The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-31 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, J OILY 31, 18tio.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

NEW PEER.
Lord CLYDE took the oaths and his seat as a peer of the
realm. The noble lord was introduced by the Duke of

Argyll and Lord Longford.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Burnham Tidal Harbour and Railway, London,
Chatham, and Dover Railway (Metropolitan Extension)

Bills, were read a third time and passed.

MAYNOOTH.
Viscount DUNGANNON presented a petition against
the Maynooth College Bill. The petition prayed that as
£30,000 had been granted lately to the college, no further
steps be taken with respect to the bill.
THE CHANCERY COMMISSION. .
Lord ST. LEONARDS gave notice that on Friday next

he should call the attention of the house to the report of
the Chancery Commissioners.
THE SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.
The Earl of MALMESBURY again brought on the sub-
ject of the arrangement of the South-Western Railway to
construct a double line of rails from Dorchester to
Southampton when the receipts reached a certain amount.

The noble earl contended that the company had repudiated
the agreement they had entered into, and it was their duty
to show that their receipts had not for three years in suc-
cession reached the sum agreed upon. He hoped the
Government would urge upon the Board of Trade the
necessity of compelling the South-Western directors to
carry out the agreement in all its integrity.
Earl GRANVILLE, who spoke in a very indistinct
manner, was understood to defend the conduct of the direc-
tors, and to state that there was no legal complaint against
the company. They were bound by the Act of Parliament
to construct a double line of rails when their receipts reached
a certain sum, but the sum
,had never yet been reached.
Some months ago a very careful examination of the ac,

counts took place, when it was found the sum had not
been reached. The subject was now in course of negotiation
between the company and the Board of Trade, and interviews
between the directors and the president of that department
would take place next Thursday, and until that time no-
thing could be done. He must, however, inform the noble
earl opposite that the authorities of the Board of Trade felt
they had no ground of complaint against the directors of the
South-Western Railway Company. He felt certain that in
the event of the company seeing it was for the public good
that the double line should be laid down it would be done,but
as far as compelling them to do so against their inclination,
the Government had no power.
After a few words from Lord WYNFOILD,
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said he thought no
one had a right to complain of the conduct of the South-
Western Railway. Company, until it had been clearly
shown their receipts had amounted to the sum agreed upon
for the construction of the double line, and they had re-
fused to carry out the provisions of their act of Parliament.
The Earl of MALINIESBURY rose, but was met with
loud cries of "Order, order."
The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was no ques-
tion before the house, and the clerk at the table proceeded
to read the orders of the day.
AFFAIRS OF ITALY.

The Marquis of NORMANBY then rose to move fur
copies or extracts from the despatches from her Majesty's
Minister in Tuscany in 1855, 1856, and 1857, referring to
the condition and administration of the Roman States. He
said it was not in consequence of any initiative of his that
this subject was now brought before their lordships; but
an hon, member of the other House of Parliament had
moved for certain despatches which were addressed to him
(Lord Normanby) when he was Minister at Florence, by
the secretary of Legation, at that time unofficially residing
at Rome. He had no doubt that the hon. gentlemen's
intention was to show upon undoubted authority that the
allegations of the contiival misgovernment of Rome were
exaggerated, and with that view the hon. gentleman
could not have taken a better course than to rely upon the
great powers of observation of his friend Mr. Lyons,
guided as they were by an accurate and impartial spirit.
But there was another question, distinct from that one,
although equally important, which was involved in the
papers he now moved for. That question was, what effect
upon the character and influence of this country might be
produced by this sort of Ministerial assertions of alleged
facts which were vented with somewhat of levity, and
which Europe afterwards seemed to combine in declaring to
be unfounded. The declaration which was made in 1856
by the noble lord then and now at the head of her Majesty's
Government in favour of the Roman republic of 1849 had
within the last few months been made the subject of much
comment by several eminent French publicists, in a way
that was much to be regretted. He would now briefly ex-
plain the character and substance of the papers for which
he moved, as showing the effect of that declaration. At
that time Mr. Lyons was residing at Rome, entirely in an
unrecognised position, and any diplomatic affairs to be
transacted there must have been referred to the minister at
Florence ; but in order that he (the Marquis of Normanby)
might co-operate advantageously with Mr. Lyons, it was
necessary that there should be no doubt in the minds of those
who administered the Roman Government as to the object
which the English Government had in view, and they
should be assured that the object which the English Govern-
ment sought was the amelioration, not the overthrow, of the
Roman institutions ; in short, that it was reform, and not
revolution. When, therefore, he (Lord Normanby) found
that high ministerial authority had made the impression in
Italy that we sympathised with the cause of revolution he
felt that the efforts of Mr. Lyons and himself were baffled.
Everyone who read the papers he now referred to would see
that very soon after the first interview of !'Jr. Lyons with
the minister of the Papal Government in May, 1856, some-
thing unpropitious occurred. Mr. Lyons saw Cardinal An-
tonelli on the Gth May, when he had to communicate to him,
on the part °This noble friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon)
his impression as to what had passed at the Congress of Paris. •
No doubt Mr. Lyons executed that task with great tact, and,
in obedience to his instructions, brought farward the subject
in the most mild add moderate tone ; and no doubt he was
heard with the most courteous attention. But at that time
neither Mr. Lyons nor Cardinal Antonelli was aware of the
declaration made by the Prime Minister of England on the 6th
of that month, that " Rome had never been better governed
than during the absenceof the Pope." It could hardly be sup-
posed that, in using such a phrase in public, some allusion
was not made to the very peculiar circumstances under
which that absence took place. The absence of the Pope
from Rome at that period, in 1818 and 1849; was caused by
the murder of his constitutional minister on the stops of the
National Assembly. He (Lord Normanby) well remem-
bered the effect produced at Paris, when that assassination
was announced in the French Constituent Assembly. Even
M. Bixio, an 'ltalian and a revolutionist, expressed his hor-
ror and indignation. Such were the circumstances under
which the Pope left Rome ; yet that event had met with the
approbation, as it seemed, of at least one of her Majesty's
ministers. However, Mr. Lyons did not again see Cardinal
Autonelli until the 24th of that month, May, 1856. He then
stated that the excitement had been much increased by what
had passed in the British Parliament. Mr. Lyons soon found
the effect of it. On the 30th, when Cardinal Antonelli again
saw Mr. Lyons, his tone was completely different. Mr. Lyons
stated in his despatch that "on wyendeavour to bring to a de-
finite issue the question whether or not the Papal government
within a reasonable time, would or could undertake toadopt
any reforms at all, the cardinal became almost entirely si-
lent." It was, therefore, not unfair to suppose that the
cardinal's silence was the result of the communication to
him of what had passed in England. At the same time he
(Lord Normanby) was himself endeavouring to obtain from
the Papal Government concessions of a similar character.
He had had some interviews with a friend of his, not offi-
cially connected with Rome, but having great influence
there, and he had then had every reason to suppose that a
favourable consideration would be given, to what he (Lord
Normanby) had always thought the most important point
to belu.rged, namely, that the Consulta of Finance should
have a deliberative voice. But when he again addressed
his friend on the subject the reply was, " How can we ex-
pect these reforms when the head of your Government holds
up as a model for imitation a system which we believe to be
inconsistent with the security of life and property ?"
Such was the effect caused by that declaration in
Parliament of the noble lord at the head of the
Government. Now he (the Marritis of Normanby) happened
to be her Majesty's minister at Paris in 1849, and he re-
ceived from M. Drouyn de l'Huys, the French Minister of
Foreign Affairs, and from M. de Tocquesille, who suc-
ceeded him, a communication of all the documents which
bore on the conduct of the French expedition to Rome, and
showing not only the exemplary behaviour of the French
troops in Rome, but the real character of the Government
which had been overthown there. Within the la-t few
days his own recollection of the matter had been confirmed
by M. Drouyn de l'Huys, whom he had consulted on the
subject. The result of a close investigation made by the
French Government at that time was communicated not
only to all the foreign ambassadors at Paris, but brought
to England by M. Drouyn de l'Huys when he was
appointed ambassador here, and also communicated
tot,_the noble earl opposite (Earl Granville). He
'to sue ..liarania of Normanby), had therefore every reason
cvait'iii:Pe.7 that any illusion which the noble viscount
r t°11) might have entertained in IS-19 real
character
as to the
caaracter of that republic had been dispelled. But to his
astonishment,
sions
E6emed
t:Zeanveybears after that, in 18.36, those illu-
_ehenarirevived with increased force. The
(Lord Normanby) h
some time,
communication with
the noble viscount for4l son
,nldraving accepted from his
noble friend (Lord Clarendon) ue e}r-,lLord Aberdeen's Go-
vernment, the post of Minister at ortenice. But he'had
all otver the wituesscA the very great sensation cre
con-
tinent of Europe by the conduct of her
Govern-
ment with reference to those transactions. j y's
rantable statement made by the noble viscount had benenw'rter'
fleeted upon in foreign publications of extraordinary literary'
thought
merit,. and M. de MontalemLert, than. whom there was no
more sincere supporier of English institutions, had
fit in his intrGtluction to a work on the Pontifical Sovereignty
(by the Bishop of Orleans) to comment very strongly on that
flagrant abuse of speech by the Prime Minister of England,
And M. de Tocepeaville, who was peculiarly liberalin his
anct who istad no share in the origin of the
Roman

