asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, as in accordance with the Furlough Regulations of 1796, medical officers of the Indian Army who had serveda period of twenty years or upwards were entitled to reckon three years' furlough to Europe out of such period towards service for pension, and that by the Furlough Rules of 1868, Ch. 3, rule xxxiv., published by the Government of India, 10th November 1868, No. 1064, those officers were informed that—

"If an officer under the Furlough Rules of 1796 elects the present rules, his service for pension will be reckoned under the former rules up to 1st July 1868, and thenceforward under the rules of 1868"

—in consequence of which statement many officers did elect such Furlough Regulations of 1868 for the remainder of their service—he can explain the al- teration made in Rule xxxiv. of the Regulations of 1868, republished by the Government of India 25th February 1874, No. 171, that—

"All periods of leave out of Indian limits taken previous to 1st July 1868 will be wholly excluded from his service for pension,"

and, how it came to be made retrospective in regard to those who had elected on the faith of the rules as published in 1868?

Sir, the Indian Army furlough regulations and retiring regulations are two distinct things. Under the retiring regulations of 1796 a certain minimum of years' actual service in India was required, and leave to Europe did not count as actual service in India. For instance, a man who had served 20 years, of which 17 were actual service in India, could retire upon a pension, not because he had 20 years' gross service, but because he had served 17 years actually in India. Under the furlough rules of 1854 and 1868 more favourable conditions were granted to officers, and a certain amount of leave of absence according to length of service was allowed to count "as actual service in India." An officer who, being under the furlough rules of 1796, elected the rules of 1868 would be in this position as regards pension—up to 1868 only his actual service in India would count towards pension, after 1868 a certain amount of leave of absence, according to his rank, would count as actual service in India. The question is rather a complicated one; but no alteration has been made in the rules of 1868, and the notice merely explains a previous notice.

on rising to call attention to the deficiency of Harbour accommodation on the north east coast of England; and to move—

"That the great loss of life and property annually occurring to our shipping on the north east coast of England shows that there is a deficiency of adequate harbour accommodation in that district; and this House urges on Her Majesty's Government the construction on that coast of a suitable Harbour of Refuge and for strategic purposes,"

apologized for bringing the question forward at so late a period of the Session, but he had sought in vain for an opportunity during the last four months, and would, gladly have surrendered to the Government the present evening, which he had obtained by ballot after many trials, had the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer given a more favourable answer to the Question which he had put on the preceding evening, and which he had put purposely in order to avoid being obliged to proceed with the present Motion. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the construction of such a harbour as the case required must be a matter of private enterprize, and come out of local funds and the pockets of individuals, he was constrained to go on, as he considered such a mode of treating a national question was not at all satisfactory. Nor should he be doing his duty to those brave men whose lives were daily jeopardized by the state of things existing on the North East Coast, and who had committed their case to his hands, if he did not persevere with his Motion. The Committees of the House of Commons had from time to time considered the subject of our national harbours. From one of these, in 1844, had proceeded the works at Dover, Holy head, and Alderney, and in 1853 that very question of the unprotected condition of the East Coast had undergone ample discussion. This last Committee recommended more ample accommodation for shipping on those shores; but as the exact site for a harbour of refuge was not within their province, they advised the appointment of a Royal Commission, which was accordingly formed in 1858, and was composed of men of distinguished ability and experience in the naval and military services, the Chairman being Admiral Sir James Hope. The Commissioners sat for several months, from August, 1858, till the end of February, 1859, during which period they examined more than 400 witnesses, men of every grade in the seafaring life, and of great experience in nautical affairs, and they ultimately issued their Report on the 3rd March, 1859. In the course of that Report they urged most strongly the disadvantages to which the North East Coast of England was exposed from various causes; from the iron-bound character of the shore, being not indented with bays which might afford a shelter to shipping in tempestuous weather, but being perfectly straight for many miles from the Tees to Flam borough Head; from the existing harbours along the coast being only tidal, and therefore not accessible at low water; and from the violence of the prevalent winds which blew steadily on shore from the North East. From these considerations the Commissioners advised the construction of an ample harbour of refuge at Filey, where the Brigg presented ample natural advantages, and where the surrounding cliffs would, afford every facility for its formation. The Report further adverted to the large and increasing loss of life and property occurring annually off the North East Coast. The hon. Baronet proceeded to remark upon the enormous trade and commerce in the shape of exports from the various ports in Northumberland, Yorkshire, and Lincolnshire, the annual exports from the Tyne, Tees, and Wear, amounting to £15,000,000, and the annual exports from Hull alone amounting to £38,000,000, making a total of £53,000,000, being one-fifth of the exports from the whole United Kingdom, and the shipping annually sailing from and arriving at those four ports actually exceeding those sailing from and arriving in the Thames and Mersey combined. In the Newcastle and Durham coal fields, in 1873, 90,000 men were employed, whose annual wages amounted in the aggregate to £7,000,000 sterling. Then, as regarded the Tyne, there were in that river alone in 1873, 103 ships built, with a tonnage of 64,933 tons, and 7,000 men employed in shipbuilding. In 1873, between the Tyne and Humber inclusively, there were 74,447 ships entered, withal tonnage of 16,460,000 tons. Passing from the vast commerce and trade of those regions to the sad list of casualties to ships, he might mention, in the outset, that the loss of ships from unseaworthiness was as nothing compared with the losses and wreck by tempest. The history of these casual- ties was to be found in The Wreck Register, which, as hon. Members knew, was annually presented to Parliament in June. The Register of 1876 had not yet been presented; he therefore cited from the one published in June, 1875. In that book he found that in 1875 there were 4,259 ships lost all over the world, with a tonnage of 911,000 tons; and this list exceeded that of 1874 by 2,068 ships. Of these 4,259, 3,380 were British ships, and 3,590 out of the whole number of 4,259, were lost "on our English coasts," which, as they knew, from the narrowness of the seas and rapidity of tide, were very greatly exposed to sudden and violent storms and tempests. Of the 3,590 ships wrecked on our own coasts, 461 were total wrecks, but only 33 of these from unseaworthiness in the vessel. They had been passing an Act to protect our sailors from unseaworthy vessels; but how equally, if not more important to provide against calamity which no skill or act of man could prevent, except by providing safe places of refuge in time of tempest! Now, he would proceed to mention a most remarkable fact—namely, that out of 3,590 vessels wrecked on our English and Scotch and Irish coasts, 1,660, or nearly one-half, came to grief on the North East Coast of England. In the year 1875, 920 lives were lost in the shipping on our coasts, the average loss of life being upwards of 800. The annual loss of valuable property on the North East Coast was considered to be £1,500,000; while in two gales only, which occurred in 1854 and 1857, 138 ships were lost, and £110,000 invaluable property. That would not be surprising when, as the Commissioners' Report stated, often 1,500 vessels were seen in Yarmouth Roads at a time, and 500 off Flamborough Head; and in a heavy gale from the North East these would have to run up northward for the Firth of Forth, or southward to Harwich or the Thames, to avoid being driven on shore. The westerly gales were most frequent on the Southern and Western Coasts of England; but, here, the casualties for 1875 were only 977 on the West Coast, and 549 on the South Coast. He held in his hand accounts of casualties from one or two of the north-eastern ports, and he found at Great Yarmouth in the 16 months from 1st January, 1874, to 30th April, 1875, there were 116 casualties to shipping, involving the total wreck of 22 ships, and 39 persons drowned or killed; while at Lowestoft, where, as at Great Yarmouth, the piers and harbour had been considerably improved, but the accommodation was at both places still very defective, the casualties amounted to 165. These facts plainly demonstrated the great difficulties our brave sailors, unsurpassed in hardihood and seamanship by any in the world, had to contend with; and that the words of Sir John Coode, one of our most eminent marine engineers, at the lecture he lately gave at the United Service Institution, were most fully justified when he said that "the great want on our shores at the present day was an adequate harbour of refuge on our North East Coast." In this opinion he had been supported by Admiral Sir William Hall—who had written an able pamphlet on our national defences—Admiral Collinson, and other distinguished naval officers, who also gave it as their opinion that such a harbour was most needed also for strategic purposes. The hon. Baronet then read an extract from an essay by the late Dr. Wynter, published in The Quarterly Review in 1858, in which he urged that—

