rose to move, that the Bill be committed that day three months. He appealed to the Government (they having had an entire night for reflection) whether they intended to persevere in attempting to pass this Bill, and to inflict another gratuitous insult on the people of Ireland? He scarcely hoped to succeed, although he believed he ought to succeed, because the accounts received every day by the post more than corroborated what had already been stated respecting the peace and good order which existed in the country. Some said it was entirely owing to the operation of this Coercion Act. He did not believe it; but, if the Bill was to be passed on that ground, he wished to know when it was to cease? Because, if the want of peace and order was to be urged for its adoption one year, and the existence of peace and order urged for its continuance another, he presumed he must suppose it was intended to have a perpetual existence. The hon. Member for Montrose referred yesterday to a supposed compromise which the Irish Members had entered into with the Government to give no further opposition to the Bill. If there was any such compromise he was no party to it, but he was informed that there was none. The suspicion, he believed, had arisen from the circumstance of the Government determining not to support the Landlord and Tenant Bill; but it was quite unnecessary to have entered into a compromise with respect to that measure, for the Irish Members could have strangled it, if necessary.

said, he could support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman with perfect consistency, because he was one of the small number who opposed the Bill when originally introduced by Government. On the present occasion Her Majesty's Ministers had displayed a degree of taciturnity which argued the weakness of their cause. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the able and temperate address which he delivered when asking leave to introduce the measure in November, 1847, told the House distinctly and repeatedly, that he proposed the measure with great reluctance, but that his object was to lessen the evils which had grown out of the state of the relations between landlord and tenant, and that if the measure were passed, and the Lord Lieutenant armed with the extraordinary powers which it would give him, it should be followed by measures adapted to remove the cause out of which the evils which they all deplored originated. Looking back, however, to their legislation since 1847, he did not remember a single Act which had passed that House calculated to reach the seat of the evils which the right hon. Gentleman had admitted were the fruits of the existing state of the law of Ireland. Under these circumstances, could he, as an English Member, vote with any party in favour of the continuance of this (to use the word of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin) "insulting" Act? Was it not paraded in the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the Session that Her Majesty was received in Ireland with a burst of loyal feeling? Had the House not been told that there was a large and gratifying diminution of crime and outrage in that country? that the calendars, even in the troubled districts, were lighter than they had ever been known in the memory of man? Why, then, in these circumstances, should the House be called upon to continue this exceptional, not to say unconstitutional, measure for two years longer? The time was come, he thought, when they ought to allow the Act to expire, and when the House ought to show that they had some faith in the Irish people. The disaffection which gave rise to the Crime and Outrage Act did not now exist. The individuals who promoted it were not now in the country; and the press that fomented that disaffection was utterly extinguished, or if not extinguished, had greatly modified its tone. He should support the right hon. Gentleman in the Motion he had made, and he asked the Members for Ireland on this occasion to do their duty. He witnessed a state of things yesterday which was discreditable to the Irish Members. Out of 105 Members, thirty-three only were within the walls of that House; of this number eighteen voted for, and only fifteen against the measure—the whole number of Irish Members present being considerably less than one-third of the entire representation of that island, when a measure was under discussion affecting the enjoyment of constitutional government in that country. He called on Irish Members to do their duty on this occasion; it was not even now too late for them to do so; and he trusted that the House would not give its sanction to so wanton an outrage on the constitutional liberties of the people of Ireland as was contemplated by this Bill.

said, that ever since he had had a seat in that House he had taken a lively interest in the affairs of Ireland, and although he had on a former occasion resisted a Coercion Bill, he felt that he was acting quite as consistently as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down in giving his vote in favour of the Bill now proposed by Government. Although, however, he should support this measure, believing it to be necessary, he begged to say that he had never on any occasion been absent when he had had an opportunity of voting for a remedial measure for Ireland, and as long as he had a seat in that House he never would. It was said that the measure was unnecessary. He had no evidence that it was unnecessary. As far as he could judge from the public papers, public documents, and the declarations of public men, there was a frightful amount of outrage and crime in Ireland. [Cries of "No, no!"] He was glad to hear it, but he feared that what he had just said was only too true. [An Hon. MEMBER: Are there no murders in England?] There were murders in England; but they were of a different class. They were not committed in open day, with people standing by ready to shelter the murderer, as if he had done an act worthy of commendation. He regretted, however, that the Bill had been brought in at so late a period of the Session, when there was so little time for investigation and discussion respecting it. The Bill was printed only on the 6th of August, and this was the 9th, and many Irish Members were absent.

said, that of all the reasons that had been given for voting in favour of this measure, the strangest was that which had been stated by the hon. Member for Cockermouth. That hon. Member had said that he voted for it because it had not been proved to be unnecessary.

said, he had assigned the existence of crime and outrage as his reason for supporting the Bill.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had forgotten the admission of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and also of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, that crime and outrage did not at present exist in Ireland. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had taunted the Irish Members with not having done their duty on this question; but he begged to remind the hon. Member that when the Irish Members made their first stand against this measure, they had neither the voice nor the vote of the hon. Gentleman. With respect to the party with whom that hon. Member acted, he begged to thank them in the warmest terms for their support on this occasion; but he was bound to say that this was the first time, and that on every previous occasion when Irish rights had to be vindicated, and their wrongs resisted, that party had deserted them.

explained that he was ill in bed on the first occasion when this Bill was discussed, or he would have been but too happy to attend in his place to oppose the measure.

in reply to the taunt that the Irish Members showed no unanimity on questions deeply interesting to their country, instanced some English measures on which the same want of unanimity amongst the English Members was evinced, alluding more specifically to the Bill for improving Spitalfields, which they discussed on the previous day, and on which they found, not merely English Members differing, but even those who represented the metropolis, although the measure was purely metropolitan in its character. He must oppose this Bill, as totally uncalled for.

said, that the conduct of the hon. Member for Cockermouth was most extraordinary. When Coercion Bills were first brought under the notice of the reformed Parliament, the hon. Member was one of a small band of English Members who voted with the late Mr. O'Connell against them, although a much stronger case was made out for them then, than there had been on the present occasion; and now they had the hon. Member voting for the present measure, simply because he was ignorant that it was unnecessary. This was not a question of opinion, it was a question of fact. He called upon the supporters of the measure to show that the existing law was insufficient for the existing emergency. He admitted that there were murders in Ireland, just as there were murders in England; but he maintained that the existing law was as strong in the one country as it was in the other to reach the murderers. He admitted that in Ireland convictions could not always be obtained from jurors; but were there no cases of English juries refusing to convict a murderer, because they thought it a less crime to violate their oath than to assist in taking away human life? He should support the Amendment.

did not think the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was quite just towards the Irish Members, in attributing insincerity to them with reference to this measure. In point of fact, he thought that their opposition had been most strenuous and consistent. The Bill which came down from the Lords had to be laid aside in consequence of an informality. It became necessary, therefore, to move for leave to introduce another. That Motion met, with a strenuous opposition, and two debates took place upon it—rather an unusual course on such an occasion. There was another discussion and division on the second reading, and now the opposition was renewed on the Motion for leave to go into Committee. He must say he was surprised, therefore, to hear the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets charge the Irish Members with insincerity. The hon. Member, although it would appear that he had referred to the Parliamentary debate which took place when the Bill was originally introduced, had quite misconceived or forgotten the object of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that it had been introduced for the purpose of repressing the unfortunate political disturbances which occurred in Ireland two years ago; and he argued, that as there was now no political disaffection, as the Queen had been received with the warmest expressions of loyalty and attachment by the people of Ireland, and as the leaders of the insurrection were now far removed, the Act should be allowed to expire. But the fact was, that the Bill was antecedent to the political disturbances. It had no connexion with them, and had passed into a law long before they occurred. The hon. Gentleman ought to have known that the Bill was not introduced with reference to political disturbances at all, but with reference to a system of assassination which had attained a great height, and which was a disgrace to a civilised country. The ordinary law was quite sufficient to punish crime; but it was not, in the opinion of the Government, strong enough to prevent it. The Bill was not of a penal, but of a preventive character. Its object was to prevent the commission of crime. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal had also misconceived the object of the Bill. He had clearly confounded it with the Coercion Bill, as it was called, of 1832–33. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the difficulty of obtaining convictions for murder, and had said that a similar difficulty was not unknown in England, whereas the Act did not at all interfere with the ordinary forms of trial. The operation of the Bill was antecedent to the commission of crime—with the exception of cases where crime was rife in any district; but the cases of crime to which it referred were altogether different from the kind of murders which occurred in this country. They were cases of assassination in open day, similar to the one which occurred a few days ago—assassinations in broad daylight, before an assembled populace, without a hand being raised to arrest the murderer and bring him within the reach of the law. The Bill provided that the Lord Lieutenant should have power to send additional police into a disturbed district to perform the duties which were performed in this country by the population to a man, and to impose upon the district the expense of the additional police which was rendered necessary by the sympathy which existed with the criminal, but which might easily be avoided by their performing the duty which was morally and legally imposed upon them. No doubt the Bill suspended some rights. It empowered the Lord Lieutenant, for instance, to restrict the possession of arms, and to require that parties using them should have a licence. But it did not deserve the hard names which had been applied to it in these debates. He believed, indeed, that if this Act were hastily and inconsiderately removed, it would, in all probability, render necessary the introduction of another measure of still more stringent provisions than this. The hon. Member for Mayo was mistaken in supposing that the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, had said that crimes and outrages had entirely ceased in Ireland. They said no such thing. What were the facts on this point? He (Sir G. Grey) held in his hand a return which was moved for some weeks ago by the hon. Member for Kerry, showing the number of outrages reported by the constabulary in Ireland during the periods of six months ending respectively 30th of June, 1848, 31st of December, 1848, 30th of June, 1849, 31st of December, 1849, and 30th of June, 1850. He found that in the six months ending the 30th of June, 1848, the number of cases of homicide was 86; firing at the person, 37; and firing into dwellings, 65. In the last half year, namely, the half year ending the 30th of June, 1850, he found a gratifying decrease; but it would be seen that outrages were far from being totally extinct. The number of eases of homicide was 76; firing at the person, 27; and firing into dwellings, 24. In many countries this would be thought a frightful amount of crime. In these circumstances the Government had thought proper to propose the renewal of the Act for a limited period, to enable the Irish Executive to take the necessary precautions against the commission of crime. He trusted the House would, in accordance with the previous votes, intrust the Government for a limited period with the strong powers of this Act. The hon. Member for Cockermouth was quite correct in saying that this new Bill was printed only on the 6th of August; but it ought to be remembered that the preceding Bill came down to them from the Lords five weeks ago, and it was fixed for deliberation at a much earlier period, but it was prevented from coming on by the unexpected debates which arose respecting the claim of Baron Rothschild to take his seat. It could not be said, therefore, that the House had been taken by surprise.

