Commons Sitting of 4 April 1856

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Chippenham, v. Joseph Neeld, esq., deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Public Works; Public Works (Ireland).

THE NEW WAR OFFICE—QUESTION.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works whether it was the intention of Government to erect a new War Office in Pall Mall?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLin reply said, that a short time ago he received a communication from the War Department, stating that they desired to have a new building erected in Pall Mall, on the site of the present Buckingham House and some houses between that mansion and the Ordnance Office. Remembering what occurred in that House last year, he though it better to communicate with the Treasury upon the matter; and, as it showed his views upon the subject, which had been sanctioned by the Government, he would read an extract from his letter. In that letter he said—
"I desire, however, to call your Lordships' attention to the following fact. When a Vote was proposed last year of £90,000 for new public offices in Downing Street the House was of opinion that it would be desirable to have a much larger plan for new Offices than that which was then proposed, and that all the public departments should be concentrated as much as possible, and instead of voting £90,000 the amount was reduced to £40,000, on the understanding that £30,000 should be expended in the purchase of the site then proposed to be taken, and £10,000 in such repairs as were absolutely necessary in the existing Offices, which were considered to be in a very bad condition. I am quite prepared to lay before Parliament a plan for taking all the ground which lies between Downing Street on the north and Great George Street on the South, and Parliament Street on the east and St. James's Park on the west, if your Lordships should approve my so doing. But this ground can only be obtained in the usual way—by notices given in the autumn, and a Bill in the House in the spring."
The point suggested for the consideration of their Lordships was whether the wants of the War Department were urgent, or might stand over until this concentration of Offices could be carried out. In case of the wants being urgent, he suggested the propriety of obtaining a surrender of the lease of Montague House and its grounds from the Duke of Buccleuch; and he concluded his letter with an expression

467
of his opinion that the proposed site in Pall Mall was too contracted, and that it was most desirable to concentrate all the departments as much as possible in one part of the metropolis, which should not be far from the Houses of Parliament. The course which he was now prepared to take was, in a short time to more for a Select Committee to consider the expediency of obtaining a site for the concentration of the Public Offices in the neighbourhood of Downing Street. If the Committee should recommend, and the House should sanction such a plan, he should then be prepared to give notice in the autumn for the purpose of acquiring the property by means of an Act of Parliament. He should further propose that, as the buildings to be erected would be of a national character, the competition for their design should be thrown open to the architects not only of England but of the whole world, in order that we might at last have some public building worthy of the metropolis.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY STATUTES— QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary relative to a subject which had been recently before the House in connection with the new Statutes of the Oxford Colleges—namely, whether the designs of the founder should be so far respected, as that pecuniary circumstances should be treated as an element in the election of candidates for fellowships. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman had received any information of the fact that a very stong memorial, signed by 106 residents in the University of Oxford, including among them some of the heads of houses, had been presented to the University Commission, setting forth the views of the memorialists with reference to that subject? If the right hon. Gentleman was not yet aware of the fact, he (Sir J. Pakington) could state that a memorial of that sort had been presented to the Commission. He would therefore thank the right hon. Gentleman to inform him whether he was willing to adopt such measures as should ensure to the memorial the consideration of the Committee of Privy Council which he had stated on a previous occasion should be appointed to consider this and other questions raised by the new statutes?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had not
468
received any information with regard to the presentation of such a memorial to the University Commissioners. A preliminary meeting of the Committee of Privy Council, to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, was held on Wednesday last to take those statutes into consideration. He himself was unable to attend on the occasion in consequence of his presence being required in that House; but at that meeting arrangements were made with regard to the future course of business and the means which were to be taken for allowing parties who had entertained objections to the statutes to appear before the Committee. There could be no doubt that the memorial referred to would he considered by the Commissioners.
In answer to another question by Sir JOHN PAKINGTON,
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid that the proper course for persons to pursue who objected to the new statutes, was, he apprehended, to memorialise the Queen in Council, after which their memorials would be referred to the Committee.

LAMPETER COLLEGE—QUESTION.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill to repeal the clause in the Act of the 16 & 17 of Her present Majesty which authorised the removal of St. David's College from Lampeter to Brecon, under the sanction of Her Majesty, advised thereto by the Privy Council; and if not, whether such sanction would be withheld, in compliance with the prayer in the numerous petitions presented on the subject?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was not the intention of the Government to propose a Bill for the repeal of the clause by which it was in the power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if they thought it expedient to do so, to remove the College from Lampeter to Brecon. He might state, however, that he had received many memorials against the removal, which would be transmitted to the Privy Council Office, for it was there the question would be entertained. But he was informed that there was no scheme for the Privy Council for the removal of the College; and upon inquiry of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he learned that no proposition of that sort had been submitted to them. At all events, no final decision would be come to upon the subject of removal without giving

469
the parties who had forwarded memorials against it an opportunity of urging and explaining their objections.

TRAFFIC IN GIRLS TO HAMBURG.
On the Motion that the House, at its rising, adjourn to Monday,
MR. HILDYARDsaid, that, pursuant to notice, he would beg to call attention to the case of Susannah Evans, a girl of sixteen years of ago, who was inveigled away by a Belgian procuress, and conveyed, with some others, to Hamburg for the purpose of prostitution. Colonel Hodges, the British Consul, had stated that there was a systematic business carried on in that city of importing young girls from this country for immoral purposes, and that he was powerless, without the intervention of his Government, in interposing any obstacle to the practice. He (Mr. Hildyard) was aware that the subject was surrounded with peculiar difficulties, and his object in drawing attention to it was not to embarrass, but rather to aid, the Government in efforts which he was sure they were anxious to make to put a stop to so revolting a traffic. It appeared that the municipal authorities of Hamburg had taken prostitution under their especial control, and derived no inconsiderable revenue from it, it being the practice to compel every unhappy being who entered upon that wretched calling to pay to the municipality of that city a sum equivalent, in British money, to £7 10 s. a year. On this proceeding he would not animadvert further than to say that if a State thought proper to take so abominable a traffic under its supervision, and to levy a tax from such a source, other Governments had a right to demand that such police regulations should be adopted as would secure the impossibility of a young and innocent foreigner, such as this girl appeared to be, being consigned, against her will, to the miserable and degrading position to which the wretches who had attempted to decoy her desired that she should be reduced. He was informed that the woman who decoyed her away was known to the captain of the steamer in which the girls were taken to Hamburg, and also to the police of this country; and he was sure, now that the question had been brought to the notice of the right hon. Baronet, that he would take steps to ascertain whether the law could not be put in force in some way or other to impede and obstruct, if not altogether to put an end to, a traffic so disgraceful to
470
any Christian country. The question he had to ask the right hon. Baronet was, whether the attention of the Government had been directed to the case of Susannah Evans, a girl of sixteen years of age, conveyed to Hamburg for the purpose of prostitution; and whether, in consequence of the disclosures elicited in the investigation of that case before Sir Robert Carden, any correspondence had taken place between the Foreign Secretary and Colonel Hodges, the British Consul at Hamburg?
SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have, as a matter of course, had their attention directed to the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman's question refers, by the publicity given to the circumstances attending it in the proceedings at the City Police Courts. A despatch has also been received from Colonel Hodges, the British Consul at Hamburg, addressed to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, giving an account of the case in question, and other similar cases, which have come under his notice; and, from his statement, it appears that an extensive traffic is now going on between the ports of London and Hull and the port of Hamburg in this way. Colonel Hodges' letter to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was transmitted to me, in order that an investigation might be instituted into the matter, and I have accordingly placed myself in communication with the Mayors of Liverpool and Hull, the Lord Mayor of London, and the chief officers of the metropolitan police, directing them to take measures which will, I hope, obstruct, if not altogether prevent, the disreputable traffic.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he intended to proceed with the Bill to amend the Metropolis Local Management Act; and, if not, to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) what means he intended to adopt to remove the difficulty caused by conflicting opinions among eminent lawyers respecting the provisions in the said Act as regarded the election of parish officers? The clear understanding was to leave the election of the churchwardens, overseers, and guardians in the hands of the ratepayers, and not to delegate that power to the new vestries; but the way in which the clauses had been drawn had led to a difference of opinion, the

471
result of which had been in several parishes double elections.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he would, in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, answer both questions. His hon. and learned Friend had, upon the representations of certain Members of that House, introduced a Bill to amend the Metropolis Local Management Act, but great objection was taken to it, and it was not, therefore, his intention to proceed with it. His hon. Friend (Mr. Williams) then asked him to take steps to remove the difficulties which had arisen in consequence of the conflicting opinions as to the intention of the Act with reference to the election of parochial officers. Now, his hon. Friend said that it was not intended to supersede the old vestries; but when the Metropolis Local Management Bill was before the House, he (Sir B. Hall) brought up a clause, copied from the Act of Parliament known as "Hob-house's Act," for the purpose of superseding the old vestries, which was supported by his hon. Friend. When he was asked if he had done anything to destroy the local authorities, he replied that he hoped not, as he had taken the clause from an Act which had existed for many years. Lawyers, however, differed on the point whether the functions of the old vestries had been handed over to the new ones or not. In his opinion they were, and he thought that no Bill was required to settle the point. He thought the best course to be pursued was, that a good case should be made out by a parish, which could be taken, by means of an amicable suit, before the courts of law, so as to obtain the opinion of the Judges on the question; and if it was decided that the object intended was not carried, he would bring in a Bill declaratory of the law.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that the object of the Bill, which, in the first instance, had been hurried forward with the utmost precipitation, but which they were now told the Attorney General intended to abandon, was avowedly to prevent litigation, but the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) now appeared as the advocate of litigation, and recommended parishes to appeal to the Queen's Bench in order to ascertain how the law was to be construed. There were in the metropolis some eight or ten parishes possessing ancient privileges which they highly valued, and which they were not prepared to sacrifice without
472
resistance, and among those parishes were three in the borough he represented—namely, St. James's, Clerkenwell, St. Luke's, and Stoke Newington. He had, therefore, given notice that, on the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill, he would move that it be referred to a Select Committee, in order that inquiry might be made into the ancient and valued rights of certain parishes relating to the affairs of the Church and the management of the poor, with the view of ascertaining whether those rights were interfered with or not by the Metropolis Local Management Act. He must say he thought that Act had been passed under false pretences, for the House had been assured by the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) that the select vestries would be appointed merely for sanitary purposes. In the parish of St. Luke, the annual parochial expenditure was above £40,000; and in the parish of St. James there were 6,000 ratepayers, who not only elected their own officers, and managed the affairs of the poor, but who also appointed the rector of the parish. Were those powers, then, to be taken out of the hands of the ratepayers, and vested in some thirty or forty gentlemen? He remembered the right hon. Baronet said, when the measure was under discussion, that it was not intended to interfere with questions relating to the Church or to the poor, and that the object of the measure was to carry out certain sanitary schemes; but now the right hon. Baronet turned round and said to the parishes, "You may go to law if you like." If he (Mr. Duncombe) had been aware of the real nature of the measure, which was most deservedly unpopular, he would have given it all the opposition in his power. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General did not mean to abandon his Bill for amending the Metropolis Local Management Act, but it would of course be for the House to determine whether the Order for that Bill should be discharged or not; and if a Motion should be made for discharging the Order, he (Mr. Duncombe) would propose the Amendment to which he had referred. Although the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall)—who, before he took office, professed to be a supporter of the principle of local self-government, and who dared not express before the electors of Marylebone the opinions which he expressed in that House—had told them that the Bill would be withdrawn, he trusted

473
the Attorney General would agree to refer it to a Select Committee.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must say that it was very difficult to please the hon. Member for Finsbury. When he (the Attorney General) introduced the Bill for amending the Metropolis Local Management Act, and sought to pass it as speedily as possible with the view of preventing litigation, the hon. Gentleman was loud in his denunciations of the measure, on the ground that it interfered with the ancient rights of parishes. His (the Attorney General's) only object had been to prevent the great expense and anxiety of that litigation in which he saw the metropolitan parishes were likely to be involved, and to give a legislative interpretation to the ambiguous provisions of the Act. He inquired of the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) what had been the intentions of the framers of the Act, and what, so far as it could be ascertained, had been the intention of Parliament in passing the particular clause with respect to which doubts had arisen, and he was informed the intention had been to hand over the management of affairs relating to the poor and to the Church to the new vestries; and with that object, accordingly, he framed the Bill. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Duncombe) denounced the Bill as an interference with popular rights, and he was backed by a large portion of the public. He (the Attorney General) did not wish to force the Bill or his own interpretation of the doubtful clause of the Act of Parliament upon the parishes if they were not disposed to accept it; and, therefore, having ascertained what was the general feeling of the parishioners on the subject, he was not inclined to proceed with the Bill. On the contrary, he was disposed to stand neuter; and if the hon. Gentleman should bring in a Bill to solve the doubt the other way the House might deal with it as it chose.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, that it was hardly fair to say to the parishes, that because Parliament had passed an ambiguous Bill they must go into the courts of law to construe its provisions, and he thought that the Government should provide some remedy for the doubt which now existed.

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, there appeared in the newspapers of this country a short time ago certain documents which
474
purported to be copies of a despatch addressed by Mr. Crampton, our Minister at Washington, to Mr. Marcy, the American Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He would read that supposed or real despatch to the House. It was dated the 27th of February, 1856, and was couched in the following terms:—
"Washington, Feb. 27, 1856.
"My dear Sir,—Observing that some misapprehension seems to exist as to the offer made by Lord Clarendon to Mr. Buchanan to submit the points regarding the interpretation of the Clayton Bulwer Treaty, upon which the two Governments disagree, to arbitration, I think it well to send you the enclosed despatch, which I received from Lord Clarendon on the subject in December last. I regret not having made you this communication before, but the truth is, that the last paragraph of the despatch escaped my attention until I referred to it lately; and as I was aware that the negotiation of the question regarding Central America was in Mr. Buchanan's and Lord Clarendon's hands, I considered the despatch as meant merely for my own information as to what was going forward upon a subject in regard to which I inferred you were already informed.
"Believe me yours very faithfully,
"JOHN F. CRAMPTON.
"P. S.—I send the original despatch, which I will beg of you to return to me, but I have no objection to your taking a copy of it.
"J. F. C.
"Hon. William L. Marcy, Secretary of State."
The following was the despatch of Lord Clarendon to Mr. Crampton referred to in the foregoing:—
"Foreign Office, Nov. 10, 1855.
"Sir,—Mr. Buchanan having, in the course of conversation, a few days ago, adverted to the impression that would be created in the United States by the non-settlement of the Central American question, I again assured him that England had no wish to extend her influence or to obtain any territory in that part of the world; and I reminded him that, as the difference between this country and the United States turned solely upon the interpretation of the treaty of 1850, I had offered on the part of Her Majesty's Government to submit the case to the arbitration of a third Power, but that he had declined the offer.
"Her Majesty's Government, I said, would still abide by that offer, and thought it would be the fairest and most amicable manner of arriving at a settlement of the question. Mr. Buchanan said he would make it known to his Government, and you are instructed to communicate this despatch to Mr. Marcy.
"I am, with great truth and regard, Sir,
"Your most obedient humble servant,
"CLARENDON.
"J. F. Crampton, Esq., &c."
It was of great importance to the public interests that instructions of that nature should be strictly obeyed, and it must be the desire of Mr. Crampton himself that correct information on the subject should

475
be given to the House and the country. He therefore wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether the document purporting to be a despatch by Mr. Crampton was authentic, and whether an interval of two or three months did occur between the receipt by Mr. Crampton of the despatch of Lord Clarendon, dated the 20th of November, 1855, and the communication of its contents to the American Government?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I wish to make a few observations before my noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury answers the question which has been addressed to him. I do not propose to say a single word upon that portion of the American question with which the name of Mr. Crampton is more immediately connected, namely, that which relates to the recruiting within the limits of the United States; because, as regards that branch of the subject, we have been told in distinct terms by Her Majesty's Government that it is still in their hands, and has not yet arrived at a conclusion. But what I desire to do is to call the attention of the House to the position in which it is placed with respect to the other portion of the American question, namely, that which relates to Central America. It appears—in a form not indeed official but perfectly authentic and indisputable—that in the month of September last Lord Clarendon made a communication to the American Minister in which he intimated that, on the side of the British Government, the correspondence might be considered as concluded. That communication from Lord Clarendon was followed by a similar one from Mr. Buchanan, which appeared likewise to wind up the correspondence on the part of the Government of the United States. On one of the first days of the present Session a question was put to my noble Friend at the head of the Administration with regard to the production of the papers relating to Central America. The answer of my noble Friend on that occasion was general, and did not intimate that any papers on either branch of the American question would immediately be produced. But a few days later the subject was revived, and then my noble Friend stated that, although that portion of the question which related to the recuiting was still in the hands of the Government, yet that portion which referred to Central America, and which had been the subject of a separate correspondence with the Government of the
476
United States, had been concluded, and that, consequently, the papers might be produced to the House. That answer was given by my noble Friend about two months ago, and within a week or so after the opening of the Session. Now, let the House observe the position in which we are placed with respect to this important question. I certainly am the last man who would wish to interfere with the discretion of the Government as to the time of producing papers upon a great political subject; but my noble Friend told the House in the beginning of February that the time had arrived when the documents relating to the Central American question ought and should be produced, and yet to this hour we have seen or heard nothing of those papers. A few days ago, indeed, after a long delay had taken place, another question was addressed to my noble Friend upon the production of those despatches, and we were then told that the Foreign Office had been so much occupied of late with other matters that it had not been possible to prepare them. That was, I think, in the commencement of the present week, and still we have no definite prospect before us as to the time when these documents are to be laid before us. Now, I do not propose to give an opinion upon the question whether the papers should be produced or not; but I do confidently say that their production ought not to be delayed from week to week and from month to month, because persons in the Foreign Office are much occupied with other matters. The subject is a great deal too important to allow any obstacle of that kind to intervene; and what I would put to my noble Friend and to the House, with great confidence, is this, that either the papers ought to be produced, or else we ought to understand—and, I confess, it would be far more agreeable to me to hear this than even to have the papers—that, although the correspondence of last year was concluded, yet the subject has not passed from the hands of the Government; that no ultimatum, so to speak, with respect to Central America, has been exchanged between the two Governments; but that Ministers still entertain the hope that by friendly communications with the American Government the question may be brought to an amicable and satisfactory conclusion. For, Sir, it appears to me that this House will incur a very heavy responsibility if, after we have been told that the Government has ceased to deal with a question of

