The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 20 1855

sew
thought of he recollected hearing ;caw officers speak of
the inadequacy of our forces, and 1:e greatness of the se se.
; said then, as' ha
rations that were to be carried on,a H.
rm were absolutoly
aaid now, that even if our presen
nigh a still greater artny
annihilated, the country would
war. The French
to consummate the objects of thfr'w
(Cheers.) They
Go-
vernment had done their duty •A0b1,9-
dinnt position—a deed un-
exampled sent out 200,000 men to a'
furnished with
exarepled in the history of the e. rid—and
all the materials of war. (Hoer-) tit the slightest check was
magnified is this country. The a a.cles the other day on the
Belau and Malakhoff had failed fverybody seemed to think
lose •
thearmy was at an end, though ley not one inch of
ground they previously and he believed they had
even gained more
of the public mind ought
e
sleneh7 (Hear, hear.) Tills state
Corrected ; war could not
be carried on without interruiion or without more or less
illeuccess. (Hear.) Let tint
to
• of it,
look back the last war.
the public attention was ixe on the termination
which was most glorious Jll'11, .ifferent periods of it how
t any-
immeasurably more dies +ay, were
the eventsinhan the pre-
thing that had occarreC or
" likely to occur,
ed to raise the siege, or
sent war. Suppose the veOsioblig
convert it into a block ie. proper. They could
e denieel that they could not
withdraw their forces if ti' thought oaed ship, and ravage
put a large part of their ""
h‘e(Hear.) They should show,
territory north and
however, that the ,i:ViTersiest in carrying on the war,
euine hopes that, in case the
and if they did se, he lases:.t:tal break of the vast empire
war should be continues
of Russia might be effece
would state briefly the reasons
Captain GLADSTOY .against the motion of the hon.
that induced him to vc:sil
,peffield. He could not now vote
and let-red member fe
roposed to be passed on the late
for the ,nsure tha.t,
eew,ion, because after what had already
and prey
Adrain,-ar the appearance of vindictive-
taken pi it would
vote for it because there was no
Hess. lie to could nceedi ..0
g. (Hear.)
..
precedent . wen:, k,
‘eee.eered that the whole of the late Ad-
Mr- up to be considered blameable, and. he
•_
could ~ut' admit that one member only should be subjected
to censure. He charged the Aberdeen Administration
with want of foresight—want of candour—want of deter-
mination—want of preparation—want of knowledge, and
especially with want of business-like knowledge. He (Mr.
Muntz) did not find it possible to vote against the motion,
and he did not like the ambiguous course of voting for the
previous question ; therefore he thought it was the best
plan to vote for the motion, and that he should do. (Hear.)
Mr. S. HERBERT asked for a patient and indulgent
hearing from the house while he addressed it on a subject
in which he was peculiarly interested. (Hear.) It was his
intention to vote against the motion of his hon. and gallant
friend opposite (General Peel), and he would tell the house
-why in a very few minutes. (Hear, hear.) He stood in a
peculiar position, and in one personally different from that
of most members of the house ; he stood, in the words of
the hon. and learned gentlemen in the position of one
against whom counts of an indictment had been brought
forward. (Hear.) It was said that he and his right hon.
friends attempted to burke the appointment of the com-
mittee, and that they were afraid of an investigation ; but
it could not be said that when the investigation had closed,,
they shrunk from the judgment of the House of Commons
on the evidence laid before it. (Hear, hear.) They were
justified in asking, after all the accusations that had been
brought against them, on what grounds it appeared that
they, when Ministers of the Crown, were culpable and
neglectful of the interests of the country. (Hear, hear.) It
was said by the right hon. member for Droitwitch that they
were not discussing the policy of the expedition to Sebastopol
—but he (Mr. S. Herbert) certainly thought that the report
contained not only an opinion respecting, but a strong con-
demnation of, that policy. The right hon. baronet was
therefore entirely illogical in saying that the committee
was not to meddle with that policy. and that they were not
to touch upon it in the debate. When the discussion on
the motion of the committee took place, they warned the
house of the danger that would arise from an investigation
of this description. They said they should either give criti-
cal opinions on the policy of the French Government and
the manipulations of the French army, or else, avoiding
those questions, they would come to no conclusion, or come
to a conclusion on insufficient evidence that would be un-
just, and made attacks upon men who would not have an
opportunity of facing their accusers. (Haar, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich said that
he would not consent to be a member of the committee un-
less the inquiry was intended to be a searching one. But
had it been a searching inquiry? 'Why, in the first sentence
of the report the committee expressed their regret that per-
sons were left labouring under imputations with regard to
which they could not pronounce any decisive opinion. He
believed the members of the committee were honestly de-
sirous of performing their duty. The hon. and learned
chairman of the committee discharged his duties with great
assiduity, and no complaint could be made against him for
submitting a motion to the house, for nothing could be
more constitutional than to ask the opinion of the house on
the report. He quite dissented from the doctrine of the
right hon. member for Droitwich, that no offensive move-
ment should be made in a defensive war. The Duke of Wel-
lington went to defend Spain. According to the right hon.
baronet he ought never to have entered France. For a ma-
ritime country like Englandengaged in a war with a country
like Russia, at an immense distance, it could not be denied
that the natural and most effective way of conducting it
would be by maritime blockade. But in this particular me
such a plan of warfare was impossible; the object was eo de-
fend Turkey, and for this purpose it was necessary to enteron
military operations. No point of the Russian empire offered
so many chances of success orso manyrewards as Sebastopol,
at which a blow struck would be felt as affecting a vital
point. He must say further that before the house adopted
this resolution, and passed a vote of censure upon the con-
duct of those who originated the expedition, they ought to
reflect what its effect would be upon the army of the Cri-
mea. If they thought the expedition would ultimately be
successful lot the house admit it ; but if, on the other hand,
they wished to blame those who originated it, let them first
consider what effect the blame would have upon the fe.:lings
of the men who were now engaged in the expedition. Those
men knew nothing about party intrigues ; they looked upon
the decision of the house as the verdict of the country, and
he need not anticipate what their feelings would he when
they should hear that Parliament had pronounced their
labours to be all in vain. (Hear, hear.) He had entered
at some length into this point, because he did not
wish to shrink from taking his share of the responsi-
bility attached to the expedition. (Hear, hear.) If
it had so far failed, he had the satisfaction of knowing that
the late Government did their best to insure its success.
He admitted that there were failures, that great errors
were committed, but Le thought these failures would have
been remedied earlier if there had not been a: much exag-
geration as to reader it almost impossible to get r.',; the
truth ; but still he must repeat that every effort that
human foresight could suggest was made to insure the
strength and efficient organisation of the army in the field.
The late Government had great difficulties to contend with,
but he trusted those who came after them found many of
the difficulties cleared away, and that they were now Vigo-
rously acting to insure the public service. He was at a loss,
then, to discover what good was to result from passing a
vote of censure upon all the usenabses of the late GOT ern-
men t . It might have the effect of excluding men of capa-
city and experience from the public service in future,
but that would be a positive injury rather than a good
to the country. However, he was quite ready to submit
to the decision of the house, and if the house tleter-
mined to censure him for the failure of the past, ho
should have the consolation of knowing that he had done
his utmost to succeed. (Cheers.) He said, then, that he
trusted to the justice of the louse and if they gave due
weight to the considerations he had taken the liberty to
suggest to them, he should not fear their verdict. He ap-
pealed to their justice to look to the whole case, suit to
weigh well the evidence upon which the report was
founded ; but, whatever the result might be, he would
not shrink from a decision upon the main question. He
would not give the ge-by to the decision of the committee,
but ho should vote against the previous question, because
loon's characters were implicated in the original resolu tiou,
and upon that resolution the house should pronounce a
distinct Opinion—aye or no. (Cheers.)
Mr. E. ELLICE (Coventry) said he thought the time of
the house would be touch better occupied with a thorough
examination of the measures soon to bo laid on the table
- for the reorganisation of the War Departments than in
passing resolutions condemnatory of the members of the
late Government. (Heel-, hear.)
Sir G. GREY was ready to accept his full share of
responsibility as a member of Lord Aberdeen's Govern-
ment. But the motion was directed, according to Mr.
Roebuck, specially against Lord Palmerston. But it was
no secret that whoa that gentleman proposed the commit.
tee it was directed against those members of the Govern-
ment who had special charge of the war departments, and
it was no secret either that overtures were made to the
other members of the Government that if they would turn
out their colleagues the remaining members should have
ample support, in reconstructing the Administration.
Those offers were refused, and the Ministry went out of
enice together. Now it was proposed to pass a special vote
of censure upon Lord Pihnerston, though the East of
Derby, with all those circumstances full in view, hail se-
lected him as the leader of his intended Government in
that house. The Government would have supported a
direct negative to this vote, but as the great majority of
the members of the committee were in favour of the pre-
vious question, the Government was prepared to agree
with them,

