said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, as the Armstrong breech-loading guns, constructed by Sir William Armstrong and now under trial at Shoeburyness, are made chiefly of solid blocks of mild steel (tempered in oil), and consequently totally different from the service guns which they are considered to represent; and whether it is the intention of the War Office to institute any and what trial of the Armstrong guns as at present employed in Her Majesty's service, it being evident, from Admiral Kuper's report, that some trial is urgently needed?

said, he was afraid that he could scarcely, within the limits of a reply to a question, enter into a discussion of the points which the hon. Gentleman raised. He could only say that he would be very glad to enter more fully into the discussion of those points when they came to the gun Vote in the Army Estimates. He might, however, then state that the Armstrong guns now on trial at Shoeburyness were, with very trifling alteration, the same guns that were in the service. The guns in the service were constructed of barrels of steel strengthened by bands. That was the principle of the guns now at Shoeburyness. The object of the trial was to discover whether Mr. Whitworth or Sir William Armstrong could produce the best gun. As to whether it was the intention of the War Office to institute any trial of the service guns, he could only say that those guns were now undergoing a practical trial. A great many of them were now in possession of the army and the navy. Reports were received at the Horse Guards, and also quarterly Reports of the condition of the guns, stating any injury which they might have received during the practice.

said, he wished to know, whether he was to understand that the Armstrong gun, which was to be tried, was not of homogeneous metal?

Only the barrel.

said, in the absence of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will lay upon the table of the House a Copy of the Letter from the Chairman of the West Riding Quarter Sessions, recently held at Pontefract, and of the Resolution passed there on the subject of the Assize Town for the West Riding of Yorkshire?

replied that he had no objection to lay a Copy of the document in question on the table.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Government intend doing anything towards the relief of the labourers in the several public Dockyards, who are at present paid at a rate considerably below the ordinary market value of labour?

, in reply, said, the Government had no intention of increasing the pay of the labourers in the Royal Dockyards. The hon. Gentleman said they were paid at a rate considerably below the market value of their labour; but he could only say the Admiralty had very numerous applications for the entry of labourers. It was, however, their intention to carry out—indeed, they were already carrying out—a limited system of building certain ships by piecework, as was recommended by the Committee on Dockyards; and if the artificers used great exertions they would receive somewhat higher pay. The labourers would likewise participate in these advantages.

said, he wished to ask, whether the applications referred to by the noble Lord were not from men desiring to be put upon the fixed list of the Dockyard establishment, and whether there was not at present very serious difficulty in filling up the ranks of the hired men with persons of competent ability in the shipwright and other departments?

said, there was no difficulty in filling up the vacancies with hired labourers.

Sir, I wish to make an inquiry of Her Majesty's Government respecting the distribution of offices as at present arranged. The point is one of some gravity, and I trust I may be permitted to preface my Question with one or two remarks, which shall be confined strictly within the limits of an explanation of its purport. The matter to which I wish to call attention is the tenure of office by those Gentlemen who at present fill the post of Under Secretaries of State. The House is aware that the distribution of offices is, generally speaking, arranged by statute—by the Act familiarly known to every hon. Gentleman as the Act of Queen Anne, the 15th of Geo. II., and an Act of Geo. III., the celebrated Act of Mr. Burke when he introduced his economical reform. Then it was definitely arranged that two Secretaries of State might sit in the House of Commons, and two Under Secretaries. In very modern times, in the experience of all Gentlemen here—I think in 1855 or 1856—when a new Secretary of State was appointed, the Secretary of State for War, an Act was introduced which, referring to the previous state of the law on the subject, enacted that in future it should be legal for a third Secretary of State to sit in the House of Commons, and also a third Under Secretary. Still more recently, when the President of the Board of Control became also a Secretary of State, in an India Act it was provided that it should be legal for a fourth Secretary of State to sit in the House of Commons, and also a fourth Under Secretary. Although it may not have occurred to them, the House upon reflection will become aware that, at the present moment, there are five Under Secretaries of State sitting in the House of Commons. The House will feel that this is a subject which unless it is capable of satisfactory explanation by the Government, is of a very grave character. It is grave in a constitutional point of view, but it may become still more grave in the consequences which may be entailed on the individual who, if my present view of the case be right, fills the office of that fifth Under Secretary of State. I have no wish at present to enter into any details. I wish to confine myself merely to making the question which I desire to put to the Government perfectly clear to the House. We shall have opportunities, if it be necessary, of entering into the discussion of the subject in a more convenient manner. But I cannot suppose that this point has not occurred to the consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers; and, therefore, I wish now to invite some explanation from the Government why their distribution of offices at present, as far as regards the Under Secretaries of State, should apparently be so opposed to the provisions of the statutes which exist on this subject.

No change has recently taken place in regard to the distribution of Government Offices. It is the same now as it has been for a long time past. The question of the right hon. Gentleman is one which requires examination, and I am not prepared to discuss it off hand, no notice having been given of it.

My explanation of the reason why I did not give any notice of my intention to bring this question before the House is the same, I think, as that which has influenced the noble Lord in declining to consider it now. The fact is I was not before aware of the state of affairs in respect to this matter. But because I was not aware of that state of affairs that does not make the matter the less important. The noble Lord, I am sure, will agree with me that this is a question of great importance. And you, Sir (addressing Mr. Speaker), will say whether it may not be considered a question of privilege, and, being such, whether it may not be brought before you on the first opportunity.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the arrangement between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade in reference to trade with foreign nations, and to move for a Select Committee thereon. The first point that would suggest itself to any hon. Member reading the terms of his Motion would probably be that it was rather a serious thing to ask the Government for a Select Committee to inquire into the manner in which two of their Departments transacted their business. There were two precedents for such a course, however, to which he might refer—the one was the Select Committee which had been granted to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and the other a Motion by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) two or three years ago, for inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Trade. That Motion was not, indeed, granted, but it was not opposed on the ground of being contrary to the practice of the House. He was quite aware that it would require strong arguments to induce the House to grant a Select Committee in accordance with his Motion. He hoped, however, to show that a grievance existed and was felt strongly by the best informed of the commercial community. The merchants and manufacturers of the large towns, having the means of associated action through their Chambers of Commerce, had held a meeting at which the subject was discussed, and a brief but pithy memorial was drawn up and presented to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In that memorial nineteen principal towns were represented—including Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Nottingham, Newcastle, Sheffield, and most of the important commercial towns, except those in Lancashire. Although the Chambers of Commerce of Lancashire did not belong to this association, a deputation from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce which represented the whole of the cotton districts attended, and fully concurred in the representation. The memorial was to the following effect:

"That your memorialists understand that the arrangement between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade is at present as follows:—That the Foreign Office takes action in commercial matters, solely in concert with the Board of Trade. That consequently communications from Her Majesty's Ministers and Consuls abroad on commercial matters are forwarded by the Foreign Office to the Board of Trade, in order that through such Board they may, if deemed desirable, be communicated to commercial men; and that, on the other hand, the suggestions of such commercial men for action by the Foreign Office in commercial matters are expected to be made to the Board of Trade. That while gratefully acknowledging the desire, both on the part of your Lordship, of the President of the Board of Trade, and of the staff of both offices, to promote the interests of commerce, your memorialists have found by experience that this double action tends to defeat the fulfilment of that desire. That the present movement throughout the Continent of Europe towards free trade, consequent on the reduction of its tariff by the French Government, makes it especially necessary that our Government should give constant and unremitting attention to all questions connected with foreign tariffs (especially to any changes that may be contemplated in them), and should be ready to take prompt action on information obtained, while at the same time it makes it especially undesirable that English manufacturers should find themselves compelled, by want of such prompt action, to make in Parliament or through the press such public expression of their wishes as tends to their defeat by alarming manufacturers abroad. That therefore your memorialists cannot but think that the interests of trade would be greatly promoted if commercial men in this country were put in im- mediate and direst communication with those who are responsible for the action of Government in commercial matters with foreign countries,"

"The Earl of Chatham, with his sword drawn,

Was waiting for Sir Richard Strachan;

Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em,

Was waiting for the Earl of Chatham."

"The Earl Russell, with his pen made,

Was waiting for the Board of Trade;

The Board of Trade, in helpless bustle,

Was waiting for the Earl Russell."

seconded the Motion.