477
this nature, we do not demand information with regard to it. Where the responsibility of the Government ends there the responsibility of the House of Commons begins. And what happens? While we thus go on from month to month—while Parliament is silent on the question—though I do not want the voice of Parliament to be heard as long as the Government feels that an amicable arrangement may be concluded—while our mouths are kept shut from the want of official information, other voices go forth—other voices which, I must say, have sounded a note the most opposed to wisdom, to justice, and to peace, as well as to those friendly—I would almost venture to say affectionate—relations that I am sure every man in this House would wish to see prevailing between Great Britain and the United States. It is believed, or at least rumoured, that the Minister who has recently arrived from America is armed with instructions and powers that will enable him to deal in a friendly spirit with this question, and I sincerely trust he will be met in a corresponding spirit by our Government. Do not let my noble Friend suppose that I am anxious for the production of the papers to which I have referred if the matter is still in the hands of the Government. What I want is this, that if he and his colleagues have done with the question we should be informed of all the steps they have taken, in order that we may be in a position to judge of our own duty. I have spoken of the unwise and inflammatory language that has been held in other quarters by what are taken to be organs of national opinion. I may also speak of rumours that I think are calculated to create uneasiness in the mind of every Member of this House. For example, there is a rumour—unauthentic, and I hope untrue—that additions have been made, or are about to be made, to the military force in Canada. I hope that before any additions are made to the military force in British North America, in the present state of our relations with the United States, this House will have an opportunity of uttering its voice with regard to those relations; for I am convinced that whenever the voice of this House is heard it will be so in a manner calculated to promote the interests of peace and good neighbourhood between the two countries. I think my noble friend will feel the fairness of what I have stated, namely, that if he and his Government have done with this question the House ought to be put in
478
immediate possession of the papers; but I would far rather hear from him that he has not done with the question; that, in the present state of the diplomatic arrangements of the two countries, there is a possibility or likelihood of further communications taking place between the Governments; and that he still entertains the hope that, as regards the contested claims in Central America, a perfectly good understanding may be established between Great Britain and the United States.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend having been in office knows as well as any man what is the organisation of the various Governmental departments, and how the business in each of them is performed. He knows as well as any man that those departments, efficient as they may be for general purposes, are not calculated to deal quickly in extraordinary and unexpected circumstances; but yet my right hon. Friend has blamed the Government, and the Foreign Office especially, for not having produced these papers at an earlier period. My right hon. Friend has referred in a slighting manner to the other business which the Foreign Office has lately had to transact. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no !] I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon, but he did. Now, the House must be aware that a most important and difficult negotiation has just been taking place, in which the Foreign Office has been the department chiefly engaged. It cannot either forget that from the commencement of the Session there was, for a time, a great pressure upon the Foreign Office for the production of the papers relating to the siege and capitulation of Kars. The collection of those papers required great care and attention on the part, not of persons holding an inferior position in that department, but on the part of those holding the higher positions in that office, and those papers have been laid before Parliament. As regards the papers connected with the Central American question, I can only say that they are nearly completed; and I trust to be able, in a very few days, to lay them before Parliament. I must say, with regard to this subject, that I entirely decline to follow the example or to be led by the exhortation of my right hon. Friend into entering into the discussion of a question the circumstances connected with which have not yet been laid before this House, and I am content to wait for the judgment which

479
the House may pronounce when it has before it materials upon which to form an opinion. With regard to the question of my noble Friend (Viscount Goderich), I can only say that I believe the document to which he has alluded is a correct copy of the communication made by Mr. Crampton to Mr. Marcy upon the instructions which he had received from Lord Clarendon; but, at the same time, I think that it must be obvious, even from what my noble Friend has read, that no inconvenience could accrue to the public service from any accidental delay, because the instructions upon the part of Lord Clarendon had already been communicated to Mr. Buchanan, at that time the Ambassador of the United States in this country; and I think that that will be seen from the papers which will be shortly laid before this House with regard to the Central American question.

ORDNANCE—THE DEFECTIVE MORTARS.
MR. MALINSsaid, that on Tuesday last he put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance as to whether the Government had satisfied themselves as to the groundlessness of the accusation against Messrs. Grissell of having put pieces of iron into certain mortars supplied to the Government with a view to conceal defects in them, and the right hon. Gentleman said he was in communication with Messrs. Grissell on the subject; and as he had not yet received an answer, he (Mr. Malins) was obliged to postpone bringing forward the subject to-night on going into Committee of Supply. As he intended to make it the subject of a Motion, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would have any objection to lay on the table the papers relating to the question?
MR. MONSELLsaid, that there was not the least objection to laying on the table of the House all the correspondence which had taken place between the Ordnance and the Messrs. Grissell with respect to the fraud alleged against that firm in the fulfilment of their contract.

THE CRIMEAN COMMISSION REPORT.
MR. PALKsaid, that the House was well aware that a Board of Officers had been appointed to inquire into certain charges made in the Report of Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch against the professional character of certain officers of high standing. The names of those officers had been laid before the public, but
480
there was one department to which, as regarded the inquiry, no reference had been made. He begged, therefore, to ask whether that portion of the Report of Sir John M'Neill and Colonel Tulloch, which referred to the Commissariat in the Crimea, would be investigated by that Board? The inquiry most desired by the country was, whether any certainty could be arrived at as to who were the persons most in fault as regarded the deficiency of supplies; and he wished, therefore, to know if that portion of the Report would be taken into consideration?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, as he understood the question of the hon. Member, it was, whether the Officers of the Commissariat Department, who might think their conduct was impugned, would have the same opportunity of giving explanations which was afforded to other officers. The answer he had to give was, unquestionably yes.
The Motion for the adjournment of the House until Monday was then agreed to.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER AT ACRE.
On the Motion that Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair, that the House might go into Committee of Supply,
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid: Sir, I am at all times most unwilling unnecessarily to obstruct the business of the House, or to avail myself of the opportunity afforded by this Motion to bring under its notice matters which personally concern myself. On Monday last, the first day after the recess, I intended to have taken the course which I am now reluctantly driven to pursue. But, Sir, the honour of every Member has at all times been regarded by the House as its own property, and it is the duty of every Member to defend himself when an attack has been made impeaching that honour, more particularly when it also impeaches his veracity. I would gladly have avoided the revival of the unhappy controversy which has arisen between myself and the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier). The House has heard enough, perhaps more than enough, of that unhappy affair. It was most contrary to my wish needlessly to revive that subject; but during the early part of the recess a letter appeared in The Times, signed by the hon. and gallant Admiral, which I will now beg to read to the House, and it appeared to myself and to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucester (Sir M. Berkeley), who is also mentioned in it, utterly impossible

481
for us consistently with our duty to omit commenting upon this letter, and endeavouring to substantiate to the House the truth of the statements which we had made. The letter, which was addressed to the Editor of The Times, and was dated March 15, is in these terms—
"Sir: Sir James Graham stated in his speech that I had advised Sir Robert Stopford not to attack Acre; and Admiral Berkeley wont further, and said that the night before I told Sir Robert Stopford 'that if he sent him into the position marked out for him his ships would not swim for half an hour.' My reply is not correctly reported, and I have to request you will give insertion to this letter.
"I stated in my reply that, upon my honour, I did no such thing; and I now beg to say that there is not one word of truth, or even a shadow of truth, in those statements; they were got up to damage me.
''I remain your obedient servant,
"March 15.
"CHARLES NAPIER."
Now, Sir, not only is that letter a direct impeachment of my veracity, and of that of my right hon. and gallant Friend, but it ascribes to us motives of the darkest and most malignant kind. I hope the House will do me the justice to remember that, notwithstanding the many attacks which the hon. and gallant Member has thought it consistent with his duty to make upon me, whether in letters or in speeches, in taverns or upon the hustings, I have never taken the least notice of any such attacks except in my place in Parliament, and then only when I have been placed on the defensive. Having said so much, Sir, I shall now call the attention of the House to what were the allegations made by myself and my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir M. Berkeley) in the former debate, and will submit to the House the evidence which I believe will fully sustain those allegations. This is a matter of fact and evidence must be adduced; but I rely upon the justice and patience of the House for attention to that evidence, hoping that it may not be unduly long or tedious. I am, however, anxious to preface what I am about to say with regard to the naval operations before Acre with one observation. I give to the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Southwark the utmost credit for the gallantry and the ability with which in Syria, on land, he conducted, even beyond the limits of his profession, military operations—leading the Turks to victory. I also give to him the utmost credit for the effect of those operations in sustaining the British interests in the East, by the expulsion of the Egyptians from Syria at that time.
482
The matter at issue between the hon. and gallant Member and myself is with respect to the naval operations of that war, and this question arises out of discussions with reference to the conduct of the gallant Admiral when in command of the Baltic fleet. In defending myself from the attack made upon me by the hon. and gallant Member in this House, I incidentally observed that I thought there was an erroneous impression abroad that the success of the naval attack upon Acre was due to the hon. and gallant Member, and that that attack emanated from his counsels and advice. Nay, more; I went on to say that I had reason to believe, from recent inquiry, that, so far from that attack having been counselled, it had been objected to by him; and that the late Sir Robert Stopford and Sir Charles Smith, commanding the military in conjunction with him, decided to make that attack in opposition to the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member. The next allegation is, that when, before the attack, Sir Robert Stopford pointed out to the assembled officers the position to be taken up by the different ships, he assigned to the Powerful, the ship which the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir C. Napier) then commanded, a particular position, close to the north-west angle of the fortifications of Acre. The hon. and gallant officer objected to that position, and said that if it were taken up by him his ship would be sunk in half an hour. The third allegation is, that on the following day, when the attack was made, he did not carry into execution the orders of Sir Robert Stopford; did not take up the position assigned to him, but lot go his anchor at a considerable distance from it, in a position less exposed; and that by so violating the orders of his Commander in Chief he threw the whole of the naval operations into considerable confusion. The fourth allegation is, that the capture of Acre did not take place in immediate consequence of the bombardment, but that the place was entered by a body of troops landed at a considerable distance from the post occupied by the Powerful, and that that landing was an operation in which the hon. and gallant Admiral had no part. The last allegation is that, on the morning after the battle took, place, the hon. and gallant Officer made his appearance on the quarter deck of the flagship, and expressed a hope that Sir Robert Stopford was satisfied with his conduct on the previous day, and that Sir Robert Stopford told the hon. and gallant Officer in express terms that he

483
was anything but satisfied with the position which he took up. These are the allegations. The hon. and gallant Officer has pledged his honour that there is neither truth nor the shadow of truth in them. I join issue with him there, and I am prepared to sustain the truth of all I have advanced. Now, Sir, the best evidence which could be adduced in support of these allegations would be the evidence of Sir Robert Stopford himself. Unfortunately, that officer is no more. The documents and papers of Sir Robert Stopford would have furnished irresistible evidence. I have made an appeal to Lady Stopford, the widow of the late Sir Robert, but those papers are under seal and in the possession of executors. More than one of those executors are absent from England, and the papers therefore cannot be opened or produced. The next evidence would be the Secretary of Sir Robert Stopford, but the Secretary of Admiral Stopford is also dead. The next best evidence would have been the evidence of Admiral Fanshawe, who was the flag-captain of Admiral Stopford, and was therefore cognizant of all the proceedings; but he is in a distant land. Admiral Boxer would have also been a most important witness; but he, too, is dead. There only remains, therefore, evidence which is either secondary, or which is not the best evidence that could be produced. But the right hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Sir M. Berkeley) was an officer in command of a line-of-battle ship during the whole of these operations, was himself cognisant of the greatest portion of the transactions to which I have referred; and he was not only my informant in private, but the House in public heard his statement. It will be said, and said perhaps with truth, that my right hon. and gallant Friend—brought also unfortunately, like myself, into collision with the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark—is a witness open to exception, on account of the bias which may be supposed to influence him. Now, Sir, I will adduce the testimony of a witness, the most unexceptionable (as I think even the hon. and gallant officer himself will admit) that can be adduced. Sir Baldwin Walker, at the time to which I refer, was in the service of the Turkish Government; he had the rank of rear-admiral, and at the attack on Acre his flag was flying in a Turkish line-of-battle ship. He was in constant communication, as commanding a Turkish squadron,
484
with Sir Robert Stopford, the commander of the British squadron. His evidence is unimpeachable, and the House shall hear it exactly as it is given. The next best witness would have been Admiral Sir Houston Stewart; but he, in the absence of Admiral Sir Edmund Lyons from his command, is now in the Mediterranean, commanding the English fleet. Notwithstanding, however, the distance, Sir Baldwin Walker has had an opportunity of communicating with Admiral Sir Houston Stewart, and the House shall hear what Sir Baldwin Walker states—namely, that the communications which he has made to me in answer to my inquiries have been submitted to Sir Houston Stewart and are confirmed by that officer. I shall also produce to the House the written evidence of Captain Codrington, who commanded the Talbot before Acre, was the officer who most closely reconnoitred Acre, took all the soundings, and drew the positions, and who is in every respect a competent and trustworthy witness, to whom I do not think the hon. and gallant Member will object. But if anything be still wanting, and if it be said that all these are naval witnesses, I will not stop here. The hon. and gallant Member objects very much to the evidence of naval men, but it does so happen that a most distinguished officer, Sir Charles Felix Smith, who commanded the military portion of the expedition, was on board the flagship. To him, my veracity being impeached, I appealed for the facts of the case, and I will read my letter asking for information on this subject, together with his reply. Having done that, I shall certainly abstain from any further remarks. I am willing to believe that, in a moment of haste and exasperation, the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark may have expressed himself more strongly than, after further deliberation, he would himself approve of. I have myself committed errors of this kind in the course of my life, and if the hon. and gallant Member should say (and I hope he will say), after I have concluded my observations, that he regrets this occurrence, and will not adhere to the strong terms he used, I for one shall be entirely satisfied. But, Sir, I must now proceed to show to the House, with reference to the first proposition, not only that the naval attack on Acre was not suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, but I think I have indisputable evidence to show

485
that the first suggestion of that attack, as settled by Sir Robert Stopford and Sir Charles Smith, emanated from Sir Baldwin Walker, and from no other quarter. I will not frighten the House by the production of the large Blue-books containing the Syrian correspondence, but I will read a short extract from a letter in that correspondence, which will be found in Part 2, page 330, No. 249. It is from Viscount Ponsonby to Lord Palmerston, and is dated Therapia, October 7, 1840. It is in these words:—
"My Lord—I have the honour to enclose an extract from the Syrian journal of a gentleman employed in the Turkish service, and a man of sense. [The name of this gentleman has been mentioned to me, and I believe he is now in London.] This extract contains matter not mentioned in other reports, and states facts worth being submitted to your Lordship's attention.—I have the honour, &c. "PONSONBY"
(In closure in No. 249.—Extract from journal.)
"Sunday, Sept. 27.
"Captain Walker came on board, [Here follows an account of the attack on Saida, in which Captain Walker, Commodore Napier, and the Austrian Archduke took a part.] I went with Captain Walker to see Sir Robert Stopford. … Leaving Sir Robert, I accompanied Captain Walker to see Izzet Pasha. We found him suffering extremely, and, after communicating to him the events which had taken place to the southward, Captain Walker declared it to be his opinion that an attack on Acre would be successful."
That was the opinion entertained on the 27th of September. On the 24th of October Sir Baldwin Walker, in the Turkish flagship, went close in to Acre, sent a boat on shore to summon it to surrender, himself cannonaded some of the fortifications, and (his summons not being attended to) then withdrew, and on the 27th of October wrote this letter to Admiral Stopford—
"Ottoman ship-of-war Mookaddlimay-i-hire, at sea, Oct. 27, 1840.
"Sir—I have the honour to forward for your Excellency's information, a statement made by two men who were sent off to this ship by Captain Boxer, of Her Britannic Majesty's ship Pique, on the evening of the 26th inst., at the moment of our departure from St. Jean d' Acre, by which you will perceive that much discontent reigns in the garrison of that town, and how ready the Syrians are to assist the cause of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient, humble sevant,
"B. W. WALKER.
"To his Excellency Admiral the hon.
Sir R. Stopford, G. C. B., &c."
Then follows an enclosure of the depositions of two men sent by Captain Boxer, of the Pique, off Kiaffa, October 26, 1840. They say—
486
"The Druses armed at Sidon about two days ago have cut off the supply of water conveyed to Acre by the aqueduct. The fortress of St. Jean d' Acre contains 5,000 troops, but the greater part of them are sick, and about twenty-five desert and die daily. The deserters from St. Joan d' Acre declare the troops to be disaffected, and that a cannonading of the fortresses would be a signal for them to desert to us."
Dates are important. The attack on Acre was made on the 3rd of November, 1840, and the letter I have just read to the House was dated on the 27th of October. The decision to attack Acre was come to by Sir Robert Stopford and Sir Charles Smith on the 29th of October. I beg the House to remember these dates. On the 31st of October, Sir Baldwin Walker writes to the Turkish High Admiral at Constantinople in these terms—
"Ottoman ship-of-war Mookaddimay-i-hire, Beyrout, Oct. 31, 1840.
"My Lord—In consequence of my representing to Admiral the hon. Sir Robert Stopford the good effect likely to arise from the appearance of His Sublime Majesty's flag off St. Jean d' Acre, I have the honour to inform your Highness that I left this anchorage for that town on the 24th inst., and arrived in the evening of that day.
"On the ensuing morning I pulled in with a, flag of truce for the purpose of delivering the enclosed summons. This, however, was not received, nor the boat permitted to land.
"On the following day I stood in with this ship and fired at the fortresses; and although I approached near enough for the guns to have done me considerable injury, I was much surprised at their not returning our fire. This pacific disposition on the part of the enemy, and the information I obtained from two natives who came off to the ship from Kiaffa, confirmed me in my former opinion that much discontent prevails in the garrison of that town.
"These particulars I fully communicated to the English Admiral, and I have now the great satisfaction to inform your Highness that a force, consisting of eight ships-of-the-line, five frigates, and four steamers, the whole having on board 3,500 Turkish troops, will leave Beyrout this day for St. Jean d' Acre.
"We continue to receive daily deserters from the enemy, and the Crescent steamer having on board 450 deserters and prisoners, will leave this evening for Constantinople.—I have the honour to be, &c. "B. W. WALKER.
"To His Highness the Capudan Pasha, &c."
I venture to think that these documents offer, if not conclusive, at all events the strongest possible presumptive evidence that the decision of the Admiral and General to attack Acre proceeded from information given by Sir Baldwin Walker, and from advice which he had tendered to them. But that is only the negative part of the case that the naval attack on St. Jean d' Acre did not proceed from the counsel of the hon. and gallant Member