expedition, and whom he saw almost every day in that
year, expressed his astonishment at tho manner in which
Lord Palmerston had expressed his disbelief of such a mass
of facts as were brought before him, and still considered as
worthy of his praise the Roman republic, which wa; deft-
cient in all the first duties of a good Government. He could
only say in conclusion, that he submitted his motion to the
house on the simple ground that the papers already pre-
sented to Parliament did not give an accurate impression of
the truth, and by the omission of any allusion to this inci-
dent would create an impression unjust alike to Mr. Lyons
himself and the Roman Government, inasmuch as there
would remain no trace of the fact that it was a consequence
of a natural feeling of irritation arising from what they
deemed an insult that they were less disposed to listen in
time to any suggestions for a favourable consideration of
the aiministration of the affairs of the Roman republic..
The noble lord concluded by proposing his motion for the
production of despatches.
LordWODEHOUSE said there would be no objection to
giving the papers, but their lordships were perhaps not suf-
ficiently aware that the circumstances to which his noble
friend referred did not occur in the present year or last
year, but in 1849, and that the speech of Lord Palmerston
was delivered in 1856. These matters had nothing to do
with the political events of the present day. His noble
friend said that these matters had some connexion with the
despatches of Mr. Lyons, but he was quite at a loss to dis-
cover such connexion. The motion would lead their lord-
ships to suppose that it had reference to a large mass of
correspondence, but it in fact only included two despatches
which related exclusively to the speech delivered lay Lord
Palmerston in 1856. He would not weary their lordships
by going into an explanation of what took place in 1849
and 1856 ; but he might mention that the statement of
Lord Palmerston was based on the official reports of her
Majesty's consul at Rome. The noble marquis said that
being at Paris he knew what was the real state of things at
Rome better than the British consul ; but when the papers
were laid before the house their lordships would be able
to form a correct opinion upon that point.
After a few words from the Marquis of NOitMANEY
in
reply the return was agreed to.
COAST OF AFRICA, &e., ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill went through committee pro forma, and was re-
ported with twiend Inman.
CROWN DEBTS AND JUDGMENT BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
The following bills were advanced a stage without dis-
cussion :—Smithfield Markets, &c. (committee) ; Prisons,
Scotland (committee) ; Registration of Births, &c., Scots
land (third reading) ; Title to Lands, Scotland (report of
amendments); Conjugal Rights, Scotland (committee) ;
Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act Amendment (com•
mittee) ; Highways South Wales Bill ; Manchester Cathe-
dral Church ; Felony and Misdemeanour ; Postage (Army
and Navy).
The Party Emblems (Ireland) Bill passed through com-
mittee.
Medical Act Amendment (1858) ; Highway Rates Act
Continuance Bills were read a third time and passed.
The Police and Towns Improvement (Scotland) Act
Amendment Bill passed through committee.
COUNTY CORONER'S BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES BILL.

After a short discussion, in which the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Dungannon, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and Lord
Chelmsford took part,
The LORD CHANCELLOR put the question that the
standing order be suspended, and declared that the non-
contents had it.
The bill was consequently lost.
The house adjourned at ten minutes to eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at fol.,- o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Forest of Dean Central Railway (No. 2) Bill was
read a third time and passed, and the Duke of Norfolk's
Estate Bill was read a second time.
On the motion of Mr. C. FORSTER, the following was
agreed to :—" That standing orders 89, 176, and 204 be
suspended; and that it be an instruction to the committee
of selection, that they have power to appoint the committee
on the Caithness Roads (No. 2) Bill, with leave to the com-
mittee to sit and proceed to-morrow ; that the evidence on
the Caithness Roads Bill of this session be referred to the
committee."

