asked the Postmaster General, What steps have been taken with reference to a Memorial (presented some months since) from the Merchants of Liverpool, asking for increased mail communication between that port and the Isle of Man during the winter months, and how far he will be able to meet the request thus made?

said, in reply, that a memorial from the merchants of Liverpool, asking for increased mail communication between that port and the Isle of Man during the winter months, had been received, but only the day before yesterday. The subject should be at once taken into consideration, and he had every reason to hope that it would be possible to improve the postal communication with the Island.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, with reference to the model of the statue of Oliver Cromwell now exhibited in Palace Yard, Whether the site on which it now stands will be permanently appropriated for the statue? He must complain that the Clerks at the Table often struck out of Questions which were handed in the very words that justified their being put. The present Question, as originally framed, stated that the exhibition of the statue of Oliver Cromwell had elicited a manifestation of public opinion. ["Chair!"]

said, the hon. Member must confine himself to putting the Question. Any statement justifying his putting it was not admissible.

said, he would take that opportunity of asking, whether there was any truth in the rumour recently revived that the condemned statues were to be resuscitated and placed in groups in enclosures in the neighbourhood of the Palace of Westminster?

said, in reply, that the Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough had been put under some misapprehension. The model of the statue of Oliver Cromwell had been placed within an enclosure in Parliament Square for the purpose of enabling sculptors and others who took an interest in the statues of eminent statesmen to form a judgment respecting the site and other matters. As to what the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) called "condemned statues" he must confess he did not know exactly where those statues were. There was in the charge of the Board of Works a statue of the late Sir Robert Peel, and a committee of gentlemen would consider what was the best thing to do with that statue, and would make proposals on the subject to Her Majesty's Government. When they did so, it would become his duty to consider what was the right and proper course to be pursued. With regard to the other statues, they could hardly be said to be condemned seeing that they were not yet made. There was no proposal before Her Majesty's Government to erect a great number of statues within enclosures near the Houses of Parliament. Indeed, they had only received a proposal for erecting statues of the late Lord Derby and Lord Palmerston. With regard to the statement that there was a desire to erect a statue in this locality to the memory of Oliver Cromwell, he must confess his inability to form any opinion as to the wishes of the public. All he knew was that his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey had placed in his hands a subscription list signed by ten Peers temporal, two Peers spiritual, and 110 Members of the House of Commons, for erecting a statue to the memory of Oliver Cromwell. Whether that scheme met with the approval of the public of course he could not say; but if the public were favourable to it, they would best testify their opinion by subscribing to the funds required to carry out the plan. When a definite proposal was made to erect that statue it would receive due attention.

said, he was able to explain the right hon. Gentleman's reply respecting the model of the statue of Oliver Cromwell, by stating a fact within his own knowledge—namely, that the model had been made in compliance with an order from Manchester, and that when Mr. Noble had completed the statue, of which this was the model, it would be sent to Manchester.

said, that by condemned statues he meant those which had been removed from the sites they once occupied. What he wanted to know was whether the public would have an opportunity of forming an opinion as to the sites on which they were to be erected, or whether, when hon. Gentlemen returned to town next February, they might expect to find the statues finally erected, as this year they found the trees cut down in Kensington Gardens?

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to grant a site in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament for the erection of a statue of Oliver Cromwell?

said, it was impossible to give an answer until a definite proposal was made. An equestrian statue, for example, would require a different site from an ordinary standing statue. In regard to the noble Lord's question as to the other statues, he could only say that the sites had been placed at the disposal of the committee by gentlemen who were desirous of erecting the statues to the memory of the statesmen he had mentioned. They would take whatever course they deemed desirable in regard to the sites for the erection of these statues.

desired to have a distinct reply to his question, whether the statues would be erected permanently before the re-assembling of Parliament, or whether the public would have an opportunity of forming a judgment as to the sites and the arrangement of the statues?

said, the distinct answer he had to give was as follows:—The sites had been placed at the disposal of the committee, who were at liberty to take what course they deemed most desirable. When either the models or the complete works were erected, they would be open to the observation of any Member of that House.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will reconsider the expediency of pressing the Vote of £4,000 for Governor Eyre's legal expenses which has been laid before the House at so late a period of the Session that most Members have left London?

Sir, I am obliged to my hon. Friend for putting this Question upon the Paper for to-day; and I have no hesitation in saying in answer to it that I think, considering the interest that appears to be felt on the subject and the period of the Session at which we have arrived, there is a sufficient justification for our postponing the consideration of the Estimate until the next Session. But I cannot give that answer without entering into a short explanation, for the answer itself would seem to be a very strange one, and it would naturally occur to my hon. Friend and others to ask, why has this Estimate been laid upon the Table at a period of the Session so far advanced? That question I shall assume to have been put, and I will endeavour to answer it. This is a subject of a very peculiar character. We proceeded, in laying this Estimate upon the Table, not upon any judgment formed by ourselves as to the merits of the proposal, but upon a judgment formed by the Members of the preceding Government, and recorded in the Treasury at the time when we acceded to office. Now, it is true that an incoming Government, as a general rule, is not bound by the decisions of a preceding Government, or by its intentions as to submitting to Parliament a proposal for a Vote of money; but this is a case of a very peculiar character, because the decision of the preceding Government was to this effect — that the Treasury should enter into communication with the solicitor of Mr. Eyre for the purpose of determining the particulars of the amount on which this Estimate was to be founded, and then after that had been done, that provision was to be made in the Estimates of the succeeding year. My hon. Friend will see that under these circumstances this was a case, not only of a decision by the Government of the day, but likewise of a pledge conveyed to an individual in consequence of that decision on the part of that Government. I do not wish to enter at all into the merits of the case, or to convey the smallest blame to any one at this moment; but this is a case of a very peculiar and exceptional character—I mean the case where a decision of an outgoing Government with regard to a Vote of money which it has not had time to execute, assumes by communication with the party interested the character of a promise on the part of that Government. As a general rule, I do not hesitate to say that the question raised for an incoming Government, unless it sees its way clearly to the adoption of the policy involved in the proposal, is a very nice and delicate question—one of those subjects of political casuistry, perhaps I may call it, which will arise from time to time. I shall only now say that the opinion of the Government was, that it was their duty to lay an estimate upon the Table of the House, and not to take upon themselves entirely to nullify and cancel at once, without reference to the judgment of the House, the effect of the engagement that had been entered into. Next, my hon. Friend will naturally say—Why was this done at so late a period of the Session? The reason is a very simple one. Strange to say, the Correspondence which was ordered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer to be entered into between the Treasury and the solicitor of Mr. Eyre, in order to fix the items of this bill, continued until an advanced month of the present year, much too late for this Vote to be presented in the ordinary Estimates. It was then brought before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he thought that as this engagement had been entered into, and as the time which had elapsed had been so very long, the fairest course he could take to the parties would be to lay it upon the Table at once. But, at the same time, the claim of the House to have a full consideration of the subject is quite paramount. I think my right hon. Friend did no more than his duty in laying the Estimate on the Table at the period he did; but as it has not been in our power to bring it forward before the general dispersion of Members took place, I think it is a just demand on the part of my hon. Friend that the matter should be postponed until next Session.

said, he wished to know whether the Government had taken into account the time which had elapsed since the persecution of Governor Eyre, and whether he did not think that great hardship and injustice was being done to that gentleman by postponing the payment of money which he had fully expected to receive for another year?

There are a great many cases which are cases of hardship, and at the same time are not cases of injustice. I go so far as to admit that it is hard upon an individual who has a claim upon the public that that claim should not be at once considered and disposed of; but in these matters we have to consider the feeling of the House. We cannot summon Members from all over the world to discuss this Estimate; the claim of the House of Commons to consider a matter of this kind fully is quite paramount, and therefore I have not a moment's hesitation in postponing it.

asked the right hon. Gentleman why, if the Army and Navy Estimates could be discussed at this time of the year, this small matter of £4,000 could not also be discussed?

asked whether, in point of fact, within the last fortnight, official intimation had not been given to Governor Eyre that this Vote would be brought under the consideration of Parliament during the present year?

Unquestionably a communication has been made—I am not aware of the precise words — that the Estimate would be submitted, and that is what we have done. But the objection which I have stated has arisen, and the Estimate will accordingly be submitted next year. I make no concealment upon the matter. I say that the House has a title to have this Estimate considered at a different period. I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Anson) that this case has the smallest relation to the Army and Navy Estimates, which have been in full view of the House during the whole Session.

asked whether he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the late Government by entering into the correspondence with the solicitor of Mr. Eyre had entered into a distinct arrangement, and were bound to give effect to it? And whether he was of opinion that the present Government, by continuing that correspondence and by framing an Estimate to carry out the intention expressed in the correspondence, had not also made themselves parties to the arrangements, and were bound to proceed with the Vote?

said, he thought it was very inconvenient to discuss this subject on a Question; but he would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman really thought the present Treasury Board were carrying out the undertaking they had entered into by merely placing the Estimate upon the Table and withdrawing it the evening afterwards? If the Vote were to be discussed, he admitted a fuller House was desirable; but if the Government had sent word that an estimate would be submitted, the question arose how far they had fulfilled their pledge. Perhaps, however, there had been laches on the part of Mr. Eyre's solicitor; but if not, Mr. Eyre's claim was increased.

I am not prepared to say there has been any delay on the part of Mr. Eyre's solicitor, and far be it from me to bring any charge against him. I admit we do not fulfil our duty by bringing this Estimate forward and then withdrawing it. Our duty remains where it was. Our duty will be to present this Estimate upon the earliest opportunity next year, so that Parliament shall be able properly to discuss it. With regard to the Question put by the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther), I do not think I am called upon at the present moment to answer it. Every fair and candid man will see that it is a very nice matter to determine to what extent, in consequence of a pledge given by a previous Government to an individual, an incoming Government is bound to require from hon. Members that they shall cast aside their own opinion upon the merits, in order that their influence as a Government may be used for the purpose of securing the passing of such an Estimate. When the proper time arrives we shall be prepared to indicate what we think of the matter.

asked, whether any formal Notice or other indication of opinion had reached the Government, leading them to suppose there would be more difficulty in obtaining the assent of Parliament to this Vote when proposed than to any other Vote included in the Estimates and causing them now to withdraw it from the consideration of Parliament? The House was proceeding with Supply, and many Votes had to be taken. What, then, was the special reason for supposing this would be objected to? He would also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thought he was leaving the matter wholly unprejudiced by first proposing an Estimate and then withdrawing it, not in consequence of any Motion made or objection taken, but simply in answer to a Question, and, at the same time, making observations respecting differences of opinion between this and the late Government?

I think my right hon. Friend will do me the justice to admit that, in the first statement I made, I was as careful as a man could be to imply anything at all upon the question, and I made no reference of a distinct character to the nature of the difficulty that arises. But the question of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) left me no alternative whatever, and I would not have fulfilled my duty with proper respect to him had I not stated the peculiar nature of the difficulty that might present itself to some minds. With regard to my right hon. Friend's question generally, I would say this:—It seems to point to a statement which he may have seen in the newspapers of this morning to the effect that there had been some combined representation made to the Government on the subject. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: No!] That is not the case at all. Different Members individually have expressed the difficulty they felt, and in particular I will state to my right hon. Friend, what I am sure he will see the force of, that some Gentlemen who have paired off for the Session, and made the whole of their arrangements upon the supposition that they knew all the imporant business that was coming forward, have represented that if a matter in which some of them take a most lively interest were brought forward after they had retired, they would be precluded from taking any part in the discussion, or giving their vote. I think that constitutes a state of things which broadly distinguishes between a Vote of this nature and Votes in Supply, of which full notice has been given during the present Session.

said, he understood the Prime Minister to say last night that the debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) would be resumed on Tuesday night, provided the whole of the Estimates were finished by that time. He now appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, whether it would not be more convenient for him to fix a day when it would come on?

said, he was perfectly willing to fix a day as soon as he could see his way to the end of the Committee of Supply. He thought it would be better to resume the debate when Committee of Supply was finished, when those who wished to address the House on the subject could do so. He might possibly take part in it; but he thought it would be better not to fix a particular day.

I wish, Sir, to make a personal explanation. It will be in the recollection of the House that last night I stated there were certain legal principles applicable to the regulation and form of government of the Army, and I quoted in defence of that proposition a statute which I asserted to be still a binding statute. It will also be in the recollection of the House that I was directly contradicted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt). I was certain at the time that I was right; but not choosing to place my unsupported assertion against my hon. and learned Friend's opinion I allowed it to pass. I have since taken the trouble to look into the matter, and after referring to the recent edition of Blackstone, and the Consolidated Statutes, I find that the whole of the statute was in force so late as 1863, but that a portion of it was then repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act of that year. The portion I quoted, however, is expressly left in force as it appears by that Act, and is now, or certainly ought to be standing, as a Parliamentary declaration of the law in the Statute Book of this country.

said, he was unwilling to give up the hope of being able to carry this Session the Glebe Loans (Ireland) Bill. It contained no principle, but was merely the extension of a part of the measure passed by Parliament last Session. He had no reason to believe that the discussion would occupy much time.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the policy of the Government in relation to the dockyards, said, when he was appointed to the Admiralty, in 1867, the Estimates had already been prepared and provided for 18,330 workmen, which number he reduced, in 1868, to 15,200, showing an actual reduction of 3,049, and not 5,000, as had been misrepresented; and only 215 of the men so reduced were established men, the remainder being hired men, who were usually entered for only temporary service, and were not entitled to pensions on their discharge. The reduction he made was as great as he considered safe at the time; but in the two following years the late First Lord further reduced the number by 4,000 men, of whom no less than 3,294 were established. Regarding that as an unwise reduction, he protested against it at the time in the strongest manner, on account of what he knew of the state of the unarmoured Navy. In August last, on the firing of the first gun in Europe, the number was increased to 13,500, being an addition of 2,200; and since then there had again been a reduction to 12,850, still showing an increase of 1,570 men over the Vote for the financial year 1870–1. That, undoubtedly, was not an economical transaction, because four-fifths of the men discharged by the late First Lord were entitled to pensions, being established men, and, as a result, the cost of the pension list had been increased by about £80,000 a-year since 1868. Established men would not of course, as a general rule, return to the service, as it would have necessitated the surrender of their pensions. Therefore, in the case of men entered since last August, two men had been paid for the work of one man, the one being on wages and the other on pension. In addition to that, several men discharged with gratuities had re-entered, of course on full wages. But that did not represent the whole evil; since the beginning of the year he had visited most of the dockyards, and found it to be the general opinion that the new men engaged were at least 25 per cent inferior to those who had been previously discharged, a fact which strengthened his view that the conduct of the Government had not been wise or economical in its character. Good men were so disgusted at the treatment they were likely to receive that they would not enter the dockyards. Of course, they heard of the old men entitled to pensions having been discharged; and they were unable to reconcile themselves to lower wages in the dockyards, with no greater security for permanent employment than in the private trade. He knew there was an excuse made for the reduction and subsequent increase of men to which he had called attention. The First Lord said—"When war arises every country puts its Army and Navy on a war footing." But the war appeared to have disturbed the equanimity of the Government in a very slight degree. Lord Granville, in "another place," quoted and adopted the opinion of Lord Clarendon as to the danger to England of war between France and Germany. He said—

"In the event of such a war, it would be almost impossible that the most hostile feelings towards England should not be excited on the part of both the belligerents, and that we should have great difficulty in avoiding being dragged into it ourselves."

