The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-02 00:00:00

THE PAPER DUTIES.

Lord FERMOY asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether he intended, in consequence of the Bill for the
abolition of the Duties on Paper having been re-
jected by the House of Lords, to remit some other
tax equivalent to the amount of the paper duties.
He said that there were two questions involved in the pre-
sent state of this matter, one constitutional, the other finan-
cial. With regard to the former, he was quite prepared,
when the proper time arrived, to vindicate the dignity of the
house. He trusted also that the Government would be
prepared to take a proper course in respect to the privileges
of the house. He thought the Government should imme-
diately introduce another bill to do away with the paper
duties, to which they should append resolu-
tions to the effect that the house would maintain
its rights and privileges. (Hear, hear.) As regarded the
financial part of the question, it would be seen that
the house was placed in a false position ; for the
people of England, in consequence of the rejec-
tion of the repeal of the duty, were called on to
pay 4600,000 for a tax which their representatives
had condemned. He believed that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was sincere in his desire to repeal this
duty, but a different opinion prevailed in cer-
tain parts of the country, and therefore he had
done some service in affording him an opportunity of ex-
planation. The noble lord strongly condemned the course
pursued by Government in appointing a committee to in-
quire into precedents, instead of adopting some more ener-
getic and prompt course of proceedings.
THE TEA DUTY.

Mr. A. STEUART asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, whether, having declared in case of a similar con-
tingency with regard to the bill for the repeal of the Paper
Duty to what now has occurred, that he would
take the earliest opportunity, probably within a
few days, of inviting 'the house to repeal the
war tea and sugar duty, he still adhered to that intention;
or what contingencies, then unforeseen, prevented such a
course. Also, whether ho was still of opinion, from the
quantities of wine entered since the lowering of the duty,
that consumption would increase to the extent of 35
per cent., and entail on the revenue a loss compared with
last year of only £515,000 ?
Mr. CAVE strongly advocated the repeal of the duty
on tea.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I have
no objection to offer to the criticism of the noble lord the
member for Marylebone on the conduct of the Government
with respect to the appointment of a c, mmittee of this
house, nor to the observations of the hon. gentlemen oppo-
site with respect to the financial proceedings of the Govern-
ment or, their supposed intentions, but I hope I may be
permitted, without any disrespect, to be very brief; and in
what I may say in regard to their observations I must be
understood, in a general sense, to make no admissions, and,
in fact, to offer no reply to their questions. (Laughter.)
That is the general and invariable rule with respect to the
intentions of the Government in matters of taxation, and
certainly the reasons which support and vindicate that rule
have a double force at this peculiar juncture, when it so
happens that important questions of taxation are, at any
rate for. the moment, inextricably mixed u) with other
questions-if possible more important than those of taxation,
namely, the relat&sietthe rights of the two Houses of Par-
liament, and the constitutional usages under which legis-
lation is carried on in matters of taxation. Tho noble lord
seems to be curious about my feelings with respect to the
vote of the House of Lords. A Chancellor of the Exche-
quer is not usually supposed to have any feelings--(laugh-
ter)—but, however, if I had any on this particular case, I
don't think the time has yet come for declitring them.
(Hear.) I entirely differ from the noble lord's criticism—
(hear)—and I think it is the opinion of the house, without
at all committing themselves as to what may be the merits
of the question, that the Government have taken a becom-
ing and judicious course in remitting it to a tribunal chosen
by the house itself to make a careful collection of the facts
bearing; upon the case, in order that the house may have the
fullest iefermation before makingup its mind on the subject.
(Hew.) With that apology, which I hope will not be taken
to be disrespectful, I must say that I am afraid it is not
practicable for me to give any promise either as to the re-
mission or non-remission of any particular tax whatever on
the present occasion. The hon. gentleman opposite is quite
right in saying that on. the second reading of the bill I did
state that it was the intention of the Government, if that
proposal were not accepted, to submit to the judgment of
the house a proposal for the repeal either of the tea or sugar
duties ; but I beg to observe that the contingency I then
contemplated hasnot happened—(hear)—and, consequently,
the situation being totally different, the case in which that
question might fairly be pressed upon me has not arrived.