said, the exact words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland were, "I have no statement to make of crimes and outrages."

said, that what he stated was, that he had no long list of outrages to read to the House. On the contrary, he was very glad to assure the House that the state of crime had greatly improved.

said, that the right hon. Baronet had told the House that crimes of the description which this mea sure was specially intended to put down had not entirely ceased in Ireland. Such was unhappily the fact; and they were not likely to cease entirely in that country while the system existed which was the great stimulus to crime. But the right hon. Gentleman had also stated that those crimes had materially diminished. The single argument which had been urged in favour of this Bill was this: Crimes of a certain description, and of an atrocious character, were very abundant in Ireland some three years ago; they had now very much diminished; this Act had been the efficient cause of the diminution, and therefore it should be continued until the outrages were entirely put down. Now, this argument involved a fallacy. If the Bill had been the efficient cause of checking crime and outrage in Ireland, how had it done so? There were two modes in which it might have operated—either by making the effect of its formidable powers evident at once, and staying the tide of crime while it was flowing full and fast, or by producing a continuous and gradual diminution, from year to year. Had it operated in either of these ways? He denied that it had. According to the returns on the table, it appeared that crime considerably increased, instead of diminished, in the year following the passing of the Act—not only crime generally, but the particular species of crime against which the Act was levelled. It increased upwards of 23 per cent after the passing of the Act. This put an end to the argument that the Bill had, by one great blow, arrested the progress of crime. Well, then, if the Bill had not immediately arrested crime, had it gradually done so? Nothing of the kind. They had first an increase, then a diminution, and again an increase. As, therefore, the theory of a gradual operation was as untenable as a sudden operation, he contended that they should fall back upon a common-sense view of the case, and leave Ireland to the regular operation of the laws and constitution of the country. With respect to remedial measures, he would not say that the Government had done nothing, hut he denied that they bad done enough. They had done something in passing the Incumbered Estates Bill; hut that was not a measure which reached the great mass of the peasantry. They had also done something to redeem the franchise from utter extinction; but it had not yet been put on the same level as it was in this country. On one thing, however, the Government had done, and were doing, great good to Ireland—he referred to the educational scheme in operation there. He believed that Irish education had done what English education had not done. It had thrown up a barrier against criminality; and he attributed this to the different spirit in which education in that country was conducted. He found that while, during the last ten years, in England the proportion of criminals who had been partially instructed had been gradually increasing, as compared with those who had received no education, in Ireland crime was almost totally among the uninstructed, and that crime among the instructed was diminishing instead of increasing, as in this country. But he believed that peace and quietude in Ireland could never he secured until measures of a more peaceful and mentally influential kind, such as he had referred to, were still further extended. No country would remain contented where the established religion was only that of a small minority—where the worship of one portion of the people was an insult and aggravation to the other, owing to its being supported from the resources of the great body of the public—and where the Church of the State, instead of being a monument of religion, was an unjust and oppressive institution.

said, he had already stated his reasons for supporting the Bill, and saw only additional reasons for adhering to that course in what had lately passed. The whole conduct of Her Majesty's Government during the present Session, with respect to Ireland, had been calculated to exasperate class against class, to inflame jealousies between landlords and tenants; so that the Bill was absolutely necessary to suppress a series of disturbances and outrages which would otherwise inevitably take place. Nothing could be more lamentable and discreditable than the conduct of Government with respect to a question compared to which all others fell into insignificance, and which was now convulsing Ireland from one end to another—that of landlord and tenant. In the face of the promises they had made in the Speech from the Throne, to introduce a Bill for the amendment of the law of landlord and tenant, they had not only withdrawn their own measure on that subject, but appealed to the hon. Member for Dublin University to withdraw that of which he had the charge. He thought the whole responsibility of defeating the efforts which had been made, and the wishes which were entertained on all sides, and by none more than the Irish landlords, for the improvement of the law on this subject, ought to be cast on the heads of the Government. By the whole proceedings of Her Majesty's Government, which terminated so disgracefully yesterday, they had shown that they preferred other and minor considerations to the settlement of a question in which the tranquillity and welfare of Ireland were so deeply interested.

said, he had no intention at any time of offering what was called a factious opposition to this Bill, but he should certainly vote for the Amendment. He called the attention of the Government to a course pursued by the Commissioners under the Incumbered Estates Act. There was a desire to sell estates "cleared," as they were called, and the Commissioners refused to recognise any one as tenant unless he were tenant under lease or indenture, and that had raised a great feeling in Ireland. He thought Government should intimate to the Commissioners that they should not pursue that course. To say that estates should be cleared for the purpose of fetching a higher price, was to proclaim a war against life in Ireland.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in quoting from the returns which he (Mr. O'Connell) had moved for, had made an omission which showed more of official dexterity than of statesmanlike ingenuousness. The right hon. Gentleman had omitted the offence of robbery of arms—an offence which, more than any other, afforded a correct test of the state of Ireland. From that return it appeared that in the first half year of 1848 the robberies of arms were 100; in the second half year, 137; in the first half year of 1849, 67; in the second half year, 46; and in the first half year of 1850 they were 51.

said, he felt as strong an objection as any one to this Bill. He believed that the Government themselves had produced the necessity for the measure, while throughout the Session, the only remedial measure passed had been the Franchise Bill, and that had nothing to do with the peace of the country. He had not opposed the introduction of the Bill, feeling that some such measure was necessary: but he would grant it for the shortest possible time. The all-absorbing question in Ireland was tenant-right; a sort of Parliament on that subject was now sitting in Dublin; and no doubt it would give rise to great agitation. He recommended the Government, instead of slandering the magistrates and abusing the landlords, to adopt just and conciliatory measures.

thought a Bill of this nature ought not to be brought in so late in the Session; the House had now spent two hours in discussing whether they should go into Committee or not. The manner of disposing of the public business had come to such a pass that it was absolutely necessary the whole system should be revised, or it would be impossible to get through the business of the country. He must protest against important Bills, with deceptive titles, being brought forward at a period when most Members were wearied with their labours. Since the period of the Reform Bill, he had never known a Session when there was a more anxious desire to transact the public business than in the present Session. On no occasion had they failed to make a House; the House had been rarely counted out; and, excepting the debate on the foreign policy, the speeches had been shorter and more to the point than usual. The sittings of the House had been more protracted; and he defied any man to sit continuously, as they were required to do by the Government, and to give proper attention to the business before them—to say nothing of domestic enjoyments. [The hon. Baronet was proceeding to state the number of hours the House had sat on each day in July, when]

intimated that the statement was out of order.

said, he was using it as an argument against important Bills like this being pressed at so late a period. He would take another opportunity of going into the statement to show the amount of time wasted, and the number of important Bills that had been abandoned. On the present question he should certainly vote for the Amendment.

said, he had no objection to the statement of the hon. Baronet, provided it were made in proper time.

considered that no just ground had been shown for continuing this measure. In asking for additional powers, the Government signed their own condemnation. He should have supposed they must, ere this, have been convinced of the inefficiency of Gagging Acts, Alien Bills, and other coercive measures. To deal with crimes without going into their causes, was most unstatesmanlike. It was incredible that a people like the Irish would commit such appalling murders as had been recently recorded, except they were suffering from the conviction of extreme wrong. One of these wrongs was the absence of manufactures in their country, which our policy, so called, had put an end to. The power of inflicting two years' imprisonment for the mere possession of arms was most monstrous. The Bill was a reproach to the Government, especially looking at the time and the circumstances under which it had been brought in.

did not think the time of the House had been wasted in the two hours' discussion of that morning, as the wrongs of the Irish people had been admitted on all sides, though they were traced to different causes. Government, instead of redressing those wrongs, sought to coerce the people; for such a course their responsibility was very great. Admitting the unsatisfactory nature of the relations between landlord and tenant, they had introduced a Bill, and kept it dangling before the people's eyes all the Session, and then withdrew it at the last moment. The consequence was, the breach between landlords and tenants was widened. Had Government pressed that Bill, instead of the Coercion Bill, there would have been much less waste of time. Nothing was to be done this Session for the redress of wrongs. He could not but feel anxious as to the conduct of the people of Ireland, between this period and the next Session. He hoped the tenantry would be firm, but moderate, in their demands; but should, unhappily, any violent measures be resorted to on either side, the blame would rest on the Government. He thought the present Bill wholly unnecessary. Ireland was perfectly tranquil, more tranquil than any one had a right to expect, seeing that all redress of wrongs had been uniformly refused.

could not but sympathise with the Government, under the attacks which they suffered from all sides, as to the principle of this measure. He hoped it would be a warning to them to cease governing Ireland by coercive measures.

thought that no case was made out for the continuance of this measure. He had supported it in the first instance as neeessary to restore peace and tranquillity; that object being effected, the necessity no longer existed.

suggested to the Government to yield to the reasonable proposition now made. The former Act was based on the existence of certain facts, which in his opinion formed some justification for the Government in introducing it. But no such facts were produced on the present occasion. For this reason he should support the Motion; but he hoped the Government would accede to the proposition, and would not press the House to pass it for a longer period than one year.

supported the Motion. He hoped the Government would see the propriety of not pressing the Bill on the people of Ireland beyond what was absolutely necessary.

said, that Ireland was now, generally speaking, free from agrarian outrages, and, therefore, there could be no pretence for demanding the continuance of the Bill beyond one year. If Ireland became more disturbed, the Government would then be able to come to that House with a good case to ask for a continuance of the measure for a longer period.

hoped some Member of the Government would attempt an answer to the arguments which had been used in favour of the proposition now made. The noble Lord at the head of the Government justified this measure on the ground that it would be inconvenient for the Irish Government not to have such a measure. Taking that to be the justification of the measure, the Bill ought not to be continued beyond the period which the necessity of the case demanded.

