said, he wished to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Buildings for schools and residences at South Kensington Museum, for which a Vote of £15,000 is proposed in the Educa- tion Estimates, are to be erected after the plan designed by Captain Fowke, which plan includes the commencement of an ornamental architectural elevation, thereby deciding the style of architecture to be adopted for the whole of the Buildings?

said, that the best answer which he could give to the question of the noble Lord was to read the following paragraph from the Report of the Committee of last year, of which the noble Lord was a member:—

"Your Committee are by no means anxious to involve the revenue in large expenses for mere ornament. The Museum is yet in course of formation, and they think it unwise to commit the country to a heavy expense in anticipation of its wants. The Committee recommend that any plan which may be adopted for the buildings to be erected should be capable of being worked into a general plan which would at once fully occupy the ground, and be susceptible of a proper amount of decoration. Such a plan has been laid before the Committee by Captain Fowke."

If Parliament granted the money which was to be asked for it was intended that the buildings should be erected according to the plans of Captain Fowke; but that would not determine the style of architecture of the Building of which those erections would form part.

said, that the schools would occupy nearly the whole of the western front, and, therefore, their elevation must determine the character of the Building.

said, he wish-ed to ask Mr. Attorney-General, Whether, in the event of the Courts of Justice Building Act (Money) Bill being read a Second time, he will refer the question of Site for the proposed Buildings to a Select Committee?

said, that in all the discussions and inquires upon this subject there had never been any difference of opinion as to the site for the New Courts, except on the part of some proprietors of houses in Lincoln's Inn Fields, who naturally desired that their property should become more valuable. The Commission for which we were indebted to the noble Lord, and which had conferred great public benefit, were unanimous in the opinion that the site recommended by them should be adopted. Under those circumstances he did not think that he should be right in risking the postponement of the measure by referring this question to a Select Committee.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to an accident in the Hampstead Road, caused by a Locomotive Steam Road Carriage, which, in going along the road, removing the débris from the old Reservoir, snorting and blowing off steam, caused the horses of an omnibus to take fright, rush on the pavement, and capsize the passengers, breaking arms and legs, and doing shocking injury to the passengers; and whether he is of opinion that such Locomotives could safely run in future on the public roads?

stated that a Report had been made to him on the subject by the Commissioners of Police, at his request. The nature of the accident was substantially that reported in the public papers, but the injuries were confined to one man having his collar-hone broken and to several others receiving bruises. At the same time, though the accident was not so serious as had been imagined, there could be no doubt that considerable danger was caused by the passage of such a vehicle; the Superintendent of Police, who reported on the matter, stated his opinion that the employment of such an engine on the public roads was dangerous. Under the present state of the law the only remedy, in addition to the civil action which might be brought by persons suffering injury, was the indictment of the proprietors for a public nuisance.

said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to certain proceedings alleged to have taken place at the Sligo Board of Guardians, on the 4th of June last, by which it appears that two children named Caulfield, whose parents were both Catholics, had been illegally registered Protestants, and that, although the uncle of the children had applied on the 21st of May last for their discharge, the Sligo Board of Guardians had refused his application; and on the 4th of June a majority of the Board passed a Resolution to give them up to their grandfather, who then also, at the suggestion of the Protestant Chaplain, made a claim for them for the purpose of at once transferring them to a Protestant Orphan Society, and what steps he intended to take in the matter?

said, that six years ago two children born of Roman Catholic parents were taken by the directions of their paternal grandfather to the Sligo Workhouse, and were registered as Protestants. The Guardians did not, he was informed, know that they were Roman Catholics until an application was made the other day that they should be given up to their uncle. Another application was made to have them given up to their paternal grandfather. The Guardians gave them up to him, and in doing so he believed that they complied with the requirements of the law.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that a Protestant Orderly of the Hibernian Military School, Dublin, named James Harrisson, did not, when feeling himself to be in his last sickness, express a wish to see the Catholic Chaplain of that institution; whether the resident authorities of the School did not refuse to take any steps to ascertain if Harrisson really desired to see the Priest; and whether, in point of fact, notwithstanding the urgent entreaties of his wife, he was not left to die without any religious ministrations whatever, whether Protestant or Catholic; whether there is any objection to the production of the Correspondence between the Catholic Chaplain and the Lord Lieutenant or the Lord Lieutenant and the authorities of the School in reference to this case; and whether au investigation has been ordered by the Lord Lieutenant, with the view of ascertaining the real facts respecting it; and, if so whether there is any objection to state its nature and result?

said, that it had come to his knowledge that circumstances of some such kind as those to which the hon. Gentleman had referred had occurred, and that a correspondence on the subject was about to be laid before his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a riot that took place on the 14th inst. in the village of Pallaskerry, in the county of Limerick, caused by the posting of a placard alleged to be offensive to the religious feelings of the people of that village; and whether he will take steps to prevent a repetition of conduct which may be calculated to excite angry feelings?

said, he understood that, by the exertions of the Roman Catholic clergymen, the excitement which existed among the people had been calmed, and that peace was entirely restored. The Protestant clergyman had on his part undertaken not to repeat the publication of the placard which had produced the excitement.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any arrangements have yet been made with the Government of France for the admission of British Salt into that country and, if not, whether there is any probability of such arrangements being effected?

said, that no arrangement had yet been made for the reduction of the Import Duty in France on British Salt, but an inquiry was going on, and he might say that not only was there a probability, but he had every reason to believe that that inquiry would be soon completed and would be followed by a reduction of duty on British Salt exported to France.

What is the nature of the inquiry, and where is it going on?

It is going on in France. It is a matter which in their view of the case is a difficult one, and an inquiry is being conducted by the French Government, which we have reason to believe will be followed by a reduction Of the duty.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, For how long a time the money proposed to be taken on account for Civil Services will enable the Public Service to be carried on, and whether he can name a day when the Miscellaneous Estimates will be proceeded with?

said, that the sum proposed to be taken on account would not be sufficient to pay more than the salaries and pensions which would fall due at the expiration of the current quarter, and to meet other demands which would probably be made in the course of the first week in July. Not having been able to see his noble Friend at the head of the Government since the hon. Baronet gave him notice of his question, he could not name a day on which the Miscellaneous Estimates would be taken, but as the money to be taken on account would not be applied to defray the cost of any of the services which were included in Class I., and as it was extremely desirable that the authority of the House should be given to the execution of the works comprised in the Votes of that class, he thought it important that the Miscellaneous Estimates should be proceeded with on as early a day as possible.

said, that in order to make a statement which he deemed absolutely essential, he begged to move the adjournment of the House. ["Oh, oh!"] He was aware that this was an exceptional course, not to be taken without reasons of great urgency, and which should be resorted to with reluctance by any one in as humble a position as himself. But it was, nevertheless, a course which, in exceptional cases, the Committee appointed to consider the business of the House desired to preserve in the hands of Members. Having given notice of his intention to bring a question before the House that evening with regard to the reinforcements under orders for Canada, he desired to state the reasons why he could not be content to wait for his proper place on the paper. Whether the Motion of which the hon. Member for Cork county had given notice on going into Committee of Supply were negatived or agreed to, it would equally deprive him of the opportunity of bringing forward his Motion. When he informed the House, on information which he believed to be correct, that the troops under orders for Canada were to sail on Wednesday next, it would be seen that if this were a question on which an opinion should be expressed, no time ought to be lost in bringing it forward. On Friday night he had not been fortunate enough to obtain precedence on the paper, and, even had he been able to do so, Members were not present in sufficient numbers to give any effect to his observations. He feared recurrence of exactly the same thing that evening, and he, therefore, threw himself on the indulgence of the House. He assured them that in doing so, he was not actuated by any motive of personal vanity; but the subject was of such immense importance, and the step which was about to be taken might lead to ulterior consequences of such magnitude, that he thought the House ought to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion with regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government before the step was irretrievably taken.

rose to order. The hon. Member bad given notice of a Motion on going into Committee of Supply which stood in a certain position on the paper of the day. He wished to know whether the hon. Member, by his present Motion for Adjournment was in order in seeking to anticipate the discussion which would take place on his former Notice?

A question was addressed to me the other day with regard to taking Notices in the order in which they appear on the paper. I did not enter very fully into that question fit the time; but perhaps it would be proper that I should state that, on what are called days for Notices of Motion, every Gentleman who has put his name down for a Notice of Motion is called upon by me in his turn. But on Order days, the Orders of the Day are called on in their turn, and if Gentlemen have given notice of their intention to move Amendments on those Orders, then it is not my duty, and it has not been the habit, to call upon those Gentlemen. But if they present themselves and rise to move the Amendments of which they have given notice—as I stated the other day—it would be my desire, as far as possible, to give Gentlemen, when they rise, precedence according to the order of their Notices—because it is obviously of no use to give notice on the paper unless some consideration is attached to that Notice. The only doubt which I have with regard to the character of the step taken by the hon. Member is this. He has given notice that he will call attention to the recent augmentation of our military force in Canada. Had he given notice of a Motion on that subject, the course which he is now pursuing would, undoubtedly, he out of order. It is for the House to consider whether they will permit a Gentleman who puts his name down to make observations on going into Committee of Supply, and whose name stands tenth or twelfth on the list, to rise before the public business is concluded, and before some Gentlemen who wish to move for unopposed Returns have had an opportunity of doing so, and to move the adjournment of the House in order that he may bring forward the subject in which he is interested out of its duo course? I consider such a proceeding highly injurious to the conduct of business in this House. I am not empowered to say that an hon. Gentleman may not make the Motion for the adjournment of the House; but I consider the Motion now made extremely in- jurious to the conduct of public business, and one which should be greatly discouraged by the House.

said, he had overlooked the fact that the unopposed Returns had not been granted. But, believing that would be the last opportunity of discussing the subject, he had been led to adopt what he was aware was a very exceptional mode of seeking to bring the matter forward. In rising he had expressed his sense of the great indulgence he was asking at the hands of the House, and he could assure hon. Members that he was only actuated by the sense he entertained of the importance of the question to which he sought to invite attention. But after the opinion which had been expressed from the Chair, he felt that he would neither be consulting the feelings of the House nor the duty which he owed towards its rules, if by persisting he ventured so very near an infraction of those rules as the Speaker had held that his doing so would be.

in pursuance of Notice, rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty representing—

"That Mr. John George Adair, one of the Justices of the Peace for the County of Donegal, had recently ejected all the inhabitants from a tract of land in that county under circumstances which appear to this House to affect seriously the general peace and well being of the district; and praying that She may be graciously pleased to direct an Inquiry, with a view to consider whether it was fitting that Mr. Adair should continue to hold Her Majesty's Commission."

