said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any information that the British steamer Bermuda was seized on her voyage from one British colony to another by a ship of war belonging to the Federal States of America; and, if it be true, whether the Government have taken any steps in consequence?

in reply said, the Government had received information that the Bermuda had been seized by an American ship of war; but as the case had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, at this moment he was unable to give the hon. Gentleman any information on the subject.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay on the table the Copy of an application from the Mayor of Lynn asking him to interfere for the purpose of preventing the further extension of the floods in the fen districts, together with other Papers on the subject; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will state to the House the nature of the answer which has been given to this application?

Two or three days ago, Sir, I received letters from the Mayor of Lynn and from the incumbent of a parish in the neighbourhood, who expressed their opinion that sufficient means were not being used to arrest the progress of this calamity, and guard against its recurrence. I forwarded these letters immediately to the Middle Level Commissioners, and received a prompt answer inclosing the report of Mr. Hawkshaw, the engineer, which was read in the House yesterday by the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Fellowes). There can be no objection to lay those Papers upon the table. About an hour ago, as the noble Lord is aware, I received a deputation of Members connected with that part of the country, and of gentlemen resident there, and they mentioned several important points to which they wished the attention of the Middle Level Commissioners still to be directed. I requested them to reduce that statement to writing, which they undertook to do. This shall be transmitted to the Commissioners, with a view to call their attention to these points, and urge the necessity of every exertion being made to guard against the recurrence of this calamity at the approach of the spring tides.

said, he rose to call attention to the existence of serious and increasing distress in the western and south-western districts of the County Cork; to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been directed to the condition of these localities; and, if so, whether he has taken any steps himself, or advised any steps to be taken, with a view to their immediate or prospective relief? If he could possibly have avoided again bringing forward that painful subject, he would most gladly have done so; but having introduced the subject on former occasions, he felt it to be his duty to persevere, and more especially as he desired to obtain a statement from the representative of the Irish Government in that House, frankly and fairly admitting that the distress in Ireland—but he (Mr. Maguire) would now say in those particular localities to which he now wished to direct the attention of the House—was worthy of every consideration. The principal object which he had in view in again calling attention to this subject was to induce the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland to deal with this question in a fair and kindly spirit and not to check the tide of sympathy which he (Mr. Maguire) asserted was ready to flow in the direction of those unfortunate people, who were suffering from no bad conduct of their own, but from a dispensation of Providence. It was his intention, on the present occasion, to confine himself to one locality in Ireland. He would not ask the right hon. Baronet or the House to follow him even over one entire county; but he should take certain portions of that county, and show such a state of distress as must convince any impartial Gentleman that it was well worthy of the serious attention of the Government and of the commiseration of the people of the United Kingdom. He must tell the House that he had sent a confidential person down to certain districts of the County Cork, with instructions to go into the houses of the people, to observe for himself, make minute inquiry, and to represent the real state of things without exaggeration, and without any intention of producing effect. Three letters of that gentleman had been published some fortnight since; and these letters he (Mr. Maguire) at once placed in the hands of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with a request that he would institute an inquiry himself, and would send down some person to those localities with a view of ascertaining the real facts of the case—because all he (Mr. Maguire) desired was, that the Government should make themselves masters of the precise state of things. The last letter which he (Mr. Maguire) had received was even more distressing and more pitiable than the others, and that letter he had also placed in the hands of the right hon. Baronet. Therefore every impartial man must acquit him, on the present occasion, of any desire to exaggerate. The facts he stated on the authority of a gentleman who was the chief member of the journal with which he (Mr. Maguire) was connected, and he could answer for his veracity, for his faithfulness, and for his powers of observation. Those districts to which he should confine his observations were Cape Clear, Sherkin Island, the village of Baltimore, in the parish of Rath, in the union of Skibbereen, and two or three places in the union of Castletown. He might mention, with respect to these localities, that as a rule the crops had utterly failed. The potato crop did not last longer than from one month to three months, and in no case had it lasted beyond Christmas. The wheat crop was an utter failure, as was the oat crop generally. With two bad harvests and such a failure of the crops, he asked the right hon. Baronet what could there be in these localities, which entirely depended on the success of the harvest, but misery, wretchedness, and privation? The right hon. Gentleman might say by-and-by, "Thank God, there have been no deaths by starvation." But why had there not been deaths from starvation? Because the poor supported the poor. The people divided amongst each other their own last resources. If the neighbour of a destitute person had a small quantity of meal in his house, half of it was given to the poor neighbour; and wherever credit was possessed by any of this stricken community, that credit was exercised for the benefit of those who were more reduced than himself. The most extraordinary instances of this reckless charity on the part of the poor could be adduced. He said this to the credit of his countrymen, and to the credit of those who, though stricken, freely reached out the hand of charity to those who were more wretched than themselves. He asked the House to follow him into the cabins of a few of these people. He asked the House, in the name of common humanity, to give their attention to the descriptions given of these poor people by a faithful narrator, and he was sure they could not fail to enlist their sympathy in their behalf. With regard to Cape Clear, his correspondent stated—

"Everywhere a picture of misery met the eye. Most of the houses were of the most miserable description, and in scarcely one was a bit of fuel to be seen. Everywhere want and destitution seemed to have reached their extremest limits; the only food to be seen anywhere being yellow Indian meal, and in some houses there was none even of that. Unwholesome as such food must be when badly cooked, it was made still worse by the mixture of a kind of seaweed, which was gathered on the rocks for the purpose of eking out the insufficient quantity of Indian meal."

The correspondent then narrated his visit to several houses on the island, in all of which he described the same misery as existing. One was that of a woman named Shea, a widow, whose stock of food consisted of five quarts of Indian corn, which she had borrowed from the charity of her neighbours; the correspondent observing that he could scarcely credit the extent of this charity of the poor towards each other, if he had not seen it. Another house visited was that of a small farmer who paid£6 a year for his land; but having been unable to pay last year's rent, the only one which he owed, an ejectment was served on him. The condition of the family of that poor man was thus described—

"When we entered this man's house, his wife and children were there before us. A description of the house would only be a repetition of what I stated before regarding others, but the children and the mother herself appeared to be in a very advanced state of starvation. The children were sitting silently on rude seats near each other. Their faces were deadly pale, their eyes without lustre, and the appearance of the limbs was absolutely frightful—they were literally skin and bone. The lower parts of the legs had lost all human shape, the calves having disappeared altogether, and leaving nothing but the bone tightly covered with a coat of skin. A more complete picture of starvation could not be seen. Their whole food that day—it was then late in the afterneen—had been a basin of Indian meal, which a neighbour, who perhaps was little better off than themselves, had given them, and a morsel of food was not in the house when I visited it."

Several other families were also visited, and with all the destitution was equally great. In most cases the information as to their circumstances was obtained only in answer to direct questions, and the correspondent added that it appeared to him they were on the verge of starvation. He (Mr. Maguire) would only state with reference to Cape Clear that the population was about 600, and, as a rule, all these people were in the most abject misery. They had no fuel properly so called, and the only fuel with which they were able to cook a scanty meal was some firs or dried cowdung. He next came to Sherkin Island. The correspondent discribed similar scenes on this island to those which he witnessed on Cape Clear. He stated that as he was about leaving the mainland for this island, he saw a man named James Driscoll, whom he found leaning against a wall, exhausted, on his way home to Cape Clear from Skibbereen, whither he had gone to get a bag of Indian meal, but without success. He was a fisherman, but his gear had been worn out, and he had no means of replacing it. The writer said "he (Driscoll) had eaten nothing since Saturday morning, and when I saw him it was near two o'clock in the afternoon (Sunday). As he was walking away, his knees were bending under him from weakness." One of the houses visited was that of a man named William Sullivan, who with his wife and five children, had his father and mother also living with them. They were all crouching near the hearth, and the children were wasted and shrunk to skeletons. He had been engaged last year as a fisherman, and had an acre of ground planted with potatoes, but the bad season had reduced them to destitution. When visited there was not a morsel of food in the house. Another family was that of the name of Cadogan, who had often been for days without food, once from Tuesday until Friday. The same was the case with a Protestant family named Connell, consisting of the husband and wife, two sons, and four daughters. Most of the children had only just recovered from fever, and all presented the most wretched appearance. The next case was that of the family of Florence Driscoll, on Sherkin Island—

"He has four children, and when I entered, his wife and two of his daughters were within. The wife was a respectable-looking woman, of an appearance superior to the generality of her neighbours. The daughters, who were seated at spin- ning-wheels, were young girls of about fourteen and sixteen years of age, and both remarkably good-looking, but thin and miserably clothed. The mother stated that they had earned some money to buy clothes, but had been obliged to expend it on food for themselves and the other members of the family. They all appeared to be suffering under the deepest privation, and the mother stated that on more than one occasion they had been several days without food—once from Tuesday until Friday."

It might be said there had been no deaths from starvation; the reason was the extreme charity of the poor people towards each other. Here was an instance of it—

"One man, whose own appearance bespoke anything but the possession of wealth, but who had some little credit left, had gone security for about a score of bags of Indian meal for families who have at present no visible means of raising a shilling, nor any prospect of it, unless something is done for their relief, and he will be obliged to pay for all, should those who got it not meet with some piece of good fortune which will enable them to pay, but of which there seems little or no prospect. But this is not all he did. The extent to which the man was involving him self for others seemed to have frightened the dealers, for they finally refused to accept his security any further, and he then handed over to the poor man, on whose behalf he had tendered it, a bag of meal which he had purchased for his own use. This man has a wife and children, and when asked why he ran the risk of involving himself to such an extent, and, perhaps, of plunging his family into destitution, his reply was, that he could not find it in his conscience to see others starving while he could procure them food."

He now came to the village of Baltimore, which was situated on the mainland, and though the destitution there was not so great as in the islands, yet the description given of it showed that the people were in a chronic state of misery. The correspondent stated that the people exhibited singular charity towards each other. A widow of the name of Brown, the holder of a small farm, had gone security for some twenty-six bags of meal for those living near her, although she did not expect that ten would be paid for; and she stated that if she had not done it many of them would have died in a week, adding that she could not abandon them to such a fate while she was able to assist them. Here was an other case of misery from the village of Baltimore—

"In the next house we visited, a young woman, remarkably handsome, with features beautifully-chiselled, but pale, wan, and depressed-looking, was sitting on the ground, with a pale, sickly-looking infant in her lap, and another child, a little older, lying asleep in some rags at her side. Near her was seated an old woman, her mother-in-law. The young woman's husband, Timothy Driscoll, was the occupier of the house, which was without a chair or table, or even a bed, except some straw or rags thrown on the floor. He had held a small lot of land, at a rent of £4 12s., but had been ejected at the last Bantry Sessions. The young woman was crying as she answered the inquiries put to her. She had often been two days with but one meal; and such was the weakness to which she had been several times reduced that she was unable to hold her baby in her lap, but had been obliged to lay it on the ground alongside her."

The poor people had not brought this misery on themselves by intemperance; and one publican stated that he had received only 2s. 6d. in two days. In the parish of Aghadown, which was five or six miles to the west of Skibbereen, the condition of the people was not so bad as in other districts. There was, however, little or no employment, and the credit on which the best-circumstanced of the people had lived was fast failing. There was, he was glad to say, an abundance of food in the country; but it was very fine to say there was plenty of cheap food to a man who had not sixpence in the world, and no present means of earning it. You might as well tell a man who solicited alms in a London street, and who was hungry and almost naked, that there was plenty of food and clothing in the shops about him. In the cities of Cork, Limerick, Dublin, Waterford, and Belfast, food was cheap; but when it travelled sixty or seventy miles, and reached the poor people in small quantities, and especially those whose credit was broken down, it was at famine price; it rose in price nearly 100 per cent between the city of Cork and the places he had named, and the rate of interest charged by small dealers was exorbitant. They charged 24s. or 25s. for a bag of meal which would be sold for nearly half that price in the city of Cork; and they charged 4d. or 6d. a month for every month the money remained unpaid. The writer, however, remarked—

"In justice to the dealers, it should be added that the risk is very great, and that there are many debts now in their books of which they will never get a farthing. To one of them alone small sums are due amounting altogether to about£4,000, and his prospects of payment depend principally on the next harvest."

