigations as
to the practice of torture in Bombay and Bengal
were instituted by Government in 1854, similar to
those which led to the Madras report of April, 1855 ;
and whether the resuits of those investigations
would he laid before Parliament.
Mr. V. SMITH said that no commission had been
issued in the presidencies of Bengal and Bombay ,

THE PRESS.

because the late Governor-General, Lord Dalhousie,
had thought it better to act at once. The clauses
in the penal co le, which were now under considera-
tion by the Legislative Council, would apply to all
parts of India. The papers referring to this subject
would be laid upon the table as soon as they were
copied.

JOINT. STOCK BANKS.

Mr. HEADLAM asked whether it was the intention
of the Government to introduce a measure during the
present session of Parliament to regulate the con-
struction of joint stock banks, and more especially
to apply the principle of limited liability to such
establishments?

Thd CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER answered in
the affirmative.

NEUFCHATEL.

Mr. KINNAIRI asked whether the Government had
received any conclusive information relative to the
signing of a treaty bringing to an amicable conclusion
the differences between the kingdom of Prussia and
the Swiss Government with reference to Neufchatel ?
Lord PALMERSTON :

I am happy to be able to inform my hon. friend and the
house that a treaty has been acceded to by both the Swiss
cantons and the King of Prussia, which I believe was
actually signed a few days ago, and that the question in
dispute between them may be considered as being sails.
factorily settled.

Mr. ROEBUCK called attention to the subject of
our relations with Brazil. He referred to the Act
(Lord Aberdeen's) of 1845, authorising our ernizers
to seize suspected vessels in Brazilian waters and
under Brazilian guns, which had created, he said,
great indignation in the minds of the people of
Brazil, and he urged that, as the slave trade had
been put an end to there, and had utterly dis
appeared, the slave• traders having been expelled,
and the trade itself having been denounced by the
Brazil in Government as piracy, that act, which had
the effect of impeding our commercial relations
with Brazil, should be repealed. He moved for a
select committee to inquire into our relations with
Brazil, and into the policy of repealing the Act of
1845.
Lord PALMERSTON observed that Mr. Roebuck bad
erroneously assumed that the Act of 1845 was still in
operation, whereas it had been suspended by mutual
agreement for some years past, and for all practical
purposes was a dead letter. That act, be said, hail
been justified by the conduct of the Brazilian
Government with relation to the slave trade ; they
had neglected repeated warnings, and refused to do
anything to stop that trade according to treaty. In
1850, upon an intimation that the 1 rovisions of the
act would he enforced, an assurance was given by
the Brazilian Government that measures would be
taken to put down the trade, and the act was
suspended ; but, instead of the promised measure,
the trade was prosecuted to the utmost extent. The
act was consequently put in operation, and produced
its proper effect; and when our Government found
that of Brazil was in earnest, the operation of the
act was suspended, and had continued so until
the present time. Nevertheless, it would, in his
opinion, be most dangerous to repeal the act, there
being parties at Rio prone to protect and encourage
the slave trade. He therefore entreated Mr. Roebuck
and the house not to take a step that would be
misunderstood by the Brazilians, and have the effect
of renewing this hateful traffic.
Mr. BRAMLEY-MOORE supported the motion.

Mr. DISRAELI obset ved that the motion was a very
strong one, inasmuch as it proposed to take the
management of our diplomatic rela►ions with a
foreign power out of the hands of the Government,
and thereby implied a want of confidence in the
Government. He understood that Mr. Roebuck
did not represent any particular complaint on the
part of th.e Brazilian Government with reference to
the act in question, and he understood from Lord
Palmerston that the act was at this moment in
suspense by mutual agreement between the two
countries, and under these circumstances he could
not support the motion. At the same time, the sub•
ject was one which, in his opinion, ought to interest
the house. _ _

Lord J. RUSSELL said it appeared that for some
time oar efforts to induce the Brazilian Government
to exert itself in putting down the slave trade had
failed ; but, by increased vigilance on our part and
more stringent measures directed by the Foreign
office, the trade was put an end to, owing to its being
found to be a losing concern. Believing this to be
the real state of the facts, he desired to leave this
question in the hanls of the Government.
Upon a division, the motion was negatived by 312
to 17.