right that a Governor-Genera' of India should hold office
on such terms as that it should be in the power of the Sec-

retary of State for India at any time to transfer the power
'of the Governor-General to the Commander-in-Chief or to
the Ho se Guards. It did not appear to him, if the Seere-

tary of State wished that power to remain, that he would
entertain any objection to this amendment. The interference
of the home Government with that of India had led to the

greatest evils. The Affghan war itself was undertaken in
opposition to the views of all Indian experience. Another
question, that of annexation, was one which had been en-
tirely supported by the home Government. He should sup-
_ _

port the proposal for instructions moved for by his hon.
friend, and he earnestly hoped that the Secretary for India

would consent to its adoption.
Col. SYKES said he wished to correct a misrepresenta-
tion which had been made of what he had said the other

night on a particular point. He had written one or
two letters on the subject to the papers, but no notice had

been taken of his communications. What he said was that

the sth Dragoon Guards had refused to charge the rebels in
Ireland in 1799. What he was represented to have said was
that the Guards had joined the rebels. As this statement
had led to some remark on the part of that gallant corps,
he wished to set himself right on the subject. The simple
proposition at present before the house was whether the
Government of India, civil and military, was to be placed
under the Secretary of State for India, or was to be shared
by the Secretary for War and the Horse Guards. A
very strong opinion on the subject had been delivered
by Mr. Willoughby. Equally positive were the opi-
nions of Lord Elphinstone and Mr. Freer. The opinion
of Mr. Freer also was in favour of a centralised authority.
There could not be complete control in the Governor-
General if it was participated in by the Commander-in-
Chief and the military authorities at home. Soon after
the passing of the India Government Act the Duke of Cam-
bridge had made a demand for the transfer of authority over
the Indian army to the Horse Guards, though that depart-
ment was already overwhelmed with business. This was
very properly resisted by Lord Stanley, then Secretary of
State for India, and he rejoiced to know that the noble lord
still entertained the same opinion. After alluding to the
disasters of Cabul, the hon. and gallant gentleman described
the efforts made under Sir George Pollock to retrieve those
disasters, and the steps which he took to quell the dissatis-
faction then existing in the army. Ito wan only 0n..b1.0
to do this by a knowledge of the prejudices and supersti-
tions of his troops. Had the same tact and consideration
been shown prior to the late mutiny, that mutiny would
never have been heard of. He had proof of this in the cor-
respondence which took place with respect to the events at
Umballah. It was most essential that the authority should
be retained in the hands of the Governor-General. At pre-
sent there were 4,980 British officers in the local army.
These must all die off in the course of nature; and all that
patronage would be thrown into the hinds of the Horse
Guards, as well as the appointment of the commander-in-
chief, the generals of division, adjutants, quartermasters-
general, and inspectors of hospitals. At present 145 offi-
cers of the line were employed on the staff. Had the army
been under the Horse Guards the whole of those vacancies
would have been filled up, and a proportionate increase of
charge made to the Indian revenue. (Hear, hear.) The
proposed change would give rise to repeated collisions be-
tween the Governor-General and the officers of the army in
India, who would receive orders direct from home, and act
independently of the Governor-General. Much had been
made of the bugbear of two armies. This was not so. They
were all under the authority of the Queen, though not under
the direct authority of the Horse Guards. It would be as rea-
sonable to say that the marines and the regiments of the line
at home formed two armies. It was only a question whe-
ther the royal orders should be sent to India through the
Horse Guards, or through the Secretary of State for
India. If faith were kept with the officers of the Indian
army, amalgamation would be impossible.
Sir C. WOOD said that the hon. and gallant gentleman
had put a construction on the act which no one ever dreamt
of before. It was not at all proposed that there should be
any reduction of the native army. The hon. member for
Poole was quite mistaken in his views as to the origin and
effect of the Affghan war. In each of the three ca,e3 of policy
which his hon. friend said had been condemned by the Go •
vernment in India and forced upon them by the home Go-
vernment, it was the policy of the Government in India
that had been carried out. In other cases their policy had
been rejected, and he had himself stopped the annexation of
Oude when it had been recommended to him,
*Mr. H. SEYMOUR had said " condemned by Indian
statesmen."
Sir C. WOOD—If his hon. friend refused the name of
st atesmen to the Governor-General and Council of India he
had not a word more to say on that subject. Perhaps his
hon. friend would exclude from the name of statesmen all
those who did not agree with himself. (Laughter.) With
regard to the changes which it was said the bill would
effect, there was not a word in it to show that it would ope-
rate those changes. The staff appointments were necessa-
rily made by the Government in India. They were made
upon the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief.
The bill made no alteration in that respect. There were
indeed certain officers of the Queen's army sent out to India,
but he contended it was moat beneficial to India that such
appointments should be made. If that had not been the
case, India would have been deprived of the services of such
men as Lord Clyde, Sir 11. Rose, Sir W. Mansfield, and
Sir Hope Grant, and nothing would be so detrimental to
the Queen's service in India as anyproposition which would
deprive India of such experienced men as these. Ile there-
fore believed that the proposition of his hon. friend, if ope-
rative at all, would prove mischievous, and if inoperative it
would be unnecessary.
Mr. RICH would recommend his hon. friend to withdraw
his instruction, and allow the discussion to be concentrated
on the proposition of the hon. member for Ayrshire.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE seconded the recommendation,
and hoped the house would support the appeal of the hon.
member for Ayrshire. His right hon. friend must be very
simple if he thought they would be caught by the statement
that the bill contained nothing on the subject of the ap-
pointments, when the quarrel they had with him was that
it did. (Hear.)
Mr. MILNE S then allowed his instruction to be negatived
without a division.
Sir J. FERGUSSON then rose to move " that in the
opinion of this house it is inexpedient to proceed further
with legislation respecting the European troops in India
until the whole plan of the Government for the regulation
of the military force of that country shall have been sub-
mitted to the consideration of Parliament." He believed
that the proposition or the right hon. gentleman now before
the house was but part of a gigantic scheme of centralisa-
tion, which had for its object the transferring from Calcutta
to London the transacting of all the business of India.
Much of the Indian business might be well and usefully
transacted here, but he did not think that the army or the
civil service of India could be appropriately managed out
of India. In this question were involved the questions of
tho stability of our Indian empire, the renown of their arms,
the fame of England, and the future welfare of both Eng-
land and India. In deciding upon this question the house
was bound to consider the mode of recruiting for the Indian
army, how they could best promote the efficiency of the
army in India; they were bound to consider the financial
questions involved in the proposed change, and also the
effect it might have on the national safety. But above all
they were bound to consider what plan the Government
proposed to substitute for the system about to be swept
away, and which had worked well for so many years.
Ile did not believe the Parliament would have ever
conferred such extensive powers on the Secretary of
State for India if it was believed that they were not to be
consulted on the changes which it was proposed to make in
the government of that country. Heretofore the Governor-
General and Council of India exercised supreme command
over the civil and military authorities of India. Colonel
Durrand, a member of the Council in India, said that if they
stripped the Governor-General of the command of the army
he would no longer possess that respect and authority which
it was so desirable he should possess in the eyes of Asiatic
nations, and 'that the late events in India proved the expe-
diency of 'saving, distinct armies and systems. He should
ask the house to consider this as a question of finance, and
the Government had previously to introducing this change
consulted a vet y eminent actuary for the purpose of ascer-
taining what additional expenses would be required, and
papers had been presented to the house showing the com-
parative expenses of the system, and he pointed out that the
expenses of the Queen's troops in India would be much
greater than those of :the local army, and the result was
that an army of 80,000 would cost £460,000 a year, and it
only one-third were Queen's troops it would cost £lBO,OOO
a year. But ho (Sir J. Fergusson) should confess that he
saw no necessity for maintaining so large a force in India
as 80,000 European troops. In the plan proposed by the
. Government the house must be prepared to sanction a very
large increase of expenditure, but after all the great ques-
tion was as to the efficiency of the army. It was said on the
one hand that the troops got less efficient by the climate,
and on the other hand that hey got acclimatised. He be-
lieved that in both these arguments there was some truth ;
but he believed that the men who had lived there for some
years knew better 'how• to take care of themselves than
those who had just arrived out. Two years ago the Iniian
army had been quoted as the perfection of organisation, and
what could have occurred in the meantime to work such a
change in public opinion as to wipo away all recollection
of their great services ? There could be no doubt that
the staff in India had been promoted much more by merit
in the company's service than in that of the Queen. That
was necessarily an important point in considering the ques.-
tion of military effic:ency. One great advantage of main-
taining a local array in India was that it ensured the st r-
vice of officers specialty trained for the duties they had to
perform. The Indian army was thus commanded by men
who knew India, and who looked to the country as the
scene of all their advancement. lle (Sir J. Fergusson) ven-
tured to submit that if this bill passed, the house were en-
titled to know how the Government proposed to deal with
the question of guarantees, and unless some plan were laid
upon the table, the house were fairly entitled to demand
further time for consideration. (Hear, hear.) The Go-
vernment asserted that events which had occurred since
the 10th of August last has induced them to change their
minds in reference to the maintenance of a local army, but
long before the 10th •f August they must have been cogni-
sant of every fact connected with the discontent which had
manifested itself in the Indian army. The two letters

