Sitting of 13 August 1867

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Companies Act (1862) Amendment* (re-comm.) [301]; Parks Regulation (re-comm.) [273] [R.P.]; Consolidated Fund Appropriation*; Courts of Referees* [311]; Hours of Labour Regulation* (re-comm.) [258]; County Courts Acts Amendment* [212]; Railway Companies (Scotland)* [292]; Consecration of Churches and Churchyards* [276] [R.P.].
Report—Skipton Grammar School* [290]; Companies Act (1862) Amendment* (re-comm.) [301]; Consolidated Fund Appropriation*; Courts of Referees* [311]: Hours of Labour Regulation* (re-comm.) [258]; County Courts Acts Amendment* [212]; Railway Companies (Scotland)* [292].
Considered as amended—Companies Act (1862) Amendment* (re-comm.) [301].
Third Reading—Companies Act (1862) Amendment* (re-comm.) [301).
The House met at Two of the Clock.

CASE OF THE "TORNADO."

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state what decision the Spanish Council of State has arrived at in the case of the Tornado?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, in reply, that he could not give the information asked for by the hon. Member, as he had received no official communication on the subject. From private communications which had reached him, however, he was given to understand that the decision would be announced in a very short time.

METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received any information regarding the insufficiency of the Metropolitan Police Force; whether any steps are likely to be taken for increasing the number of Constables; and whether there is any balance unappropriated in the hands of the Receiver for such Force; and, if so, whether he has any objection to state the amount of such balance?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, for several years the police force in the metropolis has been deficient in numbers. In January last there was a deficiency of 300 men; but since the augmentation of pay that then took place, the force has been brought up to its full amount. It is necessary that there should always be a balance of £70,000 in the hands of the Receiver, as otherwise there would be no means for paying the wages and pensions of the men in advance, before the sum levied on the different parishes, which takes six weeks to collect, is received. Last year there was a balance of £104,000, out of which. £11,000 was required to supply the deficiencies of the usual expenses. There is now a balance of £92,850 in the hands of the Receiver, out of which, as I have before said, £70,000 is required for the pay in advance of the men and the pensioners. The force having been brought up to the proper numbers, the resources at the disposal of the police authorities have been exhausted.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he would beg to ask, Whether the right hon. Gentleman has received any information regarding the insufficiency of the Metropolitan Police Force?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I have not received any particular information on this subject. The Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police certainly told me that he had been spoken to as to the insufficiency of the supply of men at different places, but this would apply not to the whole force, but to its distribution in certain localities.

CONSOLIDATION OF THE POOR LAWS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Poor Law Board, If it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill early next Session to amend and consolidate the many Acts which regulate the administration of Relief to the Poor?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill for the Amendment of the Poor Laws next Session. The question of consolidation of the Poor Laws was a very large one, and would receive the attention of the Poor Law Board during the recess.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH AUSTRIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the negotiations for a Commercial Treaty with Austria have failed; and, whether he is prepared to lay upon the table of the House the Correspondence on the subject?
  LORD STANLEY: Strictly speaking, Sir, the negotiations now going on between the Government of this country and that of Austria, are not negotiations for the conclusion of a Commercial Treaty, seeing that that treaty was concluded in 1865. The object of the present negotiations is as to the means of carrying into effect that part of the treaty which relates to the tariff dues, and it is not the fact, as stated by the hon. Member in his Question, that the negotiations have failed. Those negotiations are still going on. Certain propositions have been made by the Government of Austria, to which in their present form we do not think ourselves justified in assenting. We have stated to what points our objections apply, and the matter is still under discussion. When the negotiations are concluded I shall have no objection to lay the Correspondence on the

  1449
  table, but before then it would be unadvisable and unusual to do so.

ARMY—REWARDS FOR MILITARY SERVICE.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to make the recent regulation whereby cavalry and infantry soldiers are henceforth to serve the same number of years to qualify for pension and for the good conduct medal retrospective in its operation as regards the medal; so as to enable cavalry soldiers of twenty-one years' service to obtain a good conduct medal on the same terms as the infantry soldier, who under the old regulation was entitled to this reward after eighteen years' service; the connection between the period of service required for pension and that required for the medal being purely arbitrary?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, he did not quite understand the scope of the hon. and gallant Member's Question; but he thought he should meet the object he had in view by staling that the cavalry and the infantry had been placed on an equal footing as regarded Use pensions and good conduct medals, and that members of both services would be eligible to receive them after eighteen years' service.
CAPTAIN VIVIAN: Will that be retrospective?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Yes.

CASE OF HAYES AND BARRY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in the newspapers that the policemen Hayes and Barry, prosecuted and convicted of perjury in the case of the lads Dye and Pearce, had been reinstated in the police force on full pay under the circumstance that. Mr. Ivory, the prosecutor, had been unable to sustain the cost of carrying on the proceedings through the Court of Queen's Bench; whether he considers that the case demands his attention; and, whether he is informed of the proceedings taken by the Police Commissioners, and to communicate the same to the House?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in reply, that the Question of the hon. Member did not state the facts quite correctly.
  1450
  The prosecution was instituted against the boys Dye and Pearce, who were convicted chiefly on the evidence of the two policemen. Afterwards an indictment for perjury and conspiracy was preferred against the policemen, and Hayes was convicted and Barry acquitted of the charge of perjury under precisely similar circumstances. The trial for conspiracy was pending up to May last, when no one appearing to prosecute they were both acquitted. Hayes had not been called up for judgment, nor was there any intention of calling him up. Under these circumstances, the Chief Commissioner (Sir Richard Mayne) had to consider the proper course to pursue, and the matter was submitted to him (Mr. G. Hardy), with a recommendation from the magistrate acquainted with the facts, that the men should, under the circumstances, be reinstated in their situations. In accordance with that recommendation the men had been reinstated, and they were now receiving full pay.

ARMY—PROMOTION IN THE 96TH REGIMENT.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN HAYTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the Gazette of the 19th ultimo, in which three officers of the 96th Regiment were promoted by purchase in succession to Major Cuppage of that regiment, who is stated in the Indian Mail to have died on the 12th of the preceding month; and whether, should such promotions be found to have been irregular as regards the medical certificate, the Secretary of State for War will advise their cancelling, in order that the senior Officers of each rank may succeed, without purchase, to the vacant steps?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that the circumstances of the case had been brought under his notice. At first, he had thought it was open to objection; but on further investigation he found that the rules of the service had been complied with; that he did not feel justified in interfering; and that, consequently, the purchase and sale could not be cancelled.

DISTRICT METROPOLITAN LUNATIC ASYLUMS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL HOGGsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Poor Law Board, Whether the cost of the District Asylums

1451
in the Metropolis for Lunatics will not greatly exceed the original estimated rate of £50 for each inmate; whether the Poor Law Board will sanction the erection of buildings for more than 2,000 Lunatics, the number stated to be sufficient for the requirements of the Metropolis; and whether, if it should appear that the total charge upon the Metropolitan ratepayers is likely to be more than double the sum of £400,000, as originally estimated, the Board would sanction the erection of buildings so greatly in excess of those which Parliament was led to believe would be necessary?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he was sorry he had no information on the subject to which the hon. and gallant Member referred that would enable him to give a direct Answer to the Question that had been put to him. The subject to which the Question referred was in the hands of the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum Districts, two-thirds of whom were appointed by the guardians of the different metropolitan unions, and who might be said to represent the interests of the ratepayers. The managers were understood to have appointed a committee, to whom had been referred the question of accommodation necessary for the imbecile poor of the different metropolitan workhouses. That committee had not made its report, and consequently no report had been received from them by the Poor Law Board. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Board would not sanction any excessive or unnecessary expenditure; but, on the contrary, they were disposed to encourage and enforce economy by every means in their power in the expenditure of the common fund of the metropolitan parishes as far as was consistent with a due regard to the important objects aimed at by the Act of this Session.

ARMY ENLISTMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take into consideration the case of those soldiers now serving who were enlisted for a longer period than twenty-one years, with a view to giving them the advantage of the terms of enlistment under the Bill of this Session.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, he had not as yet thought it right to make the change suggested by the Question of the hon. and gallant Member,
1452
but he would make inquiries into the matter.

METROPOLIS—STRAY DOGS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to a letter in The Times newspaper, of Monday, headed "Street Dogs," in which the writer stated—
  "That, when in the vicinity of the Royal Exchange, on Friday last, he saw a lad severely bitten in the hand and leg by a large stray dog, and the foot passengers flying in all directions from the same animal."
  And, whether it is his intention to give instructions to the Police authorities to cause all unclaimed stray dogs to be removed from the public streets? He understood this was not a solitary case, but that several similar cases had occurred in the Metropolis.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he was sorry to say that his attention had only been directed to the letter referred to shortly before he came down to the House; but, as it was a question of great importance what should be done with stray dogs found in the metropolis, he would cause inquiries to be made into the subject.

INDIAN PRIZE MONEY.—QUESTION.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, What occasions the delay in the distribution of the prize money due to the Central Indian Army; and when such distribution may be expected?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reply, said, he was under the impression that the distribution had already commenced in India, but no communication on the subject had been yet received in this country. He was, however, daily expecting the arrival of such a communication.

METROPOLIS—BETHNAL GREEN WORKHOUSE.—QUESTION.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board, Whether his attention has been called to a report of an inquest held on a pauper inmate of Bethnal Green Workhouse, named William Rosomon, aged seventy-six years, and who, while labouring under asthma, was stated to have been

1453
employed by Mr. Baddeley, the official superintendent of labour in the workhouse, at very severe labour, the verdict of the jury being—
"That the old man's death was occasioned by exposure to the weather, and that Mr. Baddeley was extremely censurable for having set the old man to work in the manner described;"
Whether it is true that Mr. Baddeley, having resigned, the Bethnal Green Board gave him a "suitable testimonial;" and to inquire, in the event of such report being found accurate, the Poor Law Board will express its censure on the state of administration appearing by the report to exist in Bethnal Green Workhouse, and will caution the Guardians to be more careful in future as regards the mode of treatment pursued towards aged and infirm paupers?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreplied that the attention of the Poor Law Board had been called to this case, the circumstances of which were pretty much in accordance with the statement of the hon. Gentleman. Immediately on receiving information on the subject the Poor Law Board sent their Inspector to the Workhouse at Bethnal Green, and the Inspector reported that Mr. Baddeley had resigned his situation and that his resignation had been accepted by the Guardians, but nothing was said in the Inspector's Report about the presentation of a "suitable testimonial" to Mr. Baddeley. A coroner's inquest had been held on the poor man Rosomon, and the Poor Law Board had written to the coroner for a copy of the depositions. On the receipt of them the Board would form their opinion on the whole case, and would not hesitate to express that opinion.

PARKS REGULATION (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Secretary Walpole, Lord John Manners, Mr. Attorney General.)
PARKS REGULATION (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 273.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  On Question, "That the Preamble be postponed,"
  MR. P. A. TAYLORrose to move that the Chairman leave the Chair. When some time back he moved the second reading be deferred for three months, he indicated his intention to take every means which the forms of the House would allow to prevent the Bill becoming law, The lateness of the Session, and the consequent emptiness of the Benches, probably might be alone sufficient for asking that a Bill of
  1454
  so much importance should not now be pressed. He was no friend to government by minority, either in or out of that House; still less was he in favour of government by minorities in that House. He was quite aware, therefore, that in taking a step so unusual as that which he now proposed, he was bound to show ample and all-sufficient reason for what he was doing. But it would be acknowledged by every Gentleman in that House that there had been occasions in the past, and might be again in the future, when their liberties had been maintained, and the rights of the people secured from aggression, by a minority taking upon itself the duty which the opponents of this measure were now taking upon themselves. The Government had proved by repeated experiments, and by what he must designate their "meddle-and-muddle" policy, that they had not a single leg to stand upon in the measure they were now proposing. They had proved, beyond all possibility of doubt, that the meetings of the people, when left alone, were as regular, as orderly, and as moderate as any known in our history. But when the Government endeavoured, by action or threat, to prevent the meetings, they were unable to preserve order, and were compelled to call upon the very League, by whom those meetings were convened, to protect them and the public from outrage. The Government had shown that there was but one potentiality which belonged to them with respect to these meetings, and that was, that they could, as they had done, succeed in turning a peaceful and orderly meeting into a scene of disgraceful riot and outrage. He had admitted that the minority in that House were bound to show the majority in that House—if, indeed, a majority existed—that there were substantial reasons for the course they proposed to pursue; but it should be recollected that that minority, if it were, indeed, a minority in the House of Commons, had the good fortune to represent the great masses of the people of this country. ["NO, no!"] Again, he admitted that a minority would not be justified in withstanding the will and opinion of the majority in proposing a change in the legislation of the country. A minority would not be justified in acting coercively, if they sought to wring from the people a new position. But in the present case the minority stood upon the status quo: they stood upon the old ways and tradi-

  1455
  tions of the Constitution—the right of the people to hold public meetings. Under whatever guise this Bill was brought in, it was nothing but an attempt to say to the people of England, "You shall hold no more public meetings." ["No, no!"] To say that the people might hold public meetings, but that they should have no central locality in which to hold them, was only a tricky and indirect way of saying "You shall not hold meetings at all." Hyde Park was the only place in London where the people could conveniently hold their meetings. In spite of the suave and courteous manner of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. G. Hardy) and his assertion that the Bill was intended to get rid of troublesome preachers and the congregation of gamblers under the trees, the language of the press which supported the Government, of the Lobby, and of the Clubs, all concurred in saying that the object of the Bill was that what hon. Gentlemen opposite called the London mob should be prevented from in future holding political meetings in the Park. It had been asked, "Why do not the people go to Primrose Hill, or to Battersea Park?" Because centrality and locality were of the first importance in public demonstrations. He wondered why no hon. Member rose in his place and said to the people of London when they wanted to meet for the discussion of political matters, "Let them, like the late Mr. Norval, take their stand upon the Grampian Hills." In the Parliament of 1819, distinguished by a most corrupt and tyrannical majority and by a most noble, true-hearted, and not small minority, the right of public meetings was upheld to an extent that we did not now attain. In the course of the debate which took place in that year upon the Seditious greetings Prevention Bill, Mr. Ricardo said—
  "He thought that in the course of this discussion sufficient attention had not been given to the importance of the right to be contended. If the people's right of meeting and petitioning consisted only in the right of meeting to petition for the removal of grievances, it was not of so much importance, and the curtailment of it was not of such serious interest. But the right was a right of meeting in such numbers and showing such a front to Ministers as would afford a hope that bad measures would be abandoned, and that public opinion would be respected."—[1 Hansard, xli. 769.]
  Mr. Macdonald stated—
  "The measure now before them went to deprive the people of this country of a privilege without which there would have been no House of Commons sitting there at that moment—the privilege
  1456
  of meeting to petition—or at least to reduce the exercise of that privilege to the limits of a parish vestry room."—[1 Hansard, xli. 616.]
  It was not, therefore, the first time that they who sat on those (the Liberal) Bunches might fairly claim to be standing in the old ways of the Constitution. Another justification for the action of the minority in the present case was that the measure before them was not well-defined, nor had it been well discussed. It had been brought before them in the most miserable and piecemeal way. According to an old authority, the laws of England were not to be lightly changed. This Bill had gone through several phases; and now, within a few days of the closing of the Session, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had placed new Amendments on the Paper, so that it was difficult to recognize the measure as that which had been two months ago read a first time. The Bill was not well defined; it was simply a ridiculous and a silly Bill. The Preamble of the Bill stated that the parks and gardens named in the schedule had been used for the enjoyment and recreation of Her Majesty's subjects. Now, that was just the point of the opponents of the Bill. They had had the use of the Park, and they saw no need of any new regulations. They did not desire to see their privileges extended. But the Preamble went on to say, that it was expedient to make further provision for securing that enjoyment and recreation; and they then proceeded to place a limitation upon the use of the Park, and to say that it should not be used for public meetings. The title of the Bill ought to be a "Bill for Preventing Public Meetings in London." If that be not its object, and its justification were based upon the other ground which was commonly put forward, namely — that of the exclusive use of the Park for the "upper ten thousand," who wanted Rotten Row for the purpose of riding, the Serpentine drive for their carriages, and a greensward for their nurserymaids and children the Bill became more insulting still. In order to obtain these very slight advantages, were they to be asked to pass a measure for doing away with the great constitutional principle of the right of the people to hold public meetings? Such a measure as the present should at all events be passed in a representative House; the few Members who then occupied the Benches did not represent the existing House of Commons. Where was the right

