The Express.
London, England, 1861-03-20 00:00:00

IT

THE X PRESS, WF ^NES DA ir EVENPvG, MARCH 20, 1861.

wee inensimid in Deb by 840,000 f. He wished to know
who was responsible fa correct duenmests being placed us
the table of the house.
The CHAN* ELIA tit of the EXCHEQVFX said be had
net been aware that this question was to he put. He was
M prepared to admit, as at preesot advised, that any
incorrect atatement bad been given to the house with refer.
sees to the iii,rea.• of the national debt. The paper
alluded to he appr.hvuded indicated • transfer from the
unfunded to the foaled debt. With tepid to respuesi-
bility. tinewnooto• i ou.d by the Traniwy were mimed
by the 3.evretary to the Treeseo, who was the won
and minister of the Board of Treasury, but all the rosailrers
of the 1... ad, and certainly himself, were responsible.
The bill was then read • third time, and mood.
THE DOUBLE INVOME TAX ON THE DIVIDEND
ON THE INDIAN DEBT.

Mr. CRAWF(iitLinisse to notice to call Mien-
' ties to the levy of income tax upon incomes and profit.
arisiug in India, and to move "that the petitions from
merchants soil others of London and other ports ,ii the
United Kiog.lnin sguinst the levy of sit income tax upon M-
I coma and profits arising in India, which are alrooly subject
to an inconsc tax iu th..t :ountiy, premixed to the house oti
the 7th inst.. be refero.l to the select consinittor on Income
and Po.perty Tax." The petitions, be said, Tore siguatures
which must command attention. Not only w.Ol
the fend holder prejudiced, but the credit of India was
• affected by the 10111111er in which creditors were dealt win, ;
• nail the industry of India was discouraged. Lord Cans,ing
had on a public occiusiou expressed the highest auticipstions
el what would be the results of British eoterprim in halm,
but what wa. the use of Governon-Geoeral hotting out
inducement& for the cultivation of waste hinds in India,
when capitalists found they had to pay a tax at loth en.la!
He would conclude by stating that the petitioners com-
plained of the injustice and inequality of an income tax being
unposed by the government of India as well as by the 0.
nutmeat of this country upon the same property, so that
the same income was made liable to aMx iu either care. If
the petition were referred to the select committee on the
income tgx, he thought the question would be duly consi.
&wed, and a further opportunity afforded for the redress of
j a grievance. (Hear, hear.)
Sir M. FARQUHAR seconded the motion.
Mr T. HANKEY said he had listened with the greatest
atteution. to the speech of his bon. friend, but he could not
wree with his argunieuts. He could not understood even
the object of the conclusion to which he had arrived, or how
the house could agree to refer to the select committee on the
ism ee tax the resolution then upon the table. If this were •
question as to the particular mode in which this tax should
be levied, he could well understand its being referred to the
committee which his bun. friend the member for Bucking-
ham (Mr. Hubbard) had moved for. But this question up
peered to him (Mr. Hawkey) to be • totally irrelevant one,
namely, whether profits made in one country should or
ahouhl not be liable to itiOollia tax in another.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
government had no objection to the motion. The question
involved point/ of considerable importance, but in assent-
ing to the motion, he was bound to say that he thought the
terms of the reference to the Income and Property Tax
Committee were Dot breed enough to cover the ground
takes by Mr. Crawford. He had argued that India. should
be Vested as au isolated CYO, and enjoy a peculiar exemp-
' ties. He (Mr. Gladstone) differed from him wino this
point, and he showed the confusion that must result from
' placing ln.lia in a category different from the crown colonies.
Tbe proposition of Mr. Crawford would go to alter the
whole basis of the English income.tax upon which it had
been levied since 1442, and my that English rubjecte should
be exempted from the tax on profits derived from property
located in foreign countries.
Sir 8. NORTHCOTE telt much alarm at the prospect of
the select committee being thus loaded with very large and
difficult questions, as to the oonns,xion between the English
and Indian Exchequers with which they had nothing to do.
Mr. KIN NAIRII expressed his belief that complications
of this kind would be likely continually to arise, until we
resorted to the just measure, aa he considered it, of lend-
ing our credit to India, in return for our encouraging the
vast expediters) which was now going on in that country.
' Hr. DLSRA ELI thought from the suggestion just
made the house might see on what very dangerous
pound they were now treading. He hoped they
would poem before assenting to this motion. It
was a very proper and legitimate subject for a diecumion
in the house, but not to be referred to a committee
engaged with topics of a totally different character. It was
a subject involving questions of large policy, and Indian
finance as a whole, which could not fitly be referred to a
sommittee appointed to consider bow there might be •
more equitable mode of assessment for the income tax in
this country. He considered, however, that the alleged
pievance and claim of exemption against England had no
foundation whatever. The only colourable claim,
if any, wouid be against the government of
India, for it was the new Indian government which
had imposed the new tax, and there was no sort of reason
for coming to this country, when the tax had existed for
twenty years, and claiming exemption because another
country copied that policy by establishing the tax last year.
Against the government of India there might be a colourable
um for exemption but against the English Exchequer none
at all. He trusted the hon. member would be satisfied with
the tans of this diem...eon, and not urge the seeding of these
petitions to the committee. He might advise those whose
am he advocated, to go op with a memorial to the Treasury,
and leave their awe to the decision of the government, or
be might, if be chose, ask for a decision of the hem" but
not refer it to a committee upon another subject.
Mr. BRIGHT quite agreed with the observations of the
right Iwo. member fur Bucks. If this question were
referred to the committee on the income tax, it would do
the greatest mischief to the work uf that committee, and
do not the least good to the clients of the hon. member for
Leaden. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had
shown himself very accommodating, for he did
not refuse to let these petitions go to the cone
mitt.., but he world probably be glad to have the house
&Md. apiast it. As for the question involved, it really
was tads. A man enjoyed the advantages of two govern.
Irma* for his property was in one country while he lived
wader the protection of another ; yet he claimed only to nay
tar eve government. The hon. gentleman's speech had hail
this fed--that these who entirely agreed with him when
he get up. disagreed with hint when be Pt down. (A
woo.) He hoped the hoe. gentleman would not press his
motion any farther.
Mr. CRAW FORD then withdrew his motion.
THE AFFOHAN WAR—SUPPRESSION AND
GARBLINO OF DESPATCHES