Lord J. MANNERS urged_ upon the Government to
come to a direct vote, and not to take shelter under the
.
previous question.
Lord PALMERSTON said—At that late hour of the
night it is not my intention to occupy the house for any
great length of time ; but I must be allowed to. say that I
think this motion is one of the most extraordinary which
has ever been inade within the walls of Parliament, whether
we consider the time at which it is made, or the manner in
which persons are brought within its scope. For myself, I
am far from wishing to disclaim that full responsibility
, which the hon. and learned member for Sheffield and
those wile act with him wish to affix upon every Member
of the Government of Lord Aberdeen, for every act which
that, Government performed, or failed to perform. I
am ready to acknowledge, without distinction of
offizers, that if any, one member of the Government can
be sleewn to have been guilty of gross neglect of the duties
of hi:, office, that you are entitled to call upon the other
members of the Government to account for not having,
either by their advice or remonstrance, endeavoured to oh-
tainachange of thatcourseof conduct which is deserving of
censure. But the manner in which the hon. and !culled
member for Slieffiele wishes on the present occasion to fix
.. the responsibility and to accompany it by the censure of
this house is certainly somewhat singular and remarkehle.
When I say that every member of a Government is DAS wer-
able collectively for the conduct of that Government, there
must be, in common sense, some distinction between those
who have perticalar departments to administer and the
degree in which blame May attach to others who, have
bibenocoupied by. the business of their' own departMents,
and who cannot be supposed to have exercised Any int oqe
..n=o;
which 'would in fact_have been improper, in the do--
leartenents of his colleagues, with which he was totally uncoil.
netted. In this case, what was the committee appointed to
inquire jute ? It was the conduct of departments cha.rged with
administering to the wants of • the array. Those -depart-
' Men+e were the-Secretary of State for War, the Secretary-
at-War, andAhe Admiteety, which were particularly en-
gaged in the conduct of the war. No doubt the head of the
Government was, by virtue of . his office, entitled to that
degree of ifiterference with the conduct of the members of
the Governineet which the other colleagues would/1(0m.,
exercised with respect to special departments. Whatethee,
was the opinion of the committee after ail- the ineetiry
which it hail made ? That opinioii has been pronounced by
the ben: stmt lettened gentlemen the chairman of the,cone-
inittee. paid a handsome but not more_ then a
just tribute to the manner in which.the heads of these
departmants perforated their duties. ( having
thus awarded his praise to those
whoseCheep6rseei4l) duty it
was to minister to thb.Wants of the army'', he post, directs
hie censure against-those Inane-hers of the Governinent of
L. A.berdeeu who had 'not-the 'duty of ihinfiteriAg'sto
. the wantepf the army, and who would- be willing to take
the-Aide Of the: blame and responsibility
14
to the headifof thOse departments... which Attadhed
Bu imaiiitted
the heads of those departments from blame, and eertiieed
the manner in which they had discharged their duties, he