  1457
  hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire and all his Friends who had opposed the second reading of this Bill? They had gone to their amusements, not supposing that the Government would be mad enough to persevere in the Bill. That House had acknowledged that it did not fitly and entirely represent the people of England, and how much better therefore would it not be, before attempting to deprive the people of the right they had exercised for centuries, to wait till they had a House of Commons which would largely and approximately represent the English people? Could Her Majesty's Government say, with Lord Castlereagh, when opposing a factious minority in 1819—
  "But it was a great error to suppose that those on his side had understood, that, after such a division, any hon. Members would think it consistent with their public duty to put in force this power of renewing Motions for Adjournment. In his conscience he believed that the public safety was deeply involved in the immediate progress of this measure."—[1 Hansard, xli. 849.]
  Would the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary say that the public safety depended upon leaving in the hands of the Government the power of turning a peaceful meeting into a tumult—an object which they had once already succeeded in accomplishing? If the right hon. Gentleman contended for that he (Mr. Taylor) would then ask his attention to the words addressed by Oliver Cromwell to Parliament—
  "When matters of necessity come, then without guilt extraordinary remedies may be applied; but if necessity be pretended there is so much the more sin."
  What was the object of the right hon. Gentleman in pressing forward this Bill at the present time? Was it the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was pushed on by his more hot-headed followers? Was it true that they could not endure the thought of a long Session of humiliation without having a little bit of vengeance put in at the end? ["Oh, oh!"] Could it really be true, although a measure of Reform had been wrung from the Tories, yet that, true to their traditions, they neither loved nor trusted the people to whom they were giving political emancipation? The Times, just previous to the last triumphant and peaceful meeting held in Hyde Park, contained words so very appropriate to the condition of the right hon. Gentleman, that with the permission of the House he would read them.—
  "But suppose the Bill which Mr. Hardy will bring on 'whenever he has the opportunity,' had
  1458
  already passed, and that the demonstration was to protest against an Act of Parliament giving the power to arrest and fine intruding and obstinate orators. It would be impossible then to pass over the conduct and to decline the challenge of Mr. Beales; and at this moment the telegraph would probably be in action to summon troops to London, and the Chief Commissioner of Police would be preparing the disposition of his force. What is the use of legislation which is only efficient in such petty cases as are well enough provided for under the present law, and which is powerless when any demagogue can persuade a mob to abet him in defying it.
  In 1819 the Government of that day did not dare to do what the right hon. Gentleman was now proposing. They did not dare to say that the people had no right to hold public meetings; but they came to the conclusion that the meetings which were at that time being held were in themselves dangerous, inasmuch as the people came to them armed, and they believed that revolution would be the inevitable result if steps were not taken to put them down. The Solicitor General, on the Seditious Meetings Prevention Bill, stated—
  "There was reason to suppose that a, conspiracy of a most alarming and extensive character would burst forth unless great precautions were taken to suppress it; and it was stated to be matter of absolute certainty that revolution was the aim of those who were engaged in it."—[1. Hansard, xli. 597.]
  The Government of 1819 did not venture to attack in theory the right of public meeting. Again, according to this Bill, as he understood it, the fact of the meeting being held without permission having been first given made it ipso facto, an illegal meeting—an extent to which Lord Castlereagh did not go. Lord Castlereagh, speaking in 1819 on the Seditious Meetings Prevention Bill, said—
  "If the influx of strangers had a tendency to endanger the peace or change the nature of the meeting, they (the magistrates) should read a proclamation ordering all strangers to withdraw, If this proclamation was not obeyed, they might then pronounce the meeting to be illegal and dissolve it. A quarter of at hour would be allowed for the strangers to retire, and half an hour for the meeting to disperse."—[1 Hansard, xli. 391.]
  He felt assured that what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was doing was not of his own good-will, and he ought to thank the minority for relieving him from a false position, and also prevent a renewal of that feeling of anger and bitterness which the passing of this measure would create. The Government would thank the minority for rescuing them from the counsels of their hot-headed Friends, among whom, if he was not very

  1459
  wrong, was the noble Lord the Member for Haddington (Lord Elcho). There was no doubt the Government could not have a more dangerous adviser than the noble Lord. His speeches of the last two years showed that. The House would remember the declaration of the noble Lord that the people of this country—whom he knew so well—did not want Reform at all, and that, with the exception of a few demagogues in the House and out of the House, Reform was always a sham and a delusion. ["Oh, oh!"] It must not be forgotten that the noble Lord came down to the House, with a beaming countenance, and produced a letter written by a live working man, who was permitted to say, "My dear Elcho," or perhaps it was more Parliamentary to say, "My dear Lord." The noble Lord had produced to the House that letter of a real live working man, who showed his real democratic tendencies by fixing his residence in the United States of America, but whose conduct was in harmony with that of too many, in calumniating those among whom he resided. Whether the noble Lord had changed his opinion as to Reform he (Mr. Taylor) did not know; but the noble Lord had detailed to admiring audiences how he had got the democratic leaders under his feet,—["Question!"]—and no effort of his should be wanting to keep them there. The noble Lord no doubt told them to only let the meetings of the people be declared illegal, and the Volunteers would then soon see the law put in force. ["No!"] As a leader from the first of the Volunteer movement, he hoped the noble Lord had not thought or said such a thing. The noble Lord might know many of the Volunteers; but he (Mr. Taylor) could answer for it that he did not know the spirit of all of them. He believed the first shot fired against the people by the Volunteers would put an end to the Volunteer force. He would conclude with a few words which he adopted entirely as his own—the protest of noble Lords against the Seditious Meetings Prevention Bill in September, 1819. The protest, which was signed "Vassall Holland, Augustus Frederick, Thanet, Donoughmore, Grosvenor, Erskine," was as follows:—
  "Because the Commons of England, when duty enforced, have always been found sufficient to prevent any confusion arising from popular meetings, or to punish any disturbers of the public peace, and a too ready acquiescence in the suggestions of Ministers for imposing new restraints upon the rights and usage of the people (even if
  1460
  the provisions of this Bill were in themselves neither harsh nor unreasonable) appears to us more calculated to add weight to calumny and to exasperate discontent into hostility than to defeat the designs of turbulent men, or to reclaim the alienated affections of a mistaken multitude."
  He begged to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
  LORD ELCHO: It is not my intention to imitate the hon. Member by bringing into the debate the names of Cromwell, Shylock, Sidmouth, or Castlereagh; neither shall I think it necessary to defend my own character or conduct in or out of the House, being prepared to be judged in the one case by my fellow-Members, in the other by my fellow-countrymen. But there is one point upon which I feel bound to say a word. That is with reference to the language attributed to me in connection with the Volunteers and this question of Hyde Park. I read in the Star newspaper a letter—a friend told me of it—which was signed "A Man in the Streets." In this the writer—and we can have little doubt now who the writer of that letter is—says he has reason to believe that Lord Elcho intends to support the Government with the Volunteer force as far as his influence extends. A calumny such as that under cover of an anonymous scribbler in the Star I did not think it worth while to notice. The Star seems addicted to taking false views of what persons do, and I have often been libelled in its pages as an enemy of the people, and charged with having vilified and maligned the people. But when such things are repeated in this House, statements which might affect the Volunteer force, I feel it my duty to give, in the most distinct and positive manner that the Parliamentary mode of speech admits of, a clear and definite denial to such statements. I can appeal to hon. Members, and I can appeal to the Secretary of State for War, whether publicly in this House, and privately in conversation, wherever there has been any question of the employment of the Volunteers in any way in suppressing a disturbance, I have not urged on the part of the Volunteer force that they ought not to be employed in any such manner, and whether I have not done everything in my power to render their employment in such a matter impossible? [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Hear.] I think it my imperative duty to support the Government on this occasion. To listen to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen, the opponents of this measure, one would suppose

  1461
  that the question at issue was the right of public meeting, and that some infringement of the public liberties, some tyrannical act on the part of Her Majesty's Government, was attempted. But what is the case? There are certain parks with reference to which the impression existed on the part of the Government, and existed also on the part of these very Gentlemen, that the Government had power to control their user. The best proof which I can adduce is the conduct of Mr. Beales and the Reform League on the occasion that the railings were pulled down. Was it their intention to force their way into the Park? By no means. They intended, and announced that they intended, to go there for the purpose of asking for admission, and, if refused, then of testing the question at law. An accident—the weakness of the railings—precipitated the event and compromised the position. Upon inquiry it turned out that the Government, in the opinion of their Law Officers, were not in the position which they had believed, and which the Reform League had believed. Then it was thought desirable that power to regulate the user of the Parks, intended for the recreation and enjoyment of all, should be vested incontestably in the Crown. There is no intention to infringe in the slightest degree upon the rights of the people. The Bill is introduced in the interests of the people themselves. The Bill is not promoted in the interests of the aristocracy, or of the nurserymaids, or of the upper ten thousand. Whether it passes or not, persons of all classes who can keep a horse will ride in Rotten Row, and every person who can keep a carriage, I presume, will drive in the Park. The parks are for the benefit of all persons, whether resident in London or coming from the country, and whether high or low. The Government say that these parks are intended for recreation and enjoyment, and are not suitable for crowded meetings or for preaching. Have they any precedents for saying so? The hon. Baronet the Member for the West Hiding (Sir Francis Crossley) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) with great generosity and liberality towards the people in their own neighbourhoods, have given parks for the public recreation. And what did they stipulate in each case? In the deed of conveyance a clause was inserted providing that the park should not be used for the purposes of public meetings—the very purposes now
  1462
  under discussion. Across the Atlantic what do you find? In the Park at New York a similar clause exists. The principal opponents of the present measure declare that they are not opposing it upon principle. The hon. and learned Member for Southwark bases his opposition on the question of time merely; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, though he voted against proceeding with the Bill, justified his course upon considerations affecting the period of the Session, and never once alluded to principle. He went further. The right hon. Gentleman suggested not merely that the user of the public parks, but the passing of processions through the streets was a matter which ought to be regulated. The late Home Secretary (Sir George Grey) and the late Minister of Works (Mr. Cowper) said that it was necessary and desirable that a Bill of this kind should pass for the benefit of the people. I believe that the Government are entitled to gratitude for bringing forward a measure of which the majority of the House of Commons has shown its approval, and which is clearly for the benefit of the majority of the people. I go further, and say that what has occurred on this question without the walls of this House renders it necessary for the character, the honour, and the dignity of this House, and for the maintenance of law and order in this country, that we should persevere with this Bill. What has occurred without the walls of Parliament? There has been a meeting held in the Tea-room of this House—a meeting which Mr. Speaker has ruled to be contrary to the forms and precedents of the House of Commons. I find in the Globe newspaper a report of that meeting. It represents Mr. Beales as having protested that if the Bill were sanctioned by Parliament the Reform League would, if necessary, resort to physical force to prevent its provisions being carried into effect. Mr. Bright is reported to have said that such language was just the way to insure the passing of the Bill. I now come to the Reform meeting in Hyde Park. There can be no mistake about that. There is no denying it, because it was on a printed bill circulated before the meeting was held. It was headed, "To your tents, O Israel!" It then proceeded—
  "A monster Meeting of the Working Men and other inhabitants of the Metropolis will be held in Hyde Park on Monday next, August 5, at 7

  1463
  o'clock, under the presidency of the Reform League, to express the public indignation at the prohibitive Bill attempted to be passed through an expiring and self-condemned Parliament, by the enemies of all popular rights, and also to protest against the attempt of the House of Lords to rob the lodger of his franchise. Please distribute these bills through every workshop, and induce as many as possible to attend and preserve to our children the rights handed down by our forefathers."
  At that meeting Mr. Beales is reported to have said—
  "We positively refuse to be excluded altogether from meeting in the Park at the arbitrary will of any class or any Government whatsoever, and we caution all concerned that there may be danger in attempting to legalize or enforce any such unlawful and unconstitutional measure."
  Colonel Dickson proposed the first Resolution—
  "That this meeting protests against such a Bill being made law, and declares its determination to resist that Bill to the utmost."
  Colonel Dickson is further represented to have declared that the House of Commons was composed of a few good men, a large number of bad, and a great many fools. He spoke in a like strain of the Upper House. It is also reported that subsequently, at a meeting in the Hanover Square Rooms, presided over by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens), Mr. Beales said—
  "That if the obnoxious Park Bill was proceeded with they would hold another meeting in Hyde Park, and they might then find it necessary to pursue a course of proceeding which would remove all possibility of misrepresentation, and would not leave the slightest doubt of what was meant by the men of London, what their temper was, and what their numbers were, and of their determination to resist this measure."
  I submit to the House that what I have just read substantiates what I previously said to the House. I wish to remind the House that Parliament has always shown itself very jealous of attempts by any to overawe the Legislature in its course of legislation. In this instance an attempt is being made to overawe Parliament. An Act passed in 1795, 36 Geo. III., declares that any attempt at printing any writing for the purpose of intimidating or overawing Parliament shall be deemed a felony. That statute was extended by an Act passed in 1848. Words were then introduced to apply to the case of open speaking; but the operation was limited to two years. The Act of Geo. III. was, however, preserved. This shows how anxiously and jealously Parliament has guarded its deliberations against overawing or intimidation. I
  1464
  firmly believe that the mass of the thinking reasoning artizans of the country, including those of the metropolis, are not in favour of the course taken by the persons who are opposing this measure. They have too much good sense to suppose that the Parliament, which has so largely extended their privileges, would infringe upon their rights. A member of the Reform League told me that he considered the opposition to it to be a great mistake, and another influential man of the same class, though not a member of the Reform League, told me the same thing. After the course which has been taken by those who oppose the Bill, the Members of the House of Commons owe it to themselves as the depositories of the dignity of the House—they owe it to those who are to come after them for, I hope, many generations—to support the Government in carrying the Bill. I trust they will consider the measure with calm deliberation, but, at the same time, with a fixed resolve to carry it. By so acting they will secure the respect of even those who are opposing them.
  MR. NEATEsaid, that if the opponents of the Bill had petitioned the House in Petitions signed by large numbers of the working classes, he believed the Government having regard to the period of the Session, would have put off the Bill to another year, without admitting that the principle on which they had acted on introducing it was a mistaken one. But after the challenge of those who said they represented, but who really misrepresented, the working men, consistently with their own character and dignity, the Government could not fail to go on with the Bill, and the House of Commons, after the attempts made to intimidate it, consistently with their character and dignity, could not fail to support the Government in so doing. It was an error to suppose that an aggregate of individuals, however brought together, constituted a public meeting in the proper sense of the term. A public meeting of the people of a parish or a borough was one regularly summoned by the parishioners or the burgesses. It was to such assemblies as these the words "right of public meeting" applied. Of course five people or 5,000 might assemble together to talk politics. They did so by just the same right as they might assemble at the British Coffee House. That the Crown, or the Government on behalf of the Crown, had a right to turn the people out of the Park was a position which no one in the

  1465
  House would be hardy enough to deny, and it was a pity that men should be found to countenance the people in claims which they well knew to be unfounded. There could be no doubt that these meetings must be attended with evil results. He, himself, had been afraid to vote for the Sunday Trade in Liquors Bill, because he feared that if the Bill was passed, such a meeting would have been held in Hyde Park, that the peace of the metropolis would have been seriously endangered, and several lives would have been lost. The present question ought, indeed, to have been settled by the late Government. He wished the Members of the late Government had as good reason for being absent that evening as the present Government had for introducing the measure. To the present Administration the matter came as a damnosa hereditas, and they had dealt with the question as fairly as possible. The hon. Member had objected to proceeding with the Bill on account of the lateness of the Session. The argument would have been good enough if the Bill had been freshly introduced; but it had been before the House during the greater part of the Session, although the Government, from the press of public businesss, had been unable to proceed with it. The Bill indeed, might be looked upon as the proper complement to that great measure of Reform, which they had for so long been engaged in passing. After what had been done for the people it would not be unreasonable to expect that the claims now made for meeting in the parks should be desisted from, especially when it was remembered that the inhabitants of the metropolis numbered about 3,000,000, and that out of those 3,000,000 there were 20,000 or 30,000 who would as soon see London in flames as not. The Government were fully justified in the coin-so they had taken with respect to the Bill. Ample notice had been given of it, and they had never said that they would withdraw it. If the Bill were carried out and a collision ensued, it would only be because the multitude had been encouraged to resist the law, and the law must be vindicated. He trusted therefore that hon. Members would cease the opposition they offered to this measure.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, it had been argued that public meetings were no meetings at all unless they were called by some constituted authority. He had the honour of being acquainted with that most re-
  1466
  spectable man Mr. Beales, to whom on one occasion the peace of the Metropolis was intrusted by the late Home Secretary, (Mr. Walpole). The meetings which had taken place under his auspices had brought the feelings of the people into harmony with the House and with Parliament generally. He considered the question before the House of great importance. The Bill was a direct violation of, and encroachment upon, the rights of the people. The Government were bringing the feelings of the people into collision with Her Majesty. The use of the parks was to be restricted to such purposes as Her Majesty's Ranger might prescribe, and parties offending were to be subject to a penalty of £10. The Bill instituted a new kind of trespass—a trespass in pursuit of politics and religion. The Government were attempting to pass a law which would be most arbitrary, unjust and unnecessary—such a law as could not be found in any previous records of Parliament. On right hon. Gentleman opposite would rest the serious responsibility of bringing Her Majesty, in respect of her property in these parks, into collision with the outraged feelings of the people. The restrictions in the case of private parks had been referred to, and it was said that similar restrictions ought to be applied to the London parks. He altogether disapproved of those restrictions. If the hon. baronet the Member for the West Riding (Sir Francis Crossley) had offered to give a park to any town in which he (Mr. Whalley) had resided on condition that it should not be used for the discussion of politics or religion, he would have urged his fellow-townsmen to decline accepting the park on such conditions. They were inconsistent with that freedom of speech which was the right and duty of every Englishman. But the very fact that gentlemen who had presented public parks to various provincial towns had inserted in their deeds of gift clauses providing that no religious or political questions should be discussed within their bounds showed that, without that clause, the people would have a right to hold such discussions. In the case of the London parks the case was much stronger, because they were maintained for the enjoyment of a very small portion of the community at the expense of the people, who were now pleading for justice and protesting against the wrong with which they were threatened. There were no pieces of ground in the kingdom which