Mr. DUNLOP mowed for a select committee to cossider
the "correepoedeses relating to AffghanUtan," as presented
to alehouse in 1830, sad the name correspondence as pre-
sented is 1858, and printed by special order of the house is
18110, sad to report oo the discrepancies between the two ;
and also to 'squire into the circumstances of the prepare.
ties of that correspoodesce for being pretreated on the
former of those occasions; and to report their opinion
whether any, and, if any, what, meantime should be taken
to secure that documents presented to this house by the
goverunieut an copies or extract. of correspoodenoe
or other papers shall give a true representation
of the contents of such odence or paper.
The bon. member add it was hie=l duty to call atheis-
tic, to the grossest falsincations of public documents which
heal ever been perpetrated in this country. It might be said
that this) hod ow:wed long ago, end it was now warless to rip
up such as old subject. It was quite true that the papers to
which the motion referred were laid on the table as long ago
1830, hot it was not the fault of those who wished to
have the matter inquired into that an inquiry had not takes
plate. When the desmkelied were sent out to India
Sir Alex. Burnes felt most deeply the injustice done to
himself by the mutilation of the despatches, and sent home
true copies of those dermatelma In 1842 • motion was made
by the hoe. member for lowness (Mr. Bathe) for the pro-
duction of further papers, but it was lost by • majority of
nine. Next year • similar motion was made by the bon.
member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) and seconded by Mr.
Hume, but it was also rejected, and by • large majority.
The President of the Beard of Control., Lordchtoe,
gave an seaurance that the documeete were sot garbled, and
that ammoniace was repeated by • member of the government in
the other house. The people of this country weredieposed to
place the utmost coofidence in the honour of ministers of
the crown, and it was Do wonder therefore that they accepted
those st•tements as the truth. In the year 1851, however,
• history of the war in Affslainistan was published by Mr.
Kaye, which established beyond doubt the. there must
have been a great mutilation of these documents. The de-
' wad for the papers was again renewed, and in 1858 the hon.
member for Sheffield carried a motion in favour of their
production. There was then • struggle to prevent their
being printed. and it was not until 18%9 that these docu-
ments were printed in a blue book. It happened that
Mr. Kaye, who was then at the India House, was the
party who prepared the documents, which he did
with the greatest oare and ability, marking everywhere the
which were omitted in the bluebook of 1839.
z igr. (Mr. Dunlop) had reed these papers with great
arnasessest, iodignatios, and shame—amaxement at the
extent and audacity of the falsification ; indignation at the
injustice done to poor Sir Alexander Bunion, and the fraud
perpetrated on the house; and shame that • department of
the government could be capable of such dishonesty He
hoped that the interest in the matter was still
stroeg in the country. The terrible event, of
that campaign, the disgrace to our arms, the
fearful annihilation of our army, the grievous
sorrows of the friends of the captive sufferers, hail bniDded
tie whole circunistances on the memory of the country,
and respired the solemn conviction that all these weak.
messes, follies., and calamities were to be traced, in the
words of Mr. Kaye, to the curse of God resting heavily on an
unholy cause. (Haar, hear.) He agreed with Sir Herbert
Eslwardes, who lately said that this was an unrighteous, un-
hallowed, and causeless war. The hon. member then
showed from the restored passages that Sir Alexander had
been made to appear favourable to the war—the policy of
which lad begun to be questioned upon military as well as
political grounds— and substantially made out the am of
the government of the day, whereas his opinion, es ex•
preload ia the perfect letters, had been precisely the re-
verse. And these omissions and suppreenom had bees
Or* Yr. Dunlop observed, systematically and for the very
purism of deceiving the house. In the cam of one of the
papers the mutilations effected the perversion of meaning
with so mach skill that the artist must, he remarked, be
alma of senino, Mr. Dunlop urged the 'entry dor by
tji. of his despatches to Sir A. Burnes, who
was essviassi eel only of the injustice but of She la.
= f this censor
permed by the Indian lelleallarent
a Dal /Mord Zhaa. II wpm' to WOW basil thsl