basekraedofththeel)irdsme
ituoisptarniiotns cewnhsuorecoutipcounrrtehdosien.otthheegr
general
I
mstraarionbloafmeth. e
(tchhreeeersm.)emßbuertsiwf ncoenheaurrlebweeans I
gdabsolvedadinfirnoi
ttoioben
wphaosseetrixozettnhbe
ermsemofbetrhseofprtehseenitatGe
Government,
I
may that I think some honourable gentlemen on the
other a
r side are not altogether likely to escape " scot free"
from the censure of the house. Because it is all very well
for the noble lord (Lord J, Manners) to say, as he has just
said, that the evidence given before the committee of in-
quiry has altered the state of the case with respect to the
proceedings of the late Government ; but the general facts
upon which the censure of the honourable and learned
member is founded, were facts notorious to all the world
at the time the committee was appointed. (Hear, hear.)
That committee has obtained no new information with
respect to facts. (Hear.) It has inquired into the man-
ner is which these facts arose, and in which mistakes and
miset.anees occurred. But the main facts of the sufferings
of the army, the unfortunate condition in which during
the winter months that army was unhappily placed—these
were facts perfectly known to the whole world before that
committee was appointed, and it was the knowledge of
these facts which induced the house to agree to the appoint-
ment of that committee. (Cheers.) But what did Losd
Derby do when he was called upon to form a Government?
He, knowing that the members of Lord Aberdeen's Go-
vernment had rendered themselves liable to censure, pro-
posed to myself, to the right hon. gentleman the member
for the University of Oxford, and the right hon. member
for Wilts, to become members of his Administration.
That offer, which I thought equally honourable to those
who made it, and to those to whom it was made, now
turns out, according to the arguments and conduct of
honourable members opposite, to have been accompanied
with some mental reservation, and that we were to be
merely trepanned into office. (Cheers and laughter.) I
don't believe that words such as those stated by the hon.
and learned gentleman could have been used. I have too
high an opinion of Lord Derby to credit that he would have
made an offer with such a reservation. But the house is
now called on to pass a censure on an existing Government
On account of the transactions of a Government which no
longer exists, and at the same time charges are made
against me for things which have passed in the Govern-
ment. In the first place I must say that there has been a
singular conflict of opinions among the different persons
who have addressed the house on this motion. Some con-
tend that the motion has nothing to do with the policy of
the war or with the policy of the expedition to the Crimea.
Others have dwelt greatly on the policy of the war and on
the policy of the expedition to the Crimea. But I should
like to know whether that is or is not to be au element in
the votes which hon gentlemen are about to give. (Hear,
hear.) I shall not now go into the question of the policy of
the war, on which the whole natio:: has made up its mind.
Nor shall I go into the reasons which led the Government
to think it was necessary to take up arms to check the am-
bitious designs of Russia. Nor shall I describe the circum-
stances which induced Russia to think that the moment
was favourable for putting into execution its long-cherish* 1.
designs on Turkey. Nor shall I allude to the opinion that
was entertained by Russia that there were circumstances
connected with England and France which might have
prevented a cordial union—an opinion as fallacious as it
was futile. Nor shall I advert to other circumstances in
this country which might have misled the Emperor of
Russia. But I must be allowed to say that, among the
many circumstances which led the Russian Government
into error, the language and conduct of the peace party
in this country tended greatly to increase it, and the
responsibility rests on them of having misled the Em-
peror of Russia in this act of aggression. (Cheers.)
But the war being just and necessary, the question is how
is that war being c sried on? There are those who main-
tain that we should not have gone to the Crimea. Bat I
a-k them where else should we have gone ? Would they
have been satisfied had we merely blockaded the Russian
harbours? Would they have our armies enter upon the
vast steppes of the Russian Empire, where victories might
possibly have been obtained, but where it would not have
been possible to have achieved ultimate success. (Hear.)
The Crimea was the place to go to—that was the place where
the blow should be struck, as the centre of that Russian
power and dominion in the Black Sea which constituted
the danger to Turkey, to avert which we had gone to war,
It was thus efore in the Crimea that the policy obviously was
to attempt to strike a great and a decisivs blow. No doubt
that the difficulties have turned out greater than were at
first expected, but the gallantry of the allied armies have re-
flected immortal honour on them. Their sufferings had been
great, but their heroism had been greater than their suffer-
ings. (Cheers.) I say, then, that if that be part of the ques-
tion to be decided to-night—if the policy of going to attack
Sebastopol be ono of the elements on which the hon. and
arned gentleman rests, 1 am ready to take my fullest share
of the responsibility in that decision ; and whatever may be
the mischances and difficulties which have prevented sue-
cue-, I are as strongly convinced today as when I gave that
opinion that we were right in going to the Crimea, and that
no other course we could have adopted would have been
equally effective in attaining our object. (Hear, hear.) But
we are told that having determined on goingto war we failed
in making adequate preparations for carrying it on with
vigour. I deny that charge. The Duke of Newcastle did
everything a man could do to send the army to the seat of
action. Never before did there leave these shores an army
so well equipped, or in such numerical force. Nor did my
noble friend neglect to provide reserves for the war, so far
as the establishments we had enabled the Government to
provide. (Hear, hear.) We have been told that there
was great neglect about the militia, and that for that
I was particularly responsible. The act brought in by
the right honourable gentleman did not, under the
particular circumstances ire which we stood--did not
technically give us the power of embodying the militia—at
least so it was thought, because we were not actually in
danger of invasion. In former times we were always on
the breaking out of war in danger of invasion, but that
could not be said of the present war. It, there-
fore, became necessary to change the law, and we put it in
the power of the militia voluntarily to offer themselves for
embodirernt. Between the months of Apiil and Septem-
ber we tUts embodied 17 regiments of militia by volun-
tary offers. We were restricted in one respect ; we could
not embody more than could be put into barracks. But
from October to December 33 regiments more were em-
bodied, so that we had e 0 regiments of militia embodied
by the end of December, making 38,000 men of an effec-
tive force. (Hear, hear.) Some people feigned one way
and seine the other. Some complained that we did not
embody the whole of the militia, others contended that it
was not a force applicable to the circumstances of the war.
But the nature of the militia was that it gave recruits
for your army, and though we could not embody
all, all were under arms, and the number enlisted
under arms up to November was 5,500, ant the
number since enlisted was 12,700, so that we have actually
18,000 men given to the regular army from the militia
since the war began. We are greatly indebted to the cna-
mending officers for their zeal and self-denial, but for which
we could not have had this great augmentation of recruits.
These militia recruits, too, have been found infinitely more
available for service than younger men. (Hear, hear.)
Well, then, I do not feel that I am open to any blame for
the manner in which I have made the militia available for
the public service. But if the honourable and learned
gentleman meant a direct censure against those members
of Lord Aberdeen's Government who were not imme-
diately in war departments, he at least might have given
them the opportunity of being hoard before his committee.
So far from thiuking that thy should form part of the
inquiry, he never called me or my right hon. friends
before the committee- we were never summoned, nor was
a question asked us. If our conduct was to be impugned
we should have been asked what we had to stato
in our defence. (Cheers.) But I think this is a strange and
singular Parliamentary movement. I can conceive that a
person who thinks that is Government are doing something
injurious—I can understand a person calling on Parliament
to interpose and sweep away a Government which is hur-
rying the country on the way to ruin ; but the hon. and
learned gentleman dues not impeach us for anything we
are doing as a Government existing. (Hear, hear.) He
goes back to November and December last, though his
motion is made in the month of July. His motion is
founded on circumstances which have ceased to exist, and
there is no part of his motion which has reference to the
conduct of the Government that now occupies the Minis-
terial seats, and that is charged with the conduct of the
affairs of the country. But it may be said, though he
did not maintain it, that the present Government is
guilty of the same inches that he imputes to the Go-
vernment of Lord Aberdeen. How is that the case?
The army which was in November and December in a
condition so painful to the feelings of every one who
heard of it is in a different state now. (Hear, hear.) Is
it now in a state that it is necessary for Parliament to find
a remedy? Exactly the contrary. It is in as fine a con-
dition as any army that ever existed on the face of the
earth. In spirit, in everything that constitutes efficiency
in military affairs, it is a pattern to be imitated, instead of
an example to be deplored. (Cheers.) There is nothing
upon which the conduct of the Government can be im-
peached with regard either to the military or the naval
service. Then what is the object of the motion ? The lion.
and learned gentleman avows it plainly. It is not against the
Government of Lord Aberdeen. He talks indeed of our train-
ing all the men of mark on this side of the house. He means
no such thing. What he wants is that the house should in-
terpose to remove the Government of the day. Has he shown
any grounds for it ? Not the slightest in the world. All
he has been able to allege is, that in the months of Novem-
ber, December, and part of January, the army was in a
bad condition. The hon. and learned gentleman calls upon
the house to vote a censure tepon the Government of the day
not for any misconduct of the Government, but because,
forsooth, evils existed in the autumn and winter of last,
year which have now ceased to exist. Although no doubt
the merit of their cessation is due in great measure to the
brave and gallant officer in command of the army, I think
that if the Government is to be blamed for that which
may locally go wrong, they are also entitled to praise for
that which locally goes right. The hon. and learned gentle-
man has censured the Government of Lord Aberdeen on
one ground, which is totally without foundation. Ho says
that the members of the Government neglected so en-
tirely the conduct of these great and important affairs that
from the month of August to the middle of October
there was no meeting. of the Cabinet, and' he implies
that the ministers-were all absent from their posts. Why,
sir, who were at their posts ? There was the Duke of
Newcastle, the Secretary of State for War, who, I believe,
never left his post fora single hour. There was my right
honourable friend the Secretary-at-War, who was also con-
stantly at his post in London. There was my right honour-
able friend the first Lord of the Admiralty, who, I believe,
was hardly over absent from his duty. There was the First
Lord of the Treasury, Lord Aberdeen, who was constantly
in town; and. Lord Clarendon, the Secretary for State for
Foreign affairs. Is not that a Cabinet? Five of the most
important mernberaof the Government, charged with those
departments, the business of which might require consi-
deration, were all on the spot, and might have met at any
hour of any day on which a council was required. But
were the other members of the Government altogether out
of reach ? The hon. and learned member asked where I was
during the time. I WAS within three hours' reach of Lon-
don, in daily communication with it, and at any moment
at which my advice or presence might have been required,
a very few hours would have brought me here to consult
with my colleagues. I say that this is an unworthy attempt
to cast blame upon men who were devoting themselves
to the conscientious discharge of their duties, and never
_quitted their posts, like the five colleagues whom I
have naentioned. (Hoar hear.) It is an unworthy at-
tempt to cast blame upon a Government that has ceased to
exist, to misrepresent the matter to suck an extent as to
convey the impression that there were not constantly in
London sufficient members of the Cabinet to have taken
into consideration and have determined' upon. anything
that might have required immediate deliberation or deci-
sion. (Rear.) Let it also be remembered that the Cabinet
met in October. • The battle of the Alma was fought to-
wards the end of 'September, and, in point of fact, the suf-
fering,s of the esriny did not commence until after, the
meeting of the'Cabinete—untilealt the neemben3.of the Go-
vernment were at their posts in London. Withont long
delaying the house from the decision to whictl.l: hope it-
-wilt come, I must say that I accept the previous question
moved by the hon. and gallant member, because I agree
with those who think that the inquiries of the committee

