rose to move, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. He did so, because no case had been made out for the continuance of this unconstitutional Act, and because he believed that, far from tranquillising Ireland, it would arm the people with a strong argument to be used against the Government, especially as there was no measure either now before the House or already passed, which went to the root of the grievances that this Bill was proposed to deal with. So far as the Bill depended upon the votes of Irish Members, he admitted it was carried, for on the last division, out of thirty-three Irish Members in the House, eighteen voted for the Bill, and only fifteen against it. If Irish Members would only join with his party in voting, for their common country such measures as circumstances required, more English Members would vote with the Members for Ireland on ameliorative measures for that country. But at no time, when his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose brought forward his measure for improving the representation, did more than seventeen Irish Members vote with him. He thought, however, it would be better if both sides would now bury in oblivion their mutual neglect, and unite for the future in supporting measures that would be for the benefit of both islands. When the late lamented statesman, Sir Robert Peel, determined to remove the corn laws, he, with a high sense of honour, resigned his appointment as Prime Minister, and advised Her Majesty to call to her counsels the noble Lord now at the head of the Government. But from some reasons the noble Lord was unable to form a Government, and he could assure the noble Lord it was a most fortunate circumstance he could not; for he (Mr. G. Thompson) had never heard the two individuals compared together without its being admitted on all hands that, in point of sagacity and decision, of wisdom to conceive, of firmness to carry out, and of Parliamentary elequence to expound his plans, public confidence was reposed, not in the noble Lord, but in the lamented statesman, whom the noble Lord, by an unnatural combination with his political enemies, drove from power, and, to the misfortune of the country, had ever since continued to hold office on sufferance. At that time there could be no doubt that in many parts of Ireland the people were in a disorganised state, and crime and outrage were alarmingly frequent. A Bill to repress such a state of things was brought in by Sir Robert Peel's Government, and passed the House of Lords without any objection. But when it was brought into this House, what was the conduct of noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury bench? If they were right then, they were clearly wrong now. If they were right now, then the annals of political strife in this country presented no parallel to the conduct pursued by the present Government with a view to unseat their political opponents and obtain power for themselves. When the Bill was brought forward for a first reading, the noble Lord and his friends stayed away, hoping that the then Government would be delivered into the hands of the Philistines—the Protection party, headed by the late Lord George Bentinck. On the second reading the compact between the Whigs and the Protection party was completed, and the Bill was opposed by every Member of the Cabinet and holder of office in the present House, and the then existing Government was overthrown. Now, if there was any Member on the Treasury bench who valued his character for consistency and integrity, he was bound to get up and explain how it was, that he thought a coercive measure unnecessary in 1846, and that a more severe measure was necessary in 1850. The reason why the Bill was opposed at that time was, that remedial measures ought to precede measures of coercion. When the noble Lord came into office he struggled on for sixteen months without attempting measures of coercion, but things got worse, and remedial measures the noble Lord had none. Indeed he (Mr. G. Thompson) would maintain that BO long as that incubus, the Church of Ireland, existed as an exclusive and dominant Church in the midst of seven millions of people who dissented from its doctrines, all other measures would be in vain. In 1847, the noble Lord was reduced to the abject and humiliating condition of proposing to the House substantially the same measure which he had rejected when brought in by the preceding Government. He admitted that the Government made Out a strong case, and with overwhelming majorities they obtained their measure, having distinctly promised that remedial measures should be almost immediately brought in. That measure was now about to expire, and the present Bill had been brought in to continue it. Had they made out a case for its continuance? He found by the returns that 618 outrages had been reported to have been committed during the last six months of 1849, and 726 during the first six months of 1850. But they were informed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, that the increase of outrages in 1845 over 1844, was 1,975. The number committed altogether in the year ending June, 1849, was 1,665; and in the year ending June, 1850, 1,452, being 213 less. Now, was this a case warranting the House of Commons to renew this Coercive Act? And he asked whether, if this had been the state of things in 1847, would the noble Lord have then proposed a coercive measure? or if there had been no coercive measure now in existence, whether he would now propose it? In either case he thought the noble Lord would frankly answer no; and if he would not do it under such circumstances, why did he propose it now? He did not mean to say that this measure, if passed, would be one of great practical oppression. He believed that the noble Lord who had charge of the interests of the country in Dublin, would not call the Act into operation without the clearest evidence that it was necessary; but he maintained that its existence would do no good, that it would tend to irritate the popular mind, and in that way to injure the cause of good government. While, therefore, he had no sympathy with those who were driven by poverty to commit crime; yet feeling the measure was unnecessary and exasperating, he would move that it be read a third time that day three months. He was as anxious as the Members of Her Majesty's Government were to see that country tranquillised; but as he could not see in this measure any tendency to produce that tranquillity, and as he thought it was an exasperating measure, and an insult to the country, he should resist it.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment had passed a strong invective on Irish Members and a warm eulogium on himself, and had contrasted the indifference and apathy of Irish Members with the activity and zeal and diligence of himself and his friends. But if Irish Members were indifferent to the reforms contemplated by the hon. Member for Montrose, he would remind the House that only three English Members had voted against the renewal of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. He received the support of the hon. Member, however, with gratitude, though it would be more welcome if accompanied with less of self-laudation. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

said, that twenty Irish Members had voted for the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose—not seventeen, as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had stated; and if as many English Members in proportion had voted for the Motion, it would have had a much stronger chance of being carried. He would oppose the Bill now before the House; but he must in common fairness say that this Bill was not the same as was proposed in 1846—it was the mildest coercive measure that had ever been proposed, and for that reason he believed it had been the most effective in its results.

said, he did not expect that one of the first votes he would be called upon to give on his re-entering the House would be against a Coercion Bill for Ireland. When the Coercion Bill was introduced in 1846, the noble Lord at the head of the Government stated that it was time that the policy of governing Ireland by standing armies and Coercion Bills should cease, and that a spirit of conciliation and remedial measures should be substituted. On that occasion the House supported the noble Lord, and threw out the Bill by a considerable majority. And now, at the end of four years, Ireland was left entirely as she was; nothing had been done to remedy her grievances, and she was still governed by standing armies and Coercive Acts. Still, if he thought a single murder would be prevented by the passing of this Act, he would be the last man to oppose it, degrading as it was to Ireland. But what did these crimes proceed from? It was the hand of the oppressed against the oppressor. They heard much of these crimes, but there were other crimes as atrocious of which they heard nothing. Look at the evictions which were so frequently taking place, by which hundreds of families were exposed to starvation: was that a condition of things that ought to exist? The noble Lord had the power, by making a proper relation between landlord and tenant, to stay the hand of the assassin, and stop the effusion of blood in Ireland. He had seen the condition of the serfs in the worst parts of Russia; he had seen the several tribes of the North American Indians; and he declared that the condition of the Irish, and the state of their dwellings, were worse than anything he had seen in either of these places. And yet in the United States of America, where all men were equal, and where parties flocked from all the nations of the earth to improve their condition, he found the Irish successfully competing with the English, the Scotch, the Germans, the French, and the Dutch. The only reason, then, why they were so wretched at home was misgovernment; and the noble Lord would be much better employed in removing that misgovernment, than in passing additional coercion laws, of which they had had too many already.