whatever might be done by unatrupulous governments
abroad, the documents put forwent by this oountry might
be implicitly trusted. That could be said no more. In a
German history there was a chapter liwadol "Sir Alexander
Barnes the instigator of the Atlgliau war ;" and it was stated
that the account there given might be relied upon, because
it was drawn from English official payers. But now a
*wawa edition would come out, awl it would have to be ad-
mitted that English state papers were as worthless as those
put forth by the must perjured despotism in the world.
(Chien.) Ile (the bee. gentleman) pit.4.-,ted that he had
scarcely any faith left him. Papers were every day laid on
the table. hut after examining these dogwatch,* he (lid nut
know bow to believe anything. (1ie..,.) What bad been does
was an insult and • dishonour to our Sovereign. (Cheers.)
Papers that were laid on the table were presented to par-
liament by the command of her Majewty, whose name was
pledged to their truthfulness and authenticity. To put for-
ward false documents under ouch a guarantee was as if they
had used the dies at the royal mint for the fabrication of
Lase coiu. 'beers.) Nay, it was worse. Those did were
oDI y a material symbol of the Queen ; but the goyernnieut
had iu this case abused her personal name. the use of which
had been entrusted to them as the token of troth, but which
they had not shrunk from using to give colour to n lie.
(Loud cheers.) More than all, • fraud had Laren prartised
upon jsirharnent. (Cheers.) Ministers owed an allegiance
to*Hutment, and were constantly coming before it to ask
its judgment on their policy. A grave question had arisen,
whether it war hail been justified, and iestead of laying on
the table documents by which the issue might have been fairly
tried, they had withdrawn material facia, and by faibricatii.g
• different net of papers, had sought to escape from censure.
The outdoor was bound to lay none hut Impost papers on
the table. For him to do otherwise was not only a moral
but a political crime. (Hear, bear.) The confident', re-
posed in a minister by parliament was that which beyond
all other things enabled hint to carry on affairs successfully,
but anything that gave a shock to that oonfidenee inflicted a
grievous injury on the public interest. (Hear, Lear.) In
justice to the memory of Sir A. Burnes and to others, in-
miry ought to be granted. He did Dot wish to pledge the
house to any particular measure. All he wished was that
they should consider the subject. If they shrank from in-
quiry they should he making themselves participators in the
wrong, and should be giving encoungenient for similar prat:-
tiers in future. logitiry wouhl restore confidence io the
completeness of public papers, which would check such pro-
ceedings as belied complaiued of. (Hear, hear.) lie bogged
to move the maid utica.