were not and could not be complete in regard to the points
to which they directed their investigations. It was im-
possible for the committee to obtain a complete elucida-
tion of all the circumstances connected with the sufferings
of the army without entering into details which they them-
selves very properly felt they were precluded from entering
upon. Therefore, upon that ground, if upon no other, I
am disposed to think that the motion of the hon. and learned
gentlemen ought not to be put to the house; but undoubt-
edly if the house should determine that that question shall
be put, I shall then, with my right hon. friends, deem it
right to oppose an absolute negative to the proposition.
But, sir, 1 think the time is not appropriate to these sortof
motions. I think that these sort of motions are not in
unison with the feelings and the temper of the country.
We are engaged in a great and important war. I do not
wish to exaggerate its magnitude, but on the other hand
it would not be very unwise to depreciate its importance.
We are engaged in a war which requires the united feeling
and determination of the whole country. The feeling and
determination of the country are united. The minds of the
people are fixed upon the war. They care little for these
party squabbles in this house. The country is indifferent
what party shall form the Government, provided that
party shall carry en the war with vigour, provided it di-
rects the energies of the country in the manner in which
the country desires to see them directed. I must say that
in my humble opinion the nation is not wall satisfied at
seeing this house spending night after night—(cheers)—in
discussing now for the third or fourth time motions of cen-
sure for the avowed purpose of removing the Administra-
tion. I think the country is better pleased when it toes the
house doing, what I am bound to say it has with great ho-
nour to itself and great advantage to the country done—
placing in the hands of the Government, of whomsoever it
may consist, the means of prosecuting with vigour the war
in which we are engaged. Sir, that is a war from which we
have no retreat but in victory. It is a war in which we
cannot get the victory without the united effort of all parties
both in and out of this house. I should be quite ready to
yield the position which I occupy if I thought other men
were more capable to unite in themselves the confidence of
the country and to wield its energies than those who are
now in office; but until I shall be shown —and I confess that
conviction has not yet come upon my mind—we shall feel
it our duty to perform the functions with which the com-
mands of the Crown, the confidence of this house, and the
voice of the country have charged us. In spite of the little
interruptions which motions like this may from time to
time interpose, we shall feel it cur duty to second what I
believe to be the most deliberate convictions and heartfelt
determination that ever animated a great and powerful
people—to carry on with vigour, to prosecute with energy,
and to crown with success the war in which by every mo-
tive of necessity, and every sense of justice, we have been
compelled to engage. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI said, an unwillingness to trespass on the
attention of the house, at that late hour, was very much
diminished by the knowledge that it was not his intention
to detain it more than a very few moments; but the truth
was that the question upon which they had to decide, had
been presented in so many, and such ambiguous aspects,
that he felt bound to say a few words respecting the line he
should adopt respecting it. They had heard much discus.
sion respecting party motions, party feeling, and party ob-
jects, but if he were to choose a motion which should be
most consistent with party objects—if he were to select a
course, on the part of an administration, which he thought
would strengthen an opposition, it would be the course
which Government was about to take, and the motion
which they had deeared it to be their intention to support.
Here was, according to the noble lord, a vote of censure on
the Government, and how was it met? By a motion which
literally implied that the house declined to express an opi-
nion on their conduct. But it appeared to him that the
house had something to consider beyond the question of
confidence in Ministers, or in the gentlemen who sat oppo-
site to him ; and to that the noble lord had not alluded in
the course of his speech. The motion referred to the con-
duct of statesmen who were no longer members of the Ad-
ministration, and they, much to their honour, insist that
the verdict of the house should be explicitly taken
respecting them. Was justice to be stepped, to use the
words of the Attorney-General ? No ; they said, "We
protest against the convenience of the Minister being the
cause of subjecting us to tin imputation which ought to be
cleared up to the satisfaction of the house." Let the house
remember what had been the course of events with regard
to this motion. A few months before a committee to in-
quire into the state of the army before Sebastopol had
been appointed by an immense majority of that house.
What was the cause of the appointment of that com-
mittee? Was it the feeling of the house ? No ; it was
the feeling of the country. As Inkerman was said to
have been the soldier's battle, that committee might have
been called the people's committee. (Hear.) After a pro-
tracted investigation, a decision was come to, and the
chairman of that committee now submitted a resolution
embodying the case on which that decision was founded.
He thought it only Tight that the house should express an
opinion on that resolution one way or the other, and that
the conduct of the noble lord respecting it was the most
unauthorised he could remember. The course the noble