had voted with great reluctance for the introduction of the Bill, and for its continuance for one year. He was not now about to impeach the good taste or the good sense of Members who wished to make Irish landlords the victims of English misrule; the only harm he wished those Members was, that they had estates in Ireland, and were obliged to reside upon them. The crude, inapplicable, and vicious legislation of Parliament for that country compelled the people to make laws for themselves, which they scrupulously enforced, whilst they set many of the laws of Parliament at defiance. What Ireland required was commerce and manufactures to afford remunerative employment to the people, and a home market for its agricultural produce. It was the duty of statesmen to open up the sources of industry and beneficial employment for the people. "The good shepherd would lead his flock." Were the Government prepared with some great and comprehensive measure for placing remunerative employment within the reach of the Irish people? Were they prepared to do battle with the cotton millionaires and the merchant princes of England for a fair share of the commerce and manufactures of the united kingdom for Ireland? Were they prepared to contend against the tyranny of overwhelming capital? Ireland ought to be placed in a state of perfect civil, religious, political, commercial, and manufacturing equality with England. Let the Government charter for a limited term a company of cotton spinners and a company of woolstaplers for each of the three Irish provinces that had no manufactures deserving the name. Let a Royal dockyard be established for building ships for Her Majesty's Navy. Let Ireland have a fair number of representatives in that House. Let the anomaly of the Protestant Church Establishment be abated. With measures like these, the foundation of Ireland's prosperity would be laid, and there would he no need for Coercion Bills.

said, he wished to know whether the right hon. the Home Secretary did not contemplate the employment of a very large additional police force on the occasion, which would seriously augment the burdens of the people.

said, he believed the report to which the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln had referred, relative to a large increase of the metropolitan police force being contemplated, was altogether without foundation. He could only say that no application had been made to him upon the subject. Of course a considerable number of police would be necessary for the protection of the property in the Exhibition; but, as he had before stated, if an application were made by the parties promoting the Exhibition for the attendance of policemen to protect the property, such application would be granted upon the same terms on which similar requests were acceded to—that the expense should be borne by the parties making the application. That arrangement, however, would have no reference to any increase of police that might be rendered necessary in consequence of the influx of strangers generally into the metropolis, but he had no reason to suppose that the existing police force would not be amply sufficient.

wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control what provision had been made for the widow and adopted son of the late Pertaub Singh, Rajah of Sattara, now detained in exile at Benares, and the reasons for withholding from the legal heir the private property of which his late Highness was possessed at the time of his deposition, and which, according to the documents on the table of the House, it was guaranteed by the Governor of Bombay and by the political resident, Colonel Ovans, should be held at his disposal.

said, the question put to him by his hon. Friend was in a great degree answered by the paper to which he had alluded, that was to say, with reference to the provision the Government proposed to make for the widow and the adopted son of the late Pertaub Singh, Rajah of Sattara. His hon. Friend was aware that when Sir James Carnac first of all made a statement of the provision intended for the family of the ex-Rajah, the statement given to the deposed Rajah was that the widow should receive 800 rupees a month. When he died, that sum was offered to the ranee, the surviving widow, but she refused to receive it, stating it was inadequate. In consequence of the opinion so entertained by her, the home authorities communicated with the Indian authorities, and instructed them to make an addition to that sum, not only for the widow, but also for the adopted son; and, as his hon. Friend had now stated, the sum which had been fixed on for the maintenance of the surviving widow and adopted son was exactly three times the amount which was fixed on by the administration of Sir James Carnac, when he made his first arrangement. Whether that sum was sufficient or not, admitted of question; but no person could say that sufficient attention had not been paid to this subject, when exactly three times the amount of allowance which was originally proposed by Sir James Carnac had been fixed on for the maintenance of the surviving widow and the adopted son. Indeed it was not until the death of the ex-Rajah that the sum was said to be insufficient. His hon. Friend was mistaken when he had stated that there was no understanding with reference to this 12,000l., or that if the 12,000l. a year were allowed that it should be in full of all demands, for he held in his hand a copy of a letter which might be seen in the Parliamentary Papers of 1843, page 296—a letter from the Secretary of the Bombay Government to the Secretary of the Government in India, that is to say, from Sir James Carnac to the Earl of Auckland, in which these words occurred:—

"The Government deem it necessary to state that they have gone into the whole claim advanced by the ex-Rajah," that is, with reference to his private property, "and they think his claims should be declared inadmissible, except that which relates to private property which can be shown to have belonged to him. The 120,000 rupees, therefore, which are to be paid to him, that is, the 12,0001. a year, for himself and family, are to be paid in satisfaction of all demands whatsoever against the Sattara Government."

That was the letter written by the Secretary at Bombay, which would be seen, as he had stated, amongst the Parliamentary Papers, and which was communicated to the ex-Rajah. In fact, he knew that he was cognisant of it and of the whole arrangement that was made, not only with himself, but with all the other parties, for he happened at the time to hold the same place that he now did, and he remembered that the 12,000l., all things considered together, was thought to be adequate provision. With respect to the other part of the question, that there was a guarantee, he begged to tell him that there was no guarantee, none whatever, with respect to the private property of the Rajah. The only understanding that he ever heard of was, that whatever he could prove to be his private property he should have; and his hon. Friend must be quite aware of this, that the reigning Rajah, the brother who succeeded him, complained when he went to Benares that the ex-Rajah took away with him more than was his private property, both in jewels and in money. The claim was examined by the Secretary to the Bombay Government, and he as well as the Earl of Auckland declared the claim to he inadmissible. Having said thus much, he would inform his hon. Friend publicly, as he had already told him in private, that he thought this claim should be re-inquired into, and he had written to India, stating what his views were. It was probable that when that letter was received, it would be acted upon. His hon. Friend was aware that he did not agree with the Government of Bengal on this subject.

wished to ask the Foreign Secretary—1. Whether there was any objection to lay before Parliament copies of instructions to Mr. Hood, senior, Lord Howden, Captain Gore, Mr. Hood, junior, and Mr. Southern, some time agents in La Plata? 2. Whether our relations with France in La Plata were of such a nature as to afford any hope of a successful issue from the offer of our good offices made in the third article of the new convention? 3. Whether security to the lives and property of British subjects residing in the Banda Oriental had been guaranteed?

said, that the negotiations which had been going on for some time between the Government and General Rosas, having been concluded by a treaty, it would not of course be consistent with his public duty to present the copies of the various proposals which had been made from time to time, for the purpose of bringing about an arrangement, but which had not been successful in their results. Now, however, a treaty, and, as he thought, a satisfactory treaty, having been concluded—and if the House did not think it satisfactory they could discuss it next Session—he did not think it would be just or right to produce former proposals which had been unsuccessful. With regard to the second question, they thought it better for the interests of all parties that they should conclude a treaty on their own part with General Rosas and the Argentine republic, without waiting for the results of the negotiations with France. By adopting that course, they thought they should he in a better position, having settled their own particular question with General Rosas, to obtain a settlement of the entire dispute between all parties, than if they waited for the negotiations with the French Government. According to the last accounts, these negotiations were going on satisfactorily; and no person was more likely to obtain from General Rosas those small modifications which were required to terminate the dispute, than the officer who was sent out by the French Government to conduct the negotiations. With regard to the safety of British subjects, he had no apprehensions that the British subjects in Monte Video would be exposed to attacks of any kind. They had the guarantee which General Oribe gave them on a former occasion, and which he always considered to be binding upon him. He therefore saw no ground for apprehension to British subjects or British property when the foreign troops were disarmed and the Argentine troops returned from the territory of Monte Video.

rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to a return headed 'Public Bills," lately printed by order of the House. It was not his intention to enter into a review of the foreign or domestic policy of the Government; his only object was to call the attention of the House to what had been the conduct of public business during the present Session, and merely with the view of placing the subject before the House, in order that they might not in another Session of Parliament have their time so completely taken up as it had been this Session, and also that they might have what time was taken up better occupied than it had been during the present Session. He never knew any Session of Parliament since the passing of the Reform Act in which there had been a more anxious desire to transact and get through the business than during the present Session; and he had observed also that the debates had not been adjourned, with the exception of the foreign policy debate, lasting for four nights, and in which twenty-five Members spoke during thirty-eight hours. There had been only one adjourned debate during the whole Session, and with that exception the speeches in general had been more concise than hitherto. The House also had sat every Government night without being once counted out; and he would call attention to the number of hours they had devoted to public business, and he would instance some days in July. He would take the Mondays and Fridays in July, as they were Government nights. On the first Monday and Friday in July the House sat 19 hours; on the second Monday and Friday, 24 hours; on the third Monday and Friday, 22½ hours; and on the fourth Monday and Friday, 25 hours and 20 minutes. The total number of hours they had sat during the Session was 1,041; they had had 149 sittings; and they had sat now for 25 weeks, exclusive of the holidays; and, allowing 100 hours for the Wednesday sittings, for four days every week they had sat during the whole of that Session, ten hours and a half a-day. This was all totally independent of the Committees which sat in the mornings, and in the deliberations of which their constituents were often deeply interested. The House had frequently sat at twelve o'clock at noon, and having adjourned over an hour or two in the afternoon, they resumed again in the evening, and continued sitting till two and even three o'clock in the morning. Now the inference he drew from all this was, that it was impossible for men, however great might be their intellectual or their physical strength, to devote so many hours to the performance of their duty to their constituents, unless some better arrangement was made for the conduct of public business. He did not want to find fault with the Government in this matter; he know their position with regard to it was one of difficulty; but if they would consider the subject during the recess, and make suggestions when Parliament reassembled, or recommend the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into it, greater facilities would be afforded for the transaction of the business of the country, and great convenience rendered to Members of Parliament. They could not spend all their time within the walls of that House; they had all other duties out of the House to perform; but at present it was impossible for any Member to obtain time for despatching any private business, or for purposes of relaxation or enjoyment. He found that last year the House sat 932 hours, and the Government passed 89 Bills; and this year, up to the 9th of August, they had sat very much longer and only passed 58 Bills, and this notwithstanding the prevalence of a greater desire to get through with the business. He had moved for a return of the Bills brought in during the present Session, and he would allude to the document to show the progress that had been made with some of the Bills introduced, and the manner in which they were disposed of. He would show that it was utterly impossible to know when important Bills would come on, or the way in which they would he proceeded with. Ninety-five Bills had been brought in by the Government. He would take a few from the return. There was the Appointment to Offices Bill. It was brought in on the 9th of July, was read a second time on the 12th of July; the Committee was postponed five times, and now they did not hear anything of it. The Brick Duties Bill was brought in on the 18th of March, and passed without much opposition. The Charitable Trusts Bill was brought in on the 8th of February, the second reading was deferred eleven times, the Committee was deferred thirteen different times; the number of times it stood as amended to be considered was four times; the third reading was deferred five times; and thus a Bill brought in on February 8, lingered till the 25th of July. The Chief Justices Salaries Bill was brought in on the 11th March, was considered in Committee on the 25th, as amended to be considered it was deferred eleven times, and no more was heard of it until the 1st of August. The Duke of Cambridge's Annuity Bill was brought in on the 22nd of July, and run through the House; and one remarkable fact was, that where the Government had shown a strong desire and intention to carry any Bill, they invariably carried it; and when they had shown vacillation and indecision, the Bill had gone on from time to time, and various postponements took place, so that Bills introduced at the beginning of February lingered to the present month. Then there was another Bill placed on the table; and he mentioned this, and other instances, to show how much time had been taken up by the introduction of Bills that were never intended to he carried through; and then, having been introduced, indecision was shown about them, and after remaining among the Orders of the Day for an almost indefinite period, they were at length struck off. The Fees (Court of Chancery) Bill was brought in on the 25th April; the second reading was deferred three times, the consideration in Committee was deferred fourteen times; and the Bill, brought in on the 25th April, lingered to the 29th July, and then was withdrawn. Now, he said that, in such cases, it was better that the Government should not bring in his Bills at all, unless they really intended to persevere in carrying them through. The Highways Bill was brought in on the 13th February; the Committee was deferred no less than thirteen times, and the Bill lingered on to the 12th July, and then was withdrawn. The same thing was the case with the Incorporation of Boroughs Bill. The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill was brought in on the 18th of February, the second reading was deferred fifteen times, and a single word had not been heard about it since that time down to the 1st of August, up to which date the return was made. Again, there was the Lord Lieutenancy Abolition Bill, brought in by the noble Lord on the 17th of May, and read a second time on the 17th of June. It was almost unanimously agreed to by the House, only thirteen or fourteen Members opposing it, and yet three whole nights were taken up in discussing the measure, when the time might easily have been much more usefully occupied. Nevertheless, this Bill meeting with so little opposition, and which might have been carried, was withdrawn on the 4th July, and thus all the time the House had occupied was utterly wasted. The Marlborough House Bill was brought in on the 30th of July, and it was an instance of how a Bill could readily be passed by the Government when they showed a firm determination to persevere with it; for there was no doubt it would become law. The Mercantile Marine Bill was brought in on the 11th February, and the second reading was deferred five times; but without even being read a second time it was withdrawn on the 19th April, and another Bill was obliged to be introduced after all the discussion that had taken place on the first Bill. The Merchant Seamen's Bill was brought in on the 11th February, and the second reading was deferred no less than fifteen times, and Members might have come down fifteen different days expecting to discuss this Bill; but at last, after lingering from the 11th February, it was withdrawn on the 8th July. Then there was another Bill of nearly the same character—the Merchants' Shipping Bill—brought in on the same day as the preceding measure, but withdrawn on the 19th April. The next Bill was one that showed again how the Government could pass a measure through whenever they were determined. He alluded to the Metropolitan Interments Bill, with which the Government having determined that nothing should interfere, it was of course passed. Then came the Oath of Abjuration (Jews) Bill, about which he would say little, because the subject had been so recently debated; but this Bill was brought in on the 30th of May; the second reading was deferred four times; and (as the House would have a full recollection) on the 22nd of July it was withdrawn. Then the Parochial Assessment Bill was brought in on the 8th of April, it never went to a second reading, but remained on the Order table for three months. The Public Health (Scotland) Bill was brought in on the 6th of March, it was read a second time on the 12th of April; the Committee was deferred five times, and ultimately the Bill was withdrawn. The Railway Audit Bill was a case of precisely the same nature. Then came the Savings Banks Bill, which was brought in on the 29th April, it stood eleven times for a second reading, and no notice whatever had been taken of it up to the 1st of August. The Stamp Duties Bill was another remarkable case. It was brought in on the 22nd March, and lingered on to the 10th May, when it was put off for six months. Now, here was a Bill of really very great importance—he meant the Woods and Forests Bill. A Committee sat two years on the subject; and if ever a measure ought to be brought under the consideration of that House to correct the abuses of a department of the State, it was this Bill for the better management of the Woods and Forests. It was introduced by the noble Lord on the 22nd February, its second reading was deferred fifteen times, and it lingered from the 22nd February till the 4th July, when it was abandoned for the Session. Now what was the summary of the Bills they had passed in the present Session—the most laborious Session, he ventured to say, that was ever known in this country? The returns made up to the 1st of August showed that they had passed the Australian Colonies Bill, which was introduced on the 11th of February; also the Brick Duties Bill, which was unopposed; the Charitable Trusts Bill; the Mercantile Marine Bill (which was brought in on the 11th February, and lin- gered till the 29th July); the Metropolitan Interments Bill, and the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Bill. But he must allude to another measure which furnished a further proof of how the Government could pass a measure when they showed their determination to do so. He meant the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill, which came down from the House of Lords; and although it encountered considerable opposition in that House, yet, owing to the spirit of perseverance evinced by the Government, they had succeeded in carrying their measure through. Now, the course that he hoped the House would take was this—really to consider the serious evils which they suffered from this mode of conducting the public business; and he hoped the Government, as he might say the managers of public business, would devise some arrangement that would afford relief to themselves as well as to the independent Members of the House. He believed that fifty-eight measures this Session had been introduced by private Members, and up to the 1st August eighteen of them had passed, or only about one-third of the whole. Now, as he had said before, one of the great evils of this system was that the House hardly ever knew what business was likely to come on at any particular time, and Members came down and were obliged to wait night after night and hour after hour in a state of uncertainty as to what questions were to be taken, especially on Government nights; for on other nights private Members had no right to take the notices out of their regular order on the paper. Having made these remarks, he would repeat that he believed the number of Bills of a really useful nature which they had passed this Session would make a very bad show for the number of hours they had been occupied with legislation. He believed, indeed, that when Parliament came to prorogue, they would have sat more hours and have done less in the present Session than during any Session preceding. He had avoided going into the question of the general policy of the Government, domestic or foreign; his only desire being to bring in review before the House the made in which its time had been occupied, with the view, if possible, of leading to some practical amendment in the system of conducting the business of the country.