said, that he could not allow the subject touched upon by his hon. Friend to pass without observation, as it was one that was worthy of great attention. His hon. Friend had made it his study and possessed as much information upon it as any hon. Member of the House; in addition to which he believed that some resolutions passed by a deputation from a large number of Chambers of Commerce of the most considerable cities in the country, had a short time ago been confided to his care. Those resolutions, or rather memorials, had been somewhat largely circulated among the Members of the House. He had himself received one, and the value of the opinions expressed in it had been enhanced by the advocacy of his hon. Friend. The document had, however, been drawn up under an entire misapprehension as to facts, and the assertions which in it assumed the appearance of realities, were without any foundation: whatever. The same thing might be asserted of much which had fallen from his; hon. Friend. He did not for one moment mean to say that his hon. Friend had made any statements which he knew to he untrue, but he believed that his hon. Friend did not understand the relative positions of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. It was not unnatural that the Chambers of Commerce in this country should consider their interests as paramount to almost everything else in importance; but it should be remembered that the duty of the Government was not to watch over one interest to the exclusion of all others, but that its aim should be the promotion of the general welfare of the community. He was the last man in the world to doubt the importance of our commercial relations. Our greatness and prosperity were, in his opinion, greatly dependent upon our commercial relations with other countries, and he could assure his hon. Friend that the Foreign Office was fully alive to that fact. His right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Milner Gibson) was one of the leaders of the free trade movement in this country, and therefore it was hardly necessary to say that neither the Foreign Office nor the Board of Trade were insensible to the representation of the commercial interests of the country. The position of our country was different from that of almost every other country in Europe. Some years ago, after a long and arduous struggle, the principles of free trade were accepted by the House. After we had carried out the reform of our own fiscal system, our attention was turned to the possibility of introducing the principles of free trade into our commercial relations with foreign countries. The first country to which the attention of the Foreign Office was turned was naturally France, with which, looking at the situation of the two nations, England ought to maintain the largest commercial relations. Commercial relations on the basis of free trade were proposed to the French Government, and, fortunately, at the head of the French Empire was a Sovereign of great liberality and intelligence, with Ministers who equally understood the advantages of the free trade system. France itself was, however, by no means prepared for the introduction of anything like free trade; but, happily, the Commercial Treaty was carried through. He was not going to repeat the history of that treaty, but he would remind the House that the most eminent diplomatist in the employ of the Crown (Earl Cowley) represented the Foreign Office, and that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), than whom there could be no higher authority on commercial questions, acted as joint negotiator with Earl Cowley. The articles of the tariff were discussed one by one; the hon. Member for Rochdale was able to make such amendments as, from his knowledge of the subject, he believed to be necessary, and the result was that a most satisfactory treaty was concluded. After the conclusion of the treaty a very different course was pursued by the two Governments. The wisest policy, in his opinion, was to do as the British Government had done, and give to all the world what they had given to France. But the French Government adopted another policy, reserving to themselves the right of negotiating with other countries upon the same terms as with ourselves, and they did not extend the provisions of the treaty to any other country. By following a different course England deprived herself of the means of making bargains with other countries, believing that those countries would in time be induced to follow her example, and that the increased prosperity of England and France, derived from that treaty, would have its effect in the course of time, would convince other nations of the vast advantages of free trade, and would lead them eventually to enter into more liberal commercial relations with us. He believed it was the opinion of the hon. Member for Rochdale, as it was the opinion of other men competent to judge, that after the conclusion of the Commercial Treaty with France it was not advisable to open negotiations for commercial treaties with other countries, that further tariff bargains were not advisable, and that it was better to leave free trade to carry its own conviction to the minds of foreign nations. It was impossible to make those nations understand as yet the importance and the advantage of free trade principles, and he believed that although many eminent statesmen did, there were very few countries in Europe, not even excepting France, which yet appreciated those advantages. It must be recollected that speeches were still made in this House by the hon. Member for West Norfolk among the rest, insisting that free trade had ruined some interests in England, and that the time must come for the re-imposition of protective duties. Whatever might be the value of those arguments they were repeated abroad; and the result was that when free trade arguments were used to foreign Governments, people were apt to say that, having lost our own tail, we wanted them now to cut off theirs; and the more our Chambers of Commerce urged these tariff reductions the more convinced were foreigners that we had some interested object in trying to induce them to adopt our system. The Foreign Office could only use diplomatic means in trying to bring about a better state of things. They could not go about to all the Prime Ministers in Europe with a blunderbuss, saying, "A commercial treaty, or your life!" All they could do was to lay before foreign nations the commercial prosperity of this country under free trade and the advantages which they would derive from a more liberal commercial policy. The Foreign Office must watch their opportunities, and the best moment for making representations must be a question for their consideration and for the consideration of those who represented us abroad. His hon. Friend complained of the British Government for following in the wake of France; but that instead of being a reproach, ought to be a cause of praise. It was the interest of England to get France to enter into commercial relations with other countries, because, until she did so, England had no locus standi. When a country made tariff reductions for the benefit of France, we could go to that country and say that the comity of nations entitled us to ask for similar reductions; that we had nothing to offer in return, but having given before all we had to give the same reductions ought to be made in our favour. This might be said, or there might be "a most favoured nation" clause, under which we could demand as a right what had been conceded to France; or if the treaty negotiated with France proved successful, we could point to the advantage gained by more liberal intercourse with her, and promise equal advantages from similar intercourse with ourselves. Thus, a treaty with France, or with any other nation, formed the strongest argument which could be urged in our own favour. The case of Belgium, which his hon. Friend had mentioned, was exactly in point. It was a mistake to say that the Foreign Office had not entered into negotiations with Belgium, for as soon as they knew that the Belgian Government were about to negotiate a treaty with France, they communicated with that Government on the subject. But what was the answer given to them? Why, that Belgium could not negotiate with this country until she had finished her negotiations with France. The reason was obvious. France had something to give in return for tariff concessions, and what was said to England by foreign countries was, "If we reduce duties in your favour without any equivalent, we then cut ourselves off from asking for anything from France, since France would say, 'Why should we give you an equivalent for that which you have given to England for nothing?'" That was a fair argument, and one with which the Foreign Office were met. Then, again, commercial questions were often so intimately mixed up with political questions that they could not separate the two. The fate of a Ministry might depend upon such a question. But Chambers of Commerce did not consider that, and did not take into account, and were often ignorant of, the political condition of the country with which they desired more liberal commercial relations. As in this country, a strong opposition to the Government of the day might exist. The Government might be willing to enter into negotiations, but the Opposition might dissent from that policy. Why, what would have been the result if, when the great struggle between free trade and protection was going on in England, a strong Power in Europe had been constantly pressing us to reduce our tariff? Such an attempt would have furnished a strong argument to the Opposition, and might have endangered the adoption of free trade. Something like that happened constantly on the Continent. It would not be prudent to give instances, but there were many statesmen in Europe who were convinced of the advantages of free trade, and who were yet either fettered by the existence of a strong Protectionist party, or by political considerations, from adopting free trade. As to the propriety of these constant solicitations from our Chambers of Commerce, there was a paragraph in a letter written by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), which was so wise and true that he would beg permission to quote it. The hon. Gentleman said—

"As a general rule, I should say that recommendations emanating publicly from our own commercial bodies must afford very disadvantageous grounds for the Foreign Office in attempting to move other Governments to reduce their tariffs, I can understand that our diplomatists abroad might, in a quiet way, by keeping Foreign Governments well informed of the benefits which a free trade policy has conferred not only on the prosperity of our people, but—what is still more precious to rulers—on the interests of the public revenue, induce them, from motives of self-interest, to follow our example. But from the moment that it is known that our diplomacy is set in motion by our Chambers of Commerce to urge a reduction in the tariffs of other countries, it places Foreign Governments, which are generally more enlightened and disinterested on economical questions than their people, in the disadvantageous position of appearing to move under foreign influence for the benefit of aliens, and thus the most seductive arguments are furnished to the Protectionists, who can appeal to the prejudices, and even the patriotism of the public, in defence of what they call the rights of native industry. I have, whenever an opportunity has offered, expressed these views to the members of our Chambers of Commerce."

"We will give you the same privileges as we have given France; but we will not make any further concession, because if we do the French Government would claim to have it extended to them, without giving us an equivalent."

said, he inferred from the words uttered by the hon. Gentleman that the House would not be put to the trouble of dividing. In the event of a division, he was in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), though, at the same time, he could not have supported it, had it involved any censure upon the conduct either of the Foreign Office or of the Board of Trade. Though the arrangement between the two Departments as to the conduct of business did not seem to be satisfactory, it was much easier to point out defects than to state the precise manner in which they ought to be remedied. But the hon. Member for Bradford asked only for an inquiry. He had made out a fair primâ facie case for investigation, and there could be no doubt that a strong feeling on the subject prevailed among the mercantile and manufacturing classes. Their complaint was, that although in the consular service we had an admirable agency for collecting facts connected with trade, yet when those facts were obtained no sufficient use was made of them, or else that the information did not arrive in time. If that statement were true—and its accuracy was a point upon which he did not wish to express any opinion—he should not be disposed to find fault with those who had the conduct of public affairs; for he did not think it could be said that either the Foreign Secretary or the President of the Board of Trade was indifferent in the discharge of his duties. But if the Foreign Office had, as at present, the whole diplomacy of Europe upon its hands—if it had to undertake the settlement of the affairs of all the countries in Europe—it must follow as a necessary consequence that questions of trade would receive comparatively little notice. He held the opinion that the Foreign Office should undertake much less than at present, and that if it were to leave many questions in which we had no direct concern alone, in all probability the diplomacy of Europe would be managed, not worse, but better. Still, no one would deny that the Foreign Office was overworked. It was no exaggeration to say that within the last fifteen years, since the general introduction of telegraphic communication throughout Europe, the business of that office had more than doubled. That was not a temporary state of things, but one likely to last; and as coincidently with it there had been an immense increase of trade and extension of commercial relations among the different countries of the world, so, if European peace were preserved, there would be a still increasing trade, a constant growth of industry, and still more complicated commercial relations between different countries. He thought, therefore, that the manner in which the Foreign Office was able to deal with commercial questions might properly be investigated. It appeared to him that there were only two courses open for adoption. One was to give to the Foreign Secretary greater assistance within his office, by placing there, for the management of this special business, an official holding a higher position than that of a mere clerk. The other was indicated in some of the memorials of the Chambers of Commerce—namely, to transfer the commercial business bodily to the Board of Trade. To the latter course he entertained the most decided objection. He did not think the business could be managed in that way. There would be a complete separation between political and commercial negotiations, which frequently ran into one another, and there would be all the confusion of a double correspondence between different Departments of the Government at home and the same set of officials abroad. Members of the diplomatic service would be placed in subordination to a department from which they did not receive their appointments, from which they did not expect promotion, with which they had in other respects nothing to do, and to the good or bad opinion of which they must be comparatively indifferent. He thought the House must make up its mind that the business should remain in the Foreign Office. If so, the responsibility must rest more completely than it did now upon the Foreign Minister. He was likewise of opinion that a great deal of good might be done by an inquiry into the organization of that heterogeneous Department the Board of Trade. The duties of that Department had been increased as new interests had arisen, and he was disposed to think that the President should hold a position of greater dignity in the official scale than he did at present. He had always thought that the Vice President, whose duties at present were not very obvious, should be placed more definitely in the position of an Under Secretary. If these things were to be done, the House must take the initiative. The reform of a department, bow-ever, would never originate in itself, because those who were most familiar with it had commonly been brought up under the system, and had come to regard it as necessary. But he would not dwell further upon that subject, because it was not included in the Motion before the House. The inquiry proposed by the hon. Member for Bradford would probably be attended with valuable results; at any rate, it would satisfy large and important interests that their claims and feelings had not been neglected.