As regards that great subject to which the noble lord
chiefly adverted, reserving to myself the right to enter into
a discussion of it, if necessary, at the proper time, I am
quite content to leave the question where it was left the day
before the recess by the declarations of my noble friend at
the head of the Government, and the more detailed declara-
tions of my noble friend the member for London. The hon.
gentleman opposite wishes to know whether I still adhere
to the opinion I expressed, that the consumption of wine
Would increase to the amount of 35 per cent., and that the
loss to the revenue would not be greater than £515,000 in
the first year of the change. It has always been my opinion
—and I believe I have expressed it in this house—that it
impossible to form any trustworthy judgment on
would
be
ffectof the reduction of the wine duties until the Wine
Licences Bill bad passed and had come into operation. It
will be not less than two or three months before that bill
comes into practical operation, and I should not feel justi-
fied, therefore, in giving now any more confident opinions
about the ultimate issue of that great experiment than I
gave when I submitted my financial statement to the house.
So far as our present experience goes the results are
satisfactory, and I have no reason to deviate from the
quite
esti-
mate, naturally conjectural, which I then made.
Mr. BRIGHT—I listened with great pleasure to the t.b-
serrations of the two hon. gentlemen opposite. They have
exhibited great affection for the working classes, par
titularly with reference to the reduction of the duties
on tea. and sugar. In' all they have said as to the desire-
bility of • reducing those duties I am disposed to agree
with them, but I discover from their observations, that
either they have not read the debate which took place in
the other house, or they entirely differ from their friends
there who took part in that debate. (A laugh.) Of course
I am aware that Lord Derby did not know at all that the
hon. member for Somersetshire had ever discussed the
paper duty in connexion with the income-tax in this house,
and, if he was so entirely ignorant of what his friends were
doing in this house, it is not unfair to assume that his
friends here do not knowwhat he isdoing there. (A laugh.)
If the hon. gentlemen had observed the debate they would

ha' e discovered—what I presume every gentleman who
knows anything of the debate has discovered—that it was
not a question there whether the paper duty was a good or
bad duty, or whether it was a better duty o: worse duty
than the duties on tea and sugar. The whole course of the
argument was that the Chancellor of the Ex( hequer, sup-
ported by the House of Commons, had no provided ade-
quately for the ways and means of the ser "ce of the year.
(Freer.) That was the argument used i❑ the other House
of Parliament, and upon that argument almost entirely the
policy was adopted of rejecting the Bill. If that be so—and
I am not going to argue now whetherit was rightly founded
or not—it is clearly not very reasonable to ask the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to introduce some other bill for the
remission either of the tea or sugar duties, which bill, I
presume, would not become law upon the new theory of the
Constitution, without the consent of the other House of
Parliament. (Hear, hear.) If there be any validity in the
argument of the House of Lords for the rejection of the
Paper Duty Bill—viz., that the House of Commons have
not sufficiently provided for the service of the year—it is
clear that the House of Lords would not only be justified,
but would be compelled, to reject a new bill sent up instead
of the Paper Duties Bill. The house, therefore, I presume,
would not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take
that course, and I am only surprised that the hon. gentle-
man should have imagined such a case. Besides, we must
take into consideration that, though the tea and sugar duties
were mentioned in what is called the Budget speech, yet
now we have got new masters in matters financial, and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to consider much
more minutely and take far more circumstances into his view
when he is deliberating what taxes he shall propose to re-
mit or to impose. The hon. member for Cambridge, looking
in this direction, took the liberty of making some reference
to what he called agitation out of doors. (Hear, hear from
the Opposition.) Hon. gentlemen opposite are not altoge-
ther free from the charge of endeavouring to get up agita-
tions—(hear)—but they have always had this obstacle to
contend with—the cause they have advocated, the measures
they have propounded, the principles on which they have
, acted, and the course they have recommended have been of
such a nature that the great bulk of the population utterly
disapproved them—(oh, oh l)—and would not in any way
assist in promoting them. With regard to this very mat-
ter, surely the hon. gentleman does not wish that a great
question like this—a question so great that the noble lord
the member for the city of London says he thinks there has
scarcely been one so grave during the period of his political
life—should not be discussed by the people of a free coun-
try ? (Hear.) Does the hon. member presume—does he
dare to say—is he so afraid of his own case as to say, if any
member of this house, whatever his opinions on the subject
may be, whether he takes my view of the subject
or any other, takes the liberty before any audience fairly and
openly to discuss this question, that he is not doing a ser-
vice to the people of this country in enabling them to judge
of the facts of the case and the principles on which the
House of Commons may be called on to act ? (Hear, hear.)