said, that the hon. Baronet had entirely confined himself to the mode of conducting public business, and had not entered into the question of the policy of different measures; but at the same time he (Lord J. Russell) could not say he agreed with the hon. Baronet in the general tenour of the remarks he had made to the House. It appeared to him that the House had really conducted an amount of public business such as he believed no assembly in the world had ever conducted before, and, whatever might have been the case in one or two Sessions, the present Session certainly afforded an example of great attention to public business, and of but few departures from the general understanding to facilitate the passage of useful Bills as speedily as possible. It should not have been forgotten that a portion of the Session had been occupied with a question on which the House had gone over the whole foreign policy of Government, and it was obvious that the principal speakers could not dispose of so important a subject without going into it at considerable length. The hon. Baronet had said, much to his (Lord J. Russell's) surprise, that hon. Members were not aware of the precise business to be brought forward, especially on Government nights. Now, that certainly might have been the case some years ago, for then, when there were twenty or thirty notices on the paper, the Minister might have brought any of them forward without notice; but that was no longer the case. He (Lord J. Russell) had been the first to alter that custom, and he had introduced the practice of giving notice and of printing in the Votes with the Orders of the Day those Bills, naming two or three especially which were likely to occupy the greater part of the time of the House, to be brought in before the other orders. The Government, not confining themselves to that notice, had made a still further regulation, by which the Orders of the Day were taken on Government nights in the order in which they stood upon the paper—a regulation which was of some inconvenience to the Government, but of obvious advantage to the House. The hon. Baronet had also omitted to state that in the course of the Session the Government must occupy a very large number of nights in the discussion of the Estimates. They had the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, and the Ordnance Estimates to consider, and then came the Miscellaneous Estimates, which were pretty certain, every time they came before the House, to give rise to some very miscellaneous debates. These must take up a considerable part of the Session, and when he observed that in the course of a month Government had only ten nights, it was obvious that more than one month on the part of Government was taken up by the Estimates, which must be brought forward, as the supplies depended upon them. Whatever other objects they had in view, Government must therefore 'give up a month at least, or probably five or six weeks, to the Estimates, in order to obtain the necessary supplies. He thought, considering these circumstances, the importance of the subjects brought forward for discussion, and the stand that had been taken with respect to several of them, that, if anything was surprising in the matter, it was that the House had been enabled, by its devotion to public business, to got through so many important Bills in all their stages. The hon. Baronet had observed—and he (Lord J. Russell) was not saying that such cases did not occur—that several Bills which had been introduced had not been proceeded with; but then there were various circumstances which might always account for some Bills not being pressed forward. The Government thinking a measure likely to be useful to the public interest brought it into Parliament. There hon. Members took a different view of the measure, and it was withdrawn; or, again, it might be that there was a strong impression out of doors that it should not be proceeded with, and it was consequently abandoned. For instance, there was the Bill of the late Government with respect to education, which was introduced into the House, after some discussion altered and amended, and finally given up. His opinion was, that Government was not in the least to blame for bringing forward that measure, or for giving it up. He had looked upon it, when first introduced, as a useful Bill for a useful purpose, but there was a popular impression against it, and it would have been useless to proceed with it. He could not conceive how it was possible for any Government to foresee the result in that House, or the impression on the part of the public, which might occur with respect to Bills which they brought forward. In the course of his remarks the hon. Baronet had alluded to the Landlord and Ten- ant Bill for Ireland. Now, that was a subject very much considered, and it had occupied the Cabinet for seven or eight meetings, at which the whole subject was under consideration. The Bill was then brought forward; it had been sent to a Committee chiefly of Irish Members, who sat for several weeks, and finally reporter upon it. No more consideration could have been given to a Bill; but certainly when it was brought forward in the course of the present Session, and when the measure went to Ireland, it was seen the measure was not likely to produce satisfaction, and that its working would not be in all probability advantageous. He did not see how it was possible for any person, whether a Member of Government or a private Member, to foresee the exact public impression which would be created by any Bill, or whether it might or might not be advisable to press it. As to another Bill, that for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, he had stated his reasons for bringing forward the measure on its reduction. Those reasons had been, he thought, generally approved of by the House, by the people of this country, and in the other parts of the united kingdom. But then arose the question of the appointment of the Fourth Secretary of State, with respect to which considerable doubts were entertained. He had no doubt on that subject himself; hut he found that there were such doubts on the part of hon. Members, and of persons whose opinion was entitled to attention. When he was about to proceed with that measure, and with several other Bills—one of which was a measure for the admission of Jews into Parliament—he found a fortnight in the Session taken up with a debate on foreign affairs. That completely changed the position of affairs; if he had been able to send up the Bill for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, even in the middle of July, to the other House, he might have proceeded with it; but if it was sent up at the beginning of August, it was obvious there would be reasons given in the House of Lords, not against the Bill itself, but against considering a measure of such importance at so late a period of the Session. There were several other Bills to which similar remarks had been made by the hon. Baronet, to which similar objections would apply. As to the Court of Chancery Bill, and another Bill to which the hon. Baronet had alluded, there had been a Committee sitting upstairs with views not entirely different, but with views in favour of different proposals, and while these proposals were being considered it was desirable and reasonable those Bills should be withdrawn; but he could not think that time had been quite lost, for when Bills of that kind were brought forward, very often, in the course of discussion by a Committee of the House, a way was at length discovered by which many considerable difficulties might be obviated. He knew certainly those Bills often took very considerable time. Let them them take, as an example, the case of the County Courts Bill. One would suppose it would only be necessary to state that its object was to extend the local administration of justice, and to render it cheaper and more accessible, for Parliament to receive it with general assent. And yet what were the facts? His late lamented Friend Earl Spencer, had, in the year 1823 or 1824, he believed, or some year about that time, when Mr. Canning was the leading Minister, introduced a measure on the principle of the county courts. It had been improved by every one, amended by every one, and dropped year after year. He had introduced it himself, and several hon. Members at different times had done the same; but still it did not pass into a law till the late Administration took it up, and in 1846, after some twenty-three years' discussion, the Bill at last became law. If the hon. Baronet would say that every Government was to blame from 1823 to 1846, it might be so—it might be that if the hon. Baronet was Minister he would define at once, not only the proper measures, but all the details, which would be exceptionable, or which would meet the assent of both Houses of Parliament. Such a thing might be possible; but it certainly had not occurred in his (Lord J. Russell's) memory, though many able men had been at the head of affairs during that period. With respect to the Woods and Forests, the Bill was founded on the views taken by a Committee of the House; but after the Bill had been introduced, a change took place in the office of Chief Commissioner, and he (Lord J. Russell) thought it desirable that his noble Friend the Member for Totness, who had shown so much ability and judgment as Chairman of the Committee on the Army and Navy Estimates, should have full time to make any suggestions which his judgment and experience might enable him to offer, and that it would be better to give his noble Friend that full time for consideration, instead of making any amendments at the moment. He could not go further into the various questions to which the hon. Baronet had alluded. There were several Bills of very great importance, which, as the House knew, had been brought in and carried to a successful issue, every one of which had had a great deal of attention and of pains bestowed on them. The Australian Colonies Government Bill was one of those. It certainly had taken up much time; but no one could doubt that the various statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, and of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-wark, had developed views of colonial policy highly worthy of the attention of the House, and which, whether they were right or wrong, were fully entitled to consideration. The Metropolitan Interments Bill had also taken up a good deal of time. [Sir B. HALL: One night and two morning sittings.] Well, a night and two morning sittings; but he thought local prejudice had had a very great effect in obstructing the progress of what he considered a very useful and necessary measure. Another circumstance which appeared to him to stand in the way of speedy legislation at all times was this, that the more Members of the House turned their attention to public subjects, and the more Members there were who were capable of addressing the House on such subjects, the more time would be consumed in discussing any question. While debates were confined to some four or five leading Members on each side, they delivered their speeches on a particular subject, and were not ready to enter upon every tonic which came before the House, and a great number of Bills of great importance were postponed, with respect to which hon. Members, if they looked to the records, would scarcely find the trace of a debate. In these days there was far more attention paid, not only to the principle but to the details of every measure, and there was a far greater number of Members ready to address the House, and to enforce their views, than had been formerly the case. That was a change which had taken place quite independently of any Government or of any legislation. It was an improvement in many respects, and was a change which ought to be; but, with the improvement derived from the increased attention to business, and from the public spirit which induced Members of the House to devote their time and labour to public objects, there was a great amount of time necessarily given to the consideration of the various questions under discussion. He thought they had every reason to be satisfied with the close attention given to the public interests during the present Session; and, considering the labour they had bestowed on the measures he had just mentioned-—on the Metropolitan Interments Bill, on local Bills, and on measures of improvement, comprising one so important as the Australian Colonies Bill, he thought the House had shown its capacity for business, and that he had been justified in saying they had accomplished a greater amount of legislation than any assembly in the world.