The hon. Member said, that on the last occasion when he ventured to call the attention to this subject he was met by the suggestion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the House of Commons had no power to address Her Majesty upon the subject of removing one of her officers from the commission of the peace, or of inquiring into his fitness to hold that office. He (Mr. Scully) hoped his Motion would not be decided upon any such narrow ground, and he could not conceive any other answer of a plausible kind which could be made to it. The House was in fact the proper tribunal to address Her Majesty in case of a neglect or abuse of duty by one of the superior Judges, praying Her to remove him: he did not, therefore, think that the Government should set up that answer. He was not going to contend that a landlord might not do as he liked with his own, nor was he going to originate a personal charge against Mr. Adair. He was there to give Mr. Adair an opportunity of justifying the charges he had put forward as the grounds for acting as he had done, and because he believed those charges to be a libel on the country if they were not true. He had not taken up the case lightly, but had done all he could to ascertain the facts, and he had taken care that Mr. Adair should know the information which he had obtained, so that it might be corrected if incorrect. The House was already aware that on the 8th, 9th and 10th of April these evictions, by order of Mr. Adair, took place. The official Returns showed that "28 houses were unroofed or levelled; 46 houses evicted; 47 families, comprising 37 husbands, 35 wives, 159 children, 13 other inmates; making a total of 244 persons." On the day after the evictions Sub-Inspector Henry wrote to the County Inspector as follows:—

"I proceeded on 8th, 9th, and 10th inst., in command of a force of one Sub-inspector and 200 men, accompanied J. A. Dillon, Esq., R.M., to protect the Sub-sheriff while executing a writ of habere on the property of Mr. Adair. There were forty-seven families, comprising 244 persons, evicted. Many of their houses were levelled, There was no breach of the peace."

Now these were the occurrences which took place on Mr. Adair's property; but it was not to those acts, or to their terrible consequences, that he intended to allude. It was true fifty persons were driven into the poor-house, one old man died within a few days from the hardships he had Buffered, and two other men had become lunatics. It was not, however, on account of these things that he brought forward the Motion which he had to make, but because Mr. Adair had put forward, as grounds for the evictions, that those people had been participators in the most serious crimes, including murder. Now, he challenged Mr. Adair to give the slightest proof of such charges, and he would not only say that full inquiry had satisfied him that such statements could not be established, but that he (Mr. Scully) could prove them to be incor- rect; and, further than that, he would show that the means of knowing them to be incorrect were all in Mr. Adair's own immediate possession. Perhaps Mr. Adair, if he were listening to what were said, after he found that there was not the slightest ground for imputing any of these crimes to any of the unfortunate persons charged, would set himself to right the wrong which he had done, and withdraw the allegations which he had thrown out. In order that the House might understand the case, it was necessary that he should read the exact words of Mr. Adair in mating the accusations. They were contained in two letters written to the Under Secretary for Ireland on the 8th and 16th February, and were more tersely given in a letter which Mr. Adair afterwards wrote on the 6th April to two clergymen of the parish—the Rev. Mr. Kane, and the Rev. Mr. Maturin. These were the statements, every one of which he (Mr. Scully) alleged to be utterly unfounded as connected with the inhabitants of Derryveagh. He said first of all—"A previous proprietor of my estate, Mr. Marshall, was murdered." And he made the same charge in his letter of the 16th Feb. Again, he says:—"On these lauds I was myself attacked by a large armed party, most of whom I recognized as inhabitants." Again—"About the same spot my manager, Mr. Murray, was murdered." A fourth charge was—"While I was at the House of one of you (Mr. Maturin), investigating this murder, the offices were maliciously burned down." A fifth charge was—"Two or more of the coroner's jury, in Murray's case, who found a verdict of wilful murder, were attacked." Again—"Large numbers of my sheep have been from time to time made away with," And "My dogs have been, on two occasions, poisoned." A further charge was, that a system of intimidation, with threats of murder, had been carried on towards Mr. Adair and his servants, although in his management of the property there had not been a single eviction among a numerous class of tenantry, nor even an acre of commonage taken from the people; that almost all the crimes of which he complained were in some way connected with Derryveagh, and that the perpetrators of many of them must have been known to the people of the district. Mr. Adair further stated that he had purchased the property, enchanted by the beauty of the scenery, and that he could not suffer himself to be diverted from his design of im- proving the condition of the people by the infernal combinations of the Ribbon Society. Now, he (Mr. Scully) was prepared to disprove every one of the charges contained in that letter. He defied Mr. Adair to prove that any one of the crimes alleged could be brought home to any of the people living on the Derryveagh property; and further, he (Mr. Scully) had not been able to trace the slightest semblance of Ribbonism among the inhabitants of that property, though Mr. Adair spoke of it as having "fatally spread itself over the whole country." On the other hand, the statements of Mr. Adair were wanting in candour, as the House would see on a careful comparison of dates. The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) had moved for a return of the number of outrages for each of the ten years commencing the 1st of January, 1851, but he (Mr. Scully) did not see how that return bore upon this case. Derryveagh was a district containing about 12,000 or 13,000 acres in the parish of Gartan, which contained about 44,000 acres, with the greater part of which Mr. Adair was connected, either as landlord, or occupier, or as head landlord with the right of sporting and shooting. There were four estates in the parish. The first property, called Glenveagh, was occupied by Mr. Adair, and the unfortunate Mr. Murray was murdered upon it. But the Derryveagh people had nothing to do with that property; or, indeed, with either of the other three estates which composed the parish of Gartan. Mr. John Marshall was a former owner of the Gartan estate. He was fired at in 1840, upwards of twenty years ago, not "a few years" as Mr. Adair stated, nor by people in connection with Derryveagh. He died in October 1840, partly from his wounds, and partly in consequence of a full habit. Mr. W. Marshall, who succeeded him, died on the 2nd of February, 1849, leaving the present Samuel Marshall his heir. On December 31, 1855, Samuel Marshall conveyed the Gartan estate to W. C. Cornwall for £5,900. On August 22, 1857, Mr. Adair for the first time made his appearance in the county, and bought a portion of the Glenveagh estate from Pitt Skipton, and on the 31st of December he purchased the remainder of the estate. He then purchased in the Incumbered Estates Court a fee farm rent of £25 Irish out of Glendoan; also a fee farm rent of £60 Irish out of Derryveagh, with the right of sporting, in both cases, reserved to the grantor and to his heirs—not his "assigns"—and Mr. Adair's exercise of this right led to disputes, and was indeed the root and origin of these evictions. On the 30th of April he purchased the Gartan estate of W. C. Cornwall for £8,000. Mr. Adair had no sooner purchased this property than he applied to the Government to erect a police barrack upon it, professedly for the purpose of putting down illicit distillation. That was done, and then close to it he put up a pound, and made it a source of terrific annoyance to his tenants and the adjoining estates by putting into it all goats, sheep, horses, and cattle trespassing on his mountains. And yet he had declared that he had never deprived his tenants of any privileges of pasturage. In September of the same year, 1858, Mr. Adair was appointed a magistrate of the county of Donegal. On August 21st and 22nd Mr. Adair set up a claim to sport over Derryveagh which belonged in chief to Mr. James Johnston, and was occupied by James Corrin and others. As soon as the shooting season commenced, he went to shoot over the property in order to assert his rights, which had not been exercised for 150 years, and which Mr. Johnston disputed. One of Mr. Adair's gravest charges was that he was attacked on these lands by a "large armed party, most of whom I recognized (he said) as inhabitants." The fact was that in August, 1858, Mr. Adair's claim to sport over Derryveagh was resisted by James Corrin and other tenants of James Johnston, These parties were indicted by the grand jury, and Corrin then brought an action against Mr. Adair for assault and battery and malicious prosecution. The jury found that there was an assault by the defendant, Mr. Adair, but that it was in the exercise of a lawful right of sporting. A verdict, therefore, passed for Mr. Adair, but notice of motion for a now trial was given. Mr. Adair's imputation of crime against the inhabitants, and his complaint that he was attacked by a large armed party on these lands, wore a very different aspect when it was known that he claimed to sport on these lands under a fee-farm rent which was not one-fourth of the value of Johnston's interest. These parties were armed with sticks and other weapons, but it was not alleged that they had any firearms. They were defending the supposed rights of their landlord, and there was nothing in the proceeding calculated to put any man in bodily fear. Notice of motion was given for a new trial, but before the new trial came on, Mr. James Johnston and Mr. Adair came to an agreement, in accordance with which Mr. Johnston gave a fee-farm grant of Derryveagh (11956 acres) to Mr. Thomas Cooke Trench, in trust for Mr. Adair, at £225 a-year, being about £40 above the existing rents of the occupying tenants. Mr. Johnston placed these parties in the hands of Mr. Adair, not conceiving that the latter would revenge himself on them for defending their landlord's rights. This agreement was carried out on the 10th of October, 1859, Mr. Johnston having on the 7th of October taken his tenants' notes or I 0 U's for their Derryveagh rents up to the 1st of May, 1859, which were all paid in full on the 25th of November. On the 29th of December, Mr. Adair received his Derryveagh half-year's rents to the 1st of November, 1859; and on the 20th of January, 1860, he served notices to quit on his Derryveagh tenants, with the avowed intention of rearranging the holdings and putting them in a more covenient form. On the 1st of November, 1860, the notices to quit were supposed to expire, and the tenants gave up formal possession. Afterwards, for the first time, in order to clear the land, Mr. Adair turned round and made these charges of murder and of other crimes. If the tenants had chosen to take defence, Mr. Adair could not eject any of them until the spring assizes, but they gave up possession on the 2nd of November, under the impression that he was to make a new arrangement with them. On the 13th of November, 1860, James Murray, his steward, left Glenveagh Cottage at ten o'clock in the morning, and on the 15th was found murdered on the Glenveagh estate, two or three miles from the Derryveagh property. Yet it was insinuated that some of the persons who had voluntarily given up possession of their Derryveagh holdings, had been guilty of the murder, though there did not exist the slightest support for such a suggestion, and though the Rev. II. Maturin stated that there were more grounds for suspecting other parties. More had been done to annoy the tenants of Gartan, Mr. Adair having lent his boat to pursue some of those tenants to an island where they were suspected of smuggling. He did not, however, think that the charges against them were worth attending to. Mr. Maturin gave the Derryveagh tenants the highest character, and more than insinuat- ed mysterious motives for the commission of the murder. He (Mr. Scully) would not go further into that subject, but the Chief Secretary for Ireland knew to what he alluded. It was the common talk of the district; and it was communicated to him (Mr. Scully) over and over again, and he was at perfect liberty to state it as a fact, but he should prefer to abstain from doing so. Mr. Adair said be had ejected these people on public grounds, and that he expected to lose £200 a-year for some years, by the lands being in a state of waste. He (Mr. Scully) was not going to assent that that was not Mr. Adair's belief, but it was not his (Mr. Scully's) belief. The way to make the land more profitable was to clear out the tenants, put sheep upon it, and make it another Sutherlandshire. Whatever might be Mr. Adair's motive, or Ills fear or apprehension, it was the way to make money of his property. Mr. Adair had employed forty-two policemen to serve his ejectments, at an expense of probably £100 to the public, and, at an expense of not less than £1,000, he moved 200 policemen on the day of the census, for the purpose of executing the haberes on the 8th, 9th and 10th of April. He (Mr. Scully) asked if the public money should be misapplied for such a mischievous purpose? Were the Irish police to be the instruments for effecting those clearances? Were the poorhouses to be erected for the reception of those outcasts, whom the landlord would not venture to cast out if there were not those receptacles for them? It behoved them, on every ground of public policy, to see that the public money was not wasted in this manner. He had read the report of the inquest on the body of Mr. Murray in a newspaper that had hitherto advocated Mr. Adair—the Dublin Evening Mail—and, on considering the nature of the ground, it seemed most probable that a person who knew of Murray's coming in and going out, and could walk behind him without suspicion, was the most probable person to commit the murder. The place where the murder was committed was upon the side of a bare, open hill, at an angle of forty-five degrees; and armed as Mr. Murray was, with a revolver, it was absurd to suppose that any one could have sprung upon him unawares. If, therefore, suspicion was to attach at all, it must attach more to a person who had an opportunity of committing the murder than to one who had not. With regard to the burning of the outhouse, which was an- other of Mr, Adair's charges, Mr. Maturin, the clergyman to whom it belonged, did not allege that it was burned maliciously, and the constable in charge of the police force in the neighourhood, who was the first person at the fire, stated that it was accidental. Then it was also said by Mr. Adair, that two or more persons who were on Mr. Murray's jury were attacked; but the facts were, that the attacks alluded to were mere trifling and foolish affairs, arising from a drunken quarrel, and having nothing to do with the matter in question at all. Then Mr. Adair said that two of his dogs had been poisoned; but there was every reason to believe that they were poisoned by Mr. Adair himself, who was in the habit of setting poison in his grounds with a view to the preservation of his game. Mr. Adair stated that there were 100 sheep of his maliciously destroyed, and in a subsequent letter that 600 sheep had been destroyed. It appeared, from a memorial which had been addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, that one William Doherty, being in gaol, accused of destroying and stealing sheep, Mr. Adair went to the gaol and there took the information of Doherty against four persons, two of whom were tenants of Colonel Humfrey. Upon a written order of Mr. Adair the police arrested those men, but after being imprisoned for five days, and marched sixty miles to and from gaol they were liberated when the case came before the bench of magistrates. The men brought an action against the police for the arrest; the case was tried before Mr. Henn, Q.C. It was proved that the men were arrested by the written order of Mr. Adair, and a verdict was found against the plaintiffs. Then Colonel Humfrey made a representation to the Lord Lieutenant, and the answer he received was, that there appeared to have been some misunderstanding, and his Excellency felt that any further inquiry could not be prosecuted with advantage. He (Mr. Scully) had received a letter that morning from Colonel Humfrey, stating his readiness to produce all the written documents and to go before a Committee of the House. That very matter, if nothing else, was a reason for the appointment of the Committee which he asked for. With respect to the case of the 85 sheep which Mr. Adair stated had been maliciously destroyed, an inquiry took place and the whole matter was investigated. The bench on that occasion came to the unanimous and almost indignant resolution that they were of opinion no sheep of Mr. Adair's were maliciously injured or made away with, and that it appeared from the evidence of the constabulary that 66 sheep were found dead from the inclemency of the weather, and with no mark of injury upon them. Mr. Adair had put forward that charge again; but his own opinion of that charge was shown by a letter he wrote to the Londonderry Journal, on the 29th of February, 1860, in which Mr. Adair stated that the case was put forward by his steward, without his sanction. He added that he did not believe any ill-feeling existed against him among the people of the county of Donegal. The fact was Mr. Adair had stood for the county of Limerick as an extreme tenant-righter. The people would not have him there, and then he sprang up in Donegal, not to assert landlord right but landlord wrong. If a landlord would assert his rights he must not shelter himself under false excuses; and if he became a disturber of the public peace it became a fit subject for inquiry whether his name should be retained in the commission of the peace. Mr. Adair had no right ns a landlord to confound the innocent with the guilty—he had visited the alleged sins of the father upon their children; for among those whom he evicted were 159 children. He thought he had entirely disproved the various charges brought against these unfortunate persons. The clergy of all denominations in the district were all of opinion that if a stop were not put to such proceedings Mr. Adair would excite the people to madness. Indeed, two fathers of poor families had already been driven into insanity, and were cow inmates of the lunatic asylum. In conclusion, he was not wedded to the particular terms of his Motion. If it was thought that, instead of an inquiry under the authority of the Crown, it would be better to have an investigation before a Committee of that House, or in any other form, he had no objection to modify his Motion accordingly. The Government had frequently instituted inquiries into the conduct of magistrates where the circumstances were far less grave than the present. He was anxious for no arbitrary or unfair proceeding. He had known strong steps to be taken to put down political agitation—the Repeal movement for example; and several highly honourable gentlemen and deputy lieutenants of counties, one or more of whom, indeed, he now saw in that House, were summarily deprived of there commissions of the peace without there being any slur whatever on their character. The power which his Motion contemplated, therefore, existed, and he proposed that it should be exercised in the mildest possible shape. He did not bring this matter forward in any way as a public prosecutor, but he felt it his duty to afford Mr. Adair an opportunity of having his conduct fully inquired into. If the case were his own he should be glad to have such an opportunity, and, as one of the landlord class, he could sincerely say that no man would more rejoice than he should do if Mr. Adair was able satisfactorily to vindicate himself, and to show that he was worthy to retain his Commission as a magistrate. He trusted that Mr. Adair, when he came to take a cooler review of all the circumstances, would perceive that his only escape from the position into which he had brought himself was to admit that he had been wrong, to retrace his steps, and restore these unfortunate persons to their holdings. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.