"the appalling loss of life and property occurring every year on the North East Coast demonstrates the absolute necessity which exists for establishing on that most exposed and frequented position of our coast such a shelter as the sailor has a right to expect in time of need."

So far as to the commercial aspect of the question, on which he had dwelt so fully that no time remained for its strategic consideration—which he must very slightly touch upon, having already trespassed so long on the attention of the House. But it should be remembered that at the present time we had actually no place from the Tyne to the Thames where an iron-clad, if disabled or requiring to coal or water, could go in. The German Navy had very greatly increased lately, and the Government of that great Empire had, ever since 1858, been constructing, at vast expense, a noble harbour, most strongly fortified, at Wilhelmshafen, in the Bay of Yayde, at the mouth of the river Weser, where their iron-clad fleet could lie safely, and go in to refit without fear of being attacked. In 1870 the French fleet lay outside, and could not touch the fleet within. Up to 1869 the Germans had spent £1,500,000 on Wilhelmshafen, which was necessary to them, as it might happen that if shut up in the Baltic in time of war, or during the winter season, their other harbours of Kiel and Dantzicmight be of little use to them. Would England begrudge spending money—a rich country like our own—to defend our commerce, and form a basis of defensive and offensive operations for our fleets, when they found Germany, Russia, and other countries making such great and rapid advances in maritime power and resources? Why, look at Cherbourg, where an enormous French fleet could ride at anchor in perfect security, and the piers and batteries had been constructed at a cheerful cost of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000! while, on the other hand, we were building magnificent ships, and when they were built we found there was no place to receive them. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had, he must say, astonished him by an argument used, last year when a discussion took place relative to a harbour at Lundy Island. The right hon. Gentleman objected to harbours being constructed by Government, because, he said, they would not pay. Such an argument was, he must say, hardly worthy of the abilities of his right hon. Friend. Did Portland pay? did Holy-head pay? did Plymouth pay? Certainly not as a 3 per cent investment; but they paid most profitably in the preservation of the lives of our gallant sailors, in the protection of our property and fleets, and in the increased prosperity and security of our common country. In conclusion, he urged strongly upon Her Majesty's Government the prompt and serious consideration of this most important question. Local ports and harbours could be established or improved by private enterprize, but such a harbour as the North East Coast required could only be made at the national expense. For no purpose could the nationalpurse be better resorted to, or our own money be better used, than in the strengthening of our national defences, and in the lessening of those numerous dangers to which the trade and commerce, on which our superiority as a nation so material depended, was now most unnecessarily exposed.