lord took was to deny the conclusion of the committee,
and the value of its researches. The noble lord said that
the assumption of the committee that the Cabinet wore
not present in London, and did not meet in August and
September, was unfounded. But if the noble lord was
satisfied that that statement was untrue, ought he to take I
refuge in the previous question ? Ought he not rather to
have said, " Those labours of the Sebastopol committee are
superficial—they have been conducted in a spirit unbe-
coming the occasion, and they have misled the people. I
will not permit the authority of the Government to be in-
jured by these unfounded statements. I will vindicate my
policy and the character of public men, and I call upon you,
the House of Commons, not to falter in a doubt even, but to
declare your opinion, that this committee have not done their
duty fairly, but have performed it in a fraudulent spirit—
they have misled the country and poisoned the public mind,
and unless you come to a decision which shall vindicate
us, we cannot consent to carry on the Government." That
was the duty of the noble lord. But the noble lord said
this was a party motion. A party motion brought forward
by wham? By an hon. member who, six weeks ago when
he brought forward a motion involving the existence of the
Government, voted in favour of the noble lord. (Hear.)
In considering the course they ought to take they were to
be influenced first by the unequivocal demand of the right
hon. member for Carlisle and his late colleagues, that the
opinion of the house should be taken on the real question
at issue, and still more they were bound to have regard to
the feeling out of doors that the validity of the report of
the Sebastopol committee, which had been questioned by
the noble lord, should be tested by the opinion of the house.
He lamented that they were called upon bythe amendment
of the gallant general to evade the real question at issue ;
but if ho (Mr. Disraeli) had only party objects in view, he
should be well satisfied that that course had been taken.
(Hear.) But the gravity of the question, and the reality
of the issue, ha should have thought would have rendered
it impossible for any person whose conduct was called in
question by the report of the committee to consent to
shelter himself under such a subterfuge—be should have
thought that the noble lord would have been the first to
call upon the gallant general not to embarrass the decision
of the house by interposing the previous question. But
they were told that if they passed such a motion as had
been submitted by the hon. and learned. member for Shef-
field, they would ostracise the great majority of public men
who now sat on the ministerial benches. He (Hr. Disraeli)
heard now for the first time that a Minister against whom
a vote of want of confidence was passed, was ostracised and
for ever after prevented from holding office under the
Crown. (Hear.) N-9 by, there were few statesmen in that
house who had not at some time or other been subjected
to such a vote. The noble lord had previously been a
member of a Government against whom such a vote had
been carried, and yet he was in office, and the noble lord
the member for London had suffered the same kind of
condemnation ; and that he was not still sitting on the
Treasury bench was not because he was ostracised by a vote
of the House of Commons. They had a dissertation from
the right hon. baronet the Home Secretary on ministerial
responsibility ; but the right hon. baronet appeared to be
inconsistent in his argument. At first he was for complete
and undivided responsibility among the whole body of
Ministers ; but he conclude l his speech by a pathetic de-
scription of the hardship of a Secretary of State for the
Home Department being expected to call every day at the
Admiralty to know how things were going on in that de-
partment, or of a President of the Board of Control having
to wait at the Foreign•office to see that the right despatches
were sent off. What did the right hon. gentleman mean ?
Was he for ministerial responsibility or not? The noble
lord had referred in connect on with the appointment of the
committee to the late attempt of Lord Derby to form a
Ministry. But the friends of LordlDerby cautiously guarded
themselves (certainly he himself had not done so)—against
expressing any opinion when they supported the motion
for a committee, further than that there ought to bo an
inquiry. And did the noble lord mean to say that in the
interval when the inquiry was going on Lord Derby was
to assew.o that the result would be eliminatory to the
statesmen who were then the advisers of her Majesty ?
Such an assumption would not have been very charitable
to the noble lord opposite and his colleagues. He had,
however, seen statesmen invited to join a cabinet upon the
faith of a solemn pledge as to the policy which would be
pursued, to find, after being trepanned into the acceptance
of office, that pledge violated.
Lord PALMERSTOINT—That is not true.

Mr. DISRAELI—He used the term in a Parliamentary
sense. What he meant to say was that the right hon. gen-
leman the member for Oxford University, the right lion.
member for Wilts, and the right hon. member for Carlisle
had been induced to join the Government on the faith of
an understanding in reference to the motion for the ap-
pointment of the Sebastopol committee, which understand-
ing not having been maintained they leftoffice. The noble
lord had to-night put forward fresh claims to the confi-
dence of the country. He said ho was carrying on the
war with vigour and energy, that the country was deter-
mined upon continuing the war and carrying it on to a suc-
cessful issue, and that the noble lord was the only man
who could satisfy that determination, and he appealed to
the House of Commons whether, under such circumstances,
they would interfere by a vote of censure to prevent him.
He (Mr. Disraeli) was glad to hear from the noble lord this
account of what he was doing and intended to do. What
had been the description given that very night of the
course the noble lord was pursuing by General Evans ?
That gallant general had said he had confidence in the pro-
fessions of the noble lord, but that his deeds did not. re-
alise those professions. This was the opinion of the highest
military authority in the house, who had recently returned
from the seat of war. (Hear.) The gallant general bad
complained that neither the Turkish contingent nor the
Foreign Legion were yet embodied ; and yet the gallant
gentleman was the devoted political adherent of the noble
lord. Probably his account being a detailed one, was more
reliable than the narrative of the noble lord himself. The
noble lord had sought to defend his conduct in regard to
the militia ; but he could not deny the broad fact Shat he
delayed for months to put the act into operation, and when
questioned about it, said that he did so on account of the
expense. (Hear.) Frequent allusion was made in that
house to the probable effect which these discussions might
have on our relation with France. Any public man who
pursued that course, and availed himself of such a pretext,
did more to endanger the alliance, and shake it to its cen-
tre, than all those who took the opposite side. The divi-
sion was now about to be called, and he blushed to think
of the result. After two nights' debate, with the whole
country watching their proceedings, they were coming to
a vote which could confer no honour oe credit on that as-
semblage collectively, or on any individual in it. (Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK replied. Ile said—l take slaame to
myself for once in my life. I have indulged in panegyric ;
but, like almost all other men who attempt a character
to which they are not accustomed, I have failed in
representing it, and have failed also most completely
iu making myself understood. (Hear, and a laugh.)
Perhaps I may fail again in attempting to make an expla-
nation, but, as I *hell not attempt to eulogise, perhaps I
may be successful. I did object to making the Duke of
Newea-,tle a.scapegoat. I gave the noble duke credit for ,
industry and good intentions; and I said that he had done
his duty according to. his _ability. Did Igo one whit. be-
yond the -truth,M.:so- saying? Than I ain _turned round
upon becauhel am said to have eulogised the noble duke
and to have excluded him from the operation of the reso- I
lution whicb I proposed, Sir, I did no ouoh thing; but