  1467
  more essentially belonged to the working classes than the London parks. They contributed fully one-half to the keeping up and improvement of the parks, and desired their use for purposes which were essential to the performance of their duty to themselves and to the country. He should like to know if the discussion of politics or religion had ever practically interfered with the enjoyment of the parks by other classes of the people? The origin of the movement respecting the parks was the introduction of preaching. The police had already power to remove from the parks those who ventured to preach there. Why should this be so? A great preacher like Mr. Spurgeon could not find a building large enough for his audience, and why not allow him to resort to the parks? Was there any objection, according to the principles of Christianity, to the preaching of religion in the open air? Christianity was founded by preaching in the open air, and not in temples, some of which were now anything but satisfactory. He had heard one sermon preached in the Park by the head of a firm of solicitors who had the confidence of Her Majesty's Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite—he meant Mr. Robert Baxter. It was the best sermon he had ever heard. Primrose Hill had been referred to as a more suitable place for holding meetings than the parks. But in 1864, when Garibaldi was in this country, Mr. Beales was ordered not to hold a meeting there, because it was said the concourse of a great mass of the people might lead to a breach of the peace. On the last occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) addressed the House upon this subject indeed, he gave up Primrose Hill, and proposed that the meetings of the people of the metropolis—three millions of people—should be held in public buildings? Could anything be more absurd? What difference was there between such principles as were contradictorily enunciated on this subject by the right hon. Gentleman and the practices fallowed by the despotic Governments of Spain and Naples? All these precautions were said to be necessary for the preservation of order. But were not the police sufficient to keep order? Were not the troops sufficient to keep order? If not, let more be employed. He could not conceive what pretence could be alleged for passing this measure in order to create a new law of trespass. The only reason
  1468
  there could be for it was that which was so anxiously repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, that it was an attempt to put an end to freedom of discussion. It was so regarded by the people throughout the country. The noble Lord below him (Lord Elcho)—such was the misdirected and unlicensed zeal of the advocates of the measure — had stated that Mr. Beales obtained leave to go to the Park upon the understanding that he and his party should not be admitted, but should merely exercise their right of going there, with a view to try the question subsequently in a Court of Law.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, what he had stated was that Mr. Beales and the Reform League had themselves doubted their right to go to the Park, because they had intended, according to the newspapers, to go to the Park, ask for permission to enter, and, on being refused, to test the question at law.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that was not the nature of the arrangement made, for Mr. Beales did not surrender one iota of his unqualified right to cuter the Park. The people throughout the country regarded this Bill as an attempt to put down freedom of discussion, and, the Government by bringing it forward, had admitted that they had been in error in the course they had taken in endeavouring to prevent the people from meeting in Hyde Park for the purpose of discussing the Reform Bill.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, it should not be thought that the Government were the sole conservators of order. All classes were interested in maintaining order, and none more so than the working classes. The proof of their disposition to maintain it would be found in their conduct during these meetings in Hyde Park. A statement had been uttered regarding the feelings of the working classes by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho). The noble Lord said that, in his opinion, the greater portion and better portion of the working classes were by no means opposed to the passing of this Bill. He had listened to the noble Lord with great attention; but on a subject of this kind it would be impossible to have any authority weaker than that of the noble Lord. They had only to recollect the noble Lord's statement respecting the feelings of the people on the subject of Reform last year to judge of the weight that should be attached to his opinion regarding the feelings of the working people. He would remind the noble Lord

  1469
  that this was only a project of law—to use a French phrase—and it was for those opposed to it to prevent its becoming law. His (Mr. Otway's) objection to the measure was twofold. He objected to anything like an infringement of the right of meeting on the part of the people of the metropolis. He also objected to the measure because it was singularly ill-timed. The people of the metropolis had been for many years in the habit of meeting in Hyde Park for political discussion. If therefore, by this measure, they would prevent them, from doing so in future, it was an infringement of a right they had hitherto enjoyed. He would quote on the subject the opinion of a gentleman of great eminence belonging to the Conservative party (Sir Francis Palgrave) published daring the passage of the Reform Act in 1832. He said that—
  "A meeting in the open air obtained an importance that it would have lost if confined within the limits of a building. The influence of a body of people is in a great measure derived from the manner and mode of their meeting."
  It was absolutely necessary, if the people of the metropolis were to express their opinion at public meetings, that they should have some open place to do so. He could refer in support of his argument to the authority of Lord Derby, who said, if they took away from the people the right of meeting in Hyde Park, it would be necessary to find for them a large open space in which to meet. It was proposed now to take away the right to meet in Hyde Park; but where was the open space provided for the people to meet in? The right hon. Gentleman, or the Earl of Derby, he forgot which, the other evening disclaimed any desire to infringe the right of public meeting, but enlarged upon the propriety of holding such meetings in some large building. The hon. Member near him (Mr. Whalley) had entirely disposed of that point by showing the impossibility of holding a large public meeting in a building however vast. It was said they might meet on Primrose Hill; but if these meetings, as the supporters of the Bill averred, caused inconvenience and disorder in that neighbourhood, injustice would be done to the persons residing there. He went to judge for himself of these meetings in Hyde Park, and he never could have imagined so large a number of people coming together with so little of inconvenience. The children were playing there, and the flowers were
  1470
  untouched. It was said that great disorder would be caused by the passage of the people through the streets; but why should the inhabitants of Camden Town and of the neighbourhood of Regent's Park be subjected to what was considered a great inconvenience to persons living in the neighbourhood of Hyde Park? He did not believe that it was for the sake of the residents in the neighbourhood of Hyde Park that the Government desired to persevere with this measure. Their desire, no doubt, was to preserve the Park as a pleasure-ground, but he believed that that was a mistaken desire. It would be a sad day for this country if the people became indifferent to the great questions which occupied the attention of the Legislature. This, he believed, would be the result of their being deprived of the right which they now possessed. The loss of the right of public meeting would speedily be followed by that of the right of free speech, and they had instances in the history of other countries of the evils which resulted to the community from those rights being abrogated or surrendered. He warned the Government that they would have great difficulty in in canning the proposed law into effect. It would be easy for the great mass of the people to meet in Hyde Park in defiance of the law. Thus the law would be brought into contempt, and a deplorable collision might take place between the authorities supporting the law and the people who came to exercise a right they had hitherto possessed. They were at the end of a very laborious Session. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by his unrivalled skill, had succeeded in passing a measure conferring on the people a larger extension of the franchise than had ever been submitted to Parliament; and was it wise to couple so great a concession with such a Bill as this? With one hand the Government conferred a great boon; with the other they unnecessarily created feelings of animosity. It was impossible the Bill could pass without feelings of great rancour on the part of those who considered that this measure was an interference with what they deemed a popular right. Such a course of conduct was not consistent with the policy pursued during the Session by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should exercise his strong will over his Colleagues, who, having brought in the Bill, adhered to it through fear of being accused of weak-

  1471
  ness. If his hon. Friend went to a division, he (Mr. Otway) should support the proposal that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, it would not be respectful to the House nor to the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment, if he allowed this discussion to close without taking part in it. And, in the first place he must refer to the position in which the Bill stood at the present moment, because that had been kept out of sight rather too much. The hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) had objected to this Bill upon two grounds—first, that it was an infringement of a right, real or assumed; and, secondly, that it was ill-timed. As to the first objection the House of Commons came to a decision respecting it on the second reading of the Bill, and it came to a decision respecting the second objection on the Motion brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke). On both those points, therefore, the Government was entirely supported by the House of Commons, and that at a period when there was no lack of Members in the House, and when it was manifest that the Bill could not be further proceeded with until the close of the Session, when it was thought the excitement about it would have passed away. And here he must protest in the name of the working classes, whom hon. Gentlemen opposite professed to consider so much, against the supposition during the whole of this discussion, that if Parliament chose to sanction the Bill and to make it a statute of the realm, the working classes of this country would proceed at once to break the law. He did not for one moment believe that the working classes would adopt any such course. There might, indeed, be persons who misrepresented the working classes, and who might propose some such thing to them, but the followers of such leaders could not be reckoned among the orderly and order-loving people of this country. Then as to the assumed right of meeting in the parks, was it, as had been stated, an inheritance from our forefathers? Was it a right which had existed, he would not say for centuries, but even for years or mouths? Was there a single occasion on which there had been a meeting in any of the parks without a remonstrance and protest in order to show that the right of meeting was not recognized by those who had the custody of the parks? Some hon. Gentleman
  1472
  talked about the right having existed for centuries, but he challenged them to show that any meetings were ever held in the parks before the year 1855. The meetings referred to by the hon. Member for Chatham in his quotation from Sir Francis Palgrave, were convened by the proper legal authorities, and when were such meetings ever held in Hyde Park or any other quasi-public park? These meetings then commenced in 1855. It might be urged that the meetings in the parks had been of a peaceable character. In the great majority of instances they were peaceable, but they knew from experience that such meetings had gradually degenerated into turbulence, as in the case of the Sunday Trading meetings, the Garibaldi meetings, and lately in the case of preaching in the parks. It was absolutely necessary that the parks should be protected, and that the authorities should be armed with the power to keep them in a proper manner. But it was said that the present law might be set in motion. No doubt it might now take legal proceedings of a civil nature, but the process would be tedious and expensive. At present persons could only be removed from the parks as for an act of civil trespass, and it was desirable that the authorities should have more power. In regard to those parks in the metropolis, which were not Royal Parks but were placed under the Metropolitan Board of Works, the very powers asked for in the present Bill were conferred by Acts of Parliament in 1857 and 1864. He only I asked the House to confer on the custodians of the Royal Parks the power of making by laws and those powers of exclusion, regulation, and protection, which had already been conferred by two statutes on the Metropolitan Board of Works, with respect to the parks under their control. The right to the parks was inherent in the Crown. By what authority, was a portion of Hyde Park now being added to Park Lane? It was simply a gift of the Crown, and Parliament was not consulted in the matter. If hon. Gentlemen went back to earlier periods they would find instances of sales of portions of the Royal Parks by the Crown. That showed that the right of the Crown was absolutely incontestable. That right, indeed, had been uniformly maintained by the Law Officers of the Crown, and had never been disputed in a Court of Law. Although there had been opportunities given for disputing the right

  1473
  week after week, when persons had been removed for acts lawful in themselves, but which had become unlawful because they were committed in the Parks—such right had never been called in question. Persons had frequently been removed for playing organs and for preaching, as well as for gambling and betting; but the right of the Crown to make these removals had never been questioned in the Courts of Law. Not a single person had ever raised the question. He had stated, on a former occasion, that legal opinions had been taken by the Reform League, and had been adverse to them. He had since received a letter on the subject from the President of the League, and as it was not marked "private," there was no reason why he should not read it to the House. It was in the following terms:—
  "Only one opinion was ever taken, and that was taken by me in consequence of my feeling considerable difficulty as to the best mode of trying the question, not only as regards expense, but as to the difficulties of proceeding against either the Crown or the Government, and in consequence of it seeming to me best to leave the initiative to the Crown or the Government. I therefore consulted a pleader on the subject. I wish to be perfectly frank. His opinion suggested more difficulties than I had even contemplated or could concur with as to the enforcing any legal title by means of user or custom on the part of the public to the Parks in a Court of Law or Equity, and suggested that Parliament was the more proper court, a responsible control being vested in the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works for the benefit of the public, and 'the public having a moral right to be protected by Parliament in any reasonable enjoyment from which they might be debarred.'"
  These words being in inverted commas, he presumed they were the words of Mr. Beales' legal adviser—
  "Since this opinion was taken, the question has been more fully investigated, and while I feel the same difficulties, technical and otherwise, as to the mode of proceeding, I am very much confirmed in my conviction of the right of access to the Park being completely sustainable."
  Thus it appeared that the only result of laying a case before counsel was the production of an adverse opinion. Was it, then, justifiable that the public should be assured by placard and speeches that their right to hold meetings in the Parks was indisputable? But without entering into the question of right, opposition is rested upon the point fairly raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), that this was not the proper time for going on with the Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester said the same, but
  1474
  with this addition, that no time was fitting. The time was, nevertheless, well chosen; for although some might say that meetings and agitations were at an end and general satisfaction prevailed, information which he had received persuaded him that the Parks, and Hyde Park especially, would become a constant meeting-place for those having real or imaginary grievances. Small meetings had always been suppressed; and it was necessary that larger ones also should be prevented. The only reason, as far as he was concerned, that vigorous measures to that end had not been taken, consisted in the desirability of as long as possible preventing collision between the Government and a portion of the people, who he believed were in this instance more misled than wilful misdoers. But as these meetings were illegal, it was essential that the Executive should have powers to enable it promptly to carry the law into effect by putting its hands on the principals in any case that might arise. If, on the contrary, by giving way to clamour and outcry the House declined to take steps for the protection of the Parks, they would soon become scenes of chronic confusion; it would be said that meetings in the Parks were virtually authorized, and immediately every petty grievance-monger, whether at the head of a Sunday Trading, Sunday Liquor, or Sunday Closing Bill, would swarm with his followers in the Parks to the discomfort of those who desired to go there for their health's sake; it was not the people who had carriages or horses at their command for whom he pleaded. It was for the women and little children who might be seen sitting and playing on the grass to their intense gratification. To open the Parks to great meetings was to close them to the working classes in respect of healthy recreation, and in this the opponents of the Bill were the worst enemies of their protéges. It would be far better to define authoritatively and clearly the restrictions which were announced on the boards at the entrance to the Parks, so that the peaceful enjoyment of those places should be secured to the people. With respect to that statute for the suppression of seditious meetings, to which so much reference had been made, the Bill contained no clause for preventing meetings of any kind; it merely declared that they should not be held in certain places; but by that Act meetings held within one mile of the Houses of Parliament were declared to be illegal. The Government had no intention whatever of pre-

  1475
  venting public meetings. Their only desire was to prevent the holding of meetings in improper places; they wished to extend the legislation, with regard to Finsbury and Southwark Parks to the Royal Parks. The Finsbury Park Act, passed in 1857, ordered that a penalty of 40 s. should be imposed upon those who sought to hold meetings in the park; the Southwark Park Act, passed in 1864, imposed the larger penalty of £5, thereby showing the necessity which had been felt for increased protection. He asked the Committee to do no more than to extend similar summary restraining power to those who had the control of the Royal Parks.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, if this had been a question in which parties out of London took no interest, he should not have troubled the House with any remarks on the subject; but inasmuch as this was a question in which a great amount of interest was felt in distant parts of the kingdom, he felt bound to say a few words. A short time ago he had the honour of presenting a Petition from the working men of Edinburgh against this Bill, and he was asked at the same time to give the Bill his opposition. He had considered the question in various ways, and, notwithstanding the very able and interesting defence of the measure which they had heard from the Home Secretary, he remained of the opinion of which he was before—that this Bill was a very inexpedient, and, at the present time, a very impolitic measure, to press upon Parliament at the end of a Session like the present. Twelve months ago there was a great meeting in the Queen's Park at Edinburgh, which he had the pleasure of witnessing; there was a procession of 22,000 working men through all the principal streets of the city, occupying nearly two hours. This procession ultimately took up its position within a few hundred yards of the Queen's Palace, and he was glad to say that no person ever complained that the slightest injury was done. In reference to that meeting of the working classes, they consulted with him as to how they should proceed, as he remembered the great meeting of 60,000 people which took place in 1831, at the period of the Reform Bill agitation. He was present at that meeting, and could also speak as to its peaceful character. Looking at all the circumstances, he advised them that the proper way to act, as the question had been agitated in London, was not to meet of
  1476
  their own accord merely, but to represent to the Government that they intended to meet, and ascertain whether the Government would attempt to put any veto on the assembly. He accordingly, as their organ, wrote to the Chief Officer of Works in Edinburgh, who replied that he had not in himself sufficient authority, but that he would write to London for instructions. Instructions came from Her Majesty's Government that they would not interfere with the proposed meeting. That was all they asked. They did not ask any formal permission—they only asked that they should not be interfered with. But so careful were the working men that they should not do any injury to the Park, that they appointed a committee of their own number to wait upon the Chief Officer of Works to confer with him as to the most suitable place upon which to erect their hustings. Those hustings, four in number, were erected, and there were at least 50,000 persons present, including the processionists and the spectators. Not a policeman took part in that procession, and there was no magistrate conducting it, as was sometimes the case, and the meeting was quite as orderly as if it had been held in the drawing-room of a private house. Neither persons nor property were injured; and every care was taken that such should be the case. He would venture to say that the result of the noninterference of Government on that occasion produced the most happy effect on the working men of Edinburgh; and he thought that happy effect had been still more increased by the great measure of Reform which the Gentlemen opposite had been instrumental in giving to the country. He therefore thought that it would be a thousand pities, not only as a question of national policy, but for the sake of hon. Gentlemen opposite, for them to disturb that friendly feeling. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, a few evenings ago, at a convivial meeting at the Mansion House, in a tone partly of argument and partly in that kind of banter of which he was so great a master, that he had broken up the monopoly of the Liberal party to carry measures of Reform. He (Mr. M'Laren) thought the expression was exceedingly happy, and he had every reason to believe that the working men of Scotland were of that opinion. They thought that the monopoly had been broken up, and they were now disposed to consider

