rose to move for the production of a return of which he had given notice. He observed, that having on a recent occasion come down to the House in order to discharge a duty and engagement, when from the state of indisposition under which he laboured, and was, indeed, still labouring, he almost sank under the task, he felt, nevertheless, bound to take one more opportunity of pressing upon the attention of the House some remarks in corroboration of what was the undoubted fact—that the dark document which he first laid before it was the foundation of the subsequent Poor-law, and of all the miseries with which the population of England had been since afflicted. He said, there were various degrees of certainty in the human mind—one kind being called moral certainty—another, mathematical certainty—and so on. He did not know, however, that he ever read of a variable certainty; yet, it was possible, and an instance might be adduced, in which he, for example, might be told by an hon. Member, that he did not know whether a certain document for which he asked now existed. Then, that hon. Member might have a faint recollection of it. Then, this faint recollection might expand into certainty. At last, he might know all about it — that it had been given in a confidential way to a gentleman with whom he once was connected, but who was now dead; and that therefore, he was guilty of a breach of confidence in bringing it before the House. He would, however, take this statement, only giving; a caution against the introduction of Other people's names, lest he should be forced to follow the example. Once more, he declared, that he he did not know whence he had it, and that it must have lain by him several years; nor was he aware he had it till just before the Session commenced. So far from any blame being imputable to him for exposing it, he should but have participated in the guilt of those who planned and penned it if he had concealed it. "Why, Sir (said Mr. Walter), what do men mean by confidence in an affair of this kind? Confidence is an honourable feeling both in him who entertains it, and in him towards whom it is entertained; but if the object of the confidence be, like this report, in famous, mischievous, Cruel, who but dishonorable men can be bound by it? Detection and exposure are every man's duty. I say this, on the supposition that the detestable production in question was ever confided to me, but to that insinuation I have before replied. I neither know, nor remember, nor believe any such confidence. The report lay by me for years, and was only discovered, taken up, and perused, all accidentally." Then it had been said that the law was not founded upon this secret report of the commission of eight. Their respective contents proved this to be false. They were as like as the instructions for a malignant will, by which the rightful heirs of an estate are to be dispossessed, are to the will itself. To prove this fact a few examples would suffice:—

"After this has been accomplished (says the secret report,) orders may be sent forth directing that after such a date all out-door relief should be given partly in kind; after another period it should be wholly in kind; after another such period it should be gradually diminished in quantity, until that mode of relief was extinguished. From the first the relief should be altered in quality, coarse brown bread being substituted for fine white; and, concurrently with these measures, as to the out-door-poor, a gradual reduction should be made in the diet of the in-door poor."

And again —

"The power of the commissioners should be to reduce allowances, and not to enlarge them."

And now he would show the cautious manner in which these base suggestions were carried out in the avowed report —

"The commissioners should be empowered to fix a maximum of the consumption per head within the workhouses, leaving to the local officers the liberty of reducing it below the maximum if they can safely do so."

Whence again, he asked, sprang the cruel injunction that no relief should be given to the unemployed, able bodied labourers out of the workhouse? "All new applicants for relief (says the secret report) should be at once taken into the workhouse." And Again —

"The Board of Control shall have power, by an order, with such exceptions as shall be thought necessary, to disallow the continuance of relief to the indigent, the aged and the impotent, and in any other mode than in a work house."

The avowed report was full of passages to the same effect. This was the very essence of the existing law. Could this be the work of two independent powers of evil? No. Here was its origin in that dark code of instruction On which, in defiance of fact and common sense, it was asserted that the present law was not founded. It occurred again and again in the dark report, that no relief was to be given out of the workhouses, and with equal frequency was the same atrocious practice enjoined in the derivative law. But further, could anything equal the harsh and unfeeling manner in which the English poor were spoken of in the avowed report? They were described as inferior to savages, and to be amended only by fines, distress warrants, and imprisonment. The following extract from the first instructions to the assistant-commissioners would serve as a specimen of the spirit by which the octovirate, he supposed he might call them were animated —

"It has been supposed that it was to the 43rd of Elizabeth, and to the superintendence which it forced the richer to exercise over the poorer, that we owed the industry, the orderly habits, and the adequation of their numbers to the demand for labour, which within the memory of man distinguished the English labourers; and that the idleness, profligacy, and improvidence which now debase the character and increase the numbers of the population of many of the south-eastern districts, are owing to the changes, partly by statute and partly by practice, to which that law has been subjected. On the other hand, it has been maintained that it is the natural tendency of public relief, however purely and wisely administered, to become a substitute, and a very bad substitute, for private charity on the part of the rich, and industry and forethought on the part of the poor."

