said, that as a Select Committee would probably be appointed that night, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Doulton), to consider the best means of preserving open spaces in the metropolis, he (Viscount Bury) would postpone the second reading of this Bill until the 21st of March. He would add, that Lord Spencer felt that many of the provisions of this Bill were misunderstood out of doors, and that further time for its consideration was required.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Members of the Parliamentary Bar have come to any agreement, that the practice before Parliamentary Committees shall be open to the Bar in general, on the same terms in regard to fees as prevail in the ordinary Courts of Law and Equity?

said, that he was led to the conclusion, from the inquiries he had made, that a counsel practising before Committees of the House was at liberty to accept any fee which he might regard as a proper and adequate remuneration for the duties he was discharging. He concluded that counsel might accept any fee that the Bar in general might take in the ordinary course of practice.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any decision has been come to, and if so, in what way it is proposed to deal with the vacant ground between Bridge Street and New Palace Yard?

said, he thought the House would agree with him that the large open space between Westminster Bridge and Victoria Street, and the magnificent view of Westminster Abbey from that point, rendered it inexpedient to encumber that open space with any buildings. He proposed to lay an Estimate on the table for facing with stone the unfinished part of the clock tower, and also for erecting an ornamental railing in the position now marked out by the south line of Bridge Street. According to that plan the vacant ground lately occupied by the houses would become part of New Palace Yard. He thought the opportunity ought to be taken of improving the general architectural effect of St. Margaret's Square, as well as Palace Yard, so as to give a more direct communication for carriages between Victoria Street and Westminster Bridge, and also between Great George Street and Abingdon Street. He thought if the open space was properly dealt with, it would add to the convenience as well as beauty of the site, and make it one of the most ornamental in the metropolis.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the large number of wrecks which have lately occurred on the north-west coast of Devon and Cornwall; and whether it is the intention of the Government to establish a Harbour of Refuge on that coast for the protection of the shipping?

said, in reply, that no doubt there had been many wrecks on the north-west coast of Cornwall and Devon, but he was not aware that last year was an exceptional year. It was not the intention, however, of the Government to propose any Vote of money for the establishment of Harbours of Refuge on that coast. There were other parts of the coast where a greater number of wrecks had taken place, more especially during the last year.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Under what circumstances and why the Order made on the 13th of February for printing the Tables which were on the 10th of February laid upon the table of the House, with reference to the Government Life Annuity and Life Assurance Bill of last Session, was subsequently discharged; and whether, notwithstanding the discharge of such Order, it is intended that such Tables shall be acted upon at the expiration of thirty days from the 10th of February, pursuant to the 6th section of the Act; and when the regulations to be made pursuant to the 16th section of the Act will be laid upon the table of the House, as directed by that section?

in reply, said, he had no direct knowledge of the circumstances under which the Order made on the 13th of February for printing the Tables laid on the table of the House on the 10th of February, with reference to the Government Life Annuity and Life Assurance Act of last Session, was discharged; but upon inquiry he learnt that it was discharged at the request of the Printing Committee, and for a very obvious reason. As soon as the Tables reached the Government, the Government ordered them to be put in type, and the printing was almost finished. He believed the Tables would be circulated to-morrow morning. The Government had been very anxious to expedite the printing of the Tables; but as they referred to sums of money which persons would have to pay in return for a certain benefit, it was necessary to be extremely accurate, and that had caused the printing to occupy a much longer time than he could have wished. He apprehended it was fixed by law that the Tables would take effect in thirty days after the time when they were laid on the table of the House. The general regulations of assurance and annuity business were directed to be laid on the table of the House; but the time of the commencement of the operation of the Act was not dependent upon the time when those regulations were presented. When those regulations were all made complete, and nothing but a few verbal matters remained to be considered, they would be laid on the table.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Report of the Department of Science and Art for the year 1864 will he issued previous to the Estimates for the Schools of Art and the South Kensington Museum being moved for?

said, the Report of the Science and Art Department included the Report of five or six other Scientific Institutions, and the Report of them had had not yet been received; but he had every reason to believe that the general Report would be laid on the table before Easter. The printing of the Report would probably occupy a month or five weeks.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the table of the House a list of the alterations and repairs executed on the Royal Sovereign, Prince Consort, and Royal Alfred, from the 1st day of September, 1864, till this time, and the cost of the same, specifying each item separately?

said, in reply, that he would have no objection to lay upon the table the general items of the cost of repairs and alterations of the Royal Sovereign and Prince Consort: With regard to the Royal Alfred, she was not complete, and therefore the Returns would be of no value. After her completion there would be no objection to produce the Returns if moved for. To specify each item separately, however, would make the document very voluminous, and he hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the general items showing the cost.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in reference to the answer which he gave on Friday, Whether (in accordance with the provisions of the Act 9 & 10 Vict. c. 92) the accounts of the Receipt and Expenditure of the Navy, together with the Reports of the Commissioners of Audit, were laid before the House of Commons within one week after the assembling of Parliament; whether (in accordance with the Act 24 & 25 Vict. c. 93) the Accounts of the Customs, of the Inland Revenue, and of the Post Office, were laid before the House of Commons within one week after the assembling of Parliament; and whether (in accordance with the Act 14 & 15 Vict. c. 42) the Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings, and the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Landed Revenue transmitted their Accounts to the Audit Office on or before the 30th day November last past; and whether those Accounts, together with the Auditors' Reports thereon, were transmitted to the Treasury on or before the 31st of January last, to be laid before Parliament?

said, in reply, that the directions of all the Acts of Parliament had been properly complied with. The Navy Accounts had been presented on the first day of the Session, the Revenue Accounts had been laid upon the table within one week after the meeting of Parliament, and the Works and Buildings and Woods and Forests Accounts had been sent to the Audit Board before the end of October, and had been duly returned to the Treasury before the close of last month.

in rising to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the best means of preserving for the public use the Forests, Commons, and Open Spaces in and around the metropolis, said, that the question of preserving for public use our forests and common lands around the metropolis had been so often under the consideration of the House that it would not be necessary for him to occupy more than a few minutes in asking for a Select Committee. The House had already upon more than one occasion given a very decided opinion upon this question. In 1863, upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke), the House passed a Resolution for an Address to Her Majesty calling upon her to exercise the rights which she still possessed with regard to Epping Forest. At the close of the last Session the House, by a decided majority, expressed its opinion that it was the duty of the Government or of some other body to provide for the preservation of the commons or open spaces around the metropolis. There was this one very remarkable fact in connection with these debates, that though there was naturally a considerable divergence of opinion as to the policy of the course then suggested, there seemed to be but one opinion as to the urgent necessity of a Parliamentary inquiry into the whole question. Indeed, it seemed to be one of those questions which did not admit of delay, and the difficulties of which grew in proportion as Parliament refrained from a full investigation:—indeed, if they might judge the future from the past, there seemed to be little doubt that unless Parliament adopted some course calculated to lead to a practical solution of the question, the question would settle itself, or rather there would be few commons and open spaces near the metropolis which would not be disposed of for purposes other than those which Parliament believed to be their legitimate use. If any hon. Member doubted the necessity of inquiry, he would remind him that there had been introduced this Session a Bill which proposed to deal with one of the most important and valuable of the commons around the metropolis—he alluded to Wimbledon Common. He wished to express no opinion upon that Bill, but merely to say that it furnished a strong reason for inquiry. In proposing the appointment of this Committee he was but following out the opinions and wishes the House had already expressed. In order to prevent misapprehension, he would say that it was not his desire for one moment to propose this inquiry with a view to enclosing these open spaces and commons and keeping them as neat and trimly laid out parks. His desire was rather this—that the commons should be preserved in their present wild state, which he believed to be their greatest charm, and that those by whom these commons had been specially used should still have them for that free, uncontrolled, and, he might say, boisterous enjoyment which it was impossible for them to have in parks under restrictions. The metropolis was well provided with parks. Besides the older parks, there were now Battersea and Victoria Parks, a park was now in the course of formation in Finsbury, and in a few weeks a new park would be commenced at Bermondsey. What was wanted was to preserve the commons around the metropolis with all their present irregularities. There was one point in connection with this subject to which he was anxious to call attention, and it was this—that the expense of the maintenance of the enclosed parks involved a prodigious annual outlay of public money. Last year a sum exceeding £6,000 was voted for the maintenance of Battersea Park, which was only 200 acres in extent, and £6,000 was also voted for Victoria Park, which was only 300 acres. Hon. Gentlemen would see that, while the expense for maintaining the open spaces, which gave the greatest enjoyment, might be reckoned by hundreds, that for preserving the parks must be reckoned by thousands. It had been said that those who sought to preserve these open spaces wished to obtain great public advantages by the confiscation of private rights. But no such wish was entertained, and at all events the House of Commons would be the last to favour a design of this sort. He wished to say in the strongest manner that it was his desire to respect and not to invade the rights of property, and to give full value for any interests which were trenched upon. But other than private rights were concerned in this question, public rights made sacred by the usage of centuries were involved; and he hoped the result of the Committee would be some suggestion or measure which would on the one hand preserve for the public the enjoyment of those open spaces, and on the other to reserve without encroachment all private rights. The hon. Member then moved that a Select Committee be appointed.

said, he rose to second the Motion. The question was one connected with a movement now going on the importance of which was scarcely recognized by the public at large or the House. It was intended to postpone the Bill for the enclosure of Wimbledon Common for a month to await the result of this Committee, and if the Committee were appointed he hoped they would get such information as would prevent so great a public outrage as the enclosure of that common being perpetrated. It was said that the noble Lord who was interested in the Bill (Earl Spencer), was only influenced by a desire to do a public benefit; but Members of the House had an opportunity of judging for themselves of the public spirit of the operation. If they would take a ride from Battersea Park to Wands worth Common they would see how the latter place was being appropriated by the noble Lord. He did not hesitate to say that in the appropriation of Wands worth Common there was not a public right which had not been sacrificed, and contrary as he thought, to law. The only roadway from north to south was so narrow that foot-passengers were in danger of being run over; a workhouse and a burial ground had been planted on the common, and a large space of ground was occupied by a railway company, and apparently for no earthly purpose. In addition, all kinds of incongruous buildings—four-roomed, six-roomed, or indeed any kind were springing up; and all this upon land which a few years ago was public property. This was how the noble Lord showed his public spirit; and what was done on Wands worth Common he now wished to extend to Wimbledon. He wished that before the Bill was passed for this enclosure, the Committee now proposed would have reported on the whole subject.

said, that being one of the Members who had charge of the Bill which had been stigmatized by the last speaker as a public outrage, he could not remain silent. He desired to say that whatever might be thought of the enclosure of Wimbledon Common it was certain that Earl Spencer proposed to dedicate to the public, rights which were believed by his legal adviser to he of very considerable extent; and the noble Lord was surely perpetrating no public outrage when he took the only constitutional way of bringing the subject of that gift before the public. Lord Spencer's legal position was such that he need not have applied to this House for power to do that which the Enclosure Bill proposed to do. However that might be, and whatever his rights might be, his Lordship was quite willing—nay, desired—that the whole question should be referred to the Committee which had just been moved for, so that it might there be discussed. Lord Spencer did not shrink from inquiry—he courted it; and if upon consideration the Committee objected to the enclosure the noble Lord would no doubt be prepared to consider whether he should not give up the power of enclosure. At any rate, this and other questions were to be referred to the Committee and to be discussed by them, and meanwhile he protested against the language of the hon. Gentleman, as to whom the Mover of this Resolution might well say, "Save me from my friends!" Having postponed the Wimbledon Common Bill in order that the Committee might decide upon it, he could only express his hope that the House would accede to the Motion.

said, he did not know anything about Wands worth Common, but could not for a moment agree to what had been said by the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Alderman Rose) as to Wimbledon. It was hardly necessary to defend Earl Spencer's character, for everyone who knew him would feel that what had been said of him by the hon. Member was perfectly unjust. He had himself property at Putney, and with other owners of property was opposed to the enclosure of Wimbledon Common; but, however they might differ from Lord Spencer as to the mode of carrying out his views, no one could have acted more candidly, fairly, and liberally. He (Colonel North) was against the enclosure of the common, but then that was only his individual opinion. The public had for years enjoyed Wimbledon Common in all its natural wildness, and he thought it should be continued in that state rather than be converted into an ornamental park. Earl Spencer said, that if when the subject came before the Committee the feeling there was adverse to enclosure he would reconsider the subject; and he was sure his Lordship would carry out this promise.

said, that if he had expressed his opinions in other than the ordinary terms allowed in debate he would readily apoligize. He felt strongly on the subject, and if he had used unparliamentary terms he would willingly withdraw them.

said, that before the Committee was appointed the House ought clearly to understand whether this was only the beginning of a further charge upon the Consolidated Fund. They all remembered how that Fund had become chargeable in connection with matters of science and art. No less a sum than £60,000 had been spent out of the Imperial exchequer for Battersea Park; and though it was said that the park would pay itself by the sale of surplus property, he hoped the House would never sanction the Government becoming speculators in building land. He trusted it would be clearly understood that whatever was done by the Committee or upon their Report, there would be no demand for money from the Consolidated Fund.