Lord PALMERSTON laid he could not compliment Mr.
Dunlop upon the temper he had displayed in his speech,
and thought he would have shown more judgment had he
als.tioned from the violent vituperations in which he bed
indulged, and which he (Lord Palmerston, repudiated in
as strong terms as Mr. Dunlop had used. He denied that
the papers which were presented in 1839 conveyed the
false impression that Mr. Dunlop had asserted they did, in
regard to the manner in which Sir Alexander Bunies hail
performed his duties in Affghaniatan. Sir Alexander was
no doubt • zealous and energetic officer ; but owing
to his natural simplicity of character he had fallen
into the mistake which subordinate agents were apt
to commit of identifying himself with the govern-
ment to which he was accredited ; and believing
everything that was stated to him by Dost Hammed of
Calm& Rona was at the time adopting measures. to push
disturbance to the Borden of our Indian empire; Don
Mahomed was one of her tools in the conspiracy ; and the
government of India was right in declining to be guided by
the opinions of Lieutenant Burnes. But if, on the one
baud, certain views of Lieutemuit Burnes had been omitted
from these dispatches, on the other hand, • dispatch from
Lord Auckland, the Governor-General, lied also been
emitted, which disapproved of the conduct of Lieutenant
Barnes, and stated that he had exceeded his instructions is.
entering into engagements with the Ameers of Candahar,
and committing the Indian government beyond what he was
authorised to go. The object for which papers were laid
before parliament was to show the ground on which the
government had adopted • particular policy, and the pupas
in this case were sufficient to indicate all the reasons which
bad induced them to act as they had done. He contended
that the correspondence did not deserve the censure
and epithets which the hon. member had bestowed upon
it. If the object of the Firoposed committee was
not to consider whether the government was right in 1837
and 1838 in entering into operations against A trghauistun,
thin it must be to ascertain in what degree the passages
left out altered the tendency of the papers to support
the policy which the governments of India and England
at that time pursued. The fact was, that the only addi•
tional evidence which those passages gave were they of
Sir Alexander BUMS, and his opinions were not the guide
by which the government bad to make their decision. If
the government had not refused the alliance offered them
by boat Mehomed, upon the condition he attached to it,
which was that they should unite with him in despoiling
Runjeet Singh, with whom we were In strict alliance, they
would nave been guilty of breach of faith and treachery.
He considered that to delegate to a committee such power,
as the hos. member asked for would be to usurp the fana-
ticism, of the executive, and to do great injury to the public
genie*.