said, that the object of the measure was not to punish crime, as had been supposed, but to prevent crime. With regard to the time which it was to continue, it was possible that the condition of Ireland might so improve, that the Act would not be any longer necessary. So it might in three months. But the Government did not think it right that this subject should be made a matter of discussion next year, and they only proposed to continue the measure for the ordinary period that all similar Bills were passed.

was afraid that the object was to continue this Bill from year to year, in order that Parliament, in a fit of desperation, should pass a permanent Arms Act. He, for one, should never consent to such a proposal. If it was the object to suspend the liberties of the people of Ireland, let them do it by an annual measure. He should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo.

thought the grounds stated by the hon. Gentlemen the representatives from Ireland were such as ought to induce Her Majesty's Ministers to accede to the proposition of limiting the operation of the Bill to twelve months. He wished that the queries of the hon. Member for Montrose, relative to the returns of robberies of arms, with the localities in which they occurred, had been answered; and also it was important that they should know what increase had taken place in the number of constabulary, and the extra expense incurred thereby. He hoped Her Majesty's Ministers would not drive them to a division, but accede to the proposition of limiting the Bill to one year.

protested against the renewal of the Bill for any term whatever. He thought Her Majesty's Ministers would do better to bring to a fair termination the disputed points between landlord and tenant.

said, he was not then going to reply. The call upon Her Ma- jesty's Ministers had been unanimously made by the Irish liberal Members; but the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State did not think fit to give them any answer beyond the cut and dried one, that lie bad a duty to perform in resisting their application. He hoped a time would come—indeed, he doubted not it would—when, to the application of the Ministry to which the right hon. Baronet belonged, the Irish liberal Members would also respond that they had a public and a national duty to perform.

said, the Bill before the House was one for the discouragement of crime in Ireland; and that being the case, be considered that the continuance of the Bill for a period longer than twelve months would have a beneficial effect in discouraging and repressing crime, particularly the dreadful crime of murder. It was, indeed, desirable that the period for which it would be necessary might be short. What was desirable for Ireland, as for England and Scotland, was, that they should induce habits of order and obedience to the law; and having induced these habits and that obedience, they might then rely on the operation of the ordinary law for the prevention and punishment of ordinary crime. By limiting and shortening the duration of Bills, they withdrew the repression imposed upon crime, the consequence of which was that crime revived; and then, again, they were obliged to have recourse to extraordinary measures to repress it. He, therefore, thought that, if they wished the measure should not in reality be of lengthened duration, they had better now consent to its enactment for two years, as such a course would be wiser than applying again for a renewal. The hon. Member for Rochdale had alluded to the question of landlord and tenant, with a view to the intentions of Government in the next Session. He agreed with the hon. Member in the general principles laid down by him, that although they could not prevent dissensions and differences occurring between landlords and tenants by statutable enactments, it was yet desirable that any defects that might be found to exist should be removed; and that the tenant should have due remuneration for his improvements, as well as the landlord full security for his property. Her Majesty's Government proposed to introduce next Session a Bill for the settlement of the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland; and he earnestly hoped they would then be more successful than they had hitherto been in their attempts to deal with that question. But in reference to the Bill then before the House for the suppression of crime and outrage, and particularly the crime of murder, he thought it absolutely necessary the Bill should be continued; and he should consequently vote in accordance with that conviction.

thought the Government was bound to inquire into the causes that produced these murders referred to by the noble Lord, with a view to removing them. There appeared in the papers a few days since an account of some 600 persons having been ejected and thrown upon the world. If unfortunate creatures were treated in such a way, what was left them but to turn round like wild beasts on their destroyers? The murder of Mr. Pike was perpetrated in presence of an entire village; which showed how utterly gone the sympathy of the public was for the unfortunate victim. Penal and preventive laws would never answer; they should remove the causes.

said, he would move, on the third reading of the Bill, that its operation be confined to one year. He could assure the Government that no Coercion Bill would remedy Ireland, until the causes of her disaffection should be removed. The temporalities of the Irish Church, and the question of landlord and tenant, demanded settlement; and there would be neither peace nor quiet until they were settled—and indeed, in his opinion, there should not be. He believed the sufferings endured by the Irish people would justify them in resisting their oppressors to the death; and the peace and order that prevailed was not owing to Algerine or Coercion Acts, but to the high religious feeling of the people, as well as the lessons of patience inculcated by their revered clergy.

With regard to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin, he thought that the question of the time to which the Bill should be limited had already been sufficiently discussed.

said, that he was sorry to occupy the time of the House; but having taken a warm interest in the affairs of the Ionian Islands for many years, and having introduced the subject early in this Session, with the view of obtaining the fullest information on a subject which had attracted the attention of all Europe—he meant the proceedings of Sir Henry Ward as Commissioner of the Ionian Islands—he could not allow the Session to pass without making an effort to procure for the inhabitants that which they had so long desired. The melancholy situation in which they were now placed was much to be regretted by any man who looked back to the history of the Ionian Islands. He had had a former opportunity of alluding to this question, but the House having been counted out, the decision did not appear upon the Votes of the House, and it became necessary to renew this notice. The noble Lord the Member for Aylesbury was anxiously looking forward to finish the speech which he had begun, but he was confined to his bed and was unable to attend. He (Mr. Hume) was anxious that the hon. Secretary for the Colonies should have the opportunity of offering any answer he could give as to the proceedings of Sir Henry Ward, of which he complained; and he should be pleased if he could learn from the noble Lord at the head of the Government that he was willing to concur in the object of his Motion, which was to send out a Commission to the inhabitants of these islands, in order that the facts connected with their misgovernment might be brought to the ears of the Government at home; believing, as he did, that our Government had not been in possession of the real truth as to the state of these islands. In order to show that he had ground for that, and that the House ought to listen with attention to any thing that came from that quarter, he would only refer to the proclamation which had been alluded to on a former occasion. It was the proclamation of Her Majesty's Commissioner in the year 1813, for the government of the islands at that time when the Ionians put themselves under the protection of the British Government. General Campbell said—

"I am directed by the Prince Regent, to impress on the minds of the inhabitants the deep interest his Royal Highness feels in the prosperity of these islands, and recommend the adoption of such measures as may be best calculated to secure the general happiness of the Ionian islands, and support freedom and prosperity."

This was on the 30th of April. On the 24th of June following, General Campbell issued another proclamation stating that it was the desire of the British Government to afford every facility to their enjoying such a constitution as they had, and such improvements as might be made. General Campbell said that such had always been the rule of conduct held by the British Government, and great had been the sacrifices on all occasions made by Great Britain in maintaining the sanctity of her engagements. For six or eight years it had been his (Mr. Hume's) lot to complain of the conduct of Sir Thomas Maitland, who at that time possessed the constitutional power of the island, and he wished he had nothing more to complain of. He was sorry to say that since then the islands had fallen into the hands of worse men: but he would not enter into that further than to express his regret that those hopes which had been entertained by the islanders, and those promises which had been made by the British Government, had altogether failed; and they were now ruled by Sir Henry Ward, who called them semi-barbarians, not entitled to the free institutions which they claimed. The noble Lord at the head of the Government in one instance wrote a letter to them. They had applied for more liberal institutions, and difficulties were thrown in the way by Government. The noble Lord himself found it right to grant certain advantages to them, to enable them to carry on their improvements. In one sentence of the letter he argued freely against those who were unwilling to give the Ionian islanders this increased liberty which they wanted. The noble Lord said that it would not have been to the honour of this country to have occupied the Ionian Islands without having advanced the inhabitants to a better condition than that which they enjoyed before they were placed under the protection of this country. The islanders were in the hands of a clique who got round the Lord High Commissioner. Hence the discontent that had taken place. He regretted that the noble Lord was not better acquainted with the state of these islands. His object then was, and his object now was, to obtain from this Government the mission of two or three men able to make inquiries upon the spot, to see with their own eyes the grievances which the Ionians had suffered, and the remedies by which they should be relieved. He would now state the complaints he had to make against Sir Henry Ward; and he would not refer to any publications or statements but those which had been made by Sir Henry Ward himself. It appeared from the papers on the table, for which he (Mr. Hume) had moved early in the Session, that on the 29th of August last a most atrocious murder was committed in Cephalonia upon a member of an aristocratic family, possessed of large property, who had long resided there, but between whom and the people, he believed, no very good feeling existed. Two or three men had vowed his destruction, and they murdered him in his own house, which they burned down with all who were in it. That event excited considerable alarm, and the report arriving at Corfu, where the High Commissioner was, at 10 o'clock A.M., on Thursday, the 1st of August, at 11 o'clock A.M.,: according to the letters of Sir Henry Ward, he proclaimed martial law. Considerable alarm was immediately spread throughout the country, and it appeared from a letter, that what was called an outbreak was an assembly of a multitude, who, it was admitted, were brought together to obtain what they could from the attack, and therefore it was called an outbreak. In a despatch of the 7th of February, Sir Henry Ward said, that he had proclaimed martial law, he knowing nothing whatever of the subject. His (Mr. Hume's) complaint was that any man representing the British Government, and holding in his hands the liberties of British subjects, should not so lightly place himself in the situation of declaring military law. [The hon. Member then referred to one or two paragraphs in the despatch of Sir Henry Ward, from which it appeared that there was a gang of assassins, and that, instead of punishing these assassins, Sir Henry Ward had declared martial law, depriving every inhabitant of the protection of the civil law, and placing the island in a state of blockade.] Admiral Parker hastened down, surrounded the island, and kept the island in a state of siege. In one paragraph Sir Henry Ward had stated that in the measures which he had felt it his duty to take, he had used the power with which he was armed under the English Government, he being protector under the British Govern- ment. It was againt these powers that the inhabitants had long contended. Sir Henry Ward went on:—

"As Her Majesty's representative, I have the right to proclaim martial law—I have the entire disposal of Her Majesty's forces—I have a right to lay an embargo on shipping—I can order persons to leave the island, and take up their residence on other islands; and all these powers I have used."

He went on—

"I am perfectly aware I ran the risk of being denounced as a persecutor and a tyrant for taking these steps, but I had no choice. I had to deal with semi-barbarians, and I must treat them as such; they respect nothing but actual force."