said, he would support this Motion as he had supported a similar one last year, which was carried by a large majority, but it being late in the Session there was no time to appoint a Committee. The duties of the Committee now to be appointed would therefore be simplified inasmuch as they would not have to inquire whether these spaces should be kept open, but where the money for keeping them open was to come from. His hon. Friend was correct in assuming this, and deprecated any grant from the public purse for the purpose. Now, he did not agree with this view, and was sorry that his hon. Friend did not feel more for the capital of his country. Hon. Members came up to town from their constituencies and performed their duties here in the most exemplary manner; but when they went down to their constituents they often forgot the enlarged views which they had imbibed here, and adopted the contracted views which were enjoyed by some persons in the country. So it was with his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend represented a constituency far away from the metropolis. No man was more constant in gracing the House with his presence, and when in London no one was more generous or more delighted to enjoy the parks which were the ornaments of the metropolis; but when in the country he forgot his duty to the capital of his country, and he adopted the views of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), and objected to a single shilling of Imperial money being laid out on London. Nevertheless, it was necessary to do something more for the metropolis, to which everybody came, than for every small town out of London. What had been done with respect to Battersea Park? It certainly was beautifully laid out, but a toll was put on Chelsea Bridge, and the consequence was that the land which surrounded the park, and which otherwise might be let to advantage, could not be let at all now. No persons would take houses situated in such a place that they could not go from it into the land of the living on the northern bank of the river without paying toll, except on a Sunday, Christmas Day, and Good Friday. The hon. Member for West Norfolk was very effective on a former occasion in objecting to the toll being taken off Chelsea Bridge, on the principle that the House had no right to spend anything upon the metropolis; but there would have been no necessity to spend public money on Battersea Park if the toll had been taken off Chelsea Bridge, for the land in the neighbourhood, belonging to Government, would then have become so valuable that the proceeds would have defrayed all the expense. He would not now go into the question of Wimbledon Common further than to say that he confessed to having a strong feeling against any fence tending to restrict the enjoyment of the people being set up in open spaces; but, as far as he could collect, he understood that the noble Lord who proposed to lay out Wimbledon Common would be ready to be guided by the decision of the Committee now moved for, whatever that decision might be. He trusted that Clapham Common would always be preserved in its present state. Wands worth Common, unfortunately, had been converted into a most detestable place, but not entirely by the noble Lord. A railway went through it, and he never understood that a railway cutting could possibly improve any spot. A large school and prison were also there; but those were more public establishments than anything else, and he did not think that the noble Lord could be taken to task entirely for them, though, no doubt, he gave his consent to their construction. The Committee now moved for was proposed with the view of protecting the rights of the public against invasion, and if it should be able to lay down any clear and just principles with regard to these common lands to be embodied in a Bill, then, so far from the time of the Gentlemen serving on it being thrown away, a great advantage would be conferred upon the public.

said, he did not object to any amount of money being spent on the decoration of the metropolis, but he contended that it ought not to come out of the Imperial purse. He was at a loss to conceive on what possible ground of fairness and equity a claim could be made by the metropolis upon the public purse for its improvement and adornment, when if any other city in the country made a similar claim it would be hooted and scorned. He hoped that as long as the House of Commons exercised a control over that purse it would oppose itself to these rapacious proceedings.

inquired to what distance from the metropolis would the proposed inquiry apply.

Fifteen miles.

said, that last year, when the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Doulton) brought this subject before the House, he suggested that he should move for a Select Committee, and he was glad he had acted upon that suggestion. The subject was one of great interest and importance to all residing in London, but a great deal of information respecting it was required before it could be ripe for legislation, and he believed that the details which the Committee would receive would be valuable. At present London was peculiarly fortunate, both as to the parks which were chiefly in the centre of it, and as to the large open spaces which surrounded it on all sides. There were within the limits of the metropolis no less than twenty-eight commons and greens open freely to the public. These were becoming every day of greater importance to the people, because the railways enabled great numbers of the poorest as well as the richer classes to enjoy them; while, on the other hand, the rapid and enormous growth of the City had a constant tendency to destroy them. Saffron Hill, Rosemary Lane, Mayfair, and other places whose pleasant names recalled the memory of agreeable walks, had long since been engulphed, and the progress of building naturally presented a temptation to convert the rights in commons into money. He thought that the private rights over such places were worth being bought by a wealthy city like this, and preserved to the people. He agreed that what were wanted in the suburbs of London were not so much ornamental parks as open spaces in their natural beauty and native wildness; but he must turn a deaf ear to the persuasions of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), who seemed to think that the expenditure required for preserving and maintaining those places should come out of the national purse. It seemed to him that the expenditure required for the preservation of these suburban places of recreation, was peculiarly local and municipal, and had nothing Imperial in its character—they were for the advantage of the residents of the metropolis; and it was the opinion of the Government that if this Committee were granted, and they wished it to be so understood, it would be a waste of time for them to turn their attention to the question of meeting the expenditure out of Imperial funds. He knew it was the custom to say that the ratepayers of the metropolis were already too heavily burdened, but there were resources still undeveloped; for instance, one large class of property did not contribute directly to permanent improvements of the metropolis—the owners of the fee simple of land did not pay in that capacity, all the expenditure being drawn from the occupiers. He thought his hon. Friend had made out good ground for his Motion. The preservation of these open spaces was important to the health and enjoyment of those who lived in the metropolis; and he thought that consideration might be usefully given by the Committee to questions of fact and law, and application of metropolitan funds, which might prepare the way for future action.

said, that where the lord of the manor and the homage could come to terms together, it was unnecessary to apply to Parliament for any further powers with respect to enclosure; but if they were unable to come to terms, then an application to Parliament for such powers was requisite. The whole question as to Wimbledon Common turned upon whether Lord Spencer had the right to enclose in conjunction with the homage. If he had the right to do so, with the consent of the homage, there was no necessity for coming to that House. If, on the other hand, the right was disputed, it was only natural that he should endeavour to obtain the sanction of the Legislature for his proposal. If he was giving up any of his rights to the public, it was, of course, very disinterested in him. Some persons who dwelt in the neighbourhood said he had not these legal rights. It was proposed to refer it to a Select Committee to inquire into the subject, and ascertain, at all events, what primâ facie case could be made out; and then, with the Committee's Report before it, the House would be able to see what was to be done. If Lord Spencer had illegally dealt with Wandsworth Common, why did not the gentlemen living in the neighbourhood form themselves into a committee and club together for the protection of their rights?

said, that no doubt the last speaker was right in saying that if the public had no legal right to be upon, or to use the commons, the lord of the manor could at any time, with the consent of the commoners, enclose a common. But if, on the contrary, the public had any rights over the common, the lord could not enclose without an Act of Parliament. The question of Wimbledon Common was one of detail, and it would, no doubt, be brought before the Committee. After reading the correspondence, he was satisfied that Lord Spencer had intended to act in an extremely generous spirit towards the public. It was a question how far the noble Lord's views might meet the wishes of the people of Wimbledon; and if he was dissatisfied with the reception it had met with, he might console himself with the reflection that persons who did generous things of that kind did not always get the credit they deserved, because, while he was giving up what might be of great prospective value to him, they were only receiving that which they had always enjoyed. But, he would address himself to the case of commons, where, perhaps, they could not expect the lords of the manor to be so generous, such as those of Blackheath, Hampstead, Clapham, and many others, and he believed there were about seventy commons and greens of various sizes within fifteen miles of London, which were all in jeopardy under the present state of things. The state of the law as regarded public rights was very embarrassing and unsatisfactory, and certainly not such as those who advocated the cause of the public could desire. Through the later decisions of the Courts of Law, what were recognized at one time as the rights and customs of the public in respect to recreation had been almost refined away to nothing It was very unfortunate that that should be so; and it would, he thought, be one of the most important duties of the Committee to investigate what the rights of the public really were, and see whether rights which had in fact been enjoyed for many centuries could not be restored to the people. He would, first of all, call the attention of the House to one of the first cases in which public rights in this matter were acknowledged in a court of law. It occurred in the days of Charles I., when public amusements revived after the duller times of the Puritans. The inhabitants of a town claimed the right of dancing on a common in their immediate vicinity, and Sir Matthew Hale decided that it was a good custom, and that it was necessary for the inhabitants to have their recreation.—(Abbott v. Weekly, I Levinz's Reports, 176.) That was always regarded as a leading case in which the rights of the public had been properly determined.-But there always appeared to be a kind of dualism at work in our courts of law—a contest between the opposite principles of good and evil—and whenever a good principle was laid down by one Judge, another Judge came afterwards and, while acknowledging the previous decision, showed how it could be refined away until nothing of it was left. He would point out how the grand principle of Sir Matthew Hale came to be frittered away. Soon after the case that he had mentioned had been decided, another came before one of our courts, in which the inhabitants of a parish claimed by custom from time immemorial to enjoy the liberty of playing at all kinds of lawful games, sports, and pastimes, at all seasonable times of the year, at their free will and pleasure. They also put their claim in another form, pleading the same custom for all persons at the time being in the said parish. The court acknowledged the validity of the decision which he had already quoted, but said—

"It has been objected that it it is not alleged that the pastimes were allowed for the necessary recreation of the inhabitants; but the case in I Levinz decides that it is necessary for the inhabitants to have such recreation; if so, it is matter of law. But the custom unfolded in the second plea is as untenable as the first is tenable; because what is there stated may be claimed by all the inhabitants of England. Customs must be in their nature confined to individuals within a certain district."—(Fitch v. Rawlings, 2 H. Bl. 393.

That was the first entrance of the evil spirit which got rid of the rights of the people, declaring that although when confined to the inhabitants of a particular place the right was good, yet it was bad if it could be claimed by the whole public. Again, in a recent case, arising out of the disputes of the turf, the trustees of the Jockey Club, who were lords of the manor of Newmarket Heath had warned off the race-course a gentleman who had made some very ugly animadversions upon them. The gentleman refused to go; they turned him off; and the case was brought before a court of law. He pleaded an immemorial custom on the part of the public to go and see the races held at Newmarket. The court, in accordance with the decision he had just cited, decided that the custom having been laid in all the Queen's subjects was bad; that the public had no right to be there; but it intimated that if the defendant could have claimed as an inhabitant of Newmarket, he might possibly have maintained the custom. Another case occurred in respect to Epping Forest, and he would venture to read to the House what took place in that case, because it was very material, as showing to what the rights of the public, acknowledged in the previous cases, had been at last reduced in this matter. In that case the manor enclosed was a portion of Epping Forest, and formed a kind of public green in the hamlet of Woodford. The people had been in the habit of going there from time immemorial, and making use of it for purposes of recreation. It was enclosed by the lord of the manor, and the inhabitants objected to the enclosure. They laid their claim as being in the inhabitants of the particular village. They first said there was a right of way, and then that the inhabitants were in the habit of playing at all lawful games on the round. In summing up to the jury Mr. justice Wightman said—

"The question is, whether there was a way over the spot where the hurdles were put up. In one sense there was a way there and everywhere, for it appears that the green was part of the ancient forest, and the effect of the evidence is that people went wherever they liked; and so, in that sense, the whole forest was one great way…But there was no distinct evidence of any definite way in any particular direction; and though there were tracks from time to time which might last for a few weeks or months, there was no beaten or enduring track in any one direction which had lasted for years…Then as to the alleged custom, it is laid in the inhabitants, but the proof is wider than the plea, for it appears that all the world went wherever they pleased. It may be a question whether that would be a good custom in law, and of course if, in point of fact, it is proved as to all the world, it is proved as to the inhabitants. On the other hand, if the plea be taken to mean that the subject is only in the inhabitants, it is disproved, for the proof shows it to be, if it exists at all, in all the world."—(See Schwinge v. Dowell, 2 Foster and Finlason's Report, p. 845.)

The meaning of this was that although the custom lay in the inhabitants it would not lie in all the world, and then that if it could be proved to lie in all the world the custom was bad. It amounted to this, that the custom of a village like Woodford to play on a green, when engulfed by a great town like London, became bad, because it was enjoyed by all the public, Now that was, in his opinion, a most monstrous conclusion. It might be law, but certainly was opposed to common sense and to practice. This doctrine of general custom appeared to have been derived from some black-letter lawyer. In Viner's Abridgment it was stated—

"A custom which may be general, and extend to all the subjects in England, and is not warranted by, but contrary to the common law, is void."

He then went on to describe what a good custom was, giving the following as a specimen of a good custom:—

"In the Isle of Man is a custom that if one steals a horse he shall not be hanged, but shall be fined and go quit, because the owner may have his horse again, and it cannot be eaten; but if one steals a hen or a capon, he shall be hanged, for it shall be intended that it was taken to be eaten, and so the owner could never have it again. This is a good custom."