Mr. BRIGHT sold the noble viscount had showed
throughout his speech that he felt himself at that moment
to be on his trial. He had stooped so low am to heap insult
upon the memory of a man who had died in the execution
of a public duty, throat upon him by the noble lord's owe
mad sad obstinate policy. He had described Lieutenant
Burnes as a weak, vacillating person ; yet, considering him
to be so, be had still kept him as the representative of this
country at the court of (Mut ; hut, if that were a true pic-
ture of the character of Sir Alexander Burnes why mutilate
and forge the dispatches of a man whose opinions were of no
importance. The hon. member proceeded—lt is admitted ;
the noble lord does not deny it ; he knows perfectly well
what was done, and who the man was who did the evil.
He knows who has been garbling, mutilating—who has
practically and essentially committed falsehood sod forgery
in these despatches. Why did they refuse to give the ori-
ginal despatches in 1843, when moved for by the hon.
member for Inveraess.shirs and the boo. member for Shef-
field? Why was it that the originals were constantly and
consistently withheld? The reason they are given now is
that so long a time having elapsed, it was thought
that no man would take the trouble of going into
the questioo, or like the hon. member for Greenock
bring it under the notice of parliament. My hon friend
the member for Sheffield informs me that the noble lord the
member for King's I.yen gave the papers when he was in office.
(Cheers.) I tender the noble lord my thanks for the course
he took, but lam sure he is the last man who would be
mixed up in a transaction of this kind except for the purpose
of giving the fullest information. (Chem.) Now I say,
avoiding all the long speech o the noble lord, that the ob-
ject of the committee is to find out who did this evil thing
of placing on the table information which was knowingly
false, and despatches which had been knowingly forged ;
for if you add or deduct from any
so as that it shall bear a meaning the contrary of what
us
',nettled, it is such as I have described, and that is whet
somebody ban dune. I say then that • grave offence has
been committed against this house. Who did it! Will the
noble lord be kind enough to say who did it? The noble
lord has stated that Sir A. Burnes' opinions were not
worth much ; if it be so, will the noble lord tell us who
effected these mutilations! When Lord Broughton was
enamored before the official salaries committee, he took
upon himself as President of the Board of Control the entire
responsibility of the Afghan war. The noble lord
and the noble lord the member for London
were then members of the India Board. I do
not think we shall be wrung in supposing that the
question lies between these two noble lonia and Lord
Broughton. These things were not done by some subor-
dinate—they were done with marvellous care and so much
ability that my hon. and learned friend rye they were done
by a man of genius. Of course there are men of genius in
objectionable walks of life, and art know that the noble
lord is a man of genius, or he would not have sat on that
bench for the last fifty yeah. (Laughter.) Lord Broughton
is highly accomplished, and I should like the noble lord to
tell us whether he or Lord Broughton did the work, or
whether it was handed over to some clever secretary.
We want, I say, to drag the criminals before the public,
to deter public men in future from the like offence, and to
vindicate the character and the honour of parliament ; for
nothing would sink parliament into lower degradation or
abasement than to permit, knowingly, any ministers of the
crown to lay on the table of this house, on questions in.
volving the expenditure of fifteen millions and twenty thou-
sand human lives, documents which ate nut true,
which slander your own public servants, and
which slander them, most basely of all, when
they are dead, and not here to answer. Ido not believe the
gentlemen of England ie this house, os that side or this,
will ever consent to sit down with a case proved so clearly as
this, without directing the omnipotent hand and eye of par.
liament to this master; and seeing that the noble lord was in
chargeof the department that time, and that this pulk7
haat
always been considered his policy, and seeing that this
act is somewhere between him sod Lord Broughton, Ido
not like to hold the opinion that he will object to this com-
a inquire into a question in which he is so directly
emicem.

Colouel SYK ES wished it to be kept in mind throughout
this discussion that the Affghan war wee commenced and
carried out entirely without the privity of the directors of
the East India Company, the deliberations upon it being
confined to the secret department of the government for
Indian affairs. The moment the Court of Directors became
acquainted with the facts of the case they were unanimous
in repudiating with indignation the policy which had
been pursued. (Hear, hear.) If there was any
falsification of documents practised on that occasion with •
view to vindicate that policy, the directors could not pos-
sibly be supposed to have been • party to it. He could
point out some other and more recent ineteocee where
papers had been laid on the table of the house, those parte
which were favourable to the policy of the government
being exhibited, and the other parts kept back, so se to
convey a wrong impression of the opinions of those by
whom they were written.
Mr.DISRAELI was not surprised that, after what had cc-
' curled, this question should come before the house, but he
was surprised to see it now conceived sod i.upportccl
in such a spirit. The distinguished writer who first
called public attention to the imperfect information con-
tensed is these papers, published his book several years ago,
and the result of hie researches soon began to adept public
opiates. The matter lad ben alluded to by the last
as If it were the noble lord (Stanley) who, when
of 84.4. for India, was instrumental la=
thine weeklies Dot the tact was that those aup
pan** wen miensums yean ego ; they wen made
araldess of argeoraa eanumet, sad crfltdam