I should not have been dissatisfied if I had seen some more
expeditious mode adopted with reference to this question
—(hear)—but, looking to the past proceedings of the house,
so far as I have been able to examine them or make my-
self acquainted with them, I believe the course the Go-
vernment has taken is that which has been heretofore
followed in similar cases. The committee has been ap-
pointed ; it has already sat ; its sittings will probably be
continued ; next week evidence will be taken ; and in a
few days the matter, so far as it can be ascertained,
will be laid before the house. I have great con-
fidence that during that time the question will be more dis-
cussed in the country, more reflected on by this house, and
if it should happen that the committee should report that
the course taken by the House of Lords has infringed upon
the just, recognised, and constitutional rights of the House
of Commons, I should feel ashamed of being a member of
the House of Commons if I thought that a large majority
of the members of it would not take such steps as may ap-
pear just for the purpose of resisting any such infringement
on its rights and privileges. (Hear.) I don't think we could
commit a greater treason to every branch of the Legisla-
ture, to the Crown, to the Commons, to the House of Lords
itself than to permit a matter of this kind to be passed over
as if it were of no importance. (Hear.) I think the pos-
terity of the existing generation of Englishmen will have
reason to look back—with contempt, I will say—on the Par-
liament of 1860 if we do not thoroughly sift this question
to the bottom, and if we do not act in accordance with the
principles of the Constitution in defence of our rights and
privileges if we find they have been infringed. (Hear, hear.)

the subject. He wished also to call the noble lord's atten-
tion to a subject which Was of not less importance, and that
Was the course which was said to have been pursued, or
which was about to be pursued, by the French Government
with reference to the same question. He knew he was tread-
ing on delicate ground, and should not discuss the question
of whether the communication of Prince Gortschakoff had
been the result of an understanding between the Govern-
ments of France and Russia; he could not forget, however,
that not long ago a statement was made by the Minister for
Foreign Affairs at St. Petersburg to the effect that it was
possible written communications might subsist between the
two Governments, and that all he would undertake to say
was that English interests were not menaced by any arrange-
ments that might be in contemplation. It was, therefore, of
great conseluence that they should know also the course
the French Government had pursued or was pursuing. He
should be glad to know whether there had been any corre-
spondence, and of what nature, with the French Govern-
ment. Some intimation had been given when the hon.
member for Southwark asked his question that the French
Minister for Foreign Affairs had expressed his opinion that
if any representation were made to the Turkish Govern-
ment it should be made by the five Powers, and not by
Russia alone, as if by the latter it would encourage the im-
pression that that empire was the sole protectress of the
Christians in Turkey. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) was of opinion
that such interference on the part of the five Powers would
be quite as contrary to the letter and spirit of the treaty of
peace as that to which he had in the first instance alluded.
Another question he had to ask was whether any commu-
nication on the subject had been made to the courts of
Austria and Prussia, and if so, whether the noble lord could
state to the house what were the views of the two Govern-
ments respecting it. The last and most important question
he had to ask was what answer the noble lord had thought
fit to make respecting those propositions to the Russian or
the French Government. He did not wish to press his
questions if their answers were likely to be attended with
public inconvenience, but he thought that on two points the
noble lord ought to express a decided opinion. One was that
the course suggested of a representation by the five Powers
to Turkey with reference to the Christian subjects of the
latter, was contrary to the letter and spirit of the treaty of
peace; and the other referred to a point which he should
take leave to read to the house. It was said that a proposi-
tion had been made that this question should be inquired
into by the five Powers through the intervention of their
consular agents in the Turkish empire. Now, he had been
informed by persons whose knowledge and experience of
the East gave every weight to their opinion, that such a
step would be a most dangerous course of policy. It could
not be denied but that if encouragement were thus given
to the consular agents to mix themselves up in the affairs
of the Turkish empire, great injury must result to
the prestige of the Turkish authorities and their power
of regulating the internal affairs of the empire. He be-
lieved that such was the opinion of our ambassador at Con-
stantinople, and thathe strongly objected to any powerbeing
given to the consuls to inquire into the mode in which
the treaty stipulations had been carried out with reference
to the Christian population. Before he sat down—(a laugh)
—there was one other point to which he wished to call at-
tention. There was, he had no doubt, in the Foreign-office
a despatch from Mr. Addison, the Charge d'Affaires at
Constantinople, or from Sir Henry Bulwer, with reference
to the " hat." In that despatch it was explained to what
extent the " hat" had been carried out, and how any more
stringent execution of it might be more injurious to the
Christian population of Turkey than their present position.
