said, he wished to put a question to the gallant Secretary of the Board of Ordnance, relating to the invention of Mr. Warner. The subject had been brought before the House last Session, on which occasion many Members had borne evidence to the extraordinary nature of the invention; and in the debate on the estimates the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had admitted that he had seen one of the experiments, and that he had witnessed the most extraordinary effects. Statements had been made the other night by the hon. and gallant Member for the Tower Hamlets, and by some other hon. Members, that Mr. Warner had objected to the appointment of a Committee to investigate the nature of his invention. Mr. Warner and his friends complained of that statement. The fact was, that Mr. Warner was most anxious to have a committee appointed to investigate his invention, and

said, that he believed that the Master-General of the Ordnance, Lord (lately Sir Hussey) Vivian, had wished to refer Mr. Warner to the usual committee at Woolwich, for the investigation of inventions of the nature of that brought forward by Mr. Warner, and that Gentlemen had refused to submit his invention to that committee. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone the other evening, in relation to the muskets supplied to the navy, he supposed that the observation s of that gallant Officer applied only to the old arms formerly issued; and not to those which had recently been given out. His noble Friend's (Lord Vivian's) attention had been most closely directed to the subject for the last three or four years. He knew that upwards of 50,000 muskets, with the percussion lock, had been constructed—most of them had been distributed. They had received the approba- tion of officers of every branch of the united service. Complaints had been made with regard to the Royal Marines, but he believed that 4,000 or 5,000 of those muskets had been given to that corps, which had received the unqualified approbation of the officers. His reason for making the statement was, that it might not go forward to the public that the late Master-General of the Ordnance had neglected his duty.

said, that the only answer he could give to the hon. Member's question was, that since the formation of the present Board of Ordnance, neither the Master-General nor the Board itself had received any communication whatever from Mr. Warner respecting the weapon of destruction which he had invented.

would put another question, which he hoped would be answered more satisfactorily. The gallant general, at the head of the Board of Ordnance, had witnessed the operation of this weapon, and had expressed a favourable opinion of it, an opinion which all must admit was deserving of attention. He was anxious to know, therefore, whether there was any intention, founded upon the information which the Board of Ordnance already possessed, to investigate the matter any further?

had already stated that the Board of Ordnance was ignorant of the views and wishes of Mr. Warner. He had the authority of the Master-General for stating, that he did not feel himself authorised to take upon himself the responsibility of appointing a committee upon the subject, without the previous sanction of her Majesty's Ministers.

said, in the debate referred to by the hon. Member for Finsbury, he had entered his protest against the Government giving their sanction in offering a reward to men who exercised their talent and ingenuity in discovering some infernal machine for the destruction of human life. If a man used his talents to promote the happiness of his race he was entitled to reward, but not for using them for an opposite purpose. He had heard, with great delight, the announcement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that he would use all his influence to diffuse those sentiments in society which would lead men to discourage war. He must say his heart had burned within him, when, on a previous evening, he heard the House debating about locks and guns, and various other instruments used in war. What would the next generation think of the present when they read that the House of Commons of that day had debated for hours about implements of destruction? He believed, that until war and warriors were held in less estimation, there was no hope of good for this country. Certainly, on all occasions, he should enter his protest against reward being granted for inventions of the nature then under discussion, because he conceived that the more they discouraged war, the more would civilisation advance throughout the world.

observed, that both humanity and economy might recommend the use of such weapons as that invented by Mr. Warner.