Sir, there can be no doubt of the great industry exhibited by the House. I can justly say, that at least 200 hon. Gentlemen have been worked harder in the last six months than an equal number of labourers taken from any parish in England. Nevertheless, I think Her Majesty's Ministers would do well to take a suggestion from the hon. Baronet who has introduced the subject, with regard to adopting a better working system in future Sessions. One great fault of the House is this, they have so many matters of detail brought before them, that it is impossible to have them considered in a House so numerously composed. I therefore think it would be well if the House were to be divided into sections for the consideration of details, leaving the House at large to decide on the principles, by which means, I doubt not, business will be got through much more satisfactorily than at present. The noble Lord at the head of the Government has referred to a few Bills, amongst the rest the Landlord and Tenant Bill. Now, that very Bill I pressed upon the noble Lord several times during the Session, and urged the necessity of Government making it a measure of first importance. It is now a measure of first importance, not alone as regards the people of Ireland, but with regard to what has just taken place. A conference has been sitting in Dublin of earnest men from all parts of Ireland. Now, Sir, without agreeing in all that has been said and done by that conference, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact of its importance, and that it will be the means of evoking a more formidable agitation than has been witnessed for many years. Instead of the agitation being confined, as heretofore, to the Ro- man Catholics and their clergy, Protestant and dissenting clergymen seem to be amalgamated with Roman Catholics at present—indeed, there seems an amalgamation of all sects on this question; and I think it time the House should resolutely legislate on it. I hope the noble Lord at the head of the Government will take measures for sifting this question thoroughly, and that he will submit a Bill early next Session of a simple and conclusive character, and press the question on the House with the same earnestness he did some other Bills, which were rather of a questionable character. There is business also in this House—Committee business—apart from the more prominent business of the House. There is one Committee—the Committee on Official Salaries—which has been made the subject of criticism in another place. A noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) has asserted in another place that the Committee was composed of a most ignorant body of men. It probably was very true that we did not pretend to be as learned as that noble and learned Lord. But, Sir, we pretend to possess information on some matters of a practical nature; and I doubt very much if the noble and learned Lord was correct in stating that the Committee was composed of ignorant men. The noble and learned Lord complains that he himself was not examined, and then jumps to the conclusion that we were ignorant men. Sir, if we did not examine that noble and learned Lord, it was not because he did not ask to be examined over and over again; and when the noble and learned Lord's application was submitted to the Committee, I believe they were unanimous in feeling that the noble and learned Lord could give no information that would be of the slightest importance to the Committee, or that would have the slightest weight with the House or with the country. I believe the House and the Committee will not regard the noble and learned Lord's remarks as very formidable. I recollect distinctly having had a passage of arms, or rather of pens, with the noble and learned Lord some few years since; and I am pretty well satisfied, and, I believe, so are the public also, that I succeeded in foiling him in the combat. Since that time the noble and learned Lord has not made himself more formidable; because the course he has taken has been so erratic, so extraordinary, that he who was once respected and admired, has come to be very much pitied. I think I might with much justice apply the language of Milton's Samson to the noble and learned Lord—

"His race of glory run—his race of shame."