So far from their being barbarians, judging from his experience of them in 1810, a period when he had spent some time in the Ionian Islands, he should say that for intelligence they exceeded the people of any of the Italian States. He had always regarded Sir Henry Ward as an excellent man and a good reformer, and he hailed his appointment to the post of the Lord High Commissioner as a prudent act. He expected that in his new capacity he would have acted up to those principles of freedom which he had advocated when in the House of Commons, and which had never had a warmer defender; but he had been grievously disappointed. The object of his present Motion, however, was not the removal of Sir Henry Ward; he was anxious, on the contrary, that an opportunity should be afforded him of meeting the charges brought against him. He, therefore, under these circumstances, complained of British protection, and he took Sir Henry Ward as a witness, and asked the House now to concur in his resolution to send out a commission which they had asked for from year to year. How could it be expected that Sir Henry Ward could report otherwise than in his own favour? It was very well known that when men were engaged in conflict with popular bodies, or even with each other, they were not to be taken to be the judges of what was right, and allowed to tell their own story; and on that account, looking at the sentiments of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, which he had before stated, he said that there was a great right to complain. He thought that the course taken by Sir Henry Ward showed a great want of judgment; and it was scarcely possible to calculate the injury that was done to the whole island by the mismanagement that had taken place. There were a number of persons, amounting to 68, tried by court- martial; out of those 44 were sentenced to death, of whom 21 were shot, and the sentences of the rest were commuted. The number of persons flogged in 1849 amounted to 80. These things had taken place, and were passed by as a matter of course. And he would tell the House that if such a violation of liberties and civil rights were allowed to take place at their extremities, it would soon come nearer home. He would beg to remark before concluding, that those were mistaken who fancied that on a former occasion he made any reflection on the conduct of the military; in looking for this commission he had no other object than that of discovering the truth.

seconded the Motion.

said, he could not regret that an opportunity was at length afforded him of offering a defence, and making a vindication, to the best of his power, on behalf of an hon. Friend, who, he believed, when the case was fairly stated, and the circumstances were known—when the papers before the House were not garbled, and the true nature of the outrage was exposed, would not be found open to the censure to which for months he had been exposed. For months his hon. Friend had been the object of attack and abuse for acts alien to his nature, and altogether foreign to his disposition; he was a man whose feelings were altogether opposed to violence and cruelty, and it would be found that he had not forgotten those principles of constitutional liberty, by adherence to which he won his reputation in that House, and would win like reputation in the Ionian Islands. He (Mr. Hawes) was not about to speak with indifference of the proclamation of martial law, and was quite aware of the fearful character of that proceeding, and of the great responsibilty resting upon any one who restored to that tremendous power for sustaining law and government; but he must protest against the matter being presented as if there was sympathy due only to those who suffered under that law, and as if we were not to regard the mischief, the misery, the anxiety, the robbery and plunder, to which innocent and industrious parties were exposed before that power was put in action. He should rely upon a plain statement of the facts, many of which had been altogether suppressed in discussion. Sir Henry Ward arrived in the Ionian Islands in the end of May, 1849. He found the islands in a state of considerable excitement, as would be easily understood when it was recollected how recently most stirring events in Europe had occurred, and which had been felt in many of the most distant colonies of the British empire. He found the finances in great disorder. He found a large and comprehensive scheme of reform prepared by his predecessor incomplete and immature. His first duty was sedulously to devote himself at once to relieving the islands from their financial difficulties, and, more than all, to complete the reforms entered upon by his predecessor. He was employed in this duty. In August the insurrection broke out. Was it owing to any act of his or of his Government? If not, he must not be blamed on account of it. Was there, then, an insurrection? Was it dangerous? Did it require the utmost powers of the Government to suppress it? And did Sir Henry Ward commit any act of which he, as the constitutional Governor, ought to be ashamed? The hon. Member for Montrose began with adverting to a despatch of September last, and he gave the House to understand that there had been a murder, which to be sure, he said, was atrocious. Four persons were murdered; the house was burnt; it was doubtful whether they were not burnt alive. It was, as the hon. Member said, undoubtedly an outrage; and for all that the House knew from his speech, the whole insurrection consisted in that outrage; and to arrest the parties to it the Lord High Commissioner resorted to martial law. But what was the account in the despatch written shortly afterwards? Here was one passage:—

"The insurrection has not yet spread beyond the district in which it commenced; but the most horrible atrocities have been committed by the peasantry, who have burnt the houses of ten or twelve of the resident proprietors—cut off the heads of two men who refused to join them, and the feet of Signor Rodoteo Metaxa, killed the pri- mates of Scala and another village, and driven back the constabulary everywhere upon the military posts."

Was that anything like the account the hon. Member gave of this insurrection? Did it, or not, convey to the House that there was a general and alarming excitement prevailing, that the most atrocious acts were committed, and that the mischief was spreading? The hon. Member for Montrose, while he referred simply to that outrage as comprising the whole of the insurrection, altogether omitted to refer to portions of the papers on the table which gave a vivid and alarming description of the state of matters at that time. Thus—

"The insurrection broke out by the attack upon the constabulary on the 27th and 28th of August, and the firing, on the same day, of the house of the Cavalier Metaxa at Scala, at whose murder, and that of four of his servants who were burnt with him, Vlacco and the priest Nodaro presided, while the whole population of Scala looked on with flendish exultation. Between the 28th and 31st of August the houses of seven other resident proprietors were burnt, murders of the most diabolical character were committed, property to an immense extent was destroyed, men were seized and imprisoned in order to enforce compliance with the most iniquitous demands, and, although the actual outrages were confined to the four districts which I have so often named, attempts were deliberately made to extend the system of terrorism throughout the country, every resident proprietor being informed that he and his family were to be the next victims. Many slept in the churches, others wandered for days and nights together, with their wives and children, in the woods, and, so general were the alarm and confusion thus created—so imminent was the danger that the example of Scala would be followed, and that the peasantry generally, fanaticised by the appeals made to their passions, and by the temptations of easy plunder, would join in the movement, that I am satisfied that within a week that island would have been a desert, had the Government shown the slightest symptom of vacillation, or failed in applying the promptest and most stringent remedy."

The hon. Member might sneer at that passage if he pleased; he might disregard it; he might say Sir Henry Ward was not to be believed: it was one of the remarkable features of our colonial discussions now, that any tale that was taken up against a British officer was believed, and the honour of a gentleman and an officer was thought altogether insufficient to be set against such a tale. But was it Sir Henry Ward alone who described this state of things? Let the House hear a passage in the pastoral letter of the Archbishop of Cephalonia:—

"Such monstrous, barbarous, and inhuman acts have terrified the entire population of this island, and disturbed the tranquillity of the peace- able inhabitants, and obliged the hon. Government to adopt measures to prevent their remaining unpunished, as well as to preserve the public tranquillity and security; and, being unexpected, have troubled the conscience of the Church."

Such was the state of things which burst upon Sir Henry Ward in August—a state of things for which he was not responsible, and which was justified by no act of his Government, and at the very time he was occupied day by day in considering the reforms so long desired and so often promised. Now, who were the leaders in this insurrectionary movement? There was the Papa Nodaro, whose last words, just before his death, were—

"We have been robbers, murderers, and everything that is horrible, and we justly deserve the punishment we are about to receive."

There was Vlacco, who said—

"It was not the Government or the English that destroyed him, but his countrymen; the village of Dargata sold him for gold."

These men had raised an excitement which they could not control, and Sir Henry Ward preferred his duty to the Crown and to the people he governed to courting popularity by shrinking from the responsibility he was bound to take upon himself. On the 30th of August, then, martial law was proclaimed, and the civil power was of course suspended; martial law was the suspension of all law. But who was responsible for its being brought into action? Not the Governor, who was bound to uphold order, but those who, taking up arms without just or sufficient cause, provoked it. Did the people of Cephalonia consider that Sir Henry Ward used undue severity, or exercised powers not called for by the occasion? What said the Senate?—

"That to his Excellency the Lord High Commissioner, Sir Henry George Ward, should be conveyed the full concurrence of the Senate in the provident and necessary measures so opportunely taken by his Excellency in the exercise of his high powers; as well as the gratitude of the Senate, for having restored to Cephalonia that peace which so long and so seriously has been disturbed, and re-established order over the whole island; and, for this signal benefit, that the distinct thanks of the Senate should be expressed to his Excellency."

Let it be granted that these were the opinions of men acting under the influence of Government, if the hon. Member pleased to say so. There was further proof yet. There was the address of 500 proprietors, merchants, and heads of families in the towns of Argostoli and Lixuri in Cephalonia, in which they said—

"They are not ignorant that the heart of your Excellency has been deeply pained, as would be that of every good citizen and Christian, in consequence of the examples of rigour to which a sad but dire necessity has obliged the Government to have recourse; but you have the consolation of thinking that these measures of rigour were carried out with such prudence, and that such was the promptness and ability of the gallant garrison charged with the execution of them, that they have been less oppressive than could have been looked for in circumstances so calamitous.

"Less certainly could not have been done to subdue a revolt, marked by acts of atrocity and blood unexampled in the history of the country, even in remote times."

Let the House bear in mind that this Address was presented while martial law was in operation. Again, he could appeal to the opinion of the Legislative Assembly, who, so far from having objected to these proceedings, has given the Lord High Commissioner their most entire support. They stated in their reply to the Address—

"The Legislative Assembly, therefore, feels that it is its duty to unite with the Senate, with the local Government, and great mass of the population of Cephalonia, in thanking your Excellency for the prompt and efficacious measures justly adopted to suppress an insurrection of which it trusts the Ionian Islands will present no other example.

"And the more willingly is this obligation fulfilled, for having, in the performance of its duty, examined the documents laid before it, and which will be published, the chamber is persuaded that amongst the sentences which from the necessity of prompt punishment were executed by the courts-martial, there was not one which had not been merited by the gravity of the crime or crimes for which it was applied.

"And these punishments, the injuries suffered, the rigour used, and all dire consequences, are but the natural results of the extraordinary measures which the extraordinary state of the country rendered indispensable; which the generous spirit of your Excellency has not ceased to deplore; which the Assembly equally deplores, and which it can only attribute to the infamous assassins and unworthy promoters of the disorders which have now ceased."