Such according to this authority was a good custom; but where it had been the custom for a whole people to play on a open common, like Clapham or Blackheath, it was a bad custom. He thought the House must feel where such ridiculous doctrines prevailed the proper way was to alter the law and say that a custom should not be bad because it was a general custom. It might perhaps be said, why not buy up the interests of the lords of the manor? That only raised the same question in another form, because, if the public had no rights whatever over the commons, then the compensation would have to be given for all these commons assessed as building land, worth from £400 to £600 an acre; and it would be impossible to find the money for it. But if, on the other hand, the public had rights of recreation, then a comparatively very small sum would purchase the manorial rights of pasturage, and digging sand and gravel. At any rate, he hoped that the rights of the public would be fully discussed in the Committee, and that if necessary the law would be altered in the sense he had referred to.

hoped the object contemplated by the appointment of this Committee would be attained, but that not a single shilling of public money would be expended upon it. He altogether objected to the expenditure of public money for the exclusive benefit of the metropolis. It was said the metropolis was highly taxed; but his constituents were taxed quite as heavily as the inhabitants of the metropolis, and he thought it would be very unfair that they should be further taxed for the embellishment or recreation of the Londoners.

said, that in 1862 the lords of the manor of Chigwell, Essex, had come to Parliament to obtain permission to enclose the portion of Epping Forest lying in that manor, but on his (Mr. Cox's) Motion the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, when so good a case did the public make that the Bill came back with the recommendation that fifty acres of ground should be left free for the use of the inhabitants of the metropolis. That recommendation was adopted by the House; but the allotment had not yet been made. Now, he should like to hear from the Secretary of the Treasury why the Inclosure Commissioners had not yet made that allotment. It was of considerable importance that the inhabitants of the metropolis should know where those fifty acres were to be allotted. An impression prevailed that the ground allotted would be to all intents and purposes useless, consisting of gravel pits in one portion and a swamp in another. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel), however, had assured him that such would not be the case; but, up to the present time, no precise information had been given on the subject. He would suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth not now to fix any limit beyond which the Committee should not direct their attention. As he (Mr. Cox) conceived that point would be the first to be considered and settled by the Committee with regard to portions of Epping Forest which could not be enclosed without the consent of the Crown, he admitted that considerable hardship existed; but there was no desire to deprive any lord of the manor or any commoner of any right they possessed. They might have the whole lands not heretofore used by the public for recreation, provided only the 200 or 300 acres which had been so used were left in different parts of the Forest. This would not entail on them one sixpence of expense. No enclosure was necessary, no trees need be cut down, no gravel walks made; the ground might be given in the same wild state in which it now was.

observed, that the limit he should propose would be fifteen or twenty miles around the metropolis.

rose to call attention to the present mode of recruiting for the army, not merely with a view to the difficulties now found of keeping up the strength of the army, but also of placing it on a sounder and better footing in case of war. The military strength of the nation depended not only on keeping the army in a state of efficiency in time of peace, but on the means of recruiting it to whatever extent was necessary in case of war. The efficient power of recruiting was the best guarantee for peace, because it enabled us at short notice to be ready for war. Every one who compared the military condition of this country with that of Continental nations must see that the question of recruiting was considered the weak point in the English army. Alone of all the great Powers of Europe we relied on voluntary enlistment in opposition to conscription. There could be no doubt that every Continental nation looked with confidence to the result of a lengthened recruiting as a considerable difficulty to the commanding strength of our army in time of war. In other countries where conscription existed reserve after reserve could be called into the field. In France, for instance, the strength of the army was 400,000, but it could easily be increased to 700,000. It was only necessary to call out one class after another, and the effect was immediately produced. He was justified in saying that military men had great doubts whether the present system of recruiting would be sufficient to keep up the strength of the army required for home, colonial, and Indian service. In consequence of the number of men who took their discharge on limited enlistments, great difficulty was found even now; but the difficulty would be much greater in a time of pressure and of war. In the Crimean war, and during the Indian mutiny the difficulty of recruiting the army was extreme. To what did our system amount? Recruiting sergeants were sent into the towns, chiefly the great towns, to pick up a casual acquaintance with the waifs and strays of society, and induce them to enter the army partly through destitution and want of employment, and, in very many instances, through the inducement of drink. From these sources the army was recruited in time of peace; but in time of war these sources were soon exhausted. The bounty was then raised, and that enabled us to get still farther the sweepings of the town; but when we had exhausted that class we were very nearly at the end of our resources. We could not fall back on the agricultural class, whom we could not induce to enter the army; and what was more, we found that the very increase of our bounties and the exertions we had made produced evils of another class. The Times gave an account of the organized system of enlistment and desertion which had been found to exist in North America; but it was supposed that nothing of the kind ever happened in this country. That was a mistake. During the Crimean war and the Indian mutiny a very similar state of things prevailed. A Parliamentary Return showed that out of 90,000 soldiers enlisted in little more than a year, 20,000 deserted. In fact, the crimps who kept the taverns at which recruits were obtained put them up to the trick of deserting, and the proceeding was reduced to a regular system. It was, however, brought under the notice of the War Office, and measures were taken to check it. The reason of the evil was manifest. It was said that our system of enlistment caught only the idle classes of the towns. In fact it was, especially in time of war, only another form of the pressgang, with drink as its instrument instead of violence. Our system of recruiting did not bring us at all in contact with the steady agricultural population, it did not bring home to their knowledge the real position of a soldier; and, therefore, did not strike its roots into the country from which the class we recruited did not come, and to which they did not at the expiration of their service return. Yet much had been done to improve the condition of the soldier. At least a penny a day had been added to his pay in the shape of rations; he was well lodged, well educated, well treated in every way. In fact, the position of a soldier was really a very desirable one for a young man in a rural district with a turn for that sort of life. In that capacity he was paid as well as, if not better than, most agricultural labourers. But, notoriously, this was not the common belief. Fathers of families, and all the respectable part of the community, still looked with horror on the army as a career, and the recruiting sergeant never thought of going into the country for men, because he had little chance of getting them there. He recollected one who had much practical experience on the subject being asked why he did not seek recruits in his own village. His reply was, "If I' listed any of the lads, I should have to be off very quickly, for the place would soon be too hot to hold me." Now it is to be observed that the principle of local enlistment, that is, enlisting for a particular service, and seeking recruits for such particular service in certain fixed localities, is one already recognized in our service; and which has produced the best results. All men are enlisted for a particular battalion; and the special character and historic recollections of each battalion are carefully preserved. An Irishman enlists to be a Connaught Ranger in the 88th, or a Welch Fusilier in the 23rd, or a Cameronian Highlander in the 79th, and the value of forming a local connection between a line regiment and a certain district, in obtaining numerous and good recruits is shown by the fact that such regiments find it much easier than others to keep up their numbers; men enlist freely when they know that their neighbours or relatives have gone into the regiment before them; thus certain districts always supply recruits to the Guards, and he (Mr. O'Reilly) knew of the families of small farmers in the north of England, some of whose members had for generations succeeded each other in those regiments. So, too, at the close of the Crimean war, when many regiments were below their strength, such localized regiments as the 88th Connaught Rangers and 18th Royal Irish numbered 1,800 and 2,000 men. Again, the principle of using the militia as a feeder to the line, especially in time of war, is one which we have recognized and adopted. Napier, the historian, had truly said that the militia (with the ballot) was a conscription with two links in the chain. The militia was bound to the country by local ties, its character was familiar to all, and hence there was no reluctance on the part of farm labourers and others to join it. Having entered the militia, the men had opportunities of seeing the life of the regular troops, with whom they might be quartered, and there was then no difficulty in inducing them to enlist. But how were volunteers too often procured? He knew one instance, and he feared it was far from a solitary one, when a whole regiment of militia was confined to barracks for a week, the men being discharged from all duty, and unlimited supplies of spirits being permitted to pass into the barracks. At the end of the time the regiment gave a quota of intoxicated volunteers to the line; but the means by which they were obtained was the more pernicious and unjustifiable, because he believed nearly as many recruits might have been got in an honest way, without any sacrifice of character on their part or on the part of the country. In another case, the colonel of a militia regiment said to the authorities, "Do not demoralize my men; tell me the condition of the regiments which you want to fill up, and let me talk it over quietly with the men." He did so, and the result was, that when the regiment next paraded, on the reverse flank of every company stood the volunteers ready to be marched off to the regiments they had chosen. There was one other practical remark to be made with regard to our present mode of obtaining volunteers from the militia; or rather the mode practised when in time of war the militia is embodied. The practice was to send sergeants from a number of different line regiments to a militia regiment, and each endeavoured to obtain volunteers for his own regiment; the consequence was unseemly competition, rival stories; and as the volunteers went in very small numbers to each regiment no connection was kept up with the militia regiment, and others were not induced to follow. On the other hand the happiest results had been attained where, in a few cases, efforts had been made to direct all the volunteering from a militia battalion to a particular line battalion; a number of men had gone in a body to their new regiment; a connecting link was established, and a steady flow of volunteers for that particular corps set. Before he passed from this branch of the subject he wished to notice one small but very important point which required amendment. If a militiaman enlisted directly into the line, he received a certain sum of money; but if he deserted and then entered the line, concealing his connection with the militia, he received 18s. more. He was aware that, in the balance of accounts, the bounty was the same in each case; but it would be well to do away with all misapprehension on the subject, and to encourage men to pass openly and honourably from the militia into the line. Another principal which had been deliberately adopted in our system of recruiting was that of limited enlistment, and increased rewards for good conduct and length of service. And he believed that it would be found practically impossible to return to the twenty years system although it was service for that term of years which they wanted to secure. Experience, however, showed that enlistment for twelve years instead of ten, whilst it did not chock enlistment, greatly facilitated re-enlistment as the man felt he had served more than half his time for pension. He had said that we recognized the principle of local enlistment and local associations, and that the local militia having its ramifications throughout the country should be a feeder to the line; and that we also recognized the principle of limited enlistment and increased incentives to re-enlistment. Now his proposal was this, to combine and carry out these two principles to their full development, and that in the following way. He must premise that he would speak now only of the infantry of the line. Let each regiment of the line have attached to it a special militia regiment. In point of fact this connection now nominally existed, for most of our regiments had originally been raised from local forces, and out of the 100 regiments of which our army consisted, up to the Indian amalgamation, eighty-four had a local designation, and only sixteen had not. Let the recruiting for the line regiment be carried on as much as possible from, and through, its own militia regiment; thus, let the Northumbrian fusiliers seek their recruits through the Northumberland militia, and so on; at the end of their twelve years' service will come for the men the question of re-enlistment; let it be proposed to them to re-enlist for five years more service in the same regiment of the line, and after that six years more in their own regiment of militia, and that then they should be entitled to a pension. It must be observed that this principle of two years service in the militia counting as equivalent for pension to one year's service in the line, is already adopted with regard to militia sergeants. The practical effect would be that the authorities of militia regiments would be induced to supply recruits for the line, if they knew where the men were going, and had a reasonable hope of their ultimately returning. As matters at present stood, the interests of the two branches of the service were almost antagonistic—at all events, they were certainly not identical. The officers of the militia regiments, with the exception of the sergeants who gained a small pecuniary advantage, had no inducement at all to further volunteering into the line, for when a man once left them, they could not trace him, nor could they feel any pride in following his future career. If his plan were adopted, he believed the result would be this:—A young labourer, artisan, or countryman would enlist probably at about eighteen into his own militia regiment; at twenty he would possibly volunteer into the line; and at the end of his twelve years' service he would be thirty-two. He would re-enlist for five years, and at the end of which time he would be thirty-seven; when he would return to his own county and continue in his own militia regiment, whence he would send up a succession of volunteers to the regiment with which he had always been connected. A country gentleman had complained to him only the day before that if young men in the country wanted to enlist, they could only do so by drifting into the towns, and coming into contact with the scum of our city populations. This was the main proposal he desired to bring forward. It had this advantage—that it not only afforded an easy means of recruiting in times of peace, but in time of war the whole efforts of the militia regiments would be directed towards keeping up the strength of their regiment, and thus supporting its honour in the field. He anticipated two objections to his plan. It might be objected, in the first place, that it would tend to localize the regiments too much, and make them too clannish; but to this objection he did not attach much importance. He believed that there was not a single Englishman in either the 88th, the Connaught Rangers, or the 18th Royal Irish, and there were several Scotch and Irish regiments almost wholly consisting of men from those parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, he believed that most of them came from particular districts, but he did not know that any inconvenience had arisen from that circumstance. It might also be thought unadvisable to compel the soldiers to serve any part of their time in the militia regiments; but he would call the attention of the House to the fact that he did not propose that this service should be compulsory; simply that it should be proposed to the man, so that if he pleased he could accept the alternative. A man might not unnaturally wish, when grown up and married, to return to his militia regiment for the purpose of serving out the time which would entitle him to the receipt of a pension. He would now make one or two remarks upon other obstacles which hindered successful recruiting. One of these was undoubtedly the question of marriage. Every officer must be acquainted with the difficulty of inducing men to re-enlist. A man would generally enlist about twenty, and at thirty or thirty-two, when he would have the option of re-enlisting for ten years, he would know that in all probability he would not be allowed to marry during that period—for only six men in a company were allowed to marry. The question of allowing men of good character and steady conduct to marry after their re-enlistment was one, he believed, entitled to consideration. The Return of the comparative rates of sickness in married or unmarried soldiers would show that, on the score of economy itself, an alteration in the present state of things might be desirable. The great difficulty in the way of increasing the number of married soldiers was, of course, the question of transporting the men with their wives and families to distant colonies and to India, and for that reason he did not press for any great alteration in the present state of things; but, at the same time, it might be extended in cases where regiments were known to be destined for a lengthened home service. It was also well worth consideration whether it would not be advisable to increase in some degree the pay of the re-enlisted men. Many officers of experience in the service would find men grumbling at receiving, after a service of twelve years, the same pay as a raw recruit. In this respect the system which he suggested was already at work in the navy. He did not believe that the adoption of that suggestion would largely increase the Estimates, while it would not only encourage re-enlistments, but would tend to raise the character and status of our soldiers, and improve their moral and social condition. So much had been done already to improve the moral and social condition of the soldier that he was anxious to put our system of recruiting on such a footing that these advantages should be known to the people, and that recruiting should not be left in the hands of crimps and pot-house keepers. He had no wish to enlarge on the present difficulties of recruiting, because the more important matter was to set our house in order now in time of peace, and not to have the necessary changes forced on us in time of pressure, as was the case during the Crimean war, when we were obliged to take boys of almost any age and size, in the hope that they might grow into soldiers. Every year recruiting became more difficult, and there was one town in Ireland he knew where recruits were formerly obtained by the hundreds, but where now only thirty two had been made in four months. As the subject had been considered by a Commission two years ago, he had a difficulty in pressing for a definitive inquiry, but he felt so strongly the necessity of making the militia a steady feeder of the line, and the line a steady support of an army of reserve, which we had not at present, for it was admitted that the experiment of the Reserve Force was a failure, that he had ventured to place this Motion on the paper. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Address for a Commission to inquire into the subject.