That despatch, he believed, also pointed out the difficulty
the Turkish Government had in fulfilling their engage-
ments. He should like to know whether the noble lord
could lay that despatch on the table.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I will now endeavour to answer the
various questions—certainly very various—which have
been addressed to me this evening respecting our foreign
affairs, and if I should omit any of them which have been
asked by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, I trust
he will remind me of the omission. The first question re-
lated to the affairs of Persia, and was asked by the hon. and
learned member for Poole, and with it was connected that
which was subsequently asked by the hon. member for
Liskeard. Now, in the first place, the story which the
hon. and learned member for Poole has heard, namely,
that there were differences of opinion respecting the
policy to be pursued in Persia between her Majesty's Go-
vernment and Sir H. Rawlinson, and that the latter had in
consequence been recalled, is not correct. Sir H. Rawlin-
son is an exceedingly able man, extremely well acquainted
with the East, and his influence with Persia has been con-
siderable. His policy was entirely approved of by her Ma-
jesty's Government, and I was in hopes that he would have
continued his functions in Persia as Minister. But the
cause of his return has been that to which my hon. friend
the member for Liskeard has allude/. My noble friend at
the head of the Government, on finding that the affairs of
Persia had been attended to by the Secretary of State for
India, inquired of the Secretary for India and myself what
we thought of the arrangement, to which we both replied
that we would abide by his judgment, either to continue or
to change the arrangement. My noble friend having taken
some time for consideration, said he thought that the chief
part of our business with Persia—although some might be
connected with India—was to settle and carry on the rela •
tions between Persia and this country, and between Persia
and Russia. That certainly is true, for questions do arise
between Persia and this country, and between Persia and
Russia'; and whenever there is a difference between the
two latter, the English Minister is asked his opinion, and
when there is a difference between England and Persia, the
Russian Minister is referred to. My noble friend, therefore,
came to the conclusion that it was better the Persian mis-
sion should again be under the control of the Foreign-office.
I accepted the responsibility, and at the same time hoped
that Sir H. Rawlinson would have remained in office. Not
long after, however, intelligence that he was about to re-
sign was received in a private letter addressed to a gentleman
in the Foreign-office, as also Sir H. Rawlinson's reason,
which I do not think I should act fairly by concealing. In
the Indian-office there was a considerable latitude for mak-
ing presents, a thing which never was the custom of the
Foreign-office. Shortly after Sir H. Rawlinson sent me
a private letter stating that he intended to resign, and,
about the same time his formal resignation was received. I
did not think it desirable that he should remain in Persia
after he had sent in his resignation, as it might damage his
influence, and I therefore advised her Majesty to accept his
resignation, and to appoint a gentleman whom I had never
seen, and with whom I had no acquaintance, but who had
long been in the diplomatic service at Constantinople, and
from whom I had seen several able despatches and reports
of missions. I mean Mr. Alison, the present Minister at
the Persian Court. The hon. gentleman will, therefore,
see that Sir Henry Rawlinson has not been recalled, but
that he sent in his own resignation, for reasons satisfactory
to his own mind. (Hear, hear.) With regard to our
policy in respect to Persia, it is very soon told, and has
none of that character which the hon. gentleman
attributed to it. I stated to the Persian Envoy, and
also to Sir Henry Rawlinson and Mr. Alison, that our
policy was to maintain the integrity and independence
of Persia, but at the same time to recommend her not to
make aggressions upon other independent states, and the
Persian Envoy here assented to that. Ther , is no ques-
tion of coercion about it. Our interest is merely to main-
tain the authority of the government of Persia, and to give
them such advice, when asked, as might conduce to the
maintenance of peace. There is one point I may mention
in which our opinions may be peculiar, and that is, that
there is naturally, and there has been from time to lime a
sort of rivalry between England and Russia in Persia
namely, that those who are for the support of Great Bri-
tain always have some story of oppression on the part of
Russia, and those in favour of the Russian interest are just
as busy in going to the ministers and informing them that
Great Britain is pushing herself forward. I have thought
it best to discourage this rivalry—(hear, hear)—and when
I have had occasion to write to St. Petersburg, or to speak
to the Russian minister here, I have always said that, pro-
vided we found Russia maintaining the independence of
Persia, we were quite willing to join with her in giving
the same advice. Our object was only to maintain that
government which was sometimes weak and often threat-
ened, and we asked Russia to act in the same spirit. The
answers we have received from Russia have ten,' ed to show
the same disposition, and so far from desiring to drive Per-
sia into a corner, we hope the course of the Persian govern-
ment will in future be more equable than it has hitherto
been. (Hear, hear.) The next question relates to China.