His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had complained of the embargo; but all he (Mr. Hawes) would say to that was, that every measure which would have the effect of putting down an insurrection marked with such atrocity ought to be taken, and was at once humane and wise. Talk of the atrocities committed by the courts-martial Why, let any one refer to the papers, and then he would be enabled to judge of the cruelty and atrocity of those engaged in the insurrection, and whose crimes the courts-martial were called on to punish. His hon. Friend had inferred that those persons, having been tried by courts-martial, had been probably subjected to a summary jurisdiction, in which a very rough measure of justice was meted out to them, and under which they had been deprived of the ordinary protection afferded by the forms of the civil courts of law. Let them listen to the statement of the Lord High Commissioner:—

"The total number of capital punishments inflicted in Cephalonia between the 26th of August and the proclamation of the amnesty, on the 26th of October, was twenty-one, in which are included Theodore Vlacco, the priest Nodaro, and the other leaders and sub-leaders of the conspiracy, who have taken part in every crime committed between the 26th of September, 1848, and the massacre of the Cavaliere Nicolo Metaxa with his four unoffending servants, in August, 1849, at Scala. But were these twenty-one criminals condemned without proper opportunities of defending themselves? I have directed a full report of the trial of Theodore Vlacco, to he laid before you; and I affirm here, in the face of Europe, that in every other case the same forms were observed and the same opportunities of defence afforded. Vlacco called no witnesses; but in some cases eight and ten witnesses for the defence were examined. Most of the trials lasted a whole day. Many were adjourned because the prisoner wished to produce further evidence. Each court was attended by a sworn interpreter, and presided over by an officer of known experience. As an additional precaution Dr. Rivelli, the Advocate Fiscal 'of Cephalonia, was present, by my directions, during the whole of the proceedings at Sisi and Gerasimo, and Dr. Tommasi at Scala, in order that the officers presiding might be enabled to consult them if necessary. Not a doubt has been raised by either of these gentlemen as to the perfect equity of the sentences passed. I have myself read the whole of the evidence in every case of capital punishment, as well as in those in which the sentence of death was commuted into imprisonment, with or without other penalties; and I can vouch not only for the earnest desire evinced to spare life where a reasonable ground for clemency could be found, but for the fact, that not one man suffered for the single offence of bearing arms against the Queen, or firing upon the Queen's troops, though these are acts which are dealt with as high treason by the laws of every civilised community. All were proved, upon the clearest evidence, to have been guilty of assassination, robberies of money, plate, or bonds, incendiarism, attacks upon female honour—crimes for which they might have been made amenable to the ordinary courts of justice had not the restoration of order depended upon the promptitude of their punishment."

So that the Lord High Commissioner, at all events, took ample means to secure to the accused an opportunity for making the fullest defence, although he did not for a moment doubt, any more than he (Mr. Hawes) doubted, but that justice would be done by Colonel Trollope and the gallant officers who acted on those occasions. Sir Henry Ward further stated—

"I will not trouble your Lordship with the details of the painful duties thus imposed upon me, I but I can assure you that in no one instance, except in the case of two of the murderers of Signor Metaxa and his four servants at Scala, whose instant execution I took it upon myself to authorise, without referring the proceedings to Argostoli, has a capital sentence been carried into effect without the most anxious consideration of the minutes of the court, both by myself and Colonel Trollope; and that out of the seven persons already executed, there is not one who has been condemned for the mere offence of carrying arms against the Crown, or for any other act that could be construed into simple political hostility. All have been convicted of crimes of the most heinous character: murders, rapes, robberies, houseburnings, threats to rip up women big with child, and to kill children, if their husbands and fathers refused to join the banditti, whose favourite plan of raising recruits seems to have been to strike terror into the hearts of the villagers. Every one of these men would have been just as amenable to justice in a criminal court as before a court-martial; but the effect of the example would have been lost by the delay that always, in this country, attends the administration of justice."

He (Mr. Hawes) complained of the hon. Member for Montrose, for having kept back these facts from the House, and for not having laid before them the real state of Cephalonia, which he could have done from the papers in his hand; and, in justice to his absent Friend, he was bound to have stated the whole of the matters which were so important in coming to a right conclusion as to the real merits of the case. Well, the insurrection was put down, and tranquillity was restored. What was then the course of Sir Henry Ward? Had he relaxed in the smallest degree his exertions to bring about those municipal reforms which he had been previously engaged in considering? Quite the contrary—he carried them out as strenuously as before. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had alluded to a despatch of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, written in 1839, in which were shadowed out the very reforms which had since been carried into effect by Sir Henry Ward, and had been put into practical operation. Great gratitude was certainly due to Lord Seaton, who had preceded Sir Henry Ward, and who had sketched out a plan of municipal reform of great importance; but it had been the good fortune of the present Lord High Commissioner to have carried out those plans, incomplete and immature when he arrived, and to give the people of the Ionian Islands the full advantages of free representation. He thought the hon. Member for Montrose, when bringing such charges against his absent Friend, was bound to tell the House, that Sir Henry Ward had not altogether neglected to advance those principles to which he had ever been attached; but that, on the contrary, he had steadily adhered to them, and had carried into practice large measures of useful reform, which must be ultimately a great means of improving the condition of the people. He (Mr. Hawes) must say, however, in future the time (if the Assembly must not be wasted, as it had been in the last Assembly, discussing idle and visionary notions of establishing a Greek empire, and subverting the British authority. He believed, indeed, that the people were beginning to see, more especially in Cephalonia, that those men whose bad counsels had for a short time influenced the late Assembly, were not their true friends, and that they were disposed to look for wiser and better objects on which to occupy their time in future. If one thing more than another could prevent the success of free institutions, it would be such violence and disorders as had already occurred. The great complaint of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose was, that the Ionian people had not received the full measure of reform which they were entitled to expect (under the rule of Great Britain. Now, he (Mr. Hawes) asserted that Her Majesty had granted to them a larger measure of reform than they could ever have elsewhere looked for. If they had not been under the British Crown, who would have granted them equal privileges? Where could they have obtained such rich markets for their produce? and where have found the same amount of capital? He would admit there had been delay in granting these reforms, and he, in common with most hon. Members, regretted they had not been granted earlier; but they now enjoyed free institutions to a greater extent than they could have expected from any other Power. He was very certain that, when the hon. Member for Montrose was in the Ionian Islands in 1810, not a man spoke to him of reforms which had since been carried into effect. He hoped the House would now let them set about to work out those reforms without stirring up and reviving angry passions and prejudices now almost forgotten. Would they make themselves the receptacle of every feeling of hostility to Great Britain, and give a ready ear to the stories of every Greek newspaper? As a proof of the spirit in which these stories were conceived, he would do no more than refer to the charge which had been made in the same quarters against British officers who had been accused of cruelly flogging 400 persons. Now, the whole number of persons flogged by sentence of courts-martial was seventy; and though papers had been laid on the table to prove that fact, the first statement had never been retracted, nor had the slightest attempt been made to correct the original gross exaggeration with respect to the punishment inflicted. The hon. Member for Montrose stated, in the course of his speech, that Sir Henry Ward had called the Ionians semi-barbarians. That was not the case. Those words were applied by the Lord High Commissioner to the perpetrators of outrages which every man must detest; and it was a libel on his right hon. Friend the Lord High Commissioner to say he had used those words towards the inhabitants generally. Every despatch he had sent disproved such an assertion; but it must be admitted they were justly applied to those who had been guilty of such atrocious outrages. He believed he had now touched all the charges preferred by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. No one regretted more than himself that martial law should have been found necessary. No one deplored more deeply the suffering which must have necessarily followed; but it was the bad men who had brought about those bad times to whom the consequences that had fallen on their countrymen were to be attributed, and not to a British governor, charged with the preservation of order and the maintenance of the authority of the Queen. Convinced that the House would do justice to Sir Henry Ward, notwithstanding the misrepresentations which had been put forth against him, not only in the English but in European newspapers; and, satisfied that he addressed those who would make every fair allowance for a British governor, who, surrounded by peculiar and painful circumstances, and by persons hostile to the British rule, had only acted in conformity with the feelings of all the legislative bodies and of the great mass of the people of the islands, and whose conduct had met with opposition from none of the authorities on the spot, but had received the general approbation of all, including the learned Judges of the Ionian Islands, he called on them to agree with him in saying that Sir Henry Ward was fully justified in availing himself of martial law, as the only means of restoring peace and tranquillity in the Ionian Islands.