"If the conclusions drawn in the House of Commons' report of 1817 be correct,— if it be true, that ' unless an efficacious check he interposed, the amount of assessment will continue, as it has done, to increase, until, at a period move or less remote, according to the progress the evil has already made in different places, it shall have absorbed the profits of the property on which the rate may have been assessed, producing thereby the neglect and ruin of the land, and the waste or removal of other property, to the utter subversion of that happy order of society so long upheld in these kingdoms; '— if the progress of the evil, even during the short period that has elapsed since that report was made, may be traced in the diminished cultivation of the land; the diminution of industry, forethought, and natural affection among the labourers; the conversion of wages from a matter of contract into a matter of right, and of charity itself into a source of discord, and even of hostility; in the accelerated increase of form of profligacy; in fires, riots, and organized and almost treasonable robbery and devastation,—if such be the re presentation which the commissioners have to make to his Majesty, they cannot append to it a suggestion of mere palliative amendments. "

This extract made a part of the text; but now came the general index to the assistant-commissioners' reports. An index was a direction to the contents of the work; and the temper of this work might be accurately though briefly appreciated by reciting a few heads of the index:—

"Poor Laws.—A check to industry, a re ward for improvident marriages, a stimulant. to population, and a blind to its effects on wages.

"Have become a national institution for discountenancing the industrious and honest, and for protecting the idle, the improvident, and the vicious.

"Have become a system for preventing the accumulation of capital, for destroying that which exists, and for reducing the rate-payer to pauperism.

"Paupers.— Generally worthless and profligate, mostly made so by improvidence and vice. The chief receivers of donations from charitable institutions and charitable ladies, on whom they impose.

"Much better off than soldiers.

"Generally made so by vicious habits, and not by unavoidable causes.

"Made by lying-in hospitals, soup kitchens, blanket societies, and permanent charities.

"Disimprove rapidly both in skill and morals. Know accurately the allowance of food in each workhouse and each prison within their district, and try to enter where the largest and best is given.

"In workhouses fare luxuriously compared with the labourers of Ireland or Scotland."

How different this from the language of Lord Ripon which he had before quoted! Was he not justified, then, in stating, that all these commissioners came with their minds as fully bent against the poor as St. Paul was in his unconverted days, when he was described as breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the slandered and humble converts to Christianity? But still they were told that Lord Grey's Government did not adopt this document, though its spirit, as he had shown, was infused into every succeeding one. Why, people who could believe this denial must be Nature's fools, and not the dupes of the Poor-law. He had three proofs exhibiting the character of similar fraud and deception; each succeeding document indicating its parentage and descent from the first, and yet endeavouring to mitigate or cloak its knavery. First, he had a garbled general order with respect to pauper funerals. Next, he had a diet table, which, though it was signed by all the commissioners, was now disavowed, when they found the cruelty it disclosed had awakened public attention; but their preparation of it, and their intent to carry it into execution, were as notorious as any fact could be. Then, he had the evidence taken before the committee on which he himself sat, which evidence was suppressed for no other reason than that, if duly investigated, it would be found to make against the committee itself, to falsify its report, and to disprove the assertions of the Poor-law functionaries. And, after all these proofs, both from fact and analogy, they were told to believe that the secret report was rejected by Lord Grey's Government! Really the amateurs of the New Poor-law arrogated to themselves the privilege of publishing or suppressing — of leaving untouched or changing—whatever they presented to the Parliament of the country. And these were the people who were now taking on them the fabricating a plan of education which was to instil into the rising race the principles of integrity, honesty, fair dealing, and truth! With respect to the charge brought against him of traducing the immortal duke, every one knew how respectfully he had spoken of that illustrious man. But, with all his admiration of him, it would be the excess of sycophancy in him or any one to assert that his Grace came too near to omniscience to be liable to imposition. If, indeed, he had used expressions like the following, as applied not only to the Duke of Wellington, but also to the right hon. Baronet who was now at the head of the Government — that

"He had no confidence in them; that it was impossible to compose a Ministry of worse materials; that their whole lives had been devoted to oppose good Government and to uphold bad."

If, he said, he had used these expressions, and had afterwards taken office under those persons whom he had so severely stigmatized, then he should indeed have rendered himself justly liable to the reproach and derision, not only of that House, but of all the country, and every honest man in it. But that any one who had really used those expressions should venture to reproach another with traducing the duke, did appear to him to transcend the usual bounds of human confidence, or at least to indicate such a want of memory and consistency as must disqualify the man himself from the discharge of any public functions. He concluded with moving for an account of the sums expended in out-door relief to the poor during the years 1841 and 1842, and of the work performed for such expenditure.