487
for Southwark but, as I contend from intelligence received through the medium of Sir Baldwin Walker from Acre itself. I shall now submit to the House the direct testimony on that question of Sir Baldwin Walker himself; and that there may be no mistake about the matter I will read seriatim the questions proposed to that gallant Officer by my right hon. and gallant Friend below me and myself, with the answers of Sir Baldwin Walker. The allegations which the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark denies, and which we assert, are these—
"1. Question.—The attack on Acre by the fleet was not advised by Sir Charles Napier, but was undertaken in opposition to his advice and opinion expressly given to Sir Robert Stop-ford?
"Answer.—I cannot call to mind that I ever heard Sir Charles Napier express any opinion on the subject; but Sir Robert Stopford, on several occasions when the question of attacking Acre was discussed, informed me that Sir Charles was opposed to it; my own impression always was, that Sir Charles Napier was anxious to advance into the interior at the head of the army, and conduct the land operations.
"2. Sir Charles Napier before the attack remonstrated against taking up the position assigned to the Powerful by the Admiral?
"I was present when Sir Robert Stop ford pointed out to Sir Charles Napier the position which the Powerful was to take up off the southwest angle of the fortress of Acre, and the reply made by Sir Charles Napier was, that if he anchored in that position his ship would be sunk.
"3. In making the attack, Sir Charles Napier did not take up the position in question according to his orders, but let go his anchor short of it, in a less exposed position, and thereby threw the whole previous arrangement into confusion?
"The position pointed out by Sir Robert Stopford was not taken up by Sir Charles Napier. He anchored before he reached it, which the ships of his division were not prepared for, and which caused some confusion.
"4. Acre was taken by a landing at a distance from Sir Charles Napier's bombardment, and by an operation in which he took no part?
"Acre was taken possession of before three o'clock in the morning, after the bombardment by a force landed from the Turkish flagship at the sea gate on the south side. Sir Charles Napier was not present on the occasion,
"5. Sir Robert Stopford, after the action, expressed to Sir Charles Napier his dissatisfaction with the conduct of Sir Charles?
"Sir Robert Stopford, in my presence, on the quarterdeck of the Phœnix, expressed to Sir Charles Napier, that he was not satisfied with the position taken up by the Powerful, adding that he ought to have gone to the south-west angle. This is stated by Sir Charles Napier in his work on Syria.
"I very much regret the occasion that has arisen for putting the above question, but, having been appealed to, I am bound to state facts, so far as I am acquainted with them.
"I have been most anxious, to be correct. I
488
therefore wrote to Sir Houston Stewart, who agrees with me on all essential particulars, and he has authorised me to quote his testimony in support.
"B. W. WALKER."
I told the House that I should leave nothing undone to complete the evidence in this case, and that there may be no doubt respecting any portion of it, I will now read what Captain Codrington says upon the subject. That officer commanded the Talbot on the occasion in question, and no one had a more accurate knowledge than he of the position assigned to the various ships engaged in the attack. Captain Codrington's letter, which I should premise is addressed to my right hen. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucester (Sir M. Berkeley) is as follows: —
"Her Majesty's ship Algiers, Portsmouth, March 26, 1856.
"Dear Sir Maurice,—I will reply to your questions seriatim, in the same order in which you put them. 1. I do not know whether Sir Charles Napier objected to the position assigned to his ship after he received his orders from Sir Robert Stopford; but, having been myself present, with other captains, at the discussion which took place in the Admiral's aftercabin on the evening of the 2nd of November, 1840, I well remember Sir Charles Napier expressing strongly his disapproval of the arrangement of attack which was advocated by Captain Boxer, Captain Houston Stewart, I think, and others, and which was approved by Sir Robert Stopford—namely, that the line of battle ships should be taken in first by the steamers, and that the smaller ships should follow them, and fill up the vacant spaces, &c. At this discussion—a very warm one—Sir Charles Napier strongly maintained that the small ships should be taken in first, and placed under the batteries by the steamers, and that the steamers should afterwards come out again, to take in the line of battle ships. The Admiral finally put an end to the discussion, very decidedly in these words:—'I will not hear any more about it, Napier; I will not have the small ships sacrificed for the large ones.' By his wish we all then retired, to enable him to write out his orders for the attack of next morning. 2. I have never seen the orders which wore given to Sir Charles Napier for the attack; but I was told then, and I have always heard since, that by the Admiral's orders he was intended to anchor his ship much nearer the southwest angle of the fortress, and on its seaward face, in such a position, as that the five from his ship should rake the line of guns opposed to our division, in the same way that the fire of the Carysfort and Talbot, &c., did rake the line of guns opposed to his division. This was not done. The Admiral's plan contemplated the Commodore's running in from the south-west towards that angle, and then that he should anchor the ships of his division in succession along that western or sea face of the works, beginning with his own ship when well abreast of the point. He varied from this plan by going round by the northward, under (it is said) an impression—which the event did not justify—that the sea breeze might fail. Having

489
reversed his part of the Admiral's plan of attack, so far as relates to the approach, he did not provide, by fresh orders to the ships astern of him, against the disarrangement consequent on such a change. Thus, he did not himself reach within a considerable distance of the station assigned to him; and by his anchoring where he did the ships following astern of him were thrown out from the positions they were intended to take Tip. Ultimately the Revenge weighed again, and moved on nearly to the position originally assigned to the Powerful. 3. Sir Charles Napier had nothing to do with taking possession of Acre, or landing men for that purpose, so far as relates to the decisive time when the garrison were abandoning the fortress in the night just after the action. It was Sir Baldwin Walker, who, being close inshore, first became aware of the evacuation having commenced, and it was by his exertions and his personally going to various ships, including the Austrian squadron, that a sufficient force was obtained for landing at once, and the sea-gate of the town taken possession of during the latter part of that very night. 4. On the morning of the 4th of November Sir Charles Napier went on board of the Phœnix to see the Admiral. I was not present myself, but I heard at the time, and it was well known through the squadron, that the Admiral had at that interview very decidedly expressed to Sir Charles Napier his disapprobation of the manner in which he had placed his division during the attack. Indeed, the very words that passed during that conversation were mentioned generally in the squadron at that time, arid arc still in my recollection.
"I am, dear Sir Maurice, yours truly, "H. J. CODRINGTON, Captain, R. N.
"Rear Admiral Hon. Sir Maurice Berkeley, K. C. B., Admiralty."
Reluctant to trespass at too great length on the attention of the House, I will not pause to fortify my case with the evidence of Captain Hall (as we understood), who was a lieutenant in one of the ships engaged in the siege of Acre. I am unwilling to overlay the question with naval authorities, but I trust the House will be of opinion with me that the testimony of that description which I have already submitted is sufficient to show that there is more than a shadow of truth in what I stated on a former occasion. I will now cite the authority of Sir Charles H. Smith. I have not the happiness of his personal acquaintance, but, knowing him to be a highly honourable man, and an officer who distinguished himself by his gallantry on the occasion in question, I thought I might venture to make an appeal to him in a matter in which the interests of truth are involved. I accordingly addressed to him the following letter:—
"Grosvenor-place, April 2.
"Sir,—A question having arisen in Parliament respecting the arrangements prior to the attack on Acre at the end of October 1840, I beg to appeal to you, as the British military officer in
490
command on that occasion, and to ask whether the determination to make the attack was taken before orders to that effect reached you and the Admiral from home; and whether Sir Charles Napier was consulted by you and the Admiral before your final decision was formed.
"I make this inquiry because the accuracy of a statement made by me in Parliament has been impugned by Sir Charles Napier.
"I am your faithful and obedient,
"J. R. G. GRAHAM.
"Lieutenant-General Sir C. F Smith, K. C. B."
Such was the communication I addressed to Sir Charles Smith, and before reading that gallant officer's reply I think it right to remind the House that in tins matter dates are of the utmost importance. It was upon the 29th of October that the Admiral and General, proceeding on the advice and information given by Sir Baldwin Walker on the 27th of that month, attacked Acre. It so happened that an order to go against the place was sent from home, but it did not reach the Admiral and the General till the 30th of October, or twenty-four hours after the decision to the same effect had been taken on the spot. Having made these observations, I will now read the letter of Sir Charles Smith —
"Onslow Square, April 3, 1856.
"Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge your letter of the 2nd instant, in which I, as having held the command of the allied land forces in Syria, am appealed to for information respecting the arrangements prior to the attack on Acre in 1840; and, as such letter appears to have been written under the sanction of authority, I can have no hesitation in stating that on the 29th of October in that year it was finally determined between Sir Robert Stopford and myself that the siege of Acre should forthwith be undertaken, that the merit of the enterprise was ours, while the subsequent receipt of an order to go against it relieved us of a portion of the responsibility we were voluntarily on the eve of incurring; that Commodore Napier was not privy to our determination, neither was he a party to our plans and arrangements for the expedition, all mine having been in progress of execution many hours before the Vesuvius arrived with the orders in question. Furthermore, I ought hero to add that on the morning after I had taken possession of the fortress, Sir Robert Stopford communicated officially to me, as his colleague, the censure that he felt it to be his duty to pass upon the conduct of Commodore Napier during the operation.
"I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
"C. F. SMITH, Lieutenant-General. "The Right Hon. Sir James Graham."
It may be asked why was the subject of St. Jean d' Acre introduced into a debate referring to the operations in the Baltic. I am bound, in the first place, to say that down to a recent period, and when this

491
dispute arose between me and the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, I partook of the general impression that not only the success of the land operations in Syria, which I have acknowledged in what I have already addressed to the House, but the success of the naval operations, were mainly due to the counsel, conduct, and active exertions of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, I certainly had reason to believe that such was the fact from the hon. and gallant Officer's own published work on the war in Syria. At page 171, vol. 1, he says—
"Beyrout, Oct. 25, 1840.
"I am pressing the Admiral to send me to take Tripoli; this will finish all Lebanon.
"C. NAPIER."
To the Emir."
"Tripoli was evacuated by the Egyptian force, and the magazine in the castle was blown up."
The gallant officer goes on in the same book to say—
"Seeing no further prospect of active operations, I turned my attention, in common with my brother officers, to the propriety of an immediate attack on Acre, which I had thoroughly reconnoitred, and felt satisfied that the ships in a very short time would drive the Egyptians from the guns, if there was a possibility of approaching within a moderate distance of the walls."
The position assigned to the Powerful by Sir Robert Stopford was regarded by the gallant officer (Sir Charles Napier) as being so near that there was danger that the ship would be sunk in half an hour. The gallant Admiral's work continues—
"The subject was frequently raised on board the Princess Charlotte, and discussed; but whether the Commander-in-Chief was restricted by orders from home, or was afraid of the lateness of the season, I am not aware; but certainly much valuable time was lost."
Then, again, at page 186, he says—
"On my arrival at Beyrout, to my great astonishment, I found a steamer had arrived from England with orders to attack Acre. This was indeed a change for the better; there was no further room for indecision."
These statements having been published to the world so operated on the public mind that I concluded, in common, I believe, with the great majority of persons out of doors, that the real credit for the result of our naval operations in Syria principally belonged to the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark. There is another passage in the first volume of the gallant Officer's War in Syria, which I quoted on a former occasion, and which I shall read again, for it has a most obvious bearing on the selection of the hon. and gallant
492
Admiral for the command in the Baltic. Immediately alter giving an account of the attack on Acre the gallant Officer says—
"I had frequently been engaged with batteries last war, and I believe I was the only officer in the squadron who had ever commanded a ship in action against stone walls, and the system I followed was the one I had always been accustomed to; it was the plan followed by the leading ship at the battle of the Nile, &c."
The hon. and gallant Officer here speaks of the "system" which he followed, so that the House will see that his mode of attacking stone walls had been reduced to a "system," and that he had always been "accustomed" to act upon it. I can assure the House that I have been drawn into this controversy with the hon. and gallant Admiral with the greatest possible regret. I have said that the question now at issue between us was a matter of evidence, and that I would abstain from offering any adverse comment of my own upon the facts. I hope the House, after hearing what I have had to state, will, at all events, acquit me of the grave charge preferred against me by the hon. and gallant Member, and refuse to believe that either I, or the right hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Gloucester (Sir M. Berkeley), who was himself an eyewitness of these occurrences, have trumped up a story wirh reference to the attack on Acre, which is not only "without truth, but without a shadow of truth; "and I am convinced that still less will the House be prepared to agree with the hon. and gallant Member that we have failed in our veracity from a motive so base and malignant as a, desire to injure him. I have now only to thank the House for the patience with which it has listened to my statement.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he supposed that this was the first time that ever an officer who had gone through service with reputation for sixteen years after the event occurred should be thus persecuted, by having it raked up unfavourably, when most of those who took part in it with him had been removed by death, and when he was fit a disadvantage, as compared with the Admiralty, in being able to bring forward evidence of the truth. But he thought he had sufficient papers in his possession to show the House that the charges brought against him were totally unfounded. The House was aware that when it was decided, in 1840, to send a force to the coast of Syria, to drive the Egyptians out of that country, the Turks

493
had sent 5,000 men to assist in those operations, and Sir Charles Smith was despatched from England to take the command of those troops. When Sir Charles Smith arrived, his health was so bad as to render him wholly unfit for the purpose, and Sir Robert Stopford thought fit to confer upon him (Sir C. Napier) the command of the troops. [The hon. and gallant Admiral read to the House the letter in which the appointment was conveyed. The letter from Sir Robert Stopford, which conferred the appointment upon him, stated the opinion of the writer, that he was the only officer capable of performing the service efficiently.] He landed therewith 5,000 men, and with 5,000 only, having on his right 15,000 at Beyrout, and 4,000 or 5,000 at Tripoli. Notwithstanding that large force, they set to work, with the assistance of the engineers, and made a strongly fortified camp to receive the inhabitants of Syria. Reports had been current that the enemy were approaching, and he did not wonder that Sir Robert Stopford should have given him orders very contradictory, sometimes directing him to go forward, and sometimes not to do so. Having remained there for some time, he applied himself to explore the whole country, and as he was aware that it was quite impossible to maintain 5,000 men there during the winter without assistance, and as the inhabitants would not come down, he proposed to Sir Robert Stopford to attack Beyrout, but he could not for some time induce him to do so. Finding that, he (Sir C. Napier) then proposed another plan—namely, to attack Suleyman Pasha, and he got Sir Robert Stopford to march out to attack him. That attack was perfectly successful, and we made between 300 and 400 prisoners. Even that success did not give to the gallant Admiral the confidence in himself which it ought to have inspired. On the 12th of September, Sir Robert Stopford wrote to him in these terms—
"Ibrahim Pasha left the town yesterday, and will very probably organise a large force to attack you, a circumstance greatly to be avoided; any reverse to us would be fatal, and even success gained by much loss to our men would be equally so. I am, therefore, most anxious, and think it absolutely necessary, that you should not prolong your stay on shore, considering an attack on you as certain. I, therefore, recommend your reembarkation to-morrow."
Now he (Sir C. Napier) found it to be quite impossible to retire with credit, and
494
he therefore decided to stop where he was; for, had they withdrawn, they would have sacrificed the whole of the mountaineers who had joined them. He was justified in mentioning these things, because they displayed a degree of irresolution, on the part of Sir Robert Stopford, which he was enabled to avail himself of on this occasion, in his own defence. He then proposed to him to go up and attack Sidon, which with difficulty he persuaded him to do; but even after he had started on that service, he was told by Sir Robert Stopford only to land arms for the natives. However, he persuaded him, and he went on to Sidon, and with the assistance of the right hon. and gallant Admiral, the Member for Gloucester (Sir M. Berkeley), who was then in command of the Thunderer, he succeeded in the attack, which gave us a position we did not possess before, proving, at the same time, that the Egyptians were not to be so dreaded as had been imagined. He again obtained permission from Sir Robert Stopford to land men from the ships, and march upon the back of Beyrout. That was on the 10th of October, and the next morning, to their utter astonishment, they found Ibrahim Pasha encamped in a strong position, which appeared inaccessible, with 3,000 or 4,000 men. He (Sir C. Napier) thought it right, under the circumstances, to try his strength with him; because, if they succeeded, it would set the people of the country free to co-operate with them. Things went on very well, and in the night he sent orders to Omar Pasha, who was under his command, to get in the rear of Ibrahim Pasha. He also invested him on his left with two battalions, and sent another battalion across the ravine, and getting on his right, he managed to attack him at once in front, and rear, and flank. The movement was successful, and they took between 700 and 800 prisoners. They followed him into his second position, which was very strong, and almost perpendicular. They succeeded in storming that height, and totally destroyed his stores. The result was, that the inhabitants of Lebanon were set free to come down from the mountains. It might be said that it was something new for a naval officer to command land forces; but he had acquired some knowledge of the military profession in Portugal and Spain; and he was of opinion at the time that if Sir Robert Stopford had ordered the marines to land, and the 2,000 men he