Well, they all knew that feelings of the greatest dissatisfaction with them did exist on the part of two of the most powerful military nations of Europe. A war was raging within sight of their shores, the "silver streak" alone separating them from the scene of strife. Their Army was confessedly inadequate. Yet nothing was done for immediate defence, or for giving weight to their moral influence in the councils of Europe. They had Belgium threatened; there was this war between France and Germany; the Treaty of 1856 was rudely flung in their faces. Those startling events, however, seemed to have had rather a tranquillising effect on the nerves of Her Majesty's Government, for it was positively the case that their naval forces were smaller during the war than before it, though the Estimates were prepared at the time when Mr. Hammond said there was not a cloud on the political horizon. The number of seamen and marines borne in December, 1870, was 1,500 less than in December, 1869. In December, 1869, there were 17 iron-clads in sea-service commission; in December, 1870, 16. In December, 1869, there were 118 vessels of war of all classes in commission; and in December, 1870, 115. There were 1,500 men and three ships less than before the war. A battalion of marines was sent to China on account of the massacre at Tien-tsin, occasioned in a great measure, as the Papers laid before Parliament showed, by the reduction of the China squadron, of which he had more than once complained. The Flying Squadron was, indeed, recalled in hot haste from the Pacific, when war broke out. But on its arrival it was at once paid off, and the frigates composing it were not even repaired for service, in the event of our being involved in the war. A new Flying Squadron was commissioned, but singularly enough, it was sent out of the way across the Atlantic, exactly two days before the meeting of the Conference, he supposed to satisfy Prince Gortchakoff that no mischief was intended. That was a very different policy from the one adopted by the late Lord Derby in 1859 at the commencement of the Italian War, and afterwards accepted by Lord Palmerston. At that time, though there was less apprehension of danger to England than at the outbreak of the France-Prussian War, 8,000 seamen and 2,000 marines, 15 line-of-battle ships, 13 frigates, and 7 smaller vessels of war, were added to the naval force of the country in three months; and there were, in addition, four liners and six frigates ready in reserve. They were constantly being told that the Reserves never were so strong as at present. But the First Lord would be rather startled if such a demand were made on him now. The only naval preparation made for war was to order four vessels of the Cyclops class for coast defence, which could not be ready till after the war was sure to be over. But absolutely nothing was done for immediate defence, or towards strengthening the moral influence of England. The First Lord of the Admiralty stated that of the £600,000 voted at the commencement of the war £248,000 were devoted to the dockyards, £98,000 to the payment of artificers, and £150,000 to stores, and added that this was no evidence of un-preparedness, but that the money was simply necessary in order to put the defences of the country on a war footing. But he (Mr. Corry) would assert—having visited all the great yards—that the supplemental grant was required to replenish stores which ought never to have been exhausted, and to enter men who ought never to have been discharged. The war was a godsend to the Admiralty. Without it their original Estimate for last year would have been a miserable failure. In proof of this he could show that, although the Dockyard Votes were supplemented by £250,000, the work done in them during the year was far less than the late First Lord promised on moving the original Estimates. He said that 15,500 tons of ships were to be built in the dockyards; but 13,200 only were actually built, so that there was a deficiency of 2,300 tons, notwithstanding the 2,200 workmen added in August. It might be said that the increased work was on ships being prepared for an emergency. But again the facts refuted that assertion. The late First Lord, in moving his Estimates for 1870–1, speaking of the results of those Estimates, said—

"With respect to repairs, we shall keep the whole of the iron-clads ready for sea, and about 161 unarmoured ships, either in commission or in reserve. In fact, at no time in the history of the Navy will the reserve of ships have been in a more satisfactory state."

That was a specimen of the grandiose style in which the country was led to expect great results from low Estimates. That was the promise, and the present First Lord said the supplemental grant was to hasten the work in hand. That might be true; but, if so, it showed the inadequacy of the original Estimate. For what was the performance with £250,000 more? He knew what was the state of the Reserves towards the end of the last financial year from inquiries he had made at the fitting-out ports, and of 15 iron-clads in reserve only nine were ready instead of the whole; and of unarmoured ships of war there were 99 in commission, and 19 in reserve, making 118, instead of the 161 promised. Therefore the performance, both as to building and fitting, were considerably less than what was promised, although £250,000 was supplemented last August. He was perfectly certain that this would be so, and he predicted last year that the Store Vote would prove insufficient for the work to be performed. The fact was that the Estimates of last year were only sham Estimates. No doubt the orders were to retrench, and there was retrenchment on paper; but the Dockyard Estimates would have utterly failed if they had not been supplemented by the war grant of £250,000. With respect to workmen, when he criticised the reductions by the present Government his own reductions were always cast in his teeth. He was told that he had reduced 5,000 men, and that he had no right to find fault with a smaller reduction by the present Government. In the first place, the asertions was incorrect. He did not reduce 5,000, but 3,049, as any hon. Gentleman would see by comparing the statement in the appendix to the Estimates for 1868 with that of the preceding year. The present Government reduced 3,996 in the year 1869–70 and the year 1870–1. In round numbers he had reduced 3,000, and the present Government 4,000 men. But the argument was a very strange one; if he had not reduced there might have been a reason why the present Government should do so. But the fact that he did reduce, appeared to him to furnish an à priori argument the other way. He reduced as much as he thought safe, while he considered those further reductions most unsafe. Therefore, he had a perfect right to criticise. The case was very much as if, after a surgeon had taken as much blood from his patient as he considered prudent, another surgeon had been called in and taken as much more, and then were to argue that, both having taken an equal quantity, the first surgeon had no right to blame him for the exhaustion which followed. His reductions, however, had been greatly misrepresented. The First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to remarks made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire last August, when he (Mr. Corry) was unfortunately absent, observed—

"Does he not recollect the boasts of reductions which in the last months and weeks of his term of office, and particularly on the eve of a General Election, his Government laid before the people? In 1868 5,000 skilled artificers were discharged by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman, while his right hon. Friend was responsible for only 3,000."

That statement was so incorrect that he could not help thinking the right hon. Gentleman had obtained his information from the Admiralty. There was no boast of reductions of Estimates on the eve of the Election, for the best possible reason—that there was no reduction to boast of. As he had already stated, the workmen—not skilled artificers, but workmen and labourers of all classes—reduced were not 5,000, but 3,000 and a few over. The reduction by the late First Lord was not 3,000, but 4,000. It was true that a larger number than the 3,049 were discharged in 1868; but the difference consisted of men who were hired for the last half of the financial year for a special service, and who on its conclusion were discharged, as a matter of course. On his appointment to the Admiralty in March, 1867, he found no reserve of ships in the ports ready for sea. A single unarmoured frigate was the only vessel he could have commissioned if an emergency had required an increase of our naval force. He thought this intolerable, and with the sanction of the Treasury he hired these men, whose wages were to be paid out of an anticipated surplus on the Shipbuilding Votes, to place the Reserves on a respectable footing. But he (Mr. Corry) would repeat that he reduced the strength of the dockyards by only 3,049 men. Did he do that to obtain popularity by reduced Estimates? No; but to obtain means to build large fighting iron-clads, and thus secure their supremacy on the seas, and every farthing saved in wages was added to the Contract Vote for armour-clads. So far from there being a reduction, the fact really was that the Estimates were a few thousands above those for the preceding year. His boast of reduction was not before the Election but after it, and after the change of Government, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract claimed credit for having produced Estimates which showed a reduction of £900,000, and he (Mr. Corry) proved that there had been really no such reduction on the part of the existing Board of Admiralty, but that two-thirds of the £900,000 for which they took credit should have been set down to the credit of their predecessors, a saving to that amount having been effected in the Estimates for naval services which he had prepared before leaving office. He now wished to call the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the state of their unarmoured Navy, which was his reason for considering that the discharge of shipwrights had been carried to a most injudicious extent. The late First Lord (Mr. Childers) proposed a normal scheme for providing unarmoured ships at the rate of one frigate, one corvette, and six smaller vessels a-year. That rate he (Mr. Corry) showed last year was totally inadequate for the purpose of providing the ships which would be necessary for the protection of their commerce. Last year provision was made for building only 2,900 tons of frigates, corvettes, and sloops in the dockyards; this year provision was made for 6,752 tons. That showed a considerable improvement; but it was a curious way of carrying out a normal scheme. Again, of unarmoured vessels of all classes last year the Estimates provided for 4,312 tons; this year they provided for 10,265 tons. But even that fell far short of what was necessary to supply the waste of unarmoured ships, and in this description of vessels the Navy was never so weak as at present. The appendix to the Estimates showed that they had 27 screw frigates, 22 screw corvettes, and 32 screw sloops, making a total of 81; but of these there were fit for sea only 18 frigates, 20 corvettes, and 26 sloops, in all 64, the remainder being retained for harbour service, or to be sold or broken up. What did those numbers mean? They had now 18 frigates; in 1793 they had 155 frigates; in 1814 they had 87; in 1846 they had 64 frigates, all in good repair. Of those 64 frigates, corvettes, and sloops now on the list, 47 were in commission and 17 in reserve. That was to say, they had, with reduced peace squadrons, about three-fourths of their ships on active service, and the remainder was no more than a sufficient margin for ships under repair, and fitting for reliefs. If war were to break out it would be perfectly impossible for them to send an adequate reinforcement to foreign stations for the protection of their commerce. But to form a just estimate of their position, it was necessary to consider the ages and the speed of their ships, as well as their numbers. As to age, by far the greater portion were fast approaching the term of what was called the life of a ship. Last year he had said that the average age of screw frigates could not be estimated at more than 20 years. The late First Lord contradicted him; but he now found that the oldest screw frigate for sea service was only 17 years old. Of the 18 frigates only two were of less than 10 years of age, the remaining 16 varying from 10 to 17. The oldest corvette was also 17 years of age. Of the 20 only 7 were of less than 10 years old, the remaining 13 were from 10 to 17 years. The oldest sloop on the list for sea service was 19 years old. Of the 26 12 were less than 10 years old, the remaining 14 from 10 to 19 years. Of the 64 frigates, corvettes, and sloops, 43 were over 10 years of age, or over more than one-half their lifetime. Within the last 5 years 10 frigates had disappeared, being at the rate of 2 a-year. The same rate of waste must be anticipated—that was to say, they must expect that the 16 frigates over 10 years of age would disappear during the course of the next 8 or 10 years. Yet, in order to meet that waste, only two frigates had been ordered to be built during the present Ministry—the Raleigh and the Blonde—although this was their third year of office. They were of the collective tonnage of 7,750 tons, and by March, 1872, and they were to be advanced to only 4,900 tons by the end of the present financial year, leaving 2,850 tons to be completed in 1872–3. That was little more than equal to two frigates in four years, instead of two in one year, which he had showed was required as the maintaining rate for even their present reduced number. At that rate their frigates would be reduced to half-a-dozen in the course of the next 10 years. In the matter of corvettes they were still worse off. Only one new corvette had been ordered since 1868. This year 490 tons were to be built to complete her, and this was the only unarmoured ship to be launched above the class of gunboat. Then as to sloops, more than half of the 26 were above 10 years old. No new sloop was ordered in 1869 or 1870. In 1869, 1,546 tons of sloops were built to complete those he had left on the stocks; last year only 79 tons were built. This year an improvement had taken place; three new sloops had been ordered, and 2,350 tons were to be built. During the last three years the work on sloops had been inadequate, and wholly deficient as to frigates and corvettes. Then as to speed. Generally speaking the speed of the unarmoured ships was most insufficient. It would be almost as well to have no cruisers as slow cruisers. As large a proportion as two-thirds of the frigates could not command more than nine or ten knots. The Inconstant was the only really fast frigate afloat; her speed was some 16 knots, but the majority of frigates made only nine or ten. [Mr. SAMUDA believed the Agamemnon was faster than the Inconstant.] That strengthened his argument, for it was absurd to speak of protecting their Mercantile Marine by frigates that could be overtaken and destroyed by an armour-clad. Of the 20 corvettes, six only had any pretension to speed. Of sloops the maximum speed at the measured mile of 15 of the 24 varied from nine to five knots. Therefore, as to numbers, age, and speed, the condition of the unarmoured ships was most unsatisfactory. There was a marvellous indifference with regard to the means of protecting their Mercantile Marine. His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) was quite right in calling attention to the necessity of providing for the defence of their seaports; but, in the event of war, Liverpool would have far more reason to fear for her merchantmen in distant seas, than for the safety of her great establishments on the banks of the Mersey. He hoped that the First Lord would turn his serious attention to these considerations, and make sufficient provision for a fast and numerically adequate unarmoured Navy. He had a few words to add in reference to the management of the dockyards by the present Government. A great mistake had, he thought, been made in discharging established men, and entering hired men in their stead, with no prospect of pension. The prospect of pension reconciled the men to lower wages, and was a security against strikes. But in the reductions which had been recently made more than the whole reduction had fallen on established men. The total reduction since 1868 was 2,420; the established men discharged had been 2,726, and the hired hands were increased by 301. He had heard it rumoured in the dockyards that the late First Lord had said he would never enter an established man again. The result of such a policy would be that the men would have no attachment to the service. The best men would not enter it, and in war there would be a strike for higher wages, and the men would dictate their own terms. He trusted that the First Lord would apply a little common sense to the consideration of this question. In respect of salaried officers the policy had been most injudicious. He was anxious to revise the Establishment in 1868, but was unable to do so, in consequence of the Controller's absence on account of ill-health, until immediately before he resigned office. But the reduction subsequently made was excessive. At Portsmouth the officers were reduced from 36 to 17, to superintend 3,800 men. There was a monstrous combination of the functions of master shipwright, storekeeper, and chief engineer in the hands of one officer. There was no uniformity; for at Devonport, with fewer men, three gentlemen filled the three offices, and he thought that when the First Lord visited the yards, and compared the state of Portsmouth with that of Devonport, he would have no difficulty in deciding which system was the best. At Chatham the same system had been adopted as at Portsmouth—that was to say, the master shipwright was also the chief engineer and storekeeper. The consequence was that the health of the master shipwright broke down from excessive work, and that most valuable officer, Mr. Thornton, had been away for months, and, it was feared, was not likely to return. When he (Mr. Corry) visited the yard, some months ago, there was only one assistant master shipwright to carry on the combined duties of master shipwright, storekeeper, and chief engineer. Everything in the dockyards, as at the Admiralty, was at high pressure; and there was no margin left for casualties. One result of the amalgamation of the duties of master shipwright and engineer was most disadvantageous. That was the equalization of the working hours in the factories and dockyards. At Portsmouth and Chatham, where the steam factories had been placed under the master shipwright, the working hours of the factory men had been changed from ten hours to eight. Formerly the factory men worked ten hours a-day on the average through the year, because in the shops they could work by gaslight; whereas the shipwrights at the dockside worked only eight hours on the average, being obliged in winter to knock off after dark. That reduction of hours was equal to a reduction of 13 to 15 per cent from the earnings of the men, or of from 5s. 6d. to 4s. a-day; and the consequence was that the most skilful of the hired men left. In that state of things, instead of reverting to the system of working ten hours in the factories, the rates of pay had been increased, so that they were now practically paying as much for eight hours' work as they used to pay for ten. That did not extend to the established men, who were paid the former rates, and they were therefore much discontented; but if they left they would lose their prospect of pension, which they could not afford to do. The system thus produced serious loss, together with great dissatisfaction. Moreover, the best hired men would not be tempted to come back; they felt that they had no secure footing in Her Majesty's service, and that their interests were safer in the private trade. He had good authority for believing that under the system one-sixth less work was done, or a loss incurred equal to that of about 45 days in the year. The present First Lord was not responsible for any of those things; but it was to be hoped they would receive his serious attention, and that the condition of the yards, both as to officers and men, would be thoroughly investigated by him on his next visitation. He had himself introduced large economies into the service of the ports in the year 1868, and no one was more sensible than he was that reform in the dockyards was needed, and he had already referred to his own intentions in that respect; but he thought the reforms effected, by his successor, whether at the Admiralty or at the dockyards, were rash and inconsiderate. The increase of 1,570 workmen in these Estimates was a practical admission that their number had been reduced too low, and he had shown that even as increased they were too few to execute the work on unarmoured ships which was necessary, even as a maintaining rate of their present reduced force. The supervision of the yards had been most injudiciously reduced, and the consolidation of offices in the hands of one officer had proved most injurious, and was universally condemned. Excessive labour was thrown on the officers, who carried on the duty neither with satisfaction to themselves nor advantage to the service. The wholesale discharge of established men had produced universal disgust. Formerly the best men were obtainable in any numbers, and discharge used to be a punishment. Now the best men would not stay, and when an increase was required only inferior men came in. These were most serious questions, and he trusted that they would be honestly and seriously investigated by the First Lord of the Admiralty.