who had given Notice of an Amendment to the effect that it was expedient that there should be further inquiry as to the best mode of practically and successfully carrying out the various harbour projects, said: I very readily rise to second the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), not because I concur in the essential part of the Motion, which urges the Government to incur at once a large outlay for a new harbour on the Yorkshire coast, but because I wish to have a debate on the important subject of how to be able to construct with success the many much needed coast harbours; for, agreeing as I most fully do with the hon. Baronet in respect to thereat deficiency of harbours, I cannot think that we ought to supply that want by urging the Government to enter into new constructions of harbours in our present state of distrust as to the works being successful. As a mere money question the construction of harbours is advisable; for the annual loss of wealth to the nation by shipwrecks, is, if capitalized, fully equal to a capital of from £30,000,000 to £50,000,000. Then, again, as to the way to prevent the many losses of lives now occurring on our coasts, we do not regard the spending of money on land for sanitary improvements, for better dwellings, for good water, for providing purer air, or for a variety of purposes conducive to the saving of lives and prolonging of life amongst our people living in towns on land, but we disregard our poorer but hardy sailors and fishermen on the seas, and allow many to be annually lost by reason of the want of proper and sufficient harbour accommodation. Then, again, look at the question in the light of commercial gain. The extension and improvement of our harbours would enlarge and extend our commerce, thereby greatly increasing our ships and multiplying our seamen. Then as regards our fisheries, we have only to provide ports to which our fishing boats can find safety from the storms along the coast to insure a great increase to our fishing vessels, and consequently to the hardy and persevering fishermen, who are so willing to toil for large additions to our food, if they can only be supplied with refuge from the gales which at present destroy so many of these industrious men. We are all thoroughly alive to the importance of multiplying our commercial and war vessels, and the numbers of sailors on board, but few are alive to the wealth which the sea would yield if we multiplied our fishing vessels and fishermen. I do not specially advocate the openings for profit afforded by the seas that wash the rugged coasts of the county which I represent, because I desire to see all our coasts fairly considered by the Government; for though I know that the coast of my county has hitherto not been so treated—in so far that other parts of Scotland in counties favoured by the Scotch Fishery Board have had money spent on their harbours, whilst Kincardineshire has been neglected—yet I desire now, in mentioning the neglect, to use this as a plea for asking the Government to act in future in a fair and impartial spirit to all parts of the United Kingdom. I can confidently urge that within 30 miles of the coast of my county there is a bank on which fine fish in enormous quantities can be caught, and would be obtained if our fishing boats could run to a port in the county by the sea shore, after being exposed to the storm for a few hours. I fully believe that the wealth that could be gained by fishing that bank would more than equal the value of the produce from all the lands of the county. That this is not without some considerable support may be shown by the remarkable success of the fishings at Frazerburgh. There the fishings are said to equal the rental of that part of the county in which this new harbour is situated, and that the value of land in the neighbourhood has largely increased, to the great gain of the proprietors. I have often heard, even in this House, that the formation and improvement of harbours is a duty that ought to be undertaken by private individuals, or corporate bodies, for their own gain or advantage. I am quite willing to assent to that view, provided those parties knew how to carry on these harbour works, with some better prospect of deriving their gains than they now have. But Government has already proved, by their great failures in their attempts at harbour construction, that it is not wise for individuals to follow the Government example and fail as disastrously with as great losses of capital. The discouragement caused by the Government's failures at Alderney, at Jer- sey, at Ramsgate, nay, even at Dover, at Wick, at Anstruther, at Port Patrick, at Dunbar, and in several fishing ports on the coast of Scotland and Ireland, and in other places, must first be removed before private enterprize can be expected to face the risk of loss which has been there seen. It is useless and idle to repeat a truism, that private capital can and ought to be employed on such works; and so it will, and in an abundance that would astonish Europe, provided the private capitalists had as fair a certainty of not suffering the total losses of invested money as has the Government. The sole object of the Amendment of which I have given Notice, but which I am prevented by the Forms of the House from moving, is to induce Government to enter upon an inquiry as to how harbour works can be carried on without the certainty of the great failures which have so frequently happened in the undertakings of Government. I ask the Government to undo the mischief which these blunders have caused. I ask the Government to enter upon a great inquiry of national importance. We find no hesitation in employing Commissioners, not only in the United Kingdom, but abroad, in order to investigate into many subjects of far less importance than harbours. We find Commissioners of every kind employed at the public coat to find out how the people of this country can be benefited by improvements of every and many varied kinds of ordinary affairs of life—Royal Commissions at the public expense, on water, gas, coals, food, art, education, science, and innumerable other affairs, and though thousands of minds are engaged in these inquiries, yet we never hear of the story told in this House and outside the House that the subject of harbours is entirely one for private enterprize, without any such aid from Government as is so readily extended to every other branch of knowledge bearing on the ordinary concerns of the people. I could enlarge on this my favourite question of harbours, for I have tried to obtain some knowledge of the subject, and have advanced sufficiently far in my inquiries in being able to say that I know and appreciate the necessity of much more knowledge than we at present possess. I urge the Government to supply this great want, not alone by investigating into the causes of the many failures, with but few successes at home, but by having the harbours abroad examined, and the successful and unsuccessful works ascertained, with all the causes of either failure or for good results. We have much to learn along the coasts of the Mediterranean; we there find many harbours of peculiar forms, adapted to the positions on the extensive coast of that inland sea. We there find the science of using materials which has descended to the present races from the old people, evidently from the Carthaginians, and then we have the harbour designs of engineers of old times, which have in many instances been a great success. We have in modern times also harbour works which, have been successful. I could particularly name Bona in Algeria as a place where an outer and inner harbour has been made by the French with a remarkable degree of success, and at palace in Algeria not so important as is the capital of my own county, Stonehaven. These are the inquiries which Government alone can undertake; no private individual can possibly be expected to incur the expense, or devote the time required for this work. Then, again, the means of access to foreign harbours can only be obtained by the influence and by the officers of Government; more than that, our war vessels must be employed to visit the various foreign ports and examine with impartiality their maritime fitness. Even now there is a great harbour in the course of construction on the coast of Holland, known as the North Sea Harbour, with a great canal successfully completed leading to the wealthy city of Amsterdam; it faces our shores, and should a powerful nation obtain the use of that harbour, it would afford refuge for vessels of large size. Few there are in this country who know of its formation; but though a commercial harbour for Amsterdam, yet its importance can be judged of when it is known that the canal which connects Amsterdam with the coast is already formed; and its vastness may be judged of by knowing that it has 27 feet of water. The success of this harbour is therefore of material importance, not only in respect to the great increase of national power it will give to Holland and Germany, but as a specimen of a work commenced on a shore exposed to gales and to seas of as much severity as fall on our own coasts. As I have promised the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) to afford him an opening for bringing on his important Motion, I feel that my time is come for ceasing my suggestions. I urge the Government to weigh them fairly and considerately; they are given, not to support any particular project, but for the sake of many projects for many harbours along our extensive and exposed coasts. The success in forming harbours which I anticipate from the inquiries which I advise being made will not only add to our commercial greatness, but will give a strength and a power to the defensive means of the nation. The shipping of the country will be increased, and our seamen and fishermen largely multiplied, and, above all, by new harbours being constructed, we shall save property, and the lives of our people; these are two inducements of such importance as cannot fail to commend the subject to the economist and philanthrophist.

