presented the petition of John Joseph Stockdale, now a prisoner in the gaol of Newgate, under and by virtue of the Speaker's warrant, praying that Mr. Howard, his attorney, his son the younger Mr. Howard, and the attorney's clerk, now confined in the gaol of Newgate, should be liberated, and that he himself should be permitted to be heard at the bar of the House against any bill affecting his right to plead in a court of law. The hon. Member moved that the petition be read by the clerk, which was agreed to, but it was perfectly inaudible in the gallery.

hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury would not press the reception of this petition upon the House. It was so far from being respectful in its terms, that he must oppose its being received.

really did not know what passage in the petition the noble Lord considered as an insult to the House. He wished the noble Lord would mention what passage in the petition he considered to be an insult. He had read the petition, as he considered himself in a certain degree responsible for the language of the petitions he presented being respectful, and he must say he thought there was nothing improper in the petition. There were a few quotations from scripture in it, but the noble Lord could not object to them. He had so far considered the petition a proper one that he had intended to move the prayer of it should be granted, and that Stockdale should be heard at the bar of the House, previous to the third reading of the bill, which, as regarded Mr. Stockdale, was a bill of pains and penalties; and it was always usual in a case of that sort that the individual in- tended to be affected should be heard against it. He thought that Mr. Stock-dale had certainly some claim on the House, because from the day he had been committed into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms he had never been asked if he had anything to say in extenuation or explanation of his conduct, which the other prisoners had been. He should be sorry to convey anything disrespectful to the House, but until he knew what the objectionable passage was, he could not, in justice to Mr. Stockdale, consent to withdraw the petition.

said, that if the hon. Member for Finsbury pressed the petition, he should feel it to be his duty to move that it be rejected.

thought that the House ought to know what the objectionable parts were. The clerk had certainly read the petition, but he believed the House had not heard one word of it. Some means must be adopted by which the petitions might be heard; and he thought that, in fairness to this case, they ought to know what the passages were which the noble Lord objected to.

observed, that the petition was read in such a tone of voice, that if the House had been silent, every word might have been heard. If it was not heard the fault was with the House, and not with the clerk.

said, the petition was read very distinctly, but the House not being aware that an objection would be taken on account of the language of it, had not paid particular attention while it was read. He had caught the substance of it, but had not caught the particular words.

thought that, as the hon. Member for Finsbury had stated he had read the petition, and that he did not think there was anything disrespectful in it, the House ought to rely upon his word and receive the petition as unobjectionable, on the responsibility of the hon. Member who presented it. The petition was again read. It alleged that the son of the attorney owed naturally a duty to his father, and the clerk was bound to obey the commands of his master as his servant; they, therefore, ought to be considered guiltless of any offence against the House in the case of the actions brought by Mr. Howard for the petitioner, and ought to be forthwith dis- charged. That Mr. Howard himself was with difficulty induced to undertake the actions, and only did so in consequence of the urgency of the petitioner. Mr. Howard in a note to him (Mr. Stockdale) stated, it is with reluctance I feel obliged to decline bringing the action against Messrs. Hansard, as I conceive it would be considered a breach of privilege by the House of Commons. The petitioner further stated, that he was suffering the consequences of the groundless displeasure of the House for having availed himself of his just rights under Magna Charta. That, contrary to that charter, the under-sheriff refused, under the sanction of this House, to execute an inquiry as to the amount of damages alleged by him to have been sustained by reason of a libel published against him by the printer. The words of Magna Charta were decisively in his favour, where it stated, "Nulli negabimus, nulli vendemus, vel differemus justitiam vel rectum." The under-sheriff, in reference to the latter part of the passage from Magna Charta, had violated the ancient law of the land, and defeated the right of trial by jury, and the petitioner was rendered a victim to the powerful conspiracy to defeat his rights. The petition concluded by praying for the release of those confined on account of the actions brought by him, so that he might alone suffer the consequences of their groundless displeasure; and also, that, before the House proceeded to pass the Printed Papers Bill, which had reference to those actions, he should be heard, in person, at the bar of the House.

said, that Stockdale having been committed for a breach of privilege, now approached the House under the guise of a petitioner, alleging that their proceedings were illegal, and their displeasure groundless; while, on the other hand, the sheriffs, by whom petitions had been presented, addressed the House in decorous and respectful terms; but the present petitioner not merely was disrespectful—not merely spoke of their proceedings in no measured terms, but sought to impute to them some of the gravest offences known to the law. He need not recur to other parts of the petition for the purpose of showing the disposition which the petitioner manifested to display what he thought his triumph over the House. He must say, that he did not think the petition was one which ought to lie on the table of the House.

observed, that the effect of the supposed innuendoes depended upon the interpretation of the quotations. They night or might not apply to the House. [Cheers.] He apprehended from those cheers it was assumed that, as a matter of course, those innuendoes were intended as an insult to the House. Now, he was truck with the very temperate tone of the petition. One of the phrases in it that was complained of was," that his liberty had been erroneously invaded," but in his (Sir R. Inglis's) opinion, a milder phrase for a person who was incarcerated in her Majesty's gaol of Newgate was not to be found in any similar document. If any person could complain of the petition, it was the sheriff, for he was attacked in open terms without any innuendoes, and was accused "of having unconstitutionally acted in the matters of this petitioner." At least the House would regard with leniency the feelings of a man who considered himself to be unjustly confined by their order. He would ask them, if it were not too great a condescension on their part, to put themselves in the position of the person now interested. That person had been incarcerated for seeking compensation for a wrong which, in the opinion of a jury of his country, he had received—a judgment, too, which the House had themselves invoked. It would not, in his opinion, be proper to analyze too strictly the terms of the petition in which the petitioner did not ask to be released, but simply to be permitted to plead at the bar of the House in his own defence. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the noble Lord would not continue his opposition; but, if he did, he should divide with the hon. Member for Finsbury.

merely wished to say, that, in his opinion, it was impossible for the House to listen to this petition, and not perceive that it offered a deliberate insult to the House. The petitioner talked of his illegal detention. That might be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but was not the opinion of the majority of the House. It appeared to him that it was impossible the House could receive this petition, and he should, therefore, move that it be rejected.

said, that although he joined the noble Lord and majority of the House in supporting their privileges, he could not consider that, in this instance, he should be doing justice to the petitioner if his petition were rejected. All that was required by the House was, that a petition should be respectfully worded. The question, therefore, now was whether this petition was so worded, and he really thought no one could doubt that the concluding part of the petition was quite in accordance with the rules and customs of the House. The only way in which the petition could be made disrespectful to the House was, that Stockdale had had the bad taste to interlard certain portions of Scriptures which, perhaps, might bear the construction of an intention to insult the House. He thought they ought also to take into consideration that this man was placed in durance vile, and upon these grounds he should vote that the petition be received.

said, he had supported the noble Lord in defence of the House, but as he had brought in a bill by which he declared all their proceedings illegal, that was all the difference between him and the noble Lord. Why, the noble Lord declared he required a new law, and consequently that he had previously been acting without any law. How, then, could the House object to this petition, because it said, that the petitioner had been illegally confined?

objected to the petition, because it contained irreverend quotations from Scripture.

wished that the noble Lord had not placed the House in this state of embarrassment. It could not be denied that these actions had been vexatiously brought by Stockdale, but the House ought not to be very delicate in the terms of the petitions of this nature, for Stockdale had the law on his side, although the House considered their law superior. He thought the petition was couched in a very bad sense, and he could very much have wished it had not been done; but, as they were carrying through a bill for putting a speedy end to these actions, which by law could now be brought, surely Stockdale might be heard at the bar in his own defence. They would not, however, shut out that remedy if they proceeded with the bill, and rejected this petition. He should, therefore, reluctlantly vote against the noble Lord.

said, he should always be reluctant to reject petitions on the ground of any captious objections. They ought not to seek for any pretence for doing so; but he thought that, if there were an evident intention of offering a deliberate insult to any authority, that authority ought not to receive such petition, not so much on the ground of its offended dignity, as for the purpose of defending the sacred right of petitioning. The question, then, must resolve itself into this—was there, in this instance, a deliberate insult offered to the House? He thought there was. He could not understand what other object the petitioner had in quoting, as he had done, from a work which he printed in 1827, and published in 1831. When he saw those quotations, he could not hesitate to say, that he thought the mation went as near as possible to offering an insult to the House. And as for the quotations from the Scriptures, he thought it a very bad practice, especially when they were introduced for the purpose of insult If, therefore, he were to decide on the intention of this petition, he could not say but he thought there was an intention to insult the House, and that no petitioner had a right to use any terms which approached an insult. It was difficult, how ever, to exercise any discretion on a petition, except to reject it, particularly as it had been reserved until the last moment of the last day. He thought, also, there was another ground for rejecting it. By a large majority the House had determined they were in possession of this privilege. They had committed the sheriffs for not respecting that: one of the under-sheriffs had shown every disposition to defer to the authority of the House, and evert those who differed from the majority had given credit to the sheriffs for doing every thing in their power to conciliate their duty to the House. The under-sheriff had presented a petition to the House, and this was the way in which the present petitioner had spoken of him, to this effect—that the petitioner found, from the printed evidence taken at the bar of the House, that the under-sheriff had done all in his power to delay the administration of justice for unconstitutional purposes, and to save the House the amount of the compensation awarded to him. If the House of Commons declined to receive this petition, it would be because they had a right to require that the petitions pre- sented to them, however firm and plain spoken they might be, should be couched in respectful language, and not in such language as that of the present petition.