said, that he was quite in favour, as he always had been, of employing men regularly instead of taking them on at intermittent periods, by hiring them as occasion required. They might easily adjust the work so as to make it continuous or regular, and thus be able to obtain the best men, because they would be able to use up any surplus time which the men might have on hand after executing the various works of repairing or re-fitting ships in commission, in strengthening the Navy, and rendering it more formidable in time of war. The policy of the Admiralty, in getting rid of their best servants from a desire to economize, was a mistaken policy, and one that could only result, sooner or later, in disaster. He regretted that the private yards were not more encouraged, because it was admitted on all hands that the work done in them was as good and very considerably cheaper in price than that done in the Royal Dockyards. The Admiralty ought to look principally to private yards for the building they wanted, and in time of war the auxiliary power of the private yards would be of extreme utility for the refitting of our fleets, and no element in the strength of a fleet was so important as the power of rapid restoration from damage of the ships after each engagement. Indeed, if one country possessed this power while another neglected it, the possession of it would render the smaller fleet more effective, even though it might, numerically, be not more than half that possessed by its adversary, who had not prepared for rapid restoration after the extent of disabling which certainly would follow every serious engagement. Another point to which he wished to direct attention was the absence of any general guiding and controlling policy in our naval administration. They went on, year after year, from one experimental ship to another; but they scarcely ever proposed to compare their experiments and to educe from them something like general principles, such as might place their shipbuilding upon a sound and permanent basis. The Admiralty had no right to look to the House for more than a general opinion on the subject, and it was bound to do all the rest itself. It was now some years since the entire re-construction of the Navy had begun; but no one could pretend that our present position, in respect to it was satisfactory in itself, or calculated to impart confidence to the nation. How could it be when they knew that when the Committee on the designs of ships was lately appointed there was not on the Committee a single practical man, experienced in the building of large iron-clad vessels? No amount of general ability or cleverness could compensate for the want of that special knowledge and experience without which the Admiralty would be for ever feeling its way in the dark from one experiment to another. Some of the recent changes at the Admiralty he also deeply deplored. Their troubles began when they deprived themselves of the services of three of the most celebrated naval architects which the country possessed. The retirement of Mr. Oliver Lang, one of the greatest men connected with naval architecture who ever lived, was a national misfortune. He hoped to see some change in the unsatisfactory position in which the Navy had been continually oscillating for the last few years. It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty were to collect all the evidence that could be obtained in reference to the working of his Department, in order that he might be the better able to frame a new system upon which its business might be conducted.

said, he wished to take that opportunity of repeating the suggestion that had been constantly put forward during the last 30 years, to the effect that instead of depending wholly upon themselves the authorities of the Admiralty should rely in a large degree upon the assistance they might obtain in times of need from private enterprise. Nothing was more to be relied upon than the genius and enterprise of the country in the matter of shipbuilding. The Government should encourage the formation of a Naval Reserve in the form of yachts; but when he once urged that upon the Admiralty, he was met by the question, what could a yacht do with a 12-ton gun?

said, he felt somewhat embarrassed in rising to reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Corry), because, while some of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman required an answer from him at some length, he was conscious that in occupying the attention of the House by any voluminous explanations he should be unnecessarily delaying the progress of the Estimates. Therefore he wished it to be fully understood that, in replying to certain remarks only of the right hon. Gentleman, he by no means admitted that the charges brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman to which he did not reply were established. In dealing with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman he should divide it into two parts—that which referred to the past, and that which related to the future, and it would be unnecessary for him to discuss at length the former part. The right hon. Gentleman had referred at length to the naval management in 1867 and 1868, a period of some historical interest to the right hon. Gentleman, and had criticised freely the policy of the past two years, and he (Mr. Goschen) felt a sense of relief when the right hon. Gentleman approached real business by referring to the present state of naval affairs. The right hon. Gentleman had concluded his speech by adverting to the case of the artificers in the dockyards, and had remarked that it must be the wish of the First Lord to see them contented. The hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir John Hay) had expressed a wish that the Admiralty should hold itself responsible for the management of naval affairs, and that the First Lord should be held responsible for their conduct to that House on all main questions. But what was the position of the Admiralty in the matter? How was it possible that they could manage matters so as to give universal contentment when every change among the higher officials, and in the terms upon which the workmen were engaged, became immediately the subject of hot discussion in that House? The Admiralty had been recommended by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) to conduct its business upon the same principles that a private firm conducted theirs; but, at the same time, they were required to publish their annual balance-sheet, and to lay their private correspondence before the world. The Admiralty business in this country was conducted in a manner different from that followed in any other country, because every detail of it was made the subject of public discussion. The Admiralty were spending not their own money, but that of the taxpayers, and they ought to be responsible to Parliament for the manner in which they expended it; they ought to give their most perfect confidence to the public, and Parliament ought to be at liberty to discuss every detail of their management. He did not complain of this publicity; but he thought that the country ought to make some allowance on this score for the shortcomings of the Admiralty. The hon. Member behind him (Mr. Samuda) had asked that the Admiralty should be re-organized; but every change that might be made in pursuance of that recommendation would become the subject of hot discussion in that House. Not a single one of the higher officials could be displaced without the Admiralty authorities being called upon to state their reasons for dismissing him. During the three months he had been in office he had sometimes felt a doubt whether there had not been almost too much discussion of the details of the Admiralty machine, as compared with the work done by that machine. Not a week had passed without his having been called upon to re-consider the claims of some inventor whose case had been already determined by previous Boards of Admiralty, but which had been revived, owing to the efforts of certain Members of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman in his historical retrospect had repeated what he had already said six times on the question of the reduction of the Navy. [Mr. CORRY: On the reduction of the amount of the Estimates.] The right hon. Gentleman had done so six times without producing any effect It was some years since the right hon. Gentleman was in office, and as there was no doubt as to the facts, it was unnecessary at present to go over the reductions to which he had referred. He would come to the more practical point of the reduction of men during the last year and the increase which had taken place last August. Every Government increased its staff and placed its establishments on a war footing when war was actually going on. The right hon. Gentleman impugned the reasons for the increase, and then expressed his regret that it was not much larger. The right hon. Gentleman had cited 1859 to prove what he would have done under such circumstances, and stated that in 1859 8,000 seamen were engaged, and expressed his regret that greater naval preparations had not been made on the present occasion. But why was that course not adopted? Because the Navy was in such a condition that it was unnecessary to make enormous preparations. If that course had been adopted, the country would now have had 8,000 seamen more than were required in time of peace, and a large sum of money would have been wasted unnecessarily. The right hon. Gentleman stated that at the end of 1870, when the war was raging around us, we had not so many men as we had at the beginning of the year. True; but what had happened? He (Mr. Goschen) did not like alluding to events which were so disastrous to a neighbouring country; but in December, 1870, and at the present time, our position at sea was relatively much stronger than it had been for a long time previously, because the strength of one of the great naval Powers had collapsed. The right hon. Gentleman had also complained that the Flying Squadron, which had returned to this country, had again been dispatched to distant seas. Now was the naval aspect of affairs such as to render it necessary to keep the Flying Squadron at home? During the whole of the autumn and winter there was no naval danger threatening the country, and our strength was relatively greater than it had been before. Then, with regard to the statement which had been made as to the number of ships, assuming the correctness of the statistics of the right hon. Gentleman, what did they prove? The right hon. Gentleman stated that in 1793 we had 100 frigates, whereas now we had only 18. While frigates were formerly our chief engines of war, they now played a comparatively subordinate part. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman saw any distinction between the frigates of those days and the frigates of our own time; but there was a very great distinction between them, for the frigates of our own time were steamers, while their predecessors were not; and a frigate with steam could do a great deal more work than a frigate without. With regard to the building of ironclads, sloops, and corvettes, we must compare the condition of our Navy with that of the Navies of other countries; and he must repeat emphatically the statement he made the other day—that the great strength of this country at the present time was in her sea-going iron-clad cruisers—a force with which few other nations could at all compete. Russia and America had no force whatever of that kind. But it was not fair of the right hon. Gentleman to make comparisons with the Navies of other countries by counting ships without counting the power of their guns, and the services which they were able to perform. It should be remembered that since the telegraphic system had been called into existence and extended all over the world our ships were more available than they used to be, when they were at sea for months at a time without its being possible to communicate with them. The right hon. Gentleman had really underrated the strength of this country, and though that course might be useful in one sense, in stimulating the Admiralty to greater exertions, it was not useful to place naked statistics as to the number of ships before the country in such a manner as to lead the public to infer that our strength was not so great as it really was. Such statistics ought to be qualified by many considerations, and the inferences drawn from them might go some way towards alarming the country if they were allowed to remain unanswered. Without entering further into a comparison with other countries, he was quite sure that while there was every necessity for keeping up the number of our ships, the position of the other Navies of the world was such that we might well be proud of our own, and he hoped that when we brought together, as we should, in a few weeks' time, three or four squadrons, including 17 iron-clads, the country would not run away with the idea that we were in that utterly defenceless state in regard to iron-clads, frigates, sloops, and corvettes, which the right hon. Gentleman's observations would seem to point out. The Admiralty could not do everything at once, and they had already been engaged in very great operations, such as the extension works at Chatham and Portsmouth, and the construction of ships like the Sultan and others of the largest iron-clads, which had taken up considerable time and cost a great deal of money. No doubt there was plenty of work still to be done; but he demurred to the idea that it must all be taken in hand at once. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be anxious to undertake many things at once, and had acted upon that principle when he was in office, by beginning such a large number of ships at the same time that it had taken three or four years to complete them. The enormous legacy of work which the right hon. Gentleman left had prevented the Admiralty from going on until the present year with the corvettes and other classes of ships. As the whole system of warfare had been changed, it was a great question how far it was necessary to keep up the number of frigates. It was true that this year, as in the year when the right hon. Gentleman was in office, very little progress had been made with regard to that class of ship, the construction of iron-clads having demanded most attention. He admitted that corvettes were a very useful and necessary class of vessel, and an earnest had been given of the desire of the Government to build that class in the Estimates for the present year. In the Estimates first presented there were two sloops to have been built, only a quarter of which was to have been built in the year; but in the revised Estimates which had since been laid upon the Table that arrangement had been altered, and the Admiralty reserved their freedom for next year unfettered, rather than begin ships of a type that might be changed. At this moment the Admiralty were near the completion of the work they had in hand, so that next year they would start perfectly clear. A very large portion of the work in hand would be concluded in this financial year, and next year they would have the advantage of taking up the work of previous years, and would be able to review their position, see what were their greatest necessities in regard to shipbuilding, and consider the direction in which it seemed most advisable to advance. But during the last two years it had been impossible to make much progress with new ships, owing to the work which had to be done on the ships already laid down. And now he wished to say a few words on the question of the number of men who should be employed in the dockyards. An increase was made in the number of dockyard men in August at the commencement of the war, and the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out how desirable it was that there should be no ebb and flow of workmen, but that they should be kept continuously at work. But he supposed the right hon. Gentleman really wished the workmen to be found for the work rather than that work should be found for the workmen. [Mr. CORRY dissented.] If that was not the right hon. Gentleman's view, he (Mr. Goschen) confessed that he did not think that keeping the workmen, and then looking to see what employment could be found for them, was the proper way in which the business of a great Department ought to be conducted. They ought first to know what ships were wanted, and then they ought to employ the necessary men to do the work.

explained that the whole tenor of his speech was that the number of men should have reference to the work to be done.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of definite establishments, and had said that it was an uneconomical way of dealing with men to discharge them and give them pensions, and then to have to engage others. The proper way of doing business was to ascertain first what were your wants, and then to engage the necessary men to carry them out. In that case, of course, the Admiralty must make up its mind to discharge men when it had not work enough for them to do, and to engage men when a case of urgency arose. The establishment must be conducted with a regard to ordinary times, and not upon a war footing in a time of peace, for a peace and a war establishment never could be the same. The policy of the present Government had been to take the number of men required for the year, and so to arrange the establishment as to make it as elastic as possible, there being at ordinary times, not a maximum, but a minimum number on the establishment. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) had spoken of the expediency of a large portion of the business being done by contract; but how could that be if the establishment were kept up to such a height as to render it difficult to discharge men on account of the pensions to which they would be entitled? The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the discontent arising from the discharge of dockyard men. But those discharges took place in every manufacturing dockyard, while the men employed by the Government had the advantage of pensions after a certain time. The discontent had arisen from the idea instilled into the men's minds, and encouraged even by hon. Gentlemen in Parliament, that they were to be kept on under all circumstances, and ought not, therefore, to be discharged. The right hon. Gentleman had gone into details concerning the management of dockyards and the abolition of certain offices. But he (Mr. Goschen) would not follow him through those details, especially as he believed the right hon. Gentleman had intended rather to call his attention to these points than to elicit from him an opinion upon them. He would therefore content himself with assuring the right hon. Gentleman that all those points should receive his most careful consideration. Before he sat down he wished to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands). That hon. Gentleman had a Notice on the Paper to call attention to proceedings connected with the Agincourt; but as the documents connected with the Court Martial had only reached the Admiralty that day, he (Mr. Goschen) should feel himself precluded from entering into any discussion on the matter in the House until it had been considered judicially at the Admiralty with regard to any future proceedings that might have to be taken. He therefore thought it would be more convenient if that Notice were postponed.