said, it was true that the Under Secretary of State had most courteously offered to receive a deputation from the Chambers of Commerce at the Foreign Office, and to give them every assistance. The deputation, accompanied by himself and the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Cobden), did go to the Foreign Office a few days after the invitation was given, and waited upon the Chief Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and also upon the President of the Board of Trade, and stated the view of the Associated Chambers upon those matters. He could confirm what had been said by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) as to the strong views entertained by the Chambers of Commerce on the subject, and their opinion was entitled to great weight, not only from the fact that they represented the mercantile communities of England, Scotland, and Ireland, but because they were frequently able to obtain from foreign merchants intelligence which was unknown to the Board of Trade. To give an illustration of how far the Department of the Board of Trade was behindhand in information, when the deputation waited upon the Board of Trade in February last, the President was asked whether he had seen a project which had been put forth by the Austrian Government for a new treaty with the Zollverein, and the right hon. Gentleman confessed that he had never seen or heard of it, though the schedule of the treaty had then been in the hands of the Chambers of Commerce for two months. He understood the hon. Member for Bradford did not intend to charge either the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office with neglect of duty, but simply to express an opinion that their duties were too heavy to enable them to give sufficient attention to an interest so vast as to be represented by a receipt of £450,000,000 per annum. Such an enormous interest might well; claim to have a department or sub-department specially assigned to it.

said, he was glad that the Government had consented to grant a Committee. In the French and Prussian Governments there was now a department in the Foreign Office which had charge of affairs of commerce exclusively, and he believed that a similar arrangement prevailed; also in Russia. No one would question the ability with which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) had conducted the negotiations for the French Treaty, but there had not been uniformity of advantage, and great dissatisfaction was felt by many of his constituents, that the opportunity of altering tariffs in certain cases during the negotiations was lost. English subjects were only allowed to introduce some goods into France a year after the treaty was concluded, although France entered immediately upon her exports; there was still a suspense account, and for some years to come England would not be able to enter into fair competition with the French silk manufacturers. Considering the advantage that France derived from the treaty, and the enormous increase in her trade which it had produced, he believed that the Foreign Office might be well employed in inducing France to do away altogether with the suspense arrangement. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had told them that the Government had done what they could in the case of Spain, but that their efforts had been totally unsuccessful. It would, he thought, have been only reasonable on the part of Spain, with the advantages she had derived from the French Treaty, to make some little concession to this country. Her commerce in wine with this country had doubled since the treaty was concluded, and the price of her wines had been increased 50 per cent, so that in point of fact the Spaniards were putting into their pockets very nearly the whole amount of the duty we had taken off. The wine growers of Spain were at the present moment enjoying an increase in the returns derived from their produce of from £800,000 to £1,000,000. He thought if the subject were fairly brought under the notice of the intelligent men who had now the commercial affairs of Spain in their hands, they would take a reasonable view of the matter. He was quite persuaded that if the Foreign Office devoted a small proportion of their efforts to the cultivation of trade which they now employed in writing despatches which almost smothered hon. Members when they received them, the country would derive double the benefit. It could not be doubted that if proper representations were pressed upon the Spanish Government we should have a more satisfactory condition of commerce with them. Portugal had derived great advantages from the treaty, but its tariff was prohibitory.

said, that he too was glad to hear that the Government had agreed to the Committee. The importance of the subject could hardly be overrated, and he only regretted that the arguments of the Under Secretary of State seemed to him to be rather in opposition to the Committee which he had granted. The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by telling the House that he had given the subject a great deal of consideration, and that, in his opinion, it was impossible that the business of the various Departments could be carried on in any other manner than it was at present. Having made that statement, the hon. Gentleman then said he agreed to the Motion. The principle of the matter was very simple and was one that applied to every transaction in this country. In every transaction of business in this country a man was never satisfied, when he wanted to get anything done, unless he could go direct to the persons who were to do it. When A was obliged to go to B to get C to do something, the work was multiplied, and was not done satisfactorily. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), that it was not very clear how there was to be an amendment; but, in his opinion, the present system was so palpably unsatisfactory that it was desirable there should be an inquiry to see whether some improvement could not be devised. He was not prepared to say whether the system could or could not be amended, but he was quite sure that the subject was one that ought to be looked into, and if it turned out that no remedy could be devised, at all events those great mercantile interests who entertained very strong opinions on the matter would have had their views heard and considered, and would, in consequence, feel much more satisfied than at present. He did not understand that the present Motion was made with any desire to blame the Foreign Office or the Board of Trade, but that the hon. Member desired to express the opinion, that if parties interested in commercial matters could get their views more directly brought before the persons who ultimately had to decide the case, it was possible that the work might be better done. According to the Under Secretary, the person interested went to the Board of Trade, which formed an opinion upon the case, and the duty of the Foreign Office was then merely to carry out the judgment of the Board of Trade. But it was possible that, though the judgment of the Board of Trade might have been right, and the duty of the Foreign Office rightly performed, the parties might say that the measure had failed through remissness in carrying it out; and in that case, where would the responsibility rest? He was of opinion that there would be a divided responsibility, and he believed such a system could not possibly answer as satisfactorily as one in which the duty was done by a single set of persons. He could not help thinking, that when the matter was carefully looked into, some arrangement might be made which would be more satisfactory to the commercial interests than the system at present existing. Nothing could be more objectionable than the present double system, and he hoped there would be a Committee to inquire whether it could not be amended.

said, that some years ago he had taken great interest in the collection of commercial statistics, which he was happy to say were now submitted to the House. It was at that period necessary that he should collect that information for himself, because when he commenced that task of calculation of the balance of Trade, the real value of the exports and imports of the country was not given, and he had to seek the information through his own channels. He (Mr. Newdegate) had also commenced the system for the adoption of which the coun- try had to thank the noble Lord at the head of the Government—the system of requiring from our consuls information as to all changes, prospective and positive, in foreign tariffs—had not, when he commenced his labours, been carried out. Commercial men and Chambers of Commerce had derived great assistance from the system introduced by the noble Lord. It appeared to him that in the Board of Trade there was scarcely that distinct organization for information connected with the foreign commercial legislation which it was desirable to secure, and he thought the inquiries of the Government and of the proposed Committee might well be directed to the separation of the different functions of the Board of Trade and the allocation of distinct tasks to each sub-department when formed. He was afraid the commercial public would be in some degee disappointed with the results of the pending inquiry, for it could but indirectly facilitate negotiations with foreign countries as to commercial tariffs. One of the main objections he had taken to the Commercial Treaty with France in 1860 was, that under it the Emperor of the French was treated as the representative of all mankind, and the Under Secretary had explained to them to-night, when subsequently to that treaty the Government had approached foreign States, with a view to enter into commercial negotiations, England had been reminded that she was anything but mistress of the universe. It followed inevitably, from the conditions of the treaty, that England must come off second best. The energies of the Government ought to be directed towards liberating England from that position. The claims of England upon Spain and other countries ought not to rest on the reductions of duty which France might be inclined to make or refuse, but upon the commercial facilities and boons which the English nation had granted to those nations. Yet, under the treaty, there were stipulations on the importation into France of foreign including English goods. Thus if England obtained the most favoured nation clause, the most favoured nation being France, the clause contemplated the existence of many duties which England had abandoned, but which France retained, and the clause referred to some treaty in which these French import duties were considered as matters to be countervailed by equivalent duties, though these duties could not be imposed by England, owing to the terms of the French Treaty. He did not wish to say anything painful to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), as he believed he did the best he could under the circumstances in which he was placed by his antecedents; but the ruin month to month wrought on his (Mr. Newdegate's) constituents was painful to contemplate. The population depending on the silk trade in Warwickshire, in the district especially adjoining his own residence, had much decreased under the action of the French Treaty, and the district had been generally in a very depressed state; that population had much decreased, and between 1,600 and 1,700 empty houses were to be found. This made him the more anxious that the Government should make every exertion to induce the Government of France to hasten the period of the removal of the import duties on the introduction of silk goods and mixed goods. The Government might well say to France that she, having derived such enormous advantages from the treaty should, accelerate the period for the reduction of these duties, in recognition of the sufferings inflicted on our silk manufacturers. It had never appeared to him that the nations of the world would follow exactly in their footsteps. His conviction was that while France was deriving a great revenue from import duties and great benefits by her export trade, England might just as well have equivalent import duties, and yet share in that increase of revenue and extension of trade. That was his conviction. He had always thought that the French tariff was more wisely regulated than the tariff adopted by this country in 1860. He might be wrong, but he thought the present commercial state of France sanctioned that opinion. He hoped that the opinion of the House and of the country would become accommodated to those facts; and that it was their duty to hasten the period when the French duty on silk goods should be reduced. They had a right, he thought, to claim that reduction from France, because, while she had benefited largely by the treaty, some of our own interests—silk interests especially—had suffered grievous injury. There was another subject to which he wished to call the attention of the House. In the instructions given to our consuls there appeared to be some confusion. In many cases the business of consuls ought to be strictly limited to commercial objects. His question had reference to a particular case. Six or seven years ago Mr. Plowden was sent out to Abyssinia as consul, and he should like to he informed as to what instructions that gentleman actually received. It was generally believed that the object of his mission was to open commercial relations with that country. It appeared that Mr. Plowden became mixed up with the internal politics of Abyssinia, and the result was that he was murdered. That was not an old story. He had a copy of the Jewish Intelligencer, a publication that was issued by some persons interested in the conversion of the Jews in Abyssinia, and he found that, at the present moment, our consul who succeeded Mr. Plowden had unfortunately mixed himself up with the politics of Abyssinia, and was a prisoner in the hands of the King. Those were two instances of the impolicy of allowing consuls commissioned for commercial purposes to mix themselves up with the politics of the countries in which they had to reside, and which were at best but in an imperfect state of civilization. A distinction ought to be drawn between the functions of a consul sent merely for commercial purposes and those of a chargé d'affaires, because the person who might be competent for commercial purposes might be totally unfit for political negotiations. The instructions given to those persons ought to be so drawn up as to advance the purposes of trade, and to make them feel that they should keep clear of politics in the countries to which they were sent. It was unbecoming the dignity of this country that we should employ agents so incompetent as that one should fall a victim, and the next a captive, of the Government to which he was sent. He hoped to be assured that Captain Cameron had been liberated, and that in future such a limit would be put to the functions of any person sent to Abyssinia as would secure his personal safety, otherwise the dignity of the country would be endangered abroad, and the operations of commerce disturbed if not destroyed.