  1477
  men by their works in a far greater decree than had been the case with the limited constituency which formerly existed. Having given this great measure of Reform, he would entreat the Government not to inflict this sting. They had obtained the confidence and perhaps the love of the people by what they had done on the question of Reform, and surely it was a piece of bad management to do anything which should counteract that feeling, and again lead the working classes to believe that the Conservative party were really their secret opponents, and that they had only given this measure of Reform because they had been obliged to concede it. He was no political partizan. In some of the critical divisions which had taken place in that House on the Reform Bill he had exercised his own judgment, and had voted with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, knowing well that when he did so he should incur no little obloquy. This he mentioned, not as a matter connected with the debate, but as showing that he had no disposition needlessly to revive prejudices against hon. Gentlemen opposite. Reference had been made by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) to the private parks established in this country, and it was argued that, because no meetings were permitted in these, no meetings ought to be permitted in Hyde Park. But look at the facts of the case. Why, the private parks to which reference had been made would not contain the people attending some of these meetings even if there was not a tree or a shrub in them. If they had been present at either of the two meetings in Edinburgh which he saw they would have found a dense ring of people immediately around the hustings, composed of those who wished to hear, and who were the most earnest; while on the outskirts of tills ring they would find large numbers of people standing widely, without touching each other. A little further off they would be seen widely apart. In this way a very large space was necessarily occupied. It was easy to calculate arithmetically how many persons could stand in a square yard in close military order; but upon a fair analysis of the space occupied by such meeting as they were now discussing it would be found that, on an average, not more than one person stood upon every square yard. Thus 5,000 persons would occupy 5,000 square yards, and a meeting of 50,000 persons would certainly occupy ten acres, while, if there were large
  1478
  numbers going in and out, twenty acres must be allowed. The splendid park which the hon. Member for Halifax (Sir Francis Crossley) had given to his townsmen did not much exceed that limit. Hence it followed that if 50,000 or 100,000 persons were to assemble there every tree and shrub would be destroyed. But such was cot the case in Hyde Park. There there were 500 acres, raid if some twenty acres were set apart, and if the people were told that they might assemble within those twenty acres; that no meeting should go beyond that space (and the space would be small as compared with the greatness of the Park itself—in fact, it would hardly be noticed), it was in vain to say that it would interfere with the use of the Park. No such thing would take place. Many Gentlemen did not understand how to deal with the working classes. They could not be kept in good order by being cuffed and kicked. That procedure was a mistake. He meant to say if the working classes were treated with kindness and courtesy they were most docile; but whenever they thought they were being badly used, or that any indignity was put upon them, their auger was aroused. They then assembled together, and they were thus encouraged to do things which they would not otherwise do. Circumstances had made him more acquainted with the poorer classes of the community than with the rich and the powerful, and he believed that in every part of the United Kingdom any number of working men might be allowed to assemble without the slightest fear of injury being done, provided they were treated with proper respect and courtesy. He hoped therefore that Her Majesty's Government would not press forward this Bill at the present period of the Session, but would allow it to stand over until next Session; and if Parliament then chose to pass this Bill, the people would at least know that it had been done in a full House, and after mature deliberation, and not at the fag end of the Session, when so many hon. Members were hundreds of miles away from the House.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, that as the Bill peculiarly affected the metropolis, and the metropolitan Members had not shown any disposition to take an undue share in the debate, but had for several hours left the House to form its own judgment on the subject, he should not be considered presumptuous in offering a few remarks, more par-

  1479
  ticularly upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If this Bill were really an official way of snubbing the Reform League—if the discussion were one relating solely to the amour propre of Mr. Beales, then he could understand the right hon. Gentleman's speech; but he could not understand the manifestations of irritation which had shown themselves about things with which the House, as matters stood, had nothing whatever to do. The House was not inquiring into the sayings and doings of Mr. Beales, or legislating with regard to them; what they were bound to do was to take care that neither the rights of the Crown, or the rights of the people were not injured. It was simply a calumny to represent—as had been done in the course of this debate—that Members for metropolitan constituencies had lent themselves to the stirring up of agitation. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had come down armed with extracts from all sorts of papers, and thought it a clever thing, in support of the Government, to attack all those who had felt it to be their duty, about three weeks ago, to receive a deputation within the precincts of the House. But the noble Lord had not the generosity, the justice, or the courtesy to apprise Members sitting beside him of the course he was about to take. Had he done so, he would have saved himself from having his story contradicted as soon as it was told, as one entirely without foundation. There were many hon. Members who knew that the words attributed to Mr. Beales as having been uttered within the precincts of the House were never made use of; and that if such expressions had been indulged in they would at once have been put down. It was utterly untrue to say that the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) presided at a meeting within the precincts of the Palace, at which measures of physical force were proposed, till the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) was obliged to interpose. The hon. Member for Birmingham neither rose nor spoke during the whole of that short conference. And, for his own part, he maintained that he had not been wanting either in respect to the Speaker, to the House, or to himself in hearing representations from men who thought themselves aggrieved by a Bill which was pending. Hon. Members were not at liberty to
  1480
  assume that this Bill was already a law. It was a mere farce and affectation to take airs in this debate, and say that because persons were excited, and, perhaps, angry about this Bill, they could be construed into accomplices in threats of violating the law. Logic which they could not palm off on their constituents ought not to be indulged in in the House. He admitted—though it might have been an error—that with several other Gentlemen he had received a deputation within the precincts of this House from persons who were opposed to the Bill. It might have been better, perhaps, if the "Old King's Head" were still standing on the other side of Palace Yard, where they could hear declamations against Bills that were proceeding; but, rightly or wrongly, his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, and half a dozen others consented to hear in a Committee - room of the House what those persons had to say. [Mr. LOCKE: No!] It was perfectly immaterial whether his hon. Friend did or did not consent. He was present, and the hon. Member for Marylebone was also a consenting party. [Mr. LOCKE again dissented.] He with others attended in the Tea-room to hear what was to be said against this Bill. If he did wrong he was sorry for it; but he did not hear any improper language made use of, and it was simply a calumny to endeavour to import such an allegation into this discussion. He might mention, in reply to some observation made by the Home Secretary, that within the last few weeks he had heard Lord Shaftesbury state that if the right of meeting in the Park were to be curtailed or taken away from the people, before that was done he should like to see proper places appointed for them to meet in. What he understood Lord Shaftesbury to mean was, that if the Government had a due sense of what was necessary in the way of proper places for an expression of public opinion, they would not fail to provide other meeting-places if the Parks were closed against public meetings.
  MR. LOCKEwished to state that he had not issued any invitation to the Tearoom meeting. He had received a circular bearing the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) and signed by other hon. Members, requesting his attendance at a meeting in

  1481
  the Tea-room, "to confer with us upon the subject of the Parks Bill." He went to the meeting to confer with those hon. Gentlemen as to the course which they might think ought to be adopted with respect to the Parks Bill. When he arrived, he found Mr. Beales and several other gentlemen there; but no threat whatever was thrown out in his hearing either by Mr. Beales or by anyone else. Mr. Beales stated his views on the subject, and, if he recollected rightly, that gentleman remarked, "If the Motion about to be moved by Mr. Locke does not succeed, what course should be adopted?" He thought the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) said, "It is time enough to take that matter into consideration when the result of the Motion shall be known."
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that with regard to the meeting in question, he had only quoted a paragraph from an evening paper, and had not made any statement on his own authority. If he had stated what turned out not to be correct, he could only express his regret that he should have been deceived by a public newspaper. But the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Torrens) was very indignant at the idea of his being present at a meeting where such language was used. He begged, therefore, to refer to another occasion. Mr. Beales was reported to have said, at the Queen's Concert-room, Hanover Square—
  "That if the obnoxious Parks Bill was proceeded with, they (the Reform League) would hold other meetings in Hyde Park, and then it might be found necessary to pursue a course of procedure which would remove all possible misrepresentation, and leave not the slightest doubt as to what was the temper, what were the numbers, and what was the determination of the men of London in resisting this measure."
  He wished to ask the hon. Member whether he was Chairman of that meeting?
  MR. M'CULLAGK TORRENSsaid, he was Chairman of the meeting, and he felt bound to tell the House to what that observation applied. As he (Mr. Torrens) understood the speaker, he told the meeting that he had been held up to those who believed in him in the foolish position of not representing their opinions—they had heard something of that kind of thing that day—and he said that he should take very good care, in the event of this Bill being proceeded with, that the House of Commons should be left under no delusion as to what the feeling of the people was,
  1482
  and that he would find means by public meeting of showing whether the people agreed with him or not in thinking that the Bill was an encroachment upon their rights. He (Mr. Torrens) did not see that there was anything improper or illegal in the use of that language.
  MR. J. STUART MILL, who spoke amid much confusion and cries for a division, said, he was anxious to state to the House what he and those who agreed with him claimed, and what they thought the working classes of London were entitled to, on this subject. They had heard a great deal about the necessity of legislating for the Parks. Well, he had no objection to any legislation which could properly partake of the nature of police. He did not suppose that any of them would have the least objection to the suppression in the Parks of anything, the toleration of which in any public place was a questionable matter, such as the gaming and belting of which they had heard so much. What they stood up for was that there should be some place open for the purpose of holding great public meetings. He had no objection to preventing meetings being held in such of the Parks as were manifestly unfit for that purpose. No one would think of claiming the right of holding a public meeting in St. James' Park, because, in the first place, there was not room for such a meeting, and, in the second place, it could not be attempted without destroying the ornamental character of the place. The question at issue concerned none of the parks except Hyde Park, and the reason why it concerned Hyde Park was that it was the only great open space in the neighbourhood of London on which it was possible to hold a multitudinous open-air meeting. He could perfectly understand those Gentlemen who said that there ought to be no public meeting of that character at all; but such was not the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he should be surprised it the right hon. Gentleman continued to give his support to this Bill, because in his speech on the second reading of the Bill—a speech that was most moderate in its tone, although not equally so in substance—he admitted that there were cases in which it might be desirable that a multitudinous meeting, a meeting larger than could be contained in any public building, should be held. But if such a meeting were to be held, he (Mr. Stuart Mill) did not know any place

  1483
  except Hyde Park, in which, it could be held with so little disturbance to the convenience of any class. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman did tell the working classes of London that they might meet on Primrose Hill or on Hampstead Heath, and he was sure that this advice must have been accompanied with a twinkle of the right hon. Gentleman's eye, which he (Mr. Stuart Mill) wished he had been near enough to have seen. He thought that nobody who had ever seen Hampstead Heath or Primrose Hill would say that they were places in any way suitable for the holding of public meetings. There was scarcely a spot of level ground on either of them, and no place could possibly be less convenient. Did anybody who had seen these public meetings in Hyde Park think that they had been accompanied with inconvenience to any class? It might, indeed, be said that inconvenience was caused, not by the meeting itself, but by the processions to and from the meeting. That was an argument for those who thought there ought to be no great public meetings at all; but, unfortunately, it was an argument which, if applicable to Hyde Park, was quite as applicable to a meeting held at any of the places where the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that they might be held. It seemed to him that no person who admitted, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done, that there may be certain cases in which it was desirable and right that great multitudinous meetings should take place, could contend that they ought to be held in a corner or at a great distance. He did not think it was in the interest of either order or liberty to choose this time—at the close of the Session—with only a small number of Members present—for carrying a measure of which no opportunity had been given for discussion at a proper period. [Cries for a division.] Assent had been given to a second reading of the Bill, because many hon. Members on that side of the House were not unfavourable to the principle of legislating in some way upon this matter. The Bill had been since much altered, and it appeared to him an unjustifiable exercise of power to proceed at this period of the Session with the Bill, in the absence of so many Members. There were other most important Bills on the Paper, which could not be passed if the Government persisted in going on with this Bill. One of these
  1484
  was the Hours of Labour Regulation Bill, than which there was no measure more creditable to the Government, and it was most important that it should be passed this Session; but if the Government were determined to press on the Parks Bill, the House would not have made one step nearer to the useful legislation involved in the measure of which he spoke. [The hon. Member resumed his seat amid continued interruption and cries for a division. These manifestations of impatience were continued to the end of the debate, which was, consequently, very little heard.]
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he represented a large number of persons living in the vicinity of Hyde Park, and had therefore considered it his duty to inform himself as much as possible what were the opinions of his constituents with respect to this matter; and he found that the shopkeepers in the neighbourhood of Hyde Park were not very strongly in favour of demonstrations. They did not go to demonstrations themselves, and, possibly, if another place could be found as good or better than Hyde Park they would be glad if people would go there. But they were practical men of business, and they knew that there was a large and respectable body of their fellow-citizens who regarded such meetings as a legitimate engine of party warfare. They considered that if the people were prevented from going into the Park at any time of great political agitation — if, at such time, Parliament were to close the gates of Hyde Park against them—that the House would be flying in the face of common sense; for they thought that then the whole of those people would be thrown back into the streets surrounding the Park, and that instead of destroying some few trees and flowers they would prevent the circulation of the traffic of the neighbourhood. A "public meeting" was not a "demonstration." Public meetings, he held, ought to take place in rooms — but demonstrations could not take place in rooms, as none large enough for them could be found; and it appeared to him that the Home Secretary had not made out that there was any place within the metropolis so well suited to demonstrations as Hyde Park. He believed that the people of London had no objection to a Bill which would regulate the way in which the Parks were to be used; but the majority of the people of London were opposed to anything like laying down a rule that

  1485
  there should be no political demonstrations in London. It was suggested that the people might go to Primrose Hill, but even if they did, they must go there through the streets. It seemed to him that it would be well if Ministers ascertained the real state of the law. The right hon. Gentleman had given the House the legal opinion sent to Mr. Beales; but would he give that furnished to the Government?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: It has been for some time in the hands of the House.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the opinion which lays down that nothing but the law of trespass could be put in force; but, putting the mere legal technicalities out of the question, he contended that there were many obsolete rights that should not be too strictly insisted upon. He did not say that any revolutionary proceedings would result from persisting with this measure; but he laid it down as a wise principle not to exaggerate the rights of the Crown. The Bill was now quite different from its original form. Originally it was permissive—now it proposed to prohibit meetings in the Parks altogether. It was very desirable that the Bill, if it was to be passed, should not be passed in a thin House, but passed with the full authority of the Members of the House on both sides; and by referring the Bill to a Committee the House would have the benefit of the Report of that Committee, and they could then, with full information before them, decide whether there was any necessity for altering the law.
  MR. FAWCETTaddressed the House at some length; but the interruptions were so continuous that he could not be followed. The hon. Member having referred to the Hours of Labour Regulation Bill, Colonel KNOX rose to Order, and the Chairman having ruled that the hon. Member's observations were not in Order, after some further observations the hon. Gentleman sat down.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would state very briefly why he should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member. He did not wish to be supposed to give an opinion as to the right of meeting in Hyde Park; but he did not think that they had yet gone sufficiently into the question whether or not that right existed. He did not think there was any ground for surprise that
  1486
  strong opinions should have been expressed by those who thought their rights had been invaded, and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the legal point should be further inquired into. He thought the question was one which ought to be decided in accordance with the general feeling entertained by the inhabitants of London, and ought not to be connected with political questions. No one supposed that there was any probability of there being any large number of political meetings between this time and the next meeting of Parliament. Next Session a Select Committee might be moved for, and then the legal rights of the question might be fully discussed. With this opinion he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHEShoped the Government would not insist upon proceeding with this Bill at this period of the Session in a very thin House. The Bill was palpably aimed against the League, and, in fact, against the mechanics of London, of whom he would say that they were the hardest men in the world to drive and the easiest to lead. If this Bill was dropped he thought it would be difficult to get together 500 men for a demonstration in favour of the right of meeting in the Parks. All you had to do was to let the people alone. There was a large class of persons in the metropolis who felt very strongly upon this question, and the Home Secretary must be perfectly well aware that the passing of the Bill would immediately create great and unpleasant agitation. No sensible person would wish that there should not be proper police arrangements in the Parks, and if they would introduce a carefully drawn Bill, no objection whatever would be made to it, so far, at least, as he was concerned. A portion of the Park might be staked off, where meetings could be held; and stringent police regulations might be enforced outside of that space. He hoped that, for their credit, Government would desist from proceeding with this Bill, and, having carried a great Reform Bill, would not interfere with the popularity they had acquired from it by attempting to pass the present measure. He did not wish to detract from the popularity of the Government, and therefore, though no follower of theirs, he did not like to see them needlessly getting into hot water and again arousing the passions that had been excited during the agitation of the Reform question. It would

  1487
  be unwise and Quixotic to press forward this measure from a feeling that having put their hand to the plough they would not flinch from it. Nobody would taunt them with irresolution for withdrawing it.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsupposed that the Government, after the long speeches they had listened to, would be anxious to pass on to the other Orders of the Day, and therefore he begged to move that the debate be adjourned.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, there was already a question before the House—namely, that he do now leave the Chair, and an Amendment moved thereon.
  SIR JOHN GRAY, after some observations, urged upon the Government to postpone the Bill to next Session.
  MR. COWENaddressed the House; but it being now ten minutes to seven of the clock—
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING LAWS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. O'BEIRNE, in calling attention to the unsatisfactory state of the Merchant Shipping Laws, said, that his task would be an easy one, as he gathered from an answer given by the President of the Board of Trade to a Question put to him yesterday, that it was the intention of the Government to consider the subject, if not of the consolidation, at least of the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Laws. At present there were about fourteen Acts and 700 sections bearing on this most intricate subject, so that it was difficult to discover what the law really was. He therefore thought that in itself would go far to prove that consolidation was necessary. The Act of 1854 was very unsatisfactory with respect to many of its provisions, and first as to the rules laid down for the measurement of ships. Certain clauses in that Act empowered the Board of Trade to make rules with respect to such measurement, and the Dublin Steam Packet Company, thinking the rules established by the Board of Trade to be injurious and unauthorized, appealed to a Court of Law in Dublin, and the Court unanimously decided that those rules were beyond the powers given by the Act; this judgment was appealed from, and the Lords Justices, some months since, affirmed the decision of the Irish Judge. The new
  1488
  rules were, in consequence, cancelled, and the old system, which was a clumsy one, was resumed; consequently, it would be admitted that upon this point, new legislation was necessary. The Act of 1854 established Local Marine Boards, but it was not explicit as to the duties of those Boards. As far as he could understand, their duties were confined to examining masters and other officers who desired to obtain certificates, and to assisting in inquiries respecting wrecks and other casualties. It was not found, however, that they very usually attended at those inquiries, and, as all the papers of real value connected with those inquiries were, under the Act of Parliament, sent to the Board of Trade, it was a point worthy of consideration whether the machinery of these Local Marine Boards might not be got rid of, and all their duties transacted by the Board of Trade and the Registrar General of Shipping. He came next to the question of seamen, which was one of the greatest importance. There were several considerations which suggested themselves in dealing with that branch of the subject. The Committee which was appointed a short time ago, and examined the matter thoroughly, recommended the discontinuance of advance notes, which were payments on account made to the sailor when he joined his ship, the money being generally squandered and of little advantage to him. They also urged the advantage of giving monthly notes—that was to say, the making of monthly payments by the shipowners while the ship was at sea to the family of the seamen. The establishment of pension funds and of life insurances for the benefit of the sailor was advocated, too, among others, by Captain Toynbee, who took so great an interest in the welfare of this large class. Prompt payment of the men on their arrival in England was also very impressingly recommended by all who took an interest in this question, as waiting for two or three days to be paid off produced a most baneful effect in the case of the sailor. He was thus kept idling about, fell into bad company, and became the victim of the crimps. The same Committee had given it as their opinion that the crimping system was mainly attributable to the delay which arose between the discharge of the crew and their payment. They, therefore, recommended that pay clerks should be attached to the shipping offices, in whose presence the men should receive a portion