And well, and appropriately, might his friends add, "Would that his tongue and pen were now at rest!" I think it would be better for the noble and learned Lord's reputation that they were at rest. But, as regards the labours of the particular Committee, I think they were very useful—much more useful than those of many Committees which have sat of late years.

said, that as hon. Gentlemen who sat on his side of the House did not act together as a party, and as the hon. Member for Montrose and the hon. Member for Manchester, with some others on the opposite benches, had proved extremely rebellious during the present Session, it was obvious that machinery intended for two parties in the conduct of public business, was not suited for the purpose. He had heard with astonishment the proposal of the hon. Member for Manchester to divide the House into sections to consider matters of detail. Who were to decide what were matters of detail, and what were matters of principle? The attempt to decide that point on such a question, for instance, as the Irish Franchise Bill, would involve the House, not only in long debate, but in acrimonious dispute. He deeply deplored that Government had not attempted to legislate on the subject of landlord and tenant in Ireland; and the reason given by the noble Lord for his abandoning it, that the demands from one side were so unreasonable, would be of greater validity next year than now. Had the recent conference exhibited any moderation of tone, the noble Lord might have withdrawn the Bill, if the Irish representatives had opposed it; but they had no opportunity of expressing any opinion upon the measure, and it had been withdrawn sub silentio, leaving nothing but exasperation, irritation, and disappointment in Ireland for the recess. He would like to know on what principle the hon. Member for Manchester would act with respect to this question. Would he carry out his own principle of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market, as far as the landlords were concerned; or did he think the tenant-right agitation could be reconciled to his free trade doctrines? He certainly would like the hon. Member to show how he could combine the principles he advocated, with the principles of the tenant confer- ence. Was it the new free trade doctrine that the Irish landlord was not to sell his land for the hest price he could get, and that while all agricultural produce should be open to competition, the land was to be locked up under a compulsory value? The hon. Member by his speeches and writings had excited considerable expectation among the people of Ireland, that he would do something for them during the present recess; but it was far easier for an independent Member to counsel Ministers than to bring forward a substantial measure of improvement. He would ask the hon. Member what had become of his long-promised game law? Let the farmers of Ireland judge of the hon. Member's ability to servo them, when they saw the farmers of England waiting in vain for the redress of grievances which the hon. Member had promised them. If he raised false hopes among the tenantry of Ireland, that Parliament would transfer the fee-simple of the land to them, no one knew better than himself that those hopes never would be realised. Nothing could be more certain to scare away English capital from Ireland, than the idea that there was a distinction between the law of property in the two countries. He foresaw a formidable agitation on the question, and hoped the Lord Lieutenant would not be called upon to exercise the powers with which they had again intrusted him.

begged to explain. The practice of dividing the House into sections was practised in the United States and France, and with success. The hon. Gentleman mistook him if he supposed that he (Mr. Bright) approved of all that had been said and done by the Dublin conference; but he wished to call attention to the fact. As regarded the game laws, he should say the tenant-farmers were powerless at present to carry any measure of the sort through that House. But with corn at 40s. a quarter, he thought landlords and tenants would be brought to their senses speedily, and then the question would more easily be set at rest. That was his reason for not bringing the question before the House.

said, it was not in his power to refer to the evidence to contradict the statements of the hon. Gentleman; and no Member who had not been on the Committee could form a correct judgment. The report of the Committee contained this sentence:—"Your Committee are of opinion that the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government should be called to the evidence taken in the course of this inquiry;" and his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose was one of those who voted in the majority. With regard to the printing of the report, a Motion was made and a question put to this effect—"That the whole of the evidence taken before the Committee be reported to the House." For that Motion the Ayes were only two; the Noes were ten, and the hon. Gentleman whom he saw on the third bench was one of those who agreed that the evidence should not be laid before the House. [Sir J. WALMSLEY bowed in acknowledgment of the allusion.] The Committee came to a resolution that inasmuch as certain parts of the evidence were personal and confidential, an effort should be made to separate those parts from the rest, and an effort was made by some Members of the Committee to effect that separation. The Chairman of the Committee, however, would not consent to put the question in that form. It was resolved that no further evidence should be reported to the House. Why did the Committee come to that resolution? For the simple reason that a particular portion of the evidence was of an entirely confidential character. That evidence materially affected the Governor of Ceylon: and it was thought that as he was not aware that his own private and confidential letters were to be read before the Committee, it would be most unjust to publish those letters to the world. He believed that whenever the subject should be debated in that House, many Members would be disposed to raise the question whether or not the Committee were justified in taking such evidence; and, for his own part, he should rely on the good feeling and sense of honour which prevailed in that House to decide in the negative. As to the other portions of the evidence, the Government had no desire to exclude any of them from public observation; and when the report thus constituted had been published, it would enable him to meet many of the charges which had been preferred. He ventured to say, that until the private evidence was laid before the Committee, scarcely a single Member of it thought any charge could be brought against the Governor of Ceylon; but undoubtedly when that material evidence had forced itself on the minds of the Committee, so great appeared to be the differences amongst the public servants of the Crown in Ceylon that it seemed utterly impossible that Lord Torrington could continue to administer the public service with advantage to the Crown, and on that ground alone did the Government take the step of recalling him. He was most anxious that the whole of the evidence should be laid on the table; but it would be most unjust to print private letters at a moment when the writer had not the slightest idea of their being used for such a purpose; and he trusted, therefore, that the House would not consent to their production. Under these circumstances, being precluded from entering into the details of the question, he should simply move the Amendment of which the noble Lord at the head of the Government had given notice.

wished to know whether a Committee appointed by that House to inquire into certain matters had any right to suppress the evidence laid before them? He also wanted to know what the Government had been about? Were they aware of all these circumstances? Did it need a Committee of the House to inform them of the state of Ceylon? Or did they sanction all the acts of the Governor? If the Committee gave them the first information as to the nature of these acts, they had taken the gravest proceedings in total ignorance of the circumstances under which they were taken. Either they knew of, or did not know of, all the circumstances appearing in that evidence. If they did not know of them, they had been sanctioning the proceedings in total ignorance of that which it was their duty to understand. If they did know of them, they had sanctioned proceedings which every Member of the Committee seemed to lament and condemn. Two years were allowed to elapse before any remedy was adopted for the evils with which the colony was oppressed, and it was impossible for any Member of the House to shut his eyes to the fact that the Government of Ceylon would be recorded in the blackest page of their colonial history. And all they had now was the assurance that Her Majesty's Government, having got the information, would keep it to themselves.