begged to second the Motion of his hon. Friend on the broad ground that an Irish landlord and magistrate had done an act which his brother magistrates and the clergy of his parish, as well as those in Ireland who had investigated the case, all condemned, and which the accused had himself attempted to justify in a singular letter that he sent to Dublin Castle. That letter contained a passage in which the writer said the law recognized the principle that in cases of malicious injury to property, the district should be made responsible, and asked whether the addition of murder did away with that responsibility? The letter proceeded to request that his Excellency should be informed that the writer would with pleasure abandon his intention to evict these people if the Government would suggest to him any other means of safety for himself or his servants, or would give him that protection which it was its first duty to afford, but which it had hitherto so entirely failed in affording. In the absence of that, however, Mr. Adair added that he could not hesitate to do, at any cost, what he felt the state of the country made it his duty to himself and to society to do. The plain meaning of that was that Mr. Adair set himself above the law, and usurped the position, not of the Executive merely, but of Parliament itself. He accused the Executive of neglect; and such an accusation ought to be met by inquiry. Without entering into details, a great act of inhumanity had primâ facie been committed. 244 persons, of whom 159 were children, had been driven from their homes and turned out upon a bleak mountain side. The people were tenants whose fathers had held the property long before Mr. Adair became a landlord in Ireland. That gentleman had been proprietor of the estate for three years, but many of the tenants had lived upon it from their infancy. One old man of eighty, who had been born on the property, was transferred to the workhouse. When such acts were perpetrated and defended on the plea that the law was defective, and that the Government had not done its duty, the matter imperatively demanded inquiry. He thought that the Executive had done all in its power, and that Mr. Adair had acted in a manner disgraceful to the class to which he belonged. Therefore, while he was the last person to countenance undeserved attacks upon Irish landlords, he cordially seconded the present Motion.

