had been strongly urged upon the attention to the fact that a great many invalids tion of the Government. A return would, were sent home from our army in India, doubtless, be obtained for expenditure very imperfectly provided for, after having under these heads in a diminution of served their country well in India. Many mortality, and in the increased efficiency might be seen about the country asking of the force kept up; but these were con- assistance, and some showing evidence of sequences which could only follow after good and faithful service. In some inthe lapse of a certain time, and after the stances they had received one or two expenditure had all been incurred. Al-years' pay; and they asked with good though on the score of humanity there reason why they were turned adrift after might be a considerable gain, he did not ten or twelve years' service? He referred think that for a considerable time to come to the case of John Orris, of the 75th, the House could safely calculate on much whose certificates of discharge stated that reduction of expenditure, consequent on he had served in India five years, had decreased mortality. He had for the last been engaged in putting down the rebeltwo years been sitting upon the Sani- lion, and was discharged in consequence tary Commission of which Lord Herbert of being wounded at Delhi; and yet he had been Chairman. He hoped that they would receive only 8d. a day for a few would produce the result of their labours months longer, though his character was in a very short time: when they did so, certified to have been very good. Certhe House would see that by proper means tainly, when India was increasing in great reduction could be caused in the wealth, something could be spared for death-rate of Europeans employed in those who had rendered such good serIndia; but, as he had already said, this vice there. could only be done at an increased expense.

SIR CHARLES WOOD said, the cases referred to by the hon. Member for WindMR. TORRENS thought the question sor had no connection with the subject of army reduction in India might safely before the House, nor, in point of fact, had be left in the hands of the Executive. they anything to do with the Indian army. But he wished to obtain from the right Whatever these men, who were both in hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India regiments of the line, might be entitled to some explanation of the circumstances was adjudicated to them by the Commisunder which, during the years 1858 and sioners at Chelsea under the pension and 1861 inclusive, upwards of 400 young gratuity regulations of the British army. officers were sent to join the army in The Indian finances contributed a certain Bengal, though the greater number of gross sum in respect of these soldiers, but the regiments they were to have com- with the distribution of it the Indian Gomanded had mutinied; the officers, more-vernment had nothing to do. Consequently, over, who had remained after the defec- these cases could not be brought forward tion of those troops being more than suf- as cases of grievance against the Indian ficient to command the remnant of the Government. The hon. Member for CarNative force. To Madras 88 young offi- rickfergus (Mr. Torrens) had asked him cers were sent during the same period, to state the number of young officers who though a reduction of the Native force had been sent out to India of late years. was contemplated; and 120 others were He could not at once give the numbers. despatched to Bombay. IIe could ima- It would be remembered that it was the gine nothing more miserable than the po- practice of the Court of Directors and the sition of a European officer in India with- Secretary of State to give nominations out any regular employment, and in his to young men who educated themselves opinion it almost amounted to cruelty to for the purpose of going into the Indian send out young officers without there service, and who took up their commisbeing duties on which to employ them. sions after a certain interval. When he The Government had stated that 190,000 assumed office three years ago, he immeMinie rifles had been set apart for the diately put a stop to that system, and army of India, which was a number far neither he nor any Member of his Council in excess of the European force there; had since given a single appointment. but he hoped to hear that none of these At the same time, while putting an end arms had been put into the hands of the to the practice altogether, he felt that he Native soldiers. could not, without a breach of faith toMAJOR PARKER desired to call atten- wards those young men to whom promises Lord Stanley