which contained the gravest charges in reference to the

mutiny were dated :the 14th and 18th of May, and must

have been in the hands of the Secretary for India before he
made his speech on the 10th of August.
Sir C. WOOD said the fact was that they were not in his
possession at that time.
Sir J. FERGUSSON admitted that if the right hon.
gentleman was not in possession of those letters they might
have afforded materials for a change of opinion; but they
were insufficient to justify the sweeping change which

had been made. The blue-books were full of the state-

ments of the men in reference to the grievance of which
they complained, and they all stated the same thing, viz.,

that they did not wish to stand out against any law, but
that they denied there was any law which required them
to transfer themselves to the Queen's army. Out of the
whole 30,000 only 10,000 had accepted their discharge, and

2,500 of those had since been re-enlisted. The honourable
baronet proceeded to quote letters from Sir J. Lawrence,
Sir H. B. Frere, and Sir J. Outram, upon the importance
of maintaining a local European army in India, and
said the strong objection he had to proceeding further with
the present bill was the total absence of any plan by which
the house could learn what it was the Government really
contemplated. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. T. BARING seconded the motion.
The SPEAKER at once put the question.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE rose to address the house afterit
had been put, and was informed that he was too late.

The house then divided—
For the amendment ..
Against it
Majority
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE then moved the adjournment of
the house. (Oh loh !) His object was to make a personal
explanation with respect to an observation which had been
attributed to him, and which he found had given pain. That
observation was to the effect that he had been on board ship
with 22 officers, on their way to India, 20 of whom could
not write their own names. He (the hon. member) never
questioned a newspaper report ; for he thought they were
very much indebted to the reporters, not only for the accu-
racy with which they gave their speeches to the world, but
for the material improvements which they so often intro-
duced. (Loud cheers.) What, however, he wished to state
was that of the 22 officers, 20 could hardly write their
; and to that statement he adhered, for it was literally
true. The fact was that in times gone by large sums of
money were paid for substitutes when regiments were or-
dered for India ; and the men who thus went out were ge-
nerally very illiterate. The army was now in a very dif-
ferent position ; but still the officer who went out •to India
after he had become accustomed to society in this country,
was not the man that identified himself with the natives.
(Hear, hear.) He (the hon. gentleman) could assure the
house that he had most unwillingly taken part in the op-
position which had been offered to the bill ; but he had
done so because he conscientiously believed it to be a
most dangerous, improper, and unconstitutional mea-
sure to attempt to force such a change upon the house
in its present half-informed condition, and at such
an unusually late period of the session. (Hear, hear.)
Col. KNOX seconded the motion for the adjournment.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE had intended to address the
house before the division, but after the able speech of the
hon. member for Ayrshire, to which her Majesty's Govern-
ment had not ventured a reply, he did not feel it necessary
to do so. He was perfectly well contented with the progress
they had made as evidenced by the division that had just
taken place—(cheers)--and he trusted that hon. members
who had joined in the opposition would be equally ready at
the next stage. By pursuing that course—by urging their
opinions firmly and respectfully upon this house, they
would leave her Majesty's Government little to boast of.
Henceforward they would not be able to appeal to the enor-
mous majority by which they carried the second reading.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY spoke to express his opinion,
and not for the purpose of delay. He regarded the bill as one
calculated to unsettle much, and to settle nothing. Never
had the house been taken more by surprise. Ho could not
conceive why the Secretary of State had not taken counsel
with his council before introducing a measure of so much
importance. It had beensaid that the European army in In-
dia did not exist, but reckoning the men on their passage it
was not less than 17,000 strong. He could not help think-
ing that there still existed a great deal of the old jealousy
which there used to be of the late company, but the question
was wholly different. It was not as if the point in dispute
were whether there should or should not be a royal army
in India. Under any circumstances the army must be the
army of the Queen; for it could be nothing else. (Cheers.)
The sole question was whether it was not better to localise
a certain portion of that royal army ? Viewed as a matter
of reasoning, it seemed to him that the argument was ten to
one in favour of the affirmative issue. It was proposed to
double the European army of England by a stroke of the
pen, and it appeared to him to be a very serious constitu-
tional question, what might be the effect of bringing up so
large a portion of our armed force in a despotic country,
beyond the direct influence of the House of Commons. Al-
ready the question who was supreme in the army was in
equilibrio. At the present moment it was balancing itself,
like a dancer on a tight rope with a pole, between the Com-
mander-in-Chief and the Secretary at War. So far as he
L could see, the power seemed to be in one, and the responsi-
bility in the other. For instance, in the years 1856-8, 686
commissions were given away by the Commander-in-Chief.
Those commissions would represent a money value of
£3Bo,ooo—an amount of patronage altogether unexampled.
A list of all appointments was no doubt handed to the Sec-
retary of State, but there could be no doubt that the power
of making them resided altogether in the Commander-in-
Chief ; and he would ask the house if it was prepared to
double that enormous patronage ? (Hear, hear.) All the
faults of the local army of India might be traced to the sys-
tem. If the authority of the colonels was deficient, it was
only through their having been thwarted by the Comman-,
der-in-Chief. There could be no doubt that all the evils
which existed in connection with the local force could be
easily corrected, and the 25 regiments would then become as
efficient as any other in her Majesty's service. He could not
conceive what possible interest Ministers could have in the
bill. The right hon. gentleman was doing all this upon his
own authority. He trusted that these discussions would