With regard to the despatches of the Governor of Hong
Kong, I am informed by the Under Secretary of State for
the Colonial Department that he has not received any de-
spatch with respect to the case of murder referred to by the
hon. gentleman who has asked the question. With regard
to the appointment of inspectors, the hon. member for
Glasgow rather supposed I had given a more distinct and
decided approval to that than I intended to give. It is
certainly an anomalous system that a body of foreigners
should be put i office as collectors of the revenue of China.
But it was said by Lord Elgin and by others that it would
give confidence to the merchants, because it was well known
there was a great deal of bribery among the Chinese, and
the adoption of such a course would put an end to many
abuses. The act itself has not been performed by the
Foreign-office, but I think it is a system which ought to be
tried. (Hear, hear.) An lion, friend of mine has asked
me some questions with regard to Sicily. He must be aware
that the pamphlet just published is one to which we can
I give no authority. It rests entirely on the responsibility of
the gentleman who has placed his name to it. But I am
sorry to say there are in the Foreign-office reports of our
consuls—two or three in 1857 and one that I hold in my
hand of the 24th of July, 1859—and there are some other
despatches from our consuls giving an account of cruelties
and even of tortures perpetrated by the police of Sicily. It
is a very painful subject, and I do not want to go through
the details, but there are accounts given of men who came
of themselves to our consuls and said that they had had
their wrists fastened together, and had been gagged with an
instrument called the cap of silence ; that they had suffered
various other inflictions which certainly belong properly to
the description of torture, and I have no doubt those inflic-
tions, together with other sufferings of the people of Sicily,
have brought Sicily to the state in which she now is, and
which no ono who knows what the Government of the King
of the Two Sicilies has been for some time past can be at
all surprised at, (Cheers.) I now come to the very im-

portant question which was asked by the hon. gentleman
opposite. I will tell him as shortly as I can, and at the same
time endeavour to give him a complete account of what has
taken place at St. Petersburg, and among the other Powers
with regard to the affairs of Turkey. The hon. member
has referred to what occurred at St. Petersburg in the be-
ginning of the month of May. It appears that at the end
of April, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs informed
the Turkish Ambassador that the accounts received from
the different Christian provinces under the Sultan, more
especially Posnia, Roumelia, and Bulgaria, showed such
sufferings and such exasperations on the part of the Chris-
tion subjects of the Porte, that if they should lead to in-
surrection and massacre, the Emperor of Russia could not
remain a tranquil spectator of such scenes. A few days
after this information, a despatch was written to Paris to
the same effect, and on May sth the Ministers of the five
Powers were assembled at the office of Prince Gortschakoff,
and the prince then made the statement I have just refer-
red to, that the state of the Christian provinces of Turkey
was such that if they should lead to insurrection and mas-
sacre the Emperor of Russia would not remain a tranquil
spectator. After a good deal of discussion three proposals
were drawn up by the French Ambassador, in presence of
the meeting, and were agreed to so far as this, that the dif-
ferent Ministers said they would send them to their respec-
tive courts. The first proposition was that the present state
of the Christian provinces of Turkey had become intole •
rable ; the second proposition was that an inquiry should be
made, and that such inquiry ought to be made by the offi-
cers of the Sultan, and that they should be assisted by the
consuls of the five Powers ; the third proposition of Prince
Gortschakoff was that, having failed in securing to the
Christian subjects of the Porte that security which was sup-
posed to have been obtained, it was necessary to have a new
organisation of the government of those provinces. Nothing
could be more important than these different propositions.