495
(Sir C. Napier) sent him to Beyrout, that day or the day after the war in Syria might have been put an end to; but he contented himself with taking Beyrout. He confessed that at the first he was for following up the army, and destroying the troops, but he was overruled altogether. Sir Charles Smith would never move forward, and remained so long at Beyrout that Government at last sent out to recall him from his command—whether from dissatisfaction, or any other cause, he did not know, and would not be at liberty to say if he did. He now came to Acre. Every officer in the fleet, it was notorious, had been persuading Sir Robert Stopford to attack Acre, and he (Sir C. Napier) might ask, what was the reason, if it were not for his delay, that the engagement at Beyrout should have been fought on the 10th of October, and Acre not attacked till the 2nd of November? They lay there quite inactive, not performing any service whatever. The troops remained idle at Beyrout, and the fleet also; no enterprise of any kind being undertaken. He went up, with the permission of Sir Robert Stopford, to deliver up the firman to the new Prince of Lebanon. He should mention that Sir Robert Stopford and he were not on good terms. He (Sir G. Napier) had been obliged to push him very much, as had also his captains. Now, he (Sir C. Napier) had heard, for the first time, that night, that Sir Robert Stopford had decided to attack Acre before orders for the purpose had arrived. He could only say, if that were so, it was unknown to all the officers in the squadron. It was a subject of common talk, and he remembered its being argued at Sir Robert Stopford's own table, whether it was prudent that Acre should be attacked, and they all thought he would proceed to do it the next morning, but he did not. He came within a certain distance of the place, but returned and anchored at Beyrout. Now, if he did not intend to attack Acre, what, he would ask, could have brought him back again so late in November, when all attacks by sea became dangerous and difficult on that coast? At last, whether by his own will or not, it was decided that Acre should be attacked, and they all proceeded up to the place. They went to Acre, and there they anchored for the night. He was told he had nothing to do with persuading Sir Robert Stopford to attack Acre; but he hoped to show the House, as well as
496
he was now able, that he did all he could under the circumstances. The following extracts from letters would, he thought, abundantly prove it—
NAPIER to Sir W. PARKER—Oct. 15, 1840.
"Tripoli ought to be taken immediately, which should be followed up by an attack on Acre, both of which would fall."
NAPIER to Lord MINTO—Oct. 22, 1840.
"I think Acre ought to be attacked, but I fear there is no idea of it."
NAPIER to Col. HODGES—Oct. 31, 1840.
"After twenty days' inactivity, it is at last decided to go to Acre, with 3,500 men, which I hope will not be changed; but changes arc no common here, that I feel certain of nothing till it is actually in operation."
Lord PONSONBY to NAPIER—Nov. 9, 1840.
"I write now only to congratulate you upon your having spirited up our chief to attack St. Jean, for I feel no doubt you did it."
Sir C. ADAM to NAPIER.
"The Board have written to Sir Robert Stopford their admiration of your intrepid and useful services, and to hoist a red pennant."
Sir C. ADAM to NAPIER.
"I am most happy to express to you the pleasure I feel at your receiving the Commander of the Bath."
MINTO to NAPIER—Oct. 7, 1840.
"I congratulate you on the success of your operations on the coast of Syria, in which your zeal, judgment, and ability have been conspicuous.
Sir W. PARKER to NAPIER—Dec. 3, 1840.
"Shenstone Lodge, Lichfield,
3rd Dec., 1840.
"My dear Napier—Most heartily do I congratulate you and your gallant companions in arms, on the reduction of St. Jean d' Acre. Your opinions on the result of an early and vigorous attack have been verified to the letter, and accomplished in a manner most triumphant for our profession and the general interests of Europe. I need not add that I have been delighted that a becoming acknowledgment of your own energetic and successful services have been manifested by the Government in your advancement to the First Class Broad Pendant and the Commandership of the Bath, which has been nobly won, and I trust will be long worn by you in health and every possible enjoyment. I trust also that promotion and rewards to the officers of the squadron generally will be liberally bestowed.—Believe me, my dear Commodore, always faithfully yours,
"W. PARKER, Rear Admiral.
"Commodore Napier. &c. &c. &c."
He would now read a short extract from a letter of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, than whom there was no man better able to speak upon this subject, and he would appeal to him to state his knowledge and opinion of the part which he (Sir C. Napier) had taken in the attack upon Acre.
Lord PALMERSTON to NAPIER—Nov. 14, 1840.
"I wish you had been allowed to attack Acre. I have no doubt that you would have taken it.

497
Perhaps our instructions upon that subject may have arrived in time to allow of an attack being made."
The letter would show that Sir Robert Stopford did not disapprove of his conduct. When the fleet had come to an anchor, they all went on board Sir Robert Stopford's ship in the evening. Letters, which he had in his possession, would show how very improper a person Sir Robert Stopford was to have been entrusted with the command of such an expedition. Sir Robert Stopford would have embarked not only the Marines, but the Turks, and have left the people of Lebanon to shift for themselves, a line of conduct which he (Sir C. Napier) opposed to the utmost of his power. Admiral Walker, who commanded the Turkish fleet, asked for anchors and cables to enable him to remain, as he could not desert the Turkish troops; and Sir Robert Stopford consented; and Admiral Walker replied, that "it was better to die with honour, than to live without it." Well, then, on arriving at Acre they assembled on board the flag-ship of Sir Robert Stopford. Admiral Boxer was there, and he had got the ear of the Admiral considerably. There was also at the time a considerable deal of jealousy prevailing amongst the officers of the fleet. The Admiral had, at the commencement of the operations, entrusted to him (Sir C. Napier) so many things, and had even allowed him to go on with operations, against his (the Admiral's) own wishes, that considerable jealousy existed among the officers of the fleet as to the reliance thus placed upon him. When, therefore, they assembled on board the flag-ship, Sir Robert Stopford said to him, "I have thought over the business with Admiral Boxer, and as there are four steamers here, I shall leave my own ship, in order that she may go into action, and go on board of one of those steamears. The three other steamers will tow in three line-of-battle ships into their positions under the batteries, and then return and tow in three more, and so on until all the ships are in position." Such a scheme appeared to him so totally devoid of common sense, so inconsistent with the safety of the fleet and with the chance of success, that he at once pointed out to the Admiral its danger and impracticability; when, on his doing so, Admiral Boxer said, "We have settled the whole of the matter, and the positions to be taken up; and, Commodore, its no use your interfering." He at once took
498
up his hat and went on board his own ship, where he spent the night in ruminating on the impolicy of the plan, and the failure which he was sure would attend it. Next morning he went on board the Admiral's ship and stated to Sir Robert Stopford that he felt it to be his duty, as his second in command, to tell him that his plan would utterly fail; whether he added that the three line-of-battle ships first towed in would be sunk before others could be brought to their rescue, he did not recollect—he did not believe he did so—but, although he had, it would have been nothing to be wondered at, for he never in his life saw such a foolish plan of attack formed. Look at the attack on the Redan. Had not they heard officers blamed for attacking the Redan with an inferior force? Here, then, was the very same thing. Instead of letting the whole fleet go in at once and take up their positions, three ships were first to be towed in, and by the time they were disabled, three more were to be towed in to their relief, and so until they were all towed in. Every one must see that such a plan of attack must have failed. To show that he (Sir C. Napier) was right in his statement that it would fail, Sir Robert Stopford altered it, giving up the towing process and adopting his plan. To show the impracticability of the plan of towing in the line-of-battle ships, Captain Henderson—Who was now no more—and, in fact, the greater portion of those officers to whom he would have appealed in justification of his conduct, were dead, and he had not, besides, the same opportunity of getting up evidence as had the right hon. Baronet (Sir T. Graham) and the right hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir M. Berkeley) one of the Lords of the Admiralty. Well, Captain Henderson came on board his (Sir C. Napier's) ship, in reference to the attack. He took that gallant officer to Sir Robert Stopford, and desired him to state to the Admiral how long, in the event of his towing in with the steamers three line-of-battle ships, he would be before he could tow the other three into position for their support. And the answer of Captain Henderson was that two hours would elapse before the second throe ships could be towed under the batteries. At that time ships could not be taken into tow so easily as they could be now, and that was the period Captain Henderson, an officer of great experience, stated it would take to do so in this case. Well, then, the idea of towing the ships under the batteries was

499
given up, and it then became a question how they were to get in. The wind at the time blew slightly from the southward. The signal was made to weigh. They did so, and certainly were proceeding in the most helter-skelter way he ever saw. He did not say it was the fault of the officers; they were doing so, for the natural desire on the part of these were, who would first get into action; but the confusion arose from the natural circumstances of the case, there being no suggestion, no orders, as to how they were to proceed or take up their positions. Fortunately there was a dead calm: and he remembered Captain Fanshawe saying to him, "Get in as fast as he could," when his reply was, Acre ought to be attacked properly, or not at all—it was not a place to be trifled with—and, therefore, it should be attacked, as he (Sir C. Napier) had proposed. At that time, the wind veered round to the northward, as he expected it would. On its doing so, it at once became apparent to him that for him to anchor on the south-western angle of the fortress, so as to allow the ships astern of him to pass to windward in succession, and anchor ahead of him, was impossible. The order in such cases was so well known that he thought there could be no doubt about it. There was, in fact, only one mode which could be adopted where ships were to anchor in succession, that was for the leading ship to take up a position under the first battery, for the next to pass to windward, and anchor ahead of the first, the next to follow the first two, and anchor ahead of the second, and so on till the whole line was formed. That was the mode adopted in anchoring in succession. When, therefore, the wind veered to the northward, and when he saw that he could not anchor on the southwestern face of the fortress, he had to decide the course to be adopted with the utmost promptitude. There was not a moment to be lost. He did not go to the southward, and anchor on the south-west of the place, as, had he done so, the ships following, as he had already stated, could not have got ahead of him. The Admiral, just at that moment, sent to him to ascertain what ho was doing. He said, in reply, that he was going to the northward, and immediately made signal to tack, passing well to windward of the north-western angle of the fortress, the other ships following him. He passed a small battery, on coming to which the master asked if he should let go the anchor, when he desired him
500
not to do so, as the battery was but small, but he passed on and anchored alongside the strongest part of the walls of Acre, on the north-western front. After he let go his anchor, the whole thing having been reversed, he naturally expected that the ships following would pass outside of him, and by anchoring in succession ahead of him, occupy the ground between the southwestern and the north-western angle of the fortress. It was such a common occurrence that he did not think any officer could have had any doubt or been led into any mistake about it. At the battle of the Nile the very same thing happened, but they never heard of Nelson finding fault with or censuring Sir James Saumarez, or the other gallant officers who made the same manœuvre on that occasion. Why, the thing was so well known in naval tactics, while at the same time it was so consonant with common sense, that every one knew about it. If the ship leading in was to pass along one, two, three, four, or five of the enemy's ships, before she came to anchor and took up her station, why there was every chance of her being disabled from the successive broadsides of these ships, before she got to her station. If, then, that was the case in attacking ships, it held stronger as regarded an attack on batteries where, if the leading ship was to pass along five or six of them, receiving the fire of each of them before she came to anchor, she would be of little use; but by the leading ship engaging the first ship or battery (in the case of an attack on batteries), she came to, and the one following her passing ahead and engaging the rest, and the others doing the same in succession, that danger was prevented. Well, this being the well-known and recognised system, he confessed that he never felt more astonished than when he saw the Princess Charlotte, which was following him, let go her anchor astern of him. The Thunderer did the same, though he really could not say from recollection which was first. He might, however, be asked, why, in these circumstances, he did not signal? But there was not time; the ships would have been at anchor before he could have done so; and, besides, if it was the duty of any one to signal, that duty most certainly devolved upon the Commander in Chief, who was outside for the very purpose of directing the movements of the fleet, but no signal was made by him, except, he believed, that he signalled to the Thunderer to get

501
out of the way. But what did Lord Nelson say? Why, that "no ship could do wrong which anchored alongside the enemy." He (Sir C. Napier) anchored alongside the enemy, and that, too, at the strongest portion of the face of the fortress he was on, not as the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had said, half way up, but as close to the batteries as the depth of water would allow him, a position which every officer, knowing his duty, would have taken. It was true the ships following him did not take up their proper positions. It was, no doubt, a mistake their not doing' so. They thought he had got into shoal water, but he made no signal of "shoal water," and all he could say was, he took up his proper position and the other ships did not. He did not mean to say that it was for want of skill that they did not do so, as he believed that they were under the impression that they were to keep always to the northward of him. But because he (Sir C. Napier) did right, why was it that he was to he blamed and traduced as he had been, and the evidence of parties brought against him who knew nothing at all about the matter? The other division of the fleet to the southward was led by Captain Collier, and when the Admiral made signal for his division to close round the Powerful, Captain Houston Stewart made signal to the Admiral, "May I go in to the southward?" That signal was affirmed, so that the other ships went in, and Sir Baldwin Walker, passing outside them all, anchored at the top of the bay, opposite a strong battery. He must say, therefore, that he had just grounds of complaint of the attacks which had been made upon him. It was, he considered unfair that an officer of his standing, and who had seen a great deal of service, should be traduced as he had been in this matter. He had here a letter from Captain Hastings, who commanded the Edinburgh at the attack on Acre, and as that letter referred to his conduct during the attack, he would read it to the House. It was dated the 2nd of the present month, and was as follows—
"United Service Club, April 2, 1856.
"My dear Sir Charles,—Since my conversation with you last evening, I have endeavoured to bring to my recollection some of the circumstances of the attack on the Fort of Acre on the 4th of November, 1840.
"The division under your orders attacked the western face, and that in which was the Edinburgh, the southern one. At the moment of weighing anchor the wind veered to the northward, and necessitated a, change in the mode of attack.
502
"Instead of running find anchoring under the batteries from the south, you were obliged to perform the operation from the north. This caused some little misunderstanding; the ships anchored astern of you, instead of in line ahead. I remember also that the southern division was thrown into momentary confusion by Sir Robert Stopford hoisting the signal to follow the Powerful. It is probable, in this case, that the signal officer omitted to hoist the divisional flag. I mention this to show how easily mistakes may arise, and that they should not always be attributed to the Commander in Chief, or to the commander of a division.
"It is difficult to recollect all the facts of a feat of war which took place sixteen years ago; yet main facts are engraven on the memory, not to be effaced. Your exertions during that short campaign were patent to nil, and greatly contributed to the rapid success which was obtained—a success of the greatest moment, when the public feeling in France, at that moment, is taken into consideration.
"Nor is this my opinion only, but that of the majority of the fleet with you, and under the orders of Sir Robert Stopford.
"As a proof of this assertion, let me call to your remembrance what took place on your return from Alexandria to Marmorice. As you passed into the boy to take up your anchorage, each ship—at least, a large majority of the ships—spontaneously cheered you, and with a heartiness not often exhibited, even by seamen.—Believe me, very truly yours.
"F. D. HASTINGS, Captain.
"Sir Charles Napier, K.C.B."
Now, was it to be thought that that fleet—the circumstance referred to in the letter having occurred sometime after the attack on Acre—would have turned out in a dark and rainy night, if he had not done his duty, for the purpose of cheering him as he came in. Hero, also, was another letter from the Master of the Powerful. It was as follows—
"Deptford, March 31, 1856.
"My dear Sir Charles,—In reply to your note of the 25th instant, requesting me to state all I remember about 'Acre,' I beg to state that on the evening previous to the attack, when you came from the flag-ship, you told me that the plan arranged for the next day by the Commander in Chief was that three steamers were to tow in the Powerful, Princess Charlotte, and Bellerophon; the same three steamers were then to go back and bring in three more. I remarked that the chances would be in favour of our being sunk before the second three could be brought in. You then sent for the late Captain Henderson, who, in reply to a question from you, said that not less than two hours should be reckoned upon for getting the second three ships into action. You then went to the flag-ship, and I went sounding and buoying for the remainder of the night. In the morning you told me that the plan of attack had been altered; that the Powerful was to lead and anchor off the first bastion, the other ships to pass us, and anchor in succession, each covering the other, similar to Lord Nelson's attack at the battle of the Nile. This is certainly as I understood it; whether we

503
went in by the north or by the south channel, the plan was to be the same. When we came abreast of the first bastion, I asked you if we were to anchor there, and you said no, that there did not appear guns enough in it to make it of importance. You directed me to pass on to the next guns, and anchor as close as the depth of water would permit. This was done, and I was never more surprised in my life than I was to see the Princess Charlotte anchor astern instead of passing us. I suggested to yon to make the signal for Revenge to come in and anchor ahead of us. You objected to this, saying that you could not make signals with the Commander in Chief's ship so close to you, with his flag flying, who must see the necessity of it as well as yourself. Ultimately this signal was made, and Captain Crawford conveyed your wishes to Captain Waldegrave as to the position he should take up.
"I forgot to say that, on the morning of the attack, the Master of the flag-ship and myself were sent to the Vesuvius to sound, and try the north channel, the wind at that time showing every indication of coming from the northward. After we came back we went to the flag-ship, and made our report of there being a good channel with a leading wind.
"This is all I remember of what occurred. Some things I may have forgotten, but what I have stated is to the best of my recollection.—I remain, dear Sir Charles, yours very faithfully,
"E. J. P. PEARN."
That was from the Master of the Powerful, the ship he commanded. He would also read to the House the following letter from the Captain of the Powerful—
"Royal Hospital, Greenwich,
April 3, 1856.
"My dear Sir Charles,—In answer to your questions relative to Acre, so long a time has elapsed that I can only do so to the best of my recollection.
"I have always been under the firm conviction that you were most zealously anxious for the attack on Acre. The shift of wind which forced your division to attack from the north, instead of the original plan of battle from the south, reversed the order of attack, which may have led to some misconstruction of orders by the ships astern; but I have not the slightest hesitation in stating, that it was your firm conviction that the ships of your division would have anchored in succession ahead of the Powerful. By this mode of attack the anchored ships protect the advancing ships, which, in my humble opinion, is a subject of vital importance to the protection of ships and their crews.
"Your question, whether I have read what has been said in Parliament within these last few days, on the subject of the battle of Acre? my answer is, I have been so fully employed I have not read a newspaper for some days; and I am very glad I have not, as it gives me the opportunity of answering your questions free of bias.
"In the hope that you are better to-day, believe me, my dear Sir Charles, yours faithfully,
"F. LIARDET."
He had, therefore, the testimony of two of the officers on board his own ship, as well
504
as the testimony of the officer in command of another ship, while he had also shown that he followed the plan always adopted by Nelson, and if other officers failed in doing their duty, that was no reason why blame should be cast upon him. He did not, as he had said, impute any want of skill to those officers, but not one of those in command of line-of-battle ships on that occasion, with the exception of Captain Codrington, had ever commanded a line-of-battle ship in action before, and that being so, he thought it was not too much to say that he was right, and they were wrong. He had himself commanded ships during the greater part of the last war. He had, perhaps, attacked more batteries than most officers. There was a small island off the coast of Sicily, on which there was a strong bastion and also a mole. With two frigates he attacked that bastion, sending one frigate within the mole, and bringing the other up to the attack outside, so that he took the place without the loss of a single man. There was not a single fort on the coast of Italy, south of Naples, that he had not taken with his own ships. This being the case, perhaps the right hon. Baronet the late First Lord of the Admiralty might ask why he had not done greater things in the Baltic; but the plain answer he would give him was, that there was a great difference between attempting with ships what was possible, and that which was absolutely impossible. If that had happened at Acre, where they could see nothing from the smoke, everything would have been in a perfect jumble, and some of the ships would have been of no use. He had written to Sir Baldwin Walker, who, in reply, said—
"Admiralty, April 3, 1856.
"My dear Sir Charles,—I am placed in a very painful position in having to answer questions put to me by friends, who have made statements in the House of Commons which are at variance; but, however disagreeable, I am bound to reply to them to the best of my recollection. With respect to that part of your letter in which you say, 'You must surely remember we were all persuading and urging him (Sir Robert Stopford) to go to Acre repeatedly,' I cannot call to mind any conversation I had with you on the subject; but Sir Robert Stopford told me, on more occasions than one, that you were opposed to an attack on Acre. As far as my recollection serves me, my impression was, and is, that you were anxious to advance into the interior at the head of the army, and conduct the land operations; and I am bound to state that, at the commencement, we were all greatly indebted to you, as the success on shore was owing to your great exertions. With reference to that part of your letter in which you state that Sir Robert Stopford