said, they were all agreed that they ought to do everything they could to reduce loss of life at sea; but the question was, whether the Motion proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for South "Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), and seconded and opposed at the same time by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) was the right mode of meeting the difficulty, or whether the method on which the Government and the country had for many years made up their minds was not the preferable one. The question had been mooted for 20 years past, sometimes before Committees, sometimes by private Members, and propositions had been made sometimes for establishing harbours of refuge here and there, and sometimes for providing them all round our coasts. Every kind of proposition on the question had been taken up in that House, and even the same hon. Members had made contradictory propositions regarding it from year to year. Last year, the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had been as urgent in urging priority of claim for a harbour of refuge at Lundy Island as he now was for one in exactly the opposite direction. The hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour), on the other hand, wanted them to consider how they should carry out all the various harbour projects, whether for commerce, fisheries, refuge, or offensive and defensive purposes. He (Sir Charles Adderley) would not argue which was the right way of proceeding in relation to harbours, but he thought he could show that Parliament, representing the country, had long since made up its mind how to act. Hon. Members constantly referred back to the Report of 1859, but they seemed to forget that after the presentation of that Report, Lord Palmerston induced Parliament to take action on that Report and to pass the Harbours Loan Commission Act, which gave facilities to localities throughout the Kingdom to make or improve their own harbours by the aid of Government loans on easy terms. That plan had now been acted on for many years, and he thought they had established the principle that the way to make harbours adequate to the wants of the shipping of the country was not for Government to take upon itself to construct them, but aid those who knew most about what was necessary, and had the most interest in maintaining their harbours when constructed. All experience was in favour of acting upon the principle so laid down by Parliament 25 years ago. The moment it was found that Parliament intended to act upon it the people set to work and constructed for themselves, with the offered loans, works which equalled in magnitude and rapidity of construction any works that had been done in the New World, and exceeded them in solidity. The trade left to its own judgment, instead of multiplying mere harbours of refuge, took to improving their ships, and the result had been that the old rotten sailing colliers had been replaced by steam colliers, and the number of wrecks had been correspondingly reduced. He trusted that the House would not assent to either of the Mo- tions on the subject before it, which would be no benefit, but rather injurious to the mercantile interests, while they were antagonistic to the spirit of the country. He, however, admitted that, although Her Majesty's Government should not undertake the construction of harbours themselves, they should continue to give every facility by loans to those who were desirous of making harbours for themselves. It was always suspicious when proposals were made for public money to be granted for local purposes. There was something primâ facie objectionable in Government being asked to spend Imperial money for local purposes. If the localities immediately concerned did not care to execute those works themselves, surely it was not for Parliament to tax everybody else for them. Moreover, if those interested in the establishment of those harbours were to construct them for themselves, the work would be far better done than if performed by the Government, and there would be a fair probability that the harbours, when constructed, would be properly maintained. Commerce would know best where commercial harbours were wanted, and how they should be made; and, where there was no commerce, there would be no persons interested in maintaining harbours. Several national harbours had been constructed by the Government, but some of them even had not been maintained since, and he need only point to the case of Alderney harbouras a lamentable instance of the way in which public money had been thrown away in the attempt on the part of the Government to construct harbours. In the case of Holyhead, owing to a change of plans during the construction of the works, a concave surface had been exposed to the sea; and in the case of Alderney, the decision had been come to, to let the sea wash away the remaining wreck of works that had cost £1,500,000 to construct. While fully admitting the necessity for the Government to construct naval harbours for national purposes, he could not call upon Parliament to provide money, except by way of loan, for any other harbours, and he believed that the best security for life and property would be to leave it to the commercial classes to provide, improve, and maintain at the seats of commerce, our mercantile harbours. If the Government were to undertake the construction of harbours for commerce, fisheries, and refuge, two questions would arise, the first where they should begin, and the second where they should end. On the whole, he must oppose both the Motions which had been brought forward.

said, he knew the House was anxious to engage in discussion on an important colonial question, and he would not stand between them and that debate more than a few minutes. As, however, he represented a constituency which was as deeply, perhaps more deeply, interested in this question than any other, he might be permitted to express his obligation to the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot) for having brought the subject before the House. The Royal Commission which sat in 1859, if he recollected rightly—he spoke entirely from memory—recommended that the Government should give a certain amount of money for the purpose of forming national harbours of refuge at given points round the coast. They also recommended that assistance should be given to different localities for the formation of commercial harbours. This assistance was to be regulated according tithe commercial importance of the places, and the amount of money the localities chose to invest in improving their harbours. To some places the Commission recommended that Government should supplement the local expenditure by a grant of one-third, and tooters of one-fourth the amount of money spent by the local harbour authorities. The only persons in this country that had complied with the conditions laid down by the Commission for securing Government help were the River Tyne Commissioners. They had expended a large sum of money in improving the estuary of the Tyne and the navigable channel for a considerable distance. The water on the bar was now three times the depth it formerly was, and the consequence was that the Tyne now was really a harbour of refuge—the only one on that part of the North East Coast. The Government, however, had not carried out the recommendation of the Royal Commission in this respect, because they had given the Tyne Commissioners no monetary assistance. They had even not been as generous with them as he thought they might have been, by lending them funds at a moderate rate of interest. By the Act of Parliament referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the Public Works Loan Commissioners were empowered, with the sanction of the Government, to lend money to harbours on moderate terms. The help the Tyne Commissioners had got from Parliament had been comparatively insignificant. One other remark he wished to make was this—the circumstances of the North East Coast were entirely altered since 1859. A complete revolution had taken place, not only in the harbours of that part of the country, but also in the shipping and the size of the vessels frequenting them. It would, therefore, he thought, be unwise for Government to act strictly now upon the recommendation of the Commission that sat and reported 18 years ago. By change of circumstances and lapse of time many of the recommendations made at that time would not only be injudicious, but positively injurious. He thought, however, the Government might consent to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour), and agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to supplement the labours of the Royal Commission, and put Parliament and the country in possession of the latest information respecting this important national question. While he supported that suggestion, he could not help expressing concurrence with the views of the President of the Board of Trade, who naturally shrank from investing any large sum of the Imperial Revenue in national harbours of refuge, with the ill success which had heretofore attended experiments of that kind before him. But more liberal help to commence harbours of refuge, where the localities had expended considerable sums of their own money, by loans, on easy terms, was what he thought the Government might wisely do.