And he (Mr. Maguire) was speaking a few days since to a gentleman from the district, who told him that to three meal merchants in two unions debts to the amount of £26,000 were due—which sum represented half the annual Poor Law valuation of those unions. In the parish of Clanlaurence, in the union of Castletown, Berehaven, the correspondent whom he had named described the people as living wholly on credit obtained from small shopkeepers at exorbitant interest, and having the greatest abhorrence to enter the workhouse. He visited, amongst others, in the village of Inchintaglin, a family named Harrington, whom he represented as literally dying by inches of starvation. The description given of this unhappy man was painful in the extreme—

"The first house I entered there was that of Darby Harrington. Harrington himself was within before us, and the first glance was sufficient to show the extent to which he must have suffered from hunger. He was the very impersonation of famine. His cheeks were sunken and hollow, and there was a wild scared expression in his eyes, which told clearly that his mental faculties were giving way under the strong pressure of hunger. As to his physical powers, they had already very nearly departed, and he was actually dying by slow stages of starvation. A wife, two children, and his mother-in-law composed his family, and all they had to eat was what little the mother-in-law could get among the neighbours. None of them had eaten anything that morning, and over the fire—which was fed by green furze—was a pot in which; a small quantity of Indian meal was boiling. A man would have eaten the entire of it with ease, and this was to be the sole meal of the family for the day. It had been collected shortly before by the mother-in-law, but for whose exertions in this way the entire family would have starved. Harrington holds a small plot of ground at a yearly rent of £4. He paid a portion of the last gale with some money which he had earned in Waterford. He could not get work at home; and even if employment were offered to him, when I saw him he could not avail of the offer, for his strength was entirely gone. He had planted some potatoes in his land; but though he had manure for it lying near his house, he was unable, through weakness, to take it to the lard and spread it. His appearance bespoke the truth of the statement, for, as I have already remarked, it was that of a man dying of starvation. The only furniture in the house was two chairs. The bed consisted of some straw, with one small thin quilt."

In the village of Derrilough the state of a family named Crowley was described—

"The children were the very pictures of famine, and a little girl, the child of a neighbour, who had come to the Crowleys' house in the hopes of finding a spark of fire there to warm herself, was a really horrifying spectacle. She was literally reduced to skin and bone; her lower limbs, which were left to a great extent uncovered by her scanty frock when she stood up, were without the slightest appearance of calves, and the bones, covered tightly with skin, were all that remained."

He (Mr. Maguire) could have given hundreds of cases of the same kind, but he had said enough to show that in the islands of Cape Clear and Sherkin, on the mainland of Baltimore, and in the parish of Clanlaurence, there was actual famine; that there was no food except what was obtained by credit; and that the people were steeped to their eyes in poverty and debt. What demand did he make? He wished, in the first place, that the right hon. Baronet the Irish Secretary would frankly admit the existence of grievous distress, and not prevent those who were willing to relieve it doing so. In Ireland the existence of this distress was believed; and so impressed were the merchants and traders of Cork by the statements of the parish priest of Rath, in which Cape Clear, Sherkin, and Baltimore were situated—that in a few hours he collected £100 from them. The people of England believed there was no such distress in Ireland. They were ready to send their money to the artisans of Lancashire, and he wished that those people could obtain more of the bounty of those who had money to spare, for he believed they stood in need of it. He would not charge the Government with wilful cruelty or insensibility to the miseries of the people in Ireland, but they had turned back the tide of human sympathy from Ireland. Many a man who had sent £20 for the relief of the distress in Lancashire, buttoned his pocket tight and hardened his heart when he heard the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that there was no distress in Ireland that could not be met by the ordinary resources of the law. The Poor Law did not touch the distressed people, and it was not that they would not avail themselves of what it offered on account of the Roman Catholic bishops having advocated the amendment of the law. Let not the right hon. Baronet deal with one narrow case for the purpose of disproving his statement; but let him attempt to disprove, if he could, that the general features of the localities referred to were misery and privation of the most extreme nature. Let him deal with this matter as a statesman and as a man with a heart in his bosom. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, a few nights ago, proposed a very questionable plan, which would entail an expenditure of£1,000,000, for building receptables for whales and mammoths of various kinds. That right hon. Gentleman would do much more good by consenting to advance a loan of money for the completion of the railway from Bandon to Skibbereen, the works on which had been stopped by the present depression in that district. That money might be perfectly secured on the baronies, the county, and the line itself. If the Government would make an advance, the contractors would commence work next week or the week after, and thus employment would be given to a large number of the distressed, who would be able not only to support themselves and families, but to relieve those who were more distressed than themselves. It was with a feeling of reluctance and humiliation that he brought this subject again before the House, but when lives were at stake he need not apologize for having done so. He hoped it would be seen that he had stated the case fairly, and he trusted that the Government would now admit that distress did prevail in Ireland.

Sir, it is not my intention to occupy the attention of the House for more than three or four minutes, because upon three or four occasions I have had the opportunity of answering the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, and showing, that however the Government may regret the distress which they have never denied existed in some portions of the south and south-west, it was still impossible for the Government to foresee all the circumstances to which he has referred. The cases to which the hon. Gentleman has now directed attention, appear to have been brought under his notice by a special correspondent whom he has sent to the district. The Government cannot, how ever, pay attention to the accounts in every local newspaper, but must gather its information from those sources and from the ordinary operation of the Poor Law. Out of courtesy to the hon. Member, I requested the Poor Law Commissioners to send down an Inspector to inquire specially into the cases to which he referred. The Inspector, Mr. Horsley, stated, that although there was a certain amount of distress and suffering in the islands off the village of Baltimore, it did not exceed that which prevailed in ordinary seasons. Mr. Horsley further reported on May 21—

"The sanitary condition of the population is, upon the whole, excellent; and that, notwithstanding the privations and hardships to which a considerable portion of it has lately been subjected, fever and sickness, the usual concomitants of a want of sufficient food and other necessaries of life, have not hitherto manifested themselves to any appreciable extent. I do not apprehend that any deaths will occur from actual starvation. Such a calamity will be averted by prompt and liberal action on the part of the Board of Guardians, and by the benevolent exertions now being made."

I would submit it to the House, that it is only through the legitimate operation of the Poor Law Board that the Government can interfere. Of course, if the Government bestow money on the people, it will be a direct assistance to the landlords, who are bound, under the operation of the Poor Law, to contribute what is necessary for the locality. To show the hon. Member that I am not unmindful of the particular districts to which he has referred, I may state, that as far back as October I requested the Commissioners to write to the board of guardians at Skibbereen, expresing my belief that probably one relieving officer would not be sufficient, and urging the necessity of appointing a second officer. The board replied, that in their opinion there was no necessity for appointing a second relieving officer; but that if they found it was desirable, they would immediately do so. Again, in February, I urged on the board the propriety of increasing their staff; but, of course, when representations are made that they have at command sufficient means of meeting the pressure which may arise, the Government must act accordingly. I am glad to hear the hon. Member acknowledge that there is an abundance of food in the country. I believe that throughout the west and south-west of Ireland food was never more, plentiful than during the past season. The hon. Member has referred to several cases of distress. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board would also be able to point out many severe cases of privation and suffering in Lancashire, but it is impossible for the Executive to prevent altogether the misery which is endured by those who dwell in very poor cabins and are exposed to great hardships. I trust the House will believe what I have stated on former occasions, that we have done all we could, by earnest attention to the matter, by urgent representations to local boards, and by other means, to alleviate individual cases of distress. I am happy to be able to assure the House that during the six weeks from the 5th of April to the 10th of May there has been a progressive decrease in the numbers receiving relief, amounting in the total to 3,284. Both in Skibbereen and Castletown Unions there is abundance of accommodation for the poor. Not half of either union-house is full. We have given directions to the board of guardians when to give outdoor relief, and I do not see that the Government can do more than urge on the local boards the necessity of taking every possible measure to meet the pressure of the occasion. Great charity has been shown by the landed gentlemen towards the poor, and also by the poor towards each other. With every respect for the hon. Gentleman, I believe his assertions are exaggerated. I have just received a telegram with reference to Aghadown.

It is very important I should remind the House that I stated that Aghadown was not in so bad a condition as other places.

I sent Mr. Horsley to inquire into the statements of the Special Commissioner of the Cork Examiner, and he reports as follows on the 22nd of May:—

"The statements of the Cork Examiner correspondence with the paper of the 14th of May, as to the condition of the population of the marshes of Aghadown, give a grossly overcharged picture of the actual state of the district."

What of the other districts?

I have already spoken of Skibbereen and Castletown. I have received the following communication from the board of guardians of the latter union, dated the 8th of May:—

"This Board further states that it disbelieves the very exaggerated reports of destitution spread by a party, and which have had the effect of encouraging idleness and discontent at imaginary wrongs among the poor. They cannot too highly blame the promoters of these false reports; this (Mary Murphy's case) being the only case of alleged destitution, it will hardly support the views of those who had raised this cry of distress."

I think, therefore, I have shown that in the cases of Castletown, Skibbereen, and Aghadown that degree of suffering does not exist which the hon. Gentleman, being no doubt himself misled, asks the House to believe. I have received the following statement from the county of Cork as to the condition of the crops:—

"From all quarters the most cheering accounts of the prospects of the entire crop in the county of Cork have arrived. For many years there has not been so good a likelihood of an abundant yield of cereals and green crops."

The prospect for the future is therefore encouraging. I hope the hon. Member will not repeat the allegations which he has brought against the Government. From September to the present time I have myself endeavoured to ascertain the real circumstances of every case which has been brought under the notice of the Government. I do not believe the hon. Member will persuade the House that we have neglected the interests of the poor, or been unmindful of those duties which; are entailed on us by the position which we occupy.

Sir, my only object in asking the indulgence of the House for a few moments is to remove any impression of incorrectness in a statement on the part of Captain Cowper Coles, of the Royal Navy, in his letter to the editor of The Times, dated May 12th, last, in which he said "that the shield now fitted in the Trusty floating battery was put together without his knowledge—that it was only through the press that he learnt it was being done—and that he had not been allowed to superintend it." The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty distinctly stated that permission to this effect had been granted to Captain Coles, and perfectly vindicated the accuracy of his statement, that that officer had been consulted by the Admiralty. Allow me to reconcile and explain the apparent—for it is only, of course, an apparent discrepancy in these statements. On Saturday, May 10th, Captain Coles called upon me, and said that his patent and his reputation would be prejudiced and imperilled, if his Cupola shield should be subjected to the fire of a 150 pounder-gun, unless it was placed in a proper condition under his own charge. He mentioned that he had already communicated with the Admiralty to that effect, and received for answer that he would not be held responsible for the result. This, I said, seemed to me decidedly unjust, and I would therefore write a letter to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty expressing my intention to call his notice to this circumstance in my place on Monday, May 12th. I did so. Captain Coles left London for Portsmouth on the afternoon of Saturday, May 10th. On the evening of that day, at half-past eight o'clock, a letter from the Admiralty, giving him full power over the construction of his shield, was delivered at his town lodging. That letter so delivered after post hours could not be forwarded that night; Sunday was not a post-day, and he did not ceive it until his return to London on Tuesday. On reaching Portsmouth, Captain Coles read a paragraph in a newspaper which left the impression on his mind, that the Trusty was to proceed to Shoeburyness, and there would be exposed to a trial which his shield was not prepared to stand in its existing defective condition. Alarmed for his repute and patent, he wrote the letter dated Monday the 12th, to The Times. These facts will substantiate the correctness of Captain Coles's statements. He was naturally anxious that the long and costly work of years of anxious thought and toil should not be wrecked in a moment. He felt that he was responsible at once to his profession and to the country, and that every eye would be fixed upon an experiment, which, if successful, would make him a national benefactor, and, if proved a failure, would expose him to certain confusion. It was a matter of professional life or death to him. It is a circumstance of deep satisfaction to me to be enabled to do this act of simple justice to a brother officer, and to clear away any doubts that may possibly have suggested themselves previous to this explanation. I am heartily glad that the Board of Admiralty has now placed the shield so absolutely under Captain Coles's control that it may be tested beyond a doubt, for by the issue the great absorbing problem of the day, the capability of armoured ships to resist ordnance, will be, for the time at least, decisively solved. I feel assured that hon. Members have not only made allowance for an individual officer, confronted with an all-powerful Board on the issue of a question momentous to himself, but have even granted him their sympathy when he availed himself of a privilege which is open to the humblest as well as to the highest in the land, and is used by both—I mean an appeal to the country at large; nor is it to be overlooked that Captain Coles stood in the character of the inventor of the shield. I feel, Sir, that I am only stating an obvious fact, when I say that this officer only asks that consideration which no true Englishman ever denies to another—"Fair play and no favour," and that, in this House at least, he will never ask it in vain.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the punishment awarded in recent cases of personal violence. He would first refer to a case which occurred on the 29th April, in which a violent assault was committed upon a barman who was furiously attacked whilst humanely endeavouring to protect a helpless man. The police found him bleeding profusely, and he was for a great length of time unable to return to his service. The person who committed this assault was fined 10s., which was immediately paid. The next case he (Sir M. Peto) wished to mention was that of a savage attack upon a respectable young woman, who received a violent blow in the face, cutting it open, so that she bled continuously during the night and fainted several times. The assailant was sentenced to twenty-one days' hard labour. In the same week and at the same police court a person was sentenced to forty-two days' hard labour for breaking a shop window worth 25s., so that the punishment for breaking a pane of glass was twice that which was inflicted for nearly killing a young woman. On the 20th of May a man was convicted of stabbing a policeman, and was sentenced to a month's hard labour in prison. On the same day, at the Middlesex Sessions, a person was convicted of a violent assault on two policemen in the execution of their duty, and he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment and hard labour. On the other hand, a person who was found guilty at the same sessions of obtaining eight shillings' worth of goods by false pretences was sentenced to three years' penal servitude. In most cases of violent assault he found that intoxication was pleaded as an excuse. In his opinion such a plea should never be admitted where the life of an individual was endangered. He trusted he had said enough to call for the interference of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department.