said, he yielded to the appeal which had been addressed to him by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), and would at once consent to postpone his Notice. At the same time, he desired to state that great dissatisfaction was felt in the country that the circumstances which had created much alarm, and might have entailed a large amount of public loss, and which arose from what appeared to be the culpable negligence of persons connected with the service, should have been followed by a verdict of a Court Martial of so ineffective a character. He hoped the Government would make public all material documents, and that an opportunity would be given to Parliament of reviewing whatever steps the Admiralty might take upon the subject. With regard to the question before the House, his complaint was that the Government had thought it necessary last autumn suddenly to increase the number of men in the dockyards, and he believed that if the House could have full information as to the mode in which that additional number of men had been employed, it would be found that the work accomplished by them was not at all material to the defence of the country. He challenged the Admiralty to show that their labour was not spent upon vessels that could be of little or no use. In the present state of the world, he would advocate the concentration of the naval force of the country on the home stations, within reach. He was glad to see that that system was now being adopted by the Admiralty, and that our foreign squadrons had been reduced during the last three years. He must complain of the practice adopted by some right hon. Gentlemen opposite of constantly telling the House what they themselves did when in office, and at the same time finding fault with the labours of those who succeeded them. A naval discussion in that House, instead of being devoted to points of practical value, degenerated into attack and defence of present and past Administrations with regard to the work they had done or left undone.

said, he concurred in the propriety of abstaining from any present discussion of the circumstances connected with the Agincourt, and thanked the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) for postponing his Motion, as it was important that the First Lord of the Admiralty should first have an opportunity of freely investigating the matter. With respect to the discussions on Admiralty affairs, he agreed with the First Lord of the Admiralty that one of the great difficulties in conducting the public business of this country was that there was no autocratic power or secrecy, or unlimited command of supplies in any department, and that all that was done was liable to constant and open discussion. But these were conditions that must be accepted; every First Lord of the Admiralty was aware of them, and must know that all he did must be done in the daylight, and must be subject to comment and criticism in the House. When the £2,000,000 were voted last year, at the breaking out of war, the lamentable collapse of the great and friendly French Power had not occurred, and it was uncertain in what direction the scale of war might turn. We had no right to anticipate that our Fleet would be required for the protection of Belgium; but the wisdom and prudence of our statesmen ought to have been prepared for such a contingency. The First Lord of the Admiralty had referred to our frigates. Now, at the present rate of decrease without a commensurate increase, we could only calculate that we should have no frigates at all in eight years. From the Supplementary Estimates of the 4th August it appeared that there were two frigates building; but they would by no means supply the waste going on in frigates. Perhaps we might be engaged in hostilities with Powers of vast resource, and it might become our duty to cripple the commerce of our opponent or to defend our own. Then there would arise a necessity for rapidity, and frigates were the vessels especially adapted for the purpose. It was, indeed, quite true that gunboats might be of use; but the merchant ships were of great speed, and therefore we should have a certain number of frigates for performing duties which the smaller and slower class of vessels were not calculated to perform. His hon. Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty was a Member of the Committee which had recently been sitting, and before which the great question of the Suppression of the Slave Trade was brought. That Committee had reported that it was necessary that the number of ships should be greatly increased on the East Coast of Africa; but the Committee gathered that there would be great difficulty in doing this without largely increasing the Navy Estimates. It was quite true that on the West Coast of Africa the slave trade had been entirely suppressed, and mainly by our squadron. The Flying Squadron had been manned from the crews of the Cruising Squadron. The former led to an enormous amount of desertion, and what with the wear and tear of ships, and their being at a distance from this country, in case war should break out, he had no hesitation in characterizing it as an impolitic project. What he wished to point out was that at this moment we required additional fast-sailing frigates, and a larger number of men, for the special purpose of the suppression of the slave trade on the coast of Africa—a subject on which the country was deeply in earnest. Now, we had not got the ships or the men. [Mr. GOSCHEN: The Admiralty have both the ships and the men for an African squadron.] He was exceedingly glad to receive that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, and he hoped that before long arrangements would be made for sending out a squadron which would be employed in suppressing the slave trade on the East Coast of Africa. As to the dockyard labourers, the right hon. Gentleman had not exactly comprehended the point of his right hon. Friend's (Mr. Corry's) remarks. His right hon. Friend never suggested that work was to be made for the men, and the First Lord of the Admiralty had fixed on his right hon. Friend sentiments he never uttered and never acted on. What his right hon. Friend did say was that, with a Navy like that of England, we required immense dockyard establishments, and that a considerable number of established men should be employed in the building and repair of ships; and it was a matter of complaint that, accepting the minimum number of the Government as a standard, the establishment had been reduced below it. One great advantage of establishments was that the men engaged, looking forward to pensions, were ready to work day and night in times of pressure—a thing not to be expected from hired artizans, who would look for the market value of their labour at the moment, and strike if they did not get it. The establishments were reduced far below what was for the interest of the country, the result being that numbers of men were drawing their pensions and doing no work, while their places were filled by men taken on, who had also of course to be paid. He desired that something should be said in regard to the Flying Squadron, and he would call the attention of the House to the desertions which were now so frequent in the Navy, and which made our ships inefficient. How was it these desertions occurred? In the first place, it occurred in the Flying Squadron because of the temptations offered in Australia—a matter which was pointed out to the late First Lord, but of which he took no heed. Another cause was the hardships imposed on the seamen by this race round the world, and which conveyed to them the impression that their energies were being overtaxed, and for no purpose whatever. The Navy was no longer so popular as it used to be, and he trusted that on that account the present First Lord would reverse the policy that had been pursued by his predecessor. Part of the dissatisfaction was caused by the arrangements made by the late First Lord about the retirement of officers who had been educated at great expense to the country, and who in the contingency of a war would be able to perform good service. Under the old régime officers became attached to their ships and to each other, and the men experienced similar feelings towards their superiors, which were fully reciprocated. But the late First Lord, finding this would not work with his plans, introduced a system by which a captain was appointed to-day and was replaced by a successor a month hence, while a similar principle guided the arrangements regarding the lieutenant and the men. So that it was said in the Navy that an officer now came on board with his carpet-bag and left in a week; he had not time allowed for an interest to grow up in regard to the men and the ship; at least, such an interest as used to be felt formerly. Under such a system men could not get attached to their officers. [Mr. CORRY: It is the substitute for the regimental system over again.] This arrangement was at the bottom of the dissatisfaction which now existed in the Navy. Even flag officers were appointed for so short a time that they had no selection of the officers of their staff, and, consequently, between them respectively there did not exist that attachment which was traditional in the Navy. There was another matter he wished to refer to. The arrangements the late First Lord had made for the repair of ships abroad had been very detrimental to the interests of the service. Formerly, when a ship was sent to a particular station officers and men went with her and returned, after four or five years, proud of their ship, having, perhaps, meanwhile performed gallant, certainly having performed creditable and useful service. Instead of that, now, at the end of two or three years, ships were placed in harbour at the different distant stations, their crews were brought home, and a Megæra was taken out with several crews, the result being that men, being idle and receiving their pay, lost their discipline. He would give a striking instance. Two or three ships were to have their crews changed. The Vestal was lying at Bermuda, and her captain being asked how long she would run, he replied, a year if her boilers were repaired. A new crew was sent out for her in the Himalaya, which brought back the old crew. The new captain found on going on board that the boilers were in the state the old captain had reported, but that they could not be repaired in Bermuda. The result was that the Vestal had to be recalled by the next mail to have the boilers repaired in England, and she arrived soon after the Himalaya. The country had thus been put to the expense of sending out one crew and bringing back another. While such a system was pursued they would have an inefficient Navy. The Ocean was recommissioned while she was in China, but she also had to be ordered home, and as such cases were occurring every day, though, perhaps, not to such a degree, he thought it desirable that public attention should be called to the subject.

said, he would be brief in replying. He admitted that there had been a good many desertions from the first Flying Squadron; but the public would be glad to know that desertions had entirely ceased, so far as the Admiralty knew, none having taken place in the ships forming the present Flying Squadron, and the number of men was kept up, although the ships were for some time at Halifax. He would not enter upon a discussion as to the policy of re-commissioning ships abroad, beyond denying that such a case as that of the Vestal was constantly occurring. That case was caused by a mistake on the part of the engineer, who, in his report, stated that the boilers were in good order when they were in an unsatisfactory state, and a Court Martial would shortly be held to inquire into his conduct. With respect to the crew they were continuous-service men, and would, therefore, have to be victualled and paid wherever they were. As to the proportion of hired men to those on the establishments in the dockyards it had not been seriously altered. In the year 1866 the gross number employed was 19,000, of whom 9,610 were established men, and 9,390 hired; while at present the aggregate number was 13,000, of whom 6,050 were established, and 6,500 hired.

said, he rose to call attention to the recent prohibition of coursing in the Home Park at Hampton. The privilege of coursing there was granted to the farmers in the neighbourhood of Hampton thirty years ago as compensation for the damage done to their farms by those who joined the Royal Hunt. In 1865 the privilege was withdrawn; but the Duke of Beaufort, considering a Memorial presented to him by the farmers, permitted them to course three days in the year, which last year were curtailed to two, and were abolished altogether this year. While he did not dispute the right to withdraw the privilege, he thought it was not politic to do so, and he hoped the matter would be re-considered, for it had caused great local irritation.

said, he thought that the privilege ought to be continued under properly recognized authority. The farmers had given an assurance that the coursing meetings should be held under their own management, and that the irregularities which had been complained of should not recur.

said, he regretted that he was not able to hold out to the noble Lord any prospect of this privilege being restored. The Park was required by the Master of the Horse for the use of Her Majesty's stud, and in consequence of the changes which had occurred in the district it was necessary to put an end to what was allowed in former times. Hampton was now surrounded by houses, and to that place the sporting community found their way from all parts of London. The railways brought together people whose patronage of the greyhound was chiefly confined to the publichouse of that name, while instead of the meeting being carried on in a quiet way, circulars were distributed, and people were assembled more for the purposes of gambling than of sport.

gave notice that on going into Committee of Supply on Civil Service Estimates, he would call attention to the expense attaching to the Home Park at Hampton, and make a Motion upon the subject.

said, he rose to call attention to the evils attending the traffic in South Sea Islanders, and to move an Address for Papers on the subject. His object was to obtain from the Government an acknowledgment of their due sense of the weight and importance of the matter, and a declaration of their intention to deal with the evils complained of. About ten years ago the colony of Queensland, being desirous of obtaining more and cheaper labour than it possessed within itself, established a system under which they were able to procure a large number of South Sea Islanders, but it was attended with such terrible results that an Act was passed in the colony subjecting the traffic to certain restrictions. That Act provided that there should be a real contract between the employers and these islanders, that a certain rate of wages should be paid them, that sufficient and wholesome food should be given them, and that after a fixed period of service those labourers should be sent home to their several islands. That contract, however, turned out to be a mere nominal one, and the law had since then been practically evaded, the result being the infliction of much cruelty and suffering upon those unfortunate islanders who were the victims of this infamous traffic. The profits of this traffic were immense. The islanders were semi-barbarians—were ignorant of the language of the colonists, and were thus rendered easy victims to the cupidity of their employers. The Natives of the South Sea Islands were often kidnapped and placed on board the ship in waiting upon the falsest pretences. Advantage was taken of the quarrels of the chiefs in order to procure this labour, and ill treatment followed the natural resentment of the Natives. In many cases they resorted to the most terrible acts of vengeance, and the crews of two vessels were murdered by them. Hitherto the case had rested on the evidence of the missionaries on the one hand, and of the planters on the other; but Captain Palmer, of Her Majesty's ship Rosario, which had been sent to cruise amongst the islands with a view of checking any abuses connected with this traffic, now gave strong testimony of its evils, and of the want of accommodation on board the vessels engaged in it. Captain Palmer gave a graphic description of a schooner he had captured with above 100 of these islanders on board, employed to convey them to Queensland; he stated that it closely resembled one of the old African slave ships that were connected with the horrors of the Middle Passage. He found the poor islanders in a dreadful condition, being stark naked, crowded on board, and without even the accommodation of a mat to sleep upon. And yet that vessel had been inspected by the Government officer at Queensland. Notwithstanding all his exertions, Captain Palmer failed in obtaining the condemnation of the vessel. It was asserted in defence of this system of traffic that it was intended to civilize and improve the condition of the islanders by bringing them into contact with a civilized people, but they really came into contact with the scum and offscourings of civilization; and according to the statements of competent witnesses, they learned more harm than good by contact with the whites, and often became great rogues and thieves. He was glad to find that Lord Kimberley, in the despatch of March last to the Governors of the Australian colonies, called attention to the evils of the traffic. Lord Kimberley said the crimes thus committed chiefly by persons proceeding from Australian ports were calculated to bring discredit upon the British name. This was quite true. They were continually remonstrating with the Spaniards and Portuguese, and it was disgraceful that such a traffic should be thrown into our teeth by way of answer. Even in Queensland the treatment of these immigrants was unsatisfactory. But what was still worse in connection with this traffic was that under the Queensland licences those South Sea men were often taken to the Fiji Islands, in which, said Captain Palmer, there was no organized Government, and no law to restrain the trade, and which were the resort of every variety of villain from the neighbouring colonies. There these men were subjected to greater cruelties. There had been proposals for a British protectorate of the Fiji Islands, or of a joint protectorate with America. Something, at all events, should be done under the responsibility of the British Government. The Rev. Mr. Sunderland, agent of the London Mission Society, gave a most harrowing account of the way those islanders were treated in Queensland. He (Mr. P. A. Taylor) regretted that at that period of the Session he was unable to go into greater detail. In his opinion, this importation of free labour, as it was called, was certain to produce demoralization; but, if carried on at all, it should be under the most stringent regulations. Lord Kimberley had issued, in March last, a Circular to the Governors of the Australian colonies, intimating that it had been proposed to introduce into Parliament a Bill declaring the kidnapping of Natives to be felony, and asking whether the colonies would be prepared to bear the expenses of the consequent proceedings. They must wait for the results of this Circular. Meanwhile, in moving for Papers, he should be glad to receive an assurance from the Government that they would do what they could to check the evils complained of.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he thought the House ought to feel indebted to the hon. Member for bringing forward this most important subject. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would early next Session enter more at large into the question, when it could be fully discussed. He believed that many horrible atrocities were perpetrated in connection with this traffic, under the auspices of one of the colonies of which Englishmen were most proud; and it was disgraceful to this country that they should be allowed to continue unchecked. Before he sat down he must be allowed to express his deep sense of the loss that all, whether in the House or out of it, who took an interest in this and similar questions, had sustained in the death announced that morning of the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Charles Buxton). It would ill-become him to speak of the abilities and labours of his Friend in a general sense, but in referring to those subjects in which Mr. Buxton took a deep and hereditary interest, and with which his name would be inseparably connected, he hoped the House would excuse him if he expressed his heartfelt sense of the loss they had sustained. The name of Buxton was associated with the extinction of slavery and the suppression of any traffic savouring of the slave trade, not only in the person of his lamented Friend, but in that of his illustrious father; and he would venture to express the earnest hope that the day would never come when that House would not number among its Members men who would pursue the same career of philanthropy which was pursued with such zeal and singlehearted devotedness by his lamented Friend.