said, that the hon. Gentleman at the commencement of his speech complained of his being disqualified by indisposition to address the House; he (Sir James Graham) might, at all events, say, that he was disqualified to answer the hon. Gentleman, and that for the best of all reasons, he had not been able to hear the greater part of the observations which the hon. Gentleman had addressed to the House. Perhaps, however, the circumstance of his not hearing the hon. Gentleman might not be without its advantages, as he had no doubt he should have the opportunity of reading a very accurate re port of what the hon. Gentleman had said, and, if he were to be disposed at a future day to follow the example of the hon. Gentleman by bringing forward the question another time, he should, no doubt, be able to reply to what the hon. Gentleman had now stated. The hon. Gentleman, with great simplicity, had asked the House, "'What was confidence?" And he then proceeded to give a definition of it, which, if, in its philological sense, it did not appear to be very intelligible, in its prac- tical application must be clearly understood by the House. The House had witnessed what was the construction which the hon. Gentleman had put upon the observance of confidence. He could only tell the hon. Gentleman that he entirely differed from the practice which the hon. Gentleman had himself given them an example of upon the subject on which he thought fit to observe; and his hope was, not only that he should never follow the hon. Gentleman in his definition, but that he should equally avoid following the hon. Gentleman in his practical example. On the present occasion, however, he would not be induced by the hon. Gentleman to enter upon a repetition of the arguments he addressed to the House on a former evening. It was enough for him to state, that with respect to the first part of the motion he had not the least objection. He was perfectly willing to present a return of the sums expended in outdoor relief to the poor during the years 1841 and 1842; but with respect to the latter part of the motion, it was entirely out of his power to hold out the least expectation that any such return could be furnished. If an account of the work performed for the sums expended could be given, he was not aware of any reason why it should not be presented, but he did not know of any materials out of which the return could be made.

did not wish to press for more than could be furnished; he should therefore move for the return, contenting himself with so much as could be given.

suggested, that being an amendment on an original motion, the hon. Member should withdraw his motion. Motion withdrawn.

begged to remind the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that on Friday last the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to furnish additional information respecting the opium compensation question.

begged to state, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, that her Majesty's Government could have no other object excepting that of reconciling these two purposes — to do justice to individuals, and at the same time to protect the public purse. It was quite clear that it was the duty of the Government to protect the public purse. They had therefore no objection to lay on the Table of the House the information which they had received from India I with respect to the cost price of this opium at the time when it was seized. Before they proceeded to any adjudication upon the rights of the claimants, the House would he in possession of all the information, and be able to form a distinct judgment upon the subject.

regretted that the first time he had (he honour of addressing the House, it should be on an occasion on which he felt himself called on to defend his character from certain observations which had been made by a noble and learned Lord, and late a Lord Chancellor of this country [" Order."]

It is against the rules of the House for any hon. Member to allude directly to the debates which have taken place in the House of Lords.

was anxious to observe the rules of the House; he would therefore say, that he had found it stated in one of the public journals of the country that a noble and learned Lord had observed, that

"The present Lord Townshend was seventy years of age — he was in feeble health — and if he died without his marriage being dissolved, the consequence would be, that the son of Mr. John Margetts, the brewer of Huntingdon, who, first as Mr. John Margetts, jun., then as Lord John Townshend, and now as the Earl of Leicester, would be the root and stirps of a family imposed with an audacity wholly unparalleled in the history of fraud and deceit."

Now, he should not have risen to take notice of these words, were it not that, as a Member of the House, he thought it was right that he should set himself free from those charges, for the purpose of giving satisfaction to the House, and he thought that if he did not do so, he should be unworthy of a seat in that House. It was not his wish, nor was it his intention on that occasion to enter into the merits of the question now so pain fully in dispute. He would only allude to the motives which he must say, had been most infamously and scandalously attributed to him by a certain noble and learned Lord, for the purpose of setting himself clear of them by some positive denial on his. part. It was most extraordinary that the noble. Lord should come down to the other House of Parliament and make such statements. [" Order, order."] It was extraordinary that any individual— and especially an individual who had been formerly the keeper of the Royal conscience — should act as the noble Lord to whom he referred had acted, and should give decided opinions, upon ex parte statements, without his having any means in his power of proving his assertions. He wished the noble Lord had not given him the painful necessity of rising on the present occasion; he wished that the noble Lord had had the patience to wait till he had heard what could be said pro and con upon the subject, because, of course, what the noble Lord said, must have a prodigious effect on the judgment of the country, considering the situation which the noble Lord had held. It must have an immense effect upon society at large. It had entered into his (the Earl of Leicester's) fancy, though he could hardly believe it — nevertheless it had appeared to him, that there had been something of a partizan or party character in the observation which the noble Lord had made. He was sorry that the noble Lord had made these remarks; but it was well known that the noble Lord was very much in the habit of tarnishing and throwing observations of a painful and aspersing character upon individuals. It appeared to him that private character was of too sacred a nature to be aspersed lightly by any party. He might add, that before he had come into the House, it had occurred to him that he should be better consulting, and more sincerely, his own dignity and character, if he were to take no notice of the observations in question, and if he were to allow such remarks to find their own level, as such observations in the course of time always did. He took this opportunity of imploring the House and the country not to form an opinion on ex parte statements. He ex-expressed his deep sense at the mannered which both that House and the public press had abstained under the present partial view of the ease, from giving utterance to any opinion on a subject that was so peculiarly personal to himself. The noble Lord concluded by beseeching the House and the country to suspend their judgments until all the evidence of the case was properly before them. Question again put.