505
informed you that he intended to remove his force from the coast before the bad weather set in, I can only say that he made the same communication to me, on which occasion I asked him to supply us with anchors and cables, which he consented to do, for I felt that we could not abandon the mountaineers who had joined the Sultan's cause, and had been armed. You were strongly opposed to the ships being towed into action at Acre by the four steamers, and I think you were right, for only four could go in at the same time, and those, of course, would have had to bear the brunt of the action before the others could have got in; but not having anchored where the Admiral wished, you ought, I think, to have made the signal for the ships astern to pass on.—Believe me, yours, faithfully.
"W. W. WALKER.
"Vice Admiral Sir C. Napier, K.C.B., &c.
"I am very sorry to hear that you have been so unwell.
"W. W. W."
He had been at the head of the troops before Sir Charles Smith came up, and he admitted that he was proud of the command. He had been exceedingly successful, and he had thought it most important that there should be no delay in destroying Suleyman Pasha and Ibrahim Pasha, and that being so, could it be said with any justice, because he wanted to go at the head of the troops against them, that he did not want to attack. He said that he had been more inclined than any other man to attack Acre, for he had surveyed it, and he was of opinion that it could be taken. The people were driven from their guns at Acre, but it was never breached. If, however, the people had thought proper to remain, and if the English had had powder enough for another day, which he was inclined to doubt, Acre would have been taken. But another accusation had been brought against him—God knew it was needless, for the bumper was already sufficient. It had been said that he was there when Acre was evacuated. Certainly he was not. Sir Baldwin Walker was in his station at the upper part of the southwestern bay, and in the middle of the night he found out that Acre had been evacuated. He took possession of it. He (Sir C. Napier) was at the north-west angle. He knew nothing of the evacuation, and how could he have been there? Could any blame have been attached to him for not having been there? Besides, where was the merit? Acre had surrendered. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had endeavoured to persuade the House that he (Sir C. Napier) had not been in his proper place. He was in his proper place, and that was where he should have been. He would proceed to relate, on satisfactory
506
evidence, that the late First Lord of the Admiralty had given a very incorrect version of what had taken place between Sir Robert Stopford and himself (Sir C. Napier). After Acre had been taken and all was quiet, he went on board the steamer, where Sir Robert Stopford was, and he (Sir C. Napier) felt so perfectly conscious of having done his duty and placed every ship properly, that he made this remark:—"I hope you are satisfied with the position I took up." Sir Robert answered very gruffly and said, "No, I am not; you should have gone on to the southwest." He (Sir C. Napier) ultimately felt grieved that the Commander-in-Chief should use such expressions to his second in command. On returning to his ship, he immediately wrote for a court-martial, which Sir Robert Stopford did not think proper to grant him. Several officers, he believed sent to him by Sir Robert Stopford, came, begging him to withdraw his letter asking for a court-martial. He told them that he would do so if Sir Robert Stopford would send him a proper apology. Sir Robert sent him one which, not deeming sufficient, he sent back. Then Captain Stuart and other captains came to him, and begged him, for the sake of the service, not to let the matter come to a court-martial. He replied, that if the Admiral made him a proper apology, he would not press. An apology was sent, and here it was:—
"My dear Sir,—I do not apprehend that a difference of opinion implies a censure upon either party, as I cannot allow infallibility to anybody. That I differed in opinion with you is true, but that thereby a censure was intended is without foundation. Believe me, my dear Sir, yours truly,
"ROBERT STOPFORD.
"Commodore Napier, C. B."
He must say that, with such a document existing, it was most disgraceful, on the part of the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), to got up, after a period of sixteen years, and for the sake of damaging his reputation and pressing the House to reject his application for inquiring into his conduct, to bring such charges. Sir Robert Stopford's plan of towing the ships, he said, was wrong; and if the matters in dispute were submitted to an officer, or committee of officers, they would pronounce that it was wrong. Sir Robert Stopford had himself admitted that it was wrong, for he adopted his (Sir C. Napier's) plan. The wind changed, and that rendered it impossible for him to anchor at the point at which he ought to have anchored.

507
But was it a reason why he should be found fault with because other officers had committed mistakes? He must here ask why a gallant Officer (Sir M. Berkeley), with whom he had formed, at Acre, a sincere friendship which until recently subsisted, had not enlightened the late First Lord of the Admiralty, and made him aware that he (Sir C. Napier) was not a fit man to be intrusted with the command of the Baltic fleet. If at Acre he could not place a single ship in proper position, why was he selected to take the command of twenty-five sail of the line sent to the Baltic, with inexperienced officers and ill-disciplined crews? And yet the right hon. and gallant Admiral wished to go with him as his second in command. He had it there under his own hand. [Sir M. BERKELEY: I quite acknowledge it.] It was a, vile conspiracy—after sixteen years—to bring up these matters again. Such conduct this House should put down. But he had another document from Sir Robert Stopford, which he should read:—
"My dear Commodore,—I am very happy to find that every unpleasant feeling has been removed from your mind respecting any censure—real or implied—upon your conduct in the attack upon Acre. I regret very much that your private note upon the subject, written the day before yesterday, has disappeared, and cannot be found. Should it turn up hereafter, I will take care to send it. I find that Lord Ponsonby has been in complete error relative to the standard presented to the Sultan; upon referring to my letter to his Lordship, after the fall of Beyrout, it was the flag taken there which I entrusted to Colonel Hodges to take to the Sultan. His Lordship's speech must, therefore, be corrected. I shall write to him by the Talbot to point out his mistake. Very truly yours, "ROBERT STOPFORD.
"Nov. 7."
Was it fair, he asked, after a long life, after fifty-six years in the navy, during which he had performed as much service as any man in the service—after having been esteemed by every commander in chief under whom he served as a most zealous and active officer—was it fair that he should be thus attacked and maligned? He remembered that Sir Alexander Cochrane had written to him, saying that he had saved a great number of lives at the capture of Martinique. A doubt was entertained whether Fort Edward had been evacuated. He (Sir C. Napier) volunteered to go and see—and, in broad daylight he went and scaled the walls; he got in, and, what was more extraordinary, he got out again. Martinique was taken, but a great many lives were saved. He could
508
have produced from Lord Exmouth and others some of the strongest documents in the world. When he was in the Portuguese service—and that matter might not be so much regarded by the House—it was of the first importance to settle the question between Dom Miguel and Donna Maria. Ho got the command of three frigates and three brigs, and meeting the Portuguese fleet, consisting of two ships of the line and other vessels, he ran on ahead and took the whole of that fleet in three minutes. Suppose that on that occasion he had attempted to go on to the headmost, what would have been the result? Instead of doing so, he attacked the sternmost ships, and then he went on and captured the headmost. That was the common mode of attack, which everybody knew. He now wished to say a few words about the Baltic. He held, in his hand some letters from the right hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Sir M. Berkeley), which he was not allowed to make use of, though they were strictly confined to matters between the right hon. and gallant Admiral and himself; and in these the names of two other officers were mentioned. He had letters from the right hon. and gallant Officer, praising him in the highest way, saying that he would stick to him to the last. He would put it to the right hon. and gallant Admiral to allow him to read those letters. Yet the right hon. and gallant Officer, who remained silent, said that he (Sir C. Napier) was not fit for the command of the Baltic—that his nerves were gone. When he (Sir C. Napier) went to the Baltic, he was fit for the command. If he were fagged and fretted towards the end, it was in consequence of the Admiralty writing to him such letters that well nigh broke his heart, and were enough to destroy the nerves of any man breathing. Let any one ask the officers of his own ship, Captain Gordon or Admiral Seymour, and they would tell them that those letters had been almost the cause of his death. He had been a great deal accustomed to praise that he freely acknowledged he could not bear censure; and censure to him was almost death, especially when he felt that it was altogether undeserved, and when he knew that he had done his duty to his country. He wished the right hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir M. Berkeley) had been sent to the Baltic. Why was he not sent there? He wrote a letter to him (Sir C. Napier), telling him to attack Sweaborg at a time when

509
he must have known that it was impossible. No man in his senses would attend to such instructions. If he had received such a letter in the summer, knowing that the Government wished the place to be attacked, he would have taken the fleet there; but from the state of the weather, there never were two days together, after he had received that letter, which would have permitted the attack on Sweaborg. He must now ask a question, since he was relieved from the command of the Baltic fleet, very much to his own satisfaction, for he would never serve again; under that Board of Admiralty an equally large fleet of ships of the line, and sixteen gun-boats and sixteen mortar-boats had been fitted out, and why, he might ask, had not Admiral Dundas been told to proceed at once to Nargen, and thence take the fleet to attack Sweaborg? It was never thought of for one moment, and he had been condemned for not doing that which Admiral Dundas had never dreamed of doing, because he knew that he had not at his disposal means sufficient to accomplish the object. He had now explained, as a plain, honest man, to the House the circumstances which had taken place. He had acted throughout his whole life like a brave officer and good seaman. He had been applauded by every Admiralty which he served, and he must say, that after sixteen years had gone by, when he had no person to go to, when he had no official means of ascertaining the addresses of officers who could have furnished important information and be of the greatest advantage to him, it was fortunate for him that he had preserved those two letters from Sir Robert Stopford, without which he would have been put down as totally incompetent. He trusted that he had said nothing in his own vindication which could give offence to any one, and he could only thank the House for the attention with which they had listened to him.
SIR MAURICE BERKELEYsaid, he would not have addressed one word to the House had he not been so directly and pointedly alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark. He thought the House must admit that the evidence brought forward by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) proved that the statements made both by himself and his right hon. Friend the late First Lord possessed more than "a shadow of truth." The hon. and gallant Member (Sir C. Napier) had had just the same opportunities of applying to
510
the officers whose evidence had been adduced, and if he (Sir M. Berkeley) had made these inquiries, it was because he could not continue under the imputations which had been cast upon him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down had appealed to the House as to the injustice which had been done by the accusations which had been brought against him; but he (Sir M. Berkeley) should also ask the House whether it was fair that he should have been obliged for the last ten days or a fortnight to labour under the imputations which went so far, almost, as to say that the truth was not in him? The hon. and gallant Admiral seemed extremely touchy whenever his own character was concerned, and he ought to consider that others, as well as he, had a reputation to maintain. The hon. and gallant Admiral had asked why he (Sir M. Berkeley), being aware of his conduct at Acre, had recommended his colleagues to send him out in command of the Baltic Fleet? ["Hear, hear."] Now, in reply to that question, he might state that he should never have mentioned the subject of Acre at all were it not for the abuse which the hon. and gallant Admiral had thought proper to lavish upon him and the Board of which he had the honour to be a Member, and for the fact, that in a speech made to the constituency of Southwark, the gallant Admiral was pleased to recapitulate all the great services which he said he had performed, and endeavour to show the black ingratitude of the Admiralty to a man who had done so much for his country. In dwelling upon his services, the gallant Admiral made use of these words:—"And I was the person who struck the final blow which put an end to the campaign in Syria." Now, this assertion he (Sir M. Berkeley) always had denied, and always would deny, and even when upon terms of friendship with the hon. and gallant Member, he had made him correct an error in a pamphlet on this subject. The House seemed to receive with favour the taunt, that if he believed the hon. and gallant Member acted in this manner at Acre, he ought to have prevented his going to the Baltic. It should be remembered, however, that he (Sir M. Berkeley) was a candidate for the command in the Baltic, and had he taken advantage of his position as Senior Naval Lord to earwig the First Lord, and endeavour to deprive the hon. and gallant Officer of his fair chance of obtaining that

511
appointment, he thought he should have been acting a very dishonourable and unmanly part. More than this, he would say that, although he still maintained all that he had said with regard to the attack on Acre, he believed that the conduct of the hon. and gallant Admiral on that occasion arose from an error of judgment, and such an error committed in one action ought not to destroy the high character which a man might have obtained by other services. He would not enter into what had been said about the campaign in the Baltic. The subject had been before the House over and over again, perhaps once too often. The hon. and gallant Admiral had, however, said that he could produce letters from him (Sir M. Berkeley) praising and lauding all that he did. He would admit that such was the case. He would admit also that, knowing the previous character of the hon. and gallant Admiral, and the energy which he had displayed on previous occasions, he did put full faith in him, and he believed all the letters, both public and private ones, which he had received from the gallant Admiral. It was not until he heard from various captains the facts which he stated in the previous debate that he could change his opinion, and, having changed his opinion, it then became his duty to recommend that the gallant Officer should not rehoist his flag. He would, however, take upon himself to say, that never did a Board of Admiralty take more pains to soften an order for the hauling down of a flag than did the Board of which he was a member. Not only was the hon. and gallant Admiral thanked for his services, but he was thanked in words precisely similar to those which were used to Lord Howe after the first of June. His officers were promoted, and had he kept quiet his character would not have been so much damaged as it had been by his showing private letters, and forcing him (Sir M. Berkeley), in his official capacity, to speak of that in regard to which he had much rather have been silent.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had listened with much attention to the debate, and had been much grieved by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) going back for sixteen years, in order to attempt to rob the hon. and gallant Admiral of that which was dear, and must ever be dear, to him. He had attacked him for his want of moral courage. Why, the commonest sailor that trod a deck did not want moral courage. But the hon. and gallant Admiral had
512
given a most triumphant answer to the charges brought against him that evening. He had made a very good finish of his case: and it was to be hoped they should hear no more of it in that House. If the statements of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) were correct, was it not extraordinary that, immediately after the siege of Acre, the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark should have received the thanks of that House, and should have been decorated by his Sovereign with various honours? Another point had not been sufficiently answered. If the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), holding the very responsible position which he held at a most critical moment, knew (and he ought to have known), or supposed, or had reason to suppose, that the charges he now made against the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark were correct, why did he appoint him to the high and responsible position of the command of the Baltic fleet? The right hon. Baronet said he did not know of them then. But he ought to have known of them; it was his duty to have known of them before he appointed the gallant Admiral to a command where the honour of England was at stake, and a great number of lives were placed in his hands. If he had taken the same pains as he had bestowed within a short time back in getting up these charges—a matter of far less importance to the country than the appointment to the command of the Baltic fleet—he must have known all that he knew now. Had he not with him at the Board Admiral Houston Stewart and Sir Baldwin Walker, whom he now brought forward as witnesses against the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, at the very time when he appointed him to the command of the Baltic fleet? If he did not make full inquiry, not only as to the courage but the abilities of the gallant Admiral, he had neglected his duty.
MR. MALINSsaid, that some of the statements made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) did make an impression upon his mind, and he waited with anxiety for the explanations of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir C. Napier), Having heard those explanations, he thought that the hon. and gallant Member had most triumphantly refuted the case attempted to be made out by the right hon. Baronet, and had shown that there was not a shadow of truth in the charges which had been made against him in relation to his conduct before Acre. This showed the

513
impropriety of the conduct of those who, on a former occasion, introduced the subject into the debate, and was a proof that men of the greatest ability and experience, like the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, might make most lamentable mistakes. The mistake committed by the right hon. Baronet was, that led on by the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Sir M. Berkeley), and acting upon information received from him, he had gone back sixteen years in order to show the House that a man, upon whose appointment he at the time it was made greatly prided himself, was totally unqualified for the command which he had received. It was idle to think of "toning" this charge down to mere want of "judgment." It meant want of courage. It meant cowardice—nothing less than cowardice—or it had no meaning whatever. Say what they might, the man, whether sailor or soldier, of whom it was asserted that in the day of danger he was at a distance when it was his duty to have been at hand, was exposed by such an assertion to the imputation of pusillanimity. In the present instance, however, the unworthy suspicion did less injury to him against whom it was directed than to those with whom it originated. Was it to be tolerated that our leading statesmen should come down to that House and insinuate cowardice, or, at best, a total want of judgment, against the men to whom, in critical times, they had themselves confided the destinies of England, and whom they had prided themselves on having selected for the highest commands? Never was there inconsistency like that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gloucester. Not only did that right hon. and gallant Officer declare in his place in Parliament that, though it would have been the fondest object of his ambition to have himself commanded the Baltic fleet, he waived his own claims in favour of the man whom the voice of the nation pronounced best qualified for the duty, but he even expressed his willingness to serve as second in command under the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark. Forgetting all this, he subsequently took up a position of the bitterest antagonism towards that gallant Officer, cast the most grievous imputations on him, urged the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle to the most hostile courses in his regard, and when sorely pressed about his own inconsistency in speaking with such disfavour of one whom he had
514
extolled so highly, coolly turned round and said that it was no such thing, and that a difference of opinion did not imply censure. He was now anxious to have it believed that the very Officer in whose behalf he had withdrawn his own claims, and under whose orders he had been willing to serve, was unfit to command the Baltic fleet, because, forsooth, he had been reprimanded by Sir Robert Stopford. With respect to the transactions at Acre, how it must have taken the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) by surprise to hear the hon. and gallant Admiral read a letter from Sir Robert Stopford, apologising to him for having used language susceptible of any such construction! If a reputation of fifty-six years was to be destroyed by evidence such as had been produced that night, no man was safe. It was to be regretted that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had suffered himself to be so far misled by the personal feeling of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir M. Berkeley) as to make charges which were not only unfounded, but perfectly groundless. He (Mr. Malins) well knew that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman's letters to the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier) could have been read, they would have been found to express the most unbounded confidence in him. It was known that the Admiralty had directed the hon. and gallant Admiral, at the end of October, to do that alone which it had been decided in September the combined fleets of England and France could not accomplish. That had led to the difference between the hon. and gallant Admiral and the Admiralty; and hence the anxiety to heap up against him charges of all descriptions. When the gallant Admiral was directed to haul down his flag, no thanks were expressed to him; but about a week after, when all the circumstances were known, the thanks of the Admiralty were conveyed to him in the usual way. It was deeply to be deplored that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) should have been induced to take a course which must injure the public service. Nothing was more to be deprecated than those angry personal discussions, and he should rejoice to see all angry feelings put aside, and the three Gentlemen shake hands, and make it up.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought the House was placed in a very painful position by the differences which had arisen between three of its Members who were worthy of its highest consideration and respect.