said, that the excesses committed in this traffic had been condemned by the Bishop and the Attorney General of New South Wales, and by the officers of Her Majesty's vessels; and Lord Clarendon had declared that the immigration amounted to a practical slave trade, carried on by British speculators for the benefit of British settlers in the Fiji Islands. But he (Sir Charles Wingfield) thought that the conduct of the Queensland Government was not above suspicion; it seemed ready to accept every sort of denial or excuse that was offered them by the owners and captains of the vessels accused of kidnapping. The case of the Latona was a conspicuous example of this. He thought that Captain Palmer deserved the greatest praise for his generous efforts and for the vigorous action he had taken to put down the atrocities of this traffic; and it was equally gratifying to observe that there was no lukewarmness on the part of either the Foreign or the Colonial Office. He was satisfied that there was an earnest intention on the part of the Government to deal with the subject, and he therefore cheerfully left it in their hands.

said, that he feared the worst features of the old coolie and East Coast of Africa traffic were revived in the South Sea Islands by Europeans—he would not call them Englishmen; and it was highly discreditable to this country that stringent measures were not taken by our Government to put a stop to this atrocious system. Humanity called for such interference. He would venture to think that in this instance policy and justice went hand in hand; for it was for our advantage that the colonies should afford a market for our own surplus labour, and it was disadvantageous both to the colony and this country that the labour market in Queensland should be supplied by the wicked kidnapping of these unhappy islanders in order to compete with English or colonial labour.

said, that he could not say the few words he had to say on this subject without first endorsing entirely the expressions of regret that had fallen from his hon. Friend opposite at the loss which the House, and he would say the country, had sustained by the death of Mr. Charles Buxton. He had enjoyed the pleasure of the friendship of Mr. Buxton, and he believed that his private worth was equal to his public services; and those who engaged in philanthropic pursuits would be long before they forgot that in all such pursuits they never failed to receive the hearty sympathy and assistance of Charles Buxton. As to the question itself, the remarks which he should make upon it would be but few, because he felt that a debate upon it at the present moment would be somewhat premature. He must, at the same time, admit that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) was quite right in bringing it under the notice of the House, and in inviting public attention to it, for it was a subject in which not only he but the Government took a deep interest. Full justice could not, however, be done to it on the occasion, and it was, in his opinion, most desirable that at an early period next Session it should be fully discussed, by which time also further Papers upon the subject would have been presented. He should have rested satisfied with these observations were it not for the attack which had been made on the colony of Queensland. Now it was quite possible that a fair and beneficial traffic might be conducted between the islanders and colonies, and that, at the same time, abuses might exist calling for interference. A well-regulated system of imported labour benefited both the colonies and the Natives imported, who were thus brought under civilizing and humanizing influences, and taught habits of industry and providence. Hon. Members must not fall into the error of checking a useful and a wholesome system because of abuses which might be remedied. He learnt from the Blue Book that every effort was being made by the authorities in Queensland to conduct the system of the importation of labour into the colony in a fair and legitimate manner. It was only very recently that an arrangement had been made that an agent should accompany the vessels engaged in it, on the back voyage as well as on their first importation, with the view of preventing the possibility of abuses, and he was informed that many of the islanders whose term of labour had expired had expressed a wish to be re-engaged to serve in the colonies. The subject, it was clear, was one which must be dealt with with caution, and, following the example of the hon. Member for Leicester, he would not enter into an examination of the various cases mentioned in the Blue Book. There were, undoubtedly, horrors depicted, from which the mind of any Christian or civilized man must shrink; but no advantage would, he thought, result from a reference to individual instances on the present occasion. He could only say on the part of the Government that they took the greatest interest in the question, and England had in times past spoken such brave words, done such great deeds, and endured such heavy sacrifices, in order to put down slavery, that the very stones would cry out against them if they continued unmoved witnesses of such atrocities as those to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. Animated by such feelings the Government would use every effort to put an end to a state of things which was a disgrace to Christianity and to civilization. They would do their utmost to prevent abuses; but if the trade could not be carried on in a fair and legitimate manner, then perish the trade, and in acting upon that view the Government would, he felt sure, be supported by public opinion.

said, it was somewhat extraordinary to him, who had never had the honour of occupying a seat on the Treasury bench, to see in what a calm judicial sort of way subjects such as that before the House were treated by Members of the Government. His hon. Friend who had just sat down had, indeed, indulged in eloquent denunciations of the system of which his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) complained; but what was required was a plain, straightforward course of policy for the purpose of putting an end to it. Reference had been made in the course of the discussion to Mr. Buxton, whose loss hon. Members generally so much deplored; but the name of Lord Clarendon should not be forgotten in dealing with the question, nor that of Lord Palmerston, who had a real horror of slavery, in whatever shape or place it appeared, and who, after Wilberforce, had done more than any other man to give his opinions with respect to it due effect. He deprecated our being parties to the encouragement of slavery on the East Coast of Africa. The speech of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies would go to the justification of virtual slavery in Queensland. [Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: No, no!] What was taking place there was like the beginning of African slavery; and they must take care that the same results did not occur. He (Mr. Kinnaird) was happy to find from the despatches of Lord Kimberley that the subject was being taken up by the Government—he thought the despatches were better than the speeches of his hon. Friend — but at the same time the matter required to be closely watched, for while they gave utterance to sound principles, they were sometimes apt to be lax in insisting on their being carried out in practice.

said, the question he had to bring under the consideration of the House was one which had arisen out of the great war that had so lately ceased. That war, so full of stupendous events that it absorbed the attention of the whole world while it lasted, had now become a thing of the past. Intense as was the interest it excited, the impression it made was already beginning to fade from their minds. The mists of time rising up between them and it would soon obscure its features, and new events would shut it altogether out of sight. Let it go, then; but, before it was forgotten, let them discharge the two duties it had bequeathed to them. The first of these was to put in practice the lessons it had taught. They were making an attempt to perform this duty, and he feared not a very successful one; but he need not dwell on that, for that was not the duty to which he had to refer. The second duty was that of which he had to speak, and it was that of rewarding those who, by their conduct during the late war, had deserved well of the nation. In that direction, too, they had been doing something; but, in his humble opinion, much remained to be done. He rejoiced, indeed, that Her Majesty's Ministers had rewarded the services of a comparatively young diplomatist, who was intrusted with most important duties at Versailles. He should be glad if he should receive the higher reward which was said to be in contemplation for him, and the bestowal of which would, he should imagine, excite a salutary spirit of emulation among all the officers of the service to which he belonged. Other honours had been conferred upon other deserving men. But he contended that there were persons, of whom he was about to speak, whose services had been second to none in importance, but who, nevertheless, so far from receiving any of the sunshine of favour, had had, on the contrary, the cold shade of discouragement cast upon them. He spoke of those who throughout this war were charged with that onerous, responsible, and, he would say, perilous duty of ministering to the sick and wounded in the field, and who, in fact, were the representatives of the British nation in carrying out their part of that most Christian and most hallowed of all treaties, the Convention of Geneva. The Convention of Geneva was signed by Her Majesty's Government on the 18th of February, 1865; but, so far as he knew, no attempt had been made up to the commencement of the late war, at all events, on a grand scale, to fulfil the sacred task imposed on them by that Convention—namely, the succour of the sick and wounded of foreign Armies in the field. At last, however, the attempt had been made, and made with the most perfect success, and on account of the charitable help thus rendered, if on no other, this last war might be reckoned among the most memorable that were ever waged. He said that if it were better to save life than to destroy it, to keep up a store of friendly and enduring memories rather than one of hatred and vengeance, then the war which had just ceased must be regarded as, in the truest sense, the most glorious which they had on record, and that to which they must ever look back with the most unalloyed and enduring satisfaction — so far, at least, as they had had anything to do with it. But, lest he should be thought to be exaggerating the value of charitable help to Armies during a war, he would quote to the House a sentence from a well-known writer on the subject, M. Frégier. He says—

"At every period and among all nations, from Cyrus down to Napoleon III., the personnel and matériel of the Army medical departments, charged with the care and transport of the victims of war, have been insufficient. This was an undisputed and incontestable fact, written on every page of the world's military annals."

Indeed, up to 1797 no attempt whatever had been made by belligerent States to provide even for their own sick and wounded, and it was only in the last few years that any real progress had been made. To go no further back than the beginning of this century, the book called Help for the Sick and Wounded, showed that six days after the Battle of Eylau thousands of wounded were weltering in their gore, untended, in the town of Thorn, to which they had been conveyed. On the third day after Solferino many wounded still remained on the field of battle, exposed to a fierce sun and suffering from the agony of their wounds and the horrors of thirst. The wounded at Alma passed two nights on the field of battle, untended. No single State could provide a sufficient medical staff and comforts enough for the wounded after a great battle. When they thought of the care required by a single sufferer the firmest mind succumbed at the idea of 40,000 wounded all at once invoking assistance after such battles as Solferino, Sadowa, and those of the three memorable days before Metz, as described to us by the graphic pen of Mr. Winn. All honour, then, to those who were introducing the great and blessed change in war prescribed by the Convention of Geneva. The help rendered by the English nation to the French and Germans during the late war was not unworthy of a great people in such a cause, and was most honourable to those who stood at the head of the movement by which it was supplied, of whom he would mention only the Duke of Manchester and the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay). But let not the labours of those by whom it was dispensed be overlooked. It would occupy too much time to refer to all of these. He would mention only three names, and those the most conspicuous. In the first place, there were Deputy Inspector General Gordon and Dr. Wyatt, who were sent by the War Department as Medical Commissioners to the French Army, and who arrived in Paris on the 2nd of September. Those gentlemen might easily have followed the example set them in higher quarters, and have left the city during the siege. But they remained, and became honorary members of the ambulances, and subsequently members of the committee for distributing the £20,000 brought by the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire as a donation from the people of England to the sick and wounded. They gave professional assistance to the wounded in the field at the great sorties of Malmaison on the 21st of October, of Champigny on the 30th of November, and of Drancy and Bourget on the 21st of December. For those services they were created by the Provisional Government Officers of the Legion of Honour, but they had not received permission to accept and wear the decoration. The third case was that of Captain H. Brackenbury, of the Royal Artillery. That officer commenced his labours in connection with this subject so long back as 1867. He was one of the original working committee of the British National Society for Aid to the Sick and Wounded in War, and on the application of the Central Committee of that society to the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State for War his services were placed at the disposal of the Committee for organizing the society's staff on the Continent at the seat of war. Captain Brackenbury left England on the 3rd of September for Belgium, and there, in the Palais de Justice, at Arlon, on the frontier of France, he organized a depôt from which the urgent wants of the 20,000 wounded in the hospitals round Sedan were supplied. He visited the hospitals at Sedan, Balan, Bazeilles, Douzy, and Beaumont, where English doctors were at work, many of whom had laboured in the field during the battles. On the 24th of September he proceeded to the Prussian lines round Metz, established hospitals with English surgeons at Saarbrück and Briey, and supplied the wants of the hospitals in the villages within the lines, which were crowded with wounded French and German soldiers. He was present at the sortie upon Peltre on the 27th of September. During October he assisted in re-organizing the French Society's ambulances, and laid down lines of supply for the hospitals near Paris. Upon the capitulation of Metz, on the 29th of October, he was the first to introduce waggons laden with the necessaries of life into the town, by which the desperate wants of 20,000 famishing and wounded men were relieved. For this he received the thanks of the Bishop of Metz, the chief surgeon of the French Army of the Rhine, and other authorities. He then proceeded to Meaux, where he organized a depôt, which was of immense service, as well to the French as to the Saxons and Würtembergers, after the great sorties of the 30th of November and that of the 19th of December, at both of which he was present. His services were also conspicuous at the bombardment of Thionville, Mézières, and other minor places. It was easy to make this statement; but it was difficult, or rather impossible, to depict in true colours the hardships which those services entailed, the sleepless nights, the sufferings from intense cold, the wretched food—at Metz it consisted of little but half-starved horse—the constant necessity of living among horrible sights and smells, and in contact with loathsome diseases such as smallpox, typhus, and dysentery, to say nothing of the frequent exposure to the fire of the enemy. To all this were added the gravest responsibilities and mental anxiety, lest some act should unwittingly compromise the British neutrality, while every effort was being used that nowhere suffering should be left unrelieved. It must be admitted that no more difficult or important duties could have been imposed than those which devolved on Captain Brackenbury and his coadjutors. All honour to him and them that they were so well performed as to obtain thanks and proffered decorations from all the belligerents, alike from the Bavarians and Prussians, as from the French. He said proffered decorations, because it appeared that our Foreign Office regulations forbade these decorations being worn, and the Prussians, at all events, did not choose that their crosses should be sent to those who were forbidden to wear them. As the Regulations were drawn up in the first instance before the Convention of Geneva, and as that Convention had given rise to a branch of military service which was no less important and no less deserving of decoration than the combative, it would be not inexpedient that the officers who distinguished themselves in it should be permitted to accept and wear foreign Orders and medals conferred on them by the belligerent States they assisted. He could not himself see that the prohibitions in the Regulations distinctly applied to the officers of whom he had been speaking. For what was the wording of those Regulations? It was as follows:—

"No subject of Her Majesty shall accept a foreign Order from the Sovereign of any foreign country, or wear the insignia thereof, without having previously obtained Her Majesty's permission to that effect, signified by a warrant under the Royal Sign Manual. Such permission shall not be granted to any subject of Her Majesty unless the foreign Order shall have been conferred in consequence of active and distinguished service before the enemy, either at sea or in the field; or unless he shall have been actually and entirely employed, beyond Her Majesty's dominions, in the service of the foreign Sovereign by whom the Order is conferred."