was not in the least degree surprised at the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies. There seemed to be an esprit de corps which induced, and seemed in their minds to justify, gentlemen in office making off-hand defences of any transaction which might occur under the direction of a colonial governor. He had heard him make a statement like it, but more energetic, in defence of Lord Torrington's conduct in the Island of Ceylon; but he was glad to perceive that the experience which the hon. Gentleman derived from that case had somewhat moderated his tone. He (Mr. Bright) considered that the hon. Member for Montrose was perfectly justified in bringing this question before the House; for he could not comprehend what the House of Commons was worth at all, or what they were there for, if they were not to take under their consideration cases of this nature, whether occurring in the united kingdom, or in any other portion of the empire. It was a question of that moment and magnitude that the House of Commons and the Government ought to know the facts; and if they did not know them, they should inquire into them. There was no statement made by his hon. Friend in bringing forward this Motion that was not to be found in the despatches of Sir Henry Ward. He admitted that those despatches might be read in two or three ways. They appeared to contain a frank exposition of the extreme panic under which Sir Henry Ward was acting, and led one to the conclusion irresistibly that he was blundering on in the dark under exceeding fear. In part of the despatch a person was led to believe that the most imminent danger existed, and in the next paragraph it was admitted that the whole thing was grossly exaggerated, and, in point of fact, there was no political insurrection whatever. There was one thing, on opening the papers, which astonished him very much, but the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies did not refer to it, probably because the hon. Member for Montrose had not mentioned it. He perceived that the first letter from Sir Henry Ward was received at the Colonial Office on the 10th of September, and it was not answered until the 6th of October. Twenty-six days elapsed before the answer was sent, and in that time five other despatches were received from Sir Henry Ward at the Colonial Office. He would like to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in case he should make any observations after what he (Mr. Bright) was about to say, how it happened that the Colonial Secretary had in his possession for twenty-six days a despatch announcing what was called an outbreak in Cephalonia, and yet that he did not, during the whole of that time, make any reply to Sir Henry Ward? He knew very well the answer would be given, that the despatch of Sir Henry Ward contained information of so meagre a character that there was nothing distinctly to be answered—that it was necessary for the Colonial Secretary to learn more of the matter before he could express an opinion upon it; but, in a subsequent despatch, Sir Henry Ward admitted that, in the two first despatches sent to Earl Grey, he had afforded the whole of the information on which he suspended the constitution, and ordered martial law to be proclaimed over certain districts of that island. It appeared to him (Mr. Bright) that the office of Colonial Secretary was ill performed under those circumstances. He was not to place implicit confidence in every person he sent out to govern a colony. When he received a despatch from Sir Henry Ward, it was the duty of the Colonial Secretary to have written to him, and called his attention to the importance of the steps he had taken, and the necessity of being quite certain that the events warranted those steps; and the Government of this country should expect that he would not maintain martial law in the island one moment beyond the continuance of the danger which he supposed had existed, and which had made him proclaim martial law. If Earl Grey had written such a despatch—he did not mean in the way of rebuke, but that kind of friendly hint which a Secretary of State should send to a governor abroad—the consequence, in all probability, would be this, that when Sir Henry Ward received an answer of that kind he would look over the course he had taken, and see if there was a great necessity to continue martial law so long as he had continued it. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had stated several details of a most extraordinary character; and he (Mr. Bright) would not ask any man of ordinary capacity to do more than read the despatch of Sir Henry Ward, and how was it possible he could say that the course taken by Sir Henry Ward was justified by the circumstances, and was not discreditable to some extent—he did not wish to use that word, and would say the course taken by him was one which they must deplore he did take? It appeared that, about eight o'clock in the morning, Sir Henry Ward heard that an outbreak had taken place, but did not hear the particulars—whether 10, or 500, or 5,000 men were engaged in it. He sent at once a message to an obedient senate, and proclaimed martial law, and he allowed it to remain in force six weeks, though he admitted that in three days after he proclaimed it there was not a shadow of reason that it should continue. The only reason alleged was, that two villains were at large and not captured. He put an embargo on the trade of the island, thereby paralysing it, in order that those men should not escape. The measures he took with the view of capturing those men had subjected the whole population of the island to the rigours arising from the suspension of the constitution. He begged to call attention to the way in which he had proclaimed martial law. The proclamation said—

"Martial law is proclaimed throughout the districts of the island of Cephalonia, to which the late insurrectionary movement, marked by acts of such atrocity, extended, and to such other districts as it may have spread to."

He said martial law was proclaimed "throughout those districts," not mentioning the districts, or pointing out the districts to which it extended; for when he proclaimed martial law he had not a particle of information about it. What could be more vague or indefinite? He would ask any lawyer in the House whether in any country where constitutional government was preserved, martial law had been proclaimed in phraseology like that? It showed how vague were his ideas in taking this very severe step in regard to the circumstances that were occurring. To show how unfortunate were the proceedings, the officer employed to carry out the law could not speak Greek. He could not speak the language of the people amongst whom he was going to introduce the rigours of martial law. It appeared that the number of insurgents was not more than 300 or 400. That they were not all armed, and that most of them were armed with knives. Of course a knife was a weapon with which a man might commit murder; but it would appear that it was not that sort of movement for which it was necessary to proclaim martial law. It was said, that the hon. Member for Montrose expressed sym- pathy for those by whom crimes had been committed, and that he had no sympathy for the condition of the Governor. He (Mr. Bright) had every sympathy for the Governor; he was in a dreadful fright—he knew not what he was doing. He had great sympathy—as he had for every man in a panic. He had no sympathy for the two criminals, and he thought if they were caught, they deserved their fate. He had read the papers over with great attention; and he must say there could not be a more ridiculous or childish case for the proclamation of martial law, and maintaining it for six weeks; for calling into action ships of war and blockading the island, and destroying everything like security in ordinary transactions. Sir Henry Ward himself admitted that it arose out of what he called a local feud; and yet for a local riot martial law was proclaimed over the whole island, and remained in force for six weeks. To show how very insignificant the cause was, he stated himself that the movement broke out on the 28th of August, and in September, in three days, the people, he says, fell back dispirited, seeing they were engaged in a hopeless struggle. All the followers of the leaders fell away, and there was no proof, in fact, that more than forty-five persons were engaged in the movement—in another account the number was stated to be forty-two—and for that martial law was proclaimed. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies had failed to justify that proceeding. He denounced martial law, and they all denounced it. He spoke highly of Sir Henry Ward, and he (Mr. Bright) had always thought highly of him. His only fault was, that he was under a strong impulse. There was alarm first, and what succeeded to alarm generally—unnecessary cruelty. That was all he had to bring against him on this occasion; but he confessed the exaggerations in the pa-papers were of the most ludicrous kind. He heard, he said, that large masses of men were passing over the Black Mountain; but afterwards he said it was a gross exaggeration. There were found only to be forty-five men, who were reconnoitred by an officer, and if he had had assistance he could have captured them. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies said that a discussion of this nature was calculated to create ill-will. In the same way he was against a discussion on Ceylon, and against inquiry; but the hon. Member for Montrose had for two years pursued that inquiry, and at last developed such a state of things connected with the government of that island (cruelty amongst all the Government officers of the island) as had never before been exhibited in the House of Commons. [Mr. HAWES: That is utterly unfounded.] The hon. Gentleman said it was utterly unfounded; hut he was one of the individuals who had endeavoured to suppress the evidence. The hon. Gentleman said they would stir up ill-will in the island by bringing the case before the House of Commons; but nothing could tend more to render the people of the Ionian Islands satisfied with what was called the protectorate of England, than to perceive that the House of Commons took an interest in their affairs, and that when it was thought they were aggrieved, their case was brought before the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose asked that a Commission should proceed to the Ionian Islands, to ascertain the real truth of the case, and submit it to Parliament. His (Mr. Bright's) opinion was, that when events of so disastrous and deplorable a nature occurred as had taken place in Cephalonia, it was the duty of the Government (unless they had the clearest and most uncontrovertible facts before them) to make an inquiry for the satisfaction of the people of this country and of the colony. It was no use to attempt to screen the conduct of their officers abroad. If they did their duty, it was clear their character would be saved by inquiry, and in such case no person would be more ready to praise them; but if it appeared that they did not act wisely, and had violated the constitution, it was necessary for the contentment of the colonists, and the pacification of England, that an inquiry should be made, and their conduct exposed.

said, that the speech which the House had just heard from the hon. Member for Manchester called for a few remarks. That speech appeared to him to proceed, throughout, upon the assumption that Sir Henry Ward was grievously to blame for having suppressed the outrages which were being committed in the island of Cephalonia. What were the facts? A horrible murder had been committed: surely that was to be punished? A house, in which a family resided, was deliberately and wilfully set on fire; the house was surrounded by armed men, lives were lost; various bodies of insurgents appeared in arms in different parts of the country; and when those insurgents endangered the peace of the Ionian Islands, it was in the House of Commons treated as presumption that the Lord High Commissioner should take measures for preserving to Her Majesty the authority which she was entitled to support in those islands. What happened? The insurrection was quelled, the insurgents were pursued with success, and it was treated in that House as presumption in the Lord High Commissioner to have taken measures for its suppression. When they heard of peace and harmony having been restored, they found the hon. Member for Manchester getting up in his place and accusing Sir Henry Ward of being under the influence of panic, and implying that that panic amounted to cowardice. ["No, no!"] By implication he imputed cowardice, adding that the panic by which Sir Henry Ward had been affected, was followed by its natural consequence—extreme cruelty. Now, what were the proofs of this panic and of this cruelty? He sought for them in vain. Sir Henry Ward heard of an insurrection in Cephalonia, and he at once proceeded to the spot; he exposed himself personally to danger. Without incurring any blame whatever, he might have remained quietly at Corfu. He would ask them, was Sir Henry Ward's thus throwing himself into the midst of the danger a proof that he was struck by the panic which the hon. Member for Manchester supposed him to be suffering from? Upon that occasion Sir Henry Ward felt as men of sense and spirit usually do feel in such emergencies; he felt that that which begun with one murder might thereafter lead to a great sacrifice of life and property if measures for its immediate suppression were not instantly adopted and carried out. In pursuance of that principle, he endeavoured to put down the insurrection; and he trusted that no one who looked at the papers would say that those were any fancied dangers. Sir Henry Ward was himself in danger of being shot; and he rather apprehended that it was not the part of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in this country to censure a Governor or High Commissioner for putting down an insurrection, or for punishing murder. Was the Secretary for the Colonies to write him a despatch, saying, "What is the meaning of all this? You have been suppressing rebellion; what are you about? you pursue and punish great criminals." That was the sort of language which the hon. Member for Manchester seemed to think should be held; that was the sort of conduct for which he appeared to imagine that the head of the Colonial Office ought to administer a severe censure to the High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands. The hon. Member maintained that there had been great cruelty; but he was obliged to admit that those who were punished were the parties who were engaged in the insurrection. The hon. Member behind him contended that, at the most, the insurgents did not amount to much more than forty men, and that Her Majesty's troops were never opposed. Now, what was the evidence of Major King, an officer who was on the spot? Why, Major King states—

"Finally, in reply to the sixth assertion, namely, that Her Majesty's troops were never fired on or opposed, I beg permission briefly to state what occurred on the afternoon of the 31st of August last, on the disembarkation of my detachment at Catoleo, and march up to the village of Scala. On arriving off Catoleo, in the Ionian steamer, on the above afternoon, we saw the hills in that neighbourhood occupied by considerable parties of the country people, all in arms, and in the direction of Marcopulo, one body, consisting of some hundreds, with a banner, was assembled. Two or three shots from the steamer seemed to deter them from venturing into the low ground at Catoleo, I but large numbers were seen taking the line of hills in the direction of Scala. By four o'clock the detachment had disembarked, and commenced the march up to Scala, the advance led by Captain Boyd. He had proceeded little more than half a mile when a shot was fired (apparently directed at him) from the high and broken ground on the left. This appeared to be the signal for a general attack on the troops, as it was immediately followed by continuous discharges from behind the rocks, banks, and olive groves scattered along the heights on our left flank. The left of the advanced guard was consequently reinforced, and a strong support placed in rear of it, the skirmishers at the same time inclining to the left, in order to gain the high ground and turn the right flank of the insurgents. This movement gradually forced them back, and evidently disconcerted their preparations, as they seemed to be extended, under cover, along the heights, expecting the troops either to make a flank march under them, or attack them in parallel order. Whenever the ground, however, presented extraordinary difficulties in their favour, they still held it with some determination, and especially at one point directly under the Scala, where a very deep and narrow gully intervened between the troops and the hill on which that village is situated. The greatest part of the line was obliged to cross this gully; and such was the fire and opposition offered by the insurgents, who were behind walls, and in a thick olive grove on the steep ascent up to the village, that whilst the skirmishers were descending into and climbing up the further side of the gully, the supports on the opposite side were obliged to keep up a brisk fire over their heads, in order to keep under that of their opponents."