said, before the House I went into committee of supply, he wished to call its attention to what he conceived to be a very extraordinary breach of its privileges. Last Thursday week, when the hon. Member for Nottingham brought the subject of the Poor-laws under the notice of the House, he thought it his duty to refer to the conduct of Mr. Clements, who was an assistant Poor-law Commissioner in the north of England. He on that occasion was obliged to state that Mr. Clements had, at the board of guardians at Halifax, conducted himself in an insolent and overbearing manner, and that he had treated those who had passed a great number of years in the service of the public, as guardians of the poor, most unbecomingly, in telling them that it was their duty to employ the working classes in cutting down hills, and stating that if the place were five miles from the workhouse, so much the better, as it would keep them out of mischief. Now he found that on Wednesday last, at a meeting of the board of guardians at Halifax, Mr. Clements, the assistant Poor-law Commissioner, was present in his official capacity. At that meeting preliminary steps were taken for the erection of a treadmill in the workhouse of the union, which was to be used as a rag-tearing machine; and a resolution was passed by the board, under the sanction of Mr. Clements, for the purpose of preventing him (Mr. Ferrand) and the public ever after being furnished with an account of the proceedings of that board, it being a resolution for the exclusion of reporters from all future meetings of the board. Moreover, Mr. Clements, who was a public officer, receiving a salary out of the public funds, assisted at the same board for the purpose of passing a resolution condemnatory of his conduct in that House for employing the terms he had used in reference to the conduct of Mr. Clements. Now, he wished to ask hon. Members whether he had not a right to express an opinion upon the conduct of a public officer, who, as an assistant Poor-law Commissioner, had sanctioned the purchase of a hill by a board of guardians, in order that they might employ the poor to cut it down—who had countenanced the erection of a treadmill in the union workhouse, to inflict upon poor men who asked for relief a punishment similar to what was inflicted upon criminals in the public gaols? He would ask whether these proceedings were not calculated to disgust the people, more especially of the north of England, and whe- ther it were not high time for the House to put down the tyranny of the triumvirate at Somerset-house? He had thought it his duty, as a Member of the House, to make this statement, and he should leave any further proceedings upon the question in the hands of the House. It was necessary, he believed, that he should move as an amendment,

"That Mr. Clements be called to the Bar of the House to explain his conduct."

seconded the amendment.

considered, as a matter of form, that it was necessary to lay on the Table of the House the grounds of complaint against the individual who was to be called to the Bar of the House. He did not understand why any individual should be called to the Bar of the House without some reason being assigned.

having the honour of knowing Mr. Clements, felt called upon to say a few words, in reply to the observations made by the hon. Member for Knaresborough. From his (Mr. Ross's) know ledge of the high character of Mr. Clements, he felt confident that that gentleman was entirely incapable of the misconduct which had been imputed to him. On Mr. Clements reading a report of what had been said in the House of Commons respecting his proceedings at Halifax, he wrote a letter to a quarter from which he (Mr. Ross) had learned it, stating that everything which had been alleged by the hon. Member was founded on a statement made by a local newspaper, of a most false and audacious character, and that in con sequence of his calling the attention of the board of guardians of the union of Halifax to it, that board came to a determination, that reporters who could report such false statements should no longer be admitted. If the hon. Member for Nottingham had not seconded the present motion, he (Mr. Ross) should have felt it his duty to have done so, on the part of Mr. Clements himself, because that gentleman was exceedingly desirous that everything should be known by the House with regard to his conduct and character.

wished, in explanation, to say that the hon. Member for Belfast had misunderstood him, if he thought that he (Mr. Ferrand) meant to make any attack upon, or misrepresentation of, the character of Mr. Clements. He had but referred to the public conduct of an officer of the Government on an occasion of his assisting at a board of guardians, when a vote of censure had been passed by them upon his (Mr. Ferrand's) conduct as a Member of that House.

would certainly support the motion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, as he conceived that Mr. Clements had much overstepped his duty in bringing forward a motion to censure the hon. Member.