The first remark he would make on these Regulations was that they did in effect bind only the officers in Her Majesty's service, for other persons evaded or openly broke them. In the next place he was unable to see why attention to the wounded in the field should not be considered as tantamount to "active and distinguished service before the enemy in the field." But he was bound to accept the interpretation put upon the words by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He asked, then, that an humble Address might be presented to Her Majesty praying that these Regulations might be revised and so far modified as to allow of officers who had specially distinguished themselves in serving with the ambulances, or under the Red Cross of the Convention of Geneva, accepting and wearing foreign decorations given to them in requital of their services. He asked this on three grounds—first, because this appeared to be the simplest, if not the only way of rewarding such services; secondly, because it was for the honour and advantage of the State that every encouragement should be given to this new department of military service; and, thirdly, as a graceful act of courtesy to the foreign Governments by which these decorations had been proffered. He would remind the House that the services which would be thus rewarded had been spoken of by the representative of one of those Governments in the following remarkable terms:—

"Ces élans tous spontanés d'une sympathie fraternelle feront plus pour assurer l'alliance des doux peuples que les combinaisons de la politique ou les calculs de la diplomatic"

He must observe that General Walker and Captain Hozier, military attachés at the Prussian head-quarters, had been permitted to accept and wear the Prussian Iron Cross. Those officers could not have obtained those decorations by service in the field, or they would have violated the laws of neutrality. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Eastwick) that it was with extreme regret that he felt called upon on the part of the Foreign Office to offer a negative to the Resolution. He regretted it, first of all, because the hon. Gentleman, who with very good taste had introduced the subject, had bestowed only merited praise on the gentlemen who had taken so conspicuous a part in the relief of suffering; and, secondly, because it was always an ungracious task to offer opposition to the expression of feeling on the part of the House with respect to the rewards of persons who had distinguished themselves, whether in civil, military, or naval operations. But the rules of the Foreign Office on this subject, though they might seem harsh, were perfectly fair, because they were so simple that no private influence could be brought to bear to allow this person or that person to receive and wear a foreign decoration. The rules with regard to foreign Orders were strictly limited to subjects of Her Majesty who had performed distinguished services before the enemy in the field or by sea, or who were employed with Her Majesty's permission in the service of a foreign Sovereign. Non-combatants in any war, whether Great Britain was or was not a party to the war, were excluded by those rules. Therefore under these regulations no decorations offered by the French and German authorities could be accepted by British subjects. The rule with regard to foreign decorations, although very stringent, did not apply with the same severity with regard to foreign medals. They might be received with permission, supposing the services rendered had been performed by persons with the knowledge, sanction, and express authority of those acting on behalf of Her Majesty, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for War, or the First Lord of the Admiralty. It was on that principle that General Walker and Captain Hozier had been allowed to accept the Prussian Iron Cross, which was a medal, and not a decoration, and which was also presented to them as a souvenir of the campaign. He was sure there was no one in the House who would not render a most grateful tribute of praise and sympathy to the persons referred to by the hon. Gentleman for their most humane services to the sick and wounded during the late war, but unfortunately that work did not come exactly within the category he had stated. They were able to leave that work if they felt disposed to do so; they were not called upon to report on the subject to Her Majesty's Government. The Royal licence had always been necessary for acceptance of foreign Orders. They had been rare till the present century, but Queen Elizabeth committed Sir Anthony Shirley into close custody in 1593 for having accepted a French Order without having permission, and made him send back the insignia to the French King. The present rules were established by Lord Castlereagh in 1812. In his note to the Prince Regent he said they were intended "to prevent a spirit of political intrigue among the persons employed on foreign service." Men very distinguished not only in politics but in every branch of public life had frequently received offers of decorations from learned societies in Prussia, France, and Denmark, but in everyone of these cases permission to accept these decorations was refused. And when he mentioned the names of Lord Macaulay, Sir David Brewster, Sir John Herschel, and Professors Owen and Faraday, who were offered foreign decorations, but were not allowed to receive them under these regulations of the Foreign Office, he was quite sure the House would be of opinion that no private or political influence was allowed to interfere with the enforcement of these rules. The Constitution of the United States forbade any officer in their service accepting a decoration without the consent of Congress. He was not aware that consent had ever been given. In 1865 the United States Government declined to apply for that consent to enable Lieutenant Pearson, of their Navy, to accept the C.B. which the British Government offered to him for services in co-operation with the naval forces of England, France, and Holland in Japan. There was good reason to believe that the late lamented Mr. Peabody was precluded by the rules of his own country from accepting a decoration which was offered to him by Her Majesty. If these rules were altered he believed the Secretary of State would be put in a painful position with reference to the adjudication of claims of persons to be permitted to accept these decorations. He hoped the House would think that no better rules could be adopted than those which at present existed at the Foreign Office.

said, the noble Lord (Viscount Enfield) always gave very clear answers to any Question that was put to him, but the noble Lord had altogether abstained from stating to the House the reasons upon which these rules were founded. If such rules existed at all he thought they ought at least to be impartially and completely carried out. It appeared to him very anomalous that our military officers were allowed to wear the Medijie, a Turkish Order granted for service in the Crimea. Again, those persons who were sent out at different times to a foreign Court on the occasion of a ceremony such as a coronation were allowed, and very properly allowed, to wear the Orders which the foreign Sovereign conferred on them. He thought that Englishmen betrayed great shyness in wearing decorations of any kind. At present he thought the system was not at all well regulated, some men being allowed to wear foreign decorations and others not being allowed to do so.

said, he must express his regret that the Government intended to oppose the Motion. He would remind the noble Lord (Viscount Enfield) that these Regulations were made before such a thing as the Red Cross Society was heard of. He thought the Foreign Office took a very narrow view of the question. Surely if officers of the Army, such as Captain Hozier and General Walker, were allowed to receive foreign decorations, those who had served in the cause of humanity ought also to be allowed to receive them. The only persons who ought not to receive them were those connected with our Diplomatic Service. For a long time he had doubts as to the value of these ambulance corps in time of war; but it was now an accomplished fact, and they must play an important part in all future wars. The more thoroughly the fact was recognized the better, and the sooner those who served under the Geneva Convention were brought under the control and discipline of the Army they were serving the better. It was a great thing to encourage the movement, and allow those who served under the Red Cross to wear the decorations of the country they had served, as it must tend to greater cordiality between all parties. He hoped the Government, at no distant day, would consider the matter and consent to the alteration which had been suggested.

said, he concurred in the principle of the Motion, but he thought it would be invidious and unwise to limit the decorations to those only who were in Her Majesty's service. It would be unjust and cruel so to exclude those men who had rendered valuable assistance in the field because they were not attached to the Army. Under the circumstances, he must oppose the Motion.

said, it was not often he had the misfortune to differ from his Friends and support Her Majesty's Government; but on that occasion he hoped the Government would not accede to the Motion, but would persist in their determination to oppose this very improper and un-English innovation. It had always been the pride of Englishmen to rely on their reputation, and not on paltry Orders and decorations as a return for their services. Everyone knew that foreign decorations were distributed more for political services than for real merit; and people who chose to spend money when they were abroad could get any decoration, or even title, which they desired. The Motion appeared laudable and plausible enough; but he liked to see an Englishman distinguished by the acts he did, and not by the tomfoolery of trumpery things to be worn upon his breast. He was once on board a steamer with a Queen's Messenger who was in private dress; but on arriving at a foreign port, the Queen's Messenger pulled out a string of decorations and placed them on his breast—it afterwards appearing that he was an Isle of Dogs man who had served under the late Sir De Lacy Evans.

said, he would support the Amendment, on the ground that the Government ought to give every encouragement to persons who had rendered service to the sick and wounded under the Geneva Convention. It was not the general opinion of the public that these decorations were tomfoolery and trumpery things. He thought the noble Lord's (Viscount Enfield's) argument was not supported by his reference to America, because Republicanism was opposed to honours like those in question.

said, he took a similar view. He hoped an exception to the general rule would be made in favour of such men as Captain Brackenbury and Mr. John de Haviland. His objection to the Motion was that it confined foreign honours to officers in Her Majesty's service. He suggested that the hon. Member (Mr. Eastwick) should amend his Motion by adding the words, "where such permission was required."

said, he did not undervalue the services of soldiers in the field; but he submitted it was unfair that the man who spent night after night in attendance on the wounded and dying on the field of battle should receive no reward because he was a non-combatant officer — because he had not helped to kill. He did not see how the modification of the Foreign Office rules relating to honours would give rise to the exercise of private influence, or cause innumerable applications to be made to the Department. The honours were to be given by those who had the best means of judging of the merit of the men upon whom they were to be conferred. He hoped the Government would accede to the Motion. No valid argument had been adduced against it, and he thought the sooner the existing ridiculous red tape Regulations were abolished the better.

said, he would move to omit the words, "when such services have been performed with the permission of Her Majesty," which, in his opinion, gave the Motion the limited character to which he had objected.

said, he intended to have framed his Amendment in such a way as to include all persons. He was therefore willing to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley.)

said, it would be his duty to take the sense of the House again upon the subject, for this was a matter that ought to be considered fully, and not with reference to an isolated point. He felt a great objection to indicating in a precise and positive manner one particular subject on which Her Majesty should be requested to alter existing Regulations on a matter which the House had not been accustomed to take into its hands, and with respect to which it was desirable that if any representation was to be made to Her Majesty, that representation should be made in general terms, so as to leave to the Crown as much liberty as possible in dealing with the subject. An Address of a definite and pointed nature, indicating a particular class of persons to be exempted, was not the proper mode of dealing with the matter, for all the various classes of persons who came under the rules should also have their cases considered.

said, the object of his Amendment was exactly in accordance with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

rose to move that a prompt, searching, and impartial inquiry be made into the circumstances connected with the interference by the Irish Executive with the right of meeting in Dublin on the 6th instant. The hon. Member said he felt deep regret at the necessity of his having to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice; but a grievous wrong had been done in Ireland — the Executive Government in utter disregard of their duty to the Sovereign, to the people, and to the Constitution had dispersed by force a meeting convened for a lawful purpose, and shed the blood of a large number of the citizens of Dublin wantonly and illegally in their desire to trample on one of the most sacred and cherished rights and liberties of a free people. Under these circumstances, painful as was the task of arraigning the conduct of the Irish Executive, he could not shrink from the duty of inviting the attention of the House to the disastrous course adopted, and asking their judgment thereon. At such a time as this when the general Government was sedulously enforcing the doctrine that identical laws and a similar mode of administering them in England and Ireland was an essential feature of their policy, he looked upon the question involved in his Notice as one of great importance, because the action taken by the Irish Executive seemed to import that Her Majesty's Irish Executive intended there should be one rule in England with regard to the right of holding public meetings and presenting Petitions, and another in Ireland; that, in fact, there was to be freedom in England, but that in Ireland the constitutional liberties of the people were to be crushed by the batons of policemen. In England, meetings such as he did not wish to describe by any special epithet, but which inculcated Republican doctrines with a freedom that must astonish many, had been held in the Royal Parks, in Trafalgar Square, and other places directly under the control of the Government without being interfered with; but a meeting called for a legal and lawful purpose in Ireland, for the purpose of asking the Sovereign to carry to completion a work of mercy which she had commenced, had been dispersed by the police, blood being freely shod, and over 100 persons injured more or less severely. The men who had, with a frankness almost amounting to daring, accepted the consequences of this calamitous contempt for the law, for the peace of the country, for the lives and for the liberties of the people, were the worst enemies of British connection, and had done more by the one day of bloodshed and riot which they inaugurated to stimulate the cry for home rule than the association organized for promoting that change could effect in years. They practically told the Irish people there was a union in name, but no union in fact. The same laws might apply, but they must be administered in a different spirit and in a different manner, and while the rights of the people would be protected in England, in Ireland they would be extinguished in the blood of the people. Several questions had been put upon the Notice Paper of that House with regard to the circumstances attending this meeting, and in answer to one of the principal of these it was frankly stated that no sworn informations had been laid before the authorities to show that any breach of the peace was expected to result from the holding of the meeting now under consideration. Even the elastic conscience of a police spy could not be stretched to the point of suggesting that a breach of the peace was expected to result from the meeting if it were permitted to be held. Notwithstanding this the meeting was forcibly suppressed by the police contrary to law, and without even due notice of such intended suppression having been given. Having briefly stated the preliminary circumstances relating to the holding of the meeting, the hon. Member said he admitted that in Phœnix Park, as in the English Parks, lawful meetings, such as the one to which his Motion referred, could be legally prevented if proper steps were taken by the proper persons for the purpose; but they could not be dispersed by force, and he could not conceal the fact that in England, although, the law was the same in the two countries, no meeting had been dispersed by the use of bludgeons, nor had the free soil of England been stained by the blood of freemen anxious to exercise the right of meeting in public for the discussion of public questions. As he had said, the law relating to the right of meeting in the Parks and public places was precisely the same in England as in Ireland. That law, as laid down by Lord Westbury—while he was still Sir Richard Bethell — Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and Mr. Justice Willes, was that meetings in Royal Parks could only be prevented by locking the people, anxious to hold such meetings, outside the Park gates, and that once inside the gates people could only be prevented holding meetings by, in the first place, the service of notices upon each of the individuals taking part in the proceedings; and in the second gentle removal of the "trespassers" if the notices were disregarded. The Government which was in power at the time this opinion was given was the party predecessors of the men who, instead of acting on the legal advice of the Law Officers of their own party, allowed a lawful meeting to assemble in the Dublin Park, placed the police in ambush, and, having entrapped the people illegally, dispersed the crowd with merciless and brutal force. When a large Reform meeting was about to be held in Hyde Park, London, the then Cabinet—Lord Derby's—considered the opinion of Sir Alexander Cockburn, Mr. Justice Willes, and Lord Westbury, better known as Sir Richard Bethell, and they acted on it. They did not entrap the people by allowing them to assemble, and then batter their heads with bludgeons. They were, however, dealing with the English people, and, possibly, that was the chief cause for their keeping within the law. They said we have no legal authority to disperse a lawful meeting, but we have a right to control the Park gates, and they locked the gates and shut the people out, as they were by law entitled to do. The House would remember what followed. By some mysterious operation the rails were levelled with the ground, and the people, no longer shut out, crowded the Park; but neither sabre nor baton caused English blood to flow, and meetings have since been freely held in Hyde Park. Lord Derby's Government then took an opinion from their Law Officers—the present Lord Cairns and Chief Justice Bovill—and the question put to them was—

"Whether, supposing a number of persons to have already entered Hyde Park, and to form themselves into a meeting for the discussion of political subjects, there is any legal authority to disperse such meeting by force, even though a general notice had been given that meetings of that description would not be allowed?"