of commissions had been previously given, | Upon such a subject he must defer to take the extreme step of stopping their those persons who, with the best means nominations. In any army there must be of knowledge, had also the responsibility a constant succession of young officers, of governing the country. He never proand he did not believe there would be any posed to proceed upon the Report of the want of employment for the young men Commissioners, who were appointed for who had been sent out to India. He a different purpose, though he submitted must further observe that he and the that the opinion of eight or ten general Members of the Council had voluntarily officers, most of whom were acquainted given up their right of appointing to com- with India, was one entitled to considerable missions by nomination. He had to state, weight. Recently published despatches in reply to another question, that Enfield contained the estimates which at different rifles had not been placed in the hands of the times within the last few years had been Native troops. With respect to the Indian made by the best authorities in India. So revenue, it would be his duty before long recently as 1860 combined estimates of the to call attention to the financial state of Governments of India, of Madras and of India, and he thought it would be better Bombay made the gross aggregate of to defer till that occasion any observations troops to be maintained in India 92,000. which he might have to make upon the He thought this number excessive, and financial part of the question introduced after communicating with the military by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Members of his Council, with Lord Clyde, Buxton). Whatever might be the state of and other officers whose opinions on such Indian finance, it would always be our duty subjects were valuable, he wrote to India not to maintain in India one single soldier stating that he thought a smaller number more than was necessary. He would not would be sufficient, but, of course, leaving repeat what had already been so well said it to the authorities in that country to deon both sides of the House as to the ab- cide ultimately on the point. He was of solute necessity of maintaining an ade- opinion that the ultimate decision ought to quate force in India. It was nonsense to lie with them, because they were on the suppose, that because everything now ap- spot, they knew the danger, and were repeared to be quiet and smooth in India, sponsible for the Government of India. He no danger could possibly occur again. should be taking upon himself a responsiOne week before the recent mutiny broke bility from which he ventured to say the out there was no English resident in India boldest man in that House would shrink if who would not have said that such an event he discarded the opinion of the Indian Gowas impossible; and therefore to contend vernment on the important question of the that there was no danger in India now, number of troops to be maintained in because there was no outward and visible India. Well, so late as last May the opisign of it, was arguing against all ex- nion of the Indian Government was that perience. We must always be on our 73,000 was the number that ought to be guard. The real question, however, was, maintained in India. His hon. Friend had what might fairly be called an adequate spoken of the number of recruits that had force to be maintained in India with a been sent out. Every one acquainted with view to the safety of our dominions and military arrangements in India knew that the preservation of peace? It had been recruits were sent out at one period of the said that there were no arguments to sup. year only-in June and July. They arrived port their estimate of 80,000 men used in September and October; and when they in the Report of the Commission which arrived, the number of troops in India must, sat on the Indian army. He could not in order to maintain the requisite number understand by what arguments a matter on the average of the year, be a certain of this kind was to be settled one way percentage above that required for the or the other. It was a question of opi- year. The different authorities had now nion, and could be decided only by arrived at the conclusion that at least authority. He had a great respect for 71,000 troops must be maintained in the hon. Member for Maidstone, and on India as the average number throughout many points would be glad to be guided the year. After the arrival of the recruits by him; but he did not think the hon. the total number ought to be about 5 per Gentleman was more competent than cent above the average. In December others to say what was the precise force last year the total was only 74,419, which which ought to be maintained in India. was not quite 5 per cent above the ave

to refer, to condemn the Jews under accu- | that could be regarded as sufficient proof sation, without evidence or against evi- against the suspected persons could be disdence. I proceed shortly to state the facts covered by the local authorities, and in the of the case, of which it is one remarkable latter part of April, 1854, a Commission feature that the Council of the Empire, was sent from St. Petersburg to inquire more than seven years after the alleged into affair. At this tim Mr. nskoi offence, condemned the remaining prison- was Minister of the Interior, and Mr. Skriers, in opposition to the opinion of each of pitzine (who was known as having directed the tribunals by which the matter had pre- measures of persecution against some of viously been considered, and to that of the the Christian sects of Poland) was at the Ministry of Justice. head of the department of that Ministry known as the board of dissenting, or, as they are called in Russia, foreign religious bodies. Mr. Lanskoi, at the suggestion it is believed of Skripitizne, placed Mr. Durnowo at the head of the commission of inquiry. Durnowo, very soon after his arrival at Saratow, let it be understood that he believed the Jews to be guilty, and invited evidence against them. He threw into prison several persons, and among them a distiller named Jushkevitcher, who appears to have been almost the only Jew at Saratow above the rank of a common soldier. Durnowo's investigation lasted several months, during which he collected hundreds of sheets of extravagant and contradictory evidence, and displayed such a leaning against the Jews as to excite the disapprobation of Kovshernikow (then vice governor of the district of Saratow) and of the local authorities generally, both civil and military. The witnesses on whom Durnowo seems to have chiefly relied, were three persons who stated themselves to have been accomplices with the Jews in the mutilation, murder, and disposal of the bodies of the two boys-Bogdanow a soldier, Lokotkow a young imperial serf, and Krüger a subordinate civil functionary. In the course of the investigation each of these wituesses travelled through a whole series of self-contradictory statements which I cannot detain the House by particularizing but of which I will trouble it with a specimen or two. The principle witness, Bogdanow, began by charging as his accomplices two persons only, Jushkevitcher and another. Then he included in the charge a third and fourth, afterwards a fifth, and at last a sixth and seventh, one of whom was Schliffermann, the soldier who had been detained on the extraordinary evidence of identity to which I have already referred. As to the mode in which the death of the first boy had been caused, Bogdanow first stated that it was by loss of blood from a wound in the shoulder. A medical examination having

Saratow, as hon. Members may recol lect, is a town on the western bank of the Wolga, and is the principal place of one of the remotest and most easterly provinces of European Russia. At Saratow, in December, 1852, and January, 1853, two Christian boys of the age of about ten years, named Sherstobitow and Maslow, whom, to avoid repeating Russian names, I will refer to as the first and second boy, were missed. Nothing could be ascertained respecting them, except that a lad named Kanin stated that he had been with the second boy, when he was enticed away by a person looking like a workman on the barges. In March, 1853, the body of the second boy, and in April that of the first, were found on the ice of the Wolga, almost without covering. From this circumstance it might have been inferred that they had been murdered by some person in want, for the sake of their clothing. But from certain appearances supposed to be connected with Jewish religious ceremonies, suspicion was directed against about forty Jewish soldiers, who seem to have been almost the only Jews at Saratow. These soldiers were paraded before Kanin, who fixed upon one named Schliffermann, not as being the man, but as being like the man, who had enticed away Maslow. And as this was treated as proof of identity, it may be worth while to read to the House what has been furnished to me as an exact translation of Kanin's statement