said, on a former occasion the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ross) had declared that he knew Mr. Clements, and that he believed him to be incapable of the conduct imputed to him. He (Sir J. Graham) certainly did, on a former occasion, express his regret that such imputations should have been made. He stated, at the time, that it did appear to be a great stretch of the privilege of the House, that any hon. Member, speaking of a Gentleman in his absence, should use an expression so strong, and as he believed so unjustifiable, as that which fell from the hon. Member for Knaresborough. He knew nothing but what he had heard from the hon. Member respecting this case; but, as he understood it, the hon. Member for Sussex (Colonel Wyndham) had misunderstood what had fallen from the hon. Member for Knaresborough. Mr. Clements made no motion whatever respecting the conduct of the hon. Member for Knares-borough. In the discharge of his duty, Mr. Clements had the opportunity of at tending the board of guardians, when the topic now before the House was discussed by them; and taking their own view of the matter, they thought that the expression of the hon. Member was not justified by the demeanour or the conduct of Mr. Clements. Though technically it might be a breach of privilege to notice what took place in the House of Commons, yet those guardians having known Mr. Clements, which the hon. Gentleman had not—they having seen him in the execution of his duty, which the hon. Gentleman had not — they knowing perfectly well his conduct, which the hon. Gentleman knew only by hearsay—came to a resolution directly negativing the assertion of the hon. Gentleman, namely, that the conduct of Mr. Clements was insolent and unjustifiable. The brunt of Mr. Clements' offence, as it appeared to him was, that when the resolution was put he did not withdraw. He could not conceive that Mr. Clements offence could be carried further. Now, he could not say, that, according to the doctrine of privilege, Mr. Clements might not have acted somewhat irregularly when such a resolution was put by the Board, in not withdrawing. It was possible he might have acted irregularly: he did not mean to say, that such was his opinion; but, as far as the present question was concerned, he was quite prepared now, at the present moment, while not attaching too much confidence to the hon. Member for accuracy, yet, taking the hon. Gentleman's statement as it now stood, he (Sir James Graham) was quite prepared to come to a vote, that it was not expedient to carry this matter further, and to support the motion that the original words should stand part of the question.

rose to explain: When he should have been a public character as long as the right hon. Baronet had [cries of " Order, order—explain!"]

The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to explanation.

The right hon. Baronet stated that, without placing too much confidence in what I had stated, he should resist the present amendment [" Order."] I have risen only to explain. The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I stated [" Order]. The board of guardians at Halifax was not convened specially for the purpose of passing the resolution condemnatory of what I stated in this House; but this resolution was brought forward by a Member of that Board without any notice being given to any of the other Members, and what I complain of is, that Mr. Clements, as an assistant Poor-law Commissioner sat at that Board, and assisted at the passing a resolution respecting words used by me as a Member of this House, and reflecting upon my character.

said, it had been stated by the hon. Member for Knaresborough that Mr. Clements, the Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, had, in conjunction with the board of guardians of Halifax, taken preliminary measures for erecting in the union workhouse at that place a treadmill, in order to carry out the labour test. He wished to ask, whether the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department was cognizant of the adoption of such a resolution as that to which the hon. Member for Knaresborough had referred, or whether he was aware that such preliminary steps had been taken?—and, if so, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he approved the proceeding?

said, about an hour before he came down to the House, he received a notification from the hon. Member for Knaresborough of his intention to ask whether it was intended that a treadmill should be erected in the work house at Halifax. He (Sir J. Graham) had barely had time to communicate with the Poor-law Commissioners on the subject. He had, however, immediately despatched a messenger to the commissioners, and he had received from them an assurance that the hon. Member for Knares borough had been misinformed, and that no intention existed of erecting a treadmill in the workhouse. He (Sir J. Graham) was informed that the guardians intended to erect a hand mill — a mill for the grinding of corn, worked by hand, and he understood that mills of this description were not unfrequently adopted in workhouses. He conceived that the erection of a treadmill in a workhouse would be a most unjustifiable measure, and he was convinced that in this particular in stance no such intention existed.

had observed in some of the public prints, a statement that it was the intention of the Government to erect new stables at Claremont, at an expenditure of 30,000l. or 40,000l.. of the public money. He hoped that no such intention existed, and he begged to ask whether there was any foundation for the statement?

said, that no intention was entertained of building stables at the public cost. The trustees who had been appointed to superintend the property were about to build new stables in the place of the old ones, but the expense of the erection would be defrayed from the funds at the disposal of the trustees, and not from the public purse.

understood that the sum surrendered by the King of the Belgians, when he quitted this country, was paid into the public treasury. He wished to know whether or not that was the case?

said that trustees—of whom he had the honour to be one—had been appointed to superintend the payment of certain annuities, and to see that the buildings at Claremont were maintain ed in tenantable repair. After the payment of the annuities, and of the expenses of repairs, the balance of the sum voted to His Majesty the King of the Belgians was paid over to the public treasury—the amount so paid varying from 32,000l. to 36,000l.. A sum not exceeding 6,000,l. a year was appropriated to the repair of the premises; and the expense of the alterations now in progress would be de frayed from that sum.

said, the hon. Member for Montrose had stated, on the authority of the newspaper, that the cost of the buildings in course of erection at Claremont would amount to 30,000l.. or 40,000l. He begged to inform the hon. Member that the expenditure for this purpose was not to exceed 6,000l..

wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but, before doing so, he would, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, take that opportunity of stating, that he had himself delivered at half-past 12 o'clock, the note he had addressed to the right hon. Baronet, intimating his intention of putting a question as to the erection of a treadmill in the workhouse at Halifax. The letter was, therefore, delivered three hours and a half before the right hon. Baronet came down to the House. The House was aware that a cotton-spinner in Yorkshire had been convicted of monstrous cruelty to his workpeople; and about three weeks ago he moved for some documents, for the purpose of showing that the board of guardians of Skipton had entered into an arrangement with this cotton-spinner to supply him with hands from the union workhouse. The right hon. Baronet then stated that the Poor law Commissioners were not acquainted with the circumstances of the case. The report of the factory inspectors had since been laid on the Table of the House, and any hon. Member who perused that report must be horror-struck at the manner in which the man to whom he referred had treated his hands. It appeared, that in May, 1842, this man was supplied with about twenty hands out of the Skipton workhouse. Three of them were cripples, almost unable to walk, and they were taken away in a cart. Three or four of them were orphans, who bad no protectors. He wished to ask whether, after the statements which he had made on a former occasion, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had thought it his duty to institute any inquiry as to the truth of those statements, and, if so, what had been the result?

said, that in consequence of the report to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, and in consequence of a return as to a conviction made in conformity with the motion of another hon. Member, he had suggested to the Poor-law Commissioners the propriety of instituting an inquiry on the subject, and that inquiry was not yet concluded.

said he understood, that by the recent treaty, this country had agreed to reduce its naval establishments on the American lakes. He wished to know whether or not it was intended to carry that agreement into effect?

said, it was the intention of the Government to carry out the provision of the treaty to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Vote agreed to. On the question that a sum not exceeding 591,951l. be granted for defraying the wages of artificers, labourers, and others employed in her Majesty's establishments at home,

wished to know whether any plan had been adopted for preventing difficulty or mistake in forwarding the yards and spars required for the outfit or repair of ships of different classes. He thought the establishment of a naval museum would be a beneficial measure. There was a vast number of naval models lying in Somerset-house, which had hitherto been neglected.

said, that a classification of spars and yards was at present always adopted in the dockyards. He doubted whether the establishment of a naval museum would be of benefit to the public.

said, that the charge in this vote was too great, unless it was intended to continue building ships of a large class. He wished to see iron ships of war used.

said, there was one iron vessel afloat, and another iron steamer had been ordered by the Admiralty. A vote of 37,490l.. for wages to artificers &c, employed in her Majesty's establishments abroad was agreed to.

said, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), when at the Admiralty, had greatly reduced the amount of stores kept on hand. That plan had been acted on for a number of years; but he feared they were now about to resume the old and bad practice of buying articles to lie and rot in the yards. He wished to know, if it were possible to have a comparative statement of the amount of stores after the right hon. Baronet had made his reductions and the present time. He objected to going on increasing the stores on hand.

said, that it must be remembered that a certain class of naval stores could not be supplied in a short time. It was necessary to have on hand a stock of these stores. He had never consented to lay on the Table a comparative statement of the kind asked for by the hon. Gentleman, as the hon. Gentle man seemed to think. He did not consider it would be expedient to do so. Vote agreed to. On the vote of 234,868l.. for new works, improvements and repairs in the dockyards, &c,

objected that the vote was greater than last year by 40,000l.. The sum required for repairs at Portsmouth could not be required. He particularly objected to the sum of 168,000l. being laid out in building three new slips there. He objected also to the erection of new barracks for the marines at Chatham, which in the present distressed state of the country, was an unnecessary and lavish waste of public money.

said, that the slips were the continuation of works that had been determined to be necessary last year, and the adoption of the method of slips for ship-building had led to a great saving to the public. With respect to Chatham, owing to so many ships being paid off, the marines wanted accommodation, and it was thought better to have them in barracks than quartered in public-houses as heretofore.

said, there was a species of extravagance in voting 80,000l. for buildings to accommodate 900 men.

thought the best way to accommodate the marines was to discharge them. He thought no reason had been given for the vote of this money for barracks.

regarded the barracks to be necessary and he should support the vote for building them.

thought 80,000l. an exorbitant demand for the accommodation of 1,000 men, more especially when Government itself was of opinion the sum could be reduced. He would, therefore, suggest the propriety of part.

said, that 10,0002l. was for the purchase of the ground, and the other 70,000l. was taken as a rough guess at the expense of the building,

was of opinion that the pre sent estimate ought to be withdrawn, and an amended one made. He saw in it 25,000l. for repairs and constructions at Grbraltar, Malta and Halifax, and 12,000l. for repairs at Bermuda which he under stood had been already complete.

thought 234,868l. too large a sum for new works, improvements, and repairs in the yard.

said, as respected the building of marine barracks, he was aware of the advantage of having the marines well housed and lodged, but the proposed sum was a very large one, and he hoped greater attention would be paid to economy in these matters than was formerly the practice.

on looking at the distress which prevailed through the country, could not consent to such lavish expendi- ture, and would, therefore, propose to reduce the vote 10,000l..

asked why every pro- motion did not appear in the Gazette, as in the case of promotions in the army? That would tend, if any thing could, to check the system of promotion now going on. The officers on half-pay were receiving from 45 to 50 per cent, more than those on active service. In the present financial condition of the country that was not a state of things to be permitted.