at that time. When the noble lord was in office,
being applied to to produce these documents, he
conferred with him (Mr. Disraeli) on the subject. They '
had to consider what would be the beat course, and whether
to take refuge in the usual diplomatic reserve, or to produce
them. It was thought advisable in consequenceof the agi-
tated state of the public mind with regard to India, not to
withhold authentic information. The result was such as tol
substantiate the allegation made by himself and the hon.
member for Inverness, many Iwo ago, that those papers '
were not, at that time, lad before parliament in such
• state as to convey a clear and accurate impression of the
opinions of the individual from whom they came. Hut it
was a very grave question now to consider, whether an ac-
cusation of crime, or an inquiry into such an accusation—
" crime" being the word used by the hon. member for Bir-
mingham—ought now to take place upon those papers.
The noble lord the First Minister and the noble lord
the Secretary of State were now called to account
by that honourable member. But this was not a
matter which had been recently discovered. If the conduct
of the First Minister and his colleagues at that time was so
criminal as to deserve the language employed by the hon.
member for Birmingham, it had been known for years ; and
then, how came the member for Birmingham to go to Wil-
lie's-rooms— (a laugh)—how came lie to meet the two noble
lords there, and express his confidence in them as the only
men who ought to govern the country? (Cheers and
laughter.) lie (Mr. Disraeli) would like to have that
answered ; because ell these things were known years ago,
the hon. member for Birmingham and his friends were
perfectly acquainted with all the policy of the invasion
of Atfghaniatao. and it wee as notorious three or
four years ago that there had been perhaps an unexampled
castration of these document, as any event of which he
was aware. If, therefore, upon such a twain charges of
crime were now to be raised, if those noble lords and other
gentlemen were to be held up as men not only unworthy
of being ministers of the country but unworthy of being
members of that house, how was it that lee than two years
ago there was • public meeting held in this city to
upset the Queen's government and to bring those
two noble lords into power as the only men coin-'
patent to pram this country, to govern India, and to
conduct all the affairs of the empire? (('heers.) Now he
(Mr. Disraeli) took a different view of the matter. He I
thought the invasion of A ffghanietan a great political mis-
take ; he had a strong opinion that the whole of our Indian
pulley with regard to it was the moat erroneous ever fol-
lowed, and that it not only issued in the loss of 20,000 of
of our fellow-subjects and many millions of revenue, but
that it entailed a bug series of gloomy diauters
in India, mud a state of things to which,
perhaps, much of the mischief that had
occurred and of the mischief impending might be
ascribed. But he would give the government of that day
the credit, due to all English ministers, of being assumed to
love the glory of their country and their own fame, and he
could not therefore suppose that they were influenced by
any other motive than • conviction that the policy they
adopted was for the public advantage. (Cheers.) Coming
now to remark on the information they laid before
parliament to vindicate that policy, he thought
it might be as well to lay down the prin-
ciples on which such information should be given. Was
it meant that ell the information in the possession of a
minister was to be laid before parliament, and that the mi-
nister was not to have the privilege of omission or of sup-
pression ? There was no man who would lay down such a
proposition. Than it must be • question of discretion and
of management. The discretion ol ministers might be in-
discreet—their management might be awkward ; they might
do things which they ought not to have done ; but was the
house prepsred to say that this was a crime? And if the
honourabic members opposite would say so, how could they
justify themselves for sitting on that side of the house ?
(Hear, hear.) He agreed with him entirely ea to
the policy of invading Affghaniatan ' • but it was
not to be supposed that the government of the day was
animated by a desire to withhold °onset information on the
subject from the public. (Hear, hear.) However erroneous
their conduct might have been in that respect, these facts
had been notorious for • long period of yews, and when he
considered that the very men who now made these charges
endeavoured to convince them that those against whom they
were brought were fit men to govern the country, be could
not, for one, sanction to brand them in that manner, and
nmder th se circumstances. (Ironical " Hear," and cheers.)
Mr. WALPOLE was surprised at the course taken not by
one, but by several hon. gentlemen upon the question before
the house, which involved the character of public men and
the honour and usefulness of parliament. (Hear, hear.)
At the same time this question affected the conduct of the
minister in the shape of • vote of censure, and the conduct
of the ministry in the form of a want of confidence. He
would not follow the hon. member for Birmingham, because
he did not agree with him in making a criminal charge
against the government. The simple question before them
was whether the papers which were brought under the
notice of parliament were or were not fully sufficient for
the house to decide upon. But these papers were not
placed before them until 1869, and then they showed ma-
terial discrepancies between them and the papers laid before
the bowie 20 years ago. They could not shut their eyes to
the fact that they could notenter upon any inquiry without
receiving information which might justify the conduct pur-
sued in 1839. But were they to say at once there ought
not to be any inquiry at all as to how UlOllO discrepancies
had been occasioned ? He thought that as these deers-
Fancies had been pointed out the homes ought to inquire into
them, and upon these grounds he should vote for the motion.
The latter part of the inquiry he thought ought not to be
conceded. It was impossible they could say what papen
were to he produced, and what omissions allowed. (Hear.)
Thye took them upon the faith and credit of the govern-
ment, piecing their confidence in the government—and he
cared not what that government might he—until that
government were accused of misconduct in such a matter he
should give that government his mat implicit confidence.
(Hear.) Bat it was not with a view of charging the govern.
merit or passing censure epos them, but with • view of
giving them an opportunity of explaining to parliament and
the country the cis omostancee under which those discrepan-
cies had arisen—(hear)—it was with the fullest intention
of giving the noble lord an opportunity of affording that
explanation which would untidy parliament and the
country. (Hear, hear.)
Lad J. RUSSELL said that neither the policy of the
Affghati war, or whether there were omissions in the
papers, could be usefully debated now ; but tho question
was whether that war was undertaken with a criminal
intent. He asserted that it was undertaken with a con-
scientious belief in its necessity for the defence of our lo-
dian frontier. With regard to the alleged suppressions in
the papers, they were mainly confined to those parts of the
correspondence in which difference, of opinion were dia. 1
cussed with Sir A. Burnell, and such as were censures upon
him.