  1489
  of the pay legally due to them. The question of pilotage, also, was one which, as it at present stood, was in a most unsatisfactory state. There were six boards, as he was informed, the oldest being the Trinity Board, by which the system of pilotage was regulated, but they were absolutely independent one of the other, and great practical inconvenience was suffered because of the constant collisions between them. On the subject of salvage, which had been taken up by his hon. Friend the Member for Sandwich, he would only say that it, too, was in a most unsatisfactory position. A great amount of property lay in various directions on the coast, especially at the mouth of the Thames, which was admittedly capable of being recovered, but which the boatmen never attempted to recover, inasmuch as they were not certain they would be paid for doing so. The next question on which he should touch—and it was perhaps the most important of all—was that of the safety of the public. There was a general feeling abroad that the remedies proposed by the Act of 1859 and subsequent Acts did not take within their purview the safety of the public sufficiently. Many objections, for instance, were offered to the present system of surveys of vessels, and of inquiry in the case of wrecks. The surveys under the 303rd section of the Act, to which he had just alluded, referred simply to the case of a vessel after she was built. They required that she should be seaworthy, have certain signals, and be in other respects in accordance with the schedules laid down by the Act. But that survey having taken place as soon as the vessel was built, there was no other survey for six months, and, therefore, the ship might go to sea in any state which the master thought proper, provided she did not come within the category of passenger ships. The surveys made of passenger ships were also of a very inefficient character. He did not mean to say that the surveyors were not as active as they ought to be, but many of them were not shipwrights or acquainted with shipbuilding, and he did not think they were as efficient men as they might be. Sometimes they did great mischief by requiring alterations to be made which were needless, and at other times by not requiring alterations to be made which were necessary. Attached to the establishment there was a Surveyor General, but he had never heard that that officer exercised any super-
  1490
  vision over the sub-surveyor, or, in fact, that he discharged any duties; and it might, therefore, be well to consider whether, on economical grounds, his office ought not to be abolished. A great improvement would be effected if in all cases it was provided that there should be a final inspection before the ship left port. At present many seamen were brought before the magistrates of Chester and elsewhere for deserting, and the defence of the men often was that their ship was not seaworthy. If the principle of a final survey were enforced, many casualties arising from bad stowage and what was called deck hamper would be prevented. Again, the number of boats which the Act directed should be carried was entirely inadequate to the number of passengers which ships were entitled to take. It might be said that it was impossible to carry sufficient boats for taking all the passengers ashore; but the proportion of boats to passengers which the Act directed to be kept was not at all reasonable, and some larger reform was necessary on this point. A ship authorized to carry some 1,600 persons was not now obliged to take more boats than were capable of saving about 500, exclusive of the crew. The provisions of the American law in relation to lifeboats, life preservers, and other means of saving passengers, well deserve the attention of our own authorities. Another subject, and one in respect to which the public mind was very sensitive, was, with reference to the inquiries instituted into casualties at sea. What had taken place in the instance of that ill-fated vessel the London painfully illustrated the inefficiency of the inquiries which the Act permitted or directed to be made in such cases. Those inquiries had no sort of issue which could be satisfactory to the public. The issue raised was not one as between the passenger and the shipowner, or between the shipowner and the authorities, but simply between the Board of Trade and the captain of the ship. The court was constituted of two assessors named by the Board of Trade and a stipendiary magistrate of the locality, and its duty was to investigate the circumstances attending the casualty and to report whether the captain had been guilty of any default, or whether he had shown any negligence or any want of nautical knowledge, but beyond that point it had no power to go. The courts of inquiry into shipwrecks were in many respects

  1491
  unsatisfactory in their constitution, operation, and results; and he hoped that the Government would take this important question into their consideration, Much inconvenience also was occasioned by these inquiries taking place at so great a distance from the scene of the casualty, and the Board of Trade had, he believed, received a memorial from Newcastle-on-Tyne on the subject, earnestly urging a radical change in the entire system of these investigations, and praying for a full, clear, and impartial inquiry before a competent tribunal. This memorial, which was on the table of the House, was well entitled to the attention of hon. Members, and to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade. There were very many more subjects, and some of equal importance to those to which he had referred, which required to be dealt with. He, however, had full reliance upon the disposition of the Government to handle this question largely, and in the hope that the hon. Gentleman opposite would give the House an assurance that his Motion would have his attention during the recess, he would not press his Resolution to a division. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that the Laws with reference to Merchant Shipping should be revised and consolidated, and that such Amendments should be made therein as will better protect the interests of the public and the mercantile marine of this Country."—(Mr. O'Beirne.)
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that he would second the Motion, upon the understanding that it was not brought forward in any spirit hostile to the Government, but solely with a view of urging them to consider the whole question during the recess. There were many points connected with the subject upon which, had the opportunity allowed, he would have been glad to make some observations. But the House would agree with him that the consolidation of our Merchant Shipping Laws was a question of too great a magnitude to be satisfactorily discussed at the fag end of a Session, and that, too, a Session of a character more than ordinarily laborious. He would therefore only call attention to one point, upon which the interest of his own constituents were much affected—namely, the question of salvage. He had been induced to look into this
  1492
  question on account of a circumstance which had given rise to much newspaper correspondence during the last autumn—namely, the wreck of the ship North upon the Goodwin Sands. With respect to property lost from that ship, charges of a grossly exaggerated character had been made against a portion of his constituents, which charges, even in a lesser degree, could not be substantially proved when an inquiry took place by order of the Board of Trade. But the circumstance had directed his attention to the question of salvage, with a view to ascertain whether adequate remuneration was given to the boatmen of the coast for the risk, expense, and trouble which they underwent in saving property in such cases, or whether the insufficiency of such remuneration did not throw much temptation in the path of these poor men, and really tend to discourage their efforts. Subsequently, he had had the honour of introducing a deputation upon this subject to his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Trade (the Duke of Richmond). He found that the two principal complaints made by the boatmen were—first, insufficiency of payment; and secondly, the unnecessary delay in obtaining that payment. He had ventured to suggest to the noble Duke an improved scale of payment, varying with the value of the property recovered, and also that the payment should be expedited. He would not enter into details at that moment, but he earnestly pressed the attention of the Government to the matter. That, however, to which he especially begged to call attention at this moment was the question of lost anchors and chains—a large number of these were now in the Downs, and unless removed, could not but prove a serious detriment to the shipping. He had been in correspondence with his constituents, and would read two short extracts from letters which he had received, and which would put the whole matter clearly before the House. The first extract was from one of that valuable class of men, the pilots, whose services to shipping were so great, and whose evidence on the subject was well worth consideration. The second extract was from one of the boatmen themselves, a man of good character, and who expressed the feeling of his class—
  "The number of anchors and chains that lay strewed about between the North and South Forelands cannot be much less than 200, a fearful thing to contemplate when one is about to let go an anchor for safety. I do hope, for the safety

  1493
  of the anchorage, that those impediments will soon be removed."
  "As regards the anchors and chains now in the Downs, you may safely say there are from 150 to 200, and men would be very glad to get them if they would pay for getting, for there is very little doing now; it is quite clear they must be got some time, for another blustering winter will block the roadstead up, and the longer they lie the worse they will be, for they will soon rust. If they will give us 2s. 6d. per cwt, good and bad anchors and chains, we will get them, and be very glad to do it—for I am very sure if they do not pay better than they pay at present people will not get them."
  He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would add nothing to the statements, nor delay the House at a moment when time was of so much importance; but he left the matter in the hands of the Government, and earnestly bogged them to deal with it before winter comes on, and to deal justly and fairly with those whom he represented. He would second the Motion in the spirit in which he had spoken.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURtrusted that the Vice President of the Board of Trade would consider whether the Government might not relax the provisions under which merchant seamen could be taken out of their ships in any part of the world and be compelled to serve in the Royal Navy.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he was too deeply sensible that there was much which required alteration and amendment in the laws relating to merchant shipping to find fault with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's proposition. But when we were reviewing our shortcomings it was only fair to take into account what had been done, in order that the House and the country should form a just estimate of the difficulties which had been surmounted and the evils which had been overcome, as well as of those against which we had still to do battle. He believed that it frequently happened that an outcry against an abuse was a pretty sure indication that much had been already done to remove it. The public mind required to be educated by successive attempts at legislation, or in other ways, before it perceived the hideousness of an evil to which it was accustomed. In reading the narratives of Anson and Cook and other celebrated navigators of a past generation, and seeing the evident pride with which they ascribed their success, and the little loss they experienced in certain voyages, to precautions which were now ranked among the most ordinary duties of the master of a ship, he was impressed not only by their
  1494
  exceptional energy and humanity, but by the reflection how wretched must have been the state of things when these ordinary precautions were of such rare occurrence that they deserved to be chronicled—when even a man-of-war was not un-frequently designated as a "floating Hell." It could not be said that the present Government, or their predecessors for many years past, had been unmindful of this important subject. In 1851, to go no further back, Acts were passed regulating the condition of apprentices to the sea service, and placing on a new footing the Merchant Seamen's Fund. In 1853 were passed Acts relating to pilots and pilotage, and to the merchant shipping law in general; and he might here pause to remark that although the hon. Member had mentioned the different jurisdictions to which pilots were subject, he had not alluded to the most difficult part of the question, that—namely, of compulsory or voluntary pilotage. In 1854 was passed the General Merchant Shipping Act and Merchant Shipping Repeal Act, which might be called Acts of amendment and consolidation (to which the hon. Member had referred) of great length, containing between 500 and 600 sections, besides Schedules under almost every letter in the alphabet. These Acts were amended by another the very next year. Then in 1856 came the Seamen's Savings Bank Act, and in 1862 another general Amendment Act. This year the department which he represented had not been inactive in the matter, though legislation had on this as on many other pressing subjects been prevented by the absorption of the time and attention of the House by one engrossing topic. A Bill was introduced, as the hon. Member was aware, called the Admiralty Jurisdiction Bill, which had been reluctantly dropped for the Session, being impeded by the opposition of some of the legal Members of the House, though it received the cordial support of the mercantile community in every part of the country. The object of that Bill was to establish local courts for the trial of nautical questions, with an appeal to the Court of Admiralty. It was proposed to bring all questions relating to a ship, such as freight, average, demurrage, seamen's wages, salvage, &c., before a court which could try and decide several questions in one suit, instead of their being, perhaps, tried in different courts and settled on different principles. Another Bill, which was introduced into

  1495
  the House of Lords by the noble Duke the President of the Board of Trade, had passed all its stages in both Houses, and would doubtless shortly become law. It was only a fragmentary measure, dealing with pressing matters in anticipation of a more complete measure in a quieter Session. Fragmentary as it was at best, it had been still more curtailed, and some valuable clauses had had to be abandoned in order to secure its passage through this House, one of which was for the survey of ships alleged to be unseaworthy, to which the hon. Member had referred. The hon. Member had said truly that the condition of our merchant seamen was one of the most important subjects which could be considered by the House. This Bill dealt with that subject. It related, as the hon. Member was aware, to scurvy and to the accommodation of merchant seamen. It provided that the space for the crew should be improved, better lighted and ventilated, and free from the incumbrance of ship's stores. It provided also that this space should be exempted from measurement, and subject to inspection, and that the same number of cubic feet of air should be allowed for those sleeping in berths and in hammocks. It gave the crew a personal remedy in case of the space allotted to them being, as was too often the case, blocked up with ship's stores. It provided, likewise, that there should be certain conveniences on board merchant ships to prevent the necessity of the men going out on the chains or head, which had led to so many fatal accidents. It directed the appointment of inspectors of provisions, medicines, and anti-scorbutics. It confined the sale of lime-juice for ships' stores to dealers who would deliver it out of bond mixed with 15 per cent of spirits, and took power to authorize the use of other anti-scorbutics. It also dealt with offences by British subjects on board foreign merchant vessels, and with other matters. So much for the present Session. With regard to the future, the Board had issued a very carefully - prepared memorandum respecting tonnage, dealing with the very difficult questions of measurement, the allowance for engine room, and other deductions from the computation in respect of which payments were made to harbours and dock companies; also for lights and other payments depending on tonnage. On this question the hon. Member had mentioned the Bill of the late Government, but he had
  1496
  not stated that the question was really one between steamers and sailing ships; that the owners of the latter demurred to an allowance being made such as the steamship owners desired, for those accessories to the propelling power, by which the steamers carried higher freights. This was with a view to future legislation. They had, moreover, been carefully collecting statistics with a view to applying to the merchant service the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Act, which had been so successful in the case of the Royal Navy. Such an extension of the Act was necessary, indeed, for the effectual working of its provisions, because it was found that when the disease had been stamped out in Government ports, like Woolwich and Sheerness, it was constantly reintroduced from merchant ports, like Gravesend. He was quite sure that when the House was aware how powerful for good the present Act had been, both physically and morally, it would agree with the Board that it was our bounden duty to extend those advantages to the merchant service, and to make another effort to stem that tide of iniquity which had so long impeded the improvement of our merchant seamen. They had it also in contemplation to alter the boat scale of steamers to which the hon. Member had alluded, and to provide that they should carry boats more in proportion to their passengers and voyages than simply in relation to their tonnage. They proposed to extend Government inspection to the boilers of steam tugs, the absence of which had possibly been the cause of some recent disastrous accidents, taking care at the same time not to limit unduly the responsibility of owners, which, as he had more than once remarked, formed, perhaps, the best safeguard of the public. The hon. Member had attacked the system of inspection, and said the Government surveyors were not equal to their work. He (Mr. Stephen Cave) admitted that this was sometimes the case, but this was hardly the fault of the Department; it was caused by the rapid transition from sailing vessels to steamers, from wood to iron. They proposed by degrees to appoint surveyors who had served an apprenticeship in the working of iron, and had likewise served at sea, so that the inspection to which he had alluded might be more effectual. The Board had been engaged in many other inquiries with a view to legislation, and the results of those inquiries had been laid

  1497
  before the House this Session in papers relating to scurvy, to merchant seamen's accommodation, to local tribunals, to disasters at sea, to wrecking in the Hebrides, and some bad cases on the English coasts. The question of salvage had been touched upon by the hon. Member for Sandwich. It was full of difficulty. We did not bear a good character in foreign countries in this respect. When he was in Paris last winter a paper of complaint had been placed in his hand by the French Minister of Marine who had spoken in almost an angry tone of the extortion practised on French vessels by English salvors. He had been informed that in France it had passed into a proverb that there was one thing worse than being wrecked altogether, and that was being saved by an Englishman. When, however, they had asked for a list of cases in which these malpractices had prevailed, the list furnished was somewhat less than they had been led to expect from the loudness of the complaints. At the same time there was considerable room for improvement, and he thought it possible, with the hon. Member, that if some more regular system of rapid payment of authorized charges were introduced these irregularities might altogether cease. Their attention had also been given to the alleged scarcity of merchant seamen, and to the establishment of training ships for merchant sailors, which had succeeded so well in the case of convicted boys, that it seemed unjust and unreasonable, to say the least, to withhold similar advantages from honest boys. They had likewise given attention to the reconstruction of courts of inquiry in case of wreck, which he quite agreed were at present insufficient and unsatisfactory, to the case of what were technically called distressed seamen, and to the general condition of British crews in foreign ports. There were several other matters to which the hon. Member had referred, and some of which had been brought before the notice of the Society of Arts in a paper read by Mr. Gray, one of the most efficient officers of the Board of Trade, such as the questions relating to local marine boards, advance, and monthly notes, pensions, life insurance, the speedy payment of crews, or payments on account, and the exclusion of crimps from dock premises. These had for some time engaged the attention of the Board; in all these they had confirmed habits and prejudices to encounter, but he hoped that by degrees
  1498
  a considerable improvement would be effected. It was not inquiry that was wanted, for we had had inquiries enough, but comprehensive dealing with the question, with the assistance of those practical men whom the Board were always glad to consult. This had been impossible in the present Session. He had felt sure the hon. Member did not wish to press the Motion in a hostile manner, but that his chief object had been to obtain information. He had endeavoured to give him all the information in his power, and probably the hon. Member would be satisfied with the statement he had made. He thought the House did well to consider, from time to time, these important subjects. It had discussed a similar matter, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves), at the end of last Session at considerable length. He could assure the House that the Board were most desirous to put an end to the acknowledged evils which still existed, and that want of time only had prevented more being done in the present Session of Parliament.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he thought the Board of Trade should have power to adapt their regulations to the experience and information which they might obtain from time to time. This would be much better than a rigid and complex Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman should have regard to the expediency of carrying out these maritime regulations by a board with sufficient authority to adapt them to circumstances that might arise. This would be preferable to incumbering the statute book with statutes of 200 or 300 clauses, which could only tend to embarrass the maritime interest of the country.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ARTILLERY—RIFLED CANNON.