said, that in pursuance of the notice which he had given for the introduction of a clause to be inserted in the bill which was then before the House for the third reading, he wished to state that the clause in question was similar in its import to the spirit and meaning of that bill, which declared that it was essential to the due and effectual exercise and discharge of the functions and duties of Parliament, and to the promotion of wise legislation, that no obstructions or impediments should exist in the publication of its reports, votes, and proceedings. The object of the House by the preamble of the bill was to extend, as far as possible, the proceedings of the House, and the grounds upon which these proceedings were based. There had been obstructions raised against the publication of their proceedings by the Courts of Law, and for that reason the present bill had been introduced for the protection of the printer and publisher of the House. The House by the bill protected its own printer, its own publisher, and its own vender of its papers. When, however, the hon. Member for Ripon had asked for protection to the retailer of the papers he purchased from their publisher the House refused the application. He would ask if there were any consistency in refusing protection from civil and criminal prosecutions to those who reprinted their reports and proceedings word for word? What could be the motive for refusing that protection to the publishers and printers of newspapers which the House of Commons extended to its own printer and publisher? Was it to preserve the monopoly of copyright? Was there a jealousy in favour of the Messrs. Hansard's, lest the Times and Morning Post papers should compete with them successfully, and deprive these privileged publishers of the retail profit in the trade market of the country? Had the House a more worthy motive than that? They could see that the printers and publishers of newspapers were their petitioners, and stated that, while the printers and publishers of the House were protected from prosecutions, they were left to take whatever penal consequences the law might inflict upon them. Was it the object of the House to obtain for their proceedings the largest publicity? If so, what more effectual means could be employed than by granting an immunity to newspapers to reprint and republish their proceedings? His right hon. Friend, whose speech had decided the last division, had stated that the House had decided by a large majority, that they possessed the privilege of publication with impunity. By a much larger majority the House had entertained that very proposition, and declared that the House did not possess the privilege. They substituted legislation for privilege, and by that act annulled their own previous resolution. What had been privilege before was then on the verge of becoming law—a law as definite and distinct as the Habeas Corpus or any other legislative enactment. After the passing of the bill the House would possess by law what before had been claimed as privilege. Since the House found it necessary to secure itself, its officers, and servants, within the protection of the law—for the purpose of extensive publication, too—how could it, in justice or consistency, refuse to printers and publishers of newspapers, whose facilities for the extension of the publication of the proceedings of the House were undoubted, that protection which the House extended to its own printers and publishers? The petitioners, in whose behalf he had introduced the clause in question, did not complain of the existing state of the law, but they complained that they would be placed in a worse condition after the passing of the bill than before; they stated that at the present they print the reports and proceedings of the House at their own risk, and take the consequences; but by the alteration of the law, the vengeance of the law would be pointed against them, and they therefore pray that the House would interpose and prevent the infliction of that vengeance. They did not seek for an alteration of the existing law; but if that law were altered they sought that protection which the House extended to its own printers and publishers. They asked for the reprinters equal protection with the printers. The object of the clause was limited to the case of printers who reprinted the proceedings of the House. It might be asked why it was that he asked for impunity of publication to newspapers only. To that he would reply that, in the first place, newspapers paid a considerable amount of direct taxes to the Government; and, secondly, that they printed and circulated the proceedings of the House. Upon that ground he thought they were entitled to protection. But he would claim protection for news- papers upon another ground. By its own showing, the House declared that their object was extreme and extended publicity, and he would ask if the reports which had been laid upon the table of the House, and circulated gratuitously among the Members, did not obtain a circulation ten times greater by the instrumentality of newspapers than by any other means within the power of the House. For carrying into execution its own objects, the House left newspapers exposed to prosecutions in civil and criminal courts; nay, more, it exposed them to greater risks than they had before incurred. Of course the House would understand that he limited by his clause the privilege of publication with impunity to stamped and not to unstamped newspapers; not for those who disobeyed the law, but for those who obeyed it by the payment of stamp duty. Could it be contended that the Speaker of the House of Commons, or the Lord Chancellor, who sat as Speaker of the House of Lords would not condescend to issue certificates such as were embodied in the clause which he was about to move? The House would recollect that the gist of the clause was to protect those parties who had no other demerit in the eye of the law except that they had done without authority which the House had directed to be done by its authority. Besides the printing and publishing of the proceedings of the House by newspapers was in direct opposition to the authority of the House, but concurrent with its avowed objects and wishes. The House openly declared that it was highly expedient to circulate its proceedings as widely as possible; yet, by rejecting the clause which he was about to propose, they would be virtually leaving the prosecutions and penalties from which they were then about to emancipate themselves to those who accomplished the very objects which the House had in view. To the bill he had the strongest objections, but no objections could be anticipated to the clause in question should the bill pass into a law. There was no doubt, but that the promoters of the bill had made great concessions during the progress of its discussion. They did not specifially, though they indirectly did, concede all the points at issue. The object of the bill was, to make that law which had been hitherto pronounced privilege; and hon. Members opposite bad conceded that point. If, then, such concessions had been made by he noble Lord and hon. Members opposite, a much greater concession would be made by each hon. Member who had supported the former concessions acceding to and voting for the insertion of the present clause. All he required was, that if the House invested its own printer and publisher with a protection never before known, it would extend a similar protection to the petitioners, and which protection was essentially important, not only to their own commercial functions, but essential also to the objects of the House; namely, an extended circulation of its reports and proceedings. There was another reason why he would put this upon the consideration of the House. In the course of the last year an action was brought against The Times newspaper, for the insertion of a libel against a person named Polack, which was contained in an extract of a report of a committee of the House of Lords. On that occasion his right hon. Friend took an effective part in the debate, as usual, decisive of the result, and he stated that the object of the Committee of the House of Lords was not to report its own opinions for the information of the House of Lords alone, but for the benefit of the community at large. If that were so, would not the parties who reprinted these proceedings confer great benefit upon the community by the republication. No action was brought against the House of Lords or Commons on that occasion, but an action was brought against the Times newspaper for the reprint of an extract.

remarked that the action was not against the Times, for the publication of the abstract of the report, but for some comments which were made upon it in the body of the paper.

had not recently read the law proceedings in the case, but his remarks referred to the discussion which had taken place in the House when reference had been made not to the comments in the body of the paper but to the extracts from the report of the committee of the House of Lords. He believed too that the action was brought for the reprint not for the remarks. In the case of the King v. Wright, he was certain that the action had been brought not for any commentary but for the reprint. Unless the House was jealous of the copyright of its publications it would accede to the in- sertion of the clause, not for the purpose of countenancing commentaries, but for the protection of the reprinting and extending the circulation of their proceedings. The purport of the clause was that the party against whom the action should be brought, or against whom law proceedings should be instituted, should have the power of applying to the Speaker of the House of Commons, or to the Lord Chancellor, which should be authorized to grant it, and obtain a certificate stating that the report, for the publication of which the action was brought, or the legal proceedings instituted, had been published by order of the House of Lords or Commons. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the insertion of the following clause in the bill.

"And be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for any person or persons who hereafter shall be a defendant or defendants in any civil or criminal proceeding, commenced or prosecuted for the publication of any such report, paper, votes, or proceedings, in any newspaper published according to the direction of an Act passed in the seventh year of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, chapter 76, intituled 'An Act to reduce the Duties on Newspapers and to amend the laws relating to the duty on newspapers and advertisements,' to apply as aforesaid for a certificate, stating that the reports, papers, votes, or proceedings, forming the ground of such civil or criminal proceeding, was published by order or under the authority of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons (as the case may be), and which certificate is hereby authorised to be granted upon such aplication, and, having obtained the same, to apply to any Judge of any of Her Majesty's superior Courts of Common Law, at chambers or elsewhere, upon an affidavit verifying such certificate; and further deposing that such publication in such newspaper was a true transcript or copy of such report, paper, votes, or proceedings, and thereupon it shall and may be lawful for such Judge, upon due summons and notice, to stay such civil or criminal proceeding upon such terms as to such Judge shall Seem fit."