After • few words from Colonel DtcatioN,
Mr. HORSMAN denied that the motion was • vote of
censure sod want of confidence in those members of the
government who belonged to the miniAtry of 1838, but
whether a rule should out be laid down as to the mode in
which important document. should be laid before parlia-
ment.

Mr. BAXTER moved u an amendment the withdrawal
of the hat paragraph of the motion.
This was objected to by the government, and after a dis-
cumion a division wan taken on the amendment, and the
numbers were

For the amendment Bl
Against it
The amendment being bat the original motion wee put,
and on a division was rejected by 159 to 49.
PRESENTMENT BEBBIDNB (IRELAND).
Mr. BUTT obtained leave to bring in a bill for the better
regulation of Presentment Besaione in Ireland.

COUNTY SURVEYORS, he. (IRELAND.)
Mr. CARDWELL obtained leave to bring in a bill to
enable grand juries in Ireland to lacrosse the remuneration
of county surveyors, and for other purposes.
QUEEN'S PRISON, &c.
Mr. CLI VE obtained Imre to bring in a bill for the aboli-
tion of contributions by counties for the relief of prisoners
in the Queen's Prison, and for the benefit of Bethlehem
Hospital.

ANNOYANCE JURORS irESTMINBTER).
Sir J. SHELLEY obtained leave to bring in • bill to
repeal the nets relating to nominating and appointing the
householders of Westminster to serve u annoyance jurors,
and to make other provisions in lien thereof.

THE ALLEGED FRAUDS BY A POLE AT

NOMA OHAi.

NOTTINGHAM, TUENDAT.
Thin morning Baron Zychlinaki waa brought up
on remand before the mayor and borough magistrates at
the Nottingham police court. The particulars of this case
have already appeared iu our columns. Since the remand
of' the baron, a week ago, be has corresponded with his
friends and relatives, and baa received the register of his
name and baptiam. The court was crowded to excess,
as it was expected that extraordinary revelations would be
made.