, seeing the noble Lord the Secretary of State in his place, wished to ask him a question. He observed in the estimates which the House voted the other night a sum of money charged as paid to a Dr. Madden towards the expenses of a mission to the west coast of Africa. He understood that gentleman had returned to this country, and, after a very short stay in Africa, had made a very long report to Government. The question he wished to ask the noble Lord was simply this, when we might expect to see that report laid on the Table of the House?

said, that Dr. Madden having been sent out as a commissioner by the late Government to make various inquiries of a confidential nature with reference to the state of our settlements on the western coast of Africa had furnished four reports, one relating to Sierra Leone, another to the Gambia, and another to the Gold Coast. The fourth was confined exclusively to medical subjects. To the production of that he believed there was no objection; but the other three treated of matters of the greatest importance and secrecy, of matters connected with individuals, affecting our foreign policy, and our relations with the trade legally and illegally carried on on the coast of Africa. In the present position of the Government he should not feel himself warranted in laying on the Table of the House, the whole of these matters, but he could assure the hon. Member that they were under the most anxious consideration of her Majesty's Government.

begged to ask the hon. Member for Sheffield whether he was prepared to state to the House the name and address of the Poor-law guardian with whom he said in his speech the night before he had held a conversation in which his (Mr. Wakley's) name had been introduced.

was not prepared to do so. He gave his word to the House that the conversation was as he had stated it. It took place six months ago, and it was very improbable that the Gentleman would give permission to have his name mentioned.

had no objection to the course taken by the hon. Member, if the House thought fit that Members should State conversations which they had held with parties, those conversations involving calumnies of the most atrocious kind against other Members of the House. If this was to be permitted, he was content to yield to such a species of warfare. If he was to be attacked by unfair weapons, and the use of them was considered quite correct, lawful, and parliamentary, he presumed he would be admitted to defend himself with weapons of a similar description. The hon. Member for Sheffield, in stating, the conversation last night, admitted that the language was not respectful with regard to him (Mr. Wakley). Now he (Mr. Wakley) considered the matter of so much importance that, without entertaining any enmity or hostility to the hon. Member—as he trusted he should always be enabled to conduct himself without entertaining such feelings towards a political opponent—he should feel it his duty to sift the matter to the bottom. He felt it due to the character of the House to do so. It was a matter of safety and security with regard to hon. Members. If conversations of the kind he referred to were to be related in that House by persons under no responsibility he should like to know what was the protection for individual character. The hon. Gentleman objected to give the name and address of the guardian with whom the conversation occurred. He begged to know whether the hon. Member would state the name of the union to which that guardian belonged. He would undertake to go to that board, or to write to every Member of it, to ask whether he was the person or not. And if it should so happen that every Member denied having held such a conversation, then they should know in whose honourable and courageous mind the calumnious insinuation originated.

rose, but was interrupted by

, who said he felt it necessary to call the attention of the House, to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury. The rule of the House was, that when an hon. Member stated, in his place in the House, anything which had occurred to him, such a statement was considered to be made upon the honour of the hon. Member. Such a statement was not to be questioned either in the House or out of it. Therefore he had to call the hon. Member for Finsbury to order for making allusion to steps to be taken to question a statement made to the House in the manner referred to.

, with the utmost deference to the observations of the Speaker, hoped he might be permitted to say that there was nothing in the conversation he had repeated which could be called a calumny. There was nothing calumnious in the expression of an opinion, on the part of a member of a board of guardians who had seen the warm and violent speeches made by the hon. Member for Finsbury upon the Poor-law—that he felt great horror at having the interpretation of the new Poor-law left to boards of guardians, when they might have a Wakley at every board, putting his own interpretation on those principles, and forcing others to adopt it by raising an outcry against them if they did not, and denouncing them for inhumanity. Such a person was perfectly entitled to hold such an opinion, and express horror at such a prospect, and there was nothing in it to affect the hon. Member's Parliamentary conduct, or to prevent his discharging his duties in the House in any manner he thought proper. He disclaimed the idea of any calumny, in the matter. But he was connected with three boards of guardians, and after what had fallen from the hon. Member, he was less disposed than ever to give him the name of the person referred to.

was disposed to bow implicitly to the decision of the chair. The hon. Member opposite disclaimed the idea of calumny, but the hon. Member had not quoted all the words he made use of last night.

said, the hon. Member was again out of order. According to the strict rule of the House, he could not refer to a former debate.

Then I do not know how a Member is ever to get an explanation.