have no ill effect upon. Indian affairs; but it was remark•
' able that the dictum of the noble lord upon a former occa-
sion had been acted upon by the soldiers, and a mutiny had
took place in consequence. Indian history abundantly
proved that troops of the line had been disarmed by native
soldiers. These, however, were unpleasant moments in
military histot y ; and the house was much too wise to form
a system upon such isolated cases. There was an absolute
necessity, in his opinion, of protecting the authority of the
Governor-General in India, It was with the deepest pain
that he (Sir 11. Willoughby) had read some portions of the
correspondence which the right hon. gentleman had placed
upon the table of the house. Nothing was more dangerous
than the expressions in some of the letters which had been
addressed to the Commander-in-Chief, without consulting
the Governor-General. On May 11, 1859, Gen. Lord Clyde
wrote to the Commander-in-Chief a despatch, containing
the passage, " I admit I have not much influence ; " and
again he said, "The whole of the Indian officers are dis-
contented." Did the house think that India was to be go-
verned in that way ? The Commander-in-Chief should not
be empowered to make appointments in India without con-
sulting the Governor-General. All despatches also should
pass through the hands of the Govetnor-General, as being
the responsible Minister of the Crown. He asked would it
be possible for any Governor-General to govern India if the
Commander-in-Chief of the day could make disparaging
comments upon large bodies of men without his knowledge?
Let them take care to place the government upon aright basis.
Let them take care there is not a distrust of able men.
Ho (Sir H. Willoughby) would, not have produced that
despatch. But further, he would ask how it could be sup-
posed that the Indian revenue could support an army of
100,000 men ? They had raised the taxation in four years
to £37,010,000. The tnilitary expenditure had been raisedsuc-
cessively from £8,000,000 to £11,000,000, then £14,000,000
to £20,000,000. How could India afford to pay 520,000,000 for
an army ? The expense of the transport of troops was an
additional item to this outlay. Mr. Wilson had further been
much struck with the attention paid by local officers to the
affairs of India, as contrasted with that of the Queen's
officers. It was also an established fact that localised regi-
ments stood the action of the sun better than European
troops. He was not arguing this as a party question. (Hear,
hear.) Bat this he must say that no one had yet ventured
to say how two armies were to be amalgamated ; one of
which existed by a system of purchase, the other with a
system of promotion by seniority, with a vast mass of pro.
vident funds, amounting to £4,000,000. He warned the
house that they would soon find that the question of the
finances of India was a question of the finances of the
empire. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I rise to speak on the
question which is before the house. The hon. member for
Portsmouth has moved the adjournment of the house; the
hon. baronet who has just sat down has not said a word
about the adjournment, but he has spoken on the general
question, whilst he has endeavoured to preclude us from
discussing it at all. My hon. friend behind me (the
member for Lanark, Sir T. Colebroke) has said that he will
leave it to the country to judge between the proceedings of
the Government and the proceedings of those who are en-
deavouring to oppose this discussion. The hon. member for
Portsmouth has boldly declared that these proceedings of
delay ar2 intended for no other purpose than to defeat the
bill. Now that strikes at the root of our constitutional
institutions. It' there be one principle more than another
on which our constitutional institutions are founded, it is
this, that, after fall discussion, and after full opportunity
has been given for the statement of opinions, the decision of
the majority ought to be considered as binding on the mino-
rity. If the decision of the majority is not to be considered
binding Dn the rest, there is an end to our constitutional in •
.stitutions. In countries where such institutions are new,
mixoritim often have recourse to violence. We are now wit-
nessing a proceeding similar in principle—(hear, hear)—
because the minority, conscious as they must be that their
arguments cannot prevail over the majority, are resorting
to every device which the forms of the house enable them
to take advantage of for the purpose of stopping and defeat-
ing by delay that which they are not able to induce the
house to consent to by argument. This is really a proceed-
ing the object of which has been boldly and frankly avowed
by the km, member for Portsmouth, anti which may be left

for the country to decide upon. But I venture to say that
it is impossible for the House of Commons to discharge its
constitutional functions if this system is to be persevered in
on every occasion in which a minority thinks proper. All
I can say is, that we will not submit to be coerced in this

manner so long as health and strength rera ain to us—(cheers)
—by what I must call a factious—(hear, hear)—proceeding
on the part of a minority, I trust the hon. member for

Portsmouth will not put us to a trial of this sort, but that
he will withdraw his motion in order that the house may
eater into a discussion of the question before it in the regu-
lar course. According to the strict rules of the house hon.

members ought to speak to the question. The question be-
fore the house is whether the house shall adjourn, and I
certainly think that those who speak should give reasons
for the adjournment. But I trust the hon. member for
Portsmouth, who always acts with fairness and generosity
in debate, and who always shows great ability and know-
ledge of the subjects on which he wishes to bring his genius
to bear, will feel that it is more conducive to the dignity of
the house, and more consistent with the course of Parlia-
mentary proceedings to let us go into committee on the
bill. (Cheers.)
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said that he had no intention
of taking any unconstitutional course. But the delay in fur-
nishing papers, and the way in which the question was
brought before the house, was such as to render hon. mem-
bers unable to discuss the question in any other way. He
begged to withdraw the question of the adjournment.
The SPEAKER said he might take the liberty of saying,
on the question of the adjournment, that the hon, member
for Portsmouth would have agreed to the withdrawal of the
motion at once, had he been aware that there stood imme-
diately afterwards a motion which he was then about to put
to the house, upon which he might have spoken.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said it was from misappre-
hension of the forms of the house that ho had taken the
course he had adopted.