"He is like the man who enticed away Maslow, only the other had a rough voice, as if he had a cold; and, besides, this one has not such a flat nose as he. Otherwise, he is like the other in stature and hair, but the other spoke good Russion, and this one has a lisp."

Now, this statement appears to me to be distinct evidence, not of identity, but of similarity coupled with non-identity. Yet, as I have said, it was treated as proof of identity; and this may be looked upon as a sample of the spirit in which the evidence generally was interpreted. Nothing, however,

So many indeed are the tales of each of these witnesses, that the report of the Senate of Moscow, to which I shall in a few moments refer, speaks of them as having at last, as it is translated to me, "fixed" or "settled down" upon one statement. It must, not however, be understood from this, that all the witnesses at last "settled down" upon one statement; but only that one statement was at last "settled down" upon by each witness, the final statement of each being, however, in important particulars both inconsistent with the final statements of others, and full of the wildest absurdities. These I must not detain the House by enumerating; but some few I may, perhaps, be permitted to mention. Bogdanow's statement, as relied on in the final sentence of the Council of the Empire, declared that he had caried the bodies of both boys from Jushkevitcher's dwelling to the Wolga. Lokotkow's statement, as cited in the same sentence, was that he had killed the second boy, and carried his body from the corn-warehouse to the Wolga, thus differing from Bogdanow, both as to the person by whom, and the place from which, the body of the murdered child had been carried to the river. Krüger accounted for his having been present at the murder of the second boy by saying that he (Krüger) had intended at the time to become a Jew himself, having been told by the soldier Schliffermann, that if he did, he should be made a rabbi. A woman, Gorochow (whose evidence is also relied on by the Council of State as corroborative of the guilt of the accused), stated that she had been told by Jushkevitcher's wife that both boys had been killed by being pierced in various parts of their bodies with a knife of a peculiar shape (the medical evidence, it will be remembered, showing that there was no wound of any importance); and, further, that Juskevitcher and Schliffermann had received for the murders six millions of roubles (or nine hundred thousand pounds sterling). This mass of extravagant and contradictory evidence having been brought at the beginning of 1854 before the military authorities at Saratow, and before Sir Francis Goldsmid

afterwards shown that there was no im- a local board called the Department of portant wound, certainly none that could Highways (which had jurisdiction in the have occasioned death, he said that al-matter), that board, in accordance with a though he had been present at the time of report of two officers of rauk, dated 30th the death, he did not know how it had been January, 1854, acquitted the accused, and caused, as he had lost consciousness at the declared the informers to be liars; and time, from horror, if I understand rightly, the military authorities seem to have senat the previous mutilation. tenced Bogdanow to corporal punishment for perjury. This decision was not satisfactory to the Ministry of the Interior. On the 6th of June, 1854, Mr. Lanskoi issued a second commission of inquiry, at the head of which he placed Mr. Guirs. To what result it was intended that this second commission should lead was soon made manifest. Almost simultaneously with its appointment, Kovshernikow, the vice governor of Saratow, who had disapproved of Durnowo's proceedings, was dismissed, and Durnowo was appointed to succeed him. Several other officers, civil and military, who had ventured to doubt the guilt of the accused, were also dismissed or removed to other stations; and thus the field was left free for the operations of the new commissioner and of the ex-commissioner, now appointed vice governor. And vigorous enough these operations were. The stick, and it would seem other and worse instruments, were used as auxiliaries in interrogating many of the numerous victims who had by this time been thrown into confinement; and indications of the result are to be found in several entries in the appendix to the Senate's report, of persons having "disappeared " and "suddenly died" in prison, which I understand to be Russian euphemisms for being tortured to death, or driven by suffering to suicide. After a long delay, of which no explanation has been furnished to me, the mass of evidence collected by Durnowo and Guirs was brought in 1858 before the Senate of Moscow; and notwithstanding the stringency of the means employed in obtaining it, was not thought to furnish sufficient grounds for condemning the accused. The Senate, on the 8th of June, 1858, decided that the prisoners were liable to suspicion of murder, but that their guilt was not clearly proved. The Senate accordingly recommended that they should be set at liberty. Against this decision Count Panin, then Minister of Justice, protested, not because he was of opinion that the evidence warranted a conviction, but because he thought that it did not even warrant suspicion, and that the accused ought to have been fully acquitted. In consequence of the difference between