seconded the Motion.

in supporting the Motion, said, that having served in two regiments which had that advantage, he was in a position to bear testimony to the importance of having regiments connected with different localities. He knew of a soldier in one of those regiments who, being minded to desert, in order that the fact might not come to the knowledge of his friends and relatives, had volunteered into another regiment and then deserted from that. He was sorry to remark a tendency to discontinue the practice of allowing particular regiments to wear distinctive badges or ornaments. Not that regiments which had not distinctive badges were in a position of inferiority to the others, but it was a great thing for a regiment to have something to swagger about. It was a help, too, to the recruiting sergeant to be able to say, "Our regiment is the only one which has a right to such and such a badge,"—it made the recruit fancy that it must be a fine regiment to join, and it promoted the esprit de corps, which was of such importance to the army. He believed, too, that it would be a great help to recruiting if increased pay were given to lance-corporals.

said, he thought it impossible to over-rate the importance of the subject, and the House was much indebted to the hon. Member for Longford for the manner in which he had brought it forward. The recruiting of the army, he believed, had now come almost to a dead lock. The ten years' service system was a complete failure; it entailed upon the country an enormous expense, and occasioned great inconvenience to all parties concerned. As the hon. Member truly observed, this, after all, was a finance question. Looking at the wages which our operatives and labourers were now receiving, it was impossible that the soldier should not need an increase of pay. It was natural, too, that the soldier should be discontented at finding that at the end of ten years' service, in which he was not only exposed to the enemy's bullet, but was called upon to perform more arduous duties in more deadly climates than the soldier of any other European army, his services were rewarded by exactly the same rate of pay as that given to the recruit who had joined only the day before. He (Colonel North) had last year asked for a Return of those men who were entitled to their discharge in 1864. That Return was refused, on the ground that it would not show the number of those who, being entitled to, had not claimed their discharge. He had, however, that evening given the noble Lord the Secretary for War notice that it was his intention to move for a Return, not only of those who were entitled to their discharge in 1864, but also of those who had availed themselves of their right to a discharge. He would also include in his Motion a Return of the expenses incurred in bringing the discharged men home from India and the other foreign stations, and likewise the expenses incurred up to the very moment of their discharge. He believed that the people of this country were by no means aware of the enormous cost which our present military system entailed. He considered that it would be a much more satisfactory arrangement to extend the period of enlistment to eighteen years instead of ten, and to give the same pension at the expiration of that time as was now given at the end of the twenty-one years' service. Our soldiers were enlisted generally at the age of eighteen years. At the end of his service of eighteen years, though he might be a little broken down in health, he might yet he young and strong enough for some civil employment. In corroboration of what the hon. Member (Mr. O'Reilly) had said as to the difficulty of getting recruits during the Crimean war, it was well known that not only had the recruiting officers been told to take boys of any age, but that the medical officers generally had received instructions not to be too particular as to the health of the men who offered themselves for the service. The consequence was that many delicate boys were enlisted, whose health broke down in the first year of the Crimean war; and in all parts of the country might be seen men whose constitutions had been thus undermined, and who had been discharged on pensions of 6d. a day after eighteen months or two years' service. These men were standing obstacles to recruiting. He thought that if a man knew he was to be enlisted for eighteen years he would have no objection to enter the service; but it was by no means encouraging, the reflection that, after ten years' service he was entitled to his discharge, perhaps, in the prime of life, upon a wretched pension of one shilling a day! The reckless and discreditable marriages which soldiers were permitted to enter into proved also most injurious to the interests of the service. He thought it would be well if leave to marry were withheld from the soldier until the first ten years of his service had expired. As he (Colonel North) had before observed, this was a finance question. The pay of the soldier should be increased according to his service; for it was sheer nonsense to suppose that men could be induced to expose their lives to bullets and bad climates for the pay of one shilling a day! There was no respectable manufacturer or other employer in the country who would hesitate for a moment to increase the pay of those who had faithfully served them according to their length of service. If the Government would but increase the soldier's pay at the end of ten years' service by twopence a day, it would amount only to an addition of £3 0s. 10d. in the year. By the adoption of such a system they would probably obtain the best men for the service, and such as could be trusted under any circumstances whatever. Many of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions were well worthy of consideration, and although there were some which it would be difficult to carry out, in consequence of the length of time our regiments have to serve abroad, he thought the hon. Gentleman was entitled to the thanks of the army for the manner in which he had brought the subject under the notice of the House. The right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), the late Secretary for War, last year called the attention of the House to the injurious effects of this ten years' service system; and he had himself received letters from experienced officers serving in all parts of the world, saying that it had been the ruin of their regiments.

said, he should like to suggest a question. The three gallant Officers who had addressed the House had stated that a great difficulty was experienced in getting soldiers. Now, he thought that every Member of the House must frequently have seen able-bodied men with medals on their breasts sweeping crossings, and filling the lowest and meanest occupations, and even begging—men, too, who were evidently fit to serve as soldiers. He wanted to know the reason of such a state of things. It was a very painful spectacle to any one who respected the military profession, and he thought it showed there was something wrong in the system or these men would not have left the service, or, if they had done so, they would have joined it again.

was glad that the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) had brought under the notice of the House the expense of discharging the men at the end of their ten years' service. The fact was that to bring home a man from India and to take out a recruit cost from £90 to £100. The soldiers knew this, and talked over in their barrack-rooms the circumstance that while the country only gave them 2d. or 3d. a day more for re-enlisting, it was put to an expense of £100 if they did not re-engage. Every reason of economy and of social and political advantage required that they should look this matter in the face, and not adhere to the very trifling increase of pay which was given to soldiers upon re-enlistment. There were some points connected with the condition of the soldier which had not been fully brought before the House. For instance, how was it that the marine, although receiving no higher pay than the infantry soldier, was able to save every farthing of it, while the soldier paid from 4½d. to 5d. a day for his food? All classes of workmen now received higher wages than they did formerly, and it was but fair that the pay of soldiers should be increased also. He should never be satisfied until the soldier returned to his village upon the expiration of his term of service a model of good conduct, and a man whom every respectable person would be glad to welcome. There was no reason why soldiers should not be the best portion of our population. Something had during the last few years been done towards making them so. Some of the suggestions which had been thrown out in so agreeable and sensible a manner by the hon. Member for Longford deserved the best consideration of the House. He should be glad to hear that the Government were willing to grant this Commission; but if they refused it he sincerely hoped that they would direct their own attention to this subject, which was of the greatest possible importance to the country.

I do not intend to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel North) into a discussion which I think had better be reserved for the Army Estimates. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has, however, thought proper to comment upon our military system generally, and the effect of the Limited Enlistment Act. I do not think that I can take too early an opportunity of giving the most emphatic contradiction to his statement that recruiting is at a standstill and that that Act has been a failure. Recruiting, on the contrary, has been going on with the most remarkable regularity during the last twelve months—the whole number, or very nearly the whole number, of recruits intended to be raised during the year, have been obtained—and the Limited Enlistment Act is working exactly as its promoters and advocates anticipated that it would. The proportion of men who re-enlist after taking their discharge remains pretty nearly the same as it was at first—about 60 per cent. I believe that when the Returns for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks, and which I shall have great pleasure in laying on the table, are presented, he will find that that is the real state of the case. I do not think that the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was one that, if read by the class from which our soldiers are drawn, would be calculated to increase the recruiting which he informed the House had come to a standstill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, whose object, no doubt, is to furnish as plentiful and as good a supply of recruits as possible, gets up and tells the class from whom they are taken that the pay is totally inadequate, and that any man who has any respect for himself and can do anything else had much better not dream of enlisting in Her Majesty's army. I imagine that he is one of those country Gentlemen who make the Tillage too hot for the recruiting sergeant if he ventures to show his face in it. It is a great pity that any Member of this House who is supposed to represent the army should attempt to send it forth to the country that the shilling a day is the real pay which the soldier receives. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) has put the question more fairly, inasmuch as he stated that the advantages which the soldier gets in the way of good food, good lodging, good clothing, education, and innumerable other particulars, are such that the pay is, I think he said, fair and adequate. It is nothing but a misrepresentation of the most mischievous kind to announce to the working classes that the pay which they may expect to get in our army is a shilling, and a bare shilling, a day. I do not understand that the hon. Gentleman intends to press this Motion to a division, or to urge the Government to appoint another Commission, considering how recently the Commission which was appointed in a former Session has reported the result of its inquiries. I quite recognize the great importance of the subject, and I also admit that the hon. Member brought it forward in a most temperate and able speech. The suggestions which he has made are worthy of the most attentive consideration; but I think that the House will agree with me that the time has hardly arrived at which it would be desirable to appoint another Commission to inquire into a subject which has so lately been reported upon. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) appointed a Commission, of which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Hotham) was Chairman, which went very fully into the subject. Their instructions were very wide, and I do not think prevented them from considering any scheme which might be proposed. They reported in the year 1860, or 1861, and a great many of their recommendations were carried into effect. I can assure the House that the subject of recruiting has not been lost sight of. A great many of the subjects which have been brought under the notice of the House by the hon. Member are under the careful consideration of the Commander-in-Chief, and although I shall not have to propose any alteration in the system of recruiting during the present year, or any increase of pay after a service of ten years, it may be found necessary to make some change at a future time. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman into the details of the scheme which he has sketched, nor into the various objections which he has made to our system of recruiting. Indeed, I feel assured that the hon. Gentleman himself would be the first to admit how much depends, in dealing with the question, on a minute examination of its details, both financial and otherwise, and that no opinion worth attending to can be pronounced until the examination has been made. The opening portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech was directed to an exposition of the evils of the present recruiting system. He said that system answered fairly enough in time of peace; but that great pressure arose in time of war, when it became necessary to obtain recruits in large numbers. Now I quite concur in the opinion that there are many inconveniences attendant on the system of recruiting by bounty, and that the money given probably does not do the recruit much good, and that men who enlisted for money are probably not of a very good class. It must, however, be borne in mind that one of the advantages of enlistment by bounty is that it is capable of indefinite extension in time of war, and that when the pressure ceases the scale of bounty may be reduced; while, in the event of the adoption of any system by means of which it might be sought to secure a better class of men by giving them increased pay, it must not be forgotten that increased pay to one soldier must lead to giving increased pay to all. We have seen that the Americans in their great emergency have found it to be necessary to resort to the system of bounty, and that having to deal with a population very much the same as our own, engaged in industrial pursuits and earning good wages, they yet have, by offering high bounties, been able to recruit the ranks of their armies without resorting to any great extent to the pressure of conscription. The hon. Gentleman having pointed out the evils which he thinks are connected with the system of bounties, went on to explain the merits of his own scheme by which the regiments might be recruited than at present. But it did not strike me that although that scheme might work very well in time of peace, it could be relied upon to furnish a sufficient number of men in any sudden emergency unless it were supplemented by bounties. Without entering at length into the details of the scheme, I must observe that it appears to me to require even fuller explanation than the hon. Member has given the House that evening; and I cannot help thinking that it may with more advantage be discussed in Committee on the Army Estimates, when explanations might be elicited which it is not possible to obtain at the present moment. I at all events feel certain that the hon. Member does not wish me to express offhand any opinion as to the practicability of his proposal. It should not be forgotten that a scheme tending in exactly the opposite direction has been very strongly pressed on public attention; and there can be no doubt, that if it were found possible to substitute a system of general for one of merely regimental enlistment, it would have the result of rendering the services of a number of men more available than is now the case. As matters now stand, when a man has arrived nearly at the end of his term of service it is not worth while to go to the expense of sending him to serve abroad, as the cost of his passage out and home again would have to be paid. The result is that he is sent to the depot of his regiment, where he remains practically of little use to the country during the remainder of his term. If, however, he had been enlisted under a general system, as has been proposed, his services might be turned to account for a year or two in some other regiment in which they happened to be required. I must not, at the same time, be understood as expressing any opinion upon the comparative merits of the two schemes to which I refer. Until we have had a larger experience in the matter, it would, I think, be premature to do so, especially as the whole subject is one which is under the anxious consideration of the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer), who asked me a question with reference to soldiers being found engaged in sweeping crossings, I can only say that they must be men who, having enlisted for ten years, were unwilling to re-enlist at the expiration of that period. Those men, no doubt, did very good service during the ten years; but then the hon. and learned Member would scarcely contend that they ought to get a pension, to which they were not entitled. It is sometimes said, I may add, that the class of men who enter the army at present is not of a very respectable character. I quite admited that such is the case. Our system of enlistment has, I believe, swept to a great extent the refuse of large towns; but I am not sure that it is desirable our army should be composed of a very superior material. The sweepings of our cities having been subjected for a time to severe discipline, a very good article is in my opinion turned out, and better members of the community might be almost thrown away if employed in doing that which the men whom we obtained did so well. Everybody, he thought, concurred in the opinion that our army, as an army, was as efficient as that of any of the Continental nations, and if the system secured the sweepings of large towns and turned them into good soldiers, there was not much to complain of on that ground. I have only to say, in conclusion, that I hope the House will think the explanation which I have offered sufficient to show that it is not desirable to appoint another Commission on this subject. At the same time, I tender my thanks to the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) for the manner in which he has brought the subject forward.