said, that nothing could be more painful to him than to take part in this discussion; but as a representative of the county in which the occurrence called in question by the hon. Member had taken place, he felt it his duty to give a statement of facts. In the first place he must ask the House to distinguish between the county of Donegal at large and that portion of it where the crimes which had excited Mr. Adair's indignation had been committed. The particular district on which that gentleman's property was situate was so tainted with crime that for the last ten years it had been regarded as the most criminal district in all Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had moved for an inquiry into Mr. Adair's conduct, and had made a statement with apparent candour; but he had given the go-by to the most important feature of the case—he had omitted to notice the serious matter which had led to all the evictions complained of—namely, the existence of the fearful Ribbon Society. That society was at the bottom of all the outrages which had disgraced the county; and he was convinced that it was at the bottom of Mr. Murray's murder, which was the chief cause of the occurrences concerning which an investigation was now asked for. That being so it was not fair to Mr. Adair, or to the House, that the question of these evictions should be submitted to the House without any reference to crimes which were the direct fruits of the Ribbon Society in that county. He was certain that the Irish Government were fully aware of the widespread organization that prevailed in that district of Donegal, which, it was but justice to say, was but one sixth part of the whole county, the remaining five-sixths of which were in a perfectly orderly and peaceful condition. Some hon. Members might not remember former descriptions of the Ribbon Society, and, therefore, he might state for their information that it was a combination of a most fearful character to carry out an agrarian law, enforcing its views by murder and most dreadful alternatives—beatings, way layings, and burnings. English and Scotch Members could hardly believe that so awful an engine of terrorism could exist in these days; but, having attended the grand jury of the county for the last ten years, he could state that upon every occasion there was some fearful crime which could not be brought home to the perpetrators, as convictions could not be obtained owing to the terrorism of the Ribbon Society, which prevented persons from giving evidence of facts within their knowledge. The unfortunate farmers where the combination existed, even if they were not members of the society, could take no steps to clear the county of the stain because of the threats held out by the secret committees. Even where persons had been waylaid and beaten they had refused to give evidence against their assailants, so great was the terror caused by the warnings of the society. The great number of crimes that had disgraced that part of the county were all attributable to that horrible conspiracy. About a month ago he (Mr. Conolly) moved for a return of all the crimes reported by the police in that county during the last ten years; but the return which had been furnished was very meagre, and the amended return had not yet been presented; and he must, therefore, read to the House from a private report that had been furnished to him by a magistrate of Donegal, the facts of which could be compared with those of the amended return when produced. This gentleman stated that it had been his duty to take part in several fruitless investigations into serious outrages committed in the district of which the townland in question was the centre, and that it had been found impossible to vindicate the law or obtain convictions, though some of these outrages were committed in the presence of numerous witnesses. The hon. Member for Cork took exception to Mr. Adair's bearing in mind the murder of Mr. Marshall in connection with the more recent murder of Mr. Murray. It was no falsehood in Mr. Adair to say that his predecessor in the estate was murdered. Mr. Marshall was shot down in broad daylight, on his way from church; and from that time to the present there had been a succession of similar crimes. A preceding proprietor of one of the estates now held by Mr. Adair—a Mr. Chambers—left the country on account of his life having been frequently threatened. But before stating the fearful atrocities that had been committed in Donegal under the Ribbon system, he would quote the opinion of one of the greatest ornaments of the Irish Bench—Chief Justice Burton. He said—

"If a crime so awful as murder is capable of yet further aggravation, it is when committed by previous conspiracy. To my imagination nothing can be more shocking than that persons should commit this crime by premeditation, and if any addition can be supplied beyond this horror, it is only to be found in the disposition of a considerable part of society to screen the criminals from justice; it is a mental, if not an actual, participation in the crime."

If he could show that in this district there had been several consecutive outrages, no doubt in connection with Ribbonism, all escaping detection, though witnessed by numbers of the population; if he could show that Mr. Adair had reason to believe that many of these people were accomplices after the fact in the murder of his steward—these would be grounds on which Mr. Adair was morally, if not legally, justified for resorting to this severe mode of punishing them. The magistrate of Donegal he had alluded to went on to say that Mr. Marshall was murdered on a Sunday in the presence of 200 witnesses. Though numbers of them saw the shot fired, they let the murderer walk quietly away. A Mr. Moore was cut to death with reap-hooks, close to his own house. A man named Johnston had his horse shot, and his own life was placed in great danger for many days. A Mr. Nixon was attacked when returning from church, with the female members of his family, by three men" disguised as women. A bailiff of Mr. Adair's predecessor was shot on his return from market. Then came the murder of Mr. Murray. There had been numerous other outrages, attended by less fatal consequences, that could all be traced to the Ribbon organization. The terror of it was complete, and, as a necessary consequence of impunity, this fearful system was extending. In many cases farmers had applied to the authorities to have it put down; but all the exertions of the magistrates and police during five years had failed to do so. The sons of the farmers were drawn into the society, or forced to join it, for their own protection. Jurors and witnesses were threatened; and assaults and attacks were concealed, rather than run the risk of prosecuting. [Mr. BUTT: What is the name of the magistrate?] He was ready to give his name to the hon. and learned Member in private; but, considering what was the system of the Ribbon conspiracy, and that Mr. Murray's life was threatened several times before he was murdered, he objected to give the name publicly. A more desperate state of things than that in which these murders could occur could not be imagined; and if anything could justify the extreme steps taken by Mr. Adair, it was these assassinations. The system had grown to a fearful extent; the well-being of all classes in the district was affected by it; and it had compelled Mr. Adair to resort to the only plan open to him to show the Ribbon conspirators that they should not tyrannize over the country. When his steward had been murdered, and his own life threatened more than once, Mr. Adair had to consider what steps he ought to pursue. After the murder of Mr. Murray, Mr. Adair caused strict inquiry to be made as to all the inhabitants of Derryveagh who were out from their houses on that day, and it was found that every individual who had been absent returned to a particular house in the village. This was the identical house in which Mr. Murray himself found a gathering of people two days before the murder took place, on which occasion he stated to Mr. Adair that he was certain bad work was going on by reason of the congregation of people there. Mr. Adair's own life had been threatened by Derryveagh men, and though the evidence which he had been able to collect was not sufficient to insure a legal conviction, it produced a moral certainty in his mind that every individual who had arrived at man's estate in Derryveagh was more or less in complicity with regard to this murder. The hon. Member (Mr. Scully) had made no allusion to the fearful Ribbonism which prevailed there, and to the outrages which had paralyzed all law and defied almost all detection; and, instead of their being nothing to connect Derryveagh with the murder of Mr. Murray, there was a distinct combination in the village for the purpose of murdering that gentleman. Sir James Stewart, a gentleman of high character and position in the county, writing on this case, said that the line of conduct pursued by Mr. Adair in consequence of the murder of Mr. Murray, though very severe, was absolutely necessary, and was not the least more severe than was required by the magnitude of the offence committed. If Mr. Adair (added Sir James) had never evicted a single tenant, neither his life nor his property would afterwards have been safe; the same system of violence would have been carried into adjoining parishes, and would eventually have pervaded the entire mountain district of this county. The evictions here, although severe and perhaps extreme, were necessary under the circumstances, for Mr. Adair was so hemmed in by the Ribbon conspiracy that if he had not taken some such step he must either have given up his estate entirely or have held it subject to the control of these assassins. Similar cases had occurred. Lord Lorton found upon a portion of his property a state of crime analogous to that which prevailed in Derryveagh, and, the law having completely failed to bring the culprits to justice, he was obliged, after the commission of a number of crimes in Ballinamuck, to evict the whole of the inhabitants of the village, 162 in number. This step had been attended with the best results, for from that day to the present not a single murder had disgraced this particular district, the people finding that when the criminal law failed the law of property came in for the vindication of justice. Lord Templetown adopted the same measure after the murder of Mr. Bateson. By his orders the whole of the townland in which the murder took place was cleared of its inhabitants, and from that day the district had been peaceable and orderly. Nothing could be more painful than the idea of turning out a multitude of poor people into the road; but there was another idea quite as painful—the existence of such a state of terrorism as prevailed in that part of Donegal. Landlords were bound to exert themselves to the utmost to put an end to such a dreadful state of things; and, much as Mr. Adair's conduct had been decried, he believed he had acted the part of a courageous and independent man. It was not Mr. Adair who drove the people to desperation, but it was the people who drove him to extreme measures. This was a plain statement of the case, and he would not flinch from it.

said, that if the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down meant anything it was a charge to every landlord in that part of the country, in the event of any disturbance arising upon his estate, to carry on a war of extermination and death against the inhabitants. ["No, no!"] He was glad to hear that sentiment disowned, but how would the speech of the hon. Member be read in Ireland? Mr. Adair had turned every human being in one particular district out of home upon the mountain-side, and he was not surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen shrink from the inferences which must be drawn from such conduct. He questioned the statement of the hon. Member that the murder of Mr. Murray was committed in the presence of hundreds of persons.

What I stated had reference to the murder of Mr. Marshall.