said, that as there was no objection on the part of the Government to grant the Committee, he did not know that it was necessary to prolong that debate, or to enter into a general discussion upon the mode in which commercial negotiations had been conducted between this country and foreign Governments. But he wished merely to notice some remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) on the immediate question before them. That right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that a divided responsibility now existed, and that it was very inconvenient that a person having business of a commercial kind to be transacted with a foreign Government should first of all be compelled to go to the Board of Trade, that then the Board of Trade should have to submit its views to the Foreign Office, and that the Foreign Office should afterwards make a representation to a foreign Government; or, in other words, that A had to communicate with B, and B had to communicate with C, in order that D might be induced to do something. That, certainly, appeared inconvenient, but the argument, if carried to its full extent, would make it necessary that they should have only one department for the general government of the country. There was nothing peculiar in the relations between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. Precisely the same relations existed between the Foreign Office and every other Department of the State. Questions of international law were constantly arising, and recently those questions had been of a most important character. Merchants whose property was in jeopardy, or whose ships had been captured under questionable circumstances, went to the Foreign Office, but the Foreign Office did not possess any knowledge which enabled it to make the fitting representation to the foreign Government, and it was obliged to refer the subject to the Law Officers of the Crown, and frequently to the Committee of Privy Council, consisting of the most eminent authorities in this country on questions of international law. When it had acquired the requisite knowledge, and received instruction from those who were competent to give it, the Foreign Office made the required representation to the foreign Government. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) to put the matter concisely—said that the knowledge was in the Board of Trade and the power in the Foreign Office, and thought the two things should be united in the same Department. If that were a sound principle, it applied to all the Departments in the State. When the House considered the matter calmly, it would be seen that there was really no divided responsibility. The Government, as a whole, was responsible for the conduct of foreign as of domestic affairs. The executive Government, as a whole, was responsible to Parliament; and upon all branches of public business it was entitled to obtain the knowledge and advice necessary for carrying on that business with wisdom and safety. It would be inconsistent with the first principles of our system of Government to place a special responsibility for particular acts or a particular policy upon this or that department. The particular relation between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade— namely, that the latter was a consulting department, and that the former made such representations to foreign Governments as after consultation might seem desirable, was in theory, he was inclined to think, a very good arrangement. From what he had observed, he believed that if they were to merge the Board of Trade in the Foreign Office, the commercial classes would be less likely to have an independent representation made to the Foreign Office of the merits of any commercial question when communications were going on between this country and foreign Governments. He believed it was of advantage that there should be an independent department, making representations on the purely commercial merits of the question, without reference to, and unbiassed by, the political or diplomatic negotiations that were proceeding. When the Foreign Office and the other Departments of the State were at least in entire possession of the impartial and strictly commercial aspect of the question, they could estimate it at its full value; and in the course of negotiation it was for them to consider whether the objects they had in view of a political nature conflicted materially with the commercial merits of the proposal, as explained after consultation with the Board of Trade. He thought the proposed Committee would be useful, because nobody for a moment contended that the internal arrangements of any of our offices were not susceptible of improvement. He could quite conceive that the mechanical part of the relations between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade might, without interfering with principles, be made to work more smoothly and with greater advantage to commercial interests. Consequently, on that ground, and without admitting that there was divided responsibility, he saw no objection to the appointment of the proposed Committee. He thought that some hon. Gentlemen had over-estimated the power of this country to induce foreign nations which were hampered by protected interests to adopt more liberal tariffs. It was objected that this country went in the wake of France. Now, what had France been able to effect, though France was in a more advantageous position than this country to influence foreign Governments, to induce them to reduce their tariffs? Why, France went to foreign nations with a great bribe, being able to offer them those great reductions in her duties which she had already given to England; yet, after all, she had only been able to accomplish commercial treaties between two countries—Belgium and Italy. No doubt there were engagements between Prussia and France, but as the States of the Zollverein had not ratified them, they were not carried into effect as a treaty between France and the Zollverein, though they probably might be in 1865. France, then, had only concluded two treaties — one with Belgium and the other with Italy. But after France had concluded the treaty with Belgium, making those reductions in her tariff which Belgium now enjoyed, this country made a treaty with Belgium by which England obtained the "favoured nations clause" and thus came in for all the advantages which Belgium had granted to France. He did not believe that the English Government would have obtained that result if they had attempted to negotiate a treaty with Belgium single-handed; and it was with great difficulty it was obtained after all, on account of the fear felt by the protected interests of English competition. Not that the Belgian Government was not a most enlightened one; the difficulty was, that the Belgian manufacturers feared English competition. The Belgian manufacturers were not nearly so much afraid of French competition as of English competition; and he was convinced that the prestige enjoyed by England on the Continent, on account of her great manufacturing power and skill in producing articles at a cheap rate for the consumption of the masses, was the very thing which alarmed those foreign manufacturers, and made it more difficult for England than for France to induce foreign countries to reduce their tariffs. In fact, France, as matters now stood, was a better pioneer in the path of commercial freedom than England, and approached Belgium with offers which it was not within the power of this country to make. However, "the favoured nations clause," which the English Government obtained from Belgium, was very advantageous, for the effect had been that the import duties on British manufactures into Belgium had been reduced from 40 and 30 per cent to 20 and 10 per cent. That, then, was the result of the policy pursued, however much criticised it might be; and any impartial man, considering the power of the protected interests, and the state of parties in Belgium, must admit that the effect accomplished was a great success. With respect to Italy, it had been said that the English Government were too late in the field, and allowed France to negotiate a successful treaty; whereas if they had been there in time they could have got the Italian Government to make their tariff more conformable with British interests and less exclusively in accordance with French interests. That was a mistaken view of the question. The basis of negotiation between France and Italy would not have allowed of England obtaining any advantage which she has not already obtained by the "favoured nations clause." The fact was that at the time of the negotiation all the duties in the Italian tariff, with some few exceptions, were lower than in the reformed French tariff, and therefore it was only in some few cases—in silks, he believed, and in one or two other articles—that Italy was asked to make any reduction in favour of France. The Italian tariff was already more liberal than the reformed French tariff; and France not making further reductions, the basis of negotiations did not admit at that time of those reductions in favour of England, which it was supposed would have been accomplished; and though Mr. Mallet, from the Board of Trade, went to Turin to do all he could, that gentleman observed that the Italian Government were little disposed to do more in the direction of commercial freedom than could possibly be helped. The Italian tariff had not heretofore been a high tariff; and, though there had been no change as affecting English productions, still the activity given to industry by other changes in Italy had occasioned a great increase of trade between England and that country. With regard to the Motion before the House, the Government regarded the proposal as manifesting a sincere desire on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) to effect something practically useful, and they wished cordially to co-operate in such an object.