said, it was no doubt very desirable that adequate punishment should be dealt out in cases of violent assault. The particular cases to which his hon. Friend referred he knew nothing of, with the exception of two to which his attention had been specially called, and which had been adjudicated upon by the Lord Mayor of London. He did not think, after reading the reports which appeared in the newspapers, that there was anything to justify his interference, or in directing the attention of the Lord Mayor to them with a view to explanation. It would be wrong from merely reading a report in a newspaper to come to a conclusion that a judge had failed in his duty, who had not only heard the evidence, but had seen the witnesses give it, and had made up his mind upon the facts of the case as clearly proved before him. The law necessarily gave a discretion to the magistrates in awarding punishment, and he need hardly observe that the Secretary of State had no power of increasing that punishment. In case, however, of a punishment being too severe, it was in the prerogative of the Crown to mitigate it.

said, he rose to call attention to the increased expenditure for National Defences in time of Peace, and to move for Papers respecting the Armaments of France. The subject was one of great importance, not only to the taxpayers of this country, but to every hon. Member in the House who had come there pledged to retrenchment and economy. He was afraid that when such hon. Gentlemen met their constituents at the end of the Session they would have but a sorry account to give of themselves. He believed that the armaments of France were far from being so large as had been stated, and hoped to be able to show that they had lately been much reduced. The noble Lord stated the other night that France had built and was building thirty-one iron ships and had 646,000 men under arms. [Viscount PALMERSTO: That is a mistake; it should be 446,000.] He must then have misunderstood the noble Viscount. He stated, however, that in addition there were 170,000 conscripts of the present year who might be called out in a moment, besides 200.000 of the National Guard. When M. Fould entered office, Europe was told that France was about to practise economy in all her national expenditure, and especially with regard to her army and navy. The statement of the noble Lord, however, was most inconsistent with the observance of those promises. Last year a law was made that no extraordinary loan should be granted for war purposes; and the Army Estimates for the present year were set down at 375,000,000f., as against an expenditure in 1857—a year in which there was no war—of 411,000,000f. Why could not Her Majesty's Government give the House some clear and correct account of the army and navy of our neighbours? Attached to our embassy at Paris there was a naval and military aide-de-camp, whose special function it was to furnish this country with accurate information as to the strength of the united services of France. He believed that every facility was afforded to them by the Government of the Emperor, and he thought that it was most desirable that their reports should be laid upon the table of the House. He spoke from good information when he said that His Imperial Majesty desired nothing more than that the people of England should understand his intentions towards them, and should be in possession of the actual state of his forces. The French Minister of Marine told the two gentlemen he had already alluded to that there would not be the slightest augmentation, but, on the contrary, there would probably be a diminution in the effective of the men, though there might be a slight increase in the number of vessels, on account of the expeditions sent to Cochin China and to Mexico. Within the last fifteen days the army had been reduced by the 101st and 102nd regiments of the Line, and only a short time before the 103rd had likewise been exempted from service. These papers, if granted, would allay the fears of invasion, and nothing more would be heard of exaggerated armaments or of the Island of Sardinia romance. He was not one who wanted to see the country defenceless. On the contrary, he wished the army and navy placed in a position commensurate with the power and the dignity of this great country. But there could be no doubt that the Government of late years had been driving the country into extremes upon that point, for which there was no justification whatever.

I can assure my hon. Friend that I am not aware of a panic anywhere but on the title-page of a pamphlet. There has been no panic in the country. There has been a deliberate conviction, calmly and very wisely arrived at, that it was necessary for this country to be in a state of readiness as to its armaments, both by sea and land, which would enable it to defend itself in case of attack. I would hardly venture to say that we are at present in that condition; but that is the condition we have aimed at; it is the condition the Government that preceded us endeavoured to place the country in; and we have been following their track in that respect, adapting our course to the change of circumstances, as far as the Votes of Parliament have enabled us to do so. I will state at once that I have no objection to produce to this House, as far as we can obtain it, a statement of the military and naval forces of the French empire, extracted from official documents published in France. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman asks me for confidential communications made by military and naval officers who are employed in France to give us information, I must decline to give them. But the French Government have published in the Moniteur de la Flotte, the Moniteur de l' Armée, and in their budgets, a statement of their military and naval force which I have no doubt could be obtained in an authentic shape for the information of the hon. Gentleman and of the House. The hon. Gentleman referred to the report of something which I had said here on a former occasion, in the newspaper report of which, notwithstanding its general accuracy, there was a mistake of a figure. On the 1st of January the French army consisted of 446,348 men under arms. There was, besides, a reserve of 170,000 men liable to be called out at a fortnight or three weeks' notice, making altogether 616,548—not 816,000 as I was represented to have said. In addition to this force actually under arms, or liable to be called out for service, there were 265,417 National Guards, making a total available force of 881,965. And I stated that beside these there were 70,000 men of the conscription for the present year, liable to be called out if their services should be required. I also stated that of the 446,000, it was intended at the time to transfer between 30,000 and 40,000 from the number under arms to the reserve, making no difference in the really available force, though the change is attended with a certain amount of economy. I will not go into details as to the guns; but I abide by the statement I have just made, for I can give the details of the force. These are:—Infantry, 273,418; cavalry, 61,352; artillery, 38,293; engineers, 7,114; gendarmerie, 21,638; field train, 8,803; foreign corps, 19,598; staff, 16,332; making the total which I have already mentioned. With regard to the navy, the number of iron-plated ships built or building—for of course we talk of them only—including the nine or ten floating batteries which were made at the same time as our own for the Crimean war, amounts, I believe, to something like thirty-six. As I stated on the former evening, including our floating batteries made at the same time as the French, we have, I think, barely twenty-five iron ships, built or building. The authentic returns published by the French Government will tally with what I have stated.

said, that the whole of the question ought to have been brought before the House and seriously considered on the Estimates. It appeared to him there was some danger of similar questions being used as ad captandum arguments to assail the Government. It rather seemed to him that the object of the Motion was to bridge over the interval which existed between that (the Opposition) side of the House and hon. Members below the gangway opposite. He therefore rose to enter a protest against such misapplications as the perversion of such subjects to political purposes.

said, that after the statement of the noble Lord at the head of the Government he would beg leave to withdraw his Motion.

said, he rose to move for reports on the subject of the Longford Election; and in so doing he wished to call attention to a statement made in his official capacity by a Minister of the Crown, and one charged with very important functions in connection with the Government of Ireland. That statement had reference to the Longford election, and was so remarkable a one that he felt it his duty to bring it under the notice of the House at the earliest possible moment, and to ask on what grounds it had been made. It was quite true that some time had elapsed since the statement to which he referred was made; but after he had resolved on bringing it under the notice of the House, he found that the election was likely to form the subject of a Parliamentary inquiry. Under those circumstances he felt that it would be more in accordance with the usages of Parliament that he should refrain from entering into the question till after the close of that inquiry. However, the petition against his hon. and gallant Colleague having been withdrawn, he now felt at liberty to enter into the matter. If it were simply a question between Colonel White and his hon, and gallant Colleague—if it were simply a question of the misrepresentations and exaggerations which had been so industriously circulated through the public Press—he should be satisfied to point to the withdrawal of the petition as an answer to those misrepresentations and exaggerations; but a Minister of the Crown had made statements so utterly inconsistent with what appeared to be the facts that he felt bound to ask that those statements should either be substantiated or withdrawn. The House had been told by a right hon. Baronet, a Member of the Government, that the public accounts of the outrages and intimidation that took place at the recent election for the county of Longford did not by any means come up to the real facts. They had been told, on the authority of the Government, that the facts went beyond what had been publicly reported, and that the proceedings at Longford amounted to a "mockery of election." Having had the honour to represent that county for the last ten years, he felt it his duty to give the Government an opportunity of substantiating or withdrawing those statements. If they did not do so, he must say that his constituents were most unjustly treated in the affair. It would be in the recollection of the House, that Colonel White, having accepted the office of Junior Lord of the Treasury, went to his constituents for reelection. An opposition was got up, and then an attempt was made to make it appear that the struggle or contest was one between a foreign Power and the British Government. He had no doubt that it would be extremely convenient to a Minister of the Crown to have it in his power to influence an election by representing the struggle to be one of that character. As an Englishman and a Protestant, he heartily sympathized with every attempt to establish liberty and constitutional government; but he contended that the policy of her Majesty's Government in Ireland was sufficient, without anything more, to induce the people of that country to withhold from them their confidence. On their Irish policy alone he wished to test the Government. It was matter of notoriety that the Whig Government had year after year become more unpopular in Ireland. The right hon. Baronet the present Chief Secretary for Ireland had done nothing to heal matters; but, in his opinion, he (Sir Robert Peel) had done much to widen the breach, if not to make it irreparable. He would not follow the right hon. Baronet in his tour through the West, which he made on a low-backed car, accompanied by the chief of the police. In the course of that tour he entered Galway at four o'clock on a winter's evening, and left it at eight the following morning. Nor would he dwell on his visit to Belfast, where he charmed the Orangemen by descanting on the shortcomings of a Roman Catholic archbishop. The truth was, that the acts of the Government were wanting in consideration for the feelings and wishes of the Irish people, and they had thereby alienated the confidence of the whole country. An opposition was therefore got up to the return of Colonel White, and his hon. Friend (Major O'Reilly) agreed to contest the county. At the very commencement of the election, however, it was stated, that if Colonel White were returned, it would be in consequence of intimidation, violence, and outrage, and that under any circumstances a petition would be presented against his return. It was true that some undue influence had been exercised, but it was only on the part of the Government. He held in his hand a return of the number of troops sent into the county of Longford. Speaking as an Englishman who had seen something of elections, he should like to ask English Members how they would feel if on the occasion of a contest the Government were to send down an overwhelming force of military—of cavalry, infantry, and police, under the command of a general officer and stipendiary magistrates—and all to insure the freedom of election. Was there one representative of an English county or borough who would not indignantly call on the Ministry to account for such conduct? Such proceedings would not be tolerated in England, but in Ireland anything was tolerated. The military force consisted of four troops of the 4th Dragoon Guards, two troops of the 11th Hussars, a portion of the 15th Hussars, and some of the 11th and 25th Foot. The force comprised al together 13 captains, 23 subalterns, 42 sergeants, 715 rank and file, and 479 horses. They were placed under the command of Major General Key, who was removed from the camp at the Curragh, a district being created for the occasion. About 1,200 police were also stationed in the county or sent there to secure the freedom of election. It was calculated that, including the police among the military, there was one soldier for every elector. No less than 11 stipendiary magistrates were also brought into the county. He would not say that all these county inspectors, sub-inspectors, and stipendiary magistrates would do anything wrong, but they were looking to the Government for promotion and good-service pensions, and it was but natural, if they had any bias at all, that it should be in favour of the Government, and that they should conclude that unless the Government felt peculiar interest in the election, they would not have sent down a preponderating force to secure the return of their candidate. Such excessive pre cautions, however, to secure the freedom of election were likely to defeat their object, because the small freeholders, seeing so large a force, would be afraid to trust themselves abroad, not knowing what was going to happen. He believed, that if the papers were granted, it would be seen that officers and stipendiary magistrates gave their testimony to the orderly manner in which the election had been conducted. He thought, indeed, he could himself satisfy the House that the election was not at all of the description which a Minister of the Crown would have the House believe. After the election was over, considerable exaggerations were circulated in the public press with regard to the violence that had taken place. The High Sheriff of the county of Longford, Mr. Walter Nugent, a gentleman of ancient family and considerable property, seeing in one of the Dublin papers an exaggerated account of the election proceedings, wrote to that journal to state that, although present at the election in an official capacity, he had not seen the violence which had been represented, nor had it been necessary to employ the military in the election. That letter from the High Sheriff the Daily Express, the newspaper in question, with characteristic fairness, refused to insert. The deputy-sheriff stationed at the town of Granard, one of the three polling-places, made a report to the High Sheriff, in which he stated that the conduct of the people had been orderly, and that the election had been conducted in a peaceable manner. He had yet another authority to quote, which was of so remarkable a character that it could not fail to carry conviction with it. A letter had been spontaneously addressed to his hon. Friend (Major O'Reilly) by a clergyman of the Established Church in this country, who, having property in the county of Longford, went to record his vote in favour of Colonel White. The letter was dated "University Club, Dublin, March 22, 1862," and was as follows:—

"Sir,—I see there is to be a petition with reference to the Longford election. As a native of that county, and an elector, I could not allow the misstatements that are circulated with reference to intimidation used at the election to pass un noticed; and I wrote to the Irish Times the day after Sir Robert Peel's speech in the House, to the effect that I was in Longford on the first day of the election from 11.30 a.m. to 6 p.m.—that I walked several times through the crowd—that I went to Newtown forbes and met with no incivility, nor did I witness during that day any act of violence or intimidation. This I am willing to testify on oath. It is right that I should add that I went down to vote for Colonel White, but the cause of truth and justice is not to be sacrificed to political parties.—I remain, &c.,

"THOMAS ROBERT BURROWES,

"Rector of Hutton, Somersetshire."