Mr. MALINS opposed the bill, and entered into a care-
ful analyses of sections 19, 23, and 25 of the Indian Govern-
ment Act, for the purpose of showing that it was the inten-
tion of the Legislature that the government of India should
be by the Secretary of State in Council. By the course pur-
sued Sir C. Wood had violated the act, and he hoped that
the house would not sanction a precedent fraught with the
the most dangerous consequences.
Col. SYKES defended the officers of the European la.
dian army from the charge of inoompotency, and quoted a
long list of illustrious names to show that in ability and
soldicrlike qualities they were not inferior to officers of the
line.

Mr. VANSITTART supported the bill.
Col. DUNNE did not object to the bill, but wished for
some explanations as to the amalgamation of the armies in
India and at home.
Sir C. WOOD said he was glad to hear the opinions of
the hon. and gallant colonel. He contended that he could
not ask the Council to discuss the details of a measure to
which they were opposed; but when it had received the
sanction of Parliament no doubt they would give it their
best attention.
Colonel HERBERT supported the measure, on the
ground that it world not affect the patronage of more
than nine regiments, the patronage of the whole of the local
army remaining, as now, in the hands of the Governor-
General.
After some observations from Mr. PARKER and Mr.
TORRENS, the house went into committee on the bill.
On clause 1,
Mr. HENLEY objected to the proviso. The right hon.
gentleman said he was not for a moment disposed to impute
that her Majesty's Government were disposed, in bringing
in the bill, to break faith with the officers and men of the
local European army in India ; but undoubtedly the men
had been harshly and injustly treated, and he therefore
begged to move that a proviso be added to clause 1, " That
the provision made for sons of persons who have served in
India, and the advantages as to pay, pensions, allowances,
privileges, promotion, and otherwise secured to the military
forces of the East India Company, by the act of the 21st
and 22d years of the Queen, shall be maintained respec-
tively in any plan for the reorganisation of the Indian
army, anything in this act contained notwithstanding."
Sir C. WOOD was glad to hear the right hon. gentleman
give credit to her Majesty's Government for not having any
intention of breaking faith with the officers and men of the
European local army in India ; and as a guarantee that
they had not, he begged to say that he accepted with cor-
diality the proviso proposed by his right hon. friend.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to, and the

house resumed.
Sir C. WOOD stated that the bill would be resumed to-
morrow, and the third reading on Monday.
THE SENIOR MEMBER OF COUNCIL (INDIA)
BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
SUPERANNUATION ACT (1859) INDIA BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION (INDIA) BILL.
This bill was also read a third time and passed.
EAST INDIA STOCK, &c., TRANSFER BILL.
On the motion of Sir C. WOOD, the house resolved it-
self into committee, and he moved a resolution by which
certain duties now porformea by the establishment of the
Directors of the East India Company are in future trans-
ferred to and are to be discharged by the Bank of England.
Mr. VANSITTART asked what was expected to be the
saving effected by this transfer. He understood the num-
ber of directors was to be reduced from twelve to six; would
the right hon. gentleman state what the saving would be ?
Sir C. WOOD said the transfer world not in any way
affect the directors, it merely transferred duties in respect
of the payment of the dividends from the East India direc-
tors to the Bank of England.
The resolution was then agreed to, and the house re-
sumed.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION, &c., BILL.
The house then proceeded to the consideration of the
amendments of this bill.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH moved a clause, in pursuance of
,which clerical members of the commission should not vote
on questions relative to the increase of the emoluments or
revenues'of the bishops or capitular bodies.
The clause was opposed by Sir G. C. LEWIS, and upon
a division was negatived by a majority of 202 to 28.
Mr. AYItTON then moved an amendment, to the effect
that the surplus funds of ecclesiastical property in the me-
tropolis should be devoted to the removal of religious desti-
tution in the metropolis.
Mr. ROEBUCK moved the adjournment of the debate,
owing to the lateness of the hour (12.40).
Sir G. C. LEWI S opposed the motion on the grotind
that many hon. gentlemen would not consider it a late
hour, and the subject had been fully discussed.
After a few words Irons Mr. D. GRIFFITH, the house
divided upon the clause moved by Mr. AYRTON, which was
lost by a majority of 62, there being 51 for, and 116
against.
The bill was then ordered to be read a third time.
POOR RELIEF, &c. (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time.
FORTIFICATIONS AND WORKS.
On the order of the day for the house going into com-
mittee on this bill,
Lord PALMERSTON said that this bill should be
taken the first thing on Thursday.
AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES (IRELAND)
BILL.
This bill was read a third time.
lONIAN ISLANDS MARRIAGES BILL.
This bill was read a third time. -
The Lords' amendment to the Burial Grounds (Ireland)
(1856) Amendment Bill, and Criminal Lunatic Asylum
Bill were considered and agreed to.
SALE OF GAS AMENDMENT BILL.
The bill was read a second time.
The house adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock.

LONGEVITY IN A LUNATlC.—JamesCoyle,a patient
at St. Patrick's (Swift's) Hospital, Dubin, died on the 17th
inst. in the 106th year of his ago. He was admitted May
28, 4802, in his 48th year, and was for upwards of 58 years
an inmate of the institution.—Lancet.

[ADVEUTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills.—
Inflammations of Sensitive Parts, Piles, Fistulas, and such-
like painful diseases may, without consulting any ono, be
presently relieved and ultimately cured, by the propsr and
diligent use of this cooling and healing Ointment; whose
action should is such cases be assisted by judicious doses
of Holloway's Pills. Ere many days have elapsed the
anxious patient will experience a wonderful degree of ease
from this treatment. Doubts and fears will soon disap.
pear, and the sufferer wall bless the day on which ho first
applied these remedies. They are equally suitable to both
sexes, all ages, and any climate ; nor is their efficiency im-
paired by the long keeping. Their action on the frame is
soothing, safe, and certain.
[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Perfect digestion, strong nerves,
sound lungs, refreshing sleep, and functional regularity
restored, without medicine, purging or expense, to the most
disordered or enfeebled by Du Barry's delicious health re-
storing Revalenta Arabica Food, which removes indiges-
tion (dyspepsia), habitual constipation, flatulency, diar-
rhoea, dysentery, nerveusness, biliousness, fevers, sore
throats, catarrhs, colds, noises in the ears, rheumatism,
ssout, impurities, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, irritability,
sleepness,b acidity, palpitation, heartburn, headache, debi-
lity, dropsy, despondency, cramps, spasms, nausea, and
sickness, sinking, fits, cough, asthma, bronchitis, con •
sumption, epilepsy, paralysis, also children's complaints.
Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and
perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment,
and expense may be avoided by using Du Barry's Fcod
which, at a few pence per day, saves 50 times its cost in
other remedies, removing effectually, without purging,
constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious and
liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate
No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Ure,
MD., F.lt.S., Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Sherlund, Dr.
Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu-
rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of
false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the
high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against
Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents ; and the pretences
that Nevill has a patent for Arabica Food and that Du
Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly, falai).
No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry
and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, on the seal :mil wrapper.
Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in ono article must
expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins Ilb.
2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. Gd. ; 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The
121 b. and 241 b. canisters are sent carriage free on receipt
of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Re-
gent-street, London ; Fortnum Mason, and Co. ; Abbie,
60, Graccohurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Ox-
ford-street ; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate- •
street ; Batty, •16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and Co,
tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co., King William-street,
City ; at 127, High Holborn ; and all grocers.