  RESOLUTION.
  MAJOR ANSONsaid, that the question of the conversion of smooth-bored guns into rifled guns was as important as that of ships or fortifications, because the efficiency of our ships and fortifications depended entirely upon the efficiency of the guns with which they were armed. This question was of greater moment to this country than to any other country in the world, because we had not our fortified places connected by lines of railway as other countries had. We had our fortified places scattered all over the world, and in case

  1499
  of emergency they were thrown on their own resources. What would hon. Members say if, waking up from a long sleep, they were to find our infantry armed now with "Brown Bess?" It was just as important at present that our ships and fortifications should be armed with rifled guns, as that our infantry should be armed with rifled muskets. All our great fortified places — Gibraltar, Malta, Bermuda, Mauritius, Aden—were, so to speak, unarmed. It was quite true that they had a great number of guns mounted on their fortifications, but in case of attack these guns would be at the mercy of any ironclad ship that might attack them. He believed there were two or three rifled cannon mounted at Malta and Halifax, but with these exceptions all our other fortified places were at the mercy of any iron-clad. We ought to look at this as a question also of justice to our troops. We scattered our army all over the world, and it was a matter of justice to give to our soldiers, who were necessarily comparatively few in number at each point, the means of repelling any attack that might be made upon them. Take the case of our navy, which, after all, was our first line of defence. People in this country generally judged of its efficiency by the number of iron-clads afloat or in commission. But that was a fallacious way of judging. It would be far wiser to judge of its efficiency by the manner in which our ships, both iron-clad and wooden, were armed. Some years ago we took to iron-clad instead of wooden ships, and we did that to prevent our ships being penetrated by the old smooth-bore guns. We devoted almost all our attention to putting iron plates on the sides of the ships, but paid little or no attention to keeping our wooden ships properly armed, so that they might compete with the iron-clads of foreign countries. If we armed our wooden ships with plate guns, that is, with guns which would pierce armour, we should place our wooden ships on a footing with the iron - clad. They would again become perfectly effective for all warlike purposes, and our ancient maritime supremacy would thus at once be restored. Of cast-iron guns, which were entirety useless, we had at present the great number of 15,000 mounted and 20,000 in store. This was a very large question, because the number of guns required both at sea and in forts was enormous. What we wanted was a large number of guns rifled and fit for modern
  1500
  warfare. We were at the present moment in a transition state. A short time ago we set to work upon breech-loading guns. We did away with our field artillery and substituted Armstrong guns. At the present moment we were discarding the latter and were endeavouring at Woolwich to make new guns on an entirely different principle. It should be remembered that in a transition period like this we should not be able in a year or two to manufacture a sufficient number of articles to replace those that would be superseded. It was a matter of time and of great expense. We did not know at present what our ships of the future would be. We were still in uncertainty, as might be seen from the debate which took place the other night about the fortifications of the future. Anybody that went down to Woolwich and talked to artillerists would see that all was uncertain as to the guns of the future. What ought to be done was to avail ourselves of our present stock, whether of ships, guns, or stores. The only way we could utilize our wooden ships was by arming them with guns capable of penetrating the sides of iron-clads, and by taking advantage of the number of guns which the ships would be able to carry. The weight of the guns also must be taken into account, and we should proceed to convert them. It might be asked, was it possible to convert our old stock of guns? A great number of experiments with old cast-iron guns had been tried, and many of these old guns burst. They tried to strengthen them with wrought-iron hoops on the outside, but that was of no use. But of late years a series of experiments had been carried out by Major Palliser, to whom this country was already so much indebted. Years ago Major Palliser invented the system known as that of the compound ordnance. Since then he had been employed in other experiments; he tested everything and took nothing for granted. In 1862 a 68-pounder gun was handed over to him to work into a rifled gun. He put a barrel of wrought-iron into it, and this gun before it was rifled, went through what was called "the test of destruction." There had, in the first place, been fired a 68 lb. shot, and the weight of the shot had afterwards been increased by 10 lbs. at a time until it at length amounted to 680 lb. The gun had perfectly withstood that test. He then tried another 68-pounder, of the same size as others that were now being

  1501
  made at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich. The gun they selected had been condemned as unfit for service. It had fired 383 rounds, and had been condemned on account of fissures round the vent. This gun was rifled on Major Palliser's principle, and fired 750 rounds with various charges. At the end of the 750th round the inner tube split, and they then fired fifty more rounds. The Ordnance Committee remarked upon that circumstance that the trial was more favourable to the system than if it had burst the barrel without warning. This gun had afterwards its breech bored out in order to take out the inner tube that had been split, and to examine the remaining tube. After that they put in another tube, and screwed up the breech again, and then fired 105 rounds, making, in all, 1,250 or 1,260 rounds. The gun then failed by blowing its breech out. The tube inside was taken out and put into a 10-inch shell gun, which was now at Shoeburyness passing through other experiments. The testing this gun had gone through was never dreamt of by any artillerists in the world. The Ordnance Committee were satisfied that the gun was as strong a gun as you could wish to introduce into the service, was capable of standing any charge which could be put into it, and of firing as many times as could possibly be required. It might be said that at Woolwich we were already making a great many 64-pounders and 7-inch wrought-iron guns. These guns were first-rate in their way, as everything turned out in the Royal Arsenal was; but, in order to utilize our wooden vessels, they must be supplied with guns of very much the same weight as those with which they were now armed. The new 7-inch wrought-iron guns which were being constructed at Woolwich, and which were to take the place of the old 68-pounder, weighed three tons heavier than the old, and the new 64-pounder increased in proportion; so that they would have to alter the armament of these wooden ships very considerably, and for every two guns they carried now they would only in future carry one; but the Palliser guns only weighed seven or eight cwt. more than the old ones, instead of three tons. Besides the vast stock of cast-iron guns in our dockyards and elsewhere, there was the question of carriage, which was almost as important as the question of guns. For every 7-inch wrought-iron and 64-pounder rifled gun made at Woolwich, they had to
  1502
  make a new iron carriage; whereas, if they utilized the old iron guns, they would be able to utilize the old carriages. It had been doubted whether the old wooden carriages would stand the heavy charges of the new guns; but Major Palliser found by actual trial that the old carriages stood the recoil, and Colonel Clarke, at the head of the Carriage Department at Woolwich, had not the slightest doubt that he could, at a merely nominal cost, strengthen the existing wooden carriages sufficiently to stand the recoil of the converted 68-pounder. With regard to the expense of the guns, a short time ago the new 7-inch wrought-iron guns at Woolwich cost as much as £700 each. What was called a cheap-construction gun was now produced at something like £425; but it had not been proved to be as satisfactory as the more expensive gun; nor could they really say whether it cost only £425, for it was doubted whether the increased wear and tear of machinery and furnaces caused by the cheap-construction gun would not counterbalance the saving in actual labour. Besides the £425, a new carriage, new slide, and new platform would cost £370 or £380, making altogether nearly £800; but the expense of converting the 68-pounder on Major Palliser's principle was under £200 a gun, and the cost of converting the existing carriages and platforms was merely nominal. Very nearly the same proportion applied to the 32-pounder, and the 32-pounder converted gun was capable of penetrating the Warrior target at anything like a fair range. They might thus turn all their wooden ships to account, and render them able to compete with almost any iron-clad afloat. Hon. Members might be astonished that if the Palliser system possessed the great advantages, and would result in the considerable saving he had described, it had not been adopted before; but though the experiments had been going on for two or three years, it was only fair to the Ordnance Department to say that these experiments had only just been carried to a satisfactory conclusion. The time had now come, however, to set about this conversion in good earnest. In case of war we must have thousands of rifled guns for forts and ships, and the difficulty must be faced. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would do what he could to convert these guns as rapidly as possible, and he would now move the Resolution which stood in his name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the experiments that have been made with Cast-iron Guns lined with coiled wrought-iron, justify the belief that these Guns may be thus made available for the purpose of modern warfare; that a great saving of public money would thus be effected, and that this system of conversion is deserving of the serious and immediate attention of the War Department."—(Major Anson.)
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that his hon. and gallant Relative had done good service in bringing this subject before the House; because if the facts he had stated were correct, the system would result in a great economy of public money, and useless iron ordnance might be converted into efficient guns at comparatively small cost. While forts were built by means of a loan, guns were manufactured by an annual Vote of the House. The process in the latter case was therefore necessarily slow, and if for about the same money they could get two guns almost as efficient in place of one, such a system, promising as it did to put the country into a proper state of preparation much more rapidly than would otherwise be possible, deserved favourable consideration. He hoped that before the present Government went out of office the country would have better armaments than it had ever had before. He admitted the great improvements which had been made by the late Secretary for War in the supply of breech-loading rifles; but the same progress was not observable in the equally important matter of rifled guns. There had been a large order of breech-loading rifles for the army; the late Secretary for War had ordered a rifle gun to be tried on the Lancaster system; and an experiment had been tried with an American gun recently brought to this country. It might be thought from the reports of this experiment that the gun was of no value against iron-plated ships. But the plate used in the experiment was an 8-inch plate, and the thickest plate on any of our ships was 6-inch. If the 60-pounder charge of powder had been used against a 6-inch plate the ball would have gone through; and in all probability in the case of the 4½-inch Warrior plates, it would have penetrated both sides. This was satisfactory as regarded the penetrating power of the shot. A most important point was that the metal of which the shot was composed should be of the best possible kind. He would place in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman specimens of three different shots fired from this American gun at the plate in question.
  1504
  One was a cast-iron shot, which came from America; the second was the Pontypool shot, which was cast in sand; and the third was the Palliser shot. Whoever had any doubt of the importance of the invention of Major Palliser had only to look at these specimens of shot. The American shot was a beautiful specimen of iron; the Pontypool shot iron was comparatively worthless—like pie-crust. Anybody could see that it must break against an iron plate; but the iron of Major Palliser's shot was more dense, and looked in every way superior in the character of the metal to both the other specimens. It was universally admitted that Major Palliser had conferred great benefit on the country by introducing his mode of chilling shot, not only as regarded the penetrating power of the Palliser projectile, but also in the eventual saving of hundreds of thousands of pounds that would have been incurred in expensive steel in order to attain the same result. He was glad, therefore, that the question of Major Palliser's invention had been brought before the House. He did not wish to detract from, but rather to enforce the estimate of its importance, by bringing forward another method of lining guns, and urging the desirability of our turning our attention seriously to the question. He did not wish to go into the question of the priority of patents; but his attention was some years ago drawn to the gun of Mr. Parson's, which was lined with steel tubes, not made like Major Palliser's, but of solid steel, bored out and inserted at the breech of the gun. This he thought equally deserving of the attention of the Admiralty. The two systems were different in this respect, that Major Palliser's was a coil of wrought-iron, and a tube was inserted at the muzzle. The other system was that of a steel tube bored, inserted at the breech, and reinforced at the breech by a sort of shoulder. The question had arisen whether guns bored at the breech and lined from the breech were as strong as guns made on the Palliser principle. Many persons spoke of the former as the best way of securing strength in cast-iron guns. Unable to get a trial in this country, gentlemen interested had obtained one in France. A report of it by the French officer in charge stated that the cannon so made showed greater resisting power than cast-iron guns of the same bore. Mr. Parsons' gun had been tried at Vincennes, and that officer spoke of it in the highest terms, regretting that it could not

  1505
  be adopted from their not being able to get the steel tubes required for it made in France. A Prussian officer who had been sent over to this country to ascertain the best system of iron ordnance, had also recommended its use in the Prussian service. He would not go into details to show that this system of lining guns was as cheap as the other; but it was as strong, and some said stronger. On the part of the inventor, Mr. Parsons, he would make an offer to the Government, the terms of which he himself proposed to Mr. Parsons, who accepted them. It was that, at the Arsenal, under the direction of Mr. Palliser, a 68-pounder should be converted on his principle, and a 150 lb. shot fired from it with 30 lb. of powder, 1,000 rounds to be fired; if the experiment were a success the Government should bear the expense; if it failed, the expense should be borne by Mr. Parsons. An undertaking to that effect, signed by Mr. Parsons, he held in his hand. His object was not to detract from the value of Major Palliser's invention, but it had been tried, and that of Mr. Parsons had not. He hoped that the Government while not delaying conversion on the Palliser system, would accept the proposal of Mr. Parsons in the interests of the service.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he begged, in the first place, completely to acknowledge the great importance of the subject which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had brought forward. This question of trying the effect of lining old guns with other metals had been in course of trial and experiment for a considerable length of time. He understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to claim for Major Palliser the origination of this idea, but it was by no means new. The first proposal made to our Government for lining guns with a different description of metal was so long ago as 1808, and the guns we had taken from the Chinese in our late wars were found to be lined. The question now raised by his hon. and gallant Friend was mainly a question of expenses. It was—Are we able to obtain rifled guns cheaper by this method of lining old smooth-bore guns with wrought-iron than we can by constructing new guns with rifled barrels? The question was divided into two portions—that which related to large heavy guns, and that which related to guns of a lighter calibre and construction. The experiments were not yet completed; but, so far as they had gone, he was justified
  1506
  in expressing great doubts whether it would be profitable and successful to convert the larger class of guns. He alluded particularly to our well-known old gun which, up to a recent period, was the most formidable gun we possessed—namely, our 68-pounder, known as the 95-cwt. gun. It was an 8-inch gun. The proposal made by Major Palliser and also by Mr. Parsons was that this 8-inch gun should be converted into a 7-inch gun, contracting the calibre by one inch through inserting a rifled wrought-iron lining. The result of this change was that a gun weighing 95 cwt. was converted into one weighing 105 cwt, or 5¼ tons, whereas the weight of the new 7-inch gun made at the Woolwich factory, and rifled from the beginning, was 6½ tons, or 1¼ more than the other. Either he misunderstood his hon. and gallant Friend, or his hon. and gallant Friend made a mistake, for the difference in weight was stated by him at three tons.
  MAJOR ANSONsaid, that included the carriage as well as the gun.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, there was another thing to be taken into consideration in that view of the matter. He was not prepared to say whether, including carriage as well as gun, his hon. and gallant Friend was not correct in stating that there was a difference of 3 tons, but as between the two guns the difference was 1¼ tons, or the difference between, 105 cwt. and 6½ tons. It would be necessary, however, to have new carriages, and therefore the question was in that respect one of expense. As respected the guns only, the actual difference in cost was the difference between £263 and £405. His hon. and gallant Friend was mistaken in saying that the old carriages could be used with the converted guns. He was informed that the old carriage would not do for these guns, and that it would be important in any case with heavy guns, whether weighing 5¼ or 6½ tons, to use the new carriages. A converted gun and carriage would cost £590, an entirely new gun and carriage would cost £734. The difference, therefore, was from £140 to £150. The result of the experiments, so far, had gone to show that the converted guns, in consequence of their lighter weight, would not bear the battering charges so well as the heavier guns. They were what professional men termed "too lively." Looking, therefore, at the difference in cost, he could not see that the country would gain so very much by the

  1507
  conversion of the 68-pounders into 7-inch guns. Our arsenal at Woolwich was capable of turning out twice the number of guns provided for in the annual Estimate, so that, looking at the small saving which would be effected, he very much doubted whether it would be either prudent or economical to engage very largely in the conversion of these guns. A paper war had been going on between Major Palliser and Mr. Parsons, but the real difference of construction between the plans of the two gentlemen was very slight. He had already stated that the plan of lining the guns with a different metal was by no means a new one, though the first experiments of late years were probably made by Mr. Parsons. The plan first suggested by that gentleman, by which the barrel of the old 68-pounder was heated so that an inner tube could be introduced, did not answer. Then Major Palliser proposed to bore the old barrels so as to increase the diameter, and to introduce a new tube, which was fixed by a mechanical process. He would not refuse to accept the offer made by his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) on behalf of Mr. Parsons. Although no expense would be spared if there were any prospect of success, yet so much had already been spent that it was but fit some precaution should be taken before even promising to enter into a new competition. Nothing, however, that he (Sir John Pakington had said upon this point referred to the smaller guns. His hon. and gallant Friend was perfectly justified in all he had said upon that point. We possessed, in all, some 30,000 guns of this character. But our available supply of the smaller rifled guns was by no means so large as it ought to be. The doubts which he had expressed, therefore, with regard to the advisability of converting our 68-pounders, in no way applied to our 32-pounders and 24-poundcrs. The 32-pounders converted on Major Palliser's plan became most valuable guns. The carriage for the old 32-pouuder would be equally good for the new one. He believed that the 32-ponnders converted on Major Palliser's plan would become most valuable batteries, equal in every respect in power to the new 64-pounder rifle gun. The cost of converting the 32-pounder would be £120, whilst that of the G-1-pounrler would be £190. The country would, therefore, derive from the conversion of our existing 32-pounders the whole advantage of the saving which would be
  1508
  effected by conversion as against the manufacture of an entirely new gun of that calibre. He trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would be content with this admission as to the value of converting the smaller guns. Until the experiments were finally completed he would not, of course, undertake to say that it was inexpedient to engage in the conversion of our old 68-pounders, but he confessed that, as far as we had yet gone, he believed it to be very doubtful. He had been reminded that within the last week the Admiralty had ordered a fresh supply of the smaller converted guns, and with the conversion of those guns, so far as the financial arrangements of the country permitted it, it was intended to proceed, a statement which he hoped would be regarded as satisfactry by his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Anson).
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, he quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that the question of the saving of expense was not worthy of much consideration unless the result attained by the conversion was satisfactory. Taking the figures of the right hon. Gentleman himself, there were at least 10,000 of the smaller guns which might be converted.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had stated that we possessed 30,000 guns, but he had not stated that even 10,000 of them could be converted.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, that with regard to what had been said about wooden ships being able to stand against good artillery, the latest instance in which wooden ships were engaged was at the battle of Sinope, and a Turkish officer had informed him that at the first broadside all the Turkish ships but three went to the bottom. Of those three, two succumbed to the second broadside, and there remained but one survivor from the third. From what had been said that evening he believed no hon. Member who had spoken was satisfied with the success which we had obtained with our artillery up to the present moment. It would be better if the House would not look at this matter in the light of a mere rivalry between two competitors. A sufficient inducement ought to be held out for a trial and proof of both plans. Comparing the French and English systems of conversion, he thought the system of tubing infinitely superior to that of hooping. He believed that these old guns might be utilized, and he was glad that the Secretary for War had so