could not help observing, that the hon. Baronet had of late very much expanded his notions of the benefits of publicity. At first he strongly insisted that the publication should be limited to 658 copies, but now, not satisfied with full protection to their officers in publishing the proceedings, he contended for unlimited impunity to all who copied their reports in the newspapers. He rejoiced the hon. Baronet bad made this great concession. He hoped all stamped newspapers would re-publish the reports of that House. It would be highly beneficial. He hoped the republication would not be confined to the stamped newspapers. Without, of course, alluding to the unstamped illegal papers, he trusted their reports would still be republished in various other journals besides the stamped newspaper press. This would greatly add to the benefit which those reports had hitherto conferred on the public. At the same time, he must oppose this clause, because, although the hon. Baronet might not entertain such a notion, he believed it would be prejudicial if not fatal to the bill. He did not believe that the bill which, on the whole, he thought would be beneficial to the public, would have any chance of passing into a law if such a clause were inserted. They were not now reviewing the law of libel. He hoped the time would come when it might be reviewed and greatly improved. But they were not now considering what actions might be brought for libel, and what defence might be set up. He trusted the time would arrive when truth would not be a libel, and when it would be a sufficient defence to any prosecution that the allegations contained in the publication were true. But they were now merely providing a particular remedy for a particular grievance. What was the grievance? That actions had been brought against the printers of the House of Commons, for papers published by authority of the House. This was the grievance, and the remedy ought not to go further. There was not a single instance of an action for libel against any newspaper for republishing reports of either House of Parliament. The case of "Polack v. Lawson," was not such as had been described by the hon. Baronet. It was not for reprinting the report, but for making extracts, and comments on those extracts. A justification was established, and there ought, in his opinion, to have been a verdict for the defendant; but it seemed otherwise to the Court, and the verdict was in favour of the plaintiff. There had been no action for bonâ fide republication of a report, and he believed no such action would be attempted—no such indictment would be preferred. There was, therefore, no necessity for legislation on that ground. It was supposed that newspapers would be in a worse situation after the bill passed; there could not be the slightest ground for such an apprehension. The bill commenced by asserting the necessity of all publications which either House of Parliament should think necessary for public information, and that no proceeding should be established against their officers on that account, and with such a declaration combined with "The King v. Wright," newspaper need be under the smallest apprehension of any proceeding civil or criminal, for simply republishing a report of either House of Parliament. But the great objection to the clause was this, it was beyond the scope of the bill, according neither with its title nor principle: the machinery of the bill would not at all produce the effect which the hon. Baronet desired. There could be no difficulty in the Speaker granting a certificate when an action was brought against an officer of the House; it would only be necessary to say, that the publication had taken place in consequence of the order of the House. But if the action were brought against The Times, the Morning Chronicle, or Post, for any extract, or extract with comments, how could the Speaker grant a certificate? The Speaker would be obliged to inspect narrowly the whole newspaper, to look at the leader, and read the various other articles—to see whether some parts of the report were not in italics, whether other parts were not purposely omitted. He did not say respectable journals would resort to such practices, but this investigation would be absolutely necessary, in order to ascertain that no malicious motive to ruin private character lurked under the pretence of re-publishing a report of the House of Commons. Nor could this be left to the judge, for then he would have to determine whether the Speaker had rightly or wrongly granted the certificate. Such a course would also substitute the judge for the jury in determining whether the re-publication was bonâ fide or not. The whole proceeding would be anomalous and unknown to the law of England. It would be much better that the bill should be confined to its original object, and that the remedy should not be extended beyond the grievances.

believed the case contemplated by this clause could very rarely occur, because it seldom answered the purposes of newspapers to copy the whole of a report, their object being to give a faithful abstract or condensed view of the contents of such reports only as were particularly deserving of public attention. His opinion was, they should be protected in so doing. He had withdrawn his clause, which would also have protected parties who should print their reports in the shape of books, not because he had any doubt of the propriety of the principle on which it was founded, but because upon reflection he found the machinery of this bill would not work it out. If a bill were brought in to provide for the various objects he had mentioned, he should be a strenuous supporter of it. At the same time, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press this clause now, although he agreed with him entirely in its principle. It was some satisfaction to know, that newspapers would not incur much risk in making bonâ fide extracts from the reports of Parliament; because, although he did not believe that this bill by implication would authorize a judge to consider a republication in a newspaper as not amounting to a libel, he did agree, considering how the matter now stood, that bonâ fide republication, without comments, of any article which passed in a great court, or in the high court of Parliament, for the public information, without any malicious motive, would be found altogether, perhaps, certainly to a very great extent, guarded and warranted by the rules of law. Still, he hoped some measure would be introduced calculated to effect fully that great public object, and in this expectation he trusted his hon. Friend would not press the clause.

said, he had been in some degree misunderstood, as to the machinery which was to be employed to effect the object of protecting the newspapers. He did not intend to give the Speaker all the trouble of comparison, as alluded to by his right hon. and learned Friend. He intended simply, that in the certificate it should be insisted that extract 271, or whatever number it might be, was published by the House, and that the newspaper containing that extract exhibited a fair transcript of it. All that the judge would require was a certificate that the transcript was a faithful one. As, however, he did not receive such support to the clause as he had anticipated, he would not give the House the trouble of dividing upon it, as he would at once withdraw his motion.

did not think it necessary to enter into any discussion in favour of the clause. He would content himself with simply observing, that the clause referred to numerous questions and actions which had been brought in the course of the present Session, and when they were legislating on the subject, it did seem expedient to put an end to the whole together.

thought the clause liable to objection, inasmuch as it merely disposed of such actions as should be brought against their officers up to the time when the bill received the Royal assent. While it protected them in one instance, it seemed to throw a doubt on their powers hereafter to commit persons to prison for a breach of their privileges. He would therefore support the motion to omit it.

said, the clause in question would effectually prevent all actions for matters occurring up to the time when the bill should receive the royal assent. If this could be done without injustice, and without endangering their privileges, it was very desirable to obtain such an object. It had been said, that Mr. Howard brought his action because one of their messengers entered his house, and waited two hours for his return. It was for the House to decide whether that action was to go on. If the clause were altered as required, it would introduce great inconvenience.

, if actions were afterwards brought, the House would be placed in the same difficulty which the clause was intended now to extricate them from. It was true the clause would get rid of all difficulties up to the time of the royal assent, but after that time, if actions were brought, the House would have to pro- pose another enactment. If the actions before the bill passed were not right, the actions after the bill would be equally wrong; but, if right, then the House was wrong in stopping them in the manner they proposed. If the House intended to stop actions in general, why did they not have courage enough to bring forward a clause to stop all actions.

expressed his apprehension that the clause, although it might give a temporary protection, would have a tendency to weaken the privilege of Parliament if it should be necessary to take any steps with respect to any future actions. He had no doubt that the privileges of the House were equal to any emergency, but if they were pushed to an extreme, that might be productive of great public inconvenience. He had voted for the bill because he thought it would give a more simple and summary protection to the officers of the House. He apprehended the courts of judicature had ruled the right of the sergeant to execute the orders of the House. That right was distinct from the right of the House to print papers, but it might become a question whether the subordinate officers might not have exceeded their authority. He thought that they could have postponed legislation on this particular point until some other case should arise, when there might not be so much excitement of the public mind, it would have been a great advantage. But on the whole he was inclined to vote in favour of the clause, at the same time admitting the inconvenience to which he feared it might possibly lead.

said, that there was no warrant, however legal in itself, which might not be illegally executed. He protested against the Speaker's warrant being considered a sanction for any unlawful acts which might be done under it. He objected to the clause, therefore, and hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would divide the House against it.

objected now, as he had done from the commencement, to the whole bill, and to this clause as well as the rest.

rose to draw the attention of the Master-general to the state of discipline at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich. He said that there had been various rumours circulated in naval and military circles that Government had ventured to make the patronage of this school subservient to party purposes. These reports, however, he believed to be unfounded. But there were other statements current respecting the discipline of that academy which deserved their attention. It appeared that the superintending authorities had thought it necessary in the course of the last season to remove no less than sixteen or seventeen cadets from that establishment. In former times that number was not removed in many years, and he feared that some of those dismissals had taken place on such light grounds as idleness, or boyish mischief. It should be recollected that such expulsions acted as complete barriers to admittance into the army and navy, and also to the service of the East India Company; most serious drawbacks to the advancement in life of a youth whose only error had been negligence of study, wildness, or thoughtlessness. He heartily hoped that no pupil had been expelled from the Royal Academy whose moral conduct had not been found tainted and stained with some criminality which called for such decisive marks of reprobation. In one case three of the pupils had combined to test the courage of a comrade. In pursuance of the joke, they got up a pretended quarrel, and charged a pistol with gunpowder, and a piece of sponge saturated with blood. The event was highly favourable to the character of the youth who was thus placed on his trial, and though some unexpected injuries took place, and it deserved some kind of punishment, it certainly was not an affair that called for such a serious and disgraceful mode of repression. During the war pupils were admitted at the age of fourteen; but now they were not allowed to enter till fifteen, although he had never heard that any practical inconvenience resulted from the rule of entrance adopted during that very trying and important period. He had made this suggestion because, having been educated at this establishment himself, he knew the worth of it; and he appealed to the distinguished general officer opposite whether he should not exercise the prerogative entrusted to him by restoring some of these young gentlemen, whose conduct had not been tainted by the exhibition of bad and vicious principles, so as to give them the opportunity of regaining the good opinion of the Lieutenant-governor, becoming studious and steady, and ultimately proving, as many of them might, an honour to their profession. He took up the subject warmly, because in that establishment he had commenced his career, and had there formed friendships of the most binding nature. He had made these remarks in no spirit of hostility to the gallant Officer opposite; but, in the name of the friends and parents of the young men, who had already, he thought, suffered punishment adequate to the offences of which they had been guilty.