said, he did not imagine that much good was likely to arise from prolonging the discussion, nor did he think that a practical remedy for the evils complained of was to be found in the issue of a new Commission. He felt, however, called upon to deprecate the manner in which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had, in some respects, treated the Motion; because the House might be led to believe that no great apprehension was felt by officers in the army with regard to the operation of the Ten Years' Enlistment Act. Every officer in the army knew that the very reverse was the case. That sort of treatment of a Motion which spoke of Acts working well, and of Returns to be made on some future day, did very well—as the phrase went—for the House of Commons; but there were many officers sincerely desirous for the welfare of the army who would be much disappointed at the speech of the noble Lord, It was perfectly notorious that numbers of the best men who had arrived at the end of their term of service, when they were of the greatest use to their country, were leaving the army in great numbers to the great regret of their commanding officers who saw no means of retaining them. He had heard, with regret, that the noble Lord had thought fit to meet the candid statement of an hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was only known in that House to be respected, with remarks of a character which he (Sir James Fergusson) must say were very ill-directed towards him. The hon. and gallant Officer who sat behind him (Colonel North) had devoted considerable time and attention to this subject for a long series of years, and no one of greater experience in that House than the noble Marquess would have so far mistaken the purport of the observations made by that gallant Officer. There was nothing in the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend which would bear the interpretation which the noble Lord had put upon them. All that he had done was to point out how much more valuable men at the expiration of ten years' service must be than were recruits, and how desirable it consequently was to offer them inducements to remain. And it was vain for the noble Lord to assure the House and the public that there was economy in turning adrift the drilled soldier; even though he might have the figures on his side, there was a more than equivalent loss in efficiency. The noble Lord pointed out that if the pay of these men were once raised, it could not be lowered again. But there was no need to lower it again. It would not be a temporary measure prompted by necessity, like the increased bounty in time of war, but an act of justice to men rendering services of additional value to the country, because of the experience which they had gained. The noble Lord could hardly he satisfied with his own arguments. He had pointed to foreign countries, and especially to America, to illustrate the facility of increasing armies in times of emergency by means of bounties. The example, however, of America, whether groaning under the debts entailed by this unhappy war, or resorting to the expedient of repudiation to get rid of them, was not one which could be recommended with confidence to England. If the noble Lord had searched through the world for a warning against depending on a system of high bounties he could not have found one more directly to the point than the case of America. We had experienced the difficulties arising from the necessity of recruiting an army in time of emergency, and we should not forget the consequences of a British army being suffered to fall too low in time of war. Only recently they had heard by means of the telegraph of shiploads of negroes having been bought and imported by the Governor of Massachusetts for service in the war. He thought we ought rather to try and keep these men in our ranks, who did a credit to the service, rather than to have to look danger in the face and repeat the evil results of our want of providence.

said, he was very much inclined to give to Irishmen about to enlist in the British army the same advice which Mr. Punch once gave to persons about to marry, and that was "Don't." Until they received better treatment than at present, they would be wrong to do so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who had last spoken seemed to ignore the drain which emigration was causing from Ireland. That drain, which was at the rate of 100,000 annually, if it continued, might some day lead to the importation of shiploads of white niggers from Germany. That was plain speaking, but it was not the less true. The worst of it was that these 100,000 annual departures were in reality-equal to double that number, because they went over to the enemy. He stated these things in the interests of England. He knew that in making these statements he exposed himself to a storm of ridicule, and to the attacks of scurrilous scribes in The Star newspaper. But it was the part of a true friend to point out defects, and the best mode of remedying them. It was better not to mince matters; and for his part, he never held one language in the lobby and another in the House. The sooner the British people knew that the best mode of recruiting for the British army was by stopping the drain of emigration from Ireland the better. Under the existing system Irishmen were not fairly treated. Gentlemen, perhaps, remembered at the opening of the Indian mutiny that an artilleryman was stated to have highly distinguished himself in Delhi by blowing up the powder magazine there when it was about to be seized by the mutineers. That man was called in the newspapers "Gunner Scully," and what reward had he received? He got, of course, his shilling a day until he blew himself up, and since then some of his children had been put into a Protestant proselytizing asylum, where, being Catholics, they were now being brought up in what was considered the orthodox faith of the State. Until there was absolute equality between English, Scotch, and Irish; no Irish soldier would enter the British service with his whole heart and soul, notwithstanding the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford.

said, there were one or two isolated questions connected with this subject which might well occupy the attention of the House. One question was this—How far might Roman Catholics in the British army be relied upon in certain emergencies for their allegiance to the Crown, in spite of that higher allegiance which they were called upon to yield in religious matters to a higher authority? The Duke of Wellington, although he was the means of passing the Catholic Emancipation Act, would not allow a single Roman Catholic to be entered upon one particular branch of the army—the artillery. ["No, no!"] But he wished to call the attention of the House to this fact, that while in the last five years the number of Catholics and Protestants in the army generally continued in the same proportion—that was to say, about half and half—the Roman Catholic soldiers in the artillery increased from 2,300 to 8,700. He thought it right to call attention to this remarkable fact.

in reply, said, he wished to advert to two points which had been raised in the discussion. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had stated boldly that Roman Catholic soldiers were not to be trusted on their allegiance. Now, he felt he should lower himself and degrade the House if he wasted its time in answering such a charge. He would say for himself that, as a Roman Catholic, he would yield to no man in attachment to his religion and in his respect for every one of its precepts, and in obedience, so far as their authority extended, to the heads of that religion. He wished to make no species of reserve for himself—such as was sometimes made by persons like the hon. Member for him. He was a Roman Catholic of the Roman Catholics, and he yielded in a faithful observance of the oath of allegiance to no man of any religion. The hon. Member had unwittingly uttered what he would not call a calumny, but which was certainly a statement very injurious to the memory of a great man, the late Duke of Wellington. He would, on another occasion, take an opportunity of asking some one competent to answer on the part of the Government whether it was true that any order was issued or now existed by which Roman Catholics were excluded from any branch of Her Majesty's service. If any such order existed he would scorn any Roman Catholic who entered a service in any branch of which he was held unworthy to serve. The noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) had inaccurately represented him as depreciating the effect of bounties in securing a large enlistment in time of war. His objection was to that system of enlistment which sought our recruits solely in the great towns and through the attractions of the ginshop. The noble Lord told the House that the sweepings of the towns were good enough for the army, and that they made good soldiers. While he did not think it desirable to recruit the army from the upper or middle classes, or, indeed, from the skilled classes, he yet thought that the army was an honourable profession for the young men of the labouring classes, and it was to the honest and respectable members of that class to whom they should look to fill the ranks of the army. He would not press his Motion to a division, being convinced that if his proposals, which were new, were founded in truth, they would gradually make their way and be adopted in time. Last year he pointed out four branches of the Estimates on which he thought retrenchment might be carried out. He did not press his views to a division, but he saw by the Estimates this year that a reduction had been made in each of those four points. He should be emboldened by that experience to leave what he had said to be considered by the Government and by the House, and he would now ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

in moving for a Select Committee to consider the state of the British Establishments on the Western Coast of Africa, said, that it was a country notoriously unfit for occupation by the Anglo-Saxon race—a country which had been lately described by the highest authority as being, from one end of it to the other, a hotbed of disease, the occupation of which by us could only be justified by the highest and most disinterested motives—he would even say by the attainment of the objects in view compensating for the enormous sacrifice of life and treasure. And yet in this unhealthy spot, to say nothing of the large naval establishment, costing this country nearly £1,000,000 a year, we had no less than four settlements. The first was established long ago for the object of promoting the slave trade. Of late years it had been maintained for the opposite object of suppressing the slave trade, and for substituting legitimate commerce and civilizing the Natives of that coast. Two hundred years were spent by us in inflicting moral and physical injury on that country, and the last fifty years we had spent in attempting something like reparation. He wished for inquiry in order to see whether these settlements as settlements were well ordered and regulated, and whether they attained their object, or, on the contrary, did not rather obstruct it. On the first point he thought there was sufficient reason for inquiry, from the recent experience of one of those settlements. It was only last Session that the House was filled with alarm and anxiety, and some Members of it exposed to the bitterest suffering, owing to the Governor of the Gold Coast— one of these settlements—having nearly run us into a third war with the Ashantees, the most warlike of the African tribes. Governor Pine said, "The silence of the King of Ashantee must be broken by some steps taken on our part." Troops were reluctantly furnished to that Governor, and many gallant lives were lost, not in conflict with any enemy, but by contact with this pestilential climate, and through being brought into that contact without due preparations having been made. The troops were withdrawn only in time to save them from utter destruction, and in order to prove that the war, which was not precipitated by their withdrawal, could not have called for their presence at all. They were told by the same Governor that wars and commotions of this kind, when they occurred, involved a total suspension of the objects for which these settlements were made. He said that the seaboard of his extensive government lay exactly outside the cruising ground of the squadron, so that whenever war took place the squadron had to be withdrawn from the cruising ground in order to maintain the war. The Governor also stated that these wars must be expected in the neighbourhood of such tribes, from time to time, if Englishmen would settle there, and that whenever they did occur this country must be prepared to bear all the brunt of such wars, both in men and money. "For," said the Governor, "my government is not a colony but a protectorate, so that I cannot call upon the Natives or the inhabitants to supply either their labour or their money." The Governor added that he had neither hope nor heart to press the people for any tax, and he had recently run the settlement almost into a revolution by proposing even a licence duty on the sale of rum. Not only was it impossible to levy a tax upon the Natives, but also their services could not be made use of, inasmuch as the Gold Coast Artillery, the only Native force which had been raised, had become mutinous and insubordinate, and has since been disbanded. That was the local corps that was considered by Lord Grey as an essential part of the system which he established for the consolidation of our government. The Governor went on to describe his own position as anomalous and untenable, for whenever war threatened, as was almost continuously the case, his authority as civil Governor became suspended, the sole responsibility falling upon the military commander, with whom he had quarreled and held no communication whatever. The military commander had been removed from the colony since the period referred to, and the danger which then existed had ceased, but the Colonial Secretary told the House only last Friday that Colonel Conran, accompanied by troops, was at this moment making a military progress among the neighbouring warlike tribes for the purpose of opening a friendly intercourse with them, which was not unlikely to replace the Government in its usual confusion. He saw by the papers that the residents considered Colonel Conran understood their interests far better than the civil Governor, and the measures he had adopted were certainly more likely to promote the speculations of the settlers than the objects for which civil Governors were put there by this country. He might mention, lastly, that the Government of the Dutch settlement at Elvina, in the immediate neighbourhood, were now, and had always been, unfriendly to this country, and were always in intimate alliance with our constant enemies the Ashantees. Under such circumstances an inquiry into the state of the government of the Gold Coast could not be entered into a moment too soon by a Committee to be appointed for the purpose. Did the other three settlements present less ground for inquiry? What did they hear as to Sierra Leone, the most important of all our settlements on the West Coast of Africa, and which ought to be the very centre of improvement? What was the result of a century of philanthropic efforts here, begun by Clark and Wilber-force? A high authority had recently described Sierra Leone in these words—

"The people are the very pests of the neighbourhood. The Sierra Leone people are detested wherever they go, and always in bad odour with every one. The uneducated tribes on the coast are far more intelligent, and the Natives do more work where the white man has not settled."

That was not a very satisfactory description certainly. He saw also from the Reports before the House that exports and imports, taking the matter in relation to the commercial value of the settlement, were steadily declining. The exports and imports at Gambia were also declining, and Governor D'Arcy stated that the whole of the neighbourhood was in a constant state of civil war. He went on to say—

"It is very difficult to avoid being mixed up with the troubles of our neighbours. The belligerent tribes seize cattle, ignorant, in all the excitement of war, of the property being British-Our traders make reprisals, or, in spite of my forbidding it under penalties, take service under the opposing chiefs. The merchants claim our protection up the river. Where is this to cease?"

As regarded Lagos, Governor Freeman said—

"From the lawlessness of the Egbas, the state of affairs is going from bad to worse. I have recalled from Abbeokuta all persons claiming British protection. The missionaries, however, refuse to pay me any attention. X only get opposition from the British merchants and residents in Abbeokuta. My influence is undermined."