Sir, as the Motion of my hon. Friend has been agreed to, there is little ground for prolonged discussion at the present moment, but I am anxious to say a few words to prevent any misapprehension here, and especially abroad, as to the scope of the proposed inquiry. It must be remembered that our manufacturers do not present themselves to this House at the present moment in the position of complainants as to the operation of the free trade policy carried out as we have carried it out in this country, irrespective of the action of other countries. The manufacturers do not come here asking the Government to forward their interests by promoting commercial treaties. The French Treaty arose from an accidental conjuncture of circumstances, and nothing of the kind can happen again. It so happened — opportunely happened — that we had considerable reforms of our tariff still to accomplish, which it would have been our interest to have effected, whether or not the French Government had simultaneously taken a large step in the same direction. But it so happened, fortunately, that the French Government was just in the disposition to make the first great step in the path of commercial freedom in that country. The two Governments were enabled with much more ease and advantage to perform these two operations together than they could have done separately. But it would have been equally their interest to have done it separately as by commercial treaty. Now, with regard to the argument that has been urged from time to time, that we have lost advantages by having carried out the principle of free trade so largely ourselves, without having first gone to other countries to induce them to go step by step with us, I venture to say there are not two opinions in the country amongst the mercantile and manufacturing population as to the gain we have made during the last twenty or twenty-two years by advancing without waiting for other countries to take any step with us in this policy. The immense increase in our commerce, as shown by the financial statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been the reward we have received for having anticipated other countries in the policy we have adopted. Now, having entered this caveat against any possible misrepresentation of the object of this Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), I would ask whether, without commercial treaties, or without any attempt publicly to agitate the question, it would not be possible for the Government of this free trade nation to diffuse those principles which have been so beneficial to us amongst other countries. I will give you an analogous case. I think in 1806 we abolished the slave trade. We did that by a municipal law as an act of humanity and justice. That was the result of a long and intense agitation, which deeply stirred the religious feeling and the national conscience in this country. We carried free trade after nearly as long, as anxious, and as intense an agitation. Did the Government remain passive with other countries after we had abolished the slave trade? On the contrary, they made it the constant object of their diplomacy abroad to induce other countries to follow in the same enlightened and humane course. Almost the only ground on which I can look back to the Treaty of Vienna with satisfaction is, that it contains engagements, entered into at our instance by other countries, to abolish the slave trade. Our merchants and manufacturers think it would be a legitimate occupation of the Government of this free trade and commercial country if they would try to diffuse these principles in other countries. And how is that to be done? This brings us to the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has so very usefully raised. We have two Departments concerned in this matter; one is the Board of Trade, the other is the Foreign Office, situated on the two sides of Downing Street. Well, one of these Departments, during the last fifty years, has taken the most enlightened views upon questions of commerce, and has always been in advance of the community in its appreciation of our true interests with regard to commercial policy. I am speaking from my own knowledge when I say that that Department has constantly had within its walls gentlemen of the most enlightened views on that subject. But if we go to the other Office, it is no reproach to the Foreign Department to say that neither its Foreign Minister, nor its diplomatists, take charge of, or inform themselves on, commercial questions, because hitherto it has been considered that that Department has had no commercial objects in view in its negotiations. Well, now, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford asks whether you cannot import into the Foreign Office some of the intelligence which rules in the Board of Trade. How that may be done, and how that spirit may be made to diffuse itself abroad, is a question that may faily be considered in the Committee which is now to be appointed. I will not enlarge upon that subject further than by saving that there ought to be greater intelligence on the part of those who are engaged in the diplomatic service of this country upon these commercial questions; and in order to insure that, there must be a provision made henceforth (for it is too late to adopt it with reference to our present diplomatists) which will require a knowledge and appreciation of these commercial questions on the part of those engaged in our diplomatic service. We are a commercial and manufacturing people, and are so only considered abroad. We should be a third-rate people if we depended merely upon our agriculture. I desire that our interests, and that the spirit which rules in this country, should animate our diplomacy abroad. I think, for instance, that our diplomatists should be required not only to understand Adam Smith, the classic of free trade, but to be acquainted with the commercial policy of this country for the last twenty years. Let them read, for instance, the volume of speeches of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, lately published, and let them undergo an examination on the course of our commercial policy during the last twenty years. Let them know what has been done, not merely in the history of the past, but down to the present moment. Now, without publicly professing to be propagandists, without saying one word about it in public or in our despatches, if our diplomatic representatives knew that by exerting themselves in the cause of free trade abroad they would be as likely to get the decoration and rank of G.C.B. as if they had been successful in assisting at the ceremony of a dynastic treaty or some Court marriage, I think you would very soon find these young gentlemen begin to take an interest in commercial questions. Now, let us suppose a Minister living at St. Petersburg, where he has little to do, and where, of course, he has his secretaries and attaches, what might be not effect with a Government like that of Russia, if he were imbued with a free trade feeling, and were fully acquainted with free trade subjects. He would have every opportunity of converting the Government to his own views of free trade, by merely presenting clearly before them the facts of the case as we have exhibited it for the last twenty years. Russia, like most other Governments, is in want of money, and the reform of their tariff in the direction in which we have been going for the last twenty years would be like the discovery of a gold mine at St. Petersburg. If we could only show other Governments that the reform of our tariff had increased the prosperity of the people, and the amount of our revenue, and that simultaneously we had progressed in skill and civilization, we need not ask them to reform their tariff in our interest; they would do so in their own interests. There is much ignorance about these subjects even in this House. An hon. Protectionist on an opposite bench, to whom I have listened for the last twenty years, has spoken to-day in the very terms which he used when I first entered this House. In order to present the facts of this case before foreign Governments I would suggest to the Board of Trade that as one means of instructing our diplomatists in commercial matters the Board of Trade should prepare a manual of our free trade policy, showing the progress of our legislation and its results, and should place that manual in the hands of those who represent us at foreign Courts. Let it be translated into the languages of those Courts, in order that it may be used as one of the means of converting them to our free trade principles, and let not those who belonged to the past generation of diplomatists imagine that it was a proposal to be treated with levity. This course is just what the commercial and manufacturing people of this country have a right to expect at the hands of any Government. And if the present Administration do not adopt a policy of this kind it will be adopted by a Government formed from the other side of the House. I do not ask for any discussions in this House, nor for any reports or blue-books. We have done more harm than good by discussing this question in this House in reference to our own interests. We have a vast and expensive machinery engaged in our diplomacy, and our manufacturing and trading community expect that our diplomatists shall devote some attention to our commercial interests abroad. Will anybody say that the employment of that machinery during the last few years has been satisfactory to this House or to the country? We have little mountains of blue-books on Schleswig-Holstein and does not everybody agree that they are unsatisfactory? Diplomacy has broken down in its own vocation, and the dynastic arrangements of Europe and the balance of power are questions which have ceased to engage the sympathies of the British public. In the interests of the Foreign Office, I exhort it to take a hint from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. By promoting the triumph of free trade principles, which can only be completely effected when they are adopted by other countries, our diplomatists will be laying the foundation for peaceful relations between the nations of the earth of a far more enduring nature than by anything they can achieve through the recognized arts of diplomacy.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson) had said that France must take the lead upon the Continent in reference to commercial treaties.

begged to explain that what he had said was that France, not having given to other countries those advantages which she has given to us, it was inevitable that the negotiations should be commenced by France and other foreign nations.

But the circumstances of our country were very different, and the manufacturers of England could not be fairly dealt with upon the basis of a treaty between France and other continental countries. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that our consuls should not be employed in negotiating commercial treaties; but for what better purpose did they keep up their consular and diplomatic establishments, at an expense of half-a-million sterling? Why should those gentlemen be kept in particular positions if they were not to perform duties which would be useful to the country? If foreign Governments were reminded of the advantages of free trade without there being any treaties, a great deal might be done. The vast amount of exports from the country required that more attention should be paid to the interests of commerce. During the last twenty years our imports and exports had quadrupled in amount, while our consular representation remained the same. He did not attribute any blame to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, nor to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whom he had always found most courteous and attentive to any representations; but until our consular arrangements were amended, our com- mercial interests must suffer, and had, he contended, a perfect right to complain of the system by which they were bound.

said, he rose to ask for certain Returns of indictable offences committed in particular counties in Ireland, and laid before the Judges at the late assizes for Roscommon, Cavan, Longford, Limerick, and Westmeath. He did so with the object of eliciting an explanation of the causes for the prevalence of so large a proportion of undetected crime in those counties, and to ascertain what course the Government proposed to adopt to lessen the same. The assizes having now terminated the subject might properly be considered by the House, and if they could discover the causes of the defects in the administration of justice they might possibly suggest a remedy. The condition of Ireland had been described by the Attorney General for that country in very favourable terms, and the right hon. Gentleman had declared that no country in the world was so free from crime, and that although agrarian offences did occur, they were merely local, and left the normal condition of Ireland one of peace and order. The documents which he asked for were two in number. The first was a list of indictable offences and of persons indicted in, the several counties named in his Motion. The second was a list the existence of which was not known to many hon. Members, and therefore he would describe it. When a Judge arrived in the town where the assizes were to be held, the principal officer of police was required to furnish him with a list of the offences which had been committed in the county since the previous assizes. It was not usual to make public, those lists, although he did not know what. reason there could be against doing so, but the reason for his asking for those lists was, because they would give the real state of facts at the time of the last assizes in Ireland. He had he believed a correct extract from the calendar for one county—. Roscommon, which he would take as an example. The list of offenders for trial was small, being seven in number. But the question was, did the calendar of offences show the real state of crime in that county? He could not, of course, give the official figures, but he had been supplied by a gentleman resident in the county of Roscommon with a statement which he believed to be correct, and from which he found that the number of offences committed for which the offenders had not been brought to trial was no less than eighty-seven, including eleven incendiary fires, five cases of maiming cattle, fifteen of writing threatening letters, seven of attacking dwelling houses, five attempts to upset railway trains, and fifteen aggravated: assaults. He had also been favoured with another document bearing upon this subject. The number of applications at the last assizes for compensations for malicious injuries was fifteen or sixteen. Then came the question as to the provision made for the maintenance of the peace. As far as Roscommon was concerned, the state of things which he had described was by no means owing to a numerically inefficient police. The population of Roscommon was 157,000, and it had 412 members of the constabulary, while the county of Down, with a population of 300,000, had only 280 police. Upon those facts the learned Mr. Justice Christian made certain observations, and asked how it was that there were so many offences for which there were no prosecutions. The learned Judge said it could only be attributable to intimidation of the injured parties or to a general disinclination to assist justice, or to a deficiency of energy and skill on the part of the police. When the same learned Judge visited Galway he congratulated the grand jury upon the wholesome administration of the law in that county, as contrasted with others through which he had passed, and where he said there was not so much an absence of crime as a paralysis of justice. With respect to the county of Cavan, he had not been able to get a list of the undetected crimes in that county. The next county was that of Limerick, in which crime was considerable, but the Returns showed that in the case of highway robberies (four in number), burglaries, arson, killing and mutilating cattle (six in number)—a very serious offence in an agricultural country—sending threatening letters (ten in number), not a single person had been made amenable to justice. The Judge thought it necessary to comment on such a remarkable state of things, and he stated in a neighbouring county that it was a matter of great gratification to him to find that the remarks which he thought it his duty to make upon the subject had received the concurrence and approval of so respectable a body as the grand jury of the county of Limerick. In the county of Westmeath the Lord Chief Justice informed the grand jury that the convictions, as compared with the offences, were infinitesimal, and he had scarcely left the assize town when an honest farmer was attacked by, he believed, a band of Ribbonmen, who beat him almost to death, and said that they would return next day and do the same to his father. With regard to Longford, which did not stand well in the matter, he would not trouble the House, nor with respect to Donegal, where the cases were principally connected with the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which had led to a great increase of crime; but the House would have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on that subject when he (Mr. Whiteside) submitted his Motion on the spirit duties. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland must allow him to say that it was not in his power to dispute the opinions of the five Judges, Of all things there ought to be certainty in the administration of the criminal law, because the whole peace of the country depended upon it, and in the counties to which he had referred there had been a complete failure of justice. It had been said that it was difficult to detect threatening letters. But let the Executive look sharply after the schoolmasters of the district. He had had occasion to deal with threatening letters, and had not found the difficulty quite insuperable. In one case a letter was sent threatening to shoot a respectable gentleman, in the county of Kildare, and the writer was now ruminating on the consequences in his trausportation. When they looked to the facts which he had stated, they might be disposed to ask whether it was all the fault of the constabulary. He could not bring himself to believe so. He held in his hand a letter from a gentleman in one of the counties he had named, a magistrate of the highest respectability, and in it he was desired not to confine his attention merely to the police, but to ask what sort of men were the stipendiary magistrates, the age of the county Inspectors when they were appointed, how the whole administration of local justice was carried on, and what were the rules which governed the constabulary force. That gentleman said of the constabulary that he was informed they were instructed not to interfere with a crime that came under their notice unless they were absolutely on duty at the time, and that they were decidedly discouraged from what was called "officiously" exerting themselves to prevent the commission of offences. Was that the fact? [Sir ROBERT PEEL asked to see the letter, and the right hon. Gentleman handed it to him, though he stated it was a private one.] The real truth was that they had as moral, intelligent, and respectable a body of men as any in the world in the Irish constabulary; they were truthful witnesses, and in that capacity very fatal to the offender. But it was not persons that could march well or fight well that were wanted in Ireland; they had no one to fight with now; there were but few men in the counties, and every day was reducing the number. When he stated that fact on the second day of the Session he was contradicted, but it would be found that he was right. But he would ask the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, if a man were to put on his head a heavy helmet, then a belt round his waist, side arms, a big coat and other heavy accoutrements, and then he was to tell him, "There's a criminal, go and catch him," whether that man would be likely to do so? On one occasion, a very respectable gentleman, a Mr. Mauleverer, was murdered at one o'clock in the day, near the borders of the county of Louth. Some distance from the spot a police-officer, and a fine young man in the force, were accosted by a car-driver, who, he believed, was privy to the murder, and told that a gentleman had been killed on the road some distance off. They made the car-driver return to the spot, and found the body upon the road. He himself heard the constable describe what it was necessary to do. The officer remained with the body, but the young man threw off his helmet, his coat, his belt, and then he pursued the murderers for three miles through the fields, came up with them, and they were arrested before they entered a house. It was not, then, a question of breaking up the force, for that would be the greatest loss to the country; but some reasonable change should be made in the details of its organization, with a view to the pursuit of criminals, and the detection of crime. But there was another matter. He was informed by country gentlemen in Ireland, who would not attack the Government, but do all in their power to support it, that attempts were made to deprive them of all authority over the police, to transfer it to the stipendiary magistrates, and to centralize the control. Nothing could be more injurious, as regarded the detection of crime. In Carlow the Lord Chief Justice found that every criminal had been detected, and he said that that must have arisen because the magistrates and police worked in harmony together. In the North of Ireland there was not so much crime, but that was chiefly owing to the fact that the people were in a more prosperous condition. He believed that what Mr. Justice Keogh had said in passing a severe sentence upon the young men detected in drilling was quite true, and from what he had heard in the House as well, it was evident that there was a very strong feeling in certain quarters of Ireland in favour of what was termed "nationality." There was no use in blinking the fact. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, had described the country as being in a tranquil state. He might mention that on one occasion, when he was going to the college chapel in Dublin, he found himself in the midst of a very well-dressed assembly, so much so indeed that he at first believed that the gathering was in honour of a wedding. He made inquiries of a policeman, who informed him that it was the funeral of Mr. M'Manus, and that 7,000 young men had accompanied the body to the grave. He remembered that Mr. M'Manus was tried for high treason. It would be a great mistake to imagine that those young men who accompanied the funeral were either immoral or profligate. They were nothing of the kind. The right hon. Baronet would be told by them if they happened to meet him that there was not the slightest objection to him personally, but that the people would be very glad to get rid of him and his col- leagues. The same feeling extended itself towards the Government; but the fact that a feeling of discontent prevailed certainly would not justify the Government in making any attack upon the people. The House ought, however, to be on their guard, and not encourage theories which might prove destructive to the regular Government of the country. He moved

