which you have granted for the service of the present
year, and for the provision which you have made for the
defence of the country, both by sea and land. Her
Majesty will apply them with a due regard to economy,
and consistently with that spirit which has at all times
made our national security the chief object of her care.

"My Lords and Gentlemen,—Her Majesty commands
us to inform you that she continues to receive from her
allies the assurance of their unabated desire to cultivate
the most friendly relations with this country. It is with
deep interest and concern that her Majesty has viewed
the serious misunderstanding which has recently arisen
between Russia and the Ottoman Porte. The Emperor
of the French has united with her Majesty in earnest
endeavours to reconcile differences, the continuance of
which might involve Europe in war. Acting in concert
with her allies, and relying on the exertions of the
conference now assembled at Vienna, her Majesty has good
reason to hope that an honourable arrangement will
speedily be accomplished.

"Her Majesty rejoices in being able to announce to
you the termination of the war on the frontiers of the
settlement of the Cape of Good Hope, and she trusts that
the establishment of representative government in that
colony, may lead to the development of its resources, and
enable it to make provision for its future defence. We
are also commanded to congratulate you, that by the
united exertions of the naval and military forces of her
Majesty and of the East India Company, the war in
Burmah has been brought to an honourable and
successful issue. The objects of the war having been duly
attained, and due submission made by the Burmese
government, peace has been proclaimed.

"Her Majesty contemplates with grateful satisfaction
and thankfulness to Almighty God, the tranquillity
which prevails throughout her dominions; together with
that peaceful industry and obedience to the laws, which
ensure the welfare of all classes of her subjects. It is the
first desire of her Majesty to promote the advance of
every social improvement, and with the aid of your
wisdom, still further to extend the prosperity and
happiness of her people."

In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, July
27, Sir R. INGLIS drew the attention of the House to
the Strike of the Cabmen.—Mr. WALPOLE said that
the ground of complaint was, that the cabmen were not
allowed to charge back fares, as had been proposed in
committee; and he wished to know if the government
were prepared to amend the bill in that respect.—Mr.
FITZROY said he believed the charge of 6d. a mile to be
fair and just; but that he had received a communication
from the cab-drivers, stating that they had been greatly
injured by the abolition of back fares. It was impossible
to revert to the old system of back fares; but as
under the existing act cab-drivers were liable to be
imposed on, he proposed to provide by means of a bill or
a new clause, that when a cab was taken beyond a
certain radius, the driver should be entitled to some
additional fare—the amount of which was to be settled
by the house; also that the driver should not be
compelled to go beyond a distance of five miles.—In answer
to Mr. B. Denison, Mr. FITZROY said that he should be
happy to communicate with the cab-proprietors on the
subject, if he knew how to do so.

On Thursday, July 28, the house went into committee
on the South Sea Annuities Dissentients Bill.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved three resolutions,
the first of which was to provide out of the
consolidated fund for paying off such holders of South Sea
annuities, Bank annuities of 1726, and three per cent.
annuities of 1751, as should not have signified their
willingness to commute under the act of the present
session, c. 23. The second was to enable the South Sea
Company to commute certain shares, standing in the
names of the Chancery and Bankruptcy officials, and
others, and to convert them into other stock, under the
said act. And the third resolution was to enable the
South Sea Company to commute any part of the annuity,
or interest payable in respect of such further amount of
their capital, as might be authorised by parliament to be
invested as a guarantee-fund for the administration of
private trusts, should parliament authorise them to
undertake such administration.—Mr. DISRAELI
remarked upon the real importance of these apparently
limited resolutions, and stated that as the government
proposition with regard to the greater part of the funds
had failed, he objected to the introduction of new plans.
He also objected to the proposals as entrusting the
ministry with an unusual power; and he thought it
unwise, at the end of a session, to pitch up a scheme for
new speculation.—The first resolution was agreed to,
and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER announced
that, for the convenience of the committee, he would
not resume the discussion that night.

Sir De Lacy EVANS made inquiry into the Case of
Samuel James, a culprit who, at tile Middlesex Sessions
hurled a missile at the head of the Assistant-Judge, and
in consequence had his sentence of ten years' transportation
increased to fifteen.—Lord PALMERSTON defended
the propriety of the increased sentence, declaring that,
if our judges were not to be protected, we had better
abolish our entire judicial system, and let every man go
armed for his own defence against ruffianism. He would
not, as Home Secretary, remit a single day of the
sentence in question.

The Government of India Bill, as amended, came on
for consideration.—Sir J. PAKINGTON moved the
insertion of a clause for putting an end to the
manufacture of salt by the East India Company, from and
after the 1st of May, 1856, after which the manufacture
and sale of that article should be absolutely free. He
stated that it had become the duty of parliament to put
an end to this obnoxious monopoly, which prevented the
operation of the usual rules of supply and demand. The
Indian authorities were not to be trusted on the
subject, and the remedy must be afforded by the British
parliament. The company charged what they pleased
for salt, and imposed a uniform duty of 300 or 400 per
cent. The sterling price of the salt was £8.5s. per
English ton, which by various impositions rose to £25
per ton before it reached the consumer, and was then
adulterated at the rate of from 25 to 30 per cent., with
sand, dirt, and ashes. Salt, which was supplied in
Worcestershire at 10s. per ton, was charged 1,400 per
cent, at Calcutta, and the peasant bought it at 50 times
the English price. In England the average consumption
of salt was from 21 lb. to 55 lb. a year; in America,
27 lb.; in Russia, 23 lb.; in Austria, 20 lb.; in
Prussia, 18 lb,; in France and Belgium, 21 lb.; and
this was real salt; while in India, where the vegetable
diet of the natives made salt far more indispensable, the
consumption, even of this mixture of sand, dirt, and
ashes, was but 12 lb. It took two months of the
peasant's labour to purchase this. Sir J. Pakington
then went into painful details to show the sufferings of
the natives in consequence of this state of things. He
also showed how it interfered, with what might be the
prosperous fisheries of India. The committee of 1836,
of which the present Sir James Hogg had been a member,
had emphatically pronounced for the extinction of
the monopoly. Sir J. Pakington then said, there was
no intention on the part of the Company to relax it, but
they were straining every nerve to renew it. He hoped
he should not appeal in vain to the followers of Sir R.
Peel on the free-trade question. He would not treat
this as a question of money. The company was not
justified in the sight of God or man in retaining this
duty on the food of the people, and he demanded its repeal
in the name of the people of India.—Sir C. WOOD said,
that the hon. baronet had better have demanded it in
the name of the people of Droitwich, and remarked on
Sir J. Pakington's indignation against taxing the food
of the people of India, he having all along contended
for a tax on corn and other articles of food at home. Sir
John wished to have a monopoly on the part of the
manufacturers in this country—a monopoly with which
the present arrangement certainly interfered. There
had been a monopoly in India in former times; but the
recommendations of 1836 had been fairly carried out.
There was no monopoly of the sale of salt as far as the
consumer was concerned. There were five different
competing supplies of the article, all exposed to an equal
duty. There was no evidence to show that the people
of India complained of the want of salt. The salt sold
by the government was pure, the Bengal rather less so