He tells the elders of Abbeokuta their anarchy cannot be allowed; "England is slow to anger, but will require satisfaction at last." At this moment, insisting on reparation to a Benin merchant, M. Henry, for a very questionable wrong, he has imposed a fine, which being refused, Her Majesty's ships are again withdrawn from this cruising ground to blockade the trade of the Benin until the fine is paid. Such was the state of the four settlements in Western Africa, and having thus described their present condition, he would, with permission of the House, very briefly advert to their past history. The Gold Coast, first occupied by the Portuguese, and then by the Dutch, came into the possession of this country by the Treaty of Breda in 1672, when Parliament placed it under the control of the African Company, with a subsidy of from £13,000 to £20,000 per annum, for the purpose of carrying on the slave trade. It remained in their hands until 1821, when the Crown assumed the government, the slave trade having five years previously been abolished. Hardly had the Crown taken upon itself the management of the settlement before it was plunged in two Ashantee wars, the first of which was the most disastrous that this country had ever entered into with a savage tribe. The Crown was soon weary both of the expense of the wars and of the consequently declining commerce, and in 1827 they handed over the government of the settlement to a company of merchants who received a subsidy of £4,000 to carry on the government, they being informed that if they refused those terms the settlement would be abandoned. At that time a protectorate had been assumed over the neighbouring tribes which had led to many complications, and a magisterial jurisdiction had been set up over the natives, with a judicial assessor at its head, to discharge what Lord Grey described as the singular office of dispensing rude laws among uncivilized tribes. The company being found inadequate to conduct the Government, the Crown resumed the conduct of the settlement in 1843, and in 1864, by an Order in Council, it had been placed under the constitution of a Governor and a Legislative and Executive Council. In 1850 the Gold Coast was separated from the Government of Sierra Leone, and Lord Grey purchased the neighbouring Danish Forts, and established the Gold Coast Local Artillery, and otherwise extended and consolidated the Protectorate. Sierra Leone was ceded to this country in 1787 as a settlement for free negroes. Since that period a very large territory had been annexed to the colony, as was usually the case with our settlements there. It was now used as a convenient place for holding the Mixed Commission court for adjudicating prize slavers, and was the centre of the efforts made by missionaries in the cause of West African civilization. Lord Grey, in his work on Colonial Government, 1853, pronounces Sierra Leone to be a failure. Gambia, by a patent in Queen Elizabeth's reign, had its trade granted to British merchants, and a company was formed in the year 1618, for the purpose of carrying on the slave trade. In 1814 Gambia became exclusively British, the French taking Senegal and Goree. In 1816 the slave trade was by law abolished, and this settlement was used for the purpose of commerce and suppressing slave trade. It was separated from Sierra Leone by Letters Patent 1843. Lagos only assumed the position of a separate colony in 1862, after ten years previous occupation, and it was expressly occupied for three purposes—the suppression of the slave trade, the promotion of legitimate trade, and the benefit of the tribes. He might also mention that the free Republic of Liberia, originally established in 1816 by an American Colonization Society for the purpose of receiving free coloured people from America, though it had languished as a colony, had served as an effectual harrier to the carrying on of the slave trade in that country. He had referred to these matters to show how far this country was engaged in the occupation of West Africa and in obligations with the various chiefs in the neighbourhood of our settlements. The possession of any of the territory for the purpose of preventing slave exportation entailed a necessity, moreover, of constant extension, for suppression of export was nugatory unless our measures for suppression could be exercised along the whole coast. This was the consideration on which our settlements had perpetually increased, and under the present system must continue to increase. In 1850, when Lord Grey made purchase of Danish territory on the Gold Coast for the purpose of consolidating British strength, he contemplated the purchase of the Dutch territory also, that all might be under the protection of the Government of this country. On the extension of territory, he would quote the opinion of an officer of high authority—

"We have made a great mistake in acquiring territory round Lagos. I was the first that ever entered the river, and some twelve years ago took possession of the eastern point in the name of the Government, for trading purposes. I was ordered to give it up again, as the Government did not wish to enlarge their possessions. But what have we done since? Taken the whole island of Lagos, with territory many miles up the Lagoon, as well as on the sea coast, which has led us into serious broils with the Native Chiefs. All but the island should be given up at once, keeping the customs of the river with a consul and a steamer. We have no business to establish ourselves about powerful chiefs and tell them to do exactly what we bid, or we shall blockade or bombard their towns. We have not the means of carrying out such threats, and are only laughed at. I would likewise give up all Gambia but one fort and the Gold Coast protectorate. We do no good; it brings no return, but does much harm."

He believed, as the Government of the day had told that officer twelve years ago that they did not intend to enlarge their possessions, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies would no doubt repeat the same statement which he made last year, that his policy was a similar one. And no doubt the right hon. Gentleman had broadly laid down that policy; but whatever might be his policy, whatever might be his intentions, he could not help extending the mode of settlement we now followed on the African coast. He would now state what had been done in the way of inquiry into this subject. On two occasions there had been Royal Commissions, but he did not think much had followed from them. An inquiry into the subject of the British settlements on the African coast was made in 1842 by a Committee over which Lord Stanley, now the Earl of Derby, presided. The ground of that inquiry was the fact already alluded to, that on the Gold Coast, which was then in the hands of a company, British merchants residing there were in the habit of supplying the slavers of Spain and other friendly Powers with equipments for carrying on that trade, for the suppression of which this country alone maintained those settlements. The Governors confessed their inability to suppress that practice, and such being the case, the Committee to which he had already referred came to the conclusion, and the House acted upon the Report, that the Crown should resume the government of the settlements, and of each under a separate Governor. But the question now was, whether, the Crown having resumed that government, the mischief which took place before had ceased; or whether it was not the case—as he believed it was—that a large body of merchants there, whose interests were opposed to our public policy, had so much influence in the government of those settlements that they still interfered with the action of the Government in effectually carrying out the sole object with which that House bad established them there. The Committee of 1848–9, presided over by Mr. Hutt, and in 1850 the Lords' Committee, presided over by the Bishop of Oxford, both had in view the more general object of the best means for suppressing the slave trade. In 1853 the Committee presided over by Mr. Hume—and of which he himself was a Member—was appointed to consider how far the treaties for the suppression of that trade between this country and Spain and Portugal were carried out, and whether the large sums which had been voted to those countries for their consent in putting down the slave trade had been spent for the purpose for which they were voted. The subject of the settlements on the African coast only incidentally came under the notice of those Committees. But so far as they did they appeared to them of very questionable use in the suppression of the slave trade. The Committee of 1853 made it clear that the chief diminution of the slave trade arose from the stoppage of demand from Brazil. For his part he considered that the principle which was found to operate in ordinary commercial matters applied also to the slave trade—namely, that the supply was regulated by the demand. A blockading squadron might add to the difficulty and cost of carrying on the trade, but could not stop it. That was in fact beginning at the wrong end. The way to put down the trade effectually was to operate on the demand for slaves. As long as there was a demand for any commodity, whatever it might be, there would be a supply; and even if a wall were built round Africa there would not be a stop put to slave trade any more than there was to British commerce by Berlin decrees. He was happy to say that there had been a diminution in the slave trade; but it had been from a diminution in the demand. The demand for slaves was now confined to one spot—Cuba—and if pressure were put upon Spain, which winked at the trade, without ceasing on the coast of Africa to prevent the supply, we might hope for the speedy and complete suppression of the slave trade. That was the course which the King of Dahomey—who seemed to understand the principles of trade more clearly than Earl Russell—suggested when urged to assist in stopping the export. In the instructions given by Earl Russell to Captain Burton last year, when that officer was about to proceed on a mission to Dahomey, he said—

"Remind the King that he himself suggested to Commodore Wilmot that 'if we wished to put a stop to the slave trade we should prevent white men from coming to buy them.' You will state that Her Majesty's Government, having determined that the traffic shall cease, will take steps to prevent effectually the export of slaves."

It appeared to him that the King of Dahomey took the more sensible view. What did Commodore Bruce say on the subject as the result of his experience?—

"If the slave trade could be suppressed for 100 years it would break out again in six months after the removal of the suppressing force."

What was the opinion of Commodore Wilmot?—

"The climate is against all military operations, for which reason we should exert chiefly our moral power, holding little country for trading purposes. Our present success is not worth the blood and treasure yearly sacrificed for it. The squadron I have great faith in, but it must have more vessels, and some of peculiar speed and stowage. The monotony of the blockade is killing to officers and men. You can form no conception of what they have to undergo. I cannot speak too highly of their conduct under such trying circumstances—for months at anchor, rolling terribly; thermometer 86 degrees; no change of companions; no supplies of fresh stock, except at long intervals. We have not sufficient vessels to insure certain reliefs. I hope you will give my testimony to the merits of officers and men, for they richly deserve it."

Depend upon it the step suggested by the King of Dahomey will be found the most effectual in achieving the extinction of the slave trade, and may speedily supersede those preventive measures adopted at great expense by this country. He (Mr. Adderley) believed that before many years the Governments of America, France, and England would combine to put a pressure upon Spain that she could not resist, and that their efforts, which had been long and ineffectually made for the suppression of an infamous traffic, would be followed by a course which in one hour would be crowned with success. He was glad to observe that the Spanish Minister at Madrid was reported to have said the other day to the Cortes that stringent measures were about to be adopted for the suppression of the slave trade. If that promise were carried out, the day was not distant—a day they would all rejoice to see—when the culminating hope of philanthropists would be attained, and the slave trade would for ever cease to exist. But suppose that that day had arrived, it was well to consider now with what other object the four settlements to which he referred should be maintained. Two other objects had been assigned. One was for the promotion of legitimate commerce, and the other for the civilization of the Native races. With regard to the first, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Manchester, and to the hon. Gentleman who had lately resumed his seat in this House for Salford (Mr. Cheetham), representing as they did the trade associations of Manchester, and the plans which Manchester had formed for opening a cotton field in Western Africa, whether they were of opinion that the Governments on that coast, conducted as they now are, were likely to promote or to obstruct the objects they had in view. The last quotation which he would make was with regard to the influence of our West African Governments upon commerce, and it was as follows:—

"There is probably more trade in palm oil in the Bights of Benin and Biaffra, and in ground nut on the coast between Sierra Leone and the Gambia, where no colony exists, than in all the British settlements put together."

Indeed, there was pretty good proof that as the Governments were conducted now, they were obstructing rather than promoting commerce. Colonel Conran, trailing the British flag round the territories of warlike chiefs, gave bad encouragement to peaceful trade. Now, as to the second object, civilization, he doubted whether it was right to tax this country for civilization, even for the high object of civilizing barbarous tribes in Africa. If the efforts hitherto made had been successful, perhaps nobody in that House would be found to complain. But had we any encouragement to hope that the civilization of Africa would be effected through the agency of that House? The missionary work was noble, but it was not subsidized. Voluntary action had been to a great extent successful, but governments had done little to help it, and much to disturb it. It was the opinion of an eminent missionary who belonged to the most liberal and devoted mission upon the West Coast—namely, the Swiss mission of Basle, which subscribed larger funds than any of the English missionary associations—that the Governments maintained by Great Britain upon that coast, as now conducted, were no assistance to the efforts of the missionaries for the civilization of the country. If that was the case what was to be done? He thought it quite clear that we must either go on or go back, that we must do a great deal more or a great deal less than at present. We must either render every Government secure by larger forces, open up the country, make roads, and extend our power in order to make it efficient for good, or else stand out of the way of the Native chiefs, who, if we were not there, would have a much greater control over their own subjects. Our commerce will find its way there without any civil or military establishments to protect it, and will indirectly civilize the country. The Committee of 1842 had led to a separation of the settlements, and, by making four little Governments instead of one great Government of Sierra Leone, they had deprived the country of the services of competent men, for now no salary was given which could induce an able man to remain there long. The consequence was that we were pretty certain to get Governors of an inferior stamp, and who would be jealous of each other, who would be acting one against another, each having a policy of his own, and each counteracting the policy of his neighbour. Another consequence of our present West African policy was territorial encroachments and territorial entanglements. Now, the question for the Committee would be, whether the experience we had had since 1842 and the new circumstances which had since arisen would not lead us, at all events, to concentrate our power there, to contract our engagements and the responsibilities which we had entered into; and whether the new means we had at our disposal and the steam power we could now command might not, by wise combinations, enable us to economize our strength, and to make a smaller force far more efficient. Certainly the aspect of the times and the state of the world do not invite us needlessly to scatter our forces on Quixotic errands. He had stated the grounds upon which he asked for an inquiry. Upon the grounds upon which these establishments were founded and are maintained—in the cause, namely, of the suppression of the slave trade, of the promotion of legitimate commerce, and of the civilization of Africa—he demanded inquiry, whether upon all these great objects our present system of government on the Western Coast of Africa was working satisfactorily.

in seconding the Resolution, said, he did not wish to be understood as concurring in all the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. If, however, he had urged no other reason in support of his Motion than the length of time that had elapsed since inquiry had taken place, he thought he was entitled to carry it. The investigation which took place in 1842 was held with a different object from that now on view, when the idea was all but universally entertained that no amount of money was too great to expend for the civilization of the African. A feeling, however, now prevailed that this attempt was somewhat Quixotic, and that to tax this country heavily for such a purpose was rather going beyond the proper duty of the House. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the question of the slave trade was one of supply and demand. At the same time an important element which had not been alluded to entered into the question, namely, that of price. The present price of slaves was the only obstacle to the demand for them, being ten times as great as formerly. He believed that if the blockading squadron were removed, if the settlements were suddenly taken away, the price of slaves would fall to such an extent that the demand from Cuba would enormously increase, and the supply follow; and that the Government of Spain, which he hoped was contemplating a different policy, would find the temptation to allow a continuance of the trade too strong for them to resist. There could be no doubt that the settlements were in an unsatisfactory state, and he believed they had been conducted upon false principles from the beginning. Under the influence of the Anti-slavery Society, crowds of recaptured Africans were maintained in idleness at the public expense, at a time when labourers in this country were only able to obtain precarious, and in many cases insufficient, means of livelihood. The Committee of 1842 recommended, indeed, that they should be induced to emigrate to the West Indies, but they seemed half afraid of making such a reasonable recommendation, so strong was the feeling in this country against even the appearance of forced labour. He agreed with his right hon. Friend that the suppression of the slave trade wa3 to be accomplished rather by concentration of means than by spreading them over a large surface. There was no reason to believe that the slave trade was not going on along the West Coast of Africa, but there were no captures because the fastest vessels on the coast were the slavers. The greatest speed of Her Majesty's cruisers was eight knots, while the slavers could make perhaps sixteen knots. He could not go so far as to say that these settlements should be done away with; it might have been wrong to place them there in the first instance, and they might have been badly administered, and many of the evils alluded to were caused by faults in administration, not by any necessary or inherent defect; but it would be impossible suddenly to suppress them. If they were suppressed the loss of prestige would be very great; other nations would probably take them up, and it would not be wise, he thought, to give to France, for instance, a greater share of power on the West Coast of Africa; for France was not to be trusted in the matter of slave trading. All these settlements had a considerable revenue, and he did not see why with better administration they might not be self-supporting. Sierra Leone had a revenue of £30,000 a year, but the expenditure was very great, the salaries "alone having risen from £17,000 in 1860 to £20,000 in 1862. There was a mixed commission there, it was true, but it was a bad place for a mixed commission; vessels had to beat up to it, and few cases, therefore, had been taken there for adjudication. One of the subjects which the Committee would have to investigate was the reason that, while the imports and exports from the whole of the coast had increased from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000 the commerce of the British settlements had decreased. It had been asked what would be the use of the occupation of these stations if the slave trade was at an end. He would answer that they were useful for the prevention of piracy and for the protection of British vessels, even on other parts of the coast. He wished to make one suggestion, that was that care should be taken to obtain competent practical witnesses. The Committee of 1842, which was founded upon a Commission, examined among a great many witnesses—Dr. Madden, who was the principal Commissioner who had officially visited these settlements for the express purpose of collecting evidence, and a number of naval and military officers who had been out on the coast in question; and it would be a great pity if this inquiry should be conducted without sufficient witnesses of the best kind, and should fail in consequence of obtaining only speculative evidence. He gladly seconded the Motion for the Committee.