He (Colonel Greville) was himself at Granard, where there was generally excitement, if any existed, and he never saw anything more orderly. The people had, indeed, every reason to be satisfied, be cause they had it all their own way, and they knew that nothing but violence and outrage could endanger the return of their candidate. He did not see one of the Longford men that day with a stick in his hand, nor more than two persons drunk. The people were impressed with the so lemnity of the act that they were doing. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might think them wrong, and that they ought to have voted the other way, but they thought otherwise themselves, and they did not wish to put in jeopardy by any violence the return of the man whom they sup ported. He only hoped that Colonel White would not have cause to say that, bad as Longford was, Kidderminster was far worse. A stigma had been thrown on the conduct of the electors of the county of Longford, and that had been done by a Minister of the Crown. He called upon that Minister now either to substantiate the charge by producing the reports which were made to him, and upon the faith of which he had brought the accusations complained of, or else to get up and admit that, as in the case of the distress in Ireland, he was mistaken. If the right hon. Gentleman would not withdraw his statement, let him produce the papers which would enable the House and the country to judge between the hon. Baronet and himself (Colonel Greville), and between the Whig Government and the electors of Longford.

seconded the Motion.

Sir, I ask the indulgence of the House while I make a few observations with reference to some remarks which fell from mo on a former occasion. The assertion which I then made I am bound to say was entirely founded on fact. When I made that assertion, there was considerable anxiety and alarm in the county of Longford. I believe every gentleman in the county knows it, and it is generally known through Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the feeling in the county of Longford with respect to the election had reference not to the Italian policy of the Government, but to the general unpopularity of the course pursued by Her Majesty's Ministers in Ireland. That statement is not founded on fact so far as the Roman Catholic clergy of the county of Longford are concerned, because, after holding a meeting before the election, they put out a placard, in which they stated that they must return a man who would support the Pope, and not one who supported the policy of Her Majesty's Government, which was in hostility to the Pope. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred more particularly to the fact that a large number of troops, stipendiary magistrates, and constabulary were sent to Longford, saying that it was done with a view to intimidate the electors, and that there was almost one soldier to every elector. Now, I have nothing whatever to do with that. The force that was sent was sent upon a representation made by the gentlemen of the county to the Earl of Carlisle. I was in London, and I did not interfere in any way in the election. But as for sending an armed force, it is always done in Ireland. Every Irish Member well knows that where an election is impending the local magistrates or the Lord Lieutenant of the county make a representation to the Government, and a force is sent down. That took place in the county of Longford. The hon. Gentleman read a letter from the High Sheriff, in which he says that peace and harmony prevailed. But I believe there was a considerable amount of violence. I do not wish to say anything disrespectfully of the hon. Member who represents Longford; but the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy having held a meeting, announced that they were ready to receive any suitable candidate who would offer himself to them, and that they were prepared to bear him through free of expense. The hon. Gentleman (Major O'Reilly) was at that time in Brussels, and therefore I entirely exclude him from any responsibility as to what took place. But Colonel White maintains that there was considerable intimidation. I am not directly acquainted with the county of Longford, but I am informed that almost every one of the landed proprietors of that county, except one, supported Colonel White. [Colonel GREVILLE: That is not a fact.] At all events a very large number of the landlords, quite irrespective of politics, seeing the opposition got up against the candidate of the landed proprietary, stood by him; and I am informed that if every one had voted as he intended, Colonel White would have had a majority of 300. I believe that would have been the result if there had been no intimidation whatever. In one particular case, in a town called Arvagh—[Several hon. MEMBERS: Ardagh.] In that town, which is near the boundary of the county, there were twenty-five electors who intended to vote for Colonel White; but the night before the polling they were attacked by a force amounting to five or six hundred men, bended by a priest, named I think, Dr. Dolan, and they were so intimidated that only two were enabled to record their votes. [Colonel GREVILLE: The place is not within the county of Longford.] It is perfectly true that the petition has been abandoned; but I frankly say that there did not appear to me to be a case for prosecuting that petition. I was never asked about withdrawing that case; but I still conscientiously believe there might have been a case for prosecuting the petition. This I say, that what I spoke on a former occasion I spoke from what I believed a knowledge of facts, from the representations which had reached me, and I am quite sure that there are men in this House who know that what I then said was true. I must say that I cannot give the papers for which the hon. Gentleman asks. It is not usual to produce confidential reports. The petition has been abandoned, and I hope good will and good feeling will now prevail. Now, that the petition is at an end, the hon. Gentleman, if he will take my humble advice, will withdraw the Motion. If he does not, the Government cannot conscientiously give the papers.

said, he would venture to say a word on the subject, not because he was in any way interested in Ireland, but because the matter had assumed proportions which ought to interest all who set a value on the dignity of that House, as well as those who took an interest in Ireland. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, on a former occasion, speaking in his place in Parliament, and in his official capacity, characterized the Longford election as being marked with an amount of intimidation greater than ever had occurred before—as being signalized by outrage, intimidation, riot, maltreatment, and almost murder. Those were some of the choice expressions which had been made use of on that occasion; that was the indictment which the responsible Minister of the Government in Ireland had drawn up against the electors of Longford. Now, not only had that Minister made no attempt, by legal proceedings or before a Committee of that House, to prove his statement, but he now refused to give the documentary evidence upon which, if upon any evidence at all, his statement in that House must have rested. That did not seem a creditable State of things. He would not say any thing about the policy of the Government in habitually insulting the majority of the people of Ireland, but the right hon. Gentleman was now attempting to hide his own proceedings behind a "No Popery" flare-up. He did not think any person versed in the constitutional practice of this country would at all admire that mode of escaping from a delicate situation. But this he would say, when a Minister of the Crown made charges affecting the character of a number of Her Majesty's subjects, and that, with respect to the particular department over which he presided, and for which he was responsible, he was bound to take some steps to substantiate his assertions when they were denied, and not to refuse the documentary evidence upon which those assertions rested. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman, by the course he had taken that night, would only leave the House and the country under the impression that his words were produced by a feeling of indignation at the discovery of the extent to which the Government had alienated the people of Ireland, and that he really had not in his hands the slightest proof for the charges he so freely scattered about.

said, that as a Member for an English county he did not see what the electors of the county of Longford had to complain of. It was perfectly evident that the election had been, in a Parliamentary sense, free; but what was not clear was whether the freedom of election could have been secured without the precautions taken by the Government. It was notorious that a declaration had been made by those who owned a peculiar allegiance to the Sovereign of Rome, that the policy of this country with respect to that Sovereign was to be tested at the Longford election; and he confessed, that, knowing the influence which those persons possessed in Ireland, the Government would have been perfectly inexcusable if they had not taken precautions to secure the freedom of election. They had secured that freedom so well that the return was against the candidate they supported. He was of opinion that what really concerned that House much more intimately than chance expressions falling from a Minister of the Crown, was that the freedom of election should be secured; and if it unfortunately often happened in the sister island that the freedom of election was in danger, that House was bound to support the Government in such measures as would secure the free and un-intimidated return of a Member to that House. That had been done, and under circumstances of no slight difficulty. If there had been any abuse, why had not the petition been proceeded with? When it was proposed to withdraw the petition, why did not some hon. Member rise and demand that it should be proceeded with; or why did not the hon. Member for Long- ford claim an investigation before some tribunal in that House? But for an hon. Member merely to get up for the purpose of attacking a Minister, and of inducing a belief that there had been an invasion of the privileges of the House, when it was perfectly clear there had been none with which the House had the opportunity of dealing, was, he humbly conceived, trifling with the time and dignity of the House.

said, he was sure the House would believe that it was with regret and difficulty that he rose to take part in the present debate on a subject with which he was to some extent personally concerned. If, however, the question had been simply between himself and his late gallant opponent, he would not have said one word. Colonel White contested the county of Longford honourably, and having been defeated, made a declaration, on the spur of the moment, that the proceedings had not been fairly conducted, and that he was determined to petition against the return. Having afterwards made, no doubt, inquiries on the subject, and convinced himself that his hasty statement could not be supported, Colonel White took no further step, and did not petition. But there was something else in the matter, and to that it was desirable that the attention of the House should be called. The subject of the general freedom of election was not, as stated by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), under consideration; but the question really was, whether a Minister of the Crown, speaking officially as the responsible organ of the Irish Government, was justified in representing, in his place in Parliament, a particular election as a mockery of election, and as more disgraced by scenes of violence and intimidation than any other which had for years occurred in Ireland. His hon. Colleague in the representation of Longford, had called on the right hon. Baronet either to substantiate or withdraw that statement; and the right hon. Baronet had refused to substantiate it in the only way in which any attempt at substantiation could be satisfactory. On the 7th of March, the right hon. Baronet said that his statement was made in consequence of reports which he officially received; the right hon. Baronet now refused to produce those reports, and the only evidence now brought forward was the general allegation of his confident belief that there were Members in that House who knew what he had stated was true. With respect to the alleged instances of intimidation, no evidence was adduced, nor did the right hon. Baronet say that any prosecution had been instituted; and it would be a sufficient answer to the charge to say, that of the whole body of electors on the register for the county of Longford there were not 200 living who had not recorded their votes. The influence which always belonged to a good and kind landlord was not without its weight at the election. Colonel White and his proposer deservedly enjoyed that influence; and he found, on looking to the record of the votes, that but fifteen of their tenantry voted for him, while 450 voted for Colonel White. The right hon. Baronet had said that every landed proprietor in the county supported Colonel White. Now, his hon. Colleague in the representation of Longford was a large landed proprietor in that county, and he had had the honour of receiving that hon. and gallant Member's support. His right hon. Friend the Member for Kildare, who was also a great proprietor there, gave him his support. Sir Percy Nugent was also among the other landed proprietors whom, on a hasty recollection, he could particularize as his supporters at the election. Considering that the statement made by the right hon. Baronet had obtained currency for nearly three months, with all the weight which must attach to words proceeding from a Member of the Government, and feeling that not one word of it could be justified, he had a right, on the part of his constituents, to claim that the statement, if it could not be substantiated, should be withdrawn.

said, he trusted that the House would not allow itself to be led away on the question, particularly when it had taken a decided turn in the direction of an attempt to run a muck against the right hon. Baronet. No doubt it was advisable to afford protection to voters, and the last person to complain should be the hon. Member for Longford. There was no doubt that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was the popular candidate, and that the result of the election was in accordance with the wishes of the bulk of the people in the county. But at the same time there was a strong feeling in the county at that time, and it was quite compatible that at places where there were strong bodies of troops the proceedings were orderly, while in the country districts where there was less protection, violence and intimidation were rife. He had seen similar things on other occa- sions himself. In country places where voters where coming up to the poll in tens or twelves, no doubt they were intimidated, if not personally maltreated; for such things were not only possible, but occurred every day in Ireland. Since the right hon. Gentleman, however, had been so freely attacked, he would suggest that the proper course for him was to move for a Committee to inquire into all the proceedings at the election. It was not possible for the right hon. Baronet to rest under the stigma which had been cast upon him with more freedom than discretion by the noble Lord below the gangway.