was not surprised at the anxiety evinced by the hon. and gallant Officer opposite on behalf of the institution to which he had alluded. That House, perhaps, was not the proper arena in which the discipline of the academy should be discussed; but at the same time he was obliged to his hon. and gallant Friend for having brought forward the subject, inasmuch as it afforded an opportunity for contradicting the many unfounded, or as they might almost be called libellous statements that had gone forth to the public. With respect to the occurrences that had taken place, the facts were simply these. For a number of years there had existed at the academy a system equivalent to what was called "fagging" at public schools, and it had been reported to him, that under that system some of the younger boys had been much oppressed. Last year, when he was engaged in the north of England in the performance of his duties, he received information that one of the youths of the academy had been much ill-treated; and the following day a second report reached him that two of the boys had deserted and gone to France. Being unable to be present in person on the spot, he appointed a committee, consisting of five most distinguished officers of the corps, and directed that the whole matter should be thoroughly investigated. He held in his hand an abstract from that report; but, before he read it, he might observe that Lord Blomfield—a man distinguished alike for his integrity and his humanity—presided over that inquiry. He would not, of course, read the names of those who had been expelled; but he would simply state what were the crimes for which the committee had felt themselves compelled to recommend their removal from the academy. No. 1 was for striking another cadet, for leaving the hospital without orders, and for general insubordination. Nos. 2 and 3 for desertion. No. 4 for abuse of his authority as a corporal. This had been one of the best conducted youths in the establishment, and he was shortly afterwards restored. No. 5 for ill-treating another cadet. Nos. 6 and 7 for insulting other cadets, and being engaged in the mock duel that had been alluded to. He would not go into the circumstances attending that duel; but he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that the, committee had no alternative than that of acting as they did. No. 8 was for being concerned in the said mock duel. Nos. 9, 10, and 11, for ill treating other cadets; and No. 12 for repeated insubordination. Out of those twelve one had been restored. Then there were two or three others for various acts of insubordination, and there was another for intoxication during hours of study. Such were the crimes for which these youths had been discharged. He believed that, upon the whole, nothing had occurred which had not frequently taken place in other public establishments. There had been an instance before in which thirteen cadets were dismissed. These things often happened at our colleges and universities, and at public institutions of the same kind abroad, and they were likely to happen where youths were congregated together. He hoped that all who knew him would do him the justice to believe that it gave him the greatest pain to be obliged to have recourse to such a measure. Much in these unpleasant transactions had arisen from a determination on the part of the elder students to resist his wish of putting down the ill treatment experienced by the younger students from the system of fagging; and his hon. Friend would perceive that the dismissal of the greater part was occasioned by such ill treatment. As to the period at which the youths were admitted the fact was this:—On looking back to the reports of the academy, he found that whilst they were admitted at the age of fourteen, nearly one-half of them never passed up to their commission. At that early age sufficient time had not been afforded to them to acquire those rudiments of education which were essential to their subsequent success in the military college. This being found to be very generally the case, one of the members of the committee, Sir Alexander Dickson, an officer, the soundness of whose judgment he was sure no Gentleman in that House would question, recommended that the qualification for admission to the academy should be higher, and that the age of the youths upon their admission should not be less than fifteen years. This arrangement had been attended with the most complete success; for the heads of the college, instead of being called upon to discharge a considerable number of youths upon their probationary examination, during the last two years had scarcely been, called upon to discharge one. The gallant Member had referred to the statements—the calumnious, the libellous, the utterly false and unfounded statements—that had been made in some of the newspapers with respect to himself, and to the manner in which he had distributed the patronage of the Military College. He had been charged with prostituting the patronage of the academy to personal and political purposes, because he had admitted one youth named O'Connell, and another named Maude. It was said, that he appointed the one at the dictation of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and the other at the dictation of two Tory uncles. Now, what was the fact? With respect to the youth named Maude, he was one of the young gentlemen whom he had just now stated he had felt it his duty to remove from the academy. He did so with very great regret, for the youth was a remarkably fine young man, and possessed many qualifications which seemed to fit him admirably for the profession in which he had embarked. His offence was that of having deliberately struck a younger comrade in such a way as to render it necessary that he should be sent to the hospital. When the circumstances under which this offence was committed were made known to him, he immediately ordered that Maud should be removed from the academy. Great interest was made to procure his restoration. Applications poured in from many quarters, which it was most painful to refuse, but he steadily resisted them all. He refused the application not only of the youth's Whig uncle, but of his Tory uncle, Lord Hawarden, an old and cherished friend of his. He refused an application from the highest authority in the Government. He refused other applications that were made from other parties. He would not consent to restore the youth until after the vacation, when a petition to this effect was presented to him from the cadets of the academy:—The hon. and gallant Officer read the petition, in which the young gentlemen stated that they humbly submitted to the decision that the Master-general had made upon the report laid before him by the court of inquiry, and pledged themselves collectively and individually to use their utmost endeavours to put an end to the system of severity towards the junior members of the establishment, which had been so strongly marked by the Master-general's disapprobation. They then went on to express a hope that it would not be deemed unbecoming in them if, considering the previous general good conduct of Corporal Maude, the rapidity with which he had advanced in his studies, and the utter ruin to his prospects that would otherwise befal—they begged the Master-general kindly to mitigate his punishment, and restore him to the station he had previously held amongst them. This was signed by every cadet in the academy. He immediately went down to Woolwich and assembled the whole of them, and told them that although in a military point of view, they had acted improperly in addressing him upon such a subject, he would look over that point—would accept the pledge they had offered him—and would restore the youth in whose favour they had so strongly interested themselves. Thus had he yielded to the compassion of the young man's comrades all that he had refused to the entreaties of his own personal and political friends. So much, then, for the motives that had governed him in that instance. The youth named O'Connell was the son of a very distinguished general officer, who, he believed, was a relative of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. But he did not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was aware that the youth, the son of his relative, was a cadet in the Woolwich academy. General O'Connell was now commanding in Australia, and it was at the earnest request of the father that he had placed this youth in the academy. Unfortunately he was found wanting at his probationary examination, and in consequence dismissed. He held in his hand a letter which he had subsequently received from the youth explaining the cause of his failure and asking to be permitted to make another trial. It was to this effect:—

"I trust you will not be offended at ray addressing you by letter on this occasion; when you consider the utter ruin to my prospects in life which must ensue from ray discharge, and the pain that will be inflicted on my father and family, who are now all in New South Wales. I trust you will not be offended at the son of an old and distinguished soldier throwing himself thus on your kindness, good nature, and mercy."

After the receipt of this letter, he (Sir H. Vivian) inquired into the case, and found that the young man's failure had in a great degree been owing to the want of a proper education previous to his being admitted to the academy. He therefore consented to restore him; and in so doing he did not know how he could have exposed himself to the charges that had been brought against him. Having thus explained the state of the academy, and the circumstances that had recently transpired there, he should now feel it necessary to trouble the House with a very few observations in reference to other charges that had been made against him, in some of the public newspapers, and which had been quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman by whom this subject was introduced. The first to which he begged to refer was to the purport,

"The primary cause of the mischief at the academy is, that that establishment has been made an arena for political jobs." Again, "The children of political partisans have been admitted at the expense of the children of old and meritorious officers." "We should like to know how many of the children of families resident in the counties of Devonshire and Cornwall, particularly, have been admitted within the last three years, and what their conduct has been since they have been there. We are assured that a great proportion of the excesses that have taken place have been committed by the sons of civilians who have received appointments for no other reason in the world than that their parents were amongst the supporters of the Government, and of the Master General of the Ordnance in particular."