THE THAMES EMBANKMENT.

The select committee appointed to consider the
best means of providing for the increasing traffic of
the metropolis, by the embankment of the Thames,
have considered the matters to them referred, and
have agreed to the following report :
" Your committee beg leave to report to the
house that they have carefully considered several
well-devised plans for the embankment of the
Thames, which have been brought before them,
and that they have received much valuable evi-
dence on the subject. In connection with the
matter referred to them your committee considered
it necessary to inquire into the line proposed for the
' low level sewer about to be made by the Metro-
politan Board of Works, and they find that if that
sewer were carried under the Strand and Fleet-
street, an amount of injury would be caused to the
trade and property of the district which it is
scarcely possible to estimate; whilst during
the progress of the works the traffic along
those great thoroughfares would be seriously
impeded. Your committee have found that
the various engineers who have submitted
their plans, have recognised the importance of con-
structing the low level sewer along the foreshore
of the river and within the embankment. Your
committee have ascertained by evidence that the
Metropolitan Board of Works, and the Thames
Conservancy Board, are of opinion that the em-
bankment of the Thames would be a great improve-
ment both to the metropolis and to the river, and
your committee entirely concur in this opinion.
Your committee, therefore, after careful considera-
tion of the whole question, have agreed to the fol-
lowing resolutions :
" That the embankment of the north side of the
Thames from Westminster Bridge to, or nearly to,
Southwark Bridge would afford a desirable mode
of improving the banks and bed of the river, and
facilitate the construction of the low level sewer
along the foreshore; -while a roadway on the em-
bankment would greatly relieve the crowded
thoroughfare.
" That by the construction of docks inside the
embankment wall, wharfingers and other persons
engaged in business along the river would in most
cases derive increased facilities for conducting their
various trades and occupations.
" "That the statements made to the committee
with regard to the probable cost of the proposed
embankment vary considerably, ranging from a
minimum of £400,000 .to a maximum of £1,500,000
according to the nature and extent of the plan, but
these estimates include the cost of the low level
sewer; and there is reason to expect that a large
proportion of the total first cost would be repaid by
works of a productive character.
" That as in 1861 the Bd. and ld. duties upon
coal, and the id. duty upon wine which were im-
posed and continued by Parliament for the purpose
of public improvements in the metropolis will cease,
your committee recommend that they be renewed
for a limited period, and that the whole or part of
the cost of the Thames embankment be made a first
charge upon them.'
" The legislature having already entrusted to the
Metropolitan Board of Works the main drainage of
the metropolis, and armed them with powers to deal
with the foreshore of the river in connection there-
with, your committee recommend that the construc-
tion of the embankment be also confided to them.
" For this purpose your committee suggest that
the above-mentioned duties be placed at the dis-
posal of that board for a limited period, and that
the guarantee of the Imperial treasury be likewise
afforded them, according to the provisions con-
tained in the 21st and 22d Vict., c. 104, s. 6.
" Your committee are of opinion that it would be
most difficult to estimate before the works are com-
pleted the amount of damage that might be occa-
sioned; they, therefore, recommend that power be
given to ascertain, after the completion of the
works, the amount f compensation that may be due.
" That while your committee consider the em-
bankment of the south side of the Thames forms a
necessary part of any complete scheme fer the ins-
provement of the river and the metropolis, yet is of
less urgent necessity than that of the northern side.

CHARGE OF CRUELT v AGINST A
SCHOOLMISTRESS.

Yesterday afternoon Mary Allen, a decent-
looking female, 40 years of age, described in the
charge-street as a schoolmistress, residing at No.
8, Parry-place, Gravel-lane, Southwark, was
brought before Mr. Maude, at the Southwark
Police-court, charged with cruelly assaulting and
ill-treating Caroline Lefevre, a child eight years of
age, entrusted to her care to bring up and instruct.
The court was densely, crowded, and soon after
the prisoner had been placed in the dock the child
was brought forward. A green shade covered her
eyes, and on that being removed the whole of the
upper part of the face exhibited ono mass of
bruises ; in fact, the eyes were so much inflamed
that the poor child could with difficulty distinguish
any object before her. She was examined by the
chief clerk as to the nature of an oath, which she
explained satisfactorily, but she appeared in such,.
terror of the prisoner that the magistrate ordered
the child to be removed to another room, while he
examined persons who could give him some
insight into the circumstances.

Thomas Williams said—l work at Messrs. Sad-
ler and Ross's, mustard manufacturers, Great Guild-
ford-street, Southwark. I reside near the place
where the prisoner has for some time lived. I know
her to be an old brute, as I have frequently heard
of her cruelty to this poor child. I have seen the
latter go out for beer with her eyes blackened, and
when I asked the child how it was caused she said
that she had fallen against a chair. This morning
I saw her again in a deplorable state, her face and
elbows bleeding, and I stopped her and asked her
how that had occurred. She commenced scream-
ing, and she told me she could not tell me as she
was afraid of the pris suer. I then took her to the
station-house, and showed her to the inspector, who
caused the prisoner to be apprehended.
Mr. Maude—Do you know anything of the
child ?

Witness—l understand she has a .stepmother,
who has placed her with the prisoner as a drudge,
and that the cruelty has been going on for several
months.

Mr. Maude—Has the poor child a father living ?
Witness—Yes, sir, and he is in court.
Mr. Maude—Let him come forward, then.

A hearty-looking man hare stepped forward, and
on being sworn, said—l am a labourer at Messrs.
Barclay's. Caroline Lefevre is my child, and she is
eight years of age. She lives with the prisoner,
who keeps a school.

Mr. Maude—How long has she lived with the
prisoner ?
Father—Between two and three years. She
sleeps there, and lives with her entirely.
Mr. Maude—How often have you seen the
child ?