wished to draw a distinction, and to point out that be had
been zealous in the discharge of his duty, according to his
ability, and that he had been singled out for a victim. It
was not I who singled him out—l singled out no one ; but
because he was so singled out, because he was made a
scapegoat, because be did carry on his back the sins of the
ministryto which he belonged, and because I believed him
to be illtreatal by such conduct, I expressed myself as I
did ; and for that the noble lord the member for London
says that I have brought forward Try motion to-night from
malice. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, if I had any malice
against that noble duke I should leave to him the task of
taking care of his own character. The hon. and gallant
general has moved the previous question, feelingit to behis
duty to do so, but agreeing, as I believe, in the main with
the resolution which I have proposed. The gallant general
thinks it impolitic for the house to come to a decision upon
the subject and he can ask the house to adopt that course
without any slur upon his character ; but the noble lord at
the head of the Government cannot do so. The noble lord
by accepting this subterfuge confesses his errors, but does
not, as they say in legal phraseology, "avoid." (Hear.)
The adopting such a course confesses that he fears the deci-
sion of the house upon the main question—that question
being a charge which I bring against him and all his col-
leagues in the Government of Lord Aberdeen, of having by
neglect caused the miseries of the army before Sebastopol.
I should have thought that the noble lord, and more espe-
cially the noble lord the member for London, who has
hitherto borne a reputation for courage, would have been
ready, fairly and openly, to meet such a charge, and would
not have availed themselves of the shabby pretence of the
previous question. The bon. and gallant general who moved
the previous question has stated that he objects to retro-
spective punishment, but in point of fact all pnuishment
went must be retrospective. The hon. and gallant gentle-
man confounds retrospective punishment with retro-
spective law, but, when a Minister allows a great army to
dwindle away in consequence of his want of foresight,
there needs no retrospective law to make it a crime in the
eyes of the people of England, and that is the crime with
which I now charge the noble lord, and that is the issue
which he shirks. We are threatened by the hon. mem-
ber for Kidderminster that the result of agreeing to this
resolution will be to do mischief to our alliance with
France, but when I proposed the committee I was threat-
ened with the same thing ; but the hen. member for Kid-
derminster says that misthief would have followed the ap-
pointment of the committee if it bad not been for his pro-
phecy ; and I must say that I think it is a somewhat ex-
tra.% Gant pretension on the part of the hon. member to
assume to himself a monopoly of wisdom. (Hear.)
Mr. LOWE—What I stated was, that one of two things
would happen—either that the inquiry would extend to
questions of State policy, and would thus endanger our al-
liance with France; or, if it did not, then injustice would
be done to individuals.

Mr. ROEBUCK—I am in the recollection of the house,
and I distictly assert that the hon. gentleman said, that
the warning which he had uttered when the committee
was appointed had prevented the mischief which would
otherwise have arisen ; and I consider that that statement
displayed an extravagance of vanity on the part of that
hon. gentleman. Allow me, in making an end of what I
have to say, to make an appeal to the house. I have acted
in this matteras I thought it my duty to act. An inquiry
had been instituted by this house into a matter which
deeply affected the happiness and welfare of my country-
men. A committee brought these matters to a conclusion.
I came to this house to ask them if they coincided in that
conclusion; and the right hon. gentleman the member for
Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) says most candidly that I did
no more than my duty. I now appeal to the house, and
ask them to watch over the army of England. (Cheers.)
In doing so I have done my duty ; it is for the house now
to decide whether they will do theirs. (Load cheers.)
The house then divided on " the previous question"—
namely, that Mr. Roebuck's motion should be put from
the chair. The numbers were :
Ayes ... lB2
Noes
289
Majority
—lO7
Consequently, Mr. Roebuck's motion was not put to the
vote. _ . _

The announcement of the numbers was received with
cheers from the 'Ministerial benches. _ _

_ .._
The other business on the paper was disposed of, and
the house adjourned at about a few minutes before 3
o'clock, until 4 o'clock to-morrow.

THE LATE DISTURBANCES IN HYDE-

P ARK.