Now, with respect to political objects and to the admission of the children of political friends into the academy, he had not the slightest hesitation in saying, that whenever any of his Friends around had applied to him to admit a son into the college, and he had had the means of complying with their request, he had always felt the greatest pleasure in doing so, and he would do so again; but at the same time he must observe, that whenever any of the hon. Gentlemen opposite had made a similar application, and the means were in his power, he had always done the same thing. He had always held that admission into the military schools should on no account depend on politics; and if such a rule were ever to obtain, he should hold it to be a very great misfortune to the country. Although the parents might differ in that and in the other House of Parliament he saw no reason why the children should not go forth together to fight the battles of their country. Therefore if, whilst he had held the office of Master-General, it had been his fortune to appoint a Shaw, a Jocelyn, and an O'Connell, he should be happy to find the children of those politically hostile families going forth together to man the same battery, to stand in the same breach, to gather glory in the same field; and he should feel that in appointing them he had done that which might effect much good for his country, and certainly, according to his notions, would do no harm to his party. He must now beg to say a word or two in reference to the allegation of his having used the patronage of the academy for personal purposes. It was asked how many youths from Cornwall had been appointed within the last few years? In reply to the question, he could state that since he had been at the head of the Ordnance, not more than five youths had been admitted who could be said to have had any connection whatever with Cornwall. Of these the first was admitted upon the application of a very distinguished officer who had been severely wounded in the service, who was living at Falmouth, but with whom he-had no personal acquaintance. On receiving his letter, he sent it to Lord F. Somerset to inquire whether the statements of service which it contained were correct. The reply was in the affirmative, and the youth was in consequence appointed. The second youth was also the son of a distinguished officer. The third was certainly the son of a particular friend of his, once a Member of that House; but since long resident abroad, and one who certainly had never voted for him. The fourth was the son of a clergyman living in a parish where he (Sir H. Vivian) had property; but who was decidedly opposed to him in politics, and who, at the election, had plumped against him. The fifth was the son of a gentleman living in the western division of the county. So much, then, for the prodigal manner in which he had granted admissions to the academy to his Cornish friends. [The right hon. and gallant officer was proceeding with some further explanations, but was deterred by a general expression of feelings on both sides of the House, indicating that it was wholly unnecessary]. He would proceed, then, to another point. With respect to the children of old officers, the regular rule, or rather the general custom, had been to admit them into the different military seminaries in the proportion of about one-half of the whole number admitted. To cover the expenses of the academies, which were considerable, it was found necessary to admit the sons of civilians, who paid in a much higher proportion than the sons of old officers. Of the 141 young men that had been admitted within the last three years, 78 were the sons of old officers, being, he believed, a much greater proportion in favour of the latter than had ever occurred at any former period. He trusted that this simple statement would exonerate him from the charge that had been brought against him of having used his patronage for personal motives. Another charge had been made in the same paper, to which he wished to advert. (The hon. and gallant Member read another extract from a newspaper, which stated that the Master-General was actuated by the vilest party spirit; and, as an instance of it, related that he had taken out of the hands of a Colonel-Commandant, who was opposed to him, the disposal of a subordinate office.) When he had first read that passage he could not imagine to what it referred; and accordingly he wrote to Lord Bloomfield on the subject. The answer which he received from Lord Bloomfield was to the effect that he had looked into the correspondence between them, and it did not appear that Sir Hussey Vivian had in any manner interfered with the privileges of commanding officers. He, however, made further inquiry, and found that the paragraph referred to a case in which the Colonel Commandant had wished to promote a young man over the head of one of the most distinguished old soldiers. That case had been represented to him by Sir A. Dickson, to whom he wrote a letter in reply, in which he stated that though Colonels Commandant had never found any unnecessary interference on his part, as he had never permitted such a system to be practised in the disposal of the superior offices, he should not allow it with regard to subordinate offices. He was sorry that he had trespassed on the House so long upon a matter personal to himself, but as it was of some consequence to this establishment and to himself also, he hoped the House would pardon him for it, and would think that he had exonerated himself from the vile and abominable charges which had been made. In conclusion the right hon. and gallant officer said that with respect to the re-admission of any of the youths who had been dismissed, nothing would give him greater pleasure if he could do so consistently with the rules of the establishment. He had paid great attention to the subject, and had referred the matter to the consideration of the committee. His present impression was, that he could not restore any of them; but he still kept his eye upon them, and very much of what might ultimately happen must depend upon the conduct of the youths now in the academy. If, however, he should be induced to restore any of them, it could only be those who had been conspicuous for uniform good conduct prior to the occurrence of these unfortunate circumstances.

wished to know how many of the hundred youths, who were under eighteen years of age, had obtained commissions during the two last years?

said, he had not the return by him at present, but he thought about twenty-five or thirty in the present year. There were 128 then at the academy, and also a great number of second lieutenants.

had no connexion with the army, therefore if he said anything on the subject it would not be to enter into military details. He could not, however, avoid thinking that there must have been something seriously wrong in the management of this institution, which rendered it necessary to resort to so severe a measure as the dismissal of no less than twenty five youths of sixteen years of age. He felt sure that the gallant Officer had acted only under a sense of duty—that much of the necessity of such a measure must depend upon the age of the parties implicated in these transactions. If they were of an age at which they might be easily led astray, he could not help thinking that expulsion, carrying with it, as it did, such serious consequences, was more than the necessity of the case required. If, on the other hand, they were of an age capable of appreciating the consequences of their conduct, then, however painful it might be, he could not deny the punishment was unnecessarily severe; but what he wished to urge upon the right hon. and gallant Officer was, that constant watchfulness over the institution would prevent those evils getting to that height, that to prevent them it was necessary to resort to such severe measures of punishment. He could not but think if care were taken, and the progress of these young men watched, and they received moderate punishment for the first offence, the necessity would be avoided of recurring to extreme punishment, which not only affected them immediately, but all their prospects in life.

said, thirteen youths were expelled a great number of years ago, when a most distinguished officer was at the head of the Ordnance. The youths now removed were of the Senior Class, and for the oppression of the Juniors; and it was a curious fact, that during the time the committee was sitting, a great degree of oppression was going on, and there seemed a sort of determination among the youths to continue it, and that four who were excluded had committed the offence while the committee was sitting.

, as an officer, felt bound to state his acquiescence in the measure resorted to in the case of these young men. Most of them were fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen years of age, and persisted in their misconduct, and he did not see anything his hon. Friend could propose, but place the circumstances before a committee, and take their report into consideration; and he must say, if he were in the situation of his right hon. Friend, he should think nothing would be more embarrassing hereafter, and fatal to the discipline of the college, than to attend to applications for the restoration of these youths, unless under special circumstances. No doubt the college was composed of ardent spirits—of young men who required a severe discipline; and when they knew their misconduct would be visited with severe discipline, it was to be hoped they would reflect upon the consequences that would attend it. He must confess, at the same lime, the explanation of his right hon. Friend gave him great pain; considering the character of his right hon. Friend, and the long time he had served in the military service, he had heard him with great pain condescend in that House to enter into details to defend himself from anonymous attacks of the newspapers. Why, if public men thought themselves compelled to come to the House and give explanations on every attack that was made on them in newspapers and anonymous publications, not only would the time of the House be wasted, but, in his opinion, men of high station would be materially lowered. He did not know what papers they were to which his hon. Friend referred, for he had never heard of or read one of them. He should not oppose going into committee, but was sorry that his right hon. Friend had made these explanations, which, in his opinion, his high character rendered quite unnecessary.

said, that the right hon. Master-general of the Ordnance having been attacked in the manner in which he had been, had no alternative but to adopt the course which he had adopted in defending himself. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated, that, in his opinion, there must have been great relaxation of the discipline of the Academy to render these punishments necessary. Now, he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, whether it might not be barely possible that such relaxation of discipline may have taken place before his right hon. and gallant Friend had come into office.

said, that the hon. and gallant Officer had made no attack whatever upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. He complained that the House should have entered into the consideration of this subject at all. He complained not of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had done out of the House, but of what he had done in the House in making these explanations. He could never approve of making that House a board of review for the proceedings of the Royal Military Academy. He knew that some hon. Gentleman might say, that because the Academy was supported at the expense of the State, that therefore; the House had a right not only to inquire into the general management of it, but to institute an inquiry into any petty detail connected with each individual student. Unless such was the conclusion come to, he trusted that never again would one whole hour of the time of that House be occupied in such a discussion.

thought his right hon. Friend, the Master-general of the Ordnance had acted perfectly right. He had in fact, no option. There was nothing uncourteous in the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, but he had read certain statements from newspapers reflecting on his right hon. and gallant Friend, and had asked for explanation. It was a price that all men who attained to eminent rank or high station must pay for their eminence to have their conduct canvassed, and when it was so canvassed they were perfectly right in offering any explanation they might think fit; there was nothing humiliating in such conduct. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite' had considered that there was something in the conduct of the Military Academy which required explanation—he was perfectly right in requesting that explanation. He had very properly asked a question, to which he had received a most satisfactory answer.

entirely concurred with his hon. Friend who had just sat down. He had listened to the reply of his right hon. and gallant Friend with the greatest satisfaction, and although the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had not made any charges against his right hon. and gallant Friend in bringing this: question forward, yet that hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded to certain charges which had been made in the newspapers, therefore his right hon. and gallant Friend was perfectly right in replying to these charges. He entirely concurred with the right hon. and gallant Member for Launceston in the conviction that the high character of the Master-general of the Ordnance placed him entirely above imputation, but still that very high character made him the more anxious to give explanation, and feel the more acutely any imputation that might be attempted to be cast upon him. The knowledge of the possession of that high character made him the more anxious to sustain it.—He concurred in the observations which had been made on the subject of the College, and regretted that it had been introduced at all, as he was sure that the present discussion would not tend to the preservation of the good discipline of the College. Among those young men who were intended for the military service, it might be expected, anywhere, that youth would be found of strong feelings and active energetic minds, who would with difficulty submit themselves to command. He had, a short time ago, seen an account of the expulsion of several students from Eton College—that was not a military college, and, from what he had heard on the subject, he was not disposed to find fault with the conduct of the head of that establishment on that occasion, but he thought the House would admit that if it was necessary to maintain strict discipline in any college, it was more particularly so in a military one. If a strict discipline were not maintained among the youths when at college, the consequences to themselves, when they entered their military career, would be still more ruinous, as they would be subjected for breaches of discipline to a still more severe punishment, and which would affect their future prospects still more severely, as coming upon them at a later period of their life, when it would be almost impossible for them so to change their habits as to fit them for entering any other career.

had not made any attack upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, or brought any charge against him; he had merely asked for an explanation, and he thought he was perfectly justified in so doing—he was glad to find, from what he had said, that the academy was now in a better state of discipline, and he hoped that the discipline would continue to be such as would enable the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, consistently with his duty, to consent to the restoration of at least some of these young men.—Subject dropped.