agreed with the hon. Member that constant publicity was the real check to the power of promotion, and he supposed the hon. Member's object was to obtain that publicity. Now, it was given to a considerable extent in the Gazette. But there was a constant periodical publication of promotions at a great expense. There was published quarterly and on authority, the Navy List, on a reference to which the hon. Member could institute a most minute and relative comparison as to the annual amount of pro motions, from 1820 to the present time. Information could not be given in a more minute or tangible form than it was in that publication.

was aware of that; but the Navy List must be purchased like any other book.

observed that the Gazette was not distributed gratuitously. It must be purchased too, although it was the custom to publish its contents in newspapers.

contended that the navy promotions, as well as those of the army, should be published in the Gazette, in order that they might obtain a similar publicity in newspapers. Vote agreed to. On the vote for 498,702l., to defray the charge of military pensions and allowances, being put,

said, though it was invidious to object to any name that appeared in this vote, yet he could not avoid adverting to one — that of the hon. Captain Walde-grave. It appeared he entered the navy in 1801, was made lieutenant in 1806 (which was before his turn), commander in 1809, and captain in 1811; so that in all he had been but nine years in the service. On what grounds could this officer be entitled?

observed, that Captain Waldegrave, besides having commanded one of the ships at Acre, had served actively during the whole of the time he had been afloat, and than that gallant officer no man in the service bore a higher character.

said, he observed in this vote an item of 212,000l. for the out-pensioners of Greenwich Hospital. Now, that institution had considerable property in Cumberland and elsewhere to support it. That property, he must say, was greatly mismanaged, or it would not be necessary to come to Parliament to supply the deficiency necessary to support the establishment. Part of the property belonging to the hospital had been sold, and to avoid mismanagement it would be well if all of it was sold, and the proceeds invested in public securities.

thought that the hon. Member, in making these observations upon the present vote, was misled by the introduction into it of a vote of money, for the purposes of the out-pensioners of Greenwich Hospital. These were persons who, in fact, had no claim upon the hospital now, but who were in the same position as military pensioners of the same grade. Their pensions having been once, payable through Greenwich Hospital accounted for the name of that establishment being used. He would, however, answer the observations of the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman had reflected upon the management of the property of Greenwich Hospital. He believed that the gentleman to whom that management was entrusted had been appointed by him during the Government of Lord Grey; that his name was Grey, and that he was a person commanding, on all agricultural subjects, the greatest degree of public confidence. He had had the greatest possible experience, and was peculiarly conversant with the question to which his attention was directed; and his impression was, that there was no part of the north of England in which farming land was better managed. Any information which he had received was altogether opposed to that of the hon. Gentleman; for he was told that the estates were admirably managed, with the greatest economy and skill, and that the land was as profitable as any land in the part of the country where it was situated. With regard to the proposition of the hon. Member for the sale of the whole estate, he would observe that he had some time ago brought before the House, and carried a proposition for the sale of some detached parts of the estate, and this measure had been carried out. He did not think it advisable, however, to come to Parliament with a proposition for selling the whole of the estate, because he thought that the continuance of the land in the possession of the hospital formed the best security for, and was most conducive to the steady and firm maintenance of this great naval and charitable institution.

thought that it was hardly consistent for a Minister of the Crown to say, that even landed property was more secure than the securities which were sustained by the public credit. He still advocated the sale of these estates and the investment of the money. Vote agreed to. On the question that 245,429l. be granted to defray the charge of transports for the conveyance of troops and stores,

had on a former evening shortly referred to the step which, it appeared, had been taken by the Board of Admiralty, of sending out troops in line-of-battle ships instead of in transports, and he would now beg to say a few words more on this subject. As he had been informed, the Government had taken the course of sending out troops by two line-of-battle ships (the Rodney and the Thunderer), although this mode of conveyance was far more expensive than that of employing merchant vessels, and far less convenient, inasmuch as merchant vessels were always ready for the service; whereas, as in the case of the Rodney, men of war had to be sent for, perhaps from distant places, and had, further, to be got ready for the particular service by taking out the lower deck guns, and so on. It did not appear that any objection was made by the Government to the employment of merchant vessels, on the score that they were not fit for the service, while to the principle of employing men-of-war in their stead, it seemed to him that there were several objections. In the first place, he did not see any possible advantage in it; while they were employed in this service they could not be used as men-of-war, the lower deck guns were taken out and so on, and they could not be considered as any additions to the naval force of the country. The mere circumstance that a certain additional number of officers might thus, perhaps, be actively employed, did not counterbalance the many disadvantages. As to the expense, it was enormously increased by the substitution of men-of-war for merchant transports. It was, in fact, increased to five times the amount; whereas the conveyance of a thousand troops by transports would only cost between 8,000l. and 10,000l., the conveyance of the same number of troops by a man-of-war would amount to no less than 40,000l.. and upwards; so that here was a loss of more than 30,000l. to the public. Another objection was, that, as he had been informed by a high naval authority, the sending a large body of soldiers any distance along with sailors of the royal navy, was, in a very high degree, prejudicial to the discipline of both services, and, in many respects, detrimental to both soldiers and seamen. Another objection to the use of men-of-war for this service was, that the men were crowded together in much too small a space, and the ventilation was greatly impeded, for a greater part of the men slept under the water line. This was so much the case, that there had been found a most remarkable difference between the health of troops conveyed out to a foreign station in men-of-war, as compared with that of troops who were sent out in transports.