The question then put by Lord Derby's Cabinet applied precisely to the circumstances which had occurred in Dublin. A public notification had been given that a meeting was about to be held in the Phœnix Park. But on Saturday night—he might almost say surreptitiously—a counter notice was signed, not by the Police Commissioners, not by the Lord Lieutenant, not by the Chief Secretary, not by the Under Secretary, not by any known officer of the Government, but by a respectable and inoffensive gentleman named Hornsby, Secretary to the Board of Works, and whose very name was unknown to 1 per cent of those who were likely to attend the meeting. That notice was issued late on Saturday night, though it was known for some days that the public meeting, which this notice was professedly designed to prevent, was about to be held on Sunday. He would like to inform the House who were the men, and what the association under whose auspices the meeting was about to be held. They were the members of an association whose president was one of Her Majesty's counsel in Ireland; and it was announced that a Member of that House would take the chair — almost in itself a sufficient guarantee that order and decorum would prevail during the proceedings. Moreover, the association to which he referred had for many months held public and official communication with the officers of the Government. On a previous occasion a meeting had been announced to be held under the auspices of the association at a place called Cabra, about a mile and a-half or two miles from Dublin, and it was part of the programme that those who were to attend the meeting would assemble in their respective quarters of the City and suburbs, and form processions, which would pass through the thoroughfares of the City. A notice was issued, signed by the Commissioners of Police, stating that such processions through the public thoroughfares would not be allowed. The consequence was that an interview took place between some members of the association and the Under Secretary for Ireland, and that an official correspondence passed between them, the result being that the moment it was shown to the association that the law empowered the police authorities to prevent the processions through the public thoroughfares they abandoned that part of the programme, and a large meeting of the most orderly character was held. He mentioned these circumstances to show that the association had proved itself to be worthy of confidence by its previous acts, and that if it had been properly communicated with in the present instance the collision between the police and the people might have been avoided. That, however, had not been done; no official communication had been made to the president of the association which had called the meeting, or to the intended chairman, Mr. Smyth, who no doubt was not one of those nervous men who, if he felt that he was perfectly right in holding the meeting, would have abandoned what he would regard as a public duty. But be that as it might, the police did not go through the formality of communicating with him, though his address was well known to them, and he was within easy distance—not one mile and a-half from the Police Commissioner's office. Now, he would return to the question which had been put to Lord Cairns and Lord Chief Justice Bovill, and the answer which they had returned to it. They said—

"We are bound to state that, though the legal right of removal is such as we have described, we do not think that in the case of any large assembly that right could practically be exercised with safety, or that such an assembly could be dispersed by force in the sense in which the term is ordinarily understood. The right of removal is a right to remove each separate individual as a trespasser by putting him out of the Park, using just so much force (and no more) as is necessary for that purpose. It is a separate right against each individual. The assembly, assuming it to be orderly, are not united in doing an illegal act, and there is no right to disperse them or coerce them as a body of rioters or disorderly persons. … . On the whole, we should answer the question proposed to us by saying that in our opinion there is not for any practical purpose a legal authority to disperse by force a meeting of the kind supposed, consisting of a large number of persons, and that whether notice has or has not been given beforehand." [28th July, 1866.]

It was not true, then, as was alleged by some, that the law of the question was uncertain and undefined. The law was clear and indisputable. The Crown had just so much power over the Royal Parts as a duke has over his ducal park, or any hon. Member in this House has over his demesne or his field. Any person coming into the park or field, if he come against the will and consent of the owner, is a trespasser, and he may be ordered off, and, refusing, may be removed with just so much force as is essentially requisite, but no more. The concurrent opinions of Chief Justice Cockburn, Lord Westbury, Lord Cairns, Mr. Justice Willes, and. Mr. Justice Bovill, declared that to be the law. In England these opinions were accepted and acted on, but in Ireland the bludgeon of the policeman was above the law. He (Sir John Gray) would ask if any Gentleman in that House would dare assault a trespasser on his field with bludgeon, or pitchfork, or spade; and the Irish Executive had no more right to assault with a policeman's baton than the private owner had to assault with scythe or pitchfork any trespasser on his field. He would ask the House for a moment to examine the law as to the Phœnix Park. By the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 22, the Chief Commissioner of Works in England, who previously exercised control over the Phœnix Park, was empowered to depute his authority to the Commissioner of Public Works in Ireland; and in that Act the Phœnix Park is tabulated with, scheduled, so to speak, with Hyde Park, and the other English Parks. The law of England and Ireland applicable to all the tabulated Parks was therefore identical, and the law, as laid down by the eminent legal authorities cited, as applicable to Hyde Park was applicable to Phœnix Park. There was no legal authority to disperse a lawful meeting held in that Park by force. What was the course pursued by Lord Derby's Government when the law of England was declared on that matter by Lord Cairns and Chief Justice Bovill? Did that Government order the police of London, with batons in their hands, to go and disperse any meeting assembled in Hyde Park? Nothing of the kind. He introduced a Bill to alter the law and make the holding of a meeting in any of the Royal Parks a misdemeanour—a criminal offence. But the people of England, Lords and Commons, unwilling that the ancient laws of England should be altered, refused to convert a mere trespass into a criminal offence, and the Bill was withdrawn. The late Lord Derby, speaking in "another place," said that, according to the opinion of the law officers of a preceding Government, they had a right to exclude the public, but not to eject by force, or otherwise interfere with persons who had obtained entrance into the Park without previous notice, unless they were misconducting themselves; and that even in that case the Crown had no right beyond that which an ordinary proprietor had to remove trespassers on his property; that the Crown had a right to remove them gently, using just so much force as was necessary, but no more. They might have their pound of flesh, but no blood. But blood was shed in Ireland, because it was Ireland. Instead of dealing with these persons in Dublin as trespassers, they were dealt with as rioters and vagabonds, and charged upon by the police with drawn bludgeons, not by order of Mr. Hornsby, as was at first thought, but, as it now appeared, by order of the Irish Executive. He would not trespass on the time of the House by reading in full the extracts he had made from the speech of Lord Derby on that occasion. He would, however, briefly state the substance of it. He had said that his Government took the only course which, according to the legal opinions before them, they could have taken—namely, that of excluding the people by shutting the gates of the Park; that the unfortunate results of that proceeding were well known, and that certainly, whatever might be the rights of the Crown, his Government were not disposed to repeat the experiment which had led to such disastrous consequences. Now, he must do the present Government of Ireland the justice to say that they did not repeat that experiment by keeping the people out of the Park at Dublin. On the contrary, the gates were flung open, the people allowed—nay, encouraged to assemble. The police went there, but they were kept in ambush, and hidden from the view of the people. When the chairman was chosen there were only three policemen loitering about the place, just enough to make a show of authority, seemingly as if to watch the proceedings. Those who issued or procured the issue of the proclamation against the meeting ought at least to have had the prudence and foresight to act in such a way as to prevent bloodshed, but instead of doing that they seemed to act as if their object was to stimulate a riot. Had they marched a force of 20 men to the base of the pillar, taken possession of the site of the proposed meeting, warned the people off, and prevented a gathering, they might have suppressed the right of public meeting and the right of petition—but there would have been no breaking of skulls, no bloodshed. This they did not do, and he contended that when a Government resolved to suppress a popular right it was their duty to do it with humanity, if they did it at all, and not do it with the certainty of creating riot. But, instead of moving boldly, one police officer and two or three attendant policemen went to the place of meeting. They went up towards Mr. Smyth, the chairman, when the people on the sloping steps leading to the base of the monument, reaching over to see what was going on, overbalanced themselves and came accidentally pell-mell upon all who were lower on the slope, including, of course, the policemen. The Times' correspondent, describing the occurrence in a special telegram, said—

"Their hats were knocked off, and themselves roughly treated; they retired, and proceeding to the other side of the monument, they saw a large force of the metropolitan police coming up. These the crowd received with groans and hisses, and on coming up they formed into a compact body and proceeded to the base of the monument. The order was given to clear the ground. The police moved round to where the chairman and other persons were; the police rushed in freely using their batons; they caught hold of Mr. Smyth and others of the party in a violent manner."

The telegram went on to state that—

"Many of the crowd resisted and remonstrated, but their resistance and remonstrances were unheeded, and all who resisted were unmercifully struck. Many of them were knocked down and had their heads broken."

All the eye-witnesses agreed in saying that the rush was due to accident, and was not an attack on the police constables; and that when the police, who were placed in ambush, came up, they belaboured the unresisting crowd, tripping up those who were flying, and then brutally beating them when they fell. It was then, and not till then, that the people standing at a distance, and quite unconnected with the proceedings of the meeting, picked up stones and threw them at the police. This account of the conduct of the police was confirmed by the reports in various newspapers, many of whom were hostile to the views of the promoters of the meeting; but he would not read the extracts he had marked, as he had already trespassed too long on their indulgence. The police having battered and beaten off the ground the persons at the meeting, then proceeded to clear the Park by similarly brutal force, and beat in a similar way persons who had never heard of the meeting; and nearly 100 people, including men, women, and children, were more or less seriously injured. He asked whether the law was different in England and Ireland, and whether, there being no legal authority to disperse such a meeting by force in England, Irish subjects of the Queen were to be thus treated simply because they happened to be Irish? He had put this Notice in its present shape because of the bold avowal of the Government that Mr. Hornsby's proclamation was issued by their direction, and that they, and not he, were responsible for it. He had been told that he should have asked for a police inquiry into the matter; but such an inquiry would have been useless, inasmuch as the police merely acted under the orders of their officers, and the only evidence that they could have given was as to the number of heads they had broken. It might be interesting to statisticians, but of no use to those who were anxious to maintain order in Ireland. Possibly an examination of the batons might tell whether A 20, or some other of the force, rejoiced in breaking ribs, or, like an Indian brave, sought glory in scalps; but he had no idea of transferring to men in an humble position, who only obeyed orders, the guilt of the outrage committed by command of a superior power. What he desired was that a full inquiry should be had into the whole of the circumstances attending the dispersion by force of a lawful meeting, so that it might be ascertained by whose orders the police had acted, and whether there was really one law for England and another for Ireland. He objected to the course adopted by the Government in the matter as being illegal. Was the meeting illegal—were its objects unlawful? If they were, then it was the duty of the Government to prevent such a meeting from being held. But there was no pretence that it was unlawful in its objects or intent. The promoters convened the meeting at a place away from the thoroughfares, and in an out-of-the-way corner of Phœnix Park, in order to petition Her Majesty to extend her clemency to certain prisoners, and so complete a work of mercy already well-nigh accomplished by Her Majesty. If the meeting was unlawful in its purpose, then they must arraign the Queen, for she released seven-eighths of the prisoners. The Irish Ex-excutive by that act had done more to obliterate the union than the Home Rule Association could do in ten years. They had practically told the Irish race that, though they were united with England, the right of public meeting belonged to Englishmen, but was not to be allowed to Irishmen. They had told them that the right of petition belonged to free men, but not to them; and the Irish people would not be slow to conclude that the sooner they acquired the rights of freemen by trampling on the union the better. He (Sir John Gray), however, contended that the right to petition, the right freely to meet, either to ask for a redress of grievances, or to petition the Sovereign on any public question, was guaranteed by Magna Charta, by the Bill of Rights, and by many recent statutes and declarations. It was part of the Constitution, and to violate it was to relieve the subject of his allegiance. Against this violation of the Constitution—a violation in blood—he appealed to English Gentlemen; and while his personal respect for the high officials who committed this outrage against the constitutional rights of the people—the most sacred and cherished of them—would prevent him from saying anything personally hurtful to the feelings of any of those who were guilty of that wrong to the Sovereign and to the people, he must say they had proved themselves unworthy of the confidence of that House. He would not say of them in the words of Chatham, when speaking of the Ministers who advised the King to condemn the legitimate use of the right to petition, that they were knaves or fools; but instead he would say in the alternative words of that great statesman, that they ought rather be sent to school than intrusted with the government of such a country as Ireland. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he must remark that the Session began with the passing of an unconstitutional and aggressive Act against the Irish people, and was to close with the discussion of as great an outrage on the liberties of the people of that country as their history recorded. The blood of Irishmen and of Irish women and children had been spilt almost in the sight of the Heir Apparent to the Throne of Great Britain. He would remind the House that, while the meeting in Trafalgar Square had assembled to protest against the annuity to His Royal Highness Prince Arthur, the people of Dublin had given him a loyal and hearty welcome; but while the meeting in London was held in defiance of official warning, the meeting in Dublin was dispersed, without notice, by force. It was a poor requital for the heartiness with which they had received the members of the Royal Family who had visited the country; and it was, further, a great violation of the law. If the authorities had determined to prevent this meeting, it surely would have been only decorous on their part to have informed the Member of that House, who had agreed to take the chair, of the reasons which had induced them to take that step. Instead of that, a notice was issued by a man named. Hornsby, and posted up in a few places in Dublin, setting forth that the police had directions to prevent the meeting which was intended to be held in the Phœnix Park. Why was not that notice signed by a responsible person, and why did it not take the form of the Proclamation issued with respect to the Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square meetings, and recite the words of the Act of Parliament which made the holding of such meeting illegal? It was generally believed that the defenceless people were entrapped into a place where the police could make an attack upon them. There was no sworn information upon which these proceedings were taken, and neither the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, nor the Commissioner of Police had any legal right to disperse the meeting. He maintained that if anyone died from the injuries received in the Phœnix Park on that occasion the person who inflicted such injuries would be liable to be put on his trial for murder. His hon. Friend (Sir John Gray) simply asked for an inquiry into the circumstances such as was granted in the case of the riot in Hyde Park in 1855. Ireland was entitled in this respect to the same justice as was granted to England. A leading article in The Times in reference to the late riot commenced with the assertion that nothing could be more calculated to bring about mischief between the two countries than partiality in the administration of the law, and the writer went on to ask whether the authorities in London would have dared to do what had been done in Dublin. What occurred in 1866? The people insisted on holding a Reform meeting in Hyde Park; and when opposition was made to them they threw down 1,400 yards of railings, and broke the windows of Sir Richard Mayne and other obnoxious persons. Was there any prosecution of these people? None. In 1867 there were Reform meetings in Manchester and Edinburgh—where were they held? In the public Parks. Was there any attempt made to prevent these meetings? None. But Ireland was to be differently treated. Would the House not listen to their grievances? They asked for inquiry. Would it be refused? He was a party man; but he would not support a Government which refused to order a searching inquiry into this most deplorable event. The Solicitor General for Ireland would, no doubt, attempt to mystify the House; but he defied him to show that the meeting was either illegal or tumultuous. Had the people assembled conducted themselves in a riotous manner he admitted that the authorities would have been justified in dispersing the meeting; but it was quite otherwise. The people did not even march in procession to the meeting, and no stones were thrown till they had been driven from their position more than a quarter of a mile. There was not a stone to be found within a quarter of a mile of the place where the attack was made upon them, where there was nothing but grass. But if it were alleged that stones had been thrown at the police, let that form part of the inquiry. If such meetings were illegal, why had not the recent meetings in Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square been dispersed? If these meetings were legal, he insisted that the meeting held in Phœnix Park must, on the same grounds, be held to have been perfectly legal. It seemed as though there was some feeling of revenge against the people of Dublin for some act done by them. In 1867, the then Home Secretary (Mr. Walpole), finding it impossible to prevent Reform meetings in Hyde Park, introduced a Bill to enable him to do so; but that Bill he had been obliged to withdraw. There could be no doubt, therefore, that the people of London and of Dublin, so long as they properly conducted themselves, had a perfectly legal right to hold meetings in the Parks; and he specially relied on the speech delivered on that occasion by the present Chief Commissioner of Works, in which he stated that, while there were classes in the country to whom portions of the Parks were devoted for their amusement in many ways, he did not see why the people should be excluded from having portions even for holding meetings. The fact was, that there was a police despotism in Dublin. According to law the people who intended to hold such a meeting as that in the Phœnix Park ought to receive 24 hours' notice of the intention to stop it; but no such notice was given in this case, and those who were captured were taken before 12 o'clock next day before a magistrate. They were fined too small a fine to give them a right to appeal; and how could the people go with confidence before such a man and demand justice? He appealed for justice to that House, and he asked hon. Members to lay aside all party feeling, and teach Ireland that when a grievance was brought before them they were prepared to redress it.