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the result of the last election for Longford was in accordance with the current of popular opinion there, and, having had the opportunity of hearing the hon. and gallant Gentleman address the House on several occasions, I must say he has always done so with ability, moderation, and good tem per. However much I may regret the opinions of the majority of the electors of Longford, and however much I may regret the defeat of Colonel White, still I do not think that with these opinions they could have made a better choice than they have made. But that is not the question. A charge is made against the Government that they adopted the course—and I wonder that it should be considered an unusual course in Ireland—of sending into a county on the eve of an election, where party feeling was strong, and where disturbances were consequently to be apprehended, an additional force of police and military. That has been the universal practice in Ireland whenever application has been made to the Government, and it is not without precedent in this country. Upon the occasion of a late election I had a representation made to me by the mayor of a borough that serious apprehensions were entertained that disturbances would occur; and upon that, although I did not send troops into the town, I made such arrangements that they could be brought in at half an hour's notice, should the civil power be found inadequate to preserve the peace. I think in the case we are now considering the Government did its duty, and only its duty. My right hon. Friend is supposed to have spoken from official information; but such is not the fact. He spoke from general information of what had occurred, but, as he has said, with a firm conviction of the truth of the allegations he put forward; and he has since said, with that manly tone which distinguishes him, that he cannot disavow convictions which he still entertains, and he believes that there was serious intimidation at the recent election for Longford. The question is very much like what we have heard about Irish distress. Hon. Gentlemen make assertions which appear to be contradictory, while both are true, the fact being that in some parts of a county there may exist considerable distress, while in other parts of the same county this is not the case, and the opinions of hon. Gentlemen are influenced by the particular facts which come under their personal notice. At this election, I believe, there were parts of the county where serious intimidation was practised, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to assume that those acts did not affect the result of the election, and that those who presented a petition against the return must have felt, that although they might establish instances of violence and intimidation, yet they could not succeed in depriving the hon. and gallant Gentleman of his seat, and therefore they withdrew that petition. The only question now for us to consider is, whether these papers shall be produced. I believe it is the invariable practice not to produce the confidential reports of military and constabulary officers. I have not read one of them myself, but my right hon. Friend says he would have no objection to produce them if he could do so without departing from the rule which has invariably been laid down, and which I hope the House will not ignore upon this occasion.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman had said that it was not the ordinary custom to produce confidential reports made by the police; but his (Mr. Monsell's) experience was, that whenever a Minister of the Crown, in making a statement, read or referred to a report, he was bound to produce it. The right hon. Baronet had stated, upon the authority of official documents, that the Longford Election was a mockery, and had been characterized by singular atrocities and enormities, and therefore he was bound to produce them. What was the rule laid down by Mr. May, a high authority in reference to the practice in such cases. Mr. May said, "It has also been admitted that a document cited by a Minister ought to be laid upon the table of the House if it can be done without injury to the public interests." But the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) had just admitted that the right hon. Baronet had no objection to the production of the documents but one of form. Therefore the public interests could not suffer from their production. A remarkable case occurred in the year 1857, in which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) was concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India had cited a private letter from Sir Michael Seymour in reference to the China war; and being asked by the hon. Member for Sheffield to produce it, re fused to do so, though he offered to bring it down to the House and show it to any Member who wished to see it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) upon that occasion said it was quite monstrous for a Minister to rise in his place and make an important statement from a document not upon the table of the House. It was a rule that a document used by a Minister in the House became a State paper, even though it was a private paper. There should be no allusion to a paper not upon the table of the House, and not meant to be placed upon the table, for otherwise the opponent of a Minister would have no chance. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said in effect the same thing. The real state of the case was this, that there was no precedent against producing the documents referred to—the precedents were in favour of producing them; and if they were not produced, his humble opinion was, and he believed it would be the opinion of the House and the country, that these documents did not substantiate what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir, it may no doubt be the true doctrine that when a Minister of the Crown reads a document in this House, and founds upon it an argument or an assertion, that document, if called for, ought to be produced. But, unless my memory deceives me, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary quoted no documents for this purpose. He relied upon private letters which he had received—[Several hon. MEMBERS: NO; official letters]—and said that they contained statements which showed the existence of violence and intimidation. Now, with one exception, which I will mention, I quite concur with my right hon. Friend in the opinion which he entertained of the proceedings at this election. I speak from no official documents, but from general report and from newspaper statements, and I believe that general report is not always so wrong as hon. Gentlemen below the gangway would have us believe. I say, then, that I quite concur with my right hon. Friend in thinking that, although the result of the election was in conformity, as I admit it to be, with the wish of the majority of the electors, yet, nevertheless, that majority exercised great intimidation and violence towards the other side in those parts of the country where they could do so. That is my firm and sincere opinion. But I differ in one respect from my right hon. Friend. He says he believes that this election was conducted with greater violence and intimidation than were known at any other Irish election. Now, in saying this, he lays himself open to the charge sometimes made against him, that he is new to Ireland, and that he is not so well acquainted with Irish matters as those who have been longer in the country. I differ entirely from the naïve opinion which he has expressed, because it is well known that intimidation and violence are almost the normal condition of the Irish elections. I remember an election at Sligo—though I was not there—at which great violence and intimidation were beginning to be exercised; and what was done? Very wise measures were adopted. It was at a time when the militia were embodied, and there was a detachment in the town. The first step taken was to lock up the police. Then the militia were sent out of the town. The regular troops were then called in, and, freedom of election being thus established, the result corresponded with the spontaneous opinions of those who wished to go to the poll. At Irish elections in former times the return made used to be of "the surviving candidate." But milder manners have altered the mode of election, and no persons could be more amicable and more courteous towards each other than the hon. Gentleman now Member for Longford and Colonel White. But the old habits, though abandoned by candidates, have not yet been abandoned by constituencies, and therefore I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend in the prominent position which he assigns to the late election for the county of Longford. With regard to the documents, I think, for the reasons stated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that their production would be attended with injury to the public service, because it is for the public interest that confidential reports made by the police of transactions in the country should not be made public. It is obvious that you would not get from the police full and unreserved details of facts occurring under their eyes if they were liable to have those reports published to the world, and were thus exposed to all the unpleasant consequences which might arise in the neighbourhood in which they were stationed. I think therefore that my right hon. Friend was perfectly right in refusing to produce the confidential reports of the police, and I equally concur with him in thinking that great violence and intimidation were resorted to at this election. I found this opinion on what I saw in the newspapers at the time when this election took place, these statements having never since been contradicted. Why, people were beaten almost to death; they were assaulted in the high road when they were supposed to be going to vote for Colonel White. However, I think these things ought to be looked upon with more indulgence than if they had occurred in England. I only hope that these discussions will lead to an improved system at Irish elections; and if this is not the most flagrant instance, I should really hope that it will be the last.

said, he could not but express his surprise at hearing the noble Lord stand up in his place and malign the people of Ireland. When such a thing was done, it was, he thought, the bounden duty of every Irishman to refute the calumny. He was through the county of Longford on the first day of the election, and in the course of his life he had never seen a county which was more peaceable, and, indeed, that election contrasted most favourably with some which had occurred in England. The right hon. Baronet had said that he had had nothing to do with the Longford election, but he (Mr. Brady) knew that he had canvassed electors in London on that occasion. He did not blame him for doing so, but he did think it strange that, after having done so, he should rise in his place and assert that he had taken no part in the election. The refusal of the papers now asked for would have a most serious effect in Ireland. He joined with the hon. Member who made the Motion in saying that this matter ought not to be allowed to stop here. The character of the right hon. Baronet for veracity was at stake; and unless he produced the documents, and showed that he was justified in his assertions, he would not be in a position to meet society; and if the Government did not produce the letters, if no one else moved for a Committee to inquire into the subject, he should do so.

said, he appealed to the House on the same ground that the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Greville) had done, as a resident of the county which that hon. Gentleman represented. He (Mr. Lefroy) had represented Longford for a greater number of years than the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and he had had the additional experience of being engaged in many contested elections for the county. He did not now speak as a partisan of the Government; and if the question had been one between his hon. and gallant Friend and the Government, he should not have risen. But his hon. and gallant Friend had made a statement to which he could not give his assent, when he said that Her Majesty's Government had taken a part unbecoming them. Being in possession of the facts, he could not refrain from stating the ground on which he had put the question which had caused so much trouble to the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary, and which called forth the reply which had been referred to in the course of this debate. He thought the Government was perfectly justified in the steps they had taken, and would have been much to blame if they had acted otherwise. He put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, in consequence of having received information of violence and intimidation being practised at the election, which made him feel it his duty to do so. His recollection was that the right hon. Baronet gave him in reply a general statement, and he was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman spoke from any official documents. It had been objected that a large number of troops and police had been congregated in the county; but he would say for himself, having been a candidate both in support of and opposition to different Governments, that he could never go to an election in that county without an enormous force of military. He was opposed to Colonel White i politics, and did not care for his suc- cess until lie heard of the unconstitutional array against him. He did not wish to take part about the election till he found that the tenants of his friends and connections were intimidated by an array of Roman Catholic clergy, such as never was known in that county before. In fact, the position of the county was quite unparalleled. He did not say that there was more violence than had taken place on former occasions, but the apprehensions of danger were greater than he over knew. Whatever the course of the Government might be, he was prepared to offer to the House the testimony of magistrates and resident gentry as to the violence, and the names of men who had their heads cut through their hats, and who wore violently assaulted. [Cries of Read!] As he was challenged, he would read the letters, the first of which, from the neighbourhood of Granard, was as follows:—

"Mr.—has requested me to send you particulars of violence and intimidation which may have come under my personal notice during the late election in county Longford. From the way I was circumstanced my means of observation were very limited, having entered Granard hedged in by a very strong escort, and having departed in the same manner. I was, with more than 150 others, confined as a prisoner in the Sessions Court from eight o'clock a m to 5 p.m., no one daring to go into the streets for a moment. On both occasions, going and returning, we encountered a fierce mob, making violent demonstrations—hooting and yelling and flourishing sticks. In the evening, on leaving the town for home, the mob accompanied us for nearly a mile with execrations, yelling like demons, some declaring that if it were not for the military and police we should never leave the town alive. One of my tenants, after he had voted for Colonel White, was abused in the most violent language by a priest, within a few steps of the polling-booths, and also within healing of the mob, though fortunately not within their reach. A grand juror and magistrate who was present, and who kindly interposed, informed me he never witnessed a more uncalled-for or a more violent attack. I have only to add that on the Sunday and Monday night before the election the houses of three of my tenants who are electors were visited, shots fired, and the windows smashed."

Who fired shots?

could not say, but he would be much obliged to the hon. Member (Mr. Brady) if he would find out. The letter he had just referred to was from the Rev. Essex Edgeworth. Another gentleman, Mr. Dopping Hepenstal, a grand juror and a magistrate, wrote thus—

"Having lately read so very many conflicting statements regarding the late election in this county, and seeing that you are taking a lively interest in the matter, I feel myself called upon to mention the result of my personal observations during the polling days. I assure you that the very greatest intimidation prevailed in this barony (Granard). I saw voters for Colonel White struck with stones, and several voters who were on their way to the town of Granard, intending to vote then: for Colonel White, and who, unfortunately, were not in time at the appointed place for the military escort, were turned back under showers of stones, and were not able to record their votes. A report is circulated in this neighbourhood that there must be a new election, and the voters are being threatened already to take care how they vote. An unknown party came to the house of a voter, a neighbour of mine, but not my tenant, and called him out of his house, and would have severely beaten him but for the interference of his own family, who rushed out of the house to protect him. They then left him, saying, 'We will give it to you the first time we meet you in Granard.' I can get sworn informations to this effect, I believe. My own tenants are afraid of their lives to go to the markets ever since the election. I have no doubt that the civil and military authorities can furnish much information as to this fearful state of things, but they are not aware of the outrages which took place in the country, away from the polling-places. I am sure you will kindly pardon me for writing you such a long letter, but as a landed proprietor I feel most anxious that some step may be taken to prevent in future such intolerable bludgeon law."

It was said there was no intimidation at Granard. He had a letter from a resident at Granard, sent to an elector who was going in to vote; and what did the writer say? He urged the voter on no account to come to Granard, the violence prevalent in the town rendering it unsafe for him to do so. It further stated that many of Colonel White's agents, who were with the writer, had to be escorted to and from the booth, although they had several of the police in the house to protect them. He had a host of other letters of the same kind, and he would read one from another part of the county. It was from a gentleman living on the outskirts of the town of Longford, which was said to have been so peaceful. The writer said, that if he had been a Roman Catholic, and had a vote, he would sooner have faced a regiment of infantry than have at tempted to walk in by himself without a guard; that he saw six men with bludgeons run after a car of voters, whom they would have murdered if they had caught them; but being unable to do that, they pelted them with stones; that he saw Lord Granard's voters pushed by a crowd of priests, and handed over to a body of ruffians to be carried into the booths; that one man, after much hesitation, would not vote at all; that another said the Bishop insisted on his voting for Major O'Reilly; and that Mr. Crauford, a magistrate, was spat upon from head to foot, and pelted. He had another letter, with five pages of cases, all of which had been verified; and he also had a long list from the chief justice's agent of men who were battered and bruised in a fearful manner. He had himself seen one poor man, who, long after the election, was still suffering. It was therefore a mockery, a mere trifling with the House—it was treating Her Majesty's Government unfairly, and doing that which was not right by the country—to make such representations, or rather misrepresentations, as to the peaceable nature of the election as he had heard that evening. He did not know why the petition against the return had been withdrawn, but that withdrawal could not alter the facts connected with the intimidation that had been practised. He had not interfered about the petition; but he believed, that so far from the fact of the withdrawal of the petition being in favour of the assertion "that violence had not been resorted to," it was rather a proof that, in the opinion of the petitioner, the violence and intimidation of which he complained would, if he succeeded in voiding the election, be repeated.

said, he rose to appeal to lion. Gentlemen's sense of justice, and trusted they would not on that occasion imitate the intimidation which had been imputed to the constituency of Longford. The question before the House was a simple one. After an election at Longford, which attracted much attention, the right hon. Baronet, as the mouthpiece of the Government, made a deliberate charge, founded on official documents, against the electors of that county, that they had been guilty of illegal and unconstitutional acts, which, if proved, would place them very low in the social scale. Nay, more; the right hon. Baronet stated that the newspaper accounts of their violence fell short of the actual facts. When that statement was made, a petition against the return had been handed in, and remained to be tried by that House. ["No."] At all events, the right hon. Baronet must have known that such a petition was coming. [Sir R. PEEL: NO, I did not.] Then the right hon. Baronet must have been one of the very few persons who were not aware of it. At all events, the right hon. Baronet's accusation that the election was a mockery, and attended with outrages that had not been witnessed for years, was addressed to the very body who were subsequently to try the case. He appealed to every man who loved fair play whether that was a fair use to make of official documents. The petition having been withdrawn, the electors of Longford had no means of vindicating their character from the aspersions thus publicly cast upon them. He had himself, soon after the election, met a gentleman, formerly a Member for Longford, and an intimate friend of Colonel White's, who told him that he was present at the contest, and that the statements in the newspapers on the subject contained the grossest exaggeration. Even if certain electors had been prevented from voting, yet, as the entire number unpolled was 200, while Major O'Reilly's majority was 600, that circumstance could have had no practical effect on the result of the contest. He would, therefore, conclude by calling on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary either to withdraw his charge against the constituency of Longford, or to allow its truth to be investigated.

said, the noble Lord who had just sat down ought to be careful how he threw out insinuations in a matter in which he begged to give him the most direct contradiction.