  1509
  liberally met the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  MAJOR ANSONsaid, that as there seemed to be some doubt as to the capability of the 68-pounder to stand the recoil, he wished to know whether the Secretary for War would furnish Major Palliser with a serviceable platform and slide, so that that gentleman might be able satisfactorily to try whether the carriage would stand the recoil. If it did he could not understand what objection there could be to convert the guns. He should like to ask whether any private firm had been asked whether they could make the new 7-inch wrought-iron gun at anything like the price which it was supposed it would cost in the arsenal. He should be satisfied with the result of the debate if a fair trial were given of the 68-pounder carriage with the gun in question.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was not aware of the offer of any private firm that ever varied more than a few pounds from the price of the guns made in the arsenal. In reply to the other question, he begged to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had already told him that the experiments were not concluded. He had no objection to anything that would make those experiments as useful possible.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CASE OF JAMES SCOTT.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he rose to call attention to a case of a painful nature, which had excited the deepest interest in Birmingham and the adjoining districts in the Midland counties. It was a case of murder of the most aggravated character. He made that statement on the best authority, for a Petition he had presented to that House on the subject was signed by the magistrate who committed the prisoner, ten other justices acting with that magistrate at Quarter Sessions, and by 3,000 of the most respectable inhabitants of Birmingham. He did not wish to say a word that might prejudice the unhappy man who had been reprieved; but he had communicated to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that he must call attention to the case, and he thought he was justified in bringing the matter forward. The coroner's jury had returned a verdict
  1510
  of wilful murder, the magistrates at Birmingham committed the prisoner on that charge, and the jury at the Warwick Assizes last month returned a verdict of wilful murder after a quarter of an hour's deliberation. It was therefore not surprising that, since the jury had not made the slightest recommendation to mercy, and since the Judge, Mr. Baron Pigott, had not held out the slightest hope to the prisoner, there should be in the Midland counties a strong feeling of astonishment that this prisoner had been reprieved. The prisoner, James Scott, had been cashier in the service of a firm, and was accused by John Pryse, a brother of one of the partners, of defalcation. The prisoner acknowledged the defalcation and begged for forgiveness, but was told that the example he had set rendered that impossible. He then went out of the office and asked a fellow workman in the business to let him have a revolver, and having obtained it, he loaded all the seven barrels. Returning to the office where John Pryse was, he deliberately shot that person while standing about eight paces from him. John Pryse then rushed at him, and was again shot by the prisoner through the breast. The partners rushed in and wrested the pistol from the prisoner, and the wounded man died in about ten minutes. When the prisoner was taken, he declared openly that he had committed the crime, and he added that John Pryse had been an enemy to him for some time. The reprieve of the prisoner had produced a deep feeling in Birmingham, because, taken in connection with the sentences in two cases of homicide and manslaughter at Walsall and Lichfield, it had produced the impression that such crimes as wilful homicide and murder would not meet with adequate punishment. There was no country in which the term of penal servitude was so uncertain as in England. Some criminals who were condemned to penal servitude for life obtained their liberty at the end of a period of seven years, while some condemned for a period shorter than life obtained their release in four years. The consequence was that the stipendiary as well as the other magistrates, and upwards of 3,000 of the inhabitants of Birmingham, had petitioned the House praying that it would assent to an Address to Her Majesty for a copy of the Memorial and Correspondence relating to the case and conviction of James Scott. The terms of the Motion he had to submit to the House

  1511
  were, as far as possible, those of that Petition. It appeared that the result of the inquiries and the Report of the Commission on Capital Punishment had tended, or was supposed to tend, in some degree, to the lamentable uncertainty as to the administration of the law which now prevailed. In the concluding paragraph of their Report, the Commissioners said—
  "There are other questions of great importance upon which we have taken evidence, namely—1. The propriety of allowing an appeal on matters of fact to a Court of Law in criminal cases. 2. The mode in which the Crown is advised to exercise the prerogative of mercy by the Home Secretary. 3. The present state of the law as to the nature and degree of insanity which is held to relieve the accused from penal responsibility in criminal cases. It is obvious that those difficult questions are not confined to capital crimes only, but pervade the whole administration of the criminal law. They, therefore, require a more general and comprehensive treatment than the terms of the Commission under which we act will admit. We think, therefore, that while we should not be justified in making any recommendation to your Majesty on any of these points, we should fail in our duty did we not humbly solicit your Majesty's attention to them as requiring further investigation."
  It was evident that the Commissioners, by concluding their Report in this manner, had travelled far beyond the duty to which, by the terms of their Commission, they were confined. The unfortunate effect produced, at all events, was to unsettle the minds of the Judges and of the public, not only on the question of capital punishment, not merely as to matters of law, but of practice and administration. He was fully convinced that the present Secretary for the Home Department was perfectly incapable of anything like a wilful dereliction of duty either from fear or favour; but it might happen that the right hon. Gentleman had found himself in a position in which he could not exercise the sound judgment for which he was distinguished. Be that as it might, he felt, with the petitioners, that the House would act rightly in asking for an explanation of the case to which he had called attention. He begged to assure the Secretary for the Home Department that if he was of opinion that to press the Motion would be inconsistent with the practice of the House, or with that of the department over which he presided, he would at once withdraw it. He hoped, at the same time, that the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation of circumstances which had produced deep discontent.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Copy of the Correspondence and Memorial relating to the case and conviction of James Scott of Birmingham, who was convicted of the wilful murder of John Pryse at the Assizes holden at Warwick on the sixteenth day of July last, and was sentenced by Mr. Baron Pigott."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had been requested by his hon. Friend who had been lately elected a representative for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) to second the Motion, and to express his regret that owing to his unavoidable absence he was unable to state to the House the views held by his constituents on the subject. He (Mr. Dixon) looked upon the case as one of the deepest importance to the administration of justice. Its position left upon the minds of the people of Birmingham a very painful impression, and they desired that, whatever conclusion the Secretary of State might have arrived at with regard to it, he would take some means to inform the public of the exact grounds on which he proceeded.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not feel it to be his duty to give an answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in the present position of matters concerning the unhappy man whose case was under consideration. He adhered to the opinion he had on many previous occasions expressed in that House and elsewhere, that capital punishment must be done away with if we wished to make punishment certain. It could not be certain so long as the Home Office was besieged with petitions in favour of a policy of mercy on grounds more or less tenable. He did not regret that it was thus besieged, because he believed that the line was very narrow indeed which was drawn by juries between aggravated manslaughter and murder. But there should be a strong case to justify the trying over again in, that House that which had already been tried before a coroner, before a jury at the assizes, and afterwards considered by the Secretary for the Home Department. Appeals had on more than one occasion been, made in favour of a reprieve, but the present was the first in which a fair appeal had been made against one. It was all very well to say that many of the respectable inhabitants of Birmingham were excited because of the decision of the Home Office; but he knew that a large propor-

  1513
  tion of them were in favour of the immediate abolition of the punishment of death, a view which he found was shared in by public meetings he had attended in several towns throughout England.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he entirely agreed with the opinions expressed by the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken. The repugnance of juries to find a verdict of murder, which was certain to be followed by death, frequently led them to find verdicts contrary to the evidence. Public opinion was ahead of legislation in reference to capital punishment. This was the reason why it was so difficult to obtain convictions, and to carry out the sentence after conviction.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The discussion has gone rather beyond the necessity of the occasion. Certainly, in this instance, the jury did not neglect their duty, but found a verdict of "wilful murder," in a case which was undoubtedly one of wilful murder according to the law of this country. As far as I am concerned in this transaction, I have no hesitation in explaining all that has taken place in regard to it. At the same time I must decline to produce the Papers for which the hon. Gentleman has asked, it being quite inconsistent with the established practice to produce such papers, including, as they do, the letter of the Judge. The fact is that the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright)—not the junior Member, whom the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets has represented here tonight—called at the Home Office, bringing with him a memorial which he stated was signed by a large number of the inhabitants of Birmingham, and also by ten of the jurymen who had tried the prisoner, in favour of the commutation of the sentence. I immediately, without reading the memorial, the effect of which was stated to me, or taking any other step with respect to it, directed that it should be sent to the Judge for his notes of evidence, which I had not seen, and opinion. It was very material that it should be so sent, because the time for the execution of the prisoner was drawing nigh. The memorial was sent down to the Judge, and by return of post I received an answer, in which the Judge recommended that the sentence of death should be commuted to penal servitude. Under these circumstances, I had to consider what had been the uniform course followed by the Home Office in all such
  1514
  cases. I found that where the Judge had recommended the commutation of the sentence there was no precedent for the Home Secretary standing in the way, and that if I did so I should then myself become passer of a sentence or executioner rather than an adviser as to when the prerogative of mercy should be exercised. I therefore felt that I was bound to act upon that recommendation.
  MR. NEATEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had said nothing about another case. Supposing, as sometimes happened, a Judge were to fail in his duty by exercising an excessive lenity towards a criminal, was it ever a part of the duty of the person holding the high office of Home Secretary to remonstrate with the Judge in such a case?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I would rather deal with a concrete case when it arises than with an abstract one.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he was perfectly satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman had acted in strict accordance with recent precedents and with the recent practice of the Home Office, and that so far his explanation was satisfactory; as such was the case, he would withdraw the Motion then before the House.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POLITICAL PRISONERS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. REARDENsaid, that he would refer to the amnesty recently granted by the Austrian Government to the Hungarians; M. Kossuth having not only been allowed to return, if he chose, to his native country, but having been elected a Member of its Legislature. He urged that the present auspicious moment, when all England was rejoicing at the passing of another great Reform Act, was particularly opportune for such an exercise of the Royal clemency as his Motion suggested. In reply to a deputation from Conservative working men, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that if they would support Ministers they would save not only the country but the Crown. He had acted in the spirit of the advice dictated by the right hon. Gentleman, and he hoped that would induce the right hon. Gentleman to lend a favourable ear to this proposal.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he seconded the Motion, and that he was acting with perfect consistency in doing so. He had signed a Petition for the mitigation of the sentence

  1515
  on the Fenian prisoner Burke. Whether the Fenian prisoners had been influenced by political or by religious motives, he did not think that disaffection in Ireland was to be removed by pursuing these men to extremities, or by treating them with greater severity than the circumstances of their individual cases rendered imperatively necessary. One simple remedy, in his opinion, for the evils of Ireland was to make known to the Irish people what were the facts of the case with regard to the position which this country had taken up in reference to civil and religious liberty.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be pleased to extend Her most gracious pardon to all persons now in prison in the United Kingdom and the Colonies for political offences."—(Sir. Rearden.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: "With respect to the political prisoners in the Colonies the House is not acquainted with the facts. With respect to those in the United Kingdom, it would be contrary to all reason and common sense, while you are trying a great number of persons for these offences, and while the Habeas Corpus Act is suspended in order to enable you to apprehend them, to let out a number of prisoners, many of whom, having been let out before, have returned again to trouble this country. I need not say a word more.
  Motion put, and negatived.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'ciock

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Companies Act (1862) Amendment* (333).
Committee—Master and Servant* (325 & 334); Army Reserve * (320); Militia Reserve * (314); Public Works (Ireland)* (315).
Report—Local Government Supplemental (No.6)* (289); Militia Reserve * (314); Army Reserve * (320); Public Works (Ireland)* (315).
Third Reading—Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Act (1865) Amendment* (247); Factory Acts Extension (296); Courts of Law Fees, &c.* (286); Admiralty Court (Ireland)* (326);

1433
Justices of the Peace Disqualification Removal* (312); Sewage* (328); Railways (Ireland)* (316); Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.* (332).

FACTORY ACTS EXTENSION BILL.
(No. 296.)—(The Earl of Devon.)
FACTORY ACTS EXTENSION BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Devon.)
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDasked, whether there was any probability that the Hours of Labour Regulation Bill would come before the House this Session?
  THE EARL OF DEVON: No chance whatever.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDsaid, that on the occasion of the second reading of the measure then under consideration, a noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), to whom the country was mainly, if not entirely, indebted for legislation on the subject, stated that its provisions would affect no less than 1,500,000 young women and children. He (the Earl of Lichfield), however, asserted that it was not so: the fact was that the Bill before the House would affect only large factories in which above fifty hands were employed. It was, in other words, but a part, though he admitted a very considerable part, of a general scheme of legislation which he had hoped to see carried into effect for the purpose of bringing under the operation of the Factory Acts, all those trades which had hitherto been excluded from its scope. He was surprised to hear that there was no chance of the Hours of Labour Regulation Bill coming before the House this Session, as he thought that the two Bills ought to be considered together; he was not, however, satisfied with the machinery provided for carrying out the regulations under the Hours of Labour Bill, as, under a system of local inspection, the persons in whose workshops and factories less than fifty hands were employed, would probably be the very persons responsible for carrying out the regulations. It was, he also thought, a somewhat unreasonable proposal to tax certain districts in which only a small number of hands were engaged in the workshops, while other districts were left entirely free from any such local rate. The system of local inspection had already been tried and failed. Although the system of factory legislation could not
  1434
  be applied without very considerable inconvenience to the employers of labour, the manufacturers had been found ready to put up with it, seeing the benefits which were derived by those whom they employed; but he did not think it was at all fair or right or reasonable that persons who employed fifty hands or upwards in the same trade should be placed under stringent regulations, and subjected to inconvenience, while those who employed forty-eight or forty-nine would be placed under no restrictions whatever. He had no doubt in his own mind that, generally speaking, the large manufactories throughout the country were better managed, and the people engaged in them in a better condition in all respects, than those engaged in workshops where less than fifty were employed; and, therefore, he must say that if any legislation of that kind was necessary at all it certainly ought to be applied to workshops containing fewer than fifty, as well as to larger establishments. He had received a letter from a foreman engaged in certain large works in his own district, in which the button trade and the fancy ornament trade were carried on. The writer informed him that in that and in other similar establishments, employing several hundred hands, voluntary regulation of the hours of labour and other matters had of late years been adopted. That was a proof that there were many cases in which the employés of large factories were well cared for. He should certainly be the last person in that House to get up and find fault with any legislation in the direction of the Bill before them; but he could not permit the third reading to pass without expressing his opinion on what he must think was, to a certain extent, the very unfair and unsatisfactory character of the measure as it now stood. He admitted the working of the legislation of 1864 with respect to the Potteries had worked very beneficially; but this was attributable to the fact that the Act applied to the whole of the trade, and the only defect in its working was that it did not take in all the trades carried on in that district. This showed that the same system ought to be applied to the whole of every trade without making a distinction between the large and the small establishments, and he aserted, upon the testimony of practical witnesses, that the workshops employing a few people were generally more in need of supervision than the larger factories. He felt certain, therefore, that the proposed

  1435
  legislation would not work satisfactorily if it were allowed for any length of time to stand alone. Two Bills in reference to this subject had been brought before the Commons; and he thought their Lordships must be aware that there had not been a meeting held in any part of the country, whether composed of manufacturers or workpeople, in which the principle of distinction to which he had adverted had not been complained of and condemned. A meeting of manufacturers took place a few months ago at Birmingham on that subject, and among the resolutions passed on that occasion was one declaring that any Act for the regulation of labour in that town should apply alike to all manufactories and workshops, irrespective of the numbers employed in them, and that they should all be subject to the same restrictions. From what had taken place in other parts of the country he believed that a larger measure, comprising the whole of the trades, would have passed through the other House, and that so far as the public were concerned they would have been infinitely better satisfied with a measure which would have comprehended all factories and workshops. He was told that Amendments might still be inserted in the Bill; but although he felt great improvements might be made in it, that yet, rather than interfere with the passing of the measure, he should not press his objections. He believed it to be the unanimous opinion throughout the country that this Bill, if it were allowed to stand alone, bore upon its face the marks of so much inconsistency, injustice, and he would even go so far as to say so much absurdity, that it would entirely fail in its operation, even if it did not do positive harm in some respects.
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, he could not at that moment positively say that there was no chance of the other Bill—the Hours of Labour Regulation Bill—coming up in time to receive their Lordships' sanction this Session—all, in fact, would depend upon the progress it made that evening. The views expressed by the noble Earl were fully shared in by Her Majesty's Government, who had taken every means to ensure the simultaneous progress of the two measures; and if the Hours of Labour Regulation Bill had been somewhat delayed, it arose from circumstance, wholly beyond their control, and they had thought it right to proceed with this measure even in the absence of the other Bill. He had no doubt whatever
  1436
  that even if the Hours of Labour Regulation Bill failed to become law this year, it would pass at an early period of next Session. He fully concurred in thinking that the success of any legislation on this subject must depend upon the cordial co-operation of the masters, and he rejoiced to think how warmly that co-operation had hitherto been bestowed. He trusted that when the whole scheme became law it would be received in the same spirit.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYthought it would have been impossible to legislate on this question this Session, if they had endeavoured to comprise in a single measure all the industrial occupations to which such a Bill as the present might be applied. This Bill affected 150 trades, all requiring particular regulations, and it comprised glass and iron works and every other industry which was carried on on a large scale. It was originally proposed to draw the line at workshops employing 100 persons; but he thought the House of Commons had done well in reducing the figure to fifty. The trades under this line were mostly of a minor character. Had a more comprehensive measure been brought in it would have been difficult to find at once a sufficient number of Inspectors to superintend the various departments, and he believed the whole thing would have fallen through. He was twitted in 1833 for dealing only with textile fabrics; but his reply was that it was impossible to embrace every branch of industry in a single Bill, but that in time, with God's blessing, he would deal with them all. The same remark applied to this measure; and he hoped that the Workshops Bill would come up to their Lordships to-night or to-morrow, and that by gradually coming down to establishments employing thirty, twenty, and ten workmen, the education and moral and physical welfare of the whole labouring population would be satisfactorily provided for.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDsaid, he was glad to hear that the other Bill would speedily come up to their Lordships' House, but he regretted that such important measures had been introduced so late in the Session that it was impossible to amend them.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.