After receiving them we said that with regard to the first
proposition, her Majesty's Government had not received
such accounts as entitled them to say that the present state
of those provinces was intolerable. The house is aware that
we can at no time speak with any great approbation of the
Government of the Sultan in the interior of his dominions.
We can hardly speak perhaps much more favourably of
that government than of the government of the King of the
Two Sicilies ; but at the same time we have no accountthat
has shown to us there has been that intolerable mismanage-
ment and oppression which the Government of Russia has
always laid particular stress upon with regard to the Chris-
tian subjects of the Porte. I have not only'read carefully
the different reports received, but I have asked persons
coming from the provinces of Turkey, and who were en-
gaged in the service of her Majesty, and they have generally
said it was impossible to praise the administration of the
Turkish Government ; but, with regard to any particular
oppression of the Christians, it must be owned that the
Turkish subjects of the Porto are quite as great sufferers
from the irregularity of the Government as the Christian
subjects are. With regard to the third point, as to the
new organisation of the provinces in question, we said it
was quite impossible, with reference to general principles
or to the terms of the treaty of Paris of 1856, to agree to
the principle of a new organisation. The house will re-
member that the 7th article in the treaty of Paris guaran-
tees and supports the integrity of the Turkish empire. The
Bth article declares that if at any time any dissension shall
arise between the Sublime Porte and any of the Powers
signing the treaty, which may threaten a disturbance of
peaceful relations, then the former shall not have recourse
to arms without endeavouring, with the aid of the other
Powers, to bring about a peaceful settlement of such dis-
turbance. The 9th article declares the contracting Powers
acknowledge the high importance of this communication,
and will give in no case any of the Powers a right to inter-
fere in the relations between the Sultan and his
subjects, or in the internal administration of his empire.
The treaty being so positive in that respect, nothing but
extreme urgency, such as an insurrection, and the deter-
mination of a foreign Power, in spite of the treaty, to take
the part of the insurgents and make war on the Sultan,
would justify the other Powers of Europe in at all inter-
fering in the internal government of that country. But at
the same time after such a declaration as that made on the
part of so great an empire as Russia, and Russia having,
as we know, so much influence with the Christian subjects
of the Sultan—an influence which the Emperor of Russia
does not only not disavow, but which ho is always boast-
ing they acknowledge—we did not think it prudent to
stand aloof and say we would not coneern ourselves in such
a case, We therefore consulted with the other Powers,
and at the same time gave our own opinion that while we
could not give any consent to the first and third points, we
considered it might be proper to make an inquiry with
respect to the present state of the Christian provinces and
Government of the Sultan. The Austrian Government in
the same spirit said that their object was to maintain the
independence and integrity of Turkey, and at the same time
to procure by their influence and by that of the other powers
of Europe the removal of any grievance which might pro-
voke resistance or insurrection. The answer given by Prus-
' sia was not very different—declaring that nut having her-
self consuls and agents in Turkey, she should require
further elucidation on the subject ; and the Government of
France sent to us to know what was our opinion upon the
question. M. Thouvenel declared that from his knowledge
of Turkey he was aware great abuses and misgovernment
prevailed there. He thought, however, that remedies might
be pointed out which, at the same time that they provided
for the happiness of the subjects of the Sultan, would also
give greater strength to the Ottoman empire. The opinion
of M. Thouvenel, I think, must be allowed to have its
weight with regard to any remedies which may be adopted.