said, that he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. But at any rate the hon. Member had stated that Mr. Adair's life had been repeatedly threatened. He challenged that statement. Had Mr. Adair ever made such an allegation? Was it true that the people of Derryveagh were steeped in crime? He had the testimony of impartial witnesses that that was not so; Colonel Humfrey, the owner of a neighbouring property, and as high a Conservative as any Gentleman in that House, sent to the clergyman of the parish a contribution of £5 towards the relief of the sufferers, and bore testimony to the "inoffensive and excellent" character of the inhabitants of the district. Then, again, the Protestant rector of the parish and the parish priest joined in urging Mr. Adair to reconsider the matter, on the ground, as they alleged, that there was no such thing as combination in Derry- veagh. He (Mr. Butt) denounced as utterly false the allegation that any terrorism had been resorted to to coerce Mr. Adair, and he trusted full inquiry would be made into the state of the district, in order that the truth of the matter might be elicited. He trusted his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Vincent Scully) would withdraw his Motion, in order that such inquiry might be made. What was Mr. Adair's testimony with regard to the inhabitants of the district? He stated that he had been attacked in Derryveagh by a body of armed men, some of whom he recognized. Now, what was the fact? Mr. Adair had a dispute with Mr. Johnston, the occupier, about certain sporting rights; and Mr. Johnston, who was the deputy lieutenant of the county, told his tenants that they should prevent Mr. Adair from shooting on the property. The tenants did so, and the matter ended in a civil trial, which terminated upon some technical point in favour of Mr. Adair. Could there be a more atrocious lie and scandal than to say that that was an armed attack upon Mr. Adair? Then there was the statement that his sheep were killed; but that statement had been declared by the magistrates of the district to be without foundation. The circumstance that some of his dogs were poisoned might be accounted for by his having set poisoned baits for poachers' dogs, and to his own dogs having eaten them. As this Motion was one of importance to Ireland, he would ask the House to recollect how a great deal of the land in that country was circumstanced? A great many tenants held their land subject only to a short notice to quit. What did Mr. Adair do after the murder had been committed? Why he went to Derryveagh and received every penny of his rent from the tenants, and then turned them out on to the bare mountain-side, to the number of 244—the old and infirm, and the children altogether—punishing the innocent with the guilty. It had been said by the hon. Member opposite that these tenants of Mr. Adair belonged to a Ribbon Society; but he defied him to give any proof of this, while, on the other hand, there was abundant testimony to their being a most inoffensive people. He maintained that Mr. Adair's conduct could not be justified on any ground, and called upon the House to let the people of Ireland see that it had no sympathy with such revengeful proceedings. He (Mr. Butt) remembered a passage in the writings of a clergy- man whose name was still held in honour—the Rev. Cæsar Otway. Mr. Otway visited the Rev. Mr. Maturin in this very village of Derryveagh. He described the magnificence of the scenery, the repose of the charming groves, the primitive innocence and simplicity of the poor people, who, and their fathers before them, had lived secluded from the world in these remote and secluded valleys. If it was desired to teach the Irish respect for law, and to break down the Ribbon conspiracy, it would certainly not be by excusing much less by sanctioning, wholesale exterminations. Mr. Burke once said that he must refuse to draw an indictment against a nation; but Mr. Adair had executed judgment against all his tenants. And what lesson did he thereby teach the people of Ireland? Was not the natural result this, that Ribbon conspirators would prevail upon many of them to enter into their ranks for the avowed purpose of protecting themselves against the landlords? Or if they were forced to emigrate to America, they carried with them sentiments of hatred towards the British Government, which might operate some day greatly to our disadvantage. There never, perhaps, was a case of this kind which came more distinctly before Parliament; and what he asked the House to do was to institute a searching inquiry into the whole matter. When the Motion then before the House had been disposed of, he should move for the appointment of a Select Committee for that purpose, to which, if the House agreed, he believed it would do much towards promoting justice and the peace of the country.

said, hon Gentlemen on his side of the House, in listening to the very eloquent and somewhat irrelevant speech of the hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt), from whose lips the words had fallen

"Strong, thick, and heavy, like a thunder shower."

were affected by feelings of a painful character, first at the fact that any landlord should feel it necessary to turn loose upon society so many individuals, and next on account of the circumstances which had led to those evictions, and which almost deprived Irish Members of the power of discussing the question calmly. He certainly was surprised at the quarter in which this Motion had originated, and he thought the attack on Mr. Adair might with more decency and decorum have proceeded from some other Member. A heap of documents had been furnished to him by Mr. Adair, showing how competent the hon. Member was to speak from experience of the profits to be acquired from clearing an estate, which, if he wanted to sell, would certainly be more valuable than if encumbered with tenants.

I must beg the hon. Member either to use papers or to refrain from doing so.

"Order, order."

said, he would pass I from the quarter in which the Motion had originated to the Motion itself. If Mr. Adair had committed a crime, it would be punished first by the decision of the Lord Chancellor and by that of the Lord Lieutenant, as well as by the silent condemnation of his own acquaintances. But the proper tribunal had decided that there was nothing in his conduct calling for punishment, and the House, therefore, was now invited to pass unmitigated censure on his proceedings towards a population described as "mild and inoffensive." The sympathy in this case seemed rather misplaced. Not a word of rebuke or indignation was directed by hon. Gentlemen at the other side against that series of murders, which, on the contrary, were spoken of almost in the language of vindication by the hon. Member for Cork. The murder of Mr. Marshall, who was shot in noonday, and in the presence of hundreds, was made light of; he had only three or four small shot in him, it was stated; he was not killed dead, for he lingered till October. Such was the way in which an atrocious crime was spoken of. Not a word had been uttered about that inhuman murder of Murray, which in its every feature resembled the murder of Kennedy described by Scott in Guy Mannering. That the foul deed had been committed by several persons was proved by the marks of the struggle; the victim was hurled over a precipice, and a large stone thrown down upon him, and he was sorry to say that the persons engaged in the struggle were but too well known to everybody in the district. Other persons had been shot at or cut down. The first duty of an owner of property was to provide for those who had been entrusted to his care; but was it to be supposed that the contract was never to be put an end to, but that the parties, however evil their conduct, were to cling to the landlord for life? Perhaps this unfortunate district was the only one in which such extreme measures would be necessary to meet extreme and painful crimes. In Ireland, generally, crime was diminishing; and from north to south a better feeling was existing between landlord and tenant. He admitted that, owing to what was a natural mistake, Mr. Adair had perhaps coloured rather highly what he described as an armed attack. But, as he was in the exercise of a right when he met those armed men, and under the circumstances he thought that their object was that which he had stated it to be. There could be no doubt that the district in which these evictions took place was teeming with murders; and was a man to retain tenants where such murders had been committed, where such outrages had been perpetrated, and where illegal combinations existed? He thought that Mr. Adair was almost more to be pitied than censured. He thought that there never was so much done to excuse a fit of anger. The occurrence truly was one to be deplored; but it had received the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and it must be left to public opinion to correct such acts, which were exceedingly rare, and which he hoped would become more so in consequence of the causes that led to them becoming rarer still.

said, that if hon. Gentlemen wished to maintain the rights of property they ought to keep a broad and clear distinction between the acts of humane, gentlemanly landlords, and those of mere land jobbers, who, with the rank and station of gentlemen, combined the feelings of bum-bailiffs. Mr. Adair, having acted in so inhuman and cruel a manner as to punish hundreds for the crime of one or two, was not a person to whom the Queen's commission as a magistrate ought to be intrusted.

said, he would not say a word in favour of Mr. Adair. The matter had been referred to the Lord Chancellor, who had decided that the case was not one in which further inquiry was necessary; and he thought it very extraordinary that the House should form itself into a court of justice to review what the Lord Chancellor had decided. But, in contradiction to the happy and blessed state of things which was represented as existing in this part of Donegal, he wished to call the attention of the House to the Report of a Committee which sat three or four years ago, giving the names of the owners of between 600 and 700 sheep, destroyed in the course of a few months within four miles of this very place. The Roman Catholic Bishop was not likely to exaggerate the misconduct of the people, and in an address to them, alluding to the destruction of the sheep, he said—

"You have not discontinued your murderous conduct, but I understand you have continued it ever since I was here last. If any one has told you that the priest can absolve you from this great sin, he has grossly deceived you. The Almighty has never delegated such a power to man, and unless you make restitution you can never get absolution. England has sent an army to the Crimea and conquered Russia. She has sent an army to China and conquered the Chinese; and do you think that the small corner of a parish in the county of Donegal can stand up and oppose the law of England?"

The New Zealanders might be spoken to in the same language as was addressed to these highly civilized and peaceable inhabitants of a small corner of Donegal. There was a great difference between bringing forward this Motion and opposing it. An Irish Member who brought forward such a Motion gained popularity with the lower class of the £10 voters, but one who opposed it lost their support. The greatest credit, therefore, ought to be given to the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) for the manly manner in which he had spoken out to-night upon this subject.

said, the hon. and gallant Member had read a long list of the sheep killed, but he did not say that Mr. Adair had, through his steward, applied for compensation for them, or that on the first inquiry before the magistrates it was distinctly proved that the sheep were not murdered by the people, but starved on the mountains. Mr. Adair was represented as a benefactor to these wild Ashantees; but what was the fact? The sheep on the mountains cost 6s. each, and the magistrates of the county of Donegal awarded him for each the sum of 30s.; so that this was an admirable speculation, and one provocative of perjury. No doubt Bishop M'Geltigan made the speech alluded to; but he was almost in his dotage, and in the following year, upon the very same platform, he retracted what he had before said, and expressed his belief that the people were not guilty of these outrages. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted from this old Bishop again, he would refer him to his second speech, and tell him the date of the Dublin Evening Post in which it was published. Was there, then, any justification for the belief that the people murdered Mr. Murray? He abhorred outrage and loathed murder, and would do everything to crush those crimes; but it was quite a different thing to encourage a system which was a challenge to the ignorant and passionate. It was a matter of notoriety—and the hon. Member for Cork had alluded to the circumstance—that there was one man in Donegal who was openly suspected of the crime. Whether he was guilty or not was a matter between God and himself, but it was a curious fact that this man wore the dead man's clothes at his funeral, that he was extremely intimate with the dead man's wife, and that the wife was very much interested in getting him out of gaol. If it transpired that the struggle originated in jealousy, that a shot was fired in self defence, and that the man's death was the result of the deadly struggle—if that should turn out to be the case, either by a death-bed confession or in some other way, what would Mr. Adair think of himself for having sacrificed 244 people on the suspicion of being parties to the murder? The statement of the hon. Member for Cork had been in no way disproved. A more fearful doctrine could not be laid down than that because a crime had been committed on an estate, and the perpetrator not found out, every human being on that estate should be sent adrift. Mr. Adair, by throwing 244 people helpless upon the world, had been guilty before God and man of a great outrage and a great wrong. Did Lord Derby carry out his threat to evict a portion of his territory in Ireland? No. The representative of an ancient aristocracy, with naturally strong views of the rights of landlords, held his hand, and did not carry out his threat; but this Mr. Adair—a mere interloper in the country—a mere land-jobber who ought to sympathize, with the tenant class, because he had sprung from them, ruthlessly turned 244 persons on the world because he chose to suspect that one of them had committed a murder. This gentleman had stood as a candidate upon the hustings in favour of tenant right and as a friend of the poor, but he (Mr. Maguire) thanked God they had not a practical exhibition of his detestable hypocrisy in that House.