"For copies of the lists of all indictable offences laid before the Judges of Assizes at the late Assizes for the counties of Roscommon, Cavan, Longford, Limerick, and Westmeath; and also for the names of the parties made amenable at the said assizes, and of the offences for which they were severally indicted, as appearing in the calendars of said counties; and for an explanation of the causes why so large a proportion of undetected crime prevails in said counties, and what course the Government means to adopt in order to lessen the same."

said, he had given the subject much consideration since it had last been submitted to the attention of the House. He assured the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Whiteside) that the observations he made upon a former occasion were not intended to cast any slur upon the remarks of the Judges. His object on that occasion had been to show that the state of the country generally was not what it was sometimes described to be. Before, however, alluding to the subject, he wished to make one remark. They all knew that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) was a very spirited and dashing speaker, and that when he made an assertion, which probably in his own mind he was fully aware at the time was not literally true, he endeavoured to give it weight by stating that the assertion he had made had been erroneously corrected. Now, he would not allow the right hon. Gentleman to make any such statement concerning himself without correcting it. The right hon. Gentleman had stated on that occasion that 100,000 fighting men had left Ireland in the course of twelve months, and he had respectfully assured the right hon. Gentleman that such was not the case. He had acknowledged that 119,000 people had left Ireland, but he had also stated that 58,000 out of that number were women, and 12,000 children under twelve years of age. The severe correction which he on that occasion administered to the right hon. Gentleman he still maintained was well merited. The right hon. Gentleman might repeat that he had no right to correct him, but so long as he persisted in repeating his statement so long would be (Sir Robert Peel) continue to point out to the House and to the country that that statement was incorrect.

I beg your pardon. What I stated was—

said, that the right hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of referring to the subject afterwards. As regarded the Motion then before the House, the Government were quite ready to furnish the right hon. Gentleman with the copies he required. The right hon. Gentleman had also asked him if he could give any explanation as to the cause why so large a proportion of undetected crime prevailed in the country, and what course the Government intended to adopt in order to lessen the amount of undetected crime. The right hon. Gentleman had then gone seriatim through the counties of Roscommon, Cavan, Longford, Limerick, and Westmeath. He desired the attention of the House to the subject, because it was important for them, when learned Judges commented upon the amount of undetected crime, to know the difficulty under which they laboured respecting the detection of offenders. It was true, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that in the county of Roscommon the Judge had said, in March, that the total number of outrages since the previous assizes, a period of eight months, had been eighty-seven, and that out of that number the parties who were concerned in forty-seven of them were totally unknown. It was true that there had been eleven incendiary fires, five cases of killing cattle, one of demanding arms, and five of firing shots at night, without the perpetrators in any instance being discovered. It was also true that there had been fifteen cases of sending threatening notices, seven of injury to houses, and several attempts to upset trains, or cases in which stones had been thrown at them, without any person having been made amenable. Immediately that statement was made, he wrote to the county Inspector to ascertain the reason for the existence of such a state of things, and his answer was, that in thirty of those cases the injured parties had declined to lodge any information upon oath. How was it possible for the Government to compel injured parties to come forward and to lodge information against their will? There were thirty cases in which depositions were sworn but no individual offenders charged, and twenty-seven in which the offenders were sworn to, thus making up the total of eighty-seven. The right hon. Gentleman had also alluded to the county of Cavan. The Judge at the assizes held in that county in March last, had remarked that the return of offenders reported since the previous assizes showed fifty-four cases, in only sixteen of which had any person been arrested. Among the catalogue of offences in that county, he found that four incendiary fires remained undiscovered; that nine cases of house-breaking or burglary had occurred without more than two persons having been arrested, and that those two had been discharged; that there had been two cases of demanding or robbery of arms, two of administering unlawful oaths, and twelve of sending threatening letters. For the latter offence two persons were made amenable. He took the opportunity of making the same inquiry of the county Inspector in this instance as he had in the cases which had occurred in Roscommon. His reply was, that there had undoubtedly been four incendiary fires, but that in one case it did not appear to have been malicious, at least the landlord was of that opinion; in another that the owner said it was malicious and that he had £64 in the thatch, but that no one appeared to credit him; in the third case, the burning of a dwelling house and shop, it had since been ascertained to have been a wilful attempt to defraud creditors, and that the perpetrator was now being punished; in the fourth and last case, the fire, though reputed to have been a wilful one, was now believed by the sub-Inspector of police and the public to have been accidental. In one of the cases of robbery of arms, the gun was stolen from the cabin of a care taker while he was away at night. In the other a number of persons came to a house and carried away a gun. The owner and his family were examined before the magistrate, and swore they could not even give a description of any one of the party. That circumstance alone would give the House some idea of the difficulty they experienced in the due administration of justice. A party of men came in broad daylight without any disguise and took away a gun, and yet the parties aggrieved would not come forward and give evidence of the robbery. In cases of sending threatening letters, of which there were twelve, and one conviction, every one acknowledged the difficulty of bringing such offenders to justice. The remaining cases of undiscovered crime were principally assaults at public places or on the return home from fairs and markets by persons whom the injured parties swore they did not know. There were offences peculiar to some counties which were unknown in others—for instance, in Cavan there were threatening letters, which had generally something to do with the Ribbon system. Injuries to cattle and incendiary fires were also peculiar to that county. In the opinion of the county magistrates, however, Cavan had not been for several years past in a more peaceable state, and the Judges confirmed the statement that the constabulary enjoyed the respect of the magistracy and the public. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told the House about the 7,000 persons who went to the funeral of Mr. M'Manus, in Dublin; but he had not stated that there was no breach of the peace committed. He did not know why it should fall to the province of the right hon. Gentleman to lower his country by raking up those cases and making the worst of a state of things which was not so bad as it seemed. Limerick had also been spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman, and there the learned Judge observed—

"I have been furnished by your county Inspector with his Report, containing a return of the amount of offences committed, and I am struck with suprise at the numbers set down for which no one has been made amenable, and others where the prosecutions had been altogether abandoned."

I never brought it before the House.

Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman had ventured upon erroneous statements which he was obliged to correct. He had had drawn up for his own information the statements of the Judges of twenty-nine separate counties, and in every instance they had spoken favourably of the state of the country and of the constabulary. He would not weary the House by going through the whole of the charges, and would, therefore, only allude to the charge of Chief Justice Monaghan at Kerry, who said that he would not join in the cry that had been raised by his brethren, the other Judges, to run down the constabulary. The Chief Justice, on the contrary, expressed his belief that the police honourably and conscientiously discharged their duty. In twenty-eight other counties similar reports had been made by the Judges. So active and energetic had been the constabulary, indeed, within the last few years, that the annual Report of offences, arrests, &c., showed a decrease of offences last year compared with 1862 of more than 1,200. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the popula- tion of Roscommon, Cavan, and Limerick and endeavoured to prove that a greater number of crimes were committed in the southern and western counties than in the north of Ireland. The population of Roscommon, Cavan, and Limerick was 483,979; the number of offences and arrests reported in the three counties for eight months was 227, and the number of arrests was 114. So that in those three counties there was one offence to every 2,132 persons during the eight months. The population of England and Wales, exclusive of the metropolis, was 17,263,857. The number of offences during eight months was 26,624, and the number of arrests was 15,871. In England and Wales, therefore, there was one offence for every 648 persons, while in Ireland there was only one offence to every 2,132 persons. The House could scarcely imagine the difficulty experienced by the authorities in Ireland in inducing persons to come forward and swear informations when offences had been committed. He had only that day received two remarkable statements respecting the unwillingness to assist the course of justice. He would read the report of the resident magistrate in Westmeath—

"County Westmeath, Kilbeggan, April 13.

"On Sunday night last, about eleven o'clock, James Casey, about twenty years of age, of Boston, county Westmeath, within two miles of Moate, was returning with four others from Ballycumber, in the King's County. Some talk about their respective fighting powers ended in one William Galvin's giving Casey a blow with a large stone held in his fist over the left temple. I saw him on Monday evening, and though perfectly sensible and collected he refuses to say one word about the affair, saying he knows nothing about it. [An hon. MEMBER: That is a common case.] The information of Reynolds, who was of the party and present, clearly fixes it on William Galvin, who, he says, was provoked by Casey. We should have succeeded in arresting Galvin, who has got off, but that Casey's father, who sent for Dr. Mathews, at half past twelve a.m. on Monday morning, never called at the barrack, which was passed on the way to the doctor's, through whom, I understand, the police heard of the affair about noon of Monday last. William Galvin was at his usual employment up to that hour of that day, but did not return to it after dinner hour, for we were near him."

"Parsonstown, April 11, 1864.

"I have to report that at ten o'clock a.m. on the 1st inst., two men, names unknown, went into a field in the above townland, where Michael Coughlan, his two brothers, and seven men (in the employment of Coughlan) were ploughing, and told Coughlan 'that he had no right to come there without first settling with John Doorley (the former tenant, who had been evicted from that farm in December last), and that if he did not settle with Doorley, that he, Doorley, would, if it was to go for three or five years, get a man to go into the field and shoot him.' Although there were nine men with Coughlan at the time, there was no effort whatever made on their part to arrest or even trace those men, nor did Coughlan report the matter to the police (although the barrack was within half a mile of the lands which they were ploughing) until the 8th inst. From the description Coughlan gave of the parties the constable at Rapemills at once arrested the parties I have named, whom I have no doubt (nor has Mr. Curran, R.M.) but that the two former were the two men who threatened Coughlan, but as he refused to identify them when brought before him on the 9th inst. they were discharged. The reason assigned for the outrage is that Coughlan refused compensation to Doorley for improvements done to the property."

said, that in a former debate he had stated the number of fighting men who had emigrated from Ireland at 100,000 men. He afterwards applied to the proper quarter, and was told that he had stated the figures accurately.

said, in his opinion, the Irish Members of that House ought to be thankful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside), for having brought that subject before the notice of the House. At the same time, he regretted that the debate was of a mere abstract character, and could be attended with no practical result. He would rather that the right hon. Gentleman had moved for a Committee to examine into the efficiency or inefficiency of the Irish police. If the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland knew more about the country, he would not be so strenuous a supporter of the Irish police. That body, according to the judgment of most people, resembled more closely an army of occupation than a civil organization for the detection of crime. The Irish police were armed with swords, guns, and bayonets. They lived in barracks like fortresses, and did not mix with the people; thus they knew nothing of their character, and possessed none of the facilities which the English police force had for the detection of criminals. Every year, too, they were becoming more and more military. In the case of the English police, they lived among the people in their own houses, and knowing thoroughly all the various districts in. which they lived, as well as the general character of the inhabitants, when a crime was committed they were in most cases able to pounce upon the criminal. Unfortunately, in Ireland, everything was managed in such a manner as to conduce to a job. In the case of a felony committed in England, the person who had been robbed gave information to the police, who generally succeeded in detecting the criminal. Then the person robbed employed his own attorney and barrister, and the offender was brought to speedy justice. In Ireland, on the contrary, a person was not allowed to vindicate the law by means of professional men of his own choice, and in consequence of the system upon which prosecutions were conducted juries would not convict. There certainly was a Crown prosecutor in Ireland, but he generally lived in Dublin, or the chief town of the county with which he was connected, and knew nothing and cared less about the details of those matters. He believed that it would be far better if the people were to employ their own attornies or law advisers. In every country where public prosecutors were part of the establishment there had been a gross failure of justice. He complained of the apathy of the public prosecutors, and expressed his opinion that until the system of conducting prosecutions in Ireland by the Crown prosecutors was abolished, justice would never be properly administered. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Whiteside) should move for a Committee to investigate the whole subject.

said, that as the county Roscommon, with which he was so intimately connected, and which he had the honour to represent in that House, had been so pointedly alluded to in the course of the present debate, he wished to make a few remarks. He was very desirous of ascertaining the true state of the facts connected with crime in Ireland; but he greatly doubted whether the Return asked for by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), would give the information which he desired. The last list of crime in the county of Roscommon presented eighty-seven offences, but let not the House suppose that eighty-seven outrages had really taken place. In Judge Christian's charge, at the last assizes, he alluded to eleven incendiary fires as having been reported. Now, it should be remembered that there existed in Ireland a system under which compensation was granted for malicious injuries. Consequently there was a great temptation to induce persons to invent or exaggerate the character of offences. He found by a reference to the presentments made before the grand jury at the last assizes of Roscommon, that out of those eleven alleged incendiary fires there were only three instances in which compensation had been given. It was not, therefore, to be concluded that those eleven outrages had actually been committed. In three other instances the parties did not even swear informations, which proved the fact that they themselves did not believe that the fires were attributable to the deliberate designs of any person. When Judge Christian delivered his charge, in which he spoke of the disturbed and criminal state of Roscommon, he made inquiries into the nature of the offences entered on the list, and although they were described with high-sounding names, in reality they turned out to be mere trifles. The first case was described as homicide; but it turned out to be an accident. A carman who was driving home from Roscommon races accidentally knocked down a man, who died of the injuries which he received. The next was firing at the person, which turned out to be a joke. An old pensioner had a dispute with an old woman about a heap of manure, and he fetched a pistol loaded with powder, and snapped it at her. The next case was described as one of "burglary and robbery," which, it appeared, originated in the mistake of a bailiff, in serving a process in the wrong house after nightfall. There was a case of demanding arms, which turned out to be a hoax; and there were said to have been fifteen cases of threatening letters it support of which there were no sworn informations. They presented no great feature of criminality. The detection of such a crime at the best of times was a great difficulty, and he thought it was a great injustice to the police to charge them with neglect in not discovering the writers. These offences differed very much in degree, in some cases the letters being sent out of mere foolishness and ignorance, without the slightest intention to carry out the threats; and it was but just to the police to say that the discovery of their authors was a most difficult task. An analysis of the calendar showed how wrong it was to form conclusions by merely reading the headings of the charges. Allusion had been made to the efficiency of the English police, and it had been quoted as against the Irish police; but he found, from a Return that had been published, that in fifteen of the English police districts, the proportion of arrests and convictions presented a worse case against them than had been made out against the Irish police.

observed, that the question of detection of crime in Ireland was not then before the House, but as it would have to be discussed he should reserve what he had to say about it till a future occasion. When the hon. Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don) sought I to establish that only a small proportion of what he called incendiary fires were proved to be malicious, he merely proved that there existed extreme difficulty on the part of those persons who were the sufferers by those offences, in making clear the existence of ma- lice in those cases. This was owing in some degree to the fact that they had to submit their claims to what might be regarded as in some degree an adverse tribunal. The number of serious charges also to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, such as homicide and burglary, as having been made against persons who were guilty of, comparatively speaking, much lighter offences, instead of being an argument in favour of the present system of prosecution in Ireland, plainly demonstrated that it required amendment. Into the larger question of the detection of crime he did not that evening propose to enter at any length; but as one who had experience as a magistrate for a period of twenty-nine years, he must protest against the absurd system of giving to the police in Ireland, who ought to be the main instruments in that detection, the military organization which they now received. It was impossible to expect that the police, who had been spoilt by military organization, could detect crime. It was their foolish military organization which made them useless as a detective police force. Had the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland been in his place, he should have advised him to study gravely, and with filial reverence, the regulations which had been laid down by his illustrious father in reference to that body when they were called into existence, and from which of late there bad been a serious departure. He would confer a great benefit on the people of Ireland if he would adopt those instructions, and have them carried out. He knew it would be said that to have an efficient force the men must be armed with the most efficient weapon. That was true, and that argument was used by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and, owing to his influence and popularity, it seemed to satisfy the House on a former occasion; but he would venture to point out that, in discussing what was the most efficient weapon for a body of men, you must have reference to the duties those men have to perform. What, he would like to know, was the use of giving a policeman a rifle which would kill at 900 yards? Who ever heard of a member of the force taking a flying shot at a runaway pickpocket at that distance? Much better would it be to arm the men with the old carbine, which would carry only fifty or sixty yards, which was used as a weapon of defence and not of offence, which was light and handy, and which did not prevent the police from giving effectual chase to a criminal. But, besides the rifle now in use, there was also the sword scabbard, which dangled about their legs, and rendered it almost impossible for them to he active in pursuit; while, being an expensive implement, and a stoppage being made from their pay for an injury done to it, they not unnaturally would prefer letting a man escape occasionally to running that risk. The consequence was that they dandled it like a baby rather than injure the precious weapon. The force, as a detective force, was a mockery. It would be far better to get rid of all that useless military organization and encourage the men to become good detectives, and thereby be able to trace criminals and to prevent crime. He believed the Irish police to have been a most excellent force until the military mania came over it. But worse than all was the fact that, owing to some secret instructions—and from whom they emanated he was not in the slightest degree aware, the police showed great reluctance to communicate with the local magistracy, standing aloof from them, and affecting a preference for the stipendiary magistrates of the district. Instead of the existence of a complete understanding between the resident country gentlemen and the police, it appeared that secret instructions were issued, and that the police were told to communicate only with the stipendiary magistrates. In illustration of the operation of that system he might mention that, on the occasion of the late assizes, when Mr. Justice Ball, a highly respected Judge, visited the county of Down to preside in the Crown Court, he, in speaking of the state of that county, expressed his regret at finding in it so lamentable a state of crime; and when his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down (Lieutenant Colonel Forde) who was foreman of the grand jury, assured his Lordship that he and his colleagues knew nothing about the crime of which he spoke, the answer was that the facts had been reported to him by the police; to which his hon. Friend replied that the police had not reported the crimes alluded to by his Lordship, to the resident magistrates and landlords of the county. Now, that was a state of things which ought not to be allowed to exist, and the Government would, he hoped, take the whole question into their serious consideration.