JAMAICA—CASE OF MR. EYRE.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SHREWSBURYrose to bring the case of Mr. Eyre under the consideration of the House, and to ask the Secretary for the Colonies, Whether the Government were prepared to adopt the opinion of the late Attorney General in regard to the criminal prosecution of Mr. Eyre, as published in the newspapers of July 29, and whether, in consequence of that opinion, and taking into consideration the fact of more than one abortive attempt having been made by persons styling themselves the Jamaica Committee to carry out the object they had in view, the Government would now undertake to defend Mr. Eyre against any further persecution? In bringing the Question forward, he might be permitted to state that he regarded it as one of the greatest importance, not only to the individual to whom his Motion had special reference, but also to all Governors of our colonies. He would not detain the House by going through the long history of the case, which was well known, and had been thoroughly sifted by the public; he would, simply point out that ex-Governor Eyre had received from various sources, especially from the late Government and the Commissioners who were sent out to Jamaica, abundant marks of their approbation of his conduct. Mr. Eyre had been before the public in posts of great trust for twenty-five years, and during all that time his conduct in many parts of the world had received the approval of the Governments of the time being. He would refer to one or two passages in confirmation of what he said. In 1841 Mr. Eyre was first employed as stipendiary magistrate on the Murray River, in South Australia, and in that capacity his experience of the colony and knowledge of the aboriginal character enabled him to perform valuable services in controlling the fierce tribes of the Murray and the Darling rivers. In 1846 Mr. Eyre was transferred by Earl Grey from South Australia to the post of Lieutenant Governor of New Zealand, and in appointing him that noble Earl said—
  "Since I saw you, shortly after my appointment to this office, I have been very anxious to find some employment of a superior kind to that which you have had in South Australia which it might be in my power to offer you, but hitherto without success. I am, however, happy to say that an occasion has at last presented itself which enables me to make you an offer which I trust may be agreeable to you. It is intended to appoint a
  1438
  Lieutenant Governor for the southern part of the colony of New Zealand, to act in the absence of the Governor. In the present state of affairs this situation is a very important one, and it is expedient that the person to whom it is intrusted should proceed to the colony with the least possible delay."
  Mr. Eyre remained in New Zealand until 1853, and Earl Grey, in a letter to Governor Sir George Grey, expressed his approbation of Mr. Eyre's services in these words—
  "I have the same favourable opinion of the zeal and intelligence of Mr. Eyre's administration, which I am happy to see that you entertain."
  In October, 1854, Sir George Grey, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, appointed Mr. Eyre Lieutenant Governor of St. Vincent, under Sir W. Colebrooke, who was Governor-in-Chief of the Windward Islands; and in this position likewise Mr. Eyre obtained the approval of his immediate superior "for the zealous and able manner" in which he had conducted the administration. In 1859 Mr. Eyre was appointed by the Colonial Secretary of the day, Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, to administer, during the absence of the Governor, the government-in-chief of the Leeward Islands, and in that position also the conduct of Mr. Eyre gave great satisfaction. In 1861 Mr. Eyre was selected by the late Duke of Newcastle to administer, during the absence of the Governor, the government of Jamaica, confessedly the most unmanageable of all our colonies. Mr. Eyre in this post met with the most determined opposition, and a petition was presented to Her Majesty praying for his recall; but such was the high opinion which the Duke of Newcastle entertained of his merits that the petition was practically answered by the immediate appointment of Mr. Eyre as Captain-General and Commander-in-Chief over the Island of Jamaica. He came now to the occurrences relative to the insurrection in Jamaica in the autumn of 1865. When the news of that event arrived Mr. Cardwell was Secretary of State for the Colonies, and in a despatch dated the 17th of November, 1865, Mr. Cardwell said—
  "I have next to convey to you my high approval of the spirit, energy, and judgment with which you have acted in your measures for repressing and preventing the spread of the insurrection. I have also to express my gratification at the clear and succinct manner in which, under all the great difficulties of your position, you have been enabled to communicate to Her Majesty's Government the narrative of the transactions. It was the first duty of your government to take, as

  1439
  you did, effectual measures for the suppression of the horrible rebellion, and I congratulate you on the rapid success by which those measures appear to have been attended."
  Then a change came over the scene. A deputation from what was called "the Jamaica Committee" waited upon the Secretary for the Colonies. Whether the late Government was afraid of alienating Parliamentary support was not for him to say; but, in consequence of the importunity of that Committee, a Commission was sent out to Jamaica to inquire into all the circumstances of the case. And what did the Commissioners say? In the body of their Report they stated—
  "That the disturbances in St. Thomas-in-the East had their immediate origin in a planned resistance to lawful authority; that the causes leading to the determination to offer that resistance were manifold; that the principal object of the disturbers of order was the obtaining of land free from the payment of rent; that an additional incentive to the violation of the law arose from the want of confidence generally felt by the labouring class in the tribunals before which most of the disputes affecting their interests were carried for adjudication; that some, moreover, were animated by feelings of hostility towards political and personal opponents, while not a few contemplated the attainment of their ends by the death or expulsion of the white inhabitants of the island; that the original design for the overthrow of constituted authority was confined to a small portion of St. Thomas-in-the-East, yet the disorder, in fact, spread with singular rapidity over an extensive tract of country, and that such was the state of excitement prevailing in other parts of the island that had more than a momentary success been obtained by the insurgents their ultimate overthrow would have been attended with a still more fearful loss of life and property; that praise is due to Governor Eyre for the skill, promptitude, and vigour which he manifested during the early stages of the insurrection, to the exercise of which qualities its speedy termination is in a great degree to be attributed; that the military and naval operations appear to us to have been prompt and judicious."
  Mr. Cardwell, on receiving the Report of the Commissioners, wrote as follows:—
  "Governor Eyre fully deserves all the commendation bestowed upon him; Her Majesty's Government agree in your conclusion that the naval and military operations were prompt and judicious, and considering the large share personally taken by Governor Eyre in the direction of those operations, they attribute to him a large share also of the credit which is due for their success. The addresses of the Legislative Council, of the House of Assembly, of the various parishes of the island, and of others testify the sense generally entertained by the white and coloured inhabitants of their obligation to Governor Eyre for the promptitude and vigour of those measures."
  One of the charges made against Mr. Eyre was that he was too ready to apply martial
  1440
  law all over the island; but upon that point Mr. Cardwell used these words—
  "Nor must it be forgotten that he resisted the proposal urgently made to him by the custos and magistrates to proclaim Kingston; that he refused to accede to the suggestion of Colonel Whitfield to proclaim the parishes of Trelawny, St. James, Hanover, and Westmoreland, or that of Major-General O'Connor, who thought that from the first the whole island ought to have been placed under martial law; and that in respect both to the assistance offered by the Governor of Cuba, and to the summoning of British troops from Halifax, Nova Scotia, he showed himself superior to feelings of alarm expressed and entertained by those around him."
  In passing, he might remark, that addresses of congratulation and approval were presented to Mr. Eyre from both Houses of the Legislature in the Island, and from persons of every religious denomination, all of whom concurred in declaring that it was owing to Mr. Eyre's promptitude, energy, wisdom, and decision that the lives of the whole white and coloured population were saved. An Act of Indemnity was passed by both Houses of the Legislature in Jamaica, and confirmed by the Privy Council in this country. It was not for him to give an opinion about martial law. That subject had been discussed in a most learned Charge by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, whose opinion as a lawyer must carry great weight, and be treated with every respect. But there were persons who disputed the accuracy of the judgment of that learned functionary, and contended that some of the positions which he had laid down in his Charge were not correct. But whether martial law was legal or not, it was not the opinion of any one in Jamaica that it was illegal, nor was it in his judgment the opinion of anybody anywhere else. Where a great danger arose assuredly there must be some remedy and the Government in case of emergency must act in self-defence. He was only contending that, whatever the law of the realm in the matter was, Mr. Eyre was bound to act according to what appeared to him to be the best course. He denied that Mr. Eyre had kept out of the way on his return to his country; he remained in town a considerable time, his address was well known and he could have been found at any time. Mr. Eyre knew that the Jamaica Committee wanted to attack him, and he published his address and also came up to town and attended one of Her Majesty's levées. There was no ground for any imputation that he shirked any legal consequences of his con-

  1441
  duct. Mr. Eyre was suddenly superseded by the Secretary for the Colonies, and this decision of the Secretary of State threw Mr. Eyre out of employment, after his long services, totally unprovided for. The position of Colonial Governors was a very hard one. Military or naval officers at any rate had their half-pay to fall back upon; but there was no such provision in the case of Governors, and Mr. Eyre had not served quite the time necessary to entitle him to a pension. Much had been said of great and undue severities which had taken place in Jamaica; but it was necessary to consider the critical position in which Mr. Eyre was at the time. A map of the Island had been prepared showing the points of attack, and the military and naval forces available, and the fact was that when the outbreak took place the whole Island was upon a volcano. A despatch was sent out by his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) to Sir John Peter Grant, in which his Lordship drew the attention of Sir John Peter Grant to the Return of the sentences inflicted by the Special Commission, held at Kingston, between the 24th of January and the 9th of March 1866, and added that he found that many of the sentences were of great severity—that thirteen men and two women were sentenced to penal servitude for life, and seven men and four women to penal servitude for twenty years. Lord Carnarvon then added that as the investigation of the Royal Commission had enabled the Government to appreciate more clearly than was possible at the time, the nature of the recent disturbances, and the guilt of those implicated in them, it would be desirable that the proceedings of the Commission specially appointed to try those persons should now be revised; and he wished Sir John Peter Grant, therefore, to call for the Judge's notes; and, after consultation with the presiding Judge under that Commission, to report his opinion whether in any of the cases there were grounds for remitting any portion of the sentences. This despatch was more or less of an implication upon Mr. Eyre, and was therefore made the most of by people in this country. But Sir John Peter Grant, in his reply, said—
  "Having given the case of every one of these prisoners my best attention, it is my opinion that considerations of justice will not admit of any remission of the punishment in some of the cases; and that in others of them, though the mercy of the Crown may be extended to them at a future time, it would not be advisable, for the reasons to which
  1442
  I have above ventured to point, to announce any remission of punishment for a long time to come; and then only if the state of feeling in the colony recovers its tone."
  This was a tacit reproof of the charges made against Mr. Eyre, and served to exonerate him from any reflection on this score. To show the spirit in which the prosecution of Mr. Eyre had been carried on, he might mention that lately it had come to light that Captain Edenborough, who was the captain of a Confederate armed vessel, and had been in this country, had made an affidavit that Gordon, the principal person implicated in these transactions—the man, who in his (the Earl of Shrewsbury's) opinion, laid the train and got others to fire it—came to Captain Edenborough and wished to buy his vessel and arms and bring over Haytians and proclaim rebellion in Jamaica. Captain Edenborongh did not know the person at that time, but afterwards saw Gordon's photograph, and identified him. The animus against Mr. Eyre shown by this strong fact—that when Captain Edenborough wished to leave this country every effort was made to prevent the reception of his evidence, and induce him to retract what he said. This attempt, however had been defeated; his affidavit was sworn, and he was afterwards cross-examined. He (the Earl of Shrewsbury) rejoiced that the magistrates of Market Drayton, with true English manliness and fairness, had not been led away by any outside clamour, but had honestly and firmly done their duty. This was not the first time that there had been clamour and oppression against an individual. There, was an insurrection in Ceylon during the time that Lord Torrington was Governor, and when it was proposed to send out a Commission to inquire into the cruelty which was alleged to have been exercised in suppressing the rebellion, Earl Russell made use of this language in the House of Commons—
  "I believe, whatever that decision may be, that the rules and maxims that we have laid down must be the rules and maxims by which any Government will be guided which seeks to preserve this Empire, and that if any Government was to take the dastardly part of sacrificing a Governor because there was a clamour raised against him, got up with great perseverance and industry—I believe that the Government, while it would sacrifice the colonies, would meet with the reprobation, the deserved reprobation, of the people of England."
  Thus, Earl Russell at that time threw the shield of his authority over Lord Torrington; yet he was at the head of the Govern-

  1443
  ment that gave way to the clamour raised by the Jamaica Committee, and sacrificed Governor Eyre. He (the Earl of Shrewsbury) had not brought this case before their Lordships on account of any previous knowledge of Mr. Eyre. He had only taken up his cause thinking him an oppressed public servant, and believing that all who were in authority should be backed up by their respective Governments. How was a man to do his duty in a crisis if he had, as it were, a rope round his neck; if he knew that he would be attacked should he not do his duty, and should he do his duty, that then he would be maligned and ruined? It was due to an injured man that some reparation should be made to him. It was only when a violent outcry had been made against him in this country that the authorities had refused him the reparation which they ought to make, and which he hoped they would make to Mr. Eyre. He begged to ask the noble Duke—and trusted the answer would be a satisfactory one—Whether the Government were prepared to adopt the opinion of the late Attorney General with regard to the criminal prosecution of Mr. Eyre, as published in the newspapers of the 29th of July; and whether, in consequence of that opinion, and taking into consideration the fact that more than one abortive attempt had been made by persons styling themselves the Jamaica Committee to carry out the objects they had in view, the Government would now undertake to defend Mr. Eyre against any further prosecution?
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM: It is quite unnecessary for me to follow the noble Earl through the various points raised by him in the early part of his statement. No one disputes, or has ever disputed, the ability with which Mr. Eyre has served the country in the many previous positions in which he was entrusted with official responsibility; but the question which Her Majesty's Government have had to decide, and to winch the Question of the noble Earl refers, was the course to be taken with regard to proceedings in which Mr. Eyre found himself involved, not by any act of the Government, but by the act of individuals in this country on his return from Jamaica. That question arose while my noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon), who is not now present, held the office which I have now the honour to hold. At that time the Government decided what should be done under the circumstances in which Mr. Eyre was placed
  1444
  —namely, that of being threatened with a criminal prosecution for certain acts said to be done under his orders during the outbreak in Jamaica. The course which the Government thought it right to take was to give every facility to Mr. Eyre for his defence in any proceedings that might be brought against him; but that it was not the duty of the Government in such a case to intervene between Mr. Eyre and the persons who might endeavour to set the law in motion against him in this country in respect of any acts which he had done. The Government felt that the proper course in such a case was to leave matters to the ordinary course of law, feeling confident that if the proceedings were unfounded they would only recoil on the heads of those who had taken them; and, on the other hand, that if there were any foundation whatever for them the charges brought ought to be subjected to the test of the strict forms of procedure in this country, where ex parte statements would not be allowed any weight until they had been tested by the rules of evidence, and those who made them had been subjected to the ordeal of cross-examination in open court. It seems to me that if that course were right then, it ought still to be persevered in. The present position of matters is this—certain criminal proceedings against Mr. Eyre have signally failed; yet certain persons consider they have claims against Mr. Eyre for damages in respect of proceedings he took against them during the disturbances in Jamaica. At the present moment, two actions are pending against Mr. Eyre. One appears to have been proceeded with no further than the mere issuing of the writ. The other case is proceeding, and there has been recently taken the evidence to which the noble Earl has referred as having an important bearing upon the state of affairs in Jamaica—namely, the evidence of Captain Edenborough of the Confederate navy. I confess it appears to me that while these actions are pending, and examinations proceeding, it would not be right for the Government to step in and, in the words of the Question of the noble Earl, "undertake to defend Mr. Eyre against any further persecution." It seems to me that the only right course for the Government to pursue—and the best for Mr. Eyre—is to allow the proceedings that have been commenced against him to be brought to their legitimate conclusion, and to allow the evidence upon which they are founded to

  1445
  be sifted in a Court of Law. Then, and not until then, will it be right for the Government to decide any question which might arise with reference to Mr. Eyre. The noble Earl thought proper to allude to a despatch of my predecessor (the Earl of Carnarvon), calling upon the Government of Jamaica to explain certain sentences passed, not during martial law, but by the civil authority, upon certain rioters, which sentences appeared to be characterized by excessive severity; and the noble Earl read some extracts from the answer of the present Governor, pointing out the reasons for these sentences, and why they should be persevered in, and otherwise referred to this despatch as indirect confirmation that a state of things prevailed in Jamaica which justified the course pursued by Mr. Eyre. I should not have referred to this despatch, because it does not appear to bear in any manner on the question before your Lordships, but for the printed statement placed in my hands this afternoon, which the noble Earl has quoted, and which, indeed, bears his signature. This document conveys the impression that the Government to which I belong have withheld from the public documents which could throw light on the subject; for it states that Lord Carnarvon's despatch has been inserted in the newspapers, and has obtained wide publicity, while similar publicity has not been given to the reply of Sir John Peter Grant, which contains matter of the highest importance in vindication of Mr. Eyre. I regret that the statement should have been made in such a form, because a reference to the blue book would have shown that this despatch is published in extenso, together with Lord Carnarvon's despatch. I do not, however, see that these despatches in any way bear upon the case of Governor Eyre. With regard to the particular Question put to me, I think that the proper time for Mr. Eyre to bring any question he may desire to raise with regard to his own conduct under the notice of die Government will be when the proceedings now pending against him have closed. At the same time, I shall feel at liberty to discuss the matter with much more freedom when I can refer to evidence, which I do not feel justified in doing while the cases are before Courts of Law. While admitting the embarrassing position in which Mr. Eyre is placed, and appreciating the feelings of disappointment which must necessarily overwhelm an officer who, after serving his country faithfully and
  1446
  honourably so many years in various colonies, finds himself the object of criminal and civil prosecutions, I cannot forget that the liability to be exposed to such vicissitudes is necessarily attached to the high, position which Mr. Eyre assumed. It has been his misfortune to fall upon a time of trouble and difficulties—difficulties which he surmounted—and disturbances during which he showed great vigour and energy. For what he did he has had the misfortune to be arraigned by certain persons, and the legal proceedings must take their course, and the evidence be sifted for the facts before the Government can form any opinion as to the course to be pursued by them with reference to Mr. Eyre.
  THE EARL OF SHREWSBURY, in explanation, said, he did not mean to imply that the Government had withheld the despatch of the present Governor from publicity, but that the newspapers had done so. He could not say that the Answer of the noble Duke was very satisfactory. Mr. Eyre seemed to be the victim of a persecution by a party, one half of whom seemed to wish for his blood, while the other half coveted any money he might possess — and, in fact, wished to ruin him.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.