on rising to call attention to the social and political condition of Barbadoes, with special reference to the recent disturbances in the island, said, he should, but for the fact that he was precluded by the Forms of the House, have moved for an Address to the Crown praying for an inquiry into the working of the Constitution of Barbadoes, the operation of the laws, especially relating to taxation, education, vagrancy, and the proximate or remote causes of the recent disturbances. He had been induced to submit the Motion to the House in consequence of the grave questions that had lately arisen between Governor Hennessy and the oligarchy of the island—using the word oligarchy in no offensive sense, and he desired to approach the question in a judicial spirit. He hoped that other hon. Members would follow his example, neither committing themselves wholly to the Governor nor to the oligarchy which governed the community. In 1870 he had visited Barbadoes and seen the prosperity which existed there. Out of 107,000 acres 90,000 were under sugar cultivation, and were cultivated in a manner that was perhaps superior to what could be found in any other part of the world. This was due to the population exceeding 1,000 to the square mile, and hand labour was consequently brought to bear upon the land. In that island very grave questions had recently arisen. On the one hand there were the interests of a population of nearly 180,000 to be considered; and whatever their ideas and prejudices might be with regard to Governor Hennessy they ought to discuss the subject in a generous spirit towards a young man who had been placed in difficult position. On the other side there was an oligarchy that had existed for 200 years, which presented claims for sympathy which naturally arose from their having successfully carried on a government for so many years. Whatever might be thought of the rights and wrongs of both sides, in the Papers that had been presented on the subject, Governor Hennessy had put his case in a clear, dignified, and comprehensive manner, whilst the planters had stated theirs in a heated, incoherent, passionate, and irritating manner, calculated to create a prejudice against them. Two questions presented themselves for consideration—first, with regard to the social and political constitution and circumstances of the island; and secondly, as to the Imperial question of confederation, which, no doubt, contributed, directly or indirectly, to the recent disturbances. In the Correspondence the two were so inextricably mixed up that it was difficult to estimate exactly the influence exerted by one or the other, butte one re-acted on the other. It would not be necessary to discuss the merits or demerits of the question of confederation further than to say the Governor had been anxious to carry out reforms which both himself and the Colonial Office deemed to be necessary, and for which there was undoubtedly much need. The population of Barbadoes was 180,000, with only 1,279 electors out of 30,000 adult persons. The franchise consisted of £20 freeholders and upwards; leaseholders of £200 value, and a rental of £32 10s. per annum of our currency. One firm alone held mortgages over half of the estates of the island, which were said to exceed £1,000,000 sterling, and the land might be said to be in the hands of what in America would be called a "plantocracy." No doubt the island had—as it had been stated—"a glorious and a liberal charter," at a time when the Whites only were acknowledged before the law to have rights, and when they held in subjection a large number of slaves. There were now 46,000 agricultural labourers in the island, 30,000 of whom were employed in producing sugar, leaving a large excess of unproductive labour in the island. Out of the 180,000 persons only 18,000 were sufficiently well off not to mind very much what taxation was imposed on food, leaving 162,000 to whom it was a matter of serious consequence. The natural result had been a great reduction in wages, whilst on the other hand the price of sugar in the world's market had been so low as scarcely to leave a profit, however large the yield might be. The consequence had been to bring down wages in the labour market, and produce vagrancy and crime. In 1872 the gaols of the island were overcrowded, and out of 256 boys then in prison only 28 had received any sort of instruction. With such in- tense and helpless poverty incendiarism was a natural result of the want that existed. In 1873 there were 68 fires; in 1874, 16; and in 1875, 141; and Governor Hennessy mentioned the case of one boy who had been sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment for setting fire to a sugar field, whose previous conduct had been so bad that he found himself unable to do anything to limit the term of incarceration. He also found in prison boys seven years old who had been convicted and sentenced for the crime of incendiarism. What was complained of was not only the low rate of wages but the injustice done by managers in the stoppage of wages. An appalling amount of squalid misery existed, and concubinage became the rule, as the people could not afford to buy the clothes in which to get married. As a consequence, infanticide prevailed to the extent of 1,000 children every year. Owing to the carelessness of the Legislature the prison accommodation was insufficient, and the reports especting the lunatic asylums were simply horrible. Education was imperfectly provided for; taxation was unfair in its incidence, the general fund, for instance, being charged with a subvention for the highways which ought to be kept in repair by the planters. The persons who were most interested in improving the condition of affairs had no representation in the Government, and no means of bringing influence to bear upon it. It could not be surprising, then, that in 1863 riots took place and the troops were called out, that the same thing occurred in 1872, and that in 1875 there was plundering and rioting, a proclamation had to be issued by the Governor, the provision grounds were attacked, and a watchman was shot. In 1868 Governor Rawson was sent out to carry into effect a policy of confederation. He left the island, however, before he had been able to do so, and Governor Freeling succeeded him as Acting Governor for a few months before the arrival of Mr. Pope Hennessy. The planters and estate agents exhibited great disquietude at the prospect of confederation. That policy had been carried into effect in the Leeward Islands, and there was a strong feeling in Barbadoes that it had been effected by official influence, and had not been fairly carried. In July, 1875, there were disputes between Governor Freeling and the Assembly, and altogether there had been a good deal of agitation antecedent to the arrival of Mr. Pope Hennessy, and any one coming from the Colonial Office was looked upon with suspicion. About October, 1875, Mr. Hennessy arrived in the island as Governor, finding it, as described, in a state of excitement. From the reputation he had acquired in similar positions, and which had preceded him, he was popular with all classes, and met with a very warm reception. Within the next two or three weeks, as would be seen by the Papers, some things were done by the new Governor which could not, perhaps, be altogether approved of; but whatever occurred during the first two or three weeks ought not to be too harshly charged against him. For instance, he complimented the House of Assembly in terms which he was afterwards obliged to retract. On the 7th of December he brought the question of confederation before the Legislative Council, and at his suggestion it was arranged that a conference should take place between Representatives of the Assemblies of all the islands on the subject of confederation. It was at that time that Lord Carnarvon sent him his celebrated telegram cautioning him not to proceed too fast, and today great respect to the feeling and constitution of the country. A message was sent to the Assembly on the 22nd of January, and they passed resolutions in which they declared that they could not consent to become one of a confederation, but that they were willing to consider the suggestions which had been offered by the Governor. There was one thing which excited considerable feeling, and for which the Colonial Office, and not the Governor, was responsible. He was directed in the Letters Patent to divest the Legislative Council of its executive functions, and to create an executive body which should be responsible directly to the Governor. This change he (Mr. Jenkins) admitted was necessary, but it had a serious effect on the minds of the oligarchy. It was also evident that at this time the planters, or some persons connected with the planters, endeavoured to frighten the negroes against confederation by stories which were untrue—for instance, that it would lead to the re-introduction of slavery. The Defence Association was formed, and shortly afterwards the Governor went down to the Assembly and made the speech which had since become famous. However injudicious that speech was£ a speech directly contradicted by a subsequent proclamation—England must feel that Governor Hennessy meant simply that confederation would open a larger field of labour—a view which had been stated by Governors before him. The result of this was a "flare up, "which exhibited itself in the form of speeches and articles in the newspapers, so incoherent that one scarcely knew what to make of them. Meetings were held by the Defence Association in various parts of the island, and at length the firing from a pistol and the wounding of a person for the purpose of intimidating an excited mob, led to the outbreak of a riot, which continued until it was found necessary to call out the troops, and telegraph to neighbouring islands for further assistance. The origin of the riots undoubtedly was the excitement created by these confederation meetings held in the various parishes working on the minds of the people, aided by the fact that there were large numbers of persons in the island who were vagrants, and were ready to take advantage of any row to plunder the well-to-do people. It was a singular circumstance that not a single person was killed by the rioters, notwithstanding that there were some of the rioters killed, 30 or 40 wounded, and a large number taken prisoners, and this circumstance was, he thought, an indication that there had been a certain amount of panic among the planters, and that it was the re-action from that panic which had caused the deaths which had occurred. There would, he felt sure, have been absolute cruelty inflicted but for the coolheadedness of Governor Hennessy, who undoubtedly had persistently set his face against the various representations which had been made to him in that direction. For instance, he had been urged by a lieutenant colonel in Her Majesty's Service to take to flogging. In another letter, he was advised that hanging would be a good thing; and in a third, he was recommended to train a gun down the streets of Bridgetown. Whatever, then, might be thought of his conduct in the earlier stages of these proceedings, he had subsequently, at all events, shown a decision of character which was worthy of the favourable recognition of the House. He would further point out that when the rioting had subsided, the Legislature absolutely proposed to discuss the question of the Governor's recall. This step was proposed in the midst of the excitement following the riots, and it was only by using a very strong influence that Mr. Hennessy was able to stop that dangerous proposal. The Governor declared that the animosity exhibited against him was so great that again and again the slanders which had been uttered with regard to him were repeated, and he also stated that the state of things was such that he dared not dissolve the Assembly and issue writs, as he knew it would lead to a renewal of rioting. Whatever they thought of Mr. Hennessy's conduct, they must do him the justice to well weigh the fact that he had been acting in a time of great excitement. One thing was clear—namely, that things in Barbadoes could not be allowed to remain as they were, and he put a case before the House for inquiry. They had not sufficient evidence before them to enable them to form a judgment on the matter. He neither fully exonerated the Government nor censured the planters, but they must have a full inquiry, for grave charges had been made against the Governor, and there were many matters to be investigated, which could only be brought out by a Commission appointed by the Government. Whatever the result, one thing was certain—namely, that the present Constitution of Barbadoes was doomed. A Constitution which might be suitable in a time of slavery could not exist with anything like proper and just government at the present time. Therefore, if he had been able to move his Resolution, he should have not asked for inquiry merely upon the ground that justice might be done between a Governor and a community with which he was at variance, but upon the ground also that it was absolutely necessary to consider whether it was desirable that the existing Constitution of Barbadoes should be continued. Although the House could not come to any Resolution on the subject, he thought Her Majesty's Government would agree with him that an inquiry into the condition of the Island was absolutely necessary; and he trusted they might look forward to the time when reforms would be in- troduced into Barbadoes, the result of which would be that the island would be not only outwardly prosperous and flourishing, but the abode of a free, happy, and contented population.