, before the House went into Committeee of Supply, wished to draw the attention of the House to the complaints which were constantly made of conduct pursued by officers in Her Majesty's service towards persons who might happen to be passengers on board their packets. These complaints more particularly alluded to the Mediterranean steam-packets—and one of the persons aggrieved, a lady, had at length come forward, and affixed her name to a statement of the grievances which she had suffered during a passage on board one of these packets. He hoped that these statements had been made under some misapprehension or mistake, as they involved the characters of several officers. The system, in his opinion, ought to be altered, as it made officers in the navy and army liable to be constantly called to a public account for their conduct, or submit to be accused of conduct which would be derogatory to persons of the lowest description. He, therefore, thought the Admiralty should devise some other means of conducting this branch of the public service—such, perhaps, as by appointing a superintendent to each packet, so as to relieve officers from their liability, and at the same time he would be a person to whom passengers might apply for protection; as the Admiralty participated in the profits, they were bound to afford adequate protection.

bad heard of no complaints from any passengers on board her Majesty's vessels, over which the Admiralty possessed control, and would ask the hon. and gallant Officer upon what authority he made the statement.

had read the account in the United Service Gazette and the Asiatic Journal.

would suggest to his hon. Friend and Relative that he should for the future take care to make himself acquainted with the facts of any case which he might think it necessary to bring forward, as it was not absolutely necessary that the time of the House should be taken up in investigating every complaint from a lady which might happen to appear in the newspapers.

said, that before going into the Ordnance Estimates he was anxious to say a few words on what had just occurred. He felt highly flattered by what had been said by his right hon. Friend opposite, as a reason why he ought not to have replied to the charges which had been brought against him. Perhaps, as far as he himself was personally concerned, he ought not to have done so, but his right hon. and gallant Friend could not be aware of the mischief to the academy, which had been the consequence of the propagation of the atrocious reports to which he had alluded. He would now propose the Ordnance Estimates for the year, and in doing so it was not his intention to trespass at any length upon the attention of the House. The estimates of this year somewhat exceeded the estimates of last year, and in the debate on the Navy and Army Estimates, his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny had said, that there seemed to be a sort of esprit du corps among the heads of departments, to see who could make their estimates the highest; he could, however, assure his hon. Friend, that in preparing the Ordnance Estimates the only spirit that had actuated him had been a spirit of economy as strict as was consistent with the efficiency of the department over which he presided, and which would always be with him a matter of the first consideration. The hon. Gentleman had frequently referred to the year 1792, for the purpose of contrasting the amount proposed at the present day with the estimates of that period—now he thought that if his hon. Friend would compare the estimates of the present year with those of the year 1792, he would not find much reason to complain. The total amount of expenditure for the Ordnance department in the year 1792 amounted to 422,000l., from which a deduction was to be made of 21,000l. on account of superannuations, which were then paid by the Ordnance department, and which were not paid by that department at present. This would make the Ordnance Estimates for the year 1792 amount to 400.000l. The present year the expense of the Ordnance had been 1,812,000l., from which, if they deducted the sum of 1,370,346l, on account of services performed by the Ordnance department, and with which it was not chargeable in 1792, they would find that in reality the expense of the Ordnance department, as compared with that year, amounted only to 442,000l., and when the hon. Gentleman recollected the enormous extent of out colonial possessions he thought he would find that this estimate was not an extravagant one. In the first vote which he should propose for the Ordnance civil establishment it would be found that there was an increase of 23l. over the vote of last year—this arose from an increase in the amount of salaries paid in that department. In the second vote for the Ordnance and Engineering Department it would be found that, as compared with the vote of last year, there was a decrease of 722l. In the third vote for the royal artillery, horse artillery, master-general's department, there was an increase of 1,347l.—this was occasioned by an increase in the rate of pay in that department, and the additional number of artillerymen which had been employed. In the fourth vote for the barrack department, there was an increase of 3,326l. This was occasioned by the addition which had taken place in the number of barracks in the United Kingdom. In the fifth vote, under the head of extraordinaries, there was an increase of 67,000l. This increase was attributable to the increased expense of providing proper comfort and accommodation for the troops in Canada, by the erection of additional buildings, and also by an increased amount of barrack accommodation in the Colonies. There was also an increase of 10,000l. for the erection of barracks at Porto Bello; and in the next case there was an increase of 36,000l. from military and civil contingencies. The army extraordinaries used formerly to supply the augmenting department on foreign stations with articles which were now supplied by themselves. This had taken 40,000l. from the army extraordinaries. On the next vote there was an increase of 19,000l. under the head of stores, 5,000l. of this were for providing percussion arms, as had been alluded to last year; 9,000l. were for an increase in the Ordnance stores, and 4,000l. for an increase in the artillerymen. An increase had taken place in the Commissariat; they supplied different articles, such as boats, for the use of the department in the Colonies, and when two regiments of cavalry were last year conveyed from Ireland to England, it was at the expense of this department; and the consequent increase amounted to 13,000l. The total increase in the whole of the estimates of this year, as compared with those of last year, was 152,566l. The whole expense of this year for the Ordnance department was 1,971,042l. The credits for the present year were 86,000l.; last year they were 93,000l.; consequently, they were this year 7,240l. less; and the total amount of money proposed to be voted for the service of the Ordnance department during the present year was 1,885,042l.

wished to ask, if in the case of the barracks in the West Indies, there had been, on the part of the Ordnance department, anything like an accidental neglect in supplying the troops with proper accommodation? He did not for a moment impute intentional neglect, but he would ask his right hon. and gallant Friend, whether that accommodation could not be better afforded by some other department than the Ordnance. He had moved for papers on this subject, which, although laid on the table, had not been printed; and the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland had moved for other papers, which had not yet been produced. He hoped that when those papers were laid upon the table, some discussion on this subject would take place.

regretted, that the papers had not yet been laid upon the table. He denied that there had been the slightest inattention on the part of the Ordnance to the state of the barracks, either in the Colonies or at home. His right hon. Friend knew well what were the regulations with regard to the barracks in the Colonies. In every colony there was an officer of the Engineers, whose attention was specially directed to the state of the barracks. It was his duty to make a special report on the subject. That report they got every year. The repairs and estimates were immediately considered, and what was necessary to be done was ordered; and he should not have the slightest difficulty in proving, when the subject came before the House, that no neglect was attributable to the Ordnance Department.

thought it was rather irregular in the right hon. Gentleman, who held himself up as the pattern of order and regularity, to introduce this discussion now, instead of when the subject of barracks was under consideration. He could only express his deep regret to see so large an Estimate, but having voted the Navy and Army Estimates, they must supply the men with arms. It was useless to take any objection now, when new taxes were laid on, then would be the time to grumble. He believed the hon. and gallant Officer conducted his department as economically as any in the service, but he must protest against his allegation, that the present Estimates did not exceed those of 1792. In that year the number of artillerymen was 4,000; at the present time it was 8,800; and how it could be contended that there was no increase, was a paradox he could not pretend to understand. He was not the only person who took 1792 as the standard; three military committees which had sat, had all taken the same view. He meant no reflection in what he was about to say, but until the Ordnance Department was altogether new modelled, which he had hoped to see done before this, be could not expect the expenses to be lessened. He would not allow the estimates to pass without expressing his opinion that our engineers and the officers of the artillery were at present very ill-used. In England nothing was known to the Commander-in-chief of the officers of the artillery, except through intermediate agents, and that he thought derogated from their character, and was injurious to their interests, as there was no opportunity of properly appreciating their merits. He would, therefore, strongly recommend that the artillery should be always under the immediate command of the commander-in-chief, as he thought that change would be attended with the best effects. It was an anomalous circumstance, that when our artillery were sent to the Colonies, they were no longer under the instructions of the Ordnance, but under the authority of the Commander-in-chief, and he thought it would be advisable that that rule should be applied in all cases. He also wished that the officers in question should have an opportunity of being employed on staffs, and of being raised to other lucrative situations. There was an item which he did not wish to let pass unnoticed. He alluded to the management of the stores, for which 38s. per cwt. was paid, and he thought that to be a very large sum. With regard to the barrack department, he should allow that the management of it had been very much improved, though he could not but say that the expenses of it were still very high.

thought the hon. Member had misunderstood his question to his right hon. Friend. He had mentioned that the barracks ought to be conducted by the Ordnance department, and not be under that of the War-office. And his question was with reference to the report of the commissioners recommending' the taking away from the Ordnance department, that branch of its administration, and transferring it to the War-office. When he recollected what was the state of the barracks when under the War-office, he could not help stating that in his opinion the Ordnance department was the best to take charge of them, and that should they be transferred to the War-office, a great detriment to the public service would be the result. He should view with jealousy any attempt which should be made by the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland, to transfer the barracks back to the War-office.

would also view any such experiment with great fear. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had spoken of the artillery of this country in comparison with the artillery of other countries. Every military man in Europe acknowledged the superiority of the English artillery. He certainly lamented the restricted opportunity offered to the officers of the artillery and engineers. When the officers of these corps rise to the rank of colonels, their efficient services cease. Should his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny think proper to propose something to relieve these officers from this disadvantage, he would be disposed to give him his support.