Were these knives—had the people who formed this insurrectionary movement no other arms than knives? The facts, as stated by Major King, were those which he had detailed; and further, he stated that wherever the ground permitted it the troops were fired on. Wherever they could be got into a narrow pass they were exposed to the violence of the insurgents, who frequently maintained against them a brisk fire; and, if further proof were required, he might cite the statements of other officers to the same effect: and yet, in the face of all this evidence, they were told that there had been no outbreak. Again, they were told that the measures taken by the Lord High Commissioner had interrupted the commerce of the Ionian Islands. But what were the opinions of those most interested in commercial matters—the merchants themselves? They were perfectly satisfied with what had been done by Sir Henry Ward. It might be all very well to talk of constitutional rights and liberties in the Ionian Islands, but those places were not like England and Scotland; and it was obvious that the principles of constitutional government could not be applied to those islands in all cases, as they might be in Great Britain; and then, as to the persons who had been punished, they were well known to have been engaged in those disturbances, and well known to be the greatest miscreants in existence. They had before that time been engaged in outrage, as was fully shown in the papers now in the hands of Members; and, looking at the whole circumstances of the case, if he could blame Sir Henry Ward for anything, it might perhaps be for the haste with which he had granted an amnesty. It was true that the Lord High Commissioner had proclaimed martial law—it was true that that state of things was allowed to continue for six weeks; but before the end of October the amnesty was issued. And he now came to the conclusion, which he did not see how it was possible to avoid coming to, that the policy of Sir Henry Ward was not to be blamed. The accounts before the House left this impression on his mind, that much bloodshed had been prevented and many lives saved by the decision which Sir Henry Ward manifested; and it was a matter almost certain, that if he had allowed the meditated attack to be carried into effect, disorder would have spread over the whole territory under his government; and he would have caused much more loss of life if he had shown less decision and energy. As to the general government of the Ionian Islands, the present Lord High Commissioner was worthily following in the footsteps of Lord Seaton. A large amount of freedom had been given to the people of those islands, liberal institutions had been conferred on them, and he was sorry to say that their representative body had not shown a very just appreciation of the advantages which they possessed. He was quite ready to admit that in the year 1839 he had expressed an opinion favourable to the establishment of free institutions, and of a free press in those islands; and he was sorry to see that, when they obtained those privileges, they found nothing better to do than forwarding an address to the Lord High Commissioner, containing a most violent attack upon him. Regard being had, then, to the whole of those occurrences, and upon the grounds which he had stated, he could not help opposing the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, that a Commission should be issued to inquire into the conduct of Sir Henry Ward—conduct which appeared to him fully to deserve the approbation of the House.

denied that the Members of that House who were disposed to support the Motion did in any respect sympathise with those who in the Ionian Islands were guilty of crime and outrage. It was said that the proclamation of martial law had become necessary in the Ionian Islands. Now, that was what he wanted to see proved. He would not go into the details of this question, but there was one point which affected the character both of Sir Henry Ward and of the Government, upon which some explanation was necessary. He (Lord D. Stuart) had supported Sir Henry Ward in some of the Motions he made when he was one of the Liberal representatives of the people, and he had learned with pain and sorrow of things done by him in his government which it was impossible to justify. He was informed that a proclamation had been issued by the Governor of the Ionian Islands during these troubles, in which he offered a reward for certain criminals to be brought to him dead or alive. Now, was it true or false that Sir Henry Ward had made such a proclamation? If it were not true, the Government would rejoice at having the opportunity of contradicting a statement so injurious to the Lord High Commissioner. But if it were true, he (Lord D. Stuart) stood there as a Member of Parliament to do his duty by recording his detestation of such an act. What! was a British Governor—the representative of the Queen of England—to have recourse to measures such as this? By such a proclamation, Sir Henry Ward had merited the epithet of "Dead-or-alive Ward," which he had heard applied to him. Such a proclamation was in direct violation of the principle of British law, that a man was to be considered innocent until he had been proved to be guilty. It was, in fact, prejudging the case, and, by declaring these persons to be guilty, to cause them to be put to death without any trial at all. Such a proclamation was more worthy of that detestable Government that ruled in Austria—of the policy of Metternich or the conduct of Haynau—than of the British Government, or of a man who had been formerly considered as one of the most distinguished Liberals in that House. He blushed for the commission of such an act. He said—Shame to the Governor who had issued such a proclamation, and shame to the Government at home that had not passed any reprehension upon the act. He should be told that the proclamation had not been acted upon. But that would not do. The Governor had issued it, and it was not his fault if persons had not been put to death under it without any trial at all. The Government might be able to resist the Motion; but unless a full and searching inquiry took place, the honour and credit of Sir Henry Ward, as well as that of the Government, would not be vindicated.

having been many years in these islands, attached to the staff of the late Governor, wished to remind the House that the Ionian Islands were not a colony, but were living under their own laws, and under a constitution very different from ours. It was under these laws of the island that Sir Henry Ward proclaimed martial law. He had submitted his acts to the Senate, and they were the only body he was responsible to. If the Senate of Corfu had complained of him, then Parliament might have taken cognisance of his conduct. But his conduct had not only been approved by the Senate of Corfu, but also by the local bodies and by the inhabitants of the islands generally. It was all very well to say that 900 troops were surely able to put down 400 insurgents; but those who spoke thus must be ignorant of the nature of the country, because the rocks, passes, and steep mountains, ren dered it impossible for a body of men to act. From his knowledge of the country he was satisfied that 900 men, or a much larger body, could not put down an insurrection if the whole people chose to rise. Again, it might not be generally recollected or known that a peculiarity of the Venetian law, which prevailed in these islands, would not admit any of the persons who were attacked to give evidence; so that a recourse to martial law was a matter of absolute necessity. It should also be recollected that there was a previous insurrection only the year before, and Vlacco was one of the leaders in both. What right had the House to send a commission to the Ionian Islands? Could they summon a single witness before them and compel his attendance? Then, the members of the commission must be able to speak modern Greek, which was a very different language from that which hon. Members learned at Oxford. Were they, then, to learn Greek before they went out? They must also learn the law and custom of the country relative to the division and tenure of land, which was at the bottom of the whole affair; and then they must get the authority of the Senate before they could examine these Greek witnesses. Unless these circumstances could be insured, no useful result could attend the commission. He thought Sir Henry Ward was wrong in going to Cephalonia after he had proclaimed martial law. It would have been much better if, instead of mixing up the civil and military authority in his own person, he had left the matter to the troops, and made the military commandant responsible. With regard to the condition of the population, he (Colonel Dunne) did not know a more happy or more wealthy peasantry. The taxes were light, and they were for the most part in a very comforable condition. What, then, were their grievances? They were a small State, and there was no vent or occupation for the better classes, who had only two professions which they could follow: they must become either doctors or advocates. The advance made by these islands in wealth and civilisation since he left the country was most remarkable. It was said there was a party in the islands desirous of annexation with Greece. He believed we should not suffer any inconvenience from giving up every island except Corfu. But the people of these islands knew that if they were made over to Greece, instead of having no taxes to pay, they would have to pay to make up the debt due from the kingdom of Greece. He was persuaded that if we offered to hand over the Ionian Islands to Greece, the inhabitants would appeal to us upon the treaty to protect them.

said, that having been only a few weeks since in the Ionian Islands, he was surprised to hear of the Motion of his hon. Friend, because from all he had heard in Corfu he was convinced it was not supported by public opinion, at least in that island. It was rather hard to call upon that House to judge harshly of the conduct of officials abroad, without knowing all the particular circumstances of the case. He had spoken to persons who were perfectly disinterested on the question, for they had no personal or political relationship with Sir Henry Ward, and he found that they entertained the highest opinion of the Governor in consequence of the manner in which he put down these disturbances. It should not be supposed that these disturbers of the public peace were persons who sought to vindicate the liberties of their country, but they were persons met together for the purpose of pillage, plunder, murder, and every crime of which human nature was capable. He hoped that House would show no sympathy for such persons, but would prove, by rejecting the Motion, that they had regard to the property, safety, and liberty of the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands. Sir Henry Ward had reduced the expenditure of the island 19,000l., and reduced his own salary 500l, He had acted in such a manner as might be expected from his former conduct in that House. He said not this from political or' private friendship, but from a desire to do justice to an absent man.