At the same time ho declared that he thought any inquiry
made ought to be made with the greatest regard to the
authority of the Sultan, and that the mode of inquiry ought
not to impair or shake that authority. Our opinion with
respect to that point was this. We said, if it appeared to the
Sultan that Christian consuls or agents might participate
in an inquiry, we should be ready to take that view of the
case, but that if the Sultan, on the other hand, thought
they could not participate without a diminution of his
authority, we were not ready to press a point of that kind
on an independent sovereign whose authority we desired to
maintain. Sir Menry Bulwer, whose influence has always
been exerted not only with a wish to maintain the autho-
rity of the Sultan, and to improve the welfare of the people
of Turkey, but who has always in my opinion taken the
most judicious means for that purpose, and who by the
mode in which he has given his advice, has obtained great
influence with all the Turkish Ministers who have been in
power—(hear, hear)—Sir Henry Bulwer thought it was
advisable to have an inquiry, but to have it by means of the
Sultan's own officers. There has lately been a change in
the Turkish Government, and the Minister who formerly
held the office of Grand Vizier has been reinstated. The
French ambassador advised that the Grand Vizier should
himself visit Bosnia, Reumelia, and Bulgaria, and have
full authority from the Sultan to punish those guilty of
outrages, and to establish such remedial measures as he
might think proper to meet the existing evils. In that
advice Sir Henry Bulwer and the Russian ambassador
agreed, and wa have heardlthis day that that measure has
been adopted. The Turkish ambassador has informed us
that the Sultan has willingly followed this advice, and that
the Grand Vizier will visit those provinces. I conclude
that as the Russian ambassador has given his consent to
that plan, Prince Gortschakoff is likely to assent to it. I
cannot say what will be the effect of this measure, but it is
one which gives us hope for the future. No man would be
bold enough to say what will be the future course of the
Turkish Government or the future destiny of the Turkish
provinces, but I cannot but believe that there has been a
very considerable change of late years, and a change for
the better. Sir Henry Bulwer has declared that since the
time he has been in Turkey there has been very consi-
derable irnproveniont, although ho is still dissatisfied with
the present state of things. I certainly consider, although
this proposal of the Russian Government at first appeared
to contain :n it elements even threatening to the stability
of the Sultan's power, that at present I am justified in hav-
ing great hopes there may be no dissensions among the
powers of Europe, and that if we have to give advice on the
ject, it will be given in such a way as not to offend the
just pride of an independent Sovereign. (Hear.)
OPERATIVES' STRIKE.

Mr.-HUBBARD wished to ask the Secretary of State for
the Home Department whether his attention had been
called to the renewed agitation of the metropolitan opera-
tives for a diminution of the time of labour to nine hours ;
and whether the Government would be prepared to protect
independent labourers against the coercion and violence
practised towards them on a former occasion should similar
illegal proceedings be attempted by the men on strike.
Sir G. C. LE SVIS replied that the report alluded to by
the hon. gentleman—viz., that the workmen in the building
trades of London contemplated a renewal of the strike of
last year—was only known to him through those ordinary
channels of intell gene() which were accessible to all ; no
communication on the subject had been made to the com-
missioners of police, nor had the assistance of the police been
applied for. No doubt to a certain extent the statement that
violence and intimidation had been practised during the
strike of last year was well founded, but the general charac-
ter of that strike was abstinence from all violent means.
Some exceptions certainly did occur, and some cases were, be
believed, brought before the magistrates, with what result he
did not exactly remember; but considering the length of time
over which the strike extended, and the large number of per-
sons engaged in it, its general character was abstinence from
violent means. (Hear, hear.) He had inquired of the com-
missioners of police, and was not aware that in any instance
they failed to afford assistance to persons who were threat-
ened
or intimidated, nor were the commissioners aware that
any complaints had been made of want of assistance on their
part during the continuance of the strike. He would only
further say upon the general question, that it was the duty
of the Executive Government to hold itself perfectly impar-
tial in regard to these unfortunate occurrences—and unfor-
tunate he must call them, for experience had shown their
impolicy, and that whatever the immediate result they in-
variably in the end were disastrous to the working classes
themselves. (Hear.) Still it was the duty of the Executive
Government to hold the balance with an even hand between
the two contending parties, limiting their interference to
maintaining thy, ascendancy of the law, and so far p,s
was in their power to the prevention of intimidation
and violence. (llear, hear.) The hon. gentleman
would be aware that a committee of the house had