After the observations just made by my noble Friend, and after the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, I can now honestly state, without any breach of confidence, what were the foundations—["Order, order!"]

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the following Motion which he had placed on the Notice Paper:—

"To move an Address for Copy of the Resolutions of the Governor General of India in Council, promulgated in October, 1861, and of the Papers and Minutes on which these Resolutions were framed, the first authorizing the sale of waste Lands in perpetuity, and the second permit ting the redemption of Land Revenues in certain cases; and to call the attention of the House to the presumed importance of these measures on the Colonization, and to their bearing on the development of the Resources, of our Indian Empire."

explained, that by the division the House had decided that the words "that the Speaker do now leave the chair "form part of the Question, and that it was not competent for any hon. Member to move an Amendment, although he might make any statement which he pleased.

said, that in that case he would, without making any Motion, call the attention of the House and of the Government to the Resolutions which had been promulgated by the Governor General of India in Council in the month of October last. And he hoped the House would grant its attention, because the question was of some importance, although its importance had been considerably exaggerated. He wished it had rested with some more prominent Member to initiate the discussion, although he was perfectly familiar with the subject. The Resolutions, when first published, were received in this country with favour, and almost with enthusiasm. The Times, which might be supposed to express the ideas of Gentle men in authority, said, that by this unpretending proclamation of Lord Canning a great social revolution was effected; that land could be had in India with greater facility, and at cheaper rates, than in Auckland; that India was unreservedly thrown open to British capital and enterprise; and that Lord Canning had successfully grappled with the only difficulty, by fixing the grants at 3,000 acres, and thus excluding land jobbers from realizing colossal for tunes by retailing small plots at fabulous prices to intending emigrants. Prospectuses were issued by influential Societies in Manchester, describing this as the most important document which had ever emanated from the Indian Government, and pointing out that facilities which could not be surpassed were offered for the acquisition and uncontrolled possession of land, capable of growing cotton and every other valuable product. The contrast between the first enthusiasm and the subsequent apathy was extremly striking. The subject had never been mentioned by any official of the Government in that House, and he wanted to extract from the Minister for India his opinion with regard to it. For his own part, he had no sympathy with gentlemen who thought it was inex- pedient to introduce colonization and British capital into India. He had always advocated measures having that tendency, and he believed the time would come when they would be surprised that such a policy had been so long and pertinaciously resisted. But he believed at the same time that the measure recently adopted was in itself but a small and a fragmentary measure, and that it was a great mistake to suppose that the sale of waste lands under the proclamation would put a stop to discussions that were going on relative to the land tenure in India. In considering the subject, it was necessary, in the first place, to define what was meant by waste lands. He believed they might be defined to be, first of all, the great jungles in the plains, and secondly, the hills and forest ranges in the mountains. It was quite true, that in most Indian villages—which were not mere streets and houses, as in England, but farms—there were waste lands. These wastes were not saleable; they were part and parcel of the farms, and were needed by the tenantry for agricultural and general purposes. Ha would inform the House that frequently a good deal of land was left waste because the survey valuation was too heavy and the rents were too high. Well, how did the Governor General intend to deal with these waste lands? Why, he had decreed, that assessed lands which had not been cultivated for five years or upwards should be at the disposal of the Government, and might be sold on the same conditions as unassessed waste lands, except that they should not be sold for less than twenty years' purchase of the rent officially put upon them, which was itself in many cases a rack rent. He (Mr. Smollett) had never heard so extraordinary a proposition. He was sure that the Government could not sell those lands. In point of fact, they formed portions of the different farms, and any attempt to take them from their present proprietors would be resisted, and would probably lead to agrarian insurrection. The jungles, or the waste lands properly so called, in the plains, were in a great degree worthless; but a large portion of the waste lands in the hills were capable of growing coffee, pepper, tea, and other articles of Indian produce. They had in some cases been used for that purpose during the last thirty or forty years; but they had only been hold on a leasehold tenure; and it might be found a boon to many colonists to have that tenure altered. But beyond that, he believed that the Resolutions of the Governor General in Council would be productive of no advantage whatever. It was no social revolution; and if any one believed that a large revenue would accrue from the stile of waste lands, or that a great influx of colonization would take place in consequence, or that a consider able impetus would be given thereby to the agricultural resources of India, he would be under an entire misapprehension. To a great extent, the scheme would be in operative so long as India remained in its present position—so long as Government held in their possession the cultivated area of the country, and were permitted to mismanage it through annual settlements, conducted by their own officers, on an impoverished tenantry. If they really wanted to introduce European capital or colonization, a very different measure would be necessary—a permanent settlement of the cultivated lands; a middle class must be called into existence, a proprietary class must be erected to stand between the Government and the people. The second measure proposed by Earl Canning was the redemption of the land revenues; but he did not think it could be carried into practice. The basis of that scheme was, that the revenue amounted to £20,000,000 annually, and that if the land were sold for twenty years' purchase, a fund of £400,000,000 would be created, which, if invested in Stock at 5 per cent interest, would give back the £20,000,000 a year. But the people of India would not give twenty years' purchase for the land, and for this reason, that they could have no guarantee that the Government would not afterwards levy from them the same amount of revenue under some other form of direct or indirect taxation. Besides, in the Government districts, which constituted three-fourths of India, it would not be possible for the tenantry, in the present state of society, to redeem their holdings; and even if it were a feasible measure, it would, in his opinion, be most mischievous. It would be a great calamity to allow the serfs to emancipate themselves piecemeal as apparently they might do under that Resolution. He believed it would be mischievous to allow 20,000 or 25,000 serfs to emancipate themselves out of a population of 500,000 individuals, who had in the Madras Presidency been permitted to squat on small holdings, and who absolutely paid not more than ten or fifteen shillings each for the spots of land which they occupied. Before any scheme of land redemption could succeed, it was absolutely necessary that they should have a permanent settlement of the soil such as that which had been introduced into Bengal proper in the year 1793, by Lord Cornwallis, who was a great statesman. Under that settlement the Government denuded themselves of the right of proprietary tenure of land in Lower Bengal, and called into existences new class of proprietors, many of whom now held large estates on titles as secure and less complex than those in this country. Under the provisions of that settlement Bengal became the garden of India, and its agricultural resources had increased three or fourfold since 1793, while Bombay and Madras Presidencies had remained stationary, and, in many instances, had retrograded. Earl Canning's small fragmentary measure was a stop in the right direction, but it must be nugatory, and might be mischievous, so long as the Government were permitted to hold all the cultivable land. It seemed to be imagined that these Resolutions of the Governor General in Council had been carried out, but that was not the case. At the end of the proclamation it was stated that the local Governments were to prepare drafts of acts which were to give effect to those measures; but those acts had not yet, he believed, been made public. That led him to say a few words on the subject of legislation for India. He often heard it said in that House, and out of it, that India was a very difficult country to rule. But he believed that that was a great delusion. He would venture to say, on the contrary, that India was a land that might be governed with very great facility, and that a little sense went a long way in that country. In point of fact, they seldom sent out as Governors to the Indian presidencies men of first rate capacity; and when he pointed to the circumstance, that a succession of six or eight noble Lords or right hon. Gentlemen of ordinary ability governed those districts without any great detriment to the public service, he thought he had established his position that India was not a very difficult country to rule. He was convinced it was also a country that required but a very small amount of legislation, and the smaller the better. Nineteen out of every twenty gentlemen connected by property with India were persuaded that one of the greatest evils which had befallen that country was the flood of legislation let in upon it on the most trifling occasions. He could not help thinking, that if two-thirds of all the legislative measures which had been passed for India during the last ton or fifteen years were erased from the statute-book, not only would no inconvenience be created, but the greatest advantage would accrue both to the governing and the governed classes. He looked upon it as one of the worst signs of the times that in the mock parliament which had lately been constituted at Calcutta sixteen or eighteen measures were passed through a stage at its very first meeting, and that at every subsequent sitting five or six measures were introduced. If Legislation proceeded at such railway speed, that assembly would very shortly be found to be an unmitigated nuisance. He recollected that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the India Department had told them last year that it was a very difficult thing to legislate for India, and that that difficulty was greatly increased by the fact that European residents had hardly any means of making themselves acquainted with the feelings of the native population. He referred in proof to the statement of Sir Mark Cubbon, that after a very long residence in India he had not been able to fathom the feelings of the natives towards Europeans. As far as his (Mr. Smollett's) own experience went, he did not think there was any great mystery about the matter. He should say that the Indian community was one of a highly civilized character. They knew that they were a conquered race, but they expected civility from their conquerors, though they did not always obtain it. They held in veneration the religion of their ancestors, and they expected that it would not only be tolerated, but that its possessions would be protected by the law. That protection, however, had been insidiously withheld for many years previously to the late insurrection. They looked up with regard to their native gentry, and they saw with disgust and dismay the pretexts that were frequently employed to uproot them. The middle classes in India were singularly unwarlike; the agricultural classes—he spoke of them from an experience of thirty years—were as a body, when properly treated the most docile and the most industrious of mankind, and whenever an insurrection arose in that country it was due to the oppressive use of the authority of the Government, or to the bad management of some indigo planter. In their mode of conducting their dealings with one another the people of India would bear a compari- son with the most favoured race in Europe. It was legislation like that of Mr. Laing, who sought to bring under penal enactment every civil contract, which made India hard to govern, and the British name cease to be respected. In point of fact, India wanted no legislation, but she did require the presence of a strong, vigorous, and honest Executive, which he hoped she would have under the Earl of Elgin. Nine-tenths of the weal and woe of the people depended upon the executive Government, and not upon legislation. The work of conciliation was not to be accomplished by introducing two or three blacks into a Legislative Council without their having any duties to perform, or any responsibility or emoluments; but by opening up the departments of the State more fairly to native talent and respectability. The Government ought to devote their energies to the formation of roads and communications, which were the great social want of the country, and to leave the improvement of the land to the agriculturists. If India were really governed on the principles of the Queen's Proclamation, 50,000 European troops would be quite sufficient. These were some of the leading reforms which were required, but they would never be achieved as long as Parliament continued to treat the affairs of India with apathy, and as long as mere fragmentary Legislation was the order of the day.