Father—About twice a•month. The last time I
saw her, prior to this, was ten days ago. She never
made any complaints to me.
Mr. Maude—Have you seen the shocking state
the child is in to• day ?
Father—Yes, sir. I heard that the prisoner had
ill-used her yesterday, and this morning I went to
take her away, when I found her in the station-
house.

Mr. Maude—ls there any one in court who wit-
nessed any of the brutal assaults on this poor
child ?

Eliza Mole, a married woman, residing at No. 9,
next door to the prisoner—She keeps a school, and
has a great many children to take care of for the
neighbours. I know the child Caroline Lefevre,
and about 13 months ago I recollect being informed
that the prisoner ill-used her, but I was afraid to
say anything to the prisoner. I also heard the
child scream one day, and one of the neighbours
told me she had been a naughty girl.
Mr. Maude—Have you ever seen the prisoner
beat the child

Witness—Yes, sir, last Wednesday I saw her
beat the child about the head with a cane until the
nose bled, when the prisoner took her to the sink
in the court and washed her face. Yesterday morn-
ing I Was at my door, when I again saw the child.,
and her face and neck was in such a frightful state
that it nearly made me sick. I spoke to the neigh-
bour opposite about the child, and she told me she
had fallen against the bedstead in the night. I did
not believe her. I have heard noises in the pri-
soner's house at five and six in the morning—chairs
and tables falling about and screaming, us if a man
and his wife were quarrelling. I have mentioned
that to my neighbours.
Mr. Maude—Have you ever mentioned it to the
police ?
Witness—No, sir, I was afraid. I send a little
boy to her school but she never ill-used him.
Alice live near the prisoner, and have
seen her beat the child two or three times during
the last month. She used a cane for that purpose
iu a most unmerciful manner.
Prisoner—lt was not a whole cane. It was a
split cane that I used.
George James Elmore, a very intelligent
the court yesterday afternoon,
lad, said
iiladndblet
fromehdeinpgrisoner theashed the
I
face and
back
nw
of
s sawPt
he theihead,g c II
blood off at the sink, A little whilelprior to that
saw the prisoner beat the little •
with
over the heal
l wi
with a cane. She struck h • •
her the hook end its
hard as she could. (Sensation.)
, a young -
Elizabeth Lloyd, g woman living in the
next court, said---I have been told by my little

sister that the prisoner has cruelly beaten the
child, and I have seen her covered with bruises, but
she has been afraid to tell me how they came there.
Yesterday I went and informed the father.
Mr, Thomas Evans, surgeon, High-street, South-
wark, said—l was called to tl,►e police station to see
the child last evening. I stripped her, and found
her literally covered with wounds and bruises.
Mr. Maude—Can you form any judgment as to
how the bruises were caused ?
Dr. Evans--I think they were probably caused
by a cane. The wounds are dirty, and have been
neglected.
Mr. Maude—Are any of them of long standing
then ?

Dr. Evans—Yes. I should think some of the
wounds have been open ten days. (Sensation.) I
perceived such marks all over the body, besides,
the child's person has been generally neglected.
She is emaciated, and I think that she has been
deprived of sufficient nutritious food.
Mr. Maude (to the prisoner)—Have you any
questions to ask this gentleman ?
Prisoner—No, sir. She had her food with my-
self ; that's all.

Mr. Maude—Let the child be brought in now.
Stop, I'll ask the father a few questions. To the
father—Do you pay anything for the child's keep
and instruction ?

Father—No, sir. When I sent her to the pri-
soner it was as a kind of companion.
Mr. Maude—l understand from the witnesses
that you were told yesterday of the prisoner's vio-
lence towards your child. Why did you not act
then ? It was your duty.
Father—l left it all to my wife. I told her to
go and look after it, as I had to go to my work.
Mr. Maude—But it's your own child, and you
should not have left it to the mercy of such a
woman as the prisoner. You should have looked
after her yourself.

The poor child was here again brought into
court, and placed in the witness-box. She was
evidently afraid of the prisoner. She said the
marks on her elbows were caused by a fall. On
being partially stripped, her back and all theupper
part of her body exhibited one black mass •of
bruises, striking horror into the breasts of every
person in the court, the prisoner excepted. She
stood sullen, and looked down.
Mr. Maude (to the child)—l suppose you were
afraid of the prisoner, just now; were you not?
Child—Yes, sir.
Mr. Maude—Don't be afraid of her now. I'll
take care of you. Answer the question lam about
to put to you truly. How were those bruises dons r
Child—With a cane, sir; by the prisoner.
Mr. Maude—Did ever your father or stepmother
come to see you ?
Child—Yes, sometimes ; but I never told thou,
as I was afraid of my governess.
Mr. Maude—What meals do you have ?
Child—Sometimes I have sop, milk and broad,
and a little meat and potatoes.
Mr. Maude—Do you have as much as you can eat?
Child—Yes, sir ; as much as I wish.
Mr. Maude—Has the prisoner done anything to
heal your wounds ?
Child—Yes, sir; at dinner time she put ointment
on my eyes, head, and arms.
Mr. Maude—But you have very bad sores en
your elbows. How were they caused ?
Child—About a week age I was •playing wi
the mat, when she called out, " Leave that alone.
Because I did not do so as quick as she liked, she
took a hot flat-iron from the fire and put it on Mt
arms. (Murmurs and sensation.)
Mr. Maude (to Dr. Evans)—Have you examined
those wounds—what is your opinion of the= ?
Dr. Evans—l think they are burns. The poor
child has been Po grossly neglected that I can hardly
distinguish. On close examination—They Are
caused by burns.
Prisoner—That was done accidentally. She would
not let the mat alone.
Mr. Maude (to the child)—What was the prisoner
doing when she burnt you in that manner?
Child—She was ironing something, sir.
Mr. Maude (to the prisoner)--Have you
evidence to bring forward on your behalf ? Thiel
a very serious case, and unless you can show that
you did not cause these wounds and bruises on t""
child, I must send you to another tribunal.
et
Prisoner—l have no witnesses at present, sir, b
if you will adjourn the case I shall have time
consult my friends.
Mr. Maude—l shall certainly give you that .or,
portunity, as the charge may assume a very serlo
aspect towards you. Here is a poor child put ne, 4
your care to protect and instruct, and insteac!;',,
doing so you are charged with not only
it, but grossly and cruelly ill-using it. If trueL,
is one of the most brutal cases that ever came be
fore me. I shall remand you until. a future 06,r
au& at the same time I must remark that the PO
has not done his duty, and to prevent his 001'„co
mising the case I shall bind him over to poi—
the child.
The prisoner was then remanded. neglect' ft