said, that as the discussion on the more prominent points of the estimates appeared to have closed, he wished to call the attention of the House to an item in the first vote, which, although it might not seem of great general importance, was one of much moment to the parties interested, and in its consequences not immaterial to the public service. He alluded to the disparity which was manifest on looking at the estimates between the sums charged for salaries for the gentlemen employed in the establishments at the Tower and Pall-mall and those paid to parties similarly occupied at Woolwich. The senior clerks at the former stations had 900l. per annum, the second class 300l. to 600l., and the junior class 90l. to 300l., while at Woolwich all the clerks employed, senior and junior, were on the scale of from 90l. to 300l. He wished to ask the reason of this disparity. He understood the duties at Woolwich to be as arduous and responsible, and the character of the persons employed and their abilities as good. It was necessary they should understand, not merely the ordinary routine of their office business, but should be thoroughly acquainted with the nature and various applications of the stores under their charge. It would seem, therefore, that if their salaries were sufficient, those paid in London were too high; or if the salaries in London were no more than adequate, those of the Woolwich establishment ought to be raised. He wished to ask the reason of the disparity?

said, that the difference in the amounts of the salaries to which the hon. Gentleman had referred had existed for many years previous to his accession to the duties of the Master-general of the Ordnance, and arose from the superior duties which the one class had to perform in comparison with the other, and the greater responsibility which attached to their situations. Taking these circumstances into consideration, he could not but consider that the difference in these salaries was fully justifiable. With repect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he must recollect that they had fifteen more colonies now than they had in 1792, and that they had of course an additional number of artillery, guns, stores, and other things to send out to them for their protection. With regard to the transfer of the artillery and engineering department from the Ordnance Office to the Horse Guards and the War Office, that was a subject which, in the absence of the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland, he would not discuss. He should, however, whenever called upon by the noble Lord, be able to show to the House that such a proposition would, if acceded to, tend to destroy altogether one of the most efficient departments of the service, and lead to enormous expense.

said, that much dissatisfaction had been occasioned by the disparity which he had pointed out, and he was desirous to know whether the attention of the Master-general had been called to the subject. Although the right hon. and gallant Officer said, that the comparative nature of the duties to be performed justified the inequality, he could not but think it desirable that the subject should receive consideration, that some more satisfactory arrangement could be made.

observed that he had had formerly some experience as to the Ordnance Department, and he could not but rise to vindicate the distinction of salaries to which the hon. Member had referred. The heads of the different departments of the Ordnance were very dependent upon the chief clerks alluded to; and he must say, that he had never found any set of clerks more competent than those of the Ordnance Department, whom he considered to be rather under-paid than over-paid. He could assure the hon. Member that the salaries of the chief clerks at the Tower and in Pall-mall were fully justified by the duties they performed.

said, that they were well deserving of the commendation bestowed upon them by his right hon. and gallant Friend.

said, that he wished to have some information with respect to the dismissal of Mr. Foot, a solicitor to the Ordnance, at Devonport. That gentleman had been many years a solicitor to the Ordnance, and the general impression was, that he had been dismissed in consequence of the part he had taken at the last election for Devonport. He was dismissed after that election, and from that time to this no other grounds had been stated for his removal. He was therefore desirous of having some information from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman upon the subject.

said, that the hon. Baronet knew as much about this gentleman's dismissal as he did himself. It was not a matter which the Ordnance department had anything to do with; and the first he had heard of it was from Mr. Dawson, whom he had seen the other day at her Majesty's Levee, who had, expressed. to him his hopes that Mr. Foot had not been dismissed for having given him his support at the election in question. The fact was, that a solicitor to the Ordnance had died, and a new one having been appointed, had, as was usual, the appointment of all the others at the out-stations. It was through these means, he believed, that Mr. Foot's dismissal had occurred; and the Ordnance Office knew no more about it than the right hon. Baronet himself. The first he had heard of it, was, he repeated, from Mr. Dawson himself, and he had stated to Mr. Foot, that he could not interfere in the matter. With respect to the interference of Mr. Foot in the election, he had understood that he had interfered in it; but whether that was the cause of his dismissal he could not tell.

said, he did not at all like this transaction—and could not see why a new solicitor to the Ordnance was to discard another because he chanced to be of a different opinion from himself. If there should be any change of Government presently—what would take place? Why, that if this was the rule on which this new solicitor chose to act with respect to the political opinions of others, the next Government might dismiss him on the same grounds, and by such occurrences, the public service would be put to inconvenience. This never was the system acted on by the Ordnance Department heretofore, and he very well recollected, that when he was some years ago attached to that office, there was a clerk there, a man of very good conduct and character in his situation, who seldom asked for leave of absence, except at the time when the election might take place at Rochester, where, being himself a Whig, he always voted for the Whig candidate, and no notice was ever taken of the circumstance. He did not think, then, that it ought to be tolerated that this gentleman who was newly appointed to the office of solicitor to the Ordnance should dismiss others from their appointments on the ground of a difference of political opinion—and he should have hoped, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, knowing Mr. Foot and his respectability and long services, would have taken the circumstance of so abrupt a dismissal into consideration.

said, he had never hinted that Mr. Foot had been removed for electioneering reasons. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded to a clerk in the Ordnance, who, though voting against a Government candidate, was not interfered with; and he (Sir H. Vivian) could tell his right hon. and gallant Friend of the case of one of the Government clerks at Devonport, who, when he was a candidate for that borough, had voted against himself—and no notice was taken of the circumstance by the Government.

said, that he agreed with his right hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Launceston, that it was in the power of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, to see if the cause alleged for this gentleman's dismissal was the right one or not. This gentleman had served in the same situation for fifty years, and was a man of high character and respectability; and when Mr. Smith, the late solicitor to the Ordnance was appointed, he did not find it necessary to act as the present solicitor had done, and to remove Mr. Foot. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not been able to avoid saying, that that gentleman had interfered in the election against the Government candidate, and he could not but think it would have been more becoming in the right hon. Gentleman if he had looked into the case and ascertained the true cause of his dismissal.

said, that Mr. Foot did not hold an official appointment. The appointment was one which rested entirely with Mr. Hicknett, as solicitor of the Ordnance, and that department, had nothing whatever to do with it. All the Ordnance did was to say to Mr. Hicknett that he should do the business, and of course he was to get it done in the best way he could. Mr. Hicknett alone was responsible to the Ordnance, and with respect to the dismissal of Mr. Foot, all he could say was, that he was not aware of the ground on which it proceeded.

could assure the House, that till he had seen the matter alluded to in the public papers, he had known nothing of the removal of Mr. Foot. What had been the motives which had induced the solicitor of the Board of Ordnance to transfer the business to another agent, he could not tell, but he could not agree in opinion with those who stated, that Mr. Foot had been dismissed from political considerations. The solicitor to the Board. had, perhaps, his own friends, whom he wished to employ, but at all events, he could not believe that Mr. Foot had been removed because of his political opinions. He should be sorry should such have been the case, and he should regret much if such a principle were acted upon, as he thought persons holding official appointments ought to be perfectly free to express their political opinions.

thought the question before the House one of very great importance. In his opinion, no person ought to be punished for an expression of political opinions, and he could not think it proper that any one holding official appointments under the Government should be dismissed from office for voting at an election according to his own views and sentiments. If such a pernicious principle were generally acted upon, the consequences would be most serious both to individuals and to the public service. He hoped they would never follow the example of the United States, where a clean sweep was made, whenever there was a change in the Government, It was the duty of the House to guard against such a proceeding ever taking place in this country, and he would offer a very simple remedy for their consideration. If the House would agree to adopt the system of vote by ballot, no person would be dismissed for political opinions, as the votes of individuals could not then be ascertained. When the question of vote by ballot next came before the House, he should claim the votes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who complained o the dismissal of Mr. Foot.

said, the hon. Member for Kilkenny would certainly not have his vote in favour of the Ballot. He sincerely rejoiced, that the Board of Ordnance had had nothing to do with this transaction. He at once acquitted the right hon. Gentleman, the Master-genera of the Ordnance, of having taken any part in the dismissal of Mr. Foot. The Ballot was not the proper remedy for evils of the nature, and he thought the best protection for official persons expressing their political opinions, was the public and genera reprobation which Mr. Foot's dismissal bad received. That Gentleman was upwards of 70 years of age, he was a person of the highest respectability, and had for the long period of 55 years, been honourably employed in the public service. Why then, bad he been dismissed? Surely, there was good room for inquiry in such a case as this. He would read Mr. Foot's own statement to the House. That gentleman said:—

"Most true it is, that I have had the honour of acting as law-agent to the Board of Ordnance, and their town solicitor at this place, for 55 years last past."

Now, it was contended that Mr. Foot's appointment was not made by the Government; but, surely, the solicitor to the Board of Ordnance, the inferior officer of he Board, ought to be responsible to the head of the department for turning out of office an old and faithful public servant. Surely, the Master-general had a right to call upon the solicitor, whom he did appoint, to explain the reasons which had induced him to dismiss Mr. Foot, against whom no charge had ever been brought. The House bad a perfect right to call upon the right hon. Gentleman to institute an inquiry into the motives of the solicitor for the dismissal of this gentleman. Why, he would ask, was it that Mr. Foot immediately after he had been canvassed for the Government candidate, and after he had voted at the election for the Conservative candidate, had, without any intimation, been deprived of the taw business of the Board of Ordnance? Had there been any complaint against Mr. Foot? Let them hear Mr. Foot's own statement on this point. He said:—

"During that very long period (of 55 years) I have conducted a great variety of law business (I hope I may be excused for saying) so satisfactorily, that the Board never, on any, the most important occasion, deemed it necessary to send down their solicitor to direct or assist me."