said, that although he was generally opposed to the views maintained by Sir Henry Ward whilst he was a Member of that House, he felt that he would be acting the part of a coward if he did not come forward and state that circumstances had come to his knowledge which seemed to him completely to justify the steps which had been taken. Sir Henry Ward had acted on open manly English principles, and he was only surprised that the attack upon him should have proceeded from those who were the former supporters and admirers of his views and opinions, at least on certain points, in that House. He believed that the hon. Member for Ashton-under- Line had correctly stated the feelings of the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands regarding the conduct of Sir Henry Ward. The Governor of the Ionian Islands had been subjected to the grossest misrepresentation in connexion with this matter. He had been held up as having gone over with the cruel intention of letting loose upon the people a rude and licentious soldiery, and as having introduced a new system of punishment—that of flogging—he had read most harrowing statements of from 300 to 400 persons having been subjected to the torture of the lash, and of great numbers having died under the infliction. Now, when a man was held up in his absence as capable of being guilty of atrocities like these, it became that House, acting upon a strong sense of justice, to take care that it not only did not sanction, but that it utterly repudiated such charges. In considering the circumstances that had occurred, they must remember that Sir Henry Ward was not administering English laws, and that he found himself fettered by the position in which he stood as a man bound to carry out the laws of the people among whom he was placed. It should be borne in mind that in no single instance had any one been punished as a political offender. The crimes which Sir Henry Ward punished were those which were dealt with as criminal offences in every civilised community in the world; and, unless it could be shown that he had it in his power to put down and punish those crimes, without resorting to the means which he employed, there was not the shadow of a case against him. So little did the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands look upon him as a tyrant, that they had testified in the most public way to the humane and merciful manner in which he had conducted himself throughout the whole of the unfortunate disturbances that had taken place.

thought, from the long experience they had had of Sir Henry Ward in that House, that they should be very slow in listening to the injurious statements which had been made against him. A good deal of stress had been laid upon the small number of people against whom Sir Henry Ward had to act, and on the circumstance that his troops suffered nothing from their firing; but these afforded no proof that they were not insurgents. A body of 400 insurgents in the mountains were very capable of keeping at bay even 4,000 of the best troops in Europe. Look at the case of the Russian troops in the Circassian mountains, where for twenty years they had been carrying on war, and where only a month ago they suffered a heavy defeat, and lost a great amount of artillery. Take the case also of General Mina in Spain. He commenced with only fifty men, but they in course of time increased to 14,000, and very seriously annoyed a French army of 40,000. A force of 400 insurgents in Cephalonia, therefore, might have become a very serious matter, and Sir Henry Ward was bound to take the strongest possible measures to put them down at once. The greatest mistake that could be committed in insurgent warfare was to delay operations. By neglect a small insurrection might become a terrible war. He could not, on a fair and impartial consideration of the case, vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. The whole of the particulars were not before them, and yet the hon. Gentleman prejudged the case. If they were to condemn every governor whose conduct was arraigned in that House, because his troops, when brought into contact with insurgents, had not suffered, the consequence would be that a governor would be apt to allow insurrection to make some head before he ventured to send troops for its suppression.

would have admitted there was force in what had been urged on the impropriety of attacking an absent man, if unhappily he had not been before them in the shape of his own statement. They had heard him, and they had not heard anybody else; in fact he had it all his own way. There had not been one allegation on the part of the hon. Member for Montrose that was not based solely and entirely on what had been laid before them as the evidence and declaration of the principal agent in these transactions. For instance, some doubt had appeared to be entertained as to whether a certain proclamation contained the words "dead or alive;" they had been mentioned in a way which had led himself to doubt, whether there was not something apocryphal or overstrained about the story. But at page 12 of the printed papers he found the words—"I have offered, on the part of the Government, 1,000 dollars for each of the two leaders, if brought in, living or dead." There, therefore, could be no longer any doubt upon that point. It had further been said that nothing had been done on political grounds; but at page 9 it was writ- ten—"I have no hesitation, therefore, at present, in expressing my belief that the political element has greatly preponderated in the disturbance that occurred." But the prisoners were tried for something else, though the political element was stated to "greatly preponderate" in what had occurred. [Mr. HAWES: No one was punished on account of politics.] That was exactly what he meant to note. The prisoners had committed political offences, and they were tried for something else. They were not tried for what they were declared to have committed; which was a pretty strong argument that they were tried for what they had not committed. The hon. Member for Montrose had asked the question—"What is martial law?" He (Colonel Thompson) had been trying for fifty years to find out what it was, and he was unable to answer. He knew there was a law to punish a soldier for making away with his necessaries, or for sleeping on his post or deserting, but where the law was which gave the power of punishing a man who formed no part of the Army, and putting prisoners to death, he was wholly at a loss to understand. Where was that law to be found, by which prisoners were put to death after they were captured? Who had seen it? Where was it to be read? Was it written anywhere? Could anybody point to it? It had often occurred to him to think, in fact he had been haunted with the idea, of what he should do if it fell to his own lot to be asked to take a part in what he was glad to have the opportunity of here denouncing as a sanguinary fraud. And as no man should undertake to say beforehand, how he would deport himself if called to martyrdom, so in this case he would leave the question to be settled when it came. After this, he trusted nobody would be surprised if he supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.

denied that the question before the House implied a vote of censure on Sir Henry Ward. The commission applied for was with a view to inquire into the origin and causes of these events, that the best means might be taken of hereafter avoiding them, and promoting the welfare of the people. He thought great injustice had been done his hon. Friends the Members for Montrose and Manchester by the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government. That noble Lord had represented them as shameless defenders of murderers and robbers. ["No, no!"] He had noted the noble Lord's words, which were, "The hon. Gentlemen seem to complain because murder was punished and insurrection put down." He asserted that every word uttered by his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester bore a totally opposite sense. Nothing could be more proper in a Member of that House, looking at the condition of those islands, and seeing what they had become since the advent of Sir Henry Ward, than to ask for an explanation; and so far from such a course causing discontent there, he believed it would have a most healing and salutary effect. Everything which had been said to-night impugning the proceedings of Sir Henry Ward had been said in conjunction with an expression of admiration for his previous character, and sorrow that he should have misconceived the course which he should have pursued. Every one must appreciate his past conduct, but that should not prevent them asking an inquiry with regard to the serious matters which had occurred, and which might occur again,

said, that it appeared that forty-four persons had been sentenced to death, of whom twenty-one had been executed under the orders of Sir Henry Ward, and that the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone, who had on a former occasion been the defender of Haynau, had ventured to defend the atrocious conduct of the Commissioner of the Ionian Islands.

denied that he had ever expressed his approval of the conduct of Marshal Haynau. This was the second time the hon. and learned Gentleman had made the assertion, and the second time that he (Lord C. Hamilton) had given it a distinct denial.

would state, without fear of contradiction, that when the atrocities committed by the Austrians in Hungary were represented in that House, the only Member who rose, not to express his indignation at those atrocities, but to be the apologist of them—whether committed by Marshal Haynau, or by any other instrument of Austrian tyranny, he cared not—was the noble Lord. And now what said the noble Lord? He said that the offences for which these persons were put to death were not political offences. In point of form the noble Lord was right; but who could doubt that the original motive of these offenders was political? One very important question remained to be considered—one on which they had no information, owing to the unfortunate silence of Her Majesty's Government—namely, from whom did this insurrection proceed? In what interest did the movement commence? He had reason to believe that the result of an inquiry would be to exculpate Sir Henry Ward altogether from that blame which many hon. Members now attached to him. It was true, at present, judging from such information as Her Majesty's Ministers had thought proper to lay before Parliament, grave suspicions rested upon that high functionary. He wished to relieve Sir Henry Ward from that suspicion, but that could only be done by the institution of a full and searching inquiry, and therefore he should support the Resolution.

said, that this particular Amendment had been carried in the House of Commons by a majority of seventy-seven to fifteen, and they ought to have very weighty reasons urged before they consented to reverse their former deliberate judgment. It would be most preposterous that a landowner should be permitted to exact the same sum for lands which were not at all entered upon, that it had been proposed to give for those lands, on the supposition that the lands would be occupied for the purposes of a railway. Fair compensation was all that landowners could justly demand. He moved as an Amendment that the House do disagree to the Lords' Amendment.

supported the Amendment. The Bill, as carried to the House of Lords, gave to landowners adequate compensation in respect of any lands which they might have agreed to sell to a railway company, which lands were not afterwards required in consequence of the railway being abandoned. The fact was that the Bill was merely brought in for the purpose of perpetuating the Railway Commission, by giving it an appearance of being employed. If this proviso were retained, not a railway company in the kingdom would avail itself of the Bill.

had himself opposed the proviso as most objectionable; but the question was whether the House would have the Bill with the proviso in it, or no Bill at all. If they were to put an end to the Railway Commission to-morrow, this measure would still be perfectly efficient, because the functions now performed by the Railway Commissioners would merely be transferred to the Board of Trade.

cordially concurred with the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment, assuming that his object was to get rid of the Bill. He considered the provisions of the measure harsh and unjust, and if the Bill was rejected no one would be injured, for the parties would then be in precisely the same situation as if no Bill had been proposed.

said, the proviso to which such strong objection was entertained, did not enforce anything, but merely prevented vested rights and interests from being defeated. He cared nothing for the Bill one way or the other; but if it was to pass, he wished that it would be accompanied with this proviso.

said, when the Bill came down from the other House, some leading persons connected with railways complained that there was no reason why any description of property should be exempt from liabilities to which all other kinds were liable. There was a reasonable ground of objection in this respect; but the question was whether they should take the Bill with this proviso added to it, or reject it altogether. His own opinion was, that they should take it as it was, rather than incur the risk of its loss. The House had rejected a great many Bills for abandoning specific lines of railway, which it was proposed to carry out, because this Bill was before Parliament; therefore he thought it might be attended with some injustice not to pass it. Several Gentlemen connected with railways in that House had said that they would rather not have the Bill than assent to this proviso; but he believed that there were several railway companies who would take advantage of this Bill as it stood. It should be remembered the adoption of this Bill by a railway company was altogether optional. It was supposed that the proviso might prejudice the case of railway companies in courts of justice with regard to the contracts in question: he had consulted the hon. and learned Attorney General, and had his clear opinion that this could not be so. He was, therefore, for assenting to the Lords' Amendment.

could not help asking, after what they had heard from the representatives of the great railway interest in that House, that with this proviso this Bill would be worse than useless, why it should be pressed forward by the Government?

was satisfied that it was a mistake to suppose that this proviso would be prejudicial to railway companies in courts of justice. It merely declared that railway companies should be able to avoid the liabilities they had incurred in making agreements for the purchase of land. He hoped the Bill would not pass without the proviso.

should much regret the loss of the Bill in consequence of the insertion of the proviso. He felt assured, if it was passed in its present form, it would be productive of much good, both in this country and Ireland. The amount of capital locked up in 59 lines was 2,792,000l., of which the Railway Commissioners reported that 1,000,000l. would never be applied. On these grounds he should vote for the Bill with the proviso.