said, that after the very able and elaborate statement of his right hon. Friend, it would ill become him to occupy the time of the House to any great extent by enlarging upon what had been already stated. He must, however, express his satisfaction that his right hon. Friend had redeemed the pledge that he gave at the end of last Session in moving for this Committee at so early a period of the present year, because he believed that there were ample materials to occupy the attention of the Committee for a very considerable part of the Session. The unfortunate Ashantee war, which last year was the cause of so much pain in the House, was of itself sufficient ground for a Committee, but there were other reasons why an inquiry should be now undertaken. The state of affairs on the West Coast of Africa was now, and had been for a considerable period, most unsatisfactory. Without any intention to prejudice the present occupiers of the Colonial Office, he must say that that matter had been the bête noir of the Department. The unhealthiness of the climate and various other causes of that nature had militated in a great measure against the full development of the resources of the country immediately bordering upon the British settlements. Cape Coast Castle was one of the oldest, if not the oldest, British settlement. It was instituted about 150 years ago, when England was a slaveholding Power, for the purpose of enabling us to procure slaves to send to our settlements in America. It had been computed that before the slave trade was abolished we had exported 960,000 slaves from the African coast to America, and we had thus incurred an enormous responsibility; and, as a Christian country, we were bound to make good in some way to the unfortunate people of Africa our depredations there. Therefore the idea of giving up any of the settlements on the coast would not, he thought, find favour in England, and he did not understand the Mover of the Committee to make any such suggestion. All he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was that the present method of government required inquiry, and that we must either increase our responsibilities by occupying and forming a colony of the protected territory, or we must reduce our responsibilities by limiting the area over which we now professed to exercise protection. The climate, the right hon. Gentleman had stated, was notoriously unfit for the Anglo-Saxon race, and that was the reason why more had not been done there. It had been difficult to get men of a superior class to undertake the charge of government on that coast, but he believed it would be quite possible to locate the Government officers on the higher grounds of the hills. The same objection was made to Jamaica and our West Indian colonies till it was found out by going to the top of the hills the amount of sickness was very much reduced, and on the West Coast of Africa there were very high hills indeed, where a climate might be found in which the health of Englishmen would not suffer at all. We had been at a charge of £1,000,000 to support the slave trade squadron, but he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman that where there was a demand there would always be found a supply. He thought one question for the Committee would be whether it was possible that England might be induced to make the protected territory into a colony which would be self-supporting, seeing that at present we exercised little or no control over the Native chiefs, and had done nothing by education beyond the voluntary efforts of missionaries, or by making roads which by opening out fresh country, would give facilities for their cultivation. He did not mean to say that he was prepared to adopt that view at once, but inquiry might be made in that direction. There were others who thought it much better that we should give up the whole of the protected territories, and simply retain the forts as places where there might be stationed small executive Governments and a few soldiers, but he did not think if we simply did that we should be exercising the same control over the slave trade that we did now; whereas, if we made a colony of the protected territory, he believed the free-grown cotton, coffee, and other things, which would be brought into competition with the slave-grown produce of other countries, would tend to reduce the value of slave labour. So fully alive were the natives of Cape Coast Castle to the inquiry about to be instituted, that they had subscribed large sums for the purpose of sending over here witnesses of their own to place their case clearly before the Committee, At the present moment, too, there was in this country the able representative of the Basle Missionary Society, which adopted the plan, while instructing the Natives in the Christian faith, of teaching them the occupations of civilized life—such as carpentry, blacksmith's work, and other useful employments—and by these means they led the Natives much more easily than did the simple missionary, who confined his operations exclusively to religious teaching. It was unfortunate that in Gambia trade had been falling off. While the number of English vessels had considerably diminished, there had been a corresponding increase among the French. He thought it was a fit subject of inquiry as to whether our system of government had or had not in any way suppressed the energy of our merchants in trading to that country. There was no doubt we had on the coast of Africa enormous resources, capable of supplying this country with raw material for our manufactures. He believed that last year we imported to England from Cape Coast Castle fifty tons of cotton of a superior kind to most of the Asiatic cotton. Therefore, by giving fair and proper encouragement to the trade, we should no doubt enable them to increase the produce of this superior article, and thus to compete with slave-grown cotton. He could only further express a hope that the inquiry would lead to great results for the material and moral improvement of that part of Africa.

The noble Lord has improved the occasion for the purpose of advertizing his missionary society. I do not object to that, for if the accounts we have are correct, it stands in considerable need of some such support. But that is not my reason for rising. I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) has done good service in bringing this subject before the House; and I do not at all regret that that other and larger question, the African squadron, is not at least in form made part of the inquiry. I do not believe it is possible altogether to leave that out of the question. I do not believe it is possible to go into one part of the subject, of our relations with the West Coast of Africa, without dealing also with the rest. But it is quite large enough for a separate investigation; and as we have borne with that remarkable English enterprise for so many years, we may, I think, very well endure it for some time longer. For my own part, I do not wish to conceal my opinion that if the people of this country knew what has been and what is the waste, I do not say of money merely but of what is much more important, valuable lives on that coast, that African squadron would very shortly be numbered with the things of the past. I do not believe there is a year or even a month that passes in which the service on that coast does not put an end to some life among our officers, which, measured by any rational standard of comparison, is worth more than the merely animal existence of a whole African tribe. But that matter may very well stand over. What I wish to urge on the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Caldwell) is not simply that he should sanction this inquiry, which I believe he is prepared to do, but to allow the order of reference to be made wide enough to cover that which is the real question at issue. If we are merely to go into the question of civil and military expenditure to see whether it be possible to keep up these establishments at somewhat less cost than we incur at present, that is altogether an insignificant matter. The real question is whether there are not some at least among these settlements which involve us in great outlay and risk, and the maintenance of which serves no useful purpose. When I say they serve no useful purpose, I mean that they do not answer the end of promoting our trade; because I suppose nobody imagines that we increase our political influence or our military power by retaining them. No enemy is likely to attack our settlements on the African coast; and if he did he would soon find that the attempt brought its own punishment, he would be likely to lose his army from disease and to take nothing from his conquest. And as to that other point raised by the noble Lord who preceded me—that which I may call the philanthropic part of the question—I think we are in that respect acting in some degree under a delusion. Whenever that matter is discussed, either in the press, in this House, or at public meetings, it is constantly assumed that in some way or other we are responsible for the fortunes and destiny of the African race. Now I confess I do not see that that is in any manner the case. I can quite understand how an impression of that kind should have existed. The feelings of this country thirty years ago may well be excused. Every great movement gives rise to strong feelings; and it is quite natural that the men who put an end to the slave trade, and had just succeeded in abolishing slavery, and who had the evils of those two systems strongly impressed upon their minds, should have felt that some reparation, some compensation, was due to those whom we had injured. But, after all, we must look at the case as it really is. The slave trade was not created by England or by any European country. You may carry back its existence in Africa, I believe, to a period anterior to any recorded history. We do not know of any time when it did not exist in the interior of Africa. Englishmen found it there and used it; and I do not deny that they aggravated its evils. But they did not originate it, they only took it up as it stood. And now, thirty years after the extinction of slavery, and sixty years after the legal extinction of the slave trade, I think we may fairly hold that whatever debt we owed to the people of Africa has by this time been paid off. If we talk of civilizing the Africans I am afraid we had better first look at home. We have not to go five miles from the place in which we are sitting to find plenty of persons who stand as much in need of civilizing and who have as little done for them as the negro. Therefore, I say, we ought to view this simply as a matter of trade; and then the question is very much narrowed. We have only, or at least mainly, to consider whether the trade that is carried on at these various points which we occupy is increasing or diminishing, and whether there is any reason to think that at any point it would be greater or less if our occupation were to cease. I have looked at the statistical returns, and although the returns of the revenue and those of imports and exports do not precisely agree as to the inference which they suggest, and although there may be an increase of trade at Sierra Leone and the Gambia River, yet in one place at least—at the Gold Coast—there is a very considerable falling off. We have to ascertain whether that falling off is likely to be temporary or permanent; we shall also do well to compare the amount of trade at the' ports occupied by the British Government with the immensely increased trade which has taken place along the coast generally; and upon that comparison it will be for the Committee to express its opinion as to whether the English occupation has really created or fostered commerce. As to morality, I apprehend that there is no evidence to show that, at Sierra Leone at least, the oldest, the longest occupied, and the most important of these settlements, we have attained any great success in that particular. On the contrary, it might be found that we had produced a race the most worthless of any in the world. One word only upon the question of the expense of these settlements. I have no doubt we shall hear whatever is to be said in their defence; and it may be stated that, as far as civil government goes, they cost very little, and that even their military expenses are not very considerable. As to civil government, I would point out that, with the exception of the Imperial forces, which stand in a different class, these are the only colonies which entail on us any charge whatever for their civil government, excepting, perhaps, one or two of the smaller West India Islands. With respect to military expenditure, in the first place the defence of these establishments is mainly naval, and it is difficult to estimate what is the particular amount of naval force you are maintaining on the coast for that special object. In the next place, their military cost is not to be measured by the extent of the force you keep up there. The real burden is the responsibility you have undertaken, and the limit of which you do not know and nobody knows. Recollect how the matter stands. You cannot afford to send out as governors or persons in authority in these colonies, in any sense, your best men. No man will go out to Africa who can find employment elsewhere. I do not speak with reference to the present occupants of these offices—I do not know who they are; but you must take, not the men whom you would choose for such situations, but the men whom you can get. Communication, although improved, is not very frequent, the distance is considerable, and in the hands of these men, placed there with no influence brought to bear upon them such as a large British population can always bring to bear on those who govern—in the hands of men chosen as I have mentioned, surrounded by negroes, having everything their own way about them, you are compelled, to a great extent, to leave the power of peace and war, and an authority the exercise of which may at any moment involve the sacrifice of thousands of lives and many millions of money. I do not wish it to be inferred, from what I have said, that I am ready to commit myself at once to the absolute abandonment of these posts. But I think there is a primâ facie case made out for inquiry as to whether they are worth retaining. And holding that opinion to some extent with regard to them all, I think it does more particularly apply to that one of which we know the least, and with which the business we do appears to be decreasing, the Gold Coast, where, in a country extending over some 300 miles, you are surrounded on all sides by utterly savage and warlike tribes, and have constituted yourselves, so to speak, the head of a confederacy over which you have very little material power. That settlement is in so peculiar and so anomalous a position that I think it might deserve to be made a special subject of inquiry.