INQUIRY INTO THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
OF THE POLICE—(YESTERDAY.)
The commissioners resumed their sittings yesterday
at a quarter to 11 o'clock.
Mr. Mitchell wished to call the commissioners' atten-
tion to a case that had enlisted his sympathies in the
hope it would that of the commissioners. On Monday
as a young man, a professor of music, was leaving a
house in Carnaby-street, he was struck by a policeman
on the arm and the bone splintered.
Chief Commissioner Wortley asked what that had to
do with the inquiry ?
Mr. Mitchell said it referred to the conduct of the
police.
Chief Commissioner Wortley said they did not sit
there to make a general inquiry into the conduct of the
police, but their conduct on a particular day and place.
Mr. Mitchell wished to hand the letter containing the
statement he bad alluded to, with the surgeon's certifi-
cate, for their consideration.
Chief Commissioner Wortley said they could not
entertain it ; Mr. Mitchell had better forward it to the
Home Secretary, or the person aggrieved could petition
Parliament.
Mr. Commissioner Armstrong said it was out of the
power of the commissioners to entertain the application.
Chief Commissioner Wortley said, then entertainig it
would be an impertinent interference with the duties of
other persons.
Mr. Mitchell then proceeded with his charges against
the police on the Ist inst. He called
Mr. Henry John Luce, of 5, Philpott-street, Commer-
cial-road East. He attributed to the conduct of the
police the cause of the disturbance that occurred that
day in Hyde-park. Whilst he was there he heard shout-
ing; at the carriages as they were being driven along the
road. There was much joking going on. He particularly
noticed the conduct of a superior of police on horse-
back, who communicated with the police, imme-
diately on which they rushed on the people inside the
railing and between that and the Serpentine, striking in
various directions: In the evening he walked down
Park-street, smoking a cigar. There was a crowd of
persons in front of Lord R. Grosvenor's residence, but
peaceable. Suddenly there was slight shouting, evi-
dently proceeding from a small number of persons.
There was then an immediate rush of the people in con-
sequence of the mysterious appearance of a body of po-
lice. The crowd was dispersed almost in a minute, and
lie found himself surrounded by about 30 policemen.
He became alarmed, and considering it was their object
more to inflict injury than to apprehend delinquents, he
turned down an adjoining street to get out of their way ;
just as he did so he received a violent blow on the hack
of the head, which knocked off his hat and cut his head
open, and the blood flowed copiously. He remonstrated
with the policeman as well as he was able in his excited
state. The police would not allow hint to have his hat
or give him protection. He eventually recovered
his hat, and made the beet of his way home.
He suffered much inconvenience from the wound for two
days. In the Park he heard temperate remarks made
by groups of persons on the Sunday Trading Bill. There
were no persons addressing the multitude. Some horses
were frightened.
Cross-examined—He thought the demonstration was
to show the popular feeling against a hypocritical bill.
Chief-Commissioner Wortley—Against the Sunday
Trading Bill ?
Witness—Yes. That all should be tarred with the
same brush.
Witness—Several times the superintendent's horse
was frightened by the shouting. He thought a demon-
stration could be harmlessly made. He thought some
in the carriages sympathised with the crowd. He no-
ticed several instances where policemen acted with great
propriety and forbearance. It appeared to him too
stringent orders were given by the superintendent of
police as the day advanced.
y the Chief Commissioner—lt was seeing persons in
Oxford-street looking down Park-street that attracted
his attention, and he went into Park-street from curi-
osity.
Mr. Charles Ogle, master tailor, 55, Mount-street,
Grosvenor-square, said the shouting in the Park was
less than on the previous Sunday. He saw a larger
number of well dressed ladies walking there than he ever
recollected to have seen before. The crowd was very
orderly. He noticed particularly a policeman mounted
on a chesnut horse, striking the people with his whip.
the people said it was Superintendent Hughes. The
witness was about to describe the policeman's appear-
ance, when
Mr. Ellice said it was Superintendent Hughes.
Witness said the people expressed to each other their
opinion of his conduct. He described the attack of the
police on the people in driving them from the rails, and
the occurrence in Park-street, in similar terms to the
witnesses already examined. He added the police
marched to Park-street five abreast with their trun-
oheons under their coat tails, and when opposite Reeve'e-
mews they took them out and rushed on the people,
striking with great violence. No warning was first given
to the people ; he saw a young man whose head WAS cut
and bleeding. Witness said it was difficult to take a
policeman's number from the scroll work around the
figures.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ellice—Witness was positive
Superintendent Hughes struck the people with his whip.
He did not think it dangerous for persons to drive in
the Park.
By Chief Commissioner—Hehad lived in Mount-street
twenty-seven years, and frequented the Park every
Sunday. He thought there were as many vehicles fre-
quented the Park now as ever.
But they are not of the class they were ; there are not
so many carriages, and the occupiers are not of that class
they were, are they ?—No, not sc. many carriages ; for
many gentlemen who used to kee p carriages now keep
broughams.
Mr. J. Ingram Lockhart, of Dalston, late candidate
for Northampton, said the Easing and shouting iu the
Park were not so boisterous as he bad witnessed at
hustings on elections. The crowd was good tempered.
He saw 80 policemen pass, with their hands under their
coat tails. By their side was et, mounted inspector or
superintendent, who used such expressions as—" D—n
your blood, why don't you resin in and pull them out ?"
The police on several occasions declinedto obey the orders,
and appeared to be disgusted AI ith the orders so given ; he
saw several persons taken into custody, some with
their heads bleeding ; he saw • them take off Mr. Mair ;
they toted towards him as it he were a criminal ; he
offered no resistance.
Mr. Richard Fuller Sande, ii, furnishing undertaker,
50, Mount-street, Grosvenor ,quare, drove through the
Park, accompanied by his yv., fe, about half-past four
Dayssvater side, and received
from' his house very large crowo'clock on the afternoon of the Ist inst.; he drove the
o annoyance ; he saw
-d apprc.aching, :Lard
Robert Grosvenor's house f-- tv 3 park. He went
out to see the ea," send whilst speak-
ing to a friers' .-se of or -'e up and
ordered bi an inspector Cat._ 'ten the
-.AA off. Lie remonstrated, yr.._

policeman struck bim under the ear, and after under the
hack p trt of the head ; he ran away into Reeve's-mews
and through a brougham to get out of the policeman's
reach ; he then saw the same policeman strike a man on
the face, smashing in his cheek, and on the man remon-
strating, he replied— " Come, go on ; go to the hospital
and get your wounds dressed, or I'll give you three
times as much as before." He saw the folleeviog day
that Lord Robert Grosvenor's windows were broken.
Mr. Robert Sims, clerk to a building society, was in
the Park, near the Receiving-house, about 3 o'clock.
The people were very quiet until police-sergeant 12 A
came up with about a dozen policemen and attempted to
clear the can iage way. In doing so a young gentleman,
about 20 years of age, and apparently in delicate health,
was about to obey the orders, when police•sergeant 12 A,
as he was stooping, pushed his heal against the railing.
He expostulated at receiving such rough usage. Police-
sergeant 12 A then took him by the collar and the thigh
and threw him into the crowd. There was a shout of
indignation from the crowd at such conduct. 429 A
told a man " You had better keep out of toy way,
or I'll mark you." He was unable to say what led to
the remark. Witness said to 429 A that his conduct
implied revenge, which was very wrong in him. He
replied, with a sneer, "The people had'nt pluck enough
to fight." The policemen had a preference for boys—
two policemen generally seizing one boy. He saw In-
spector Hughes communicate with the police, and his
riding amongst the crowd caused much dissatisfaction.
Witness saw another policeman act similar to P S 12 A.
The majority of the people were in the Park, he
thought, from curiosity. The only person he saw
haranguing the people was an advocate of teetotalism,
hut he had not many more than 20 persons'listening to
him.

