commission had gone off, but with not more than £7000.
No successor had been or would be appointed at present.
Sir George repelled Mr. Horsman's sarcasms against the
prelates. They had done incalculable good, and had
themselves contributed liberally to objects of the
commission. There was, however, much room for improvement.
He then met Mr. Horsman's criticisms on the
committee, and defended its composition. He, as a
member of it, differed from the interpretation put upon
its opinion by Mr. Horsman, and read the words, which
will be found in their place in our report. He
contended that the committee did not recommend the
appointment of such commissioners, as described in Mr.
Horsman's motion, but a subdivision of labour, which the
bill already alluded to, and founded substantively upon
the opinion of the committee, had been intended to effect,
and to reduce the working number of the commission,
which he (Sir George) considered the great evil. A
bill for this purpose was already before the other house,
and he was not disposed to anticipate that house's
proceedings. Let the House of Commons wait and see
that bill, and not commit itself beforehand. Sir George
then severely reprobated a letter written by Mr. Horsman
to his constituents, upon the subject, accusing Sir George
Grey of gross dishonesty; but he said he would not
condescend to reply to statements Mr. Horsman had not
presumed to repeat in his (Sir George's) presence.—
The debate was continued by Mr. HUME, Mr. AGLIONBY,
and Mr. MANGLES, in support of the motion; and by
Sir R. INGLIS, in opposition to it. Finally, Mr.
HORSMAN withdrew the motion, stating that Sir G.
Grey had given him a good reason for his doing so.

Sir R. H. INGLIS, in moving for papers in reference
to Sir John Franklin's Expedition, said his object was
not only to obtain them, but to elicit from the house
an expression of sympathy in the objects referred to in
them, and to urge the government to take such further
measures as might be advisable in pursuing the search
for Sir John Franklin. He made several suggestions in
regard to the mode of prosecuting this search. A
conversation took place, in which Mr. ANSTEY, Sir F.
BARING, and Mr. WYLD took part, and the papers
were ordered.

On Wednesday the 6th, Mr. HAWES moved the re-
appointment of the select committee of last session on
the grievances complained of in Ceylon. In answer to
Mr. HUME, he explained that Guiana was left out of
the motion this year, because the committee had fully
reported upon that colony.—Mr. BAILLIE complained
that the governor and attorney-general of British Guiana
had accused him of making speeches, in reference to
the salary of officials there, for the sake of misleading
the house. He said he had obtained his information
from the under-secretary of the colonies, who must
have received his own from Guiana. He then adverted
to the Ceylon question. Government had, in the
opinion of Mr. Hume and of himself, insulted the late
Ceylon committee as never committee had been insulted
before. Government had promised every facility to
that committee for the examination of witnesses, and
then, when the committee, through its chairman, sent
a list of witnesses whom it considered absolutely essential
to send from Ceylon, Earl Grey announced that two
witnesses had already been ordered to England, and
that he should not recognise the right of the chairman
of a committee to dictate to the secretary of state as to
what witnesses should be summoned before it. But
(added Mr. Baillie), when these witnesses should be
examined, the proceedings of Marshal Haynau in
suppressing a bloody revolution in Hungary would seem
mild and legal compared to the acts of our officers in
Ceylon, where a harmless riot, without loss of life, was
all that had occurred. He read Captain Watson's
proclamation, asking whether it seemed directed against
mad dogs or human beings, and he narrated several
incidents of the executions in Ceylon, showed their
hasty and wanton character (many men having been put
to death by mistake, and others from erroneous identification),
and concluded by demanding that, if we had an
inquiry at all, it should be an impartial and not an ex
parte one.—Mr. HAWES denied the statements made by
Mr. Baillie, and described the case of the Ceylon grievances
as the result of a mean conspiracy in the island.
He affirmed that every facility had been given for a fair
inquiry, and that there had been no refusal of witnesses;
and concluded by saying that if the committee were re-
appointed, it should not be the fault of any one
connected with the government if this inquiry was not
prosecuted to its utmost legitimate extent.—Mr. HUME
commented with indignation on the unblushing effrontery
with which it had been asserted by Mr. Hawes that this
inquiry arose from "a mean conspiracy on the part of
certain individuals in Ceylon": had a "mean
conspiracy" brought, 5000 petitioners in one case and
39,000 in another, to ask that house for redress? He
had not the least confidence in the secretary of state for
the colonies; believing that every possible means would
be taken to cloak the atrocities committed, if the inquiry
were allowed to stand over another session. Up to this
hour the means taken had been to stop the course of
justice. He understood that letters had been sent to all
justices of the peace in Ceylon, requiring them not to
take any affidavits that were against the government,
but only such as were on the other side. He could
prove himself, that one honourable and distinguished
gentleman who had been named as a witness had been
threatened that if he ventured to go to England and
give evidence on a subject on which he was understood
to have expressed himself freely, charges would be
brought against himself. In a variety of cases intimidation
had been used; and he would also show that those
who had served the evil cause of despotism were
rewarded by office, and were now enjoying the fruits of
their acts.—Mr. DISRAELI accused Mr. Hawes of
having transposed all the documents he read, so as to
convey an impression opposite to the truth. He
proposed to add to the words of the motion an expression of
disapprobation of the conduct of ministers.—Lord John
RUSSELL repeated and supported the statements of Mr.
Hawes.—Sir James GRAHAM bore testimony to the
honourable character of Lord John Russell, and would
not believe that he would sanction any interference with
a due Parliamentary inquiry. He therefore opposed
Mr. Disraeli's amendment. The house divided on this
amendment, which was negatived by 140 to 68.—Mr.
HUME then moved that the witnesses required by the
committee should be sent for by that day's India mail:
his motion was rejected by 109 to 100.

On Monday 7th Lord Dudley STUART moved an
address for correspondence relating to the Affairs of
Hungary. This motion he supported at great length,
recapitulating the history of the Hungarian constitution
and national development; the history of the recent
unsuccessful war of independence, and the atrocities
commmitted in Hungary by Austrian officers. He rejoiced at
the check which had been given to the insolent claim
for the extradition of the Hungarian refugees; but he
did not think that our fleet in the Dardanelles had
obtained all that might have been obtained.—Lord
PALMERSTON said in reply, that the active interference
of the British Government had necessarily been
restrained within limits perhaps too narrow. Turkey had
fulfilled the convention with Russia, mutually to reduce
their forces in the Danubian Provinces to the amount of
10,000 each; and it was his conviction that Russia was
about to carry that convention into execution. He
explained how the Sultan had not imprisoned the
Hungarian refugees, but removed them from the frontier,
and placed them under surveillance. It was the wish
of her Majesty's government to give all the information
of these transactions which it might he consistent with
the public interests, and consistent with the courtesies
due between governments and countries, to afford; but
there were substantial reasons why it was not in his
power to accede to the motion in its original form. He
hoped that Lord D. Stuart would allow him to submit
to the house such portions of the papers as could be laid
upon the table without being injurious to the public
interests.—In the debate which succeeded, Lord
Dudley Stuart was supported by Mr. Anstey, Mr. Cockburn,
Sir De Lacy Evans, Mr. Monckton Milnes, and
Mr. Grattan; opposed by Lord Claude Hamilton and Mr
Disraeli.—Lord Dudley STUART having observed that
he was not satisfied with the power of Turkey to protect
the detained refugees, for Austria was unscrupulous,
and attempts had already been made (by persons with