said, he must deny that the amount of undetected crime could be estimated by a comparison of the number of offences alleged to have been committed with the number of persons brought to trial; because he was prepared to show that, in numerous instances, offences had been alleged where none had been committed. He had moved for a list of the outrages alleged to have been committed in Ireland, in order that it might be compared with the cases actually brought before the Judges of assize, and thus determine the actual amount of undetected crime. He would take three cases in the county of Longford and the county of Westmeath. In one of these there was a charge that a threatening notice had been served upon a particular gentleman, but the gentleman himself denied that any such notice had been served. In another case of a similar charge, after some inquiry, the person who had made it was threatened with a prosecution on the ground that he himself was the writer of the letter which he said had been sent to him. In the third, a copying book was found in the house of the person who made the charge, in which book there was a torn sheet corresponding with the one on which the threat was written. Again, with respect to incendiary fires, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) were a country gentleman he would know that many of the claims made on counties in respect of such alleged fires, were rejected by the grand juries. Out of eleven cases of alleged fires submitted to the grand jury of the county of Roscommon, only three were prosecuted. One gentleman, who in a more distant part of the country had alleged more than one case of malicious outrage as having been perpetrated against himself, came to reside at Swords, near Dublin, and made a similar accusation. He alleged that stones were constantly being thrown at his house. Policemen were sent to watch it, and whenever they were in the house no stones were thrown, but no sooner did they take their departure than the alleged attacks were again repeated. At length the police resorted to the expedient of hiding in a ditch, without the knowledge of the owner of the house, and having heard a volley of stones strike the buildings, they rushed out and found that the delinquent was the gentleman himself.

Was the case referred to that of a clergyman?

thought that the person in question was a clergyman. He hoped he had stated sufficient facts to show that a comparison of the number of alleged offences with the number of persons brought to trial would not show the amount of undetected crime in Ireland.

said, that he must agree with most of the statements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Whiteside). He believed the disinclination which at present existed among the Irish peasantry to give information against criminals was one of the effects of the police system, which did not afford protection to prosecutors. Not only had the magistrates and the grand juries no control over the police, but it was believed that their recommendation of a constable would prevent the man from getting promotion. The men composing the force were exceedingly fine men, but they had no inducement to exert themselves, as it was impossible for them, under the existing system, to improve their position in connection with the force.

wished to say a very few words before this discussion concluded, with reference to some observations which appeared to him to have unwarrantably dealt with the administration of criminal justice in Ireland. The general effect of the debate was very satisfactory, for it had dispelled delusion and done justice to public officers who had been assailed without sufficient reason. He did not think it necessary to go at length into the general question; but now, at the close of the debate, and after the testimony which had been given as to the condition of Ireland by so many representatives of large and important constituencies, he thought himself entirely justified in repeating the assertion he had made on a former occasion in that House, and to which his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, adverted in the opening of his statement, that there was not at this moment in the world a people less tainted with vice or crime than the people of Ireland. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wexford had denounced the system of crown prosecutions in Ireland and urged the substitution of that which prevails in England. He confessed he did not admire the continual reiteration of the preference for all English institutions with which they were familiar in that House, and as to the matter in question he believed the Irish system to be incomparably superior to the English, and it was so considered by every man at the bar acquainted with their working and results. The Law Amendment Society and the Social Science Association were distinctly in favour of the establishment of a system of public prosecution, aiming to have justice fairly and calmly administered, without interest or passion in the prosecution or undue pressure on the accused. At the late meeting of the Social Science Association in Dublin, the venerable Lord Brougham expressed his high approval of the appointment of public prosecutors, and his desire that they should be appointed for England. As to the detection of crime, the Judges, whose opinions on such a subject should be received with extreme respect, had not pronounced the condemnation of the police. In three or four counties there had been complaints, but the learned Judge whose brilliant career in that House was so well remembered, Judge Keogh, whilst he lamented that some offences had not been discovered in Limerick, spoke in the highest praise of the police force, and his approval of it was echoed by the grand jury, who returned him their warm thanks for his address on the subject. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, who had also held such a distinguished position in Parliament, had given it his equally emphatic approval; and many other Judges of the greatest eminence expressed the same opinion. In the vast majority of the counties of Ireland, at the last assizes, there was no objection taken, nor the slightest pretence for any, to the action of the constabulary, who were on all hands admitted to be a most intelligent, well conducted, and trustworthy body of men. Some difficulty they undoubtedly encountered, because in Ireland the people were not, as in this country, in perfect relations of amity with the law. Long years of partial and unjust legislation—laws not made in their interest or administered for their advantage had produced a deep impression on their minds. The traditions of the past were not forgotten. The brief quarter of a century which had elapsed since the tardy recognition of the principles of religious freedom and equal justice had not been sufficient to obliterate its painful memories. But a manifest improvement was taking place, and by persisting patiently in a firm and kindly course—by securing legal protection and fair play to all, the Government could induce the people to love the law and assist in its administration. He had been grossly misrepresented as having asserted that justice in Ireland was now satisfactorily dispensed to a contented community. He had never thought or said that the Irish community were content with their general condition, depressed and suffering as they were, but he had stated, as he believed, that they were more content than they had ever been with the manner in which prosecutions were directed, and with the conduct of the Judges and the tribunals. He lamented extremely—he thought it was a pity and a shame that there was still such a disposition amongst some Irishmen to exaggerate the criminality of their own country and lower it in the estimation of other lands, instead of boasting of the wonderful and unexampled purity and virtue which distinguished it, notwithstanding so many evil influences of poverty and temptation. In England, men were not found to throw discredit upon their poorer countrymen, although far larger masses of undetected crime existed there than in Ireland. Had they not heard of such terrible mysteries as the Road murder, the Waterloo Bridge murder, and the Hay-market murder? And were these things made the subject of attack by Englishmen on the authorities or the people of England? He had looked into the last volume of the English judicial statistics, and he found that whilst in a single year 13,289 crimes had been committed in the metropolis, only 5,444 persons had been apprehended; in the pleasure towns, as they were called, 940 crimes were committed, and 362 persons arrested; in the towns depending on agricultural districts, 472 crimes were committed, and 324 persons arrested; in the commercial ports, the crimes were 5,271, and the arrests 2,899; and in the seats of the cotton and linen manufacture, the crimes were 9,370, and the arrests 2,738. He believed that when the Irish judicial statistics, which he hoped to lay on the table of the House in the course of the Session, were compared with those of this rich and prosperous kingdom, the comparison would be found most favourable to Ireland as to the amount, the character, and the detection of crime. On the whole, he was satisfied that this discussion would be serviceable to the interests of truth, and not in any way detri- mental to the character of the constabulary of Ireland.

begged to observe that there was a very important matter of deep public interest to be disposed of that night, the Report of the Committee of Ways and Means on the Sugar Duties. Very great commercial inconvenience would be experienced if the Report were not brought up that night, and it was then past ten o'clock. He therefore appealed to hon. Members to have the kindness to postpone their observations on the topic now before the House, and on any other subjects of which they might have given notice, to some other evening, as it would be a very great convenience to the public service.

expressed surprise that the noble Lord did not make this appeal before his own Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. O'Hagan) made his long and rather singular speech, in which he quite led the House away from the real subject. He was the last man to doubt the purity or impugn the morality of the Irish people; but the present was a question not of national morality, but of the organization of the police force. The Government of Ireland was framed on a vicious system, which had long been abandoned in England. It was a system copied from France. Everything in Ireland tended to Dublin, every question must be referred to the Castle. The only point on which Irish Gentlemen, who differed from one another on every other matter, were agreed was the utter inefficiency of the system of a military police. The constabulary were riflemen, but without the activity and discipline of soldiers. It had been said that they were a fine body of men, and that in one sense was true, for they were six feet in height. As a detective police, however, they were altogether useless, Irish gentlemen, whether magistrates, Judges, or grand jurors, all shared that opinion. Ireland might be pure and moral, but he doubted whether the Irish Government was so. Everything in the country was transferred to that sink of iniquity—the Castle. If such a Government were in existence in England the country would not go on for twenty-four hours. Irish gentlemen were reproached as absentees in this country, but what inducement had they to remain in Ireland? Their opinions were set aside, their services were declined; the Castle was everything, and except the Law Officers every official there was English. No Irishman was admitted to office; as Swift said, "The curse of Ireland was upon him." Hence it was that men illustrious for their ignorance of and inability to understand Ireland were preferred to Irishmen. As long as that system lasted, so long would crime remain undiminished, and the Irish Secretary and the Attorney General would talk about Irish purity and morality, neglecting the means of lessening crime and of placing the police on a better footing.

said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Government have abandoned the intention of introducing any measure for the concentration of the Courts of Justice? The present suspense was extremely inconvenient to the profession and injurious to the owners of property on the site recommended by the Commission of 1859. He knew of one man of the latter class who a few years ago derived about £2,000 a year from his property, and who was now almost ruined by the proceedings of the Government in issuing notices year after year.

said, the Government had not abandoned the project. It was at present under consideration, and he hoped shortly to be able to bring the matter before the House.