said, he thought it somewhat extraordinary that the hon. Members who had occupied nearly two hours in making fervid appeals for fair dealing between the two countries should exhibit such reluctance to hear any statement opposed to theirs by attempting to interrupt the explanation he was about to make on the part of the Government by calls from an hon. Gentleman who was going to speak on the same side as themselves. He regretted that the discussion of this matter should have to be proceeded with at so late an hour—nearly 1 o'clock—for it was impossible that his statements on behalf of the Government could now receive from the reporters the attention he should desire. He hoped, however, that it would be made known that deplorable and much to be regretted as were the circumstances of this case, they had been greatly exaggerated in the accounts which had appeared in the public Press. A plain and simple statement of the facts would, he believed, cause a very different feeling to prevail upon the subject throughout the country. In answer to the hon. Members for Kilkenny and Cork (Sir John Gray and Mr. Downing), who asked whether there was one law for England as to public meetings and another for Ireland, he replied that there was not. [Sir JOHN GRAY: I said that the law was the same, but the administration of it was different.] That statement he emphatically denied, and he now would proceed to show the House that the object of the meeting in question, the time for which it was called, the place where it was to be held, and the other circumstances attending it made it the duty of the Government to exercise the power which they had never abandoned, either in the case of England or of Ireland, of preventing public meetings for certain purposes in the public Parks. With regard to the Motion, it was quite impossible for the Government to accede to it either in its form or substance. He did not think that an inquiry was essential to the peace of Ireland, and the expression "disastrous interference" prejudged, to a great extent, the question which the hon. Member wished to be inquired into. He also denied that there had been any interference with the right of free meeting in Dublin in any other place than that where the meeting now in question was held. The authorities had only interfered with the right of meeting under particular circumstances in a particular park which was the property of the Crown. With regard to the substance of the Motion, it proposed to include in the inquiry not only the conduct of the police in repressing the meeting, but also the conduct of the Irish Government in directing that the meeting should be prohibited. The Government did not shrink from any inquiry into their conduct; but if an inquiry were to be made Parliament should be the tribunal to make it, and not a Commission of any kind. They were prepared to lay their case before Parliament, and submit to the judgment that it might pass upon them. With regard to an inquiry into the conduct of the police, he thought it possible, though the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) attached little importance to that point, that such an inquiry might be necessary; but the present moment was premature for the purpose, as there were persons in custody for having committed a breach of the peace, and others had signified their intention of taking legal steps to test the lawfulness of what had been done. Some of the cases were already before the magistrates. In one way or another the proceedings of last Sunday must come before the Courts of Law, and there was no tribunal that could be appointed by that House could so properly investigate the matter as the ordinary Courts of Law. Should further inquiry be necessary, it would be the duty of the Government, without interference or prompting on the part of the House, to take care that a full and searching inquiry was made; but at present, at all events, there was no case for inquiry, and it would undoubtedly be premature. Two questions were involved—the legal power of the Government to prohibit the meeting, and, supposing that power to exist, the policy of exercising it. The first question he would leave to be dealt with by the Solicitor General; but he might state that the Irish Law Officers of the Crown were consulted in 1869, and they gave it as their opinion that the public had no right to meet in Phœnix Park except by the will of the Crown; and that opinion was acted upon at the time, and the proposed meeting was prohibited. As to the policy of exercising the power, he quite admitted that what had occurred of late years with respect to Hyde Park had raised a certain difficulty in dealing with the question. He was perfectly aware that in 1867—the railings having been pulled down in 1866—a meeting was held in Hyde Park, after notice had been given by the Government that it would not be permitted; he was also aware that subsequently political meetings had been held in Hyde Park, and the Government had not thought it necessary to interfere; but it was entirely untrue to say that the Government had ever relinquished their right, if they thought it necessary, to prohibit any meeting proposed to be held in a London park. No one had said that the power of the Government was to be exercised in a different manner in Ireland; all that they said was that in Ireland, as in England, they must use their discretion as to whether the power they possessed was to be exercised in a particular case or not. Supposing the Irish Government had thought it desirable to issue a positive prohibition of all political meetings in Phœnix Park, he was unable to admit that such a prohibition would be any slur on the inhabitants of Dublin or any indignity on the Irish people. It did not follow that it was most for the convenience of the people of Dublin generally that the Park should be used for public meetings; it was possible a large majority of the people might think that political meetings ought to be held elsewhere, and that the Phœnix Park should be exclusively reserved, as hitherto, for pleasure and recreation. Even were such a general prohibition enforced, he could not admit there would be any slur on the people of Dublin. It was perfectly well known that most of the provincial towns of England which had provided themselves with parks had adopted a by-law that they should not be used for any political or public meeting. The Irish Government claimed no power which the English Government did not claim as to exercising judgment and discretion when a meeting could be properly permitted and when it could not. He now came to the history of the meeting which was advertised on the Saturday in one or two Irish papers and by placards posted about the town. It was advertised as a "monster meeting," and, although there was not necessarily anything wrong in that, still it showed that it was not the kind of meeting which the Government should be expected to encourage, because it was not for discussion and for the instruction of the people, but its object was, if not intimidation, yet to produce an effect by a display of force. The advertisement ran—

"Agitate for the release of the political prisoners still confined in English dungeons. Protest against the cruelty of their prolonged incarceration."

Simultaneously there appeared in The Irishman in reference to the "Monster Demonstration to take place in Phœnix Park" this language—

"It is intolerable that alien Princes should come here in search of welcome while the power they represent still holds 50 Irish patriots in prison. It is only the duty of the people to demonstrate that patriots are dearer to their hearts than Princes."

Consider for one moment who these patriots were. The House was aware that the great majority of Fenian prisoners had been released. Those who remained in prison were not political prisoners at all; they were soldiers, who, in addition to the crime of high treason, had committed the crime of breaking the oath of allegiance they had taken to their Sovereign, and had also conspired to seize upon, and, in some instances, to murder, their brethren in arms. There were also those who had participated in the crimes of Manchester and Clerkenwell, and these were the prisoners referred to in the advertisement as patriots. There were other considerations. Phœnix Park had never been used for a public or political meeting, and yet Dublin had not been altogether a stranger to political agitation or to monster meetings. [Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNING said that in 1792 10,000 people met in the Park to petition Parliament.] That might be so; but it was not necessary to go further back than the present century to justify generally the statement he had made. In 1869 the Amnesty Association announced a monster meeting to be held in the Park; the notice was signed by the responsible leaders of the Association; the Law Officers of the Crown gave the opinion to which he had referred; it was decided that the meeting should not be permitted; notice was sent to those who signed the advertisement; and the meeting was held at Cabra. In this case no such notice could be given because the advertisement was not signed, and it was not even dated from the offices of the Amnesty Association. True, it named the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Smyth) as chairman; but it did not appear to the Government that an anonymous announcement of that sort would justify them in making any communication to him; and he did not think if the hon. Member addressed the House he would say he was not aware that notice had been given that the meeting would not be allowed. It must be remembered that unlike Hyde Park, Phœnix Park was the only park Dublin possessed, and it was much used, especially on Sundays, for amusement and recreation. In London, if a meeting were held in one park, people could go to another; but in Dublin, if people did not wish to run the risk of being interfered with by those attending the meeting, they must absent themselves from the Park altogether. In Dublin, as he was informed—he could not speak from local knowledge—there was no want of suitable places for public meetings. It was generally understood, he believed, that the meeting would not be attempted to be held in the Phœnix Park, but that it would be held at Harold's Cross, which, he was informed, would have been quite as convenient a place. It must also be recollected that in the Phœnix Park was situated the residence of the representative of the Queen, and that a demonstration which might be perfectly innocent in a place like Hyde Park, where there was no such residence, might assume a different character if held in close proximity to the residence of the Lord Lieutenant, assuming as it might the form of a threatening of the Queen's representative. Further, it must not, he thought, be forgotten that there were at the Viceregal Lodge at the moment the Prince of Wales, Prince Arthur, and Princess Louise, and after the passage which he had read from The Irishman it was, in his opinion, impossible altogether to disconnect the intention of the promoters of the meeting from an attempt to make a political demonstration of a character somewhat offensive to the tenant of the Viceregal Lodge. ["No, no!"] He wished to hear how those Gentlemen who cried "No" accounted for the paragraph to which he alluded, and which it must be borne in mind appeared in a paper which was edited by a gentleman who took a very important part at the meeting. ["Name!"] Mr. O'Byrne. Now, some remarks had been made on the point that the notice which had been issued preventing the meeting was signed with the name of Mr. Hornsby; but it was signed by him on behalf of the Commissioners of Public Works, who, as everybody in Dublin was aware, were the persons who regulated everything connected with the Phœnix Park, and who were the proper persons to issue the notice. Any doubt on that point would be removed by the fact that Mr. Nelson, the Secretary of the Amnesty Association, communicated personally with Mr. Hornsby in 1869. He now came to the measures which had absolutely been taken for the suppression of the meeting. He had already stated that the Irish Government held themselves responsible for the resolution not to permit the meeting, and they were no doubt equally responsible for the measures which had been taken by the police. But he had no hesitation whatever in acknowledging that the greater part of the arrangements were left by the Lord Lieutenant and himself to Colonel Lake, the Chief Commissioner of Police, a gentleman of great experience, and who was perfectly prepared to assume any responsibility which might attach to him. He was not ashamed to say that the Lord Lieutenant as well as himself thought the arrangements could be better made by a gentleman of his (Colonel Lake's) experience than by persons less acquainted with such matters. Colonel Lake made, he had no doubt, the best arrangements in his power; but it was impossible for him or for anyone else to foresee exactly what occurred. Having information on which he thought he could rely that the intention of holding the meeting in the Phœnix Park would be abandoned, he was of opinion that it would be better not to attract too much attention to the matter by parading ostentatiously a force of men on the spot. He sent up to the barracks close to the Park for the force which he considered necessary, and they were paraded, he (the Marquess of Hartington) was informed, in the paddock close to the Park, so that everybody entering the Park could see them, and could see that something unusual was going on. A few constables merely were kept on the spot as a precautionary measure, to take notice of what occurred, and keep order. Colonel Lake had assured the Lord Lieutenant and himself that he considered he had an ample force on the ground and in the neighbourhood, not to disperse those who had already gathered, but to prevent the assembly of any such meeting. He must admit, however, that Colonel Lake himself acknowledged that he was, to a certain extent, taken by surprise. A very few minutes before the occurrences to which attention had been called began, there were not apparently more people than usual in the Park. The first thing which arrived was a cab, which was covered with a placard stating that a meeting was to be held. That was followed almost immediately by another cab, in which was the hon. Member for Westmeath, and other persons who, he believed, intended to take part in the meeting. The arrival of the first cab appeared to have been taken as a kind of signal, for, with greater rapidity than the police thought possible, a great number of people congregated on the ground, as if by pre-concert, and formed a considerable crowd. As to what followed, there was, of course, an immense discrepancy in the accounts. Hon. Members were aware that certain accounts were given in the newspapers by the reporters, who were no doubt in a somewhat prominent position in the execution of their duty, and who naturally would give a somewhat excited description of what occurred. He had, however, received the accounts which had been given by the police, which he believed to be truthful, though they might not be accurate in every respect. He was informed that they would be substantiated in every particular on oath. It appeared that after the hon. Member for Westmeath and other gentlemen with him arrived they seemed so eager to form a meeting that they actually ran ["No, no!"] from the place where they got out of the cab to the steps of the monument. Mr. Hall, the superintendent of police, made his way to the monument at the same time. He admitted that he ascended the steps in order to remonstrate with the hon. Member and his friends. He was, however, violently repulsed. He made another attempt, and the same thing happened. He was hurled from the top of the steps to the bottom, and was then seized by several persons, who made a most violent assault upon him. He was happy to say that some of the gentlemen who took a prominent part in the meeting did what they could to save him; but, notwithstanding that, he was subjected to a severe assault. It was stated to Mr. Hall by the hon. Member for Westmeath and those who were with him that it was their intention to hold the meeting at whatever risk, and at that moment the police, who were stationed in the neighbourhood, arrived on the spot, and the order, he was informed, was given them to fall in. Then, and before a blow had been struck by any of the police, many were hit by stones which were thrown at them. The superintendent, on whom an assault had already been committed, and who saw that the promoters of the meeting were determined to hold it, gave an order to his men to advance. After that order had been given, he (the Marquess of Hartington) did not think there was any substantial difference between the accounts of the police and the reporters, excepting that it was denied by the police that they had used any unnecessary severity. There was no doubt that after some time, and after stones had been thrown at them, some members of the force lost their tempers somewhat, and they might possibly have attacked people who took no part in the riot. The circumstances of the case had been greatly exaggerated; but he was prepared to say that there was no foundation whatever for the statement that the police attempted to disperse the meeting by force. Everything had, in the first place, been done to induce its promoters to abandon their intention of holding it, and while they were still persisting in holding the meeting the police were attacked with stones. After that, and after the assault which had been committed on Superintendent Hall, there was, he apprehended, no longer any question of an orderly meeting being dispersed by force, but a riotous assembly. There was one statement which had been made over and over again, but which had been denied most emphatically by the police, and that was that women and children had been struck by them. In the hustling and violent proceedings, no doubt, some women and children might have been touched; but that they were deliberately struck by the police was most positively denied. Another statement had been made about what was called "the unprovoked attack" on the band. The facts were these. The conflict had been going on for some time, when the band, followed by an enormous crowd, arrived. The band was playing what he believed was recognized as a Fenian air; and no doubt the band and the accompanying crowd were looked upon as a reinforcement by those who had attended the meeting. It was only prudent, therefore, under the circumstances, to prevent the reinforcement from joining the main body, and that was the reason for the dispersion of the band. He did not know that there were any other circumstances of the case which it was necessary for him to go into. He had stated the ground upon which the Government thought it right to prohibit the meeting, and also why they thought it incumbent on them to use the power for that purpose which they possessed. He had also stated, as far as they had come to his knowledge, the measures taken for the suppression of the meeting, and the circumstances which occurred at it. He need not say that he deeply regretted what had occurred; he regretted that any of the citizens of Dublin should have received injuries, or that there should have been any collision between the Dublin population and the police. It was to be regretted on every ground; but more especially because it gave some colour to what he might call the frightful exaggerations which had been indulged in. He hoped the House would not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member, which, it must be admitted, involved a direct Vote of Censure on the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and on himself.

said, it was not in his power to assent to that Motion, because the taking of Supply depended on the debate being brought to a conclusion.

said, he would support the Motion for Adjournment. It was essential that the people of England should have full information of the facts of the case, and he had noticed that the reporters had not taken the trouble to give the statements of his hon. Friends who brought forward the Motion, while they had exhibited much activity in taking notes of what had fallen from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington).

said, that as the matter affected him personally, he must appeal to the House to give him an opportunity of vindicating himself and impeaching the Government.

said, he would suggest that Supply should be relieved from the Motion on the understanding that, in the course of next week, perhaps on Thursday, an opportunity should be given to hon. Gentlemen to express their sentiments on the subject.

said, he would agree to that, provided the First Minister of the Crown would give an assurance that the discussion would be proceeded with next week.

said, he would accept the suggestion.

said, he believed the best course would be formally to withdraw his Motion for the present, with the purpose of renewing it when the opportunity for discussion was afforded.