said, that though the case which had been brought under the consideration of the House was a most painful one, and involved some of the gravest questions which could interest a country circumstanced like Ireland, yet the point which the House had to decide was very narrow, namely, whether the Crown had neglected its duty in not superseding Mr. Adair from his position in the commission of the peace. He could assure the hon. and learned Member for Cork that it was far from his intention to meet him with a technical plea that the matter was beyond the province of the House. If the servants of the Crown had neglected their duty it never could be pleaded that it was not the business of the House of Commons to take the matter into their consideration. On a former occasion he stated that Her Majesty's Government had come to the conclusion that this was not a case in which they would be justified in removing Mr. Adair from the commission of the peace, and he remained of the same opinion. The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) had given the House a narrative of painful interest—a recital of crimes showing a strong conspiracy in a particular district of Donegal, and had quoted a judgment delivered by Baron Pennefather in 1857. There could be nothing more dreadful than the existence of a secret, organized conspiracy, or the terror that such a conspiracy must excite among the persons within its influence—interfering with the law and preventing the due administration of justice. He was happy to say that, owing to the combined efforts of the authorities and of the clergy of all Churches, a great improvement had been effected since the address of Baron Penne-father. A check had been given to Ribbonism; yet it could not be said that Ribbonism was extinct. During the last few years there had occurred the firing at Mr. Dickson and the murder of Murray; in both which cases no conviction had taken place. Such was the state of things when Mr. Adair came into possession of his Donegal property. The state of the case, so far as Mr. Adair was concerned, was that he had bought four several and coterminous properties. Since that time he had found himself, more or less, in conflict with his neighbours and those who occupied under him. In the first case Mr. Adair represented himself to have come in contact with an armed party on the hill side. He could not agree that this was a correct description by Mr. Adair of the occurrence, because the bills preferred by him were ignored, and it appeared afterwards upon a trial that it was a contest as to the right of sporting, which was ultimately settled by agreement between the parties, and by Mr. Adair purchasing the claims and standing in the position of Mr. Johnston. Mr. Adair subsequently gave notice of ejectments against 244 persons in Derryveagh, and still more numerous notices at Garvan. The reason alleged was that the ground was about to be cleared, for the purpose of arranging a new mode of cultivation, which would be for the benefit both of the landlord and the occupier. Matters thus remained until November in last year, the period of the murder of Murray. He regretted that the hon. Member for Cork, whose labour in getting up this case, and whose candour in making him acquainted with the facts he felt bound to acknowledge—had felt himself at liberty to point a suspicion of the crime of murder in the House of Commons against any individual in regard to whom the authorities, after full consideration, had not felt it their duty to prefer a criminal charge, and whose innocence was quite unimpeached. The murder of Murray, so far as he could learn, was the act of two, and only of two, persons. The proof was that when the police went to view the body they discovered traces both of Murray's footsteps and the footsteps of two other men—one wearing shoes and the other barefooted. A struggle had taken place between Murray and these two men, who killed him with a stone that was found there. The hon. Member for Cork commenced his speech by changing the issue from that which he offered to the House on a former occasion. [Mr. SCULLY: No!] He understood the hon. Member to say that he did not state that the Executive Government would have been justified in removing that gentleman from the commission of the peace for acts that the Executive Government might not approve, but which were strictly legal in the exercise of his private property. The hon. Member, however, now put forward as the ground for removing Mr. Adair from the commission, that he had charged the inhabitants of the district with a participation in serious crimes, including murder, which he could not sustain against them. It was unnecessay for him to enter into the charges relative to the poisoning of the dogs, to the fire at Mr. Mathurin's, to the case of the jurymen, and other particulars. They were introduced into the discussion, if he understood right, in order to show that Mr. Adair had brought several charges of crime against his neighbours, including that of murder, which were not substantiated. He had no hesitation in saying that he did not agree in the opinion expressed by Mr. Adair; that these were plain and manifest proofs of a malicious determination on the part of the people against him. He supposed they had been introduced into the discussion for the purpose of showing that Mr. Adair's general conduct was such as to have warranted the Government in superseding him in his office of magistrate. This, however, was not the question. So far as he knew, there was no proof that the murderer of Murray was within the general cognizance of a large community. In the early part of this year Mr. Adair attended at Dublin Castle and furnished to the Government the notification usual in cases of eviction. He stated that he was about to remove 47 families, numbering altogether 244 persons, in consequence of the murder of Murray more particularly. He also adduced the other circumstances to which allusion had been made in his justification. The Government of his noble Friend (the Earl of Carlisle) deeply regretted to hear that information, and communicated their opinion to Mr. Adair in a letter, which had been laid upon the table. He fully concurred in regretting Mr. Adair's determination, for he could not but think the removal of 47 families and 244 persons involved in one common calamity the aged and the young, the female and the male, those who had no participation in such a crime with those who might or might not have been guilty. The question was not, however, whether the Government regretted Mr. Adair's determination or gave him a warning against it, but whether or not the act was such as to justify the Government in removing Mr. Adair from the commission of the peace? That was one of the most important questions that could be considered, either by the Government or the House. What was the position of a justice of the peace? Had they all been wrong hitherto in maintaining that it was of the utmost importance that the magistracy should be independent of the Government, and not, as Black-stone had expressed it, the "mere tools of office?" But how could the independence of the magistracy be maintained if they were liable to be removed, not on account of the illegality of their acts in any exercise of the law which their commission empowered them to enforce, but because, acting within the limits of their own private rights, they did not act entirely to the satisfaction of the Government? The question was not whether a magistrate satisfied the Government in the exercise of his private rights, but whether he was acting within the limits of those private rights. It would be most dangerous if such a principle were laid down; and he said now, as on a former occasion, that when it appeared that Mr. Adair was not charged with any violation of the law, but that in what he had done he had acted within the limits of his legal rights, the Government would not have been justified in superseding him from the commission of the peace. His hon. Friend (Mr. Vincent Scully) seemed to have felt the cogency of this argument, and, therefore, proposed to shift the issue at the beginning of his speech, and asked for Mr. Adair's removal on the ground that he had made statements which could not be sustained. His hon. Friend said that Mr. Adair had represented that a previous proprietor of his estate was murdered. Well, a previous proprietor of Garton was murdered. Again, Mr. Adair stated that he was attacked by an armed party on the hills. Well, Mr. Adair was attacked; and, though he (Mr. Cardwell) did not approve the version given of the case, yet he put it to the House whether it was possible to remove a gentleman from the commission of the peace because, in describing a transaction, he arrived at conclusions which did not appear to be justified by all the circumstances of the case. Let the House reverse the proposition, and suppose that the Irish Government had removed this gentleman from the commission of the peace, and that when challenged for the reason they had no better answer to give than that, though the gentleman had acted legally in the discharge of his private rights, yet he had acted in a manner which, in their judgment, was not to be approved, and in giving a description of a past transaction had drawn conclusions which were, perhaps, different from those warranted by the circumstances. It would have been impossible to vindicate the removal of Mr. Adair on either of these grounds. He had shown, then, that the hon. Member for Cork had changed the issue; but he feared the hon. Gentleman did not feel quite safe with that concession, for the hon. and learned Member for Youghal went still further, and expressed a hope that a Motion for a general inquiry would be carried in preference to the proposition now before the House—thus again changing the issue. He (Mr. Cardwell) must, however, say that after a Motion of this kind had been so long before the House, it was right that it should be disposed of by the House. If the House thought that the Government had neglected their duty in not removing Mr. Adair from the commission of the peace, it would affirm the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork; and if, on the contrary, it thought that it would be better to go on with the Motion for Supply, it would then negative the Amendment. He could not consent, after this question had been given notice of, and had been fully discussed, that the House should do otherwise than pronounce an opinion upon it. Feeling as he did with regard to the removal of 47 families and 244 persons from their homes, for a crime in which it was not proved that any one of them had taken part, and in which it was improbable that the whole could have been concerned as conspirators, he said that the warning given to Mr. Adair by the Irish Government was a right and proper warning, and he regretted that it had not been acted on by Mr. Adair; but that circumstance formed no ground on which the Government could have defended themselves in that House if they had been charged with the unconstitutional removal of a justice from the commission of the peace. Under these circumstances he felt satisfied that the House would negative the Amendment.

thought it was the wish of the House that this question should come to a conclusion; but he could not allow an observation made use of by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) to pass unnoticed. The hon. Member had expressed deep sympathy for the bereaved family of Mr. Murray, but had at the same time accused Mrs. Murray of adultery with her husband's murderer.

I merely stated that there was a strong suspicion in the county to that effect.

thought that, however excited his hon. Friend's feelings might have been as to Mr. Adair's conduct as a landlord, he should not have been led to repeat such an appalling, degrading, and frightful charge, however humble the circumstances of the person so charged might be. That charge had been investigated several times, and not by resident magistrates—not by the landlords who might be thought by some to be joined together in a conspiracy upon the subject—but it had been fully investigated, and Mrs. Murray's innocence had been established by conclusive evidence. The humbler classes in Ireland dwelt, in many cases, in but one cabin, and that was the whole origin of the appalling story which, he regretted to say, would now be spread throughout the land, in consequence of the unfortunate allusion of his hon. Friend. The origin of the story was this—that inasmuch as this poor woman's health was upset by the shock occasioned by her bus-band's murder, she did invite her Bister, her own brother, and the shepherd, against whom the charge was made, to go to her, and remain with her all night, and those who knew the district would not be surprised that in its then excited state she should have taken these measures for her protection. He apologized to the House for having taken up their time; but trusted they would agree with him that the low social position of this poor woman was no reason why her character should be assailed and her misery added to by this awful allegation.

having put the Question, declared the Amendment negatived.

said the Noes have it.

observed that, as no hon. Member had given his voice in the negative when the Question was put, there could not exist any doubt as to the decision of the House, and there was nothing to divide upon.

believed that the Question proposed by the hon. Member for Cork vitally affected the interest and peace of Ireland, and he therefore begged leave to give notice—[Cries of "Order!"]

informed the hon. Member that the present was not the time to give a Notice. The business-paper contained the names of several Gentlemen who proposed to bring different matters under the consideration of the House, and the hon. Member could not now interrupt the course of proceedings by giving a Notice.

rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of which he had given notice, and on which he had already attempted to address the House, namely, the recent augmentation of the military force in Canada. The hon. Baronet said, that the occasion was a somewhat pressing one, because he had learnt, since coming down to the House, that the troops were ordered to sail to-morrow. The simple fact that so large a force as 3,000 men was about to be sent to Canada was itself rather unusual, but there was something in the manner in which the reinforcement was to be despatched which rendered it still more remarkable, and afforded great reason for requiring an explanation of the Government in reference to the matter. He might state at the out-sot that, in his opinion, the merits of the dispute which unhappily existed in the United States of America had nothing to do with the question to which he wished to call the attention of the House. The House had already expressed its opinion that abstinence from all discussion upon the state of affairs in America would be the most becoming and prudent course to pursue, and he was happy to say that such discussions were entirely foreign to the subject upon which he desired to make a few remarks. At the same time, he thought that the step which the Government had taken was very likely to interfere with that resolution to abstain from all share in the unfortunate contentions in America, because it would be regarded as taken from a fooling of uneasiness springing to some extent from the stale of things in the United States; at all events, occurring at such a moment, it was a matter on which the House had a right to ask and the Government ought to give an explanation. But that to which he wished particularly to call attention was the manner in which the expedition was about to be despatched. It was to be despatched in hot haste in a very ostentatious manner, in the largest and fastest vessel which this country had ever possessed. It was not to be sent out in the ordinary way in the transports belonging to the public service, or in the numerous steam frigates which crowded our ports; but the Government had considered it necessary to engage the Great Eastern for the purpose. When a force, which partook much more of the character of an expedition than of that of an ordinary relief, was sent to a distant part of the world the House might fairly ask upon what grounds such a step was taken. So decided and conspicuous a measure should not be adopted unless there was either a great object to be attained or a great danger to be averted; and, therefore, he had no hesitation in asking the Government why so large an expedition was being so hastily despatched to Canada? In former times even larger expeditions had been sent to British provinces, but they had always been, intended either to guard against foreign aggression or to repel internal disturbance. During the rebellion in Canada a large force was sent out to that country, and it was happily instrumental to some extent in restoring peace; but he believed there was nothing in the present state of affairs on either side of the frontier that would justify so remarkable a step as that which the Government had taken. The position of Canada was certainly a difficult and even dangerous and exposed one. Canada had a long and vulnerable frontier, and on the other side of that frontier there was a great and high-spirited people in the most excited state, and, as he yet hoped, only in imminent peril of being plunged into a civil war. At such a time, and in a country where, as in the United States, there was the utmost freedom of expression of public opinion, and where there was an exaggerated and even intemperate tone adopted, by both writers and speakers, there must naturally be a disposition to look with jealousy upon the conduct of Foreign Powers. Abstinence from partisanship might be interpreted into aversion or concealed hostility, and we could not wonder that expressions should be used by writers and repeated in the United States which certainly would be alarming if used in any other country, or at any other time. He could not think, however, that at such a moment, and in consequence of any such expressions written or spoken, a step so momentous as that which the Government had taken befitted so great a Power as England. In the presence of such manifestations, the attitude of a great Power should be one of conciliation and of confidence. If we were to gain any advantage from the increase of our naval and military establishments, it ought to be at a time like this when we ought to feel ourselves too strong to think it worth while to notice such intemperate language as had appeared in the public press of America, or of any other country. We should remain calmly in the power of honest and absolute neutrality, instead of doing that which would bespeak alarm in placing a corps of observation, and even of defiance, on the frontier of a neighbouring State. Such a course might be considered in the United States as symptomatic of a consciousness of weakness; and at any rate was calculated to excite most serious apprehensions, because it must be considered as partaking more of the nature of a challenge than of caution. The question might be asked, when a force of 3,000 men, complete in its various arms, was despatched to Canada, whether there was any actual fear of invasion from the United States? If so, surely to guard a frontier of such extent as that separating Canada from the United States, a force of 3,000 men would be an absolute misapplication of our military strength. Those who were well acquainted with that frontier entertained the opinion that its proper protection would be gunboats on the lakes, not men scattered in small numbers and at distant points on the land. But, although it might be some time before the Committee to whom the question had been remitted would report, there was a feeling in the House with respect to colonial military establishments that, beyond garrisoning the great fortresses of Canada, this country ought not to be called on to contribute to the military expenses of the colonies. If it were said that this force was intended to complete the garrisons of Canada—perhaps only the large fortified town of Quebec—he thought they might fairly ask why the military force to which had been intrusted the guardianship of that fortress had been allowed to fall so low that it was necessary to send out reinforcements in such hot haste and to such an extent as already to double the force in that colony? There was a second class of causes that might render such a force necessary—if there was any likelihood of internal disturbances in Canada. There were, undoubtedly, distinct and separate races in Canada, and in former times there were discords between parties and races; but he certainly did not expect that at the present moment these discords were likely to break out, or that there was a probability of any such exhibition of feeling not most loyal towards this country, which should induce the Government to send out so considerable a force. On the other hand, he thought the conspicuous loyalty expressed by the whole Canadian population towards the Sovereign of this country, and the country generally, on the recent happy occasion of the visit of the Prince of Wales, ought to show that if there was a dependency of Great Britain on which we might most confidently rely as not likely to embarrass this country by any expression of bad feeling towards their neighbours, or by sympathizing with either party in the civil war in the United States, it was the province of Canada. If such a feeling did exist it would be a great mis- take to think that it was by force of aims, far less by virtue of so small a force, that we could hope to retain that colony. He believed the improved feeling which subsisted between Canada and this country was the result not of the strength of the Imperial Government, but of those ties of kindred which had been strengthened by the gift of institutions similar to our own, the consciousness of self-government, the absence of any undue control over colonial affairs, the healthy growth of the free institutions of this country transplanted to a kindly soil. He believed that it was an error to suppose that Canada was likely to be disloyal; and it would be an error still more grave to think that the United States would take any step insulting to the Canadas or hostile to our interests, which would render it necessary for us to increase so strongly our garrisons in that province. It might be that rash partizans or mobs might make an incursion over the frontier, but they would be discouraged alike by the Americans and Canadians; and surely we had Militia and Volunteers perfectly able to keep off such intruders till the regular troops could assist them. He believed it would not be prudent to leave the garrisons in Canada not reinforced during winter; but in summer, while Quebec was so easy of access, he could not see why they should send out in so ostentatious a manner so large a force a3 3,000 men. There was another matter on which he would only speak with the greatest delicacy and reserve. Every one acquainted with Canada, or who had spoken to officers quartered there, knew how great were the temptations to which British soldiers were exposed in that colony. The Government, he hoped, had sufficiently weighed this very serious consideration when they contemplated despatching this force. If temptation at any time was held out to British soldiers to be unfaithful to their colours, how much more danger was there when every trained soldier was worth his weight almost in gold in the United States, looking more especially to the mere pittance left him after paying for his rations? He hoped, under these circumstances the Government would do something to make the British soldier feel that he had what would make him remain faithful to his regiment. This would not take much, for the British soldier was most sensible of kindness. What he suggested was, that while in Canada regiments might have free rations, and that the men when off duty might be allowed to work at their trades and assist at the harvest. He was quite aware that it was a matter of great delicacy to interfere with the disposition of Her Majesty's troops, but he thought the House had a right to demand explanations with reference to the despatch of these 3,000 men to Canada, because it might—though he trusted it would not—lead to suspicion and difficulty with a country with which it was beyond all important that we should remain at peace; it might have an effect damaging to the army, and produce a feeling of apprehension and dissatisfaction among the loyal inhabitants of Canada.

Sir, I can have no difficulty in answering the question of the hon. and gallant Officer, though I must say that I was surprised at some of the arguments which he adduced, especially considering the profession to which he belongs. I should not have expected those insinuations against the fidelity of our soldiers to have come from the mouth of a gentleman belonging to that service. I entertain no such apprehensions as he has expressed. I am persuaded that the imputations which have been cast on the British soldier are entirely unfounded. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked several questions which he himself answered in subsequent parts of his speech. He talked at one moment of this large expedition—this momentous measure—and at another moment he treated the force sent out of 3,000 men as insignificant and utterly insufficient for any purpose. Now, I really should wish him to tell us which of these two statements he intends to abide by?—whether he actually regards it as a momentous and large force, or as a very small and insignificant one? He also said there can be but two motives for which the force is despatched—namely, either to guard against an attack from the Americans and to interfere in the war now going on, or else for the purpose of suppressing disturbances in Canada. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has given a reply to all these suppositions. He told us that there is no apprehension whatever of an attack from the Americans; he told us that the Government have pledged themselves and the country to maintain a neutrality; and he entered into a very eloquent and well-deserved panegyric of the loyalty which prevails in every part of our North American provinces. Well, I concur in all those assertions. Undoubtedly, we have no reason to suppose that the Northern States of America would commit such an act of folly as to add a contest with us to the internal contest in which they are at present engaged. Her Majesty's Government have professed in the most solemn and public manner their intention to abstain from taking any part in the dispute now unfortunately subsisting between the Northern and Southern States. We rely implicitly on the loyalty of the people of Canada of all races—a loyalty that was manifested in the most unequivocal manner during the visit of the Prince of Wales to those provinces. Therefore, none of those reasons could be the occasion for sending a large force to Canada, the despatch of which would be a momentous measure. But it is the ordinary practice of all Governments in all parts of the world, when war breaks out and great military operations are commenced in neighbouring States, to take the small and usual precaution of strengthening in some degree their military force in that portion of their territory which is in closest proximity to the scene of hostilities. That is an ordinary precaution, the neglect of which would be blame-able in those who are answerable for the interests of the country; and that we have not gone beyond that reasonable limit is proved by the hon. and gallant Member's own description of this force in the latter part of his speech as a very small one. It is a very small force; and to talk of 3,000 men being a large and momentous expedition is, I must say, an amount of exaggeration hardly to have been expected from a military officer of so much knowledge and experience as the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Well, if we have sent out only that small reinforcement—which, according to his own statement, was necessary in common prudence, because he himself complained that the garrisons of Quebec and Montreal had been brought down too low by former operations—then the question arises whether they have been sent out at the proper time and in the proper manner. The hon. and gallant Member admitted that reinforcements ought to be despatched. He said it was impossible to leave those garrisons the winter through as they have lately been, and he added that reinforcements could not be sent out in winter, but must go in summer. Well, we are sending them out in summer; and why does the hon. and gallant Gentleman complain? One thing that he said certainly a little surprised me. On former occasions we have heard complaints made that troops have been provided with insufficient means of transport, and have consequently suffered hardships and been detained too long on the passage, and the Government has been blamed for such bad arrangements. But the complaint of the hon. and gallant Gentleman now is that we send out these troops in one of the fastest vessels that can be found; that we send them out in a ship large enough to ensure their perfect comfort, and to obviate those evils which too often result from the employment of numerous small vessels for such a purpose; that, in point of fact, we have abridged the length of the voyage as much as we could, and that we have despatched them in such a manner that they will reach their destination with the least possible inconvenience and suffering. Well, I should really have thought that a military officer would have given us credit for that instead of making it a topic of censure. I have only now to say that the measure we have adopted indicates no intention whatever to take any part in the unfortunate differences now prevailing among our relatives—for I may so call them—in the United States; that it indicates no suspicion whatever of the true and undoubted loyalty of Her Majesty's subjects in our North American dominions; that it is designed solely for the purpose of making those precautionary arrangements which are essential in a country that is contiguous to another country in which disturbances exist; that we have carried it out in the manner best calculated to spare the troops any inconvenience which a sea passage too often produces; and that we trust, when they arrive in Canada, they will behave with that loyalty for which the hon. and gallant Member does not seem to give them credit, but which I am persuaded the British soldier will on all occasions exhibit.