said, he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire deserved great credit, not only for the manner in which he had brought forward a question relating to, perhaps, the most important measures which had been passed during the administration of Earl Canning, but for having raised the; first Indian debate which had taken place during that uneventful Session. He did not, however, agree with his hon. Friend that these measures should be regarded merely as a fragmentary instalment of what should be done in the matter. On the contrary, he very much questioned whether they did not go quite far enough, although the results to be derived from their adoption might disappoint the expectations of those who had been so clamorous for their introduction, in order to suit their own views, without duly considering the hardships and injustice which was likely to be inflicted upon our native fellow-subjects in India. He wished also to be informed whether, in dealing with the ques- tions, the Governor General had acted with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. To the first of these measures—the redemption of the land-tax at twenty years' purchase—he saw no particular objection, because he believed it would prove to be purely chimerical, for few, if any, of the zemindars would be found disposed to avail themselves of the privilege. In corroboration he might refer to the evidence of witnesses given before the Colonization Committee, who were of opinion that it was unlikely a zemindar would be satisfied with 5 per cent for his money when he had no difficulty in procuring 10 or even 12 per cent. In a recent conversation, moreover, with a collector of the North Western Provinces, he found that the only instances of its having occurred within his knowledge were those of two natives, who had been rewarded by the Indian Government with estates assessed at half the Government rent for fidelity during the mutiny. With regard to the sale of waste lands, referring to his experience as a settlement officer in Orissa and Cuttack, he thought that great care and delicacy should be exercised so as not to interfere with the vested rights of the zemindars. On making a settlement of an estate it would gene rally be found that not more than two-thirds of the land were actually under cultivation, the remaining third being de scribed as" cultivable but not cultivated." That being the case, the settlement officer imposed an equitable assessment on the two-thirds, but he inserted a distinct provision in the deed of settlement, that in the event of the land described as "culturable but not cultivated" being brought under cultivation at any future period, the zemindar engaged to pay an enhanced rent to Government. It would therefore be the very height of injustice were that portion of his estate to be liable to be sold at any moment to any one who took a fancy to it; and yet by the 35th paragraph of the Government Resolution referred to by his hon. Friend, such was declared to be the case in the event of the zemindar failing to bring it into cultivation within five years after the settlement. In saying that he did not mean to object to the clearance of jungle and forests, but he hoped Government would not sell them below their value, for he believed the time was rapidly approaching when they would become valuable property. He understood that already some of the railway companies complained of the difficulty of procur- ing timber for sleepers for the railways. He next came to the last, and, in his opinion, the best of the measures, and that to which the question which he had placed on the paper referred—the extension of Lord Cornwallis's perpetual settlement to the North Western Provinces. Although it was notorious that the perpetual settlement of 1793 was made up hurriedly and on imperfect data, and had occasioned great loss of revenue to the Government, yet there was no doubt that the political advantages which had resulted from it had been considerable. The case, however, as regarded the North Western Provinces was very different. The Indian Government was in possession of the actual value and capabilities of every estate in the North West, which had been ascertained from the investigations, measurements, and assessments of their able and zealous covenanted civil servants. The correctness of their proceedings had been furthermore tested by a settlement of thirty years' duration, which was now falling in. A better opportunity, therefore, there could not be found for extending the perpetual settlement of Lower Bengal to the North Western provinces. While on that question he could not help expressing his regret that the field survey of Lower Bengal, which had been commenced, was stopped on the recommendation of Mr. Ricketts, when he was appointed to the Revenue Board. He believed that if, instead of deputing those expensive and useless commissions and special commissions to inquire into the unhappy indigo disputes in the districts of Jessore and Nuddeea, which had terminated in the ruin of a most enterprising section of our countrymen, a field-by-field survey, similar to that in the North West, Madras, and Bombay had been made, these disputes would have been settled long ago to the satisfaction of all parties. What had happened? A ryot took advances from a planter to cultivate 100 acres with indigo, whereas he knew that his holding or field consisted in reality but of 50 acres. The ryot could not fulfil his engagement, and, in the absence of a survey or other authenticated record, a dispute arose, and the planter was deprived of the necessary proof in order to expose the deceit practised by the ryot. As illustrative of that state of things, he would, with the permission of the House, read a very brief extract from the 21st paragraph of Mr. James Hills's letter, dated the 27th of July, 1861, to the Secretary to the Government of India. Mr. Hills says—

"I do not believe any English gentleman can descend so low as to fathom the cunning, the deceit, and depravity of the Bengalee ryot's character unless he has had monetary transactions with him."

Without being tempted to avail himself of that opportunity to touch upon any of the financial and other measures which were being carried out in India, he would merely express a hope that in sanctioning the several measures under consideration the right hon. Baronet and his Council would not fail to bear in mind, that while affording every facility to the European to settle in India, they were nevertheless bound to protect the interests, regard the susceptibilities, and take care no violence was done to the long-existing rights of the native landlords, to whom they were indebted for two-thirds of the whole of the revenues of their Indian territories.

Sir, it is not my intention to trouble the House with many observations, because my duty on the present occasion is to play the part of a listener rather than that of a speaker. I feel grateful to the hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject, not only for bringing it forward, but also for the able and temperate manner in which he has treated it. The hon. Gentleman is one of those Indian servants whose presence in this House I gladly hail, because, from their long experience of India, their knowledge, and their judgment, they are entitled to speak with authority in discussions of this kind. I believe the forms of the House will not permit the hon. Gentleman to make the Motion of which he has given notice. However, he has had an opportunity of stating his views to the House; and, as far as the papers go which he wishes to have, I can only say, that if he will give notice either to-night or on some future occasion, he will have them as an unopposed return. The hon. Gentleman thinks that the importance of the measures to which he has referred has been a good deal overrated in this country. I agree with him upon that point; but, on the other hand, I think he himself has rather underrated the importance of the measures in question. It is true that they do not go to the extent which the hon. Gentleman has shadowed out, but at the same time I cannot say that they are of slight importance. With respect, for example, to the sale of waste lands, I do not see how they could go further, because they announce that all the lands in India properly called waste shall be saleable. I agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman that there is a great delusion in this country as to the extent to which waste lands exist in India, and that a good deal of land which appears to be waste cannot in any true sense of that term be so called. There are many acres of land in the neighbourhood of villages which have all the appearance of being waste, but which in reality are no more waste than the common pastures in this country. The native agriculturists are obliged to keep cattle for the purpose of cultivating their arable lands; those cattle must have pasture, and very often the pastures, from which these cattle derive their subsistence, as they look like waste lands, are so called. If they were to be sold, the countrymen would be deprived of the means of maintaining their cattle. It is obvious that the pasture lands are indispensable to the cultivation of the arable land, and it is impossible that these lands could be sold without doing great injustice to those persons who hold them. Of course, therefore, they cannot be sold, and upon that point the hon. Member for Windsor is labouring under a misapprehension.

What I stated was, that by the 55th paragraph of the Government Resolutions those very lands to which the right hon. Baronet is now referring, if not brought into a state of cultivation within five years after the settlement, are liable to be sold.

I think there is a difference between the lands to which the hon. Gentleman alludes and the pasture lands of India. However, it is not worth while going into the question now, but I maintain the utter impossibility of selling these lands. I even go further, and say that the rights of the natives of India to these lands should be scrupulously observed and carefully guarded. My own opinion is, that the Resolutions do not take sufficient care to guard some of those rights; and therefore in expressing my general approval of the Resolutions, as far as the sale of really waste lands is concerned, I must add, that I think care should be taken, on the one hand, to preserve the rights of those persons to whom a limited occupation of the lands belongs, and, on the other, to protect the State against loss. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject said, that in his opinion the Resolutions would prove to be useless. Let me remind him that most of the coffee plantations in Madras have been established upon land which was formerly waste, and sold as such, and that the same observation may be applied to many of the tea districts. It seems to me, upon the whole, that the sale of the waste lands under the Government Resolutions will intro duce English capital where it is much needed, and will be otherwise beneficial to IV great extent, though I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the extent to which waste lands are to be found all over India has been rather overrated in this country. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the redemption of the land revenues. I agree with the hon. Member who spoke last, and who possesses an amount of knowledge upon these subjects which cannot fail to be of great advantage in discussions like the present, that in all probability the redemption will not be carried out to any very great extent. Indeed, I do not think it desirable that it should be carried out to any great extent, because I do not want to see the State anticipating its revenue and converting its future annual income into capital. I confess, however, that I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman meant by saying that this was the converse of the plan of settlement inaugurated by Lord Cornwallis, because obviously, so far as either the sale of the waste lands or the redemption of the land tax goes, it is a permanent settlement. The fault of the settlement made by Lord Cornwallis was that it erected into landowners those who were not landowners. Government officers employed to collect the revenue were transmuted into landowners, and Lord Cornwallis did not do that which has been done in recent settlements—he did not take any steps to ascertain the rights of the people who were the real occupiers and owners of the land. I agree with the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Vansittart), that if the rights of the ryots had been ascertained in Bengal, as they have been subsequently ascertained in the settlement of the North West districts, half of the disputes, which now are certainly very serious, would never have arisen. If it should be thought right to extend the permanent settlement to other parts of India, it is indispensable that, as in the North West Provinces, the rights of each individual occupier should be carefully ascertained and recorded, and all chance of disputes will thus be avoided. The question is one of the most important that can be raised in reference to that country; it is one on which unanimity of opinion by no means exists, for it has been discussed for years by many of the ablest men, holding contrary opinions. But it will be necessary before long to come to a decision on the subject; the matter, in fact, is at present under consideration by myself and the Council of India, many of whom are intimately acquainted with these matters; and it would not be my duty either to the Council or to the Government to express any opinion upon it at this moment. When the proper time comes, it will be my duty to lay all the information bearing upon the subject on the table of the House, and I hope the House will feel that it would not be right for me at present to add anything further.

said, the Question of which he had given notice might appear a small one, but it involved the turning-point of the discussion which would take place in a few days with regard to the Spithead forts. Those forts were to stand in the Channel at distances of 2,000 yards apart, and the mid-channel consequently would be 1,000 yards from each. It seemed of the last importance that forts which were intended to stop armour-clad vessels from coming in by day or night, should be able to fire upon them with effect at that distance of 1,000 yards, but hitherto the experiments had been confined to ranges of 200 yards. A section of the Warrior, fired at from the latter distance with a 300-pounder gun with a charge of 50 lb of powder, had not been penetrated, so that a vessel under such circumstances would have escaped. What, therefore, would have been the consequence at 1,000 yards? The forts would be powerless to stop an iron-cased ship by day, and at night a wooden vessel might run past them with the greatest ease. He did not want to prejudge the question of the Spithead forts, though it seemed to him that Gentlemen had been appointed members of the Defence Commission whose minds were already made up regarding them. The questions addressed to him as one of the witnesses came rather from advocates than judges, and were framed apparently with a view of con firming a foregone conclusion rather than to ascertain the opinions of the persons under examination. What bad taken place at the passage of the Mississippi showed that wooden vessels of very small size were able to pass shore batteries; and, without data more conclusive than the Government had yet obtained, he feared the money they proposed to expend at Spithead would; be thrown away. They ought to try experiments at long ranges before further expenditure was incurred in building forts on the Spithead shoals; and if at 1,000 yards they could sink a vessel, then let the forts be built. It was said that a I 600-poundor gun was to be constructed; which would require a charge of above 100 lbs of gunpowder. They might rely upon it, that if such enormous charges were used, great caution would be necessary to avoid accidents to bystanders. If the new forts were to be armed with guns carrying a 600 lb. shot, they would endanger not only the lives of the gunners, but the stability of the works themselves. He believed that even now a flaw had been discovered in the large Armstrong gun. It was said that the target had been very much battered, and that a sound spot could not be hit at the distance named; but would it not be more economical to construct a new and sound target, than to spend millions upon those forts in complete ignorance of their probable worth? He must protest against the desire for secrecy shown by the Government in the experiments conducted with reference to the inquiries of the Committee on Iron-plates. The results of those experiments were no secret abroad; they were known to a great number, of officers, seamen, and civilians, to gentlemen totally unconnected with the service, and he believed were even known to officers of foreign Powers. The experiments conducted by the Austrian Government, on the other hand, were not only published, but he believed their reports would be found almost identical in many points with those of our own Iron-plate Committee. A great deal of time and expense would be saved by the publication of the experiments now going forward, as inventors and manufacturers, in ignorance of the results attained, were applying themselves to the production of targets of the very nature which experience had shown to be useless. For instance, that very day, it was no secret—although the Government wished to keep it so—that Mr. Scott Russell's target, made of eight or nine inches of iron, had been tried and penetrated by the Armstrong gun, whereas the Warrior target, only 4½ inches thick, and backed with teak, had resisted the utmost powers of that weapon. The cost of experiments at long ranges need not frighten the Government; they had only to move back the gun 800 or 1,000 yards from its present position, and to construct a new platform at an expense of about £20. In conclusion, he would beg leave to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any experiments have been tried to ascertain the effect of the most powerful smooth-bore and rifled Guns on the section of the Warrior, or any other target, at ranges about equal to half the interval between the proposed Spithead Forts; and, if not, whether orders will be given to have such experiments, forthwith made; and, in either case, whether the results will be communicated to the House?

Sir, I hope the House will not think it necessary to enter at any length into a preliminary and partial discussion of a question which must come before them in a more formal and distinct manner in a short time, when the subject of the Spithead forts is brought under their consideration. I have this evening laid on the table the Report of the Commissioners on the subject, and it will in the course of a few days be in the hands of hon. Members. Now, the gallant Officer who has just spoken says lie should have more confidence in the Report of the Commission if those of whom it was composed did not happen to entertain preconceived opinions on the question which they were appointed to investigate; but I think it right to mention, in order to prevent the existence of any suspicion on that score, that four—two military and two naval—members were added to the Commission in whose case the imputation of partiality because of their preconceived opinions does not apply. In answer to the question put by the hon. and gallant Officer, I can only say that several experiments have already taken place at Shoeburyness, but not at the distance of 1,000 yards. I have not I myself given any particular directions with regard to those experiments, but I think it might be desirable to make some with I the view of ascertaining how far the ordnance in question will act at a considerable distance. It must, however, be borne in mind that the increase in the power of ordnance is rapidly progressive, and that, although no gun at present in existence might be able to pierce the side of an iron ship at 1,000 yards, yet the lapse of six months or a year might bring about quite a different state of things. So far as the general argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is concerned, it seems to me that, if pushed to its legitimate extent, it would go the length of proving that all ordnance is useless; because, if a gun on a fort cannot pierce an iron-plated vessel, no more can a gun fired from another ship; so that naval warfare would be reduced to the old system, in accordance with which one vessel tried to run down another by force. I can, however, scarcely suppose that we are likely to revert to so elementary a state of things, while I have no difficulty in stating that it is the wish of the Government that the most complete experiments should be made by way of testing the value of new inventions. With respect to the question of secrecy, I need only say that I believe every one of the experiments which have been made has been viewed by a considerable number of spectators. I may add, that although no authentic information in reference to them has been laid on the table of the House, I have no doubt those who take special or professional interest in the subject have had no difficulty in obtaining accurate information as to the result.