515
When he found the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle coming down with his practised oratory to prefer and support charges against the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, he felt satisfied that, however much at home the latter might be on his own element, he was in no position to cope with the right hon. Baronet in that House. When the right hon. Baronet rose, his (Mr. Roebuck's) first impression was that he was in the right, but after hearing the plain and unadorned reply of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, he confessed that his feeling underwent an entire change. He saw that the consummate rhetorician had been foiled, and the unpractised disputant victorious. When the right hon. Baronet gave the gallant Admiral his appointment, no doubt he believed him to be worthy of it; but he now said in effect that he had been misled in the estimate he had formed of his qualifications. The right hon. Baronet had, with all the world, thought that the gallant Admiral acquired much of his renown from the attack on Acre, and this fact weighed with him in entrusting him with the command of the Baltic fleet; but the right hon. Gentleman intimated that since then he had learned better, and discovered that, instead of deserving praise for his achievements at the capture of Acre, the gallant Officer was really blameable for his conduct on that occasion. Unfortunately, however, the hon. and gallant Admiral wrote a letter to The Times, a course which few Members of that House took without having cause afterwards to repent of it. He (Mr. Roebuck) had before now written a letter to that journal himself, and was quite sure he would have acted more wisely if he had not done so. Doubtless the hon. and gallant Admiral was betrayed into imputing motives to the right hon. Baronet in his letter which were not just; but it should be remembered that the hon. and gallant Officer had been previously accused, first of indiscretion, and next of something like want of courage, and, under those circumstances, it was easy to conceive how a sensitive man, in the heat of his natural indignation, might mix some unfounded aspersions against his assailants with his own vindication through the medium of a newspaper. What did the new interpretation which the right hon. Baronet, with all the art of a trained debater, strove to fasten upon the conduct of the gallant
516
Admiral at Acre really mean when calmly examined? Why, that the gallant Officer, having received orders to place himself in a particular position under the enemy's fire, disliked the post that had been assigned to him, and took steps to avoid it; that he dropped anchor before he should have done so, thereby producing confusion in his division of the fleet, and entitling himself to censure rather than commendation. What, however, was the hon. and gallant Admiral's answer to that charge? It was simply that as he was in the act of obeying orders a calm came on, and, the wind shifting, he was unable to take up the prescribed position; but passing a battery—strong, but not strong enough to engage him—he came up before one of a more formidable description and there took up his position. Who, then, was to blame in this matter? Why, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Sir M. Berkeley), of course, who, as a sailor, ought to have known that if his associate ship got before him and dropped anchor, it was his duty, under her protection, to have advanced and dropped anchor ahead of her. Common sense teaches us that that would have been the proper course; so that if any one deserved the shaft hurled by the expert hand of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, it was his own Friend the Naval First Lord of the Admiralty, and not the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark. The hon. and gallant Admiral, with a generosity that did him credit, speaking of this circumstance, said that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gloucester, who had never before been in action, acted according to the best of his judgment, although he had done the wrong thing, and therefore he could not blame him. He (Sir C. Napier) had too much candour and fairness to rake up, after the lapse of sixteen years, the misdeeds of a gallant brother in arms and to cast them in his teeth. That course had, however, been taken—by whom he would leave the House to decide. These were miserable matters to engage the attention of the House of Commons, and he would put it to the right hon. Baronet whether it would not be wiser, not to say more magnanimous, to forego such unseemly recriminations for the future? The House must acknowledge that the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark was not deserving of the imputations sought to be cast upon him. He (Mr. Roebuck)

517
had certainly expected greater results from the first campaign in the Baltic, but he attributed his disappointment more to his own ignorance than to any fault of a gallant man who had spent his life in the service of his country, and who had always displayed great judgment and intrepidity. A debt of gratitude was also, no doubt, due from the right hon. Baronet, and it would have well befitted his position to have acknowledged the undoubted merits of a gallant public servant.
MR. COWPERsaid, he regretted as much as any one the introduction of such a personal controversy, but the original aggressor, it must be allowed, was the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier), who, in his letter to The Times, had spoken of a conspiracy against himself, and denounced the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) and the right hon. Member for Gloucester (Sir M. Berkeley) as combined in a plot to ruin him. Was it to be endured that an officer should publicly, in that House and in newspapers, charge persons with such malignant intentions, and that when they denied the charge, and brought proofs to justify what they had asserted, people should cry out, "Here's a victim;" and say that they were running down a gallant and estimable officer in order to justify their own proceedings? It was said that the right hon. and gallant Member (Sir M. Berkeley), after withdrawing his own pretensions to the command in favour of those of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, and continuing to press that gallant Officer in his letters, had no right afterwards to find fault with him. Now he took just the opposite view, and thought that, instead of there being any blame attributable to his right hon. and gallant Friend, it was a proof of his public spirit and of that sense of justice and magnanimity which he was known to possess. His right hon. and gallant Friend was engaged by the ties of friendship to a brother officer, and advocated his cause; but when he found that his expectations had been disappointed and his anticipations turned out incorrect, he had the courage and manliness to act upon his own judgment of the true state of the case, and would not, on account of friendship, be a party to again sending out an admiral on a service similar to that which he had failed satisfactorily to perform. It was clear to all that during his campaign in the Baltic the
518
hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) had neither satisfied the expectations of the country, of the Admiralty, nor of the officers under his command. The unfortunate circumstances of the case had been so often stated that he could add nothing new to the facts; but he must say that, notwithstanding the hon. and gallant Admiral had disappointed the expectations which had been formed of him, he had been most fairly, nay indulgently treated. The order, which had been referred to on the other side of the House, to haul down his flag and come on shore, was precisely in the same terms as the order to Lord Howe. It was simply an order in the usual style; no censure was cast by it upon the hon. and gallant Admiral, and no blame was imputed to him. But the hon. and gallant Admiral, by the indiscreet use of his pen—and he wished that he had always been as good with his pen as he was with his sword—had chosen to attack the Admiralty in various ways. Upon him, therefore, and him alone, rested the whole blame of this discussion. He (Mr. Cowper) was entirely with those who thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had vindicated himself most admirably, showing that every assertion he had made was capable of proof, and that there was not an atom of justification for charging him, or any other person connected with the Admiralty at that time, with want of courtesy, fairness, or indulgence towards the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Southwark.
ADMIRAL WALCOTT: I participate most deeply in the concern, which the whole country will feel at the painful spectacle presented to the House this evening—that of hon. and gallant Members rising to indulge in mutual recrimination. Personalities arc at all times a subject of deprecation, but especially when they so gravely affect the interests of a great profession, and lead to disclosures which might otherwise have been avoided. I confess that when the hon. and gallant Admiral brought forward his Motion the other evening, he carried neither my sympathy nor my countenance; because I entertain the fullest conviction that it was not calculated to advance the interests of that profession to which I have the honour to belong. I felt, too, that it was unnecessary on the part of the hon. and gallant Admiral, because, if his conduct deserved condemnation, the greater was the fault of those who allowed it to

519
pass, without subjecting it to a court of inquiry, and awarding that penalty to which it had rendered him amenable. I will not enter upon any reflections on the manner in which the Baltic fleet was fitted out, or state the reasons why I conceive it was not calculated to fulfil the expectations of the country.
I am bound, however, in honesty to say that the tone of the reply made this evening by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, and the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester, are not of that candid description which I should have desired to hear. Hard as the professional treatment I have received at the hands of those hon. Members, I assure the House that mine is too much nobility of feeling to make any observation upon them, which I do not in my conscience believe they deserve. If I understood rightly the tenor of the remarks made by the right hon. Baronet on a recent occasion, upon the letters which he read, he did not in his conscience believe that the hon. and gallant Admiral was competent to undertake the trust conferred upon him, because it was unadvisable to appoint an officer above the age of sixty years to so high and important a command. But what did he say on March 8, 1855? He declared in this House that Sir C. Napier was a consummate Admiral, who might bear the palm for courage and discretion; and what was more justifiable for such an appointment? Now he raked up a number of old letters which the hon. and gallant Admiral, with more than inconsideration, had written; for it was unworthy in him to address the First Lord of the Admiralty in the manner he had done. I deeply deplore that those letters were read, not as they affected the hon. and gallant Admiral, for he had brought it on himself, but because expressions had been employed in disparagement of the capabilities of officers of a certain age, which were wholly unwarrantable and were calculated to do deep injury to the naval profession.
I now come to the hon. Gentleman the First Naval Lord. His business was, of course, to uphold the appointment of the hon. and gallant Admiral to the Baltic fleet, and on March 8, 1855, he said that if Sir Charles Napier went out in command, he (Admiral Berkeley) would be only too happy to go out as his second in command. Great Heaven! could any praise be higher than that? or any testimony be more
520
flattering to the hon. and gallant Admiral than testimony of such a character? The hon. and gallant Member (Admiral Berkeley) must have lost his senses, when he could utter such commendation, and now refer to Acre, circumstances which occurred sixteen years ago, to damn the reputation of a brother officer. If he believed, as he plainly did not believe, that the conduct of Sir C. Napier on that occasion was wanting in courage and discretion, and his knowledge so deficient that he did not know where to anchor his ship, or how to handle her, he ought not to have sanctioned with his consent the appointment of the hon. and gallant Admiral to the command of the Baltic fleet. He could not justify himself, as he had vainly attempted to do, by saying that, because an officer committed one error, he was not for ever unfitted for command. If they really believed his incapacity, both the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, and the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite, ought to have taken it into consideration, when they reflected upon the importance and magnitude of the command which they were about to bestow, and the necessity of appointing an officer who would fulfil the expectations of the country.
Success depended on the destruction of the formidable defences of the enemy's coast, and the only means of its accomplishment was the employment of gunboats of light draught, which could overcome the intricacies of the navigation, whilst the line-of-battle ships should be entirely directed to prevent the ships of the enemy from getting out. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, Sir C. Napier did all that could have been reasonably expected of him; I blame him, because all the reflections to the contrary that have been made, have been incurred by the hon. and gallant Admiral himself. Generally speaking, I do not regard after-dinner speeches, but still, when men occupying high and responsible positions in the State, every word from whose lips has an influence on the destinies of the nation, cannot control their temper, it would be wise to abstain from attending public dinners.
The right hon. Gentleman said, that a similar order had been given to Lord Howe. That might be so, and possibly, the complexion of the Admiralty had not much altered, but in those days every Admiralty was a sort of quarter-deck, and it was, unhappily, too often the practice to forget

521
that other people possessed sensibilities as keen as the officers who gave the orders. I am not, however, aware that Lord Howe had, on that particular occasion, returned from the immediate performance of any signal service, or that there was any sneer in the terms of the order applicable to the circumstances of the time. But in this case the very fact that Sir C. Napier had asked for a court-martial, and was told that there was no necessity for its appointment, spoke sufficient praise.
Undoubtedly Sir C. Napier was to blame for making a certain speech at the Mansion-House dinner, reflecting, as it did, on the officers under his command. As regards the battle of Acre, if the gallant Admiral, owing to a change of wind or other circumstances, perceived that a more advantageous position offered for placing the ship, which he commanded, in action, than that which was originally marked out by his Admiral, and in consequence of the smoke he was rendered unable to communicate with him by signal, he then, in my apprehension, was justified in taking up that position. Still more, when he alleges that he placed his ship opposite the first line of a formidable range of batteries, and thus the ships under his command, then coining up in his rear, might, by passing on the outside of the Powerful, have been covered by that ship, as they severally passed onwards ahead, and along the line of batteries, each ship in turn affording cover to that which followed, as they successively took up their stations. For this cause the gallant Admiral makes an excuse, where none was needed. The capital error which he committed consisted in this, that immediately upon thus anchoring the Powerful, he did not make signal to the ships of his division to pass on, and take up their stations successively in advance, for it appears that in default of it, they came to the conclusion that the Powerful had anchored owing to shoal water, and so they anchored astern of that ship, a course which might have proved fatal to the success of the day. The gallant Admiral advances the idle excuse, that he was prevented from making that signal because he was in the presence of his superior, though that officer was obscured in smoke. Why, Sir, I would have disobeyed any order, if my country's honour was at stake, even if I had been broken the next morning. I would not have cared for a hundred Commanders in Chief at such a crisis and such an eventful moment,
522
The hon. and gallant Admiral made no inapposite allusion to the battle of the Nile. On that occasion, the Goliath and Zealous had the honour to lead the fleet and to receive the first fire of the van ships. They passed inside the enemy's line, anchoring successively by the stern. The Goliath's anchor did not hold, and she drifted abreast of the second ship in the French line. Captain Samuel Hood, following in the Zealous, quickly let go his anchor, and took up the station, which the Goliath had been foiled in occupying; he thus gave cover to the approaching ships as they passed to take up their respective stations opposite each to an enemy's ship. Never were evolutions performed in a more masterly manner. This accomplished by Captain Samuel Hood was in accordance with the whole series of his brilliant services to the country; a more truly intrepid officer the naval service has not to boast in her long chronicle of worthies. He died in my arms, whilst Commander in Chief in the East Indies, and my spirit glows whilst I offer this meed to the honoured name of the great dead.
There was no occasion, however, to allude to Acre; the question before the House was simply whether the conduct of Sir C. Napier, in his command of the Baltic fleet, was or was not creditable to him. I am bound to admit that the Board of Admiralty were justified in withholding its further command from him in consequence of the want of becoming deference in the tone of the letters which he addressed to them. No Board of Admiralty could submit to place themselves in a subordinate position to the officer whom they employed. But I also must express my conviction, whatever may be asserted to the contrary, that stone walls are more than a match for those of wood.
Although I deeply deplore that this discussion has arisen, yet I think a useful lesson may be derived from it: it will, probably, teach right hon. and hon. Members to abstain from making statements in public which are disadvantageous to the service of the country. They may depend upon this, that if the time of this House is to be occupied in hearing personal explanations of this nature, the country will soon begin to take very little interest in their proceedings, and repose still less confidence in their deliberations within closed doors.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee; Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
The following four Votes were agreed to:—

(1.) £16,783, Inspection and Superintendence of Prisons.

(2.) £415,906, Government Prisons and Convict Establishments.

(3.) £161,595, Prisoners in County Gaols, &c.

(4.) £25,485, Transportation of Convicts, &c.

(5.) £286,605, Convict Establishments, Colonies.

LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, he wished to call attention to a very considerable increase in a number of the items, as compared with the last year's Estimates, particularly those of bedding and clothing, which he thought required some explanation.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was impossible to account for the increase on each separate item, because the supply required annually varied in amount. He had, however, noticed the increase for bedding and clothing, and would make some inquiry upon the subject. Although there was a decrease in the number of convicts sent to Australia, yet it was necessary, at least for a time, to maintain the convict establishments in their original condition, and hence there could be no reduction of the expense. The cost of some materials had increased, but, with respect to Australia, not including the Western part, the expenses would gradually become extinguished.
MR. FLOYERsaid, that one of the items included a Vote of £2,000 for distribution among criminal reformatories; he wished to know upon what principle that distribution was made?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that it had hitherto been at a rate of 5s. a head for every criminal admitted into reformatories; but there was some doubt as to whether or not that was sufficient, and an inquiry on the subject was now pending.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) £300,000, Public Education in Great Britain, on account.
MR. WILSONsaid, that as the subject of education would shortly come before the House on the Resolutions of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), it was proposed at present to take only £300,000 on account of the whole Vote (£450,000).
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought the Government proposed to take too much on account. The whole question of education might be settled next week, and the Government ought not to press the present Vote. There was no Act of the Legislature warranting the expenditure, and the proceeding appeared to be highly unconstitutional.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Government, in accordance with the hon. Member's suggestion at an early period of the evening, proposed to take at present a portion of the money only, leaving the rest to be voted after the House should come to a decision on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for London. He believed that some inconvenience would be experienced if a portion of the money were not now voted.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he wanted to know what had been the expenses of Kneller Hall in past years? It had been a costly establishment, and, he believed, had turned out a total failure. He saw by the Estimates of last year, £4,800 were voted for it; but now, in consequence of the institution being a failure, the premises were to be disposed of; and he, therefore, wished to know what the institution had cost the country, and what sum was likely to be realised for the premises?
MR. WILSONsaid, there could be no objection to furnish an account of the total expenditure. The institution was given up, and the premises were about to be disposed of.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, the institution had cost the country £70,000, or about £1,200 for each pupil teacher; so that what teachers afterwards received as salaries would probably be less than the interest of the money expended in preparing them for the duty of teaching. He must again press the Government not to take the Vote until after the discussion on the Motion of the noble Member for London.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he thought it was not fair in Gentlemen who took an interest in those Estimates to postpone their consideration to what might be termed a "field day" upon education. He thought some explanation was required upon the large increase of capitation money and other items contained in the Estimate.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he trusted the Committee would vote the sum on account, postponing any discussion with

525
reference to the Vote until the remainder of the money should be asked for.
MR. ALCOCKsaid, he must deprecate the manner in which this Vote had hitherto been applied, and he certainly concurred in the propriety of postponing it for the present.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought that the Committee had agreed to postpone the discussion upon the Vote, or he would have made a statement in proposing it. He therefore submitted that it would be inconvenient to continue the discussion at present.
MR. BARROWsaid, he wished to know whether schools for adults, not under the inspection of the Council, would receive the assistance of the grant in this Vote for books and maps?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that they would receive the same assistance as other schools.
Vote agreed to, as was also the next Vote—
(7.) £64,675, Department of Science and Art.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £227,641, be granted to Her Majesty, for Public Education in Ireland, under the charge of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he did not object to a grant for education in Ireland, but there were some grants in the Vote that ought not to pass without observation. At page 16, there was an item for the "Albert Agricultural Training Establishment and Model Farm, Glasnevin." He observed, that wherever the name of Albert was attached to an institution, a profuse expenditure was connected with it. There were several of the items which related to a kind of fancy agricultural teaching, and there ought to be some reduction on the grant; he thought education would be better promoted in Ireland by teaching people of that class some of the more common things of life.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, a large Blue-book had been delivered within the last day or two on the subject of national education in Ireland, almost filled with details of various agricultural experiments, which did not seem to have led to any practical result. In Scotland they carried on experiments of that description at their own expense. The Blue-book also contained various details with respect to the Albert Training Institution, and the pupils who
526
had been educated there, to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee. Considering the amount of profit yielded by the allotments of those industrial schools, he was surprised they did not take a few more hundred acres into cultivation, so as not to want any money at all. In the account of allotment E, held by John Shorte, at 3s. 10 d. rent for ten perches, the balance in favour of the allotment at the close of the year, was stated to be £2 2s. 2½d. Out of the £227,000, £17,000 were expended for agricultural schools, £23,000 for model schools, £10,000 for mixed schools, and last, not least, £36,000 for management; so that £140,000 only were applied to the actual working schools. The items ought to be carefully looked into, and he should therefore move that the Vote be postponed.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the objection which his hon. Friend had taken to this Vote seemed to him to be an objection to all contributions for the public education of the lower classes, and, if his hon. Friend were consistent, he ought to object to any Vote whatever for the diffusion of education. For what was the object of education? It was to teach those who were unable to obtain education for themselves those things which would be useful to them through life. His hon. Friend would vote money for teaching astronomy, mathematics, and any of the higher branches of education, which he was afraid were made too much of by some schools supported by public contributions; but his hon. Friend would refuse that knowledge which would be useful to them every day of their lives, and on the possession of which depended the increasing prosperity of Ireland. Every one know that the great bulk of the Irish peasantry were agriculturists, that upon the skilful or unskilful cultivation of the soil depended their happiness and prosperity or their misery and wretchedness, and that upon that prosperity or misery turned the prosperity of a part of the United Kingdom, which materially affected the general prosperity of the whole empire; the Irish peasantry were greatly deficient in agricultural knowledge; they occupied small portions of land; they practised the rude system they had learnt from their predecessors; they were ignorant of the rotation of crops; they did not know how to turn to the best account those natural resources which lay undeveloped in the soil

527
they trod. He maintained that there could not possibly be a better application of money than employing it to teach them how to cultivate the soil, how to raise the greatest amount of produce, how to know the sort of cattle most fitted for the markets they supplied—in short, the science of agriculture, which was the pursuit of their lives, and upon which depended the well-being of themselves and families and the prosperity of that part of the country.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the observations of the noble Lord only proved that the public money of this country was devoted to the purpose of teaching the Irish peasant improved agriculture, for the sole benefit of the Irish landlords. The English peasant learned agriculture himself, and he (Mr. Williams) did not see why the Irish peasant could not do so likewise. He wished to know, however, of what advantage it was to Ireland to have a person sent from Prince Albert's farm at Windsor to learn agriculture? He should move the reduction of the Vote by three items, amounting altogether to £14,905.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £212,736, be granted to Her Majesty, for Public Education in Ireland, under the charge of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he would not press his Amendment to postpone the Vote.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he must deny that the Irish landlords derived any benefit from those schools, unless the pupils afterwards served them as stewards. They were all aware that, if a landlord knew little of agriculture, he employed a steward, generally a Scotchman; but, however efficient a Scotch steward might be, it had been found in many instances a most expensive luxury. The published account of those institutions placed the subject in a most ridiculous light. He did not believe in the profits of the allotments. But, taken altogether, he deemed the schools beneficial, and all the Committee had to do was, to inquire strictly how the money was expended.
MR. BARROWsaid, that such Votes created a feeling against really industrial schools, because the public saw so much money laid out for schools that were not necessary. Take the training school at Kneller Hall, for instance, the pupils in which cost, according to one estimate, £1,000 a piece, and according to another,
528
£600. In the normal establishment of these Irish schools, he found £300 to two professors who were to "lecture on the art of teaching and conducting schools, the English language and literature, history, geography, mathematics, political economy, natural philosophy, and chemistry." He thought the Vote ought to be reduced, and that the Committee ought to cut away those excrescences that, in his opinion, injured the cause of education.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he found in page 17 an item of £4,000 for a district model school, the site of which was not determined upon. A similar school was to be erected in the city of Londonderry, for which £3,000 was sufficient. Then he found the salaries of teachers and assistant teachers of national schools amounted to £101,000, besides £6,000 for salaries to various classes of monitors, and £3,000 for salaries of work-mistresses and teachers of the higher branches of needlework in industrial schools. Then there was an item of £1,000 for "premiums to teachers for the encouragement of neatness and cleanliness." He thought that teachers might be expected to encourage habits of neatness and cleanliness without receiving premiums for so doing. He also found in the book department an item of £10,000 "towards paper, printing, and binding the national school books, and to purchase maps and other school requisites." If the hon. Member proposed to reduce the Vote by a greater amount, he would divide with him.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought it would be better to withdraw a portion of the Vote, in order that the Government might reconsider it and present it in an amended form.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that when the Vote amounted to £60,000 or £80,000 the poor derived some advantage from it. He believed the Vote in the first year was £40,000, but now it amounted to £227,641. The amount voted for education in Great Britain last year was £396,921, which was disbursed at a charge of £12,663 for administration. The sum voted for the Irish Commissioners of Education was much smaller, yet the cost of its administration was about £14,000. The various items of that expenditure had not been set forth as they ought to have been, but the extravagance of the establishment in Dublin, under the control of the Chief Commissioner, called for a great exertion

529
on the part of the English portion of the House of Commons to remodel it and put it on a more economical footing.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he hoped that the Government would reconsider this Vote, because it bore marks of being a most transparent job. He found an item of £100 for a "literary teacher to the literary teachers in training at Marlborough Street." Then there was a "first agriculturist," at £120, and a "second agriculturist," at £80. He certainly could not give his consent to the Vote in its present shape.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he certainly thought the Vote required further consideration, more especially in view of the vindication of its utility attempted by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who had raised questions which it was difficult to see where they should stop, if they drew from those principles the legitimate consequences that would inevitably follow their adoption. He (Mr. Disraeli) was not prepared to say that a model farm in Ireland might not be valuable and useful—though he was in general opposed to model farms. There might be anomalous circumstances in connection with that country which would render it necessary to place the means of learning the highest and most perfect modes of cultivation before the agricultural population of that country; but though that House might authorise one model farm, it did not follow that this institution should organise, as it had done, model farms in other parts of that country. The use of a model school was to give a stimulus and a direction to individual industry, and influence it to make exertions for the creation and application of capital, and so give a beneficial impulse to public conduct, elevate the tone of society, and improve the average exertions of the country. But in this case, there was not merely a model school, but a parent institution; every institution derived from it was a model institution; and it might ultimately come to the point, if the principle were admitted, that the whole face of the country would be cultivated at the public cost. The hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) seemed to him to raise objections to the Vote that he rose to advocate, for he said that the advantage of these model institutions was, that here, at a cheap rate, the Irish landowners might educate stewards to manage their properties.
530
But for such model farms his hon. and gallant Friend said they must send to Scotland, where they would get very good but very expensive stewards. Then the question arose—ought the proprietors of Ireland to benefit by the Imperial capital thus applied? But here the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) stepped in and said, "How can you oppose these Votes? Are you not for education? Are you not every day and night pressing upon the Government that education is of the first consequence? And what is of more importance than to instruct the people of Ireland, who are almost exclusively an agricultural people, in a skilful cultivation of the soil? "Now, with all deference to the noble Lord, there appeared to him (Mr. Disraeli) to be a great fallacy in those observations, which, falling from so high a quarter, required to be answered. He apprehended that there was very little difference in that House at the present day, not only as to the benefits of education, but also as to its being the first duty of a State to encourage and stimulate the education of the people of the country whose affairs it administered; but then he took such education to mean—in the largest acceptation of the words—the religious, the moral, and the literary education of the people—the education of their soul, their heart, and their intelligence. The duty of the State was only to cultivate the spirit, the heart, and the intelligence of the people; and having performed that task, they should allow them to employ the talents they had cultivated in order to advance themselves in life; but he did not apprehend that when they had advanced the education of the people it was the business of the State to educate them in trades—that it was the business of the State to educate them in cultivating the soil, any more than it was the business of the State to educate them in manufacturing raw material into cotton articles. He wanted to know where the line was to be drawn? If the notion of education expressed by the noble Lord that night was adopted by the House of Commons, he (Mr. Disraeli) would like to know where they were to stop with Votes of that kind—whether they might not have a Vote for a mill, a model mill, or a model bakery. Following out the principle propounded in the present case, he would ask whether, having passed this Vote, any trade or manufacture in the country might not come, and on similar grounds, ask that

531
House for those colleges and houses to educate people in their particular branch of industry. It appeared to him that the principle of those Votes was essentially a false one, though he could not go so far as the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who asked hon. Members to strike those Votes out of the paper on the present occasion; for, as had been suggested, the model farm was not an establishment that could be put an end to in a moment; but he could not doubt that the Committee would, on this occasion, in a manner that could not be mistaken, express their disapprobation of a system which had already entailed upon the country a large expenditure, to the increase of which he saw no limit if the principle advocated by the noble Lord was accepted. He should be glad, knowing himself but little of the localities in which some of these model schools were situate, to hear Irish Members favouring the Committee with their opinions on the subject. He should be glad to hear the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant giving some statesmanlike and philosophical vindication of these Votes; but a silence, that had not illuminated the discussion, had prevailed on the Treasury benches. The Committee had not even been favoured with that contribution to its knowledge of the subject under debate which might enable them to form such a determination as might be desired, and which could have, perhaps, been imparted by those Irish Members who might themselves be interested in those Votes. Passing over the model farm, he found that there were nineteen model agricultural schools under the exclusive control of the Board, and the expense of which, on the whole, amounted, of course, to more than that of the model farm; and he perceived that for one of those model agricultural schools—that at Limerick—no less a sum than £2,300 was required. Now, one of the Members for Limerick was a distinguished Member of Her Majesty's Government, and from him he (Mr. Disraeli) would be glad to have some information on the subject of this school. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance had great ingenuity in debate, and was oftener on his legs than probably he wished to be; but the question of this model school in Limerick was one on which the right hon. Gentleman might be in a position to give the Committee some information. He (Mr. Monsell) might tell
532
the Committee in what part of the Limerick district this model agricultural school was placed—whether it was contiguous to his own estate, and therefore under his own observation, so as that from his own experience he could give them the desired information. There was also another hon. Member for Limerick in that House; and he, too, would have an opportunity of speaking on the matter, for in addition to the sum of £2,300 asked for the school itself, there were Votes for "furniture" for the residences of masters and agricultural and literary pupils, and the other hon. Member for Limerick might give the Committee some information with respect to those items. He (Mr. Disraeli) did not mean to say that these were important details, though £2,300 was not an inconsiderable sum for one of those schools; but as there were nineteen of them, he could not but think that the present was a good opportunity for the representatives of all those districts—when a Vote of this kind was called in question there was an excellent opportunity for those hon. Gentlemen to come forward and contribute to the debate. Gentlemen in the great position of Ministers of State would add much importance and weight to the debate; and, on the other hand, for Members of less experience, what better opportunity of catching the ear of the Committee than that which would be afforded to them by speaking of those schools which might be on their own estates, and which might be of immense advantage to them. Those hon. Members might say, "By the beneficent and philanthropic Legislature of England we have the advantage of model agricultural schools on our estates. Still, we are ready to vindicate the Vote for those schools—we are ready to prove that they are of the greatest importance and advantage to our country." He really hoped that before the discussion, ended they would have that information at least from the representatives of the districts in which those schools were situate. He also trusted that the comments made by hon. Members in the course of that debate would convince the Government that such Votes could not be passed in the easy manner that the Government seemed to think. If the mischief of this system were limited to the Votes on the papers then before the Committee he would not have been disposed to oppose those Votes; but, after the observations of the noble Lord, he could not have remained silent,

533
for he could not understand why Votes of that kind were to be multiplied ad infinitum. He could not help remembering that from the circumstances in which this country had been placed during the last two years, and the existence of which rendered it necessary that the greatest confidence should be placed in the Government, and the least scrutiny possible of expenditure of the public money resorted to, that House had fallen into habits of expenditure that ought, at least, to be checked—not, however, unjustly checked, For let it not be supposed that because they were now about to terminate a great cause of expenditure, and because they would of necessity have to severely revise the establishments of this country, he should avail himself of such a time to recommend any reduction of the expenditure necessary for the education of the people of Great Britain and Ireland. But if they were to legislate for the education of the people, let it be for their religious, moral, and literary education. But let it not be for education that was to teach them to be tillers of the soil—which would teach them to be followers of trade—which would teach them to be manufacturers of raw material; a course which would, in fact, be to step in and give to a country, as a community, those advantages which could only be the result of experience, and that an experience which could be obtained only at the country's own cost and risk, and by its own study.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he did not require his invitation to come forward, but he had thought it less necessary to rise in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, because the Votes now before the Committee were similar to those introduced by him and recommended to the House when he was a Minister of the Crown. For those Votes, which did not now appear in the Estimates for the first time, it should be understood that the House of Commons was really responsible. He was not prepared to vindicate the particular terms in which those Votes were recommended, which he admitted were open to criticism. But when he heard it denounced as a job in the interests of the Irish landlords, he would remind the Committee that this was only part of the large sum placed at the disposal of the Commissioners of National Education, and that, though this was originally intended to promote literary instruction, they had thought it right to devote a small portion
534
to the industrial education of the people of Ireland. It might be a question open to debate whether it was a wise course to pursue hereafter; but those were establishments which had been agreed to year after year, and which now summarily to break up would inflict great injury and injustice on many parties. Instead of taking each Vote separately, and commenting on the words in which it was proposed, it would be bettor for hon. Members to show, if they could, that the money which had been expended had not been beneficially employed. According to the information which he had received the contrary was the case. A good deal had been said about one item for "literary teachers to literary teachers," but every one knew what was meant, though the expressions were not happy, and that there was a class of superior pupils in training to become teachers, and that there must be experienced teachers to qualify them for their future functions. In England such a Vote as the present was not required, because there were agricultural societies, with their periodical shows and their grants of premiums, and agriculture was pursued under a system to which all the aids of wealth and science had long been applied. But that was not the case in Ireland, where agriculture was in its infancy, and required some extraneous aid, under the application of which it had lately made great advances. He would beg to impress upon the Committee that Parliament was responsible mainly for this Vote, although it might fairly be considered whether in future years any modifications might not be introduced into it. He therefore hoped the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would be satisfied with having elicited the opinion of the Committee, and leave the Commissioners of National Education to be warned by this discussion to weigh well all the details of any Estimate which they might propose.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he represented a district of Ireland which would not be at all benefited by the Vote, and was as hostile as any one to any jobbing system of applying public money to special purposes; but he was surprised that English and Scotch Members should just then find that Votes for education, other than moral or religious, were wrong. He would ask them whether the Vote they had passed that evening for mining schools was justifiable on that ground, or the Vote for the Marlborough House Schools? The latter were intended to diffuse among the youth of this country a knowledge of arts and sciences, in order

535
that native manufacturers might be enabled to compete with foreigners without the necessity of obtaining their designs from abroad. If the Committee should refuse to pass this Vote, he should certainly divide upon that for the Professorship of Materia Medica and Comparative Anatomy at the London University, which certainly could not come under the denomination of objects of moral or religious education.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the Votes which had been quoted by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) were divided among England, Scotland, and Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had cast a deep slur on the landed proprietors of that country when he referred to the agricultural societies as a reason why Government aid was not required in England, for he forgot to mention that those societies were maintained by individual subscriptions, as was also the Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland, which had done much good. He objected to the Vote on principle, and believed that so long as Government support was extended to Irish agriculture, the energies of the landowners would be cramped and repressed.
MR. WILSONsaid, he must remind the Committee that, a year ago, a lengthened conversation had taken place upon the present subject, and the decision then arrived at appeared to be that the Commissioners for National Education in Ireland had shown great discretion in applying a portion of their funds to industrial training, and certainly the public had regarded that expenditure with no inconsiderable degree of favour. What was there new in the principle thus introduced in the system of national education? Nothing. It was only applying it in the most practical manner to the interest of the people. Would it, then, be wise, now that the Commissioners had got these establishments to the present state of completeness and had all these engagements on their bands, for the House of Commons to interfere and put an end to them at once? He trusted, after the many discussions which had taken place on the subject, and after the repeated Votes that had been sanctioned, the Committee would not suddenly withdraw this Vote.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he wished to know who was responsible for the Vote now under consideration, since the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, while defending it, had said that he was not prepared to maintain it in all its details,
536
while the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury had simply called upon the Committee not to maintain the principle, but to abstain from suddenly withholding the salaries of the Commissioners, and thereby disarrange their plans. He never could understand what advantage was to be derived from agricultural training establishments in Ireland. It appeared to him to have no connection whatever with national education, but to partake altogether of class legislation. It tended to set the agricultural population against all the other classes of the community, and it was in a degree opposing Ireland against England, where no such establishments existed. If they sanctioned an establishment for agriculture, why not have an establishment for shipbuilding? He believed that the agricultural interest of Ireland was at the present moment based on as broad and healthy a foundation as it could possibly be, and that it did not need such Votes as that now proposed. It was rather singular that he should have to teach free trade to hon. Members sitting on the Treasury benches. But he did trust that they would recognise their own principles and withdraw this grant. He, as a landed proprietor of Ireland, would be able to witness the utter abolition of the existing establishment without the least alarm.
MR. BARNESsaid, if they did not retrace their steps, they must go on to a point beyond reasonable conception. It was essentially unjust that his Lancashire constituents should be taxed for such establishments in Ireland, and he hoped, if the Vote did pass, that this kind of legislation, which was class legislation, in fact, would very soon disappear.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had not a bettor recollection and less imagination when he attacked with so much eloquence a Vote which he himself had become responsible for when sitting on those (the Ministerial) benches. Probably his memory was not sufficiently tenacious; or, perhaps, he was carried away with the impetuosity of his imagination, and had thus been led to break his lance against his own shield. He could not admit the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman had laid down—namely, that the efforts of a Government in promoting the education of the people should be limited entirely to religion, morality, and intelligence, and that everything tending to enable the people to