wished to explain. The noble Lord had asked him whether he meant that the force was too large or too small—because he had stated that it was both? What he had said was that the force was too small for any serious guarding of the frontier, but very large compared with the ordinary establishment there.

Sir, I am far from wishing to encourage a discussion of this nature; but I am not at all surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend should call the attention of the House to the departure of certainly a considerable body of troops from this country. I should not, however, have risen but for the remarks of the noble Lord, which were ingenious enough as matters of Parliamentary reply, but which, nevertheless, do not appear to be of so satisfactory a nature as could be wished. Because, after all, what is the character of this operation? The noble Lord has made a number of observations in answer to those of my hon. and gallant Friend, but he has not once touched the real point—namely, the policy of that operation, which is really what at the present moment engages the attention of the country. If those disturbances had not taken places in the United States would these 3,000 men have been sent to Canada? That is the question we are to consider, and we cannot be diverted from the real point by observations on the season of the year and all the other plausible superficialities with which the noble Lord has treated us. If the disturbances had not taken place in the United States, I repeat, would these troops have been sent from this country? If they are sent in consequence of the disturbances in the United States, what is the purpose for which they tire sent? Is it to guard the frontier or to increase the garrisons? If to guard the frontier, are they sufficient for that object? If to increase the garrisons, are they necessary? These are very plain questions, and I did not discover any satisfactory reply to them in the speech of the noble Lord. I am bound to say that I view the step taken by the Government with anxiety, and not with approbation. It is a step of very great importance. The noble Lord says you cannot call this an expedition. Well, there have been expeditions not much more considerable in number sent from this country for very great objects—for example, the expedition to Portugal, which did not consist of more than 5,000 troops—and which are often referred to in this House as important historical events. So the departure of these 3,000 men for Canada, may hereafter occupy a much more important place in history than the noble Lord, or perhaps any of his colleagues at the present moment contemplate. I must say that I think it a very serious measure, and that the Government have incurred a very grave responsibility indeed. I do not, at this moment, clearly see what is the object of the despatch of these troops. Dismissing from our minds the disturbances in the United States, I do not see the necessity of this operation; and if those dis- turbances are its cause, then we have to consider au act of very grave policy on the part of the Government. The noble Lord will not regard it in that light, but I am bound to say that, if brought before this House, it is our duty to regard it in that light. It is possible, if these disturbances spread and greatly prevail in the United States, that there may be outrages on our Canadian frontier. I can conceive that there may be violations of our frontier and acts of outrage committed by subjects of the American Government. But are there no inhabitants in Canada—are there not a numerous and gallant people there, accustomed to military discipline? Surely in a moment of emergency, with that sense of responsibility which all free men have, the inhabitants of Canada would be adequate to the occasion, would be able to depend on their own energies, and would not require the despatch of these 3,000 troops to set them an example. On the other hand, I should say that, taking this early opportunity of letting the people of Canada know that we are prepared to assume the monopoly of defending them, is rather calculated to damp their ardour and make them feel that it is not their business to protect their hearths and homes and national honour, and that they may pursue their profitable callings without coming forward in an exigency of this character. In that view I think this proceeding unwise. But sup posing these disturbances in the United States are not the cause of the despatch of those troops, the step clearly was not necessary to strengthen the garrisons. The garrisons are at that pitch of strength at which, upon the whole, and after due experience, it was the opinion of Parliament and of this country that they should be maintained. The whole tone and tendency of our policy of late years, and certainly in the present year, as shown by a vote when Parliament first met was that no increase of military expenditure, especially in respect to our colonies, should take place. Put it as you may, it comes to this—that this is an act of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government. It can be viewed in no other light than an act of policy adopted in consequence of the disturbances in the United States. But is it an act of sound and wise policy? I have very great doubts as to its wisdom or its soundness; and we must come to an opinion upon the point in this manner. Every one will dismiss immediately the idea that the transmission of 3,000 of Her Majesty's troops is an adequate means for preventing or baffling an invasion of Canada by the United States. That is out of the question. Gallant as our troops are, and little inclined as I am to believe that we may lose their services by other causes than the chances of war—although I think my gallant Friend was justified in alluding with delicacy and reserve to what we know from experience of former disturbances in Canada was the unfortunate result of the position of our army—still, gallant as our troops are, no one can pretend that such a force as this could be sufficient to prevent or to defeat an invasion of Canada by the United States. What, then, will be the effect of this act, apparently hostile, upon the temper of the Government and people of the United States? I do not say that we should do anything unbecoming our position or the doctrines which I think have been wisely and soundly laid down of neutrality in our relations with the Government of the United States during these disturbances; but we should do nothing wantonly to infuse into their minds the idea that there is any suspicion on the part of our Government as to their conduct, and that, therefore, the Government of this country is looking to ulterior consequences and making preparations for future misunderstandings and perhaps war. The only inference they will draw from our sending a body of troops—an expedition which is not powerful enough to defend the frontier nor necessary to increase the garrisons of the town—the only inference will be that there is on the part of the English Cabinet suspicion and fear, and a preparation for hostilities which may be contingent with the United States. I say that is unwise, and I hope such is not the opinion of the British Government, and I will cheerfully believe that it is not their opinion that such a contingency is probable; but, if their opinion should be otherwise, then I say it would not be wise nor politic to intimate that opinion in this manner, but rather they should prepare for such a sad contingency at a proper time, and take proper means by which the honour and interests of this country should be vindicated. When the noble Lord boasts of the promptitude with which the Government have availed themselves of the new means which science and skill have placed at their disposal, which enables the British Government to transmit in a short time a numerous force to the other side of the Atlantic, he must remember that the same means will permit the British Ministry to repose in confidence without exhibiting any unnecessary apprehension which circumstances may eventually not justify, knowing that with these new moans which science has placed at their disposal they can throw upon any given point an amount of force with a degree of promptitude which former Governments had not the power to do. At present, I confess, it seems to me that this movement has a fretful and a feverish character, and, whatever may be the opinion of the Government as to any ulterior consequences which may accrue to Canada from these unhappy disturbances in the United States, I think it would have been better if we had acted with more forbearance, and, until necessity forced us to do otherwise, if we had continued in that: tone and spirit of colonial policy adopted by Parliament at the beginning of the Session, and, as I believe, approved by the country.

said, one object of the Bill was to abolish the exclusive test that the schoolmaster should belong to the Established Church in Scotland. On the other hand it provided that they should teach the Holy Scriptures and the Shorter Catechism as Bet forth by the Westminster confession of faith. He did not say he liked this test, if test it was to be called. The Bill proposed to raise the salaries of the schoolmasters. At this moment the minimum of these salaries was £22 a year, and the maximum £28 or £29. He need not say that that remuneration was disgracefully inadequate. The Bill proposed to raise the salaries, the maximum being £60 a year—which he was far from saying was sufficient. But if they could join in doing away with the exclusive test he saw no reason why in a future Session they should not depart from the system of educational grants, and revert to the good old Scotch system of having a truly national education in Scotland.

regretted the Bill had been introduced into the House at so late a period in the Session, as it deprived the House of an opportunity of discussing it. It would, moreover, have been but fair if the Bill had been brought forward at a time when the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland would have had the opportunity of considering it. The Bill was introduced in 1854: then it was rejected by a majority of one. In 1857 it was carried by a majority of above thirty, but the Bill had been always rejected in the other House, and a similar fate would probably attend this. He trusted that the superintendence of the Presbytery would be continued over the parish schools. He desired to see the schools maintained on their present footing.

said, that he was opposed to many of the clauses of the Bill. The only good thing about it was the proposal to increase the salaries; but, then, at present the heritors were obliged to provide the funds; but now the proprietors and the tenants were joined with the heritors; but while they were joined with the heritors in providing the funds the heritors were to decide upon their application, and also upon the allowance to the schoolmaster. But what he was chiefly opposed to was the test. At present all that was necessary was a confession of faith; and the teacher was not bound to teach any particular theological doctrines, but this Bill proposed to lay down that he should teach doctrines in accordance with the Short Catechism.

would vote for the second reading of the Bill, and thought that the declaration would be most usefully settled in Committee.