He added further:—

"After this statement, it may seem almost needless to add, as the fact is, that I never received the slightest indication or expression of the Board's or their solicitor's disapprobation of any one act done by me in my office; and that there never was any objection made to any one item in my professional bills of costs when presented for payment, though by the rules of the board, they were always very strictly examined."

What, then, was the cause of Mr. Fool's dismissal? Mr. Foot said;—

"Thus circumstanced as I have been with the Board and their solicitor, for more than half a century, it remains only for me, most reluctantly, to confirm the current reports, and to state, that in consequence of myself and son having given our votes at the last election for Devonport in favour of Mr. Dawson, and against the Government candidate, Mr. Tuffnell, the law business of the Ordnance and barrack department has been withdrawn from us and bestowed on another, without the slightest intimation to us on the subject."

Such was the statement of Mr. Foot, who was not a hot, violent man, for till the present time, he had never been, as he believed, canvassed at an election, or disturbed in the exercise of his political rights. He knew Mr. Foot well, as an old political supporter of his, and, he must say that he should have been guilty of great ingratitude if he had not stated, that to his own knowledge, he was a gentleman of the highest respectability and honour. He acquitted the Master-general of the Ordnance of having taken any part in the dismissal of Mr. Foot; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman was bound, in duty to himself, to ascertain whether political motives had induced the solicitor to the Board of Ordnance to transfer the legal business of the department from that gentleman to another agent.

had one word to say. He thought the hon. Gentleman opposite was mistaken in saying that Mr. Foot had been canvassed by Mr. Tuffnell. So far was Mr. Tuffnell from canvassing Mr. Foot, that he said nothing to him, that could be considered a canvass. There was a gentleman present when they met, who said, that there was a mistake in supposing that Mr. Foot had been canvassed. He would say again, that the appointment did not rest with him, and he questioned whether Mr. Foot had ever any communication with the Ordnance Department.

thought that the discussion of that evening would give great satisfaction to the public. It was certainly satisfactory to hear the warm and indignant terms in which hon. Gentlemen opposite had expressed themselves at a supposed interference of a person appointed by the Board of Ordnance with the individual whom he might think proper to employ as his agent in consequence of a vote which that individual had given at an election. It had been fully established by the Master-General of the Ordnance that the Board of Ordnance knew nothing of Mr. Foot's appointment or dismissal. He was appointed by the solicitor of the board, who selected his agents on his own responsibility, and without consulting the Board of Ordnance. The appointment of Mr. Foot's successor was, therefore, the selection of one private individual by another, with which selection the Board of Ordnance had nothing whatever to do. The solicitor was the person who was responsible to the Board for the transaction of its legal business, and the Board had nothing to do with the agents whom the solicitor might appoint. This discussion, however, would not be without effect, and he had been much consoled by the warmth of the expressions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because he was sure that when the reports of that night's proceedings went forth to the public, the public would perceive that there would be no more any improper interference with the exercise of the political franchise. They would no longer hear, after what had that night taken place, of tenants dismissed from their farms by their landlords in consequence of voting against their candidates; they would no more hear of persons ejected from their houses in towns, for the conscientious exercise of their political rights, and tradesmen might now sleep soundly, free from all apprehension of losing the custom of the rich, should they act on their own views in the election of Members of that House. He therefore hoped that all tenants in the country, that all householders in towns, and that all tradesmen, would read with attention the remarks which had that night fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was anxious to give protection to every one in the exercise of his political rights, and as he could not agree with the hon. Member for Kilkenny in supporting the ballot, he felt the greatest satisfaction at what had that night passed in the House.

said, the noble Lord had acted perhaps wisely for himself and the Government in endeavouring to distract the attention of hon. Members from the real question before the House. There was a great difference between the ejectment of tenants and the removal of persons employed in the public business from situations which they had long held, and with the duties of which they were fully conversant. There was no analogy betwixt the two cases. If the noble Lord had been present from the commencement of the debate, and if he had known that Mr. Foot had been for fifty-five years the agent at Devonport for the solicitor of the Board of Ordnance, he would not have attempted to make the House believe that this was a private appointment, of which the Board of Ordnance knew nothing. For his part, he thought the House ought not to rest satisfied with the explanation which had been given of this transaction, and he must say that in his opinion some further inquiry ought to take place. The Master-general of the Ordnance had come down to the House prepared to combat several statements which had been made in the newspapers, and he would ask him why he had not also prepared himself to meet this charge, which had been so much canvassed, and while the conduct of the Ordnance had been generally condemned? The Master-general had said he could not tell why Mr. Foot had been removed, but he must tell the Master-general that he had neglected his duty to this highly respectable gentleman, in allowing him to be dismissed without making any inquiries into the cause of his dismissal. Mr. Foot had stated, that he had lost the business of the Ordnance in consequence of the vote which he had given, and he thought the House had a right to ascertain whether, and how far, this system was to be extended, and it would only have been justice to Mr. Foot, a faithful servant of the public, to inform him what the grounds were upon which he had been discharged. If it was upon political grounds, that would be a satisfaction to that gentleman, as he would then know that there was no charge against his conduct. It had been stated by his hon. Friend, the Member for South Devonshire, that the clerk of the Ordnance had canvassed Mr. Foot previous to the election, and solicited his vote in favour of the Government candidate. That was an important circumstance, because the Master-general of the Ordnance had said, that the Board of Ordnance knew nothing about Mr. Foot's appointment; yet they found that he was here brought into connexion with a clerk of the Ordnance before the election took place. He hoped, that on bringing up the report of the committee, the hon. Gentleman opposite would be able to state fully the history of this transaction, for no one could say that an explanation was not necessary.

did not believe that Mr. Foot had been dismissed from political considerations. Broad assertions had been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite in re- ference to this matter; but he could only repeat, that the Board of Ordnance had had nothing whatever to do with the transfer of the business from Mr. Foot.

had made no assertion which he was not prepared to support. He had written to a friend of his to inquire into the circumstances of the case, and the answer he had received fully bore out the statements contained in Mr. Foot's letter. As to Mr. Dundas, his Friend stated, that that gentleman had made minute inquiries as to the amount of Mr. Foot's emoluments, and, having ascertained what that amount was, that he had then canvassed him in favour of the Government candidate. He also understood, that the solicitor to the Board of Ordnance had appointed a conveyancer in the room of Mr. Foot, and that that gentleman had been obliged to call in a solicitor to his assistance, so that it was likely the country would have to pay for both.

said, the fact was, they would have to pay for neither. They would only have to pay the solicitor appointed by the board.

observed, that it was most important that the solicitors engaged for the Ordnance department should be retained in the public service, the duties not appertaining to the ordinary business of a solicitor; and in no instance that he was aware of had a dismissal taken place except from professional incapacity. Now, this gentleman had served for fifty-five years in the Ordnance department, and therefore some urgent reason should have been given for his dismissal.

said, that he should like to offer a few observations upon this subject, in which it must be supposed that he was in some degree interested. Allusions had been made to the conduct of Captain Dundas in this matter, and it had been said that Captain Dundas had been his right-hand man at the election. Now he begged to deny that such was the case, for in reality Captain Dundas had been in Devon port only two or three days during the canvass, which canvass had lasted during two months. With regard to Mr. Foote, there was no doubt that he had been canvassed. He believed, that he had gone to Mr. Foote himself, as he had gone to every one else. He meant to say nothing at all against the conduct of that gentleman, for be believed, that he was fully entitled to the very high character which he had received from hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was sincerely rejoiced that this discussion had come, because it gave him an opportunity, by the explanation of a fact, to contradict many of those assertions which had been made. He had looked into the votes which had been given at his election, and had referred to those of the members or officers of all the public departments which had been given. Of these public officers 170 had voted in his favour, and 150 for his opponent; so that the suggestion of Government influence having been exerted in his favour was distinctly negatived. The majority which he had obtained was clearly that of the borough and not of Government officers.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had stated his belief, that no Government influence had been exercised in the Devonport election, and to that belief he was entitled. But the noble Lord had entered upon a strain of glowing eloquence, such as the House did not often hear, and had certainly afforded good ground for the suspicion, that there was something rotten in the transaction. He wished to know why it was thought necessary to make this appointment at the precise moment of the election.

repeated, that in the appointment of the local agents the Board of Ordnance had no right to interfere.

said, that it had been repeatedly declared officially, that these gentlemen were not the officers of the Ordnance. The death of the previous solicitor was coeval with the election, and the appointment was free from suspicion.

complained, that a person named Colman, the printer for the Ordnance at Devonport, who had also voted for Mr. Dawson, had been likewise dismissed. A man named Underwood, who had charge of one of the Ordnance hoys, and who had voted for Mr. Dawson, had been removed to Woolwich and separated from his family.

stated, that Underwood's removal to Woolwich was not in the slightest degree connected with politics, and that of the case of Colman he knew nothing.