said, he must at once emphatically contradict the assertions of the hon. Member for Dundee, that the condition of Barbadoes was anything like what the hon. Member had described. He (Mr. Thornhill) had received a letter from a clergyman on the island stating exactly the contrary. He maintained that the planters were fully sensible of their responsibility in respect to the education, peace, and happiness of the negro population. There was no doubt a redundant population in Barbadoes, and that created misery and distress, and he should like to see a well-devised system of emigration brought into play to put an end to such a state of things. With reference to the telegrams which passed between the Earl of Carnarvon and Governor Hennessy there could be no doubt the Governor had considerably falsified facts, and that they contained gratuitous pieces of incorrect information. The truth, it would appear, had to be forced out of him, and, if it had not been for the private telegrams received from the island, and which led to the Home Government taking action, the country would never have found out the true state of the case. The question now arose, could the people of Barbadoes get on with a Governor who was not on good terms with the better classes of the population? He had excited an excitable people, and he had not acted in that reasonable and careful manner which they might have expected from him. He (Mr. Thornhill) thought they could not, and he therefore hoped another Governor would be substituted for him.

:said, it was only necessary to have listened to the two speeches delivered to find out that there were two sides to this question. It would be his good fortune to agree with a certain amount of what had fallen from both hon. Gentlemen; but he would also have to express considerable difference from both. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) had recounted various historical circumstances connected with the island of Barbadoes, which it would not be necessary to touch upon seriatim. He would take up the hon. Gentleman at his last point—namely, the disturbances that broke out in the spring of the year. The first thing to be noticed in connection with these disturbances was the various charges which were bandied about between the Governor, the Assembly, and the Planters' Defence Association. He would first deal with the charges brought against the Governor, a great many of which might be described as paltry, but there were others which, if proved, would have called for serious notice. For instance, it was alleged that Mr. Hennessy entertained at his official residence persons of the Negro race who were not exactly the proper subjects of a Governor's hospitality. Of course, the House would see that it was impossible for the Colonial Office to lay down regulations as to the mode in which a Governor's hospitality ought to be exercised; but he felt bound to say that if the charges made on this point had been true there would have been occasion for some surprise, if not alarm, in the island. However, he was happy to be able to state that Mr. Hennessy denied those charges. Another allegation was that Mr. Hennessy had deliberately falsified the telegrams he despatched to the Home Government, underrating and occasionally suppressing facts. Mr. Hennessy's accounts, no doubt, differed from those of the West Indian Committee, but striking a fair balance, the truth would probably be found to lie somewhere between them. Mr. Hennessy might not have been informed of the full magnitude of the events which occurred, while the Committee, probably, was misled in the opposite direction. The House, he was sure, would readily give credit to both parties for a sincere desire to get at the truth. But two charges of a more serious nature were made against Mr. Hennessy—one being that he personally encouraged agitation against the Assembly of the island in favour of federation, the other that he made certain objection able observations in a speech. He might state at once on the first point that Mr. Hennessy entirely denied that, either directly or indirectly, he was in any way responsible for the agitation which prevailed, and there appeared to be nothing in the Blue Books to justify any one in doubting his word. With regard to the second charge, relating to the speech of the 3rd of March to the Assembly, it was certainly to be regretted that Mr. Hennessy should have made use of certain phrases which, in a community like that of Barbadoes, were calculated to cause considerable uneasiness. No doubt, however, he used them without fully realizing their import, and it was unnecessary unduly to dwell on them. Passing on to the time when the disturbances unfortunately broke out, he was glad to find that the conduct of Mr. Hennessy left little to be desired. Mr. Hennessy apparently acted with promptitude and energy, and, beset though he was by conflicting counsels, maintained great coolness of judgment and presence of mind. He had the misfortune to be surrounded by not very discreet friends, some of whom had been already alluded to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Thornhill), who had more particularly referred to one gentleman (Sir Graham Briggs). Now, this gentleman was not a public servant, he was happy to say, and it was not incumbent upon him (Mr. Lowther) to attempt to explain what he must admit was most unwise conduct on his part. This mischievous agitation about Confederation, in which a legal adviser of the Government was said to be mixed up, could not be too strongly reprobated. If, however, Mr. Hennessy was unfortunate in his friends, he must be congratulated upon having such opponents as he had. The Colonial Office had received innumereble letters and telegrams from various persons connected directly or indirectly with the island, and with a few exceptions he was bound to say that the tone adopted by those who opposed Mr. Hennessy had been as indiscreet or more so than that of those friends to whom he had referred. For instance, an application was made to the Secretary of State on the strength of a private telegram, uncorroborated by any authenticated details, for the instantaneous removal of Governor Hennessy. That was an appeal to which no Secretary of State with any sense of justice could for a moment listen. He had now mentioned the charges which were made against Mr. Hennessy; he had not hesitated to indicate where he thought his conduct had not been discreet, and at the same time he had stated, and he hoped he had made it clear, that Mr. Hennessy had triumphantly acquitted himself of the more serious accusations brought against him, while, moreover, his conduct during a trying emergency had been all that could be desired. He now came to the charges which had been brought against the Assembly, the planters, and the Defence Association; and with regard to the first the Assembly of Barbadoes had been charged with systematically neglecting the interests of the population of the island. Their financial arrangements were alleged to be most defective, the prisons to be in a most deplorable condition, the police system tube very unsatisfactory, and the Assembly had been accused of omitting to make proper provision for correcting those evils. Those charges, he was afraid, had been proved against that body. He was happy, however, to be able to say that the latest information which the Government had received led them to hope that as regarded the prisons the Assembly would enter upon the necessary reform. He might observe that several suggestions had been made by Mr. Hennessy in the Assembly which that body had not felt itself able to concur in. Among them was a suggestion that it should energetically grapple with the question of emigration—a matter of serious importance in all over-crowded communities. He thought that the over-population of Barbadoes could only be met by a system of emigration to the neighbouring islands, and it was to be hoped that the Assembly would soon devote its attention to that subject. One point which Mr. Hennessy pressed upon the Assembly had reference to the fact that four weeks' notice to quit was the condition under which agricultural labourers held their tenancies. Mr. Hennessy quoted a passage written by one of his predecessors strongly condemning that system—a passage which he confessed he had read with feelings that he could hardly venture to describe to the House. It suggested that the proprietors had it in their power to effect an important reform in that matter by granting leases