Cross-exarninel by Mr. Ellice—He thought in both
cases the parties were roughly thrown over the rails.
There appeared to be no ill-feeling against the police
until they misconducted themselves. The man spoken
to by 429 A had not the appearance of a pickpocket.
Mr. George Jennings, writer on glass, 11, Gray's-inn-
lane' walked from the receiving-house to the centre of
the Park and heard the people conversing about the
brutality of the police. The noiselin the Park was not
sufficient to frighten a horse. About 8 o'clock he saw
two mounted policeman riding on the grass above the
Serpentine, ordering the policeman as if to clear the
ground. He saw the police on several occasions attack
the people on the grass and strike them severely. There
was no attempt to apprehend a man when he was knocked
down. He i-aw three or four policemen dragging a
woman towards the receiving-house. As he was standing
speaking to two or three persona he was struck in the
back by a policeman in one of the charges alluded to.
Mr. George B. Coulcher, law stationer, 50, Chancery-
lane, was in the Park from half-past three till half-past
four o'clock ; he was passing along in the drive on his
way to Notting-hill, when he was stopped near the
Receiving-house by several policemen, truncheon in
hand. Without any warning they seized hold of him.
They afterwards said, " Where are you going ?" He
replied; " Notting-hill." The police said, " They
distil% care a d—n for that." He took the road because
there were less people there than in the path on each side.
He asked them " if it was not a public path, and if he
had not a right to go there ?" They made no reply, but
dragged him to the railing on the near side, and forced
him under ; whilst standing inside the railing, 229 A
poked him with his staff in the stomach, saying "Take
that." The people cried "Shame," and the police appeared
irritated. After thathesawa mounted policemanonadark
horse, and a,ked him if he bad given orders to his men
to knock the public about, and explained he was on his
way to Notting-hill. The policeman replied he did not
care for that, I had no business there. Witness pro-
ceeded to remonstrate with him, and asked if he had not
as much right to pass along the carriage-way as
vehicles. He replied that if witness was come
there to argue the question he bad better be moved off,
and called to some of the men and directed them to "re-
move him." He refused to go under the railing and be
subject to such treatment, when five or six of the police
lifted him up and threw him amongst the crowd. He
certainly felt indignant at the conduct he received. He saw
one attack of the police, and they appeared to strike as bard
as they could. The crowd appeared to be conducing
themselves well. He heard several cries of "Go to
church," but the noise was not sufficient to frighten the
horses in the vehicles passing at the time. He saw DO
sticks or stones thrown. He heard of no allusion to the
Sunday Trading Bill.
Mr. James Templeman, schoolmaster, 73, Mount-
street, Grosvenor-square—Signed the petition to the
House of Commons. He never saw so large or so re-
spectable an assemblage (judging from their dress, and
he believed that was a test of respectability) as on Sun-
day, the Ist July, in Hyde-park. The noise from boys
and others he did not think sufficient to have frightened a
horse. He saw two mounted inspectors instructing the
police, who immediately charged the people. He saw
theta charge the people seven or eight times, when they
struck down as if striking on the rails to compel the
people to let go their hold, and when on the sward on
the heads of the people. He saw three policemen using
great violence to a youth they had in custody. He
saw a policeman strike a man in a violent manner
across the loins, who fell from its effects. The fol-
lowing day he went to Marlborough-street, and asked for
admission, which was refused by a policeman. He did
not take his number, because he thought it dangerous to
do so. Another policeman said to him as he was stand-
ing in the street—" Don't stand there like a stuck pig ;
move on, or if you don't I'll soon give you something
you don't like." Witness thought he meant a broken
head, and he left. He presented a petition to the House
of Commons.

Cress-examined by Mr. Ellice—He thought there was
no object to be gained in clearing the footpath. There
would he a difficulty in getting stones from the path.
Mr. Henry W. Flower, licensed victualler, Oxford.
market, said the populace was exceedingly orderly till
about three o'clock. Superintendent Hughes acted like
a mad man, cutting indiscriminately with his whip, the
men following with their staves. Great indignation was
expressed at his conduct. He saw the police
kick people as they were obeying their orders
in getting under the rails. He heard parties
say they wished they had had a gun with which
to shoot Superintendent Hughes. There was a
movement through Grosvenor-gate, the people saying
they were going to Lord Robert Grosvenor's. On his
way home he stopped opposite Lord Robert Grosvenor's
house. He beard several mischievous boys calling on
rd Robert to come out, and asking " if there were
any victuals in the house—any lobster ?" The
police ordered the people on, but before he and his son,
who was with him, could do so, Inspector Webb seized
his son, a lad aged 16, and shook him. Witness remon•
strate.d, and whilst doing so a policeman came up and
seized his son. The police appeared not to know what
they were about. He moved into Grosvenor-street, and
there he saw two or three policemen seize a msis ; the
man staggered on, when one of them struck him on the
head, the blood flowing freely over his face. As the
people were running away a boy was knocked down,
and a policeman stooped and struck him down with his
truncheon. The inhabitants in Park-street and Gros-
venor-street, an aristocratic neighbourhood, sympathised
with the people. He heard one boy invite Lord Robert
Grosvenor to " come out and hang himself with the
parchment on which he wrote the Sunday bill," at
which the people laughed. That was the only allusion
he heard to the Sunday bill.
Mr. Charles -Citing, reporter, was in the Park pro-
fessionally ; everything was as quiet as possible the
early part of the afternoon. There was a cheer raised
as the water carts passed along the road. The disturb-
ance conunenced about 3 o'clock by 430 A collaring a
dead eel thrown at his feet by a boy. (Laughter.)
Saving it in custody, the inspector told the policeman
to take it to the barracks, which he did, with the assis-
tance of 12 policemen. In consequence of the policemen
refusing to give up the eel a boy threw a small clod
which struck one of the policemen in the face, and then
they drew their staves and struck about indiscriminately.
The eel was taken to the barracks and safely lodged.
(Renewed laughter.) As the police returned they were
hooted a. All the policemen were then mustered,
two mounted policemen rode up (one Superinten-
dent, Hughes), and then the first onslaught
was made, and when several men were struck,
and he saw some women lying on the ground. The
blows accompanied the order to stand back. When
this charge was made the men were remonstrated with,
to which they replied they, had fresh orders. In the
course of the day he saw a hundred men and several
women struck. On one occasion the police were
ordered to drive the people back from the railings to-
wards the Serpentine, but which could not be done with-
Out the people falling into the water. Superintendent
Hughes rode up like a madman to one par-
ticular spot, where there were a number of fashion-
ably-dressed ladies standing, and raising himself in
his stirrups, leant over the horse's head, and with a long
riding-whip he struck right and left, striking several of
the ladies. The people were indignant at his conduct,
and cried out " to pull him off his horse and throw him
into the river." His face was distorted with rage. He
had seen numbers of assemblages, such as at Ken-
nington Common, Bishop Bonner's Fields, and at
the time of the Trafalgar riots, but he never sat! such
conduct on the part of the police as on this occasion.
In reply to a question from the Chief Commissibleer;o
Mr. Mitchell said he thought he should be a
finish his charges against the police to-morrow (this day).
The Court then adjourned till eleven o'clock today.