Mr. Counsellor Merrewether was for the prosecution,
Mr. Counsellor Yeatrnan defended the prisoner, who was
charged with obtaining 400/. from the Rev. Henry Maltby,
under false pretences.
The prosecutor mid he was a clergyman of the Church of
England, and the prisoner was his son-in-law having
married his daughter on the 25th of October, 1860. Wit.
nee makes au allowance of 300/. per year to his
wife, who resides chiefly abroad. When witness
was staying at the Flying Horse Hotel, Nottingham,
the prisoner brought him a letter from his wife, naming
the baron as a proper person to be a husband to their
daughter. The baron stated that he had lent witness's wife
400/. when she was at Rome ; and in consequence of certain
documents which the prisoner produced, witness requested
his attorney, Mr. Campbell, to give him a draft for the
amount. Wittman was present at the marriage of his
daughter at Dover, and saw Mrs. Maltby there, but did not
ask her anything shout the money she had borrowed of
the baron at Rome. Witness paid the expense. of the
wedding, except 3001. for the clothes, which sum bad been
set apart for that purpose.
Mr. Campbell, solicitor, said that prisoner told him that
he was a Russian captain, and had served in the Crimea,
having been wounded in the thigh and neck at Sebastopol.
He also informed him that he was • knight of several
orders. The baron said he was sorry for Mrs. Maltby when
he saw her at Rome and Paris, and had placed his puree at
her disposal. Witness had received a letter from
Colonel Galt:, of the Prussian service, respecting
the prisoner ; he bad since been to the Prussian
Legation, and had seen the secretary, as also
to the Russian Consul-General. Besides this he had
written to Lord Loftus, the ambassador at Berlin.
Adolphus Chaplin Wootolaki said that he came from the
Duchy of Posen, in Poland, and knew Count Zycblinski, of
Gychlin, who has two sons, one in the artillery at Berlin,
and one at home, but the prisoner was not one of those.
Eliza Adeline Maltby, wife of the prosecutor, said she
was staying at Rome in the beginning of last year with her
daughters, and got into pecuniary difficulties. Bor-
rowed one thousand scudi front a friend, an Italian.
Did not borrow it from prisoner. It was through the
counsel of her confessor that she borrowed the money
from an Italian. His name she could give, if necessary.
The thousand scudi would be about 2211 X. About three
months before she left Rome she became acquainted with
the prisoner, who stated that he was the only son of Count
Zychlinski, and was captain in the Guard of the Emperor
Alexander. Gave the prisoner the whole of the money to
discharge her debts, but it has since come to her knowledge
that he has not paid the whole of the debts. Prisoner
told witness that he had paid 4,000 francs at Perim in bpi.
dation of some of her debts, but she had since received a
letter in reference to it from Cardinal Antonelli, stating
that the money had not been paid. The certificate now pro-
duced stating that he lent her the money was drawn up at
his instigation. It bad her signature to it. She confessed
with pain it wee not true that she had received 1,372
Roman dollars from the prisoner, nor was tt true that he
had advanced her at Paris. The prisoner
said, that when he had got the money from
her husband which had been borrowed from her Italian
friend he would send it him. Prisoner told witness that he
had advanced leer 4,000 francs to pay her debts, which she
afterwards found to be false. When witness was in Paris
Prince °tilts:in told her that the prisoner was • swindler.
She received intelligence from Colonel Gaits so the same
effect. Mr. Newton, the British consul at Rome, was an
acquaintance of hers, and she had seen the prisoner in con.
venation with him. He seemed perfectly respectable when
at Rome.

By Mr. Yeatman—When the writing was signed by her
at Rome she had not received any money from the prisoner
nor at any other time except • few napoleons. The writing
states that he advanced her 1,372 Roman dollars for her
maintenance, but that was not true. The MOOD witness
did not apply for more money from her husband was that
she wee ashamed, sod it was by the advice of the pri-
soner who wee engaged to her daughter, and : who
said it would be got more easily in that way.
Withers made only one false statement at Rome, and
that tram to the effect that prisoner bad advanced
her some of his own money. Informed her husband of the
deception recently. The deception consisted in represent•
ing that the 4001. was owing, whereas it was not. The
baron turned witness out of his house at Hyeres, because
he said she had calumniated him. He also wrote her bus.
baud the most depraved of letters concerning her, which
were entirely false.
At this point of the evidence the prisoner was remanded
for a period not exceeding eight days.