in perpetuity to the tenants. Now, the labourers in Barbadoes for the most part inhabited houses, such as they were, of their own building, and erected on the land of their employers. He understood that at one time the proprietors on certain estates erected dwellings for their own labourers, but that that system had fallen into disuse, because that which had been intended to do duty as a roof was made to serve as fuel, and the labourers now erected dwellings for themselves on their employers' ground. But the idea of granting leases in perpetuity to labourers to dwell on an estate on which from circumstances they had ceased to labour was a most extraordinary one. It was only right to add that Mr. Hennessy, further on, said he shrank from the strong measure that his predecessor recommended of granting leases in perpetuity, which would in his judgment be an invasion of the just rights of property; but as an equitable and efficient remedy he should submit to the Legislature a proposal for abolishing the four weeks' notice to quit and substituting a much longer notice. Hon. Members would know from their own experience that the length of notice to labourers on English farms was about a week or a fortnight, and he therefore saw no reason why the length of notice in Barbadoes should be extended beyond its present limit—namely, four weeks. It was only right that the Assembly of Barbadoes should be made fully aware of the view of the Home Government upon this point. With respect to compensation being made to the tenants for what were termed unexhausted improvements which they had effected with the consent of their landlords, the Legislature might fairly enough take that into consideration, care being taken not to interfere with the sacred right of freedom of contract. But as to the idea of interfering by legislative enactment with the arrangements between employer and employed on the estates, he thought that was a notion which it would be most unwise to allow to go forth as having the approval of Her Majesty's Government, since their influence for good would be seriously diminished if they were to be suspected of any sympathy with Communism. The subject had not been overlooked, and his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had lost no time in telegraphing to the Governor of Barbadoes to take no further action with reference to proposals bearing on the relations of landlord and tenant. With regard to the alleged obstructive tendency of the Assembly, he hoped that that body had learnt wisdom by recent events, and that they were now disposed to effect some necessary reforms. The hon. Member for Dundee had spoken of a re-constitution of the form of government in Barbadoes. For himself, he (Mr. Lowther) confessed he did not follow many hon. Gentlemen who appeared to have a preference for despotic forms of government. A good deal had been said about an oligarchy. He presumed that oligarchy meant the government of the many by the few, and he confessed to having no objection on principle to that form of government. Whether the suffrage in Barbadoes was capable of extension was a question on which at present he should not like to offer an opinion; but it would be necessary to take care that by any efforts in this direction the property and intelligence of the community should not be swamped by the negro vote. Other questions had been touched upon in the course of the debate. Something had been said about federation, but he did not wish to enter into a full discussion of the question at that time. He thought it matter of regret that the Assembly had not seen their way more distinctly upon this question, though, if they thought it would affect the rate of wages, or the price of food, they had a right to protect themselves, and he could not wonder at their objecting to anything of the kind; but it had now been fully explained that federation had no such object, and he trusted that a plan which promised improvement in the present system of government would be adopted. He trusted that no spirit of intractability would be shown, and that the Legislature of the colony would of their own will take steps for the effecting of such reforms as were necessary. It would be a matter of regret to the Home Government if they were compelled to adopt a line of action opposed to the love of Constitutional principles and the aversion to interfere with established institutions to which reference had been made. Reference had also been made to the absentees. He had looked into the question as far as he had been able, and he believed that, so far from the absentees being the worst landlords in the island, to a certain extent they were the best. He would remind the House that many of these estates had been held by the same families for generations, and the system of absentee proprietorship had been connected with the institutions of the island. He happened to know one case of a Nobleman in this country, whose estates were admitted to be the best managed in the island. He believed it was also a mistake to suppose that the fact of certain properties in the island being mortgaged to persons resident in this country did any practical harm to the colony, for it was not the fact that such mortgagees were persons of usurious tendencies. He had observed with regret some reflections which had been east, in the Correspondence on the Table, upon one particular firm which he believed to be wholly uncalled-for; and with regard to the gentleman named Mr. Thomas Daniel Hill, he felt bound to say that if this irritating controversy had been conducted in all quarters in a similar spirit, matters would have now stood in a far more favourable position. As it had been his duty to speak in terms of censure of almost everybody connected with the island, he was glad to be able to mention the name of one gentleman who at any rate thoroughly deserved the thanks of the Government and the House. He meant Colonel Clarke, who deserved all praise for his conduct throughout these troubles. As far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, he might say at once that they had no intention of appointing any Commission, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, to inquire locally in the island into the questions which had been brought forward. His noble Friend the Secretary of State was prepared, on be half of the Government, to undertake the sole responsibility of dealing with the matter; and he was of opinion that the appointment of a Commission to inquire locally would probably cause a renewal of controversies which had been happily laid aside and re-open heart burnings and recriminations that had been abandoned. Further, it had been decided after full consideration that it was not the duty of the Government to recall Governor Hennessy. To recall a Colonial Governor was, under any circumstances, a measure of a very serious character, in that it was apt to reflect discredit upon the person recalled, and to cause those who had opposed him to conclude that they were altogether in the right. On the whole, his noble Friend did not think that, under existing circumstances, it would be wise to recall the present Governor of Barbadoes. But if in the course of time a favourable opportunity for a transfer or exchange between Mr. Hennessy and the Governor of another colony should arise, of course that would be a matter which would be fully considered by his noble Friend the Secretary of State. At present, however, it was not his noble Friend's intention to take any step in the matter. Now, it had been his painful duty to distribute, perhaps rather freely, a certain amount of blame among many people in connection with this matter. He hoped he had done so with as little unfairness as possible. While he had been obliged to speak in terms of depreciation of some gentlemen who had conducted this agitation against Mr. Hennessy, he had also felt himself compelled to speak with regard to some minor matters in candid terms of the conduct of the Governor. He had, however, the satisfaction of being able to state to the House that it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that Mr. Hennessy had fully cleared himself of the more serious portion of the charges brought against him; and it was an especial satisfaction to him that a gentleman who had occupied a very honourable position in that House, and who had distinguished himself in Parliament, had an opportunity, of which he was confident he would avail himself, of earning distinction yet again in the Service of the Crown.