Sir, I regret the absence from the House of my noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty on this occasion. Early in the evening our attention was called by the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Christchurch (Admiral Walcott) to a correspondence, reflecting in terms, I think, rather unnecessarily severe, on a distinguished gentleman—Captain Coles—in consequence of a letter which he wrote in the public press. Now, I think my noble Friend ought to have taken the opportunity to remove a misapprehension which seems to prevail with respect to the intentions of the writer of that letter; and as the noble Lord is not now in his place, I must ask leave to correct some of the statements on the subject which have been made. The noble Lord objected, and I think justly, to an officer on full pay carrying on a correspondence on professional matters in the public newspapers. That, in my opinion, is a course which in principle is mischievous. But then Captain Coles does not come before the public as an officer on full pay, but as an inventor, and an inventor, too, who has not been treated with the greatest courtesy or con- sideration by the Government officers. Now, when the noble Lord tells us—as a proof of the great generosity with which he had been treated—that Captain Coles had not only been put on full pay but that he was receiving a sum of £1 a day for his invention, I feel disposed to be rather ashamed of the parsimony manifested in the case of a man, so distinguished. Is that the way, let me ask, in which Sir William Armstrong has been dealt with? No, he gets £2,000 a year, and is guaranteed a large sum (some £80,000 or £100,000, I believe) in the event of the Government not carrying out their engagements with him; while actually, when the noble Lord made his accusations against Captain Coles, that gallant officer had requested to be put on half-pay. He was simply told, however, that he might have his £1 a day, of which he has been in the receipt only since last November. It appears to me, therefore, that Captain Coles, who has been kept seven years waiting, and who might have sold his invention over and over again to foreign Powers, but from a strong feeling of patriotism has refrained from doing so, has been somewhat harshly treated. But, passing from his case, I now come to the question which has been put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham, in dealing with which I shall not, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, anticipate any discussion which may hear after take place in reference to the Spithead forts. I may, however, observe that I was somewhat surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak of accurate information having gone forth to the public with respect to the experiments made at Shoeburyness, believing, as I do, that there has been the greatest misrepresentation on the subject. Indeed, I have reason to think that the House at this moment imagines that the experiments which took place on the 9th of this month established the success of the gigantic Armstrong gun—of which we have heard so much, and which, after all, is not an Arm strong gun, but a smooth-bore—in going through a section of the Warrior. Now, it is but right that the House and the country should be put in possession of the real facts of the case. This gun was, I believe, fired on the 9th with a charge of 40 lb. of powder at a part of the Warrior which had been battered all through the winter and spring, and damaged by the shot of a 68 smooth-bore. Well, at this target two shots were fired at 200 yards under the most favourable circumstances for the gun, and, hitting the damaged part, they penetrated the 4½-inch plate, and lodged in what is technically called the skin of the ship. They did not go through, and are still sticking where they lodged, notwithstanding that the experiment was represented by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty as perfectly successful. Again, the gun was fired with a charge of 50 lb. of powder, and most extraordinary accounts appeared of the noble Lord and others who were present climbing up the side of the target and congratulating each other on the circumstance that the shot had gone quite through it; but the fact is that it is still sticking in the skin of the ship. Thus much for the experiments of the 9th of May. I now come to those which took place two or three days ago. One shot was fired last Tuesday. Did it go through the target? Not a bit of it. It struck a sound part, and did not even penetrate the skin, and even after such a shot at 200 yards a ship would be in fighting condition. With these facts before us, it seems to me the public are justified in entertaining some doubt with regard to the great merits of this Armstrong gun. Now, it is a somewhat singular fact in the history of naval war fare that, notwithstanding £3,000,000 of money have been spent on these Aim-strong guns, the best gun you have, at the present moment, is your old 68 smooth bore. I ask the Chairman, of the Iron-plate Committee, and other hon. Gentlemen who are well informed on the subject, whether what I have stated is not the fact? Is not your 68-pounder the gun with which every seaman would wish to go to sea? I very much suspect that your Armstrong gun will, after all, be discarded as an instrument of naval warfare. I have stated facts to which I challenge contradiction, I know them to be facts. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, who wishes more experiments to be made at a greater distance, is aware—evidently the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War is not aware—that they began those experiments at 500 yards; that so little impression was made at that distance, they reduced the range to 400 yards; and that they have now come down to 200 yards. This being the case, I think it would be a waste of public money to go further with those experiments, which, after all, have been made under very questionable circumstances, because a gunner firing at a fixed object, with no one firing at him, does not afford the most conclusive mode of experiment in matters of this kind. Let us go into the approaching discussion as unprejudiced as possible. Let not the House and the country be led away by the idea that those experiments at Shoeburyness have proved that the Armstrong gun, with a charge of 50lb. of powder, is able to throw a 150lb. shot through the side of the Warrior, which has, up to this time, resisted all such experiments. I have been told that they fired three times to-day with this gun. In doing so I think the gunners showed the usual valour which distinguishes our countrymen, for they fired at a very considerable risk. I understand that a fissure has occurred in the gun; that, on turning it over the other day, it was found that in the part where the ball fixes in the powder one of the coils had given way. This is the account that I have heard. I am glad this Report is to be laid on the table of the House. The sooner the discussion conies on the better. I hope the Government will do their part, that the Secretary for War will come here well prepared, and that we shall do battle and abide by the result.

said, that having come that day from the scene of action, he thought it right that he should say a few I words on the subject. He had also some little criticism to offer on the remarks made with respect to the Armstrong gun by the hon. Member for Liskeard. The Warrior target was a section of the strongest part of the Warrior. Ft was constructed of wood raid iron, the plates on the outside being 4½in. in thickness. That target had been put to the severest tests in the experiments which had been conducted. Whether by happy accident, or as the result of the possession of better data than those on which the builders of other ships had gone, it so happened that those who constructed the Warrior had adopted the most satisfactory form of side for sustaining the effect of heavy projectiles. Experiments had been made with a gun not rifled, but made on the Armstrong principle, from which 150 lb. shot had been fired with a 50 lb. charge of powder. The target was first struck at a part which was supported in the rear by a piece of framework, which gave that portion of the section additional strength to what it would have in the ship. On the moment it was impossible to ex- amine the target in the rear, and the appearance which it presented was that of being absolutely destroyed; but after taking down the supports it was manifest that less damage had been inflicted on the internal skin than was supposed to have occurred. On a very recent occasion—Tuesday last, he thought—there was another experiment tried, in the presence of a large number of spectators, including several Members of that and the other House of Parliament. A portion of the target, about two feet square, which had not hitherto been hit, was fired at with a shot of 150 lb., thrown with great velocity, the charge of powder being 50lb. The effect was perfectly clear. The armour plate was totally damaged; a great orifice was made in it, and the fragments were driven into the wooden backing and absorbed by it. And he might say that the internal skin was bulged out, but the interior itself resisted the shot. A person leaning against the inside would have received a severe blow; but a person standing a short distance from the inside of the section would not have received any injury. What he deduced from this was, that as at 200 yards they could not penetrate a ship like the Warrior, it was impossible that with such a gun as the one used in those experiments they could penetrate such a ship at 1,200 yards. The gun in question was a very large one, constructed on the Armstrong principle, and as good a one as they were likely to have produced. It consisted of a series of coils, and at the fifth or sixth of these was the chamber in which the powder and shot were placed. A strengthening coil was placed at that part of the gun. On one occasion 90 lb. of powder were put in, and that quantity caused the charge to extend beyond the strengthening coil. The result of firing the gun under such circumstances was to cause an impression to be made on a coil just next the one to which he had referred; but the gun had been fired three times since with a 50 lb. charge, and no further impression had been made on it, which showed that it was quite fit for service with that weight of charge. In conclusion, he begged to state that he entirely disagreed with the hon. Member in the opinion he had expressed with regard to the Armstrong gun, considering it, as he did, by far the most powerful description of artillery that had yet been constructed.

Before you leave the chair, Sir, I wish to allude to what has been said by the hon. Mem- ber for [Liskeard (Mr B. Osborne), with regard to Captain Coles. I greatly regret that I was not in the House this evening when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christchurch (Admiral Walcott) referred to the invention of the gallant Captain; because, I think it right the House should be aware that since the Admiralty first arrived at the conclusion that Captain Coles' shield promised to be a valuable species of armament for the service, they have taken every means to bring it to perfection. It has been stated, I understand, by the hon. Member for Liskeard that the Admiralty never took up this invention till they were forced to do so by public opinion.

I never said anything about public opinion.

Well, the hon. Gentleman said we had never taken it up till—

I said for seven years.

I cannot answer for former Governments; but my hon. Friend was Secretary to the Admiralty for several years. He was Secretary when Captain Coles brought his plan before the Admiralty; and if he felt so strongly on the subject, why did he not take it up then? However, I only deal with the case as regards my noble Friend the Duke of Somerset. In 1858, during the time of the late Government, Captain Coles submitted his plan for protecting the Armstrong guns by means of an iron-plated machine. No measures were taken by the Admiralty, but the Secretary of State for War thought so well of the invention that he desired Captain Coles to prepare a shield for trial, and the shield was accordingly commenced. As soon as the present Government came into office, one of the first important matters they had before them was the invention of Captain Coles, and very soon afterwards the Admiralty proposed to the War Office to finish his shield, and to put it on board a vessel. That was in 1859—three years ago,—and before there was any question of Merimacs or Monitors Captain Coles was desired to prepare that shield, and put it on board the Trusty, an old floating battery. The trial of the cu pola on board the Trusty having proved satisfactory in 1861, in January of the present year I proposed that Parliament should vote a sum of money for the construction of a vessel to carry Cap- tain Coles's shield, and the House thought proper to agree to this proposal. Meantime it was thought advisable to submit the cupola to further tests. So stood the matter, when Captain Coles unfortunately thought proper to rush into a correspondence with the newspapers. On Saturday, May 10, Captain Coles came to me at the Admiralty, and also saw the Controller of the Navy. He stated that he thought his shield would not have fair play; that it had been very much shaken by the experiments that had taken place with the 68-pounder and the 100-pounder Armstrong; and that the credit of his invention would be lost if his shield were destroyed by a 300-pounder. I must say I thought Captain Coles's representations on this subject were reasonable, and I mentioned the matter to the First Lord of the Admiralty, who desired that Captain Coles should superintend the strengthening of his shield against the 300-pounder. Unfortunately, Captain Coles was then in the country, and did not receive my letter until the following Tuesday, or else he never would have put that letter in The Times if he had known that the Admiralty had, on his representation, ordered that he should himself superintend the strengthening of his shield. I am bound to say that from the first the Controller of the Navy has given Captain Coles every opportunity to perfect his invention, and would have told him to go himself and strengthen his shield; but what was considered necessary to be done was so little that it was not thought of sufficient importance, and Captain Coles was not sent for. The moment, however, he came to the Admiralty, and said he thought it was but just he should have the repair of his shield, orders were given by the Admiralty that he should go and superintend the work and give the best advice as to the matter. That is how the matter stands now, and I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard has been very unfair to the Admiralty in his remarks. The Admiralty have taken up this invention in good faith and zeal, and therefore the hon. Gentleman is not justified in making an attack upon the Admiralty on this subject.

I am not making an attack upon the Admiralty, but upon you.

I am thankful that I have to bear the blame, if blame there be, for it is much fairer to attack me than absent men. But I deny the hon. Gentleman's assertions, and I challenge him to the proof that I have been anything but a zealous and ardent supporter of Captain Coles's plan. I have already stated that the first person who called my attention to the value of the plan was His Royal Highness the late Prince Consort. I have been in personal and frequent communication with Captain Coles, and there has not been a day when he came to mo that I have not given him a frank reception, with a view to giving him every opportunity of trying his shield. I defy the hon. Gentleman to assert that I have acted in any other way than as a supporter of what I believe to be a clever and promising plan. I may add that Captain Coles is about to receive, as soon as the arrangements are completed, a. very fair sum for his invention. He will likewise receive a royalty on every shield that is used by the Admiralty, which will be altogether a suitable but not excessive remuneration for the trouble and expense which he has incurred.