said, that having been referred to in the manner that he had been by the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, he must observe that he had voted in the manner stated because he considered that it would be improper to publish private and confidential letters. The House might, however, soon be placed in a somewhat different position; for very near the close of the proceedings letters were received from two of the witnesses, whose evidence was considered private and confidential—he referred to Mr. Wodehouse and Sir James Emerson Tennent—praying that their letters might be made public. Having entered upon the inquiry with an anxious desire to act justly and rightly, up to a certain point he believed that although the acts of the Government might not be justifiable, yet no harsh judgment would be adopted, considering the long period of time which had elapsed, and the distance of place. So far he was disposed to vote for a complete acquittal, as he stated more than once; but when the private letters came before the Committee, his opinion underwent a great change, and, without using any harsh terms, he must say that he thought the dismissal of Lord Torrington was fully justified by the evidence brought before the Committee.

said, the question was not whether the Government were justified in recalling Lord Torrington, but whether the House would, under existing circumstances, order the printing of certain documents which he believed a majority of the Committee were now of opinion that they ought never to have received. It was absurd to talk of the matter as a suppression of evidence. The fault, if fault there had been, lay in the Committee having admitted a great deal more than they ought to have done. But, less or more, the whole of what had been taken before them was now matter of record; and the sole question the House was called upon now to determine was, whether it was for the interests of the public service that a particular portion of it which was supposed to affect the character of an absent man, should be prematurely published. He used the phrase advisedly; and he thought that when the House considered the state of the case as it stood at the present moment, it would recognise the justice and propriety of at least deferring any decision. The whole of the evidence taken by the Committee during the Session of 1849 was already before them. No ground of personal exculpation had, even by his accusers, been found against the Governor of Ceylon or his principal advisers, in that voluminous body of testimony; and as little would be found in the evidence taken during the present Session, up to a comparatively recent period, when the Committee thought proper to allow the production of private and confidential letters. Were they prepared to vote, that when a public servant had undergone a searching scrutiny into all his public acts during the greater portion of two successive Sessions of Parliament, without damage to his reputation, resort might be had to means which in no case would be tolerated, and to testimony which no court of justice would allow? Would they make a rule which would sanction the rifling of private desks, for evidence, and the breaking of private seals? It was perfectly well understood, that no man holding office in this country knew of the existence of the letters in question, until one of them was first quoted from, and.subsequently read in extenso, to the Committee. They were not produced by the person said to have written them, or the person to whom they injuriously referred; nor were they even authenticated. He could not help saying that it appeared to him (Mr. M'Cullagh) that the House would be setting a precedent fraught with evil, if, before a party thus impugned had had an opportunity of knowing what had been so laid to his charge, the whole of these documents were put upon every market cross, and given as food for comment to the public journals. How could the diplomatic service, or the colonial administration, or even the domestic government, of the country be decorously or efficiently carried on, if such a course of proceeding were adopted? Confidential letters on any conceivable subject might thus be forced upon the attention of a Committee sitting with closed doors, and then forced upon the attention of the public out of doors by a peremptory order for printing made by the House. As a Member of the Committee, he had throughout objected to the reception of the documents adverted to; and in point of fact they had been at first received upon an express understanding, that the question of making them evidence, or of reporting them as such, should be reserved. Had he supposed that they were not safe in that reservation, he should have divided again and again against their admission. He greatly regretted that they had been (un-intentionally no doubt) trepanned into suffering these letters to be mixed up with other and legitimate evidence; and he had reason to know that similar sentiments were entertained by others as well as himself on the subject. In the last conversation he had had with the late Sir Robert Peel, that experienced and forethoughtful statesman expressed his fears regarding the misuse that might possibly be made of such evidence. If, then, there were in the estimation of many persons, serious grounds for excluding these letters from the consideration of a Select Committee, à fortiori there were grave reasons why they ought not hastily to be ordered for publication. As regarded the other Members of the Ceylon Government, he was bound to say that he thought the majority of them had passed through a severe ordeal unscathed; and he could not refrain from adding, that in his opinion Sir E. Tennent, although placed in some respects under circumstances of no ordinary provocation, had throughout his examination before the Committee manifested a degree of dignified forbearance highly honourable to him.

said, he thought the House ought to be informed why many Members of the Committee had felt a difficulty in reporting the evidence on the general subject of the inquiry to the House, without also reporting that which was termed private and confidential. It was this—that the latter evidence affected the credit of some of the witnesses, and it was not deemed right to report their evidence without allowing the House to know that other evidence had been taken which much weakened the effect of that testimony. This evidence certainly consisted of private letters; but the Committee had possessed themselves of it with no understanding that it would not be published. It was ultimately, however, considered, that as these letters had been written by those who were not then in the country, and who were not aware of their production, that it would not be proper to publish them until such persons had been apprised of the fact; and this accounted for none of the evidence being reported. The conduct of the Committee had been censured for not having made a report themselves; hut he thought that the Committee were justified in not making a report by the inquiry not being complete, and, in his judgment, it could not be rendered so in a Committee of the House of Commons. In the first place, he thought that where charges of a criminatory character were brought against individuals at a distance, they ought to be investigated where there was somewhat more of regularity and responsibility than there was in a Committee-room upstairs; and in the next place, owing to the distance of the colony, the expense and delay of bringing witnesses were so great, that they were precluded from getting much evidence which in the progress of the inquiry was shown to be necessary; and from not having persons present who ought to have been examined, or statements confirmed that had been made, it was difficult to judge of the validity of much of the evidence that had been taken. The majority of the Committee had on this account come to the conclusion, at the close of last Session, that a Commission ought to be appointed to obtain evidence on the spot, where it could be easily obtained and properly sifted; and the result of the inquiry during this Session had, in his opinion, only made it more apparent that such was the right course to take, with a view to a just and proper termination of the inquiry; and he believed that if the Committee were to sit for a third Session they would come to no other conclusion. As far as the evidence went, he was bound to say there appeared much to justify or account for the course adopted by Lord Torrington in suppressing the insurrection; but, at the same time, he thought that there must have been many things done that the actual circumstances of the country did not justify. Lord Torrington was apparently supported by all the authorities—civil, military, and legal—in proclaiming martial law; but it appeared that he must have been misled or misinformed in continuing that measure for so great a length of time. The Chief Secretary of the Colony, Sir Emerson Tennent, had in his evidence fully supported that policy, and all that had been done upon the occasion; but other evidence had been given which went far to show that there must have been considerable ignorance of the circumstances, condition, and feelings of the people in the districts where the disturbances broke out, and that less severity would have been sufficient. The evidence, however, throughout was unsatisfactory, and consisted chiefly of that of official persons who were at variance with each other. In reply to some observations which had been made as to the length of time occupied by this Committee, and which had led to no result, it should be remembered that the case of Ceylon was not the only one referred to the Committee, and that the affairs of British Guiana wore also made the subject of investigation, and occupied a very large portion of their time last Session. Under these circumstances, and considering that the task which devolved upon the Committee was a difficult one, he thought that some of the observations made upon it might have been spared.

wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he understood him right when he fanceid him to say that this postponement of the printing of the evidence was intended to be temporary? From some of the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, it would seem as if the evidence ought not to be printed now, but might be got ready for the use of the House next Session. The hon. and learned Member referred to the hardship that some parties would suffer from the printing of evidence now. If it were only the object of the Government to prevent that hardship, it put the matter in quite a different light. He was of opinion also that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was not put in the proper form, as Her Majesty's Government were not known in that House as any legal and constitutional body; and he thought that the latter part of it should be left out, as the Secretary of State was the only responsible party on the question. The hon. Under Secretary of State for the Colonies made several statements, and others were made by the hon. Member for Montrose. They contradicted each other in the most undoubted and decided manner, though he believed that both hon. Gentlemen believed what they stated to he true. If, however, that contradiction did take place in such statements, it was the more necessary that the House should have the entire evidence before it. The hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies told them that there was not a circumstance before the Committee on which they should be called upon to take any step before they had had certain private letters before them. But they should recollect that the Government had taken a step by recalling the Governor, and had expressed their condemnation of the policy which he had pursued. It was to be regretted that certain letters of a private nature had been brought forward. He himself regretted that they should be brought forward; but if the tranquillity and the good government of the colony had been ensured by the publication of these letters, he would not consider it to be a very great misfortune. If they had not been produced, Lord Torrington would still be the Governor. He thought that this case ought to give the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, and the noble Lord who was his chief, a warning with regard to the government of Ceylon and the Ionian Islands and other dependencies. It occurred that when an insurrection took place in either of these places, the noble Lord, without knowing anything of the facts of the case, sent out a despatch giving the sanc- tion of the Government to the course of conduct that had been pursued by the Governor. But when the matter came to be examined in this case, it was found out that his conduct deserved anything but their approval. He felt that if a similar inquiry took place with regard to the Ionian Islands, a similar result would take place. He thought when such occurrences took place in any of their colonies, a full and fair investigation should be held, whether the population were black or white. Though he fully appreciated the abilities of the noble Lord, and took into consideration the weight of the duties which devolved on his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, yet he thought that they had not taken the course which it was proper for them to take, and he called upon them to consider whether they should not grant such an inquiry as was sought for before they involved the Queen, the Government, and the country in the consequences of such deplorable occurrences.

was sorry the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had not taken this discussion on a distinct Motion. [Mr. HUME: I have done so.] No, the hon. Gentleman had taken it on a Motion to print the evidence; and it was competent for him to take it on the policy of Lord Torrington alone, for everything relating to the declaration of martial law, and the evidence in reference thereto, had been laid on the table of the House and printed, and might be referred to by every Member of the House, if the hon. Gentleman had brought forward a distinct Motion calling attention to the evidence that was published. Now, the complaint against the Committee was, that they had taken upon themselves, contrary to the duty and usage of the Committee, to state what evidence ought to lie upon the table. He contended that it was perfectly competent for the Committee to do so. It was a thing of every day's experience; but the House might overrule the decision of the Committee. But when the proceedings of a Committee were produced before the House, and it appeared from those proceedings that only two out of the twelve members of the Committee were favourable to the printing of the evidence; the good sense of the House would be generally found to be in accordance with the majority of the Committee. After the Motion to print the evidence had been negatived by the Committee, another propo- sition was made to print those portions of the evidence which were not private and confidential. That Motion was agreed to, and three of the Members of the Committee undertook to sever the two portions of the evidence. When those hon. Members had concluded their labours, the hon. Chairman of the Committee and the hon. Member for Montrose stated that it would be contrary to usage if the Committee were to delegate their functions to those hon. Members. They refused to receive their report, and expressed themselves ready to sit and go through the whole of the evidence line by line. Subsequently a resolution was come to, to the effect that it would be impossible to sever the private from the public evidence—that the task was hopeless. The previous Motion of the Committee was accordingly reconsidered, and it was finally decided that as they could not publish the whole of the evidence, it would be better to publish none at all. Such was what he must term the history of the evidence. The Committee then considered that although the evidence could not be laid before the House, it was of importance that the attention of Her Majesty's Government should be called to it. There was nothing criminal in the conduct of the Committee with respect to their deciding upon taking that course, although it had been decided by Mr. Speaker to be informal, and the more regular course was adopted of laying the evidence upon the table of the House, with a view to its being referred to the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. With respect to the evidence itself, he perfectly agreed with what had been stated in the course of the debate—that a great deal of the evidence ought never to have been offered, and when offered not received. Upon the reception, however, of the evidence, it was perfectly well understood that it should not pass beyond the room. The first deviation from the correct mode of proceeding, namely, that of the reception of the evidence, had led the Committee into the whole of its errors, for it was found impossible to separate completely the private from the public evidence, inasmuch as a great portion of the private evidence was explanatory, and referred to that which was public; and if the Committee had struck out the private evidence, they must also have struck out that portion of the public to which it referred. A great portion of the private evidence was mere idle gossip of the worst descrip- tion, and certainly ought not to be published, until, in consequence of some change in the state of things, it could be done with greater safety; and a change of circumstances must soon inevitably take place, for the evidence showed such a state of social disorganisation in the island as rendered it impossible for things to remain much longer as they were; and he was perfectly ready to admit that individual and private feeling should not be allowed to stand in the way of any beneficial change in the condition of Ceylon. A great deal had been said with respect to the murders and atrocities committed by Lord Torrington. It was not his intention to go into that subject; but the impression made on the minds of the hon. Member for Montrose and an hon. Baronet who was a Member of the Committee, and who took views most hostile to the conduct and administration of Lord Torrington, by the evidence given on the subject of those atrocities, was clearly shown in the two draft reports submitted to the Committee by those hon. Members; and he felt confident, if the evidence were to be judged of by the language now in those reports, there would not have been found three Members of the Committee who would have come to the conclusion that the conduct of Lord Torrington was reprehensible in proclaiming martial law. He hoped, therefore, that the House would adopt the Amendment before it. He admitted that the report of the Committee was a most unsatisfactory one—it was a say-nothing report, and a do-nothing report; but he trusted that no injustice would be done to an absent nobleman by the publication of the evidence.

stated that in his draft report he had characterised the conduct of Lord Torrington as unnecessary and unjustifiable, and it was purely out of mercy that he had not made use of stronger terms. The great importance of the documents which were kept back was shown by the fact that nothing would have been done to Lord Torrington by the Government, except for that "Ceylon gossip," as it had been called. The Government were only injuring themselves in the course which they had taken in this matter; and one of his (Mr. Hume's) first acts in the next Session would be to bring the whole subject before the House, and he would give notice of his intention to do so before the present Session closed; and, what was more, he would carry out his Motion, and would endeavour by all means in his power to persuade the House to instruct the Attorney General to prosecute Lord Torrington. He would not trouble the House by dividing, but would, with its consent, withdraw his Motion.