said, he was glad at the conclusion at which Her Majesty's Government had arrived in regard to this matter, for it was the conclusion to which he himself should have come from the evidence of the Papers on the subject—namely, that the conduct of Governor Hennessy in very difficult circumstances had been such as on the whole to deserve the confidence of the Government and the House of Commons. There had been much excitement as to his acts, and for several weeks the charges against him were constant and numerous; but they would all probably feel, with the full evidence before them, that as the hon. Member opposite (the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies) had said, those charges had dwindled down to very small dimensions. In point of fact, it was quite clear that Mr. Hennessy had shown great moderation, courage, and discre- tion, and that if he was in any way to blame it was for mistakes in point of management or prudence which almost any one might have fallen into. Many of us recollected what had happened in a neighbouring colony some years ago, and it was impossible to read the accounts of the excitement in Barbadoes and of the panic which had prevailed there without a feeling of gratitude to the man who had saved us from horrors which might have readily occurred. Any blame that might be attached to Mr. Hennessy was, upon investigation, diminished to a few remarks which were contained in his speech; and if he had had to make that speech over again he probably would not have used the same words. When we came carefully to read the speech which had been so much found fault with, it would, he thought, appear a very natural, though not a very prudent, one. Mr. Hennessy had gone out knowing that one of the objects of the Home Government—an object, too, with many preceding Governments—was to obtain, if possible by the goodwill of the colony itself, confederation. Mr. Hennessy was convinced, he thought rightly, that confederation would be for the advantage of the colony, and what he stated was simply this—that in all probability it would have a good result upon the whole social condition of the people. In one way, for instance, the encouragement of emigration—it might have that result. If they had to inquire further into this matter he must say there certainly was evidence in these despatches that there was an agitation in the island against the proposal for confederation, and to that agitation might fairly be traced the disturbances that followed. He could not say less with regard to Mr. Hennessy. He had always sat opposite to that Gentleman in that House, and had not always agreed with him in opinion; but he felt great pleasure in bearing his testimony that one who had been an honour to the House of Commons and to Parliament had not disgraced himself, but, he must fairly say, had distinguished himself by his conduct in this matter. As to the Constitution of the colony, he could hardly understand from the hon. Gentleman thunder Secretary of State whether the Home Government in- tended to mate any alteration. One alteration they had suggested with regard to the Council. To that suggestion, he believed, was very much owing the opposition with which the Governor had been received, and no doubt that was an additional reason why the Home Government should sympathize with Mr. Hennessy. He confessed he could not but agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) that there was great danger to good government in the present Constitution of such a colony as Barbadoes. He did not know that he should have used the word oligarchy, but he could hardly join in the criticism of the term by the Under Secretary of State. Certainly one remark which the Under Secretary made seemed to show that there must be a feeling at the Colonial Office that the Constitution as it now existed was not the best of all Governments, or he would not have given the excuse he did for their dislike to confederation. No doubt there was a redundant population in Barbadoes, and that, consequently, wages were very low; and no wonder therefore that federation was disliked by the Assembly if supposed likely to raise the rate of wages. That was an illustration of the danger and difficulty of governing a numerous colony by an assembly chiefly representing the employers. He should have been glad if the Under Secretary could have informed them of the manner in which Lord Carnarvon intended to deal with these difficulties. He had every confidence in Lord Carnarvon's colonial policy, and his great desire to be just to all parties and races under his sway, and he felt certain that, although he was not prepared to inform the House, through the Under Secretary of State, of the actual measures he was going to take, he must initiate some change in the Constitution, and not leave the island in its present position. He was glad the Government had come to the conclusion that it would be unjust and impolitic to remove Governor Hennessy.

said, he was glad that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon) refused the demand of the Committee from Barbadoes, that Governor Hennessy should be withdrawn; but he regretted to find that the Government did not intend to institute an inquiry through a Royal Commission. The fact that there was a party in London trying to press their views upon the subject on the Government showed that all controversy in the island had not been laid aside. Much of the evils that had recently taken place was owing to the pushing of confederation on the colony, although the noble Earl had said he did not wish it until its inception came from the Legislative Body of the island. At that moment the island was in a most unsatisfactory condition. There was a great deal of pauperism and vagrancy there, and a large proportion of the respectable population were in direct variance with the Governor, and demanding his recall. He (Colonel Mure) was opposed to his recall on the demand of any individual; but the fact of the demand having been made showed an unsatisfactory state of things. One thing was clear, that further inquiry should take place.

said, he was a personal friend of Governor Hennessy, and that he had received a letter from him in which he solemnly denied that he said or did anything in any degree to sanction or encourage the disturbances that had taken place there. Governor Hennessy had been placed in a very exceptional position, and had a most delicate and difficult duty to perform. In the first place he had to promote confederation, and next to make some alteration in the constitution of the colony. He had to reconcile the oligarchy of the Whites to the Natives, who were reduced to a most miserable state of pauperism, and were greatly oppressed. Any Gentleman who had read the Blue Books must have seen that under these difficult circumstances Governor Hennessy had shown along with good intentions great prudence and discretion. It was to be hoped that Her Majesty's Government would allow him to retain his present position. A man in such a position should be supported by the Government in the honest discharge of his duty, and he was rejoiced to find from the discussion that Governor Hennessy had not done anything unworthy of his position.

thought that some injustice had been done to the Legislative Assembly of Barbadoes in the remarks which, had fallen from some hon. Members.