537
maintain themselves in life should be altogether excluded. He alway understood that education was the art of teaching men how to live according to the circumstances in which they might be placed. It was, he must confess, quite a new doctrine to him to hear it asserted that it was an abuse of the powers of Government to teach the people industrial occupations. The right hon. Gentleman had said, "If you teach the people agriculture, why not teach them cotton spinning?" It had been well observed that we at least did teach them cotton printing by the establishment of schools of design. And if it were right to establish schools of design, why should it not be equally right to establish schools for agricultural training? The object of such institutions certainly was not to enable the people to make fortunes, or to accumulate wealth, but to qualify them to support themselves and their families, and to struggle through life in that position in which their lot had been cast. Upon general principles, he admitted, it was not expedient to devote public money to advance the condition of the people; but the condition of the people of Ireland was an exception to all general rules. He would not at that moment enter into any discussion, but every man must know the unfortunate state in which Ireland had for ages been placed, and how Ireland had been the victim of misgovernment on the part of this country. It was true that could not be said of the Government for many years past, because they had been retracing their steps, and had been doing justice where injustice had hitherto prevailed. But it was from the misgovernment of former ages that Ireland was still suffering. And when they knew that that country was comparatively poor, because in former ages it had been misgoverned, because its resources had not been brought forth, and because it had been made the victim of oppression and the object of class legislation, he contended that Ireland was an exception to the general rule. For many years past a more enlightened policy had prevailed. The Government of this country had retraced its steps. But even now, when they considered what had been the calamitous results of long years of misgovernment to that country, they were not only entitled, but bound, in justice, to make Ireland an exception from the general rules of legislation. What had been the affliction, what the calamity, which, within
538
the last few years, had pressed upon Ireland? Why, it was famine. It was a deficiency of the produce of the soil. It was a calamity inflicted upon the inhabitants of the country arising from the imperfect system by which they cultivated the land on which they lived. When their minds were so recently oppressed with the calamities which that famine produced in Ireland, and when they remembered the heavy burdens which those calamities entailed on England, with a view to exempt themselves in future from the recurrence of those evils, it could not be justly said that it was a misapplication of a small portion of the public revenue to devote it to the promotion of agricultural training in that country. It might be true that this system of gratuitous training of the people by public establishments might be carried too far. It was perfectly possible that those training schools and model farms might be carried beyond the necessity of the case, or the beneficial results that had been derived from them might have rendered them no longer necessary as permanent establishments. When those establishments had accomplished their purpose, they ought to be discontinued. If Ireland were raised to the level of England no one would think of asking Parliament to vote money for this purpose. He was, therefore, quite ready to admit that this Vote was a fit subject for revision, and it would be the duty of the Government to urge upon the Commissioners who had the management of those establishments to consider whether they were not now carried on on too extensive a scale, and whether some changes might not be made before the Estimates were again introduced by which their expense should be diminished, or by which they should be more distributed. He could not consent to the reduction of the present Vote, because the teachers were all engaged and had made their arrangements on the faith of their occupation being continued for another year, and it would he a most cruel thing to turn them adrift on a sudden.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that with respect to the observations of the noble Lord that he had himself on one occasion sanctioned a Vote similar to this, he would remind the Committee that when he (Mr. Disraeli) had the honour to assume a responsible position, it was one of the conditions agreed upon between the Government of which he was a Member and the House of Commons,

539
that, in order to facilitate the progress of public business and expedite the making of an appeal to the country, they should accept and move the Estimates which had been prepared by their predecessors. Therefore this objection of the noble Lord, which would in no case have been of much importance, was in the present instance entirely without weight. He was surprised at the tone which the noble Lord had adopted in regard to this Vote. The noble Lord said that Ireland had been suffering from sectarian differences, and therefore we must establish model farms throughout the country. The speech of the noble Lord reminded him of the earlier years of his Parliamentary experience. He was in hopes that Ireland was a smiling and prosperous country, and one which England might at present regard almost with envy; but the noble Lord had revived such dreadful recollections of misgovernment that he had quite thrown a cloud over the debate. He should like to know for how many years Ireland had been misgoverned. For the last twenty-five years, with a very slight exception, the Whigs had governed the country, and for a considerable period before their term commenced the noble Lord had himself some share in the Government. Therefore, it did appear to him to be somewhat inopportune that the noble Lord, who had at least half a century of political responsibility for the government of Ireland, should have introduced such grave considerations into his vindication of this unhappy farm. The noble Lord was also an Irish landlord, and had therefore an additional feeling of responsibility. However, after the last observations of the noble Lord, so different from the first, he should be indisposed to inconvenience the Government by suddenly stopping a Vote of this kind. The noble Lord had made an appeal almost ad misericordiam, and had spoken of the professors and literary teachers as he would of the members of the Osmanli cavalry of the Contingent, who had just been enlisted, and were now about to be disbanded. Under such circumstances the Government ought to be spared unnecessary annoyance, especially after the assurance of the noble Lord that those Estimates would not again be submitted to the House in their present form. He understood, from the last observation of the noble Lord, that he had made up his mind that they were indefensible in principle and impossible in practice. ["No, no!"] If they were defensible
540
in principle and possible in practice, he must have misunderstood the noble Lord and should certainly vote against them. If he was right in collecting from the speech of the noble Lord that he felt it would be inconvenient for the Government again to present them to the House, he thought the most temperate course would be not to press the Government, but to agree to the Vote, on the distinct understanding that it would not again be asked for by this or any other Government. If his impression were erroneous, he should feel it his duty to mark his sense of the impropriety of the Vote by supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lambeth.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would not obtain the vote of the right hon. Gentleman under false pretences. He did not say that he disapproved the principle of this Vote. On the contrary, he did his best to show that that principle was a good one. What he said was, that there might be on the details matters for revision, and it would be the duty of the Government to urge the Commissioners to consider those details with a view to the reduction of the Estimate in future.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that if the noble Lord only said that the details of the Vote might be revised, he should vote for the Amendment. If the noble Lord said that those details should be revised, he should support the Government.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that was exactly what he did say. He said that it would be the duty of the Government to urge the Commissioners to reconsider the details of the Estimate.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought the most injurious thing for Ireland was that too much was done for her. Let Ireland have justice done to her; let them, instead of grants of money, remove the evils of the Established Church. They would then be beginning at the right end. The fact was that sums of money were given to maintain an institution against the majority of the wishes of the people of Ireland. The noble Lord himself wished to have nothing to do with the educational question; but the fact was he was goaded by Gentlemen before and by Gentlemen behind, that he was obliged to go on. Let it be notified to the country that the entire education of the people was in the hands of Government. If they did not retrace their steps, they would bring the cause of education into obloquy and disgrace. He hoped to

541
see the day when this system of jobbery would be given up.
MR. HANKEYsaid, he wished for some explanation as to the item of £700 for gratuities for workhouse teachers in Ireland.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he hoped, that if they were to divide, they would divide upon the real merits of the question. In respect to the hon. Member for Lambeth's Amendment, it appeared that it concerned the salaries of persons who were actually engaged for the ensuing year. Now, it would be doing those persons a great injustice if, by acceding to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lambeth, they deprived the Government of the power of paying those persons. As they had received an assurance from the noble Lord at the head of the Government that this item would be reconsidered for the future, he hoped that the hon. Member (Mr. Williams) would not press his Amendment to a division.
MR.VANSITTARTsaid, that inasmuch as they took only a sum of money on account for education in England, he thought that they ought to take a similar course in respect to this Irish Vote. He would, therefore, move as an Amendment, that the Vote be reduced to £200,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to Her Majesty, for Public Education in Ireland, under the charge of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was aware of the difficulty attending the success of his Amendment. He did not, therefore, wish to force the Committee to a division against the feeling of hon. Members. He thought that the best course to take was to postpone the Vote altogether.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that he for one would be unwilling to give the Committee the trouble of dividing, if they received any pledge from the Government that the Vote would be reduced. It was £12,000 more than last year, being an item for the erection of buildings for which no contract had been as yet made. He did not approve of the Amendment to take a Vote on account, because that would involve the necessity of discussing the whole question again.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, there were two items in the Vote upon which he thought the Committee could test the sincerity of
542
the Government. The one was an item of £3,000 towards the erection of a model district school in Londonderry, and the other was one of £4,000 towards the erection of a district model school on a site not as yet determined upon. He would therefore suggest to the hon. Member for Lambeth the propriety of altering his Amendment to the reduction of this item of £7,000 from the Vote.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought that the Committee ought to be satisfied with the assurance that the whole subject should be referred to the Commissioners. By consenting to the suggestion just thrown out, the Committee would be acting entirely in the dark, for it might be that these two new schools proposed to be established were likely to be of more use than three or four others which might be abolished.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HORSMANsaid, in reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mowbraw), it so happened that the two items referred to were for literary schools.
Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding £212,736, be granted to Her Majesty, for Public Education in Ireland, under the charge of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 144: Majority 106.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he should now move that the Vote be reduced by two items—£3,000 for the erection of a literary district model school in the city of Londonderry; and £4,000 for the erection of an additional institution of the same description, the site for which is not yet determined on.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would second the Amendment, and also begged to call attention to the fact that, notwithstanding all these grants for agricultural purposes, only one student passed his examination for a diploma in agriculture at the Queen's University last year.
MR. HEYWORTHsaid, he would support the Amendment, on the ground that such grants were inconsistent with the principles of political economy.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that the question raised by the Amendment was, whether it was right to have model literary schools?

543
He hoped they would not be thrown over in the way proposed.
MR. BARROWsaid, he was prepared to vote for the Amendment, on the ground that sufficient funds would remain, even if the £7,000 were deducted.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding £220,641, be granted to Her Majesty, for Public Education in Ireland, under the charge of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 126: Majority 85.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished some Member of the Government to explain, in regard to an item of £5,175 for the expenditure on a model farm of 178 acres, whether there was not a debtor and creditor account kept of the working of this farm, and whether or not the outlay upon it yielded any return?
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(9.) £21,182,700 to pay off Exchequer Bills.
House resumed.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. LOWEsaid, that he was ready to accede to the suggestion which had been made by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), that the Bill should be committed pro formâ, with the view of introducing the Amendments which had been proposed. Many of those Amendments were merely verbal, and there were others which introduced no new principle, but which were intended to carry out more effectively the provisions of the Bill. He hoped the Committee would not suppose that the great number of Amendments arose from any slovenliness or want of care in the preparation of the Bill, for they were attributable to the great interest which was taken in the subject by the public. Numerous Amendments, many of them well worthy of adoption, had been suggested, and he therefore begged to move that the Bill be committed pro formâ.
Bill passed through Committee.
House resumed.

INCUMBERED ESTATES COURT.
MR. DEASYsaid, he would now beg to move, in accordance to notice, for certain Returns relative to the In cumbered Estates Court. He did not move for
544
these Returns with any indirect or collateral object, but with the view of placing before the House and the public an authentic record of the dealings of the Incumbered Estates Commissioners with the late Mr. Sadleir. The subject to which the Returns referred had excited great interest long before the occurrence of the fatal catastrophe which had so much engaged public attention. A strong impression had prevailed in the public mind in Ireland, and particularly among members of the legal profession, that the Incumbered Estates Commissioners dealt with Mr. Sadleir in a manner different from that in which they dealt with other persons. It was generally believed that the Commissioners dealt with Mr. Sadleir as an influential Member of that House, and as a good customer to the Court, and there was a general impression that they gave him, with regard to the purchase of estates, undue advantages, which were not conceded to other persons. He believed that the Commissioners had relaxed one important rule in favour of Mr. Sadleir, namely, that which prohibited any person who was interested in property sold by the Court from bidding for any portion of the property in which he had an interest. It was also believed that other advantages had been conceded to Mr. Sadleir, which were not afforded to persons in a different position. He (Mr. Deasy) did not mean to say that that impression was well founded. He only stated that it existed very widely and generally in Ireland. He moved for these Returns for the purpose of testing the truth and validity of that impression, and he thought it but just to the Commissioners themselves that the Returns should be granted. It was only right to afford the Commissioners an opportunity of relieving themselves from the imputation that they had not afforded to inheritors and creditors due protection against the system of land jobbing which prevailed to a great extent in the In-cumbered Estates Court. If the imputation were well founded, the Returns would verify, by authentic statements, the truth of the impression which prevailed, and would doubtless prevent the recurrence of such evils in future.
COLONEL DUNNE: I rise, Sir, to second the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. For some time past the notion has prevailed in Ireland that the gentleman referred to had been particularly favoured by the Incumbered Estates

545
Court Commissioners. Such at least has been the general belief. It is not necessary, however, nor do I wish to enter into details on the present occasion. But I say it is due to this House, it is due to the Irish people, it is due to the course of justice, that the Returns called for should be placed before the House. In general, the public has but little cause to question the purity of the tribunals, and if in the present instance the Judges shall be found to have only acted up to their duty, that should be placed before the public in the clearest manner. I cordially second the Motion.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he was not sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made this Motion, because he seemed to assume that the Government were not disposed to give the information sought. Now, that was not the case. As a general rule, when an hon. Member gave notice of his intention to move for an unopposed Return, the department concerned was asked whether the Return might be granted, and it was next considered whether it would answer the purpose for which it was demanded. He had stated to the hon. and learned Member for Cork that he was not yet in a position to say whether or not the Return for which he had moved would serve his purpose, or whether, in the absence of the law officers for Ireland, he would be justified in at once acceding to his request. There was one very obvious reason why he should not take upon himself the responsibility of granting the Return at the present moment,—the return applied to purchases and sales by the late Mr. John Sadleir in the Incumbered Estates Court. Now a judicial inquiry is going on respecting those sales and purchases, and therefore he should have liked to have a little time for consulting those capable of advising him as to whether the Government should grant the Return at the very moment when it formed the subject matter of judicial investigation. He had stated to the hon. and learned Member that he was not unwilling to grant the Return; but as in the course of next week his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would be in his place, it would be only fair that the hon. and learned Member for Cork should withdraw his Motion for the present, in order that the chief Law Officer of the Crown in Ireland might be consulted.
MR. DEASYsaid, that he had shown
546
his notice to the right hon. and learned Gentlemen (Mr. FitzGerald), who had made no objection to it.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he could not see what object the hon. and learned Member could have in pressing for the immediate production of the Return; but it was a question for the consideration of the House, and with that observation he was content to leave the matter in their hands.
MR. NAPIERsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was not in his place when the Government granted a Return a few weeks ago with regard to the Judges of Ireland; and he could not see why the present Motion should be delayed until that right hon. and learned Gentleman resumed his seat on the Treasury Bench. It was an error to say that the subject to which the Return applied was now undergoing a judicial inquiry. There was inquiry in progress into the affairs and resources of the Tipperary Bank; but the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Deasy), referred to a totally different matter, and one, moreover, upon which any Member of that House was entitled to ask for information. The hon. and learned Member had stated a sufficiently strong reason why the Return should be produced; and really it was difficult to reconcile the reluctance of the Government to agree to the present Motion with the alacrity they recently displayed in granting a Return on a matter with which it was irregular for the House of Commons to interfere.
MR. MACARTNEY: I regret, Sir, exceedingly that the right hon. Gentleman should even give the semblance of opposition to this Motion. [Mr. HORSMAN: I do not do so.] Having but within the week arrived from Ireland, I am able to state that in conversation the allegation attaches to but one Judge of the Court alone. It is due to the Commissioners to state that it is affirmed that because he had the ear of one of the Judges, the late Mr. Sadleir went into that Court and entered upon his extensive transactions there. At this moment there is a Committee engaged up-stairs in the inquriry how far it would be wise to amalgamate the Incumbered Estates Court with the Court of Chancery. It is essential, therefore, that anything tending to throw light upon the practice of the Incumbered Estates Court should not be withheld. I

547
trust, then, that the right non. Gentleman will not persist in his opposition to the Motion.
MR. HORSMAN: Seeing, Sir, what is the general feeling of the House, I will offer no opposition to the granting of the Returns.
Returns ordered—
"Of the several purchases made in the Incumbered Estates Court by the late John Sadleir, or any one in trust for him: specifying the name or title of the estate or matter in which each such purchase was made, the names of the Solicitors having the carriage of the sale and the amount of the purchase money.
"Of the number of Declarations of Trust made by or to said John Sadleir, appearing in any book or document in the Incumbered Estates Court; specifying the names or titles of the estate or matter in which such declarations of trust were made, and the names of the Solicitors having the carriage of the sales in such matters.
"Of the several Orders made by the Commissioners, or any of them, extending the time for lodgment of purchase money by said John Sadleir; specifying the date of the order, the amount of the purchase money, the name or title of the estate, and the period for which the time of lodgment was extended.
"And, of the number of conveyances executed by the Commissioners to the said John Sadleir, or any one in trust for him."
The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock till Monday next.