I have very great pleasure in acceding to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is quite right that there should be an inquiry into this subject, and I am perfectly prepared to answer the appeal made by the noble Lord as to the order of reference, and to say that I shall not seek to limit the form of it. It appears a perfectly fair subject of inquiry how far these settlements have attained the ends for which this country instituted and maintained them. But I trust, I may say, without offence to the noble Lord, that I did hear with some regret the expressions which fell from the noble Lord with regard both to missionaries and the efforts Which this country has made for the suppression of the slave trade. I hold in the highest esteem the labours of those men who, denying themselves the comforts and happiness of home, leave their own country and devote themselves to spread the Gospel, in which they sincerely believe, among the most benighted and miserable inhabitants of any portion of the Globe. [Lord STANLEY: I said nothing against them.] I certainly most willingly retract what I have said if the noble Lord thinks it unjust, because I should sincerely welcome his acccession to the sentiments I myself entertain. [Lord STANLEY: I expressed no opinion on the subject.] The noble Lord certainly said the noble Lord behind me (Lord Alfred Churchill) had advertized his missionary society, and it stood greatly in need of such an advertizement. It was that expression that led me to make the remark I did. Now, with regard to the efforts we have made for the suppression of the slave trade, I own I do not know a nobler or a brighter page in the history of our country, following, I am sorry to say, upon a darker or more discreditable page than that which begins with the abolition of the African slave trade, which was consummated by Lord Derby and the Government of 1833 in the total extinction of slavery throughout the British dominions, and which is continued in the efforts we are making to inculcate on other countries, and enforce, by our efforts on the Coast of Africa the removal of that great, that worst of all the curses, that have ever afflicted humanity. I do not agree with the noble Lord that the slave trade can be traced back anterior to the time of history, and that it did not originate with the European race. I believe that the slave trade, of which we all speak in the terms of horror which it deserves, was instituted originally between the Spanish colonies in America and the Coast of Africa, and in it unfortunately Great Britain for many years bore a large and disgraceful part. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) in quoting the language of the King of Dahomey, that if the white man had not been there to buy the slave the African slave trade would not have been carried on to the extent it has been. But, thus fully agreeing in the propriety of this inquiry, and not at all disposed to limit its scope and object, I must say I regretted to hear one portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Knowing as he did that we were perfectly prepared to grant the Committee, it was not necessary for any purpose he had in view to refer in terms of reproach to those holding the Government offices on that coast. When about to enter on an inquiry which we are willing should be full, free, and searching, we had better, I think, go into that inquiry in a dispassionate spirit, not having previously condemned those who are to be brought before it, but prepared to hear all that may be said on both sides, and reserve our ultimate judgment till we know what evidence will be brought before us. Now, with regard to Governor Pine of the Golden Coast, I much regret the remarks that have been made with reference to him, and must say when the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Hay) brought forward his Motion last year it was not as a personal attack on the Governor. On the contrary, such an attack was pointedly and repeatedly disclaimed. I am not now going to enter into what the right hon. Gentleman called a second Ashantee war with him. I will not enter into the charges brought against Mr. Fine. He has expressed his desire to appear in this country. I am giving him permission to do so. He will have the opportunity of appearing before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of asking him what questions he likes, and Mr. Pine will have the opportunity of making what answers he thinks fit. But what I do wish is the opportunity of making on his part a simple explanation with regard to a matter which gave him great pain last year, and which I was not then in a position to explain. There was an impression last year that he left the Colony in the Rattlesnake for the benefit of his health, without having made with Colonel Conran the arrangements necessary for the welfare of his troops. That statement caused him great pain. But I have since been informed that he had made with Colonel Conran the arrangements necessary for the welfare of the troops before he left the coast in the Rattlesnake for the benefit of his health, and I must say, whatever judgment we may form of his conduct when we have heard his evidence before the Committee, I feel quite certain that he is a person who in difficulties would not be disposed to spare himself or throw the burden on others. Having said that with regard to the inquiry and Governor Pine, I will just say what I think has been the object of these settlements. I am glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman seems in the main to agree with me. Certainly, the object is not colonization. In that climate, under those circumstances, no man living would wish to see the Anglo-Saxon race emigrate and settle there. Colonization, in the proper meaning of the name, is wholly and entirely foreign to the purposes of those settlements. For what, then, were they intended? The main objects were first that they should be ancillary to our other efforts for the extinction of the slave trade and its attendant cruelties, next that they would tend to the prevention of those horrors which the Committee of 1842 and former inquiries, partly now forgotten, brought to light—I mean human sacrifices and various other abominations which prevailed on the coast of Africa; and, lastly, the introduction of legitimate trade. These were the objects which the country bad in view in establishing these settlements. Now it is for the Committee to inquire, and I will not express my opinion till I have heard the evidence, how far these four settlements are ancillary to, and do subserve these objects. But this I do say, that whereas that range of coast from Gambia on the north to Lagos on the south was the great nest and focus of the slave trade, it is now almost entirely free from the slave trade, and the squadron is enabled to confine its operations to a few points where the slave trade is still unfortunately carried on. As an instance of this we have heard that for some time past there has been a slaver waiting at Whydah to take off a cargo, but so close, vigilant, and effective has been the guard of the squadron that she has not been able to leave. This being the case, I think it a very fair subject of inquiry; and I shall be very glad that it is inquired into how far these settlements do and how far they do not promote the objects for which they were established. The remarks I have to add will be few; but I am bound to say when I go on to consider the question in detail the same difficulties which struck the right hon. Gentleman present themselves strongly to my mind. It appears to me worthy of all serious consideration whether if you had one object or policy in view it was wise to have four separate establishments. Entirely dissociated from one another in Government and a total absence of communication between them, might they not lead to four separate policies where there ought only to have been one? Instead of the expense of four Governments, might they not be united under one administration, where greater economy would have been introduced? Would not four military forces, separate from each other, naturally tend to make each governor desirous to carry his own military force to the maximum, to be prepared for all emergencies, and thus producing a constant tendency to increase the force on the coast? Would not having four governors be likely to encourage the recurrence of four difficulties at the same time, whereas under one governor he would temporize and dispose of one before he got into another. I think these are fair and legitimate objects of inquiry. I find, in point of fact, there has been a considerable increase of late in the number of troops kept on the coast, and, instead of that increase of force having satisfied the demand for force, the demand for force was still increasing. It appeared that if the force, which consisted of two regiments, were retained, it would be necessary to trouble Parliament with a demand for money to erect buildings for their reception, the present buildings being insufficient for the purpose. That was a point upon which I could not delay coming to a conclusion, for either the buildings must be provided, or at the approach of the next rainy season the troops must be removed. The conclusion to which my noble Friend the Secretary for War and myself came was, therefore, not to ask the House pending the inquiry we knew would take place for an increased Vote for buildings, but to diminish the force. As to the general question, it seemed to me, after the notice that was given by the right hon. Gentleman and the weighty opinion expressed by the noble Lord opposite and others, that it would be more satisfactory to the House and the country, that there should be an inquiry than that the subject should be dealt with by anticipation, without inquiry. But I have another strong reason for desiring the assistance of a Select Committee. This is not a new question. The establishment of these separate settlements in their present form—I do not speak of Lagos, which was a recent affair, but of the Gold Coast and Gambia—dates from an inquiry by a Committee of this House, of unusual authority—a Committee on which sat Lord Derby, then Colonial Secretary; Lord Russell, ex-Colonial Secretary; you, Sir, and other Members of influence. It was on their express recommendation that separate governments were established. I think, therefore, it is right we should now have the authority of a fresh Committee and further evidence in order to decide what should be done. As the right hon. Gentleman had given notice of his Motion for a Committee I deemed it my duty to prepare for it during the recess. I therefore requested General Ord, Governor of Bermuda, who was at home on leave, but was willing to undertake the duty, and having twice before fulfilled missions to the Coast of Africa was peculiarly fitted for it, to visit the settlements in question. He has done so, and has returned. When the Committee meets the instructions under which he went out and the report he has made will be the first documents laid before it. I cannot state the contents of that report, as I have not yet received it. But from conversation with General Ord, I understand he will inform the Committee that the settlements are important ancillaries for the purposes for which they are intended, but that many suggestions may be made for increasing their efficiency and diminishing their expense. It is entirely in accordance with his opinion that my noble Friend the Secretary for War and myself have taken, or, rather, are about to take, the step of reducing the force now employed on the Gold Coast. I have thus shown the views the Government entertain. In conclusion, I can only say that I shall enter upon this inquiry with the greatest willingness and pleasure, and I sincerely trust that the result will he not only increased efficiency and economy in such settlements as you may think it expedient to maintain on the Coast of Africa, but I also earnestly trust that you will go into this Committee in the spirit in which I understood my hon. Friend has moved for it—not a spirit of desire to withdraw from the noble efforts to suppress the slave trade, but a desire that those efforts should be real and efficient. I know no enterprise more noble in which this country has ever engaged, and, looking around at what is passing in other nations, I cannot help thinking that this is not the moment to flinch from the task. There are signs of promise in the sky, and there is an earnest desire to abolish this infamous traffic amongst civilized and humane countries such as has never been seen since the day when England herself abolished slavery.

I have to ask the permission of the House to introduce a Bill for the purpose of extending the elective franchise in boroughs in England and Wales. As I understand that this Motion is not to be opposed, I shall of course follow the usual custom of the House by not making any observations upon the merits of the question on the present occasion, but leave those remarks to be made on the second reading of the Bill. I may, however, state that my object is to give a moderate and yet substantial and valuable extension of the franchise to classes who constitute the great bulk of the people, and who are now entirely excluded from the privileges of the Constitution. I propose to do this by the simplest of all means, and in a manner that has been proposed in this House on high authority—namely, by lowering the borough franchise from an occupation of £10 to an occupation of £6. I believe I may, without provoking discussion at the present time, ask the Government and the House to do me the favour of giving their consideration to one important question before this matter is discussed—amply and fairly, as I hope it will be, on the second reading—and that is this:—This is the last Session of the present Parliament, and it is precisely with that knowledge that this question of the alteration of the franchise ought to be discussed and settled. I believe they will find there are many reasons in favour of this. The whole country would be saved the trouble and the cost of one general election, if a question of this nature were settled at the end instead of being settled at the beginning of a Parliament. If we have a great extension of the franchise, it is obvious there must be a dissolution immediately, in order to allow the new voters to exercise the franchise to which they will be entitled: and having regard to the public interest, having regard to justice, having regard to the position of the Government and the Members of this House, I appeal to you to consider if, in this present Session of Parliament, it might not be the most wise as well as the most just course to make an extension of the franchise to the country.

referring to the absence of the Government at the moment, Mr. Brand being the only official Member present, said, it was due to the country to take notice of the condition of the House on this occasion. It was not, perhaps, to be expected that hon. Gentlemen on the other side should grace the House with their presence at that time. It did happen, indeed, that a Member of the late Administration (Mr. Adderley) was present, but that was due to the accident that a Motion in which he was interested had just been disposed of. It was natural, however, that there should be some curiosity to learn the views of the Government on a question of such importance. Not long before, there were some Members of the Government present, but when his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds rose they all fled from the Treasury Bench, as if they were going to be reminded of some crime they had committed. No doubt it must be most painful to them to see his hon. Friend introducing this question, and to which a few years ago they were pledged, and to which they professed to attach so much importance, that they thought it their duty not to allow the present Opposition to retain office a moment after the beginning of the present Parliament. If there were any Members of the Government in or about the House they ought to be in their places; but even those who were in attendance carefully avoided the Treasury Bench. This was a curious illustration of the way in which the Government redeemed the solemn pledge on which they came into office. The present state of the House was a most distressing condition of things, and he thought it ought to be known, in order that it might be understood throughout the country what were the feelings of the Government on the very question on which they came into office.

observed, that there were many Members deeply interested in this question who were not present because they understood there was to be no debate. He need scarcely remind the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets that it was on the second and not on the first reading of a Bill that the Government and other Members discussed the principle of the measure, and declared their views concerning it. He thought, therefore, that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were uncalled for. At the same time, he trusted to hear a full statement of the opinions of the Government on the next stage of the Bill.

explained that it was perfectly understood between the Government and himself that there was to be no discussion that evening.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of libel, and for more effectually so-curing the liberty of the press. The subject of legislation upon the law of libel was no novelty in that House. In the last century a Bill, known as Fox's Act, made a great change in the law of libel, and introduced many valuable improvements. From that time down to the year 1843, though various attempts for the purpose had been made, there was no substantial change in the law. In the latter year, however, on the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Lords, an Act, commonly known as Lord Campbell's Act, was passed, and since then the law had remained unaltered. He (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) did not intend to alter the law as to what should be held to be a libel, but to introduce such alterations in it as would conduce to the public advantage and to the liberty of the press. There was an anomaly in the present law, differing from, as it did, most other remedies for wrongs in that respect, that the person complaining of libel had the power either of resorting to a criminal court, or bringing an action for damages. Many persons who had considered the subject had recommended that the power of proceeding in a criminal court should be taken away. No such power existed in Scotland. He, however, was not prepared to abolish criminal proceedings for libel, but he thought they ought to be regulated, and for this purpose he proposed that no indictment should be allowed to be sent up for libel without the consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General. That provision would prevent the power of indictment being abused, whilst it would not take away what he considered a salutary provision in the present law. He also proposed that on the trial of an indictment the defendant should be admissible as a witness. These were the two principal changes he proposed to make in criminal proceedings in libel. With respect to civil proceedings the House was aware that, according to the present law, newspaper proprietors were liable for any defamatory matter appearing in a report of a public meeting, the person uttering such defamatory language being neither civilly nor criminally answerable. That was a state of the law which ought no longer to exist. If a man came deliberately to a public meeting, knowing that reporters were present, and there purposely made a defamatory speech against another person, he ought to be considered as guilty of a libel as if he had written and published what he said, and the after publisher of it ought not to be responsible for the defamatory language used. He (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), therefore, proposed that if a person at a public meeting made a defamatory speech against another he should be criminally and civilly answerable for so doing. No action should be brought against newspaper proprietors for publishing such a speech, but the person making it should alone be liable. This would not affect the privilege of Parliament, or of the courts of justice, or of any bodies to which the privilege as to reports extended. It was impossible for reporters at public meetings always to decide what was or was not defamatory matter, They Bent off their slips with the greatest possible haste, and they were printed with the same haste, and he thought that it was monstrous that the newspaper proprietor should be liable for the publication of defamatory matter uttered in a speech at a public meeting, when the person who made the speech was not liable. If a man of straw should make such a speech he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) would enable the party libelled to proceed criminally, with the sanction of the Attorney General, either against the proprietor of the newspaper or against the party who made the speech. He also proposed to make another alteration with regard to what should be a defence to a charge of libel. At present the truth of a libel was the only or at least the chief defence known to the law, but there were cases in which a bonâ fide belief in the truth of a statement ought to be a defence, provided defamation was not intended; such as if the publication was for the public benefit, and he had prepared a clause to that effect. According to the present law, newspaper proprietors were subject to most vexatious actions, and every part of a justification must be proved, and though the party did not recover more than 40s., each party had to pay his own costs. He proposed that if the party did not recover more than 20s., he should not only pay his own costs, but the costs of newspapers against which the action was brought, and that if he did not recover more than 40s, he should not be entitled to a larger amount of costs.