said, that, as to the objection of expense, it did not apply to the cases mentioned, or generally to ships-of-war in commission, where the expense, of course, had already been incurred. He had no particular objection to the transport ships themselves, he believed that the generality of them which had been taken up of late were very commodious and comfortable vessels; but it appeared to him that when ships of war were lying with their men in, the taking out their lower deck guns, and sending them to perform this sort of service, instead of lying idle and doing nothing, was rather a saving of expense than otherwise. With reference to the general question, it was well known that there was a class of ships called troop ships, the employment of which was, no doubt, much better than the employing men-of-war for this service; a great number of these vessels were now in China, and when they returned home, he believed it would be found that Government had a sufficient number of them to do all the work in this department of the public service, without employing either ships of war or transports.

said that the gallant Officer put forward as the defence of the Government in this matter, that there were a number of ships in commission doing nothing; if so, they ought to come home and be laid up. As to the Rodney, it would seem that it was not even yet ready for the purpose to which it was to be applied. The employment of men-of-war in a case of emergency, such as that under which three such ships had been sent out with troops to China, was all very proper; but as to the Rodney, which was not yet gone, the question Was, why the conveyance of a thousand troops by that ship should cost the country 43,000l., when the same service could be done by trans port ships for 8,000l. or 10,000l. The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster the other night spoke of transport vessels as though they were not sea-worthy. He begged to ask the hon. and gallant Member whether more men-of-war had not foundered than transport ships? As to the comparative speed of the two modes of conveyance, experience had shown, in the particular cases of three men-of-war and three transport ships conveying troops to China, that while the average time occupied in the voyage by the ships of war was 165 days, the average time occupied by the transport ships was only 133.

explained that the reason why the Rodney had not sailed was, that the cavalry regiment which it was to convey was not ready.

had on two occasions sailed in the command of troops on board men-of-war, and he could state most distinctly that the discipline of the soldiers had not, in either instance, suffered in the slightest degree from their being, and for a considerable time, in company with the seamen. As to transport vessels, they were regarded by the troops with perfect horror, and, as far as his experience went, he must say with considerable justice. He remembered, for instance, that on one voyage he went with troops, on board the India Trader transport, the men were engaged on fatigue parties, hard at work at the pumps, the whole way to Quebec.

believed there was no soldier but would prefer the chance of being shot at in preference to going a voyage in a transport ship. The troops apprehended far more danger from transports than from the enemy.

thought the hon. Member for Montrose had been an advocate for economy; but if on another occasion 187,000l. were voted for the hire of transports for the conveyance of her Majesty's troops, he should feel it his duty to divide the House upon it. While so many ships were in commission, the Government had no right whatever to lay out 6d. in the conveyance of troops. It was much better that line-of-battle ships should carry out troops than lay idle, with grass growing to their bottoms, with the seamen getting deteriorated, and the officers to be not worth their salt. With regard to the discipline of seamen being injured by contact with troops, he never knew an instance of it. The troops, when sent out in transport-ships, were packed more like so many Irish pigs than anything else; and officers in the service, being Members of that House, had often got up in their places and protested against the system.

had experienced the comforts and discomforts to be enjoyed on board transports and men-of-war, and he knew that the troops preferred the latter to the former. After being kept at sea several days, between the Land's-end and Newfoundland, he was shipwrecked with troops under his command, and one-third of the detachment, the women and children, and one-third of the crew, were lost. A good feeling had existed between the two services, but the manner in which the soldiers were treated on board transport-ships was calculated to destroy it.

contended that men-of-war were not so convenient and wholesome for the troops as the transports, because many of them, and frequently all, were put under water, that was to say under the water line. If there were abuses in the transport service that was the fault of the Government, and not of the system, which was a good one if properly carried out. It was impossible that 1,000 persons could be healthy when kept in the close hold of a line-of-battle-ship while crossing the line. He protested against the increased expense of 40,000l.,occasioned by sending out the two men-of-war.

said the additional expense of 40,000l. existed only in the hon. Gentleman's imagination. The two line-of-battle ships would be kept in commission whether they went to the Cape of Good Hope or not. It was better that they should go out than that this money should be lavishly wasted in employing transports, as the hon. Member for Montrose wished. When they got into the tropical climates they would have frequent opportunities of airing the ship, by opening the lower stern and deck ports and the scuttles, if they pleased. All the evils of being on board the line-of-battle ships existed nowhere but in the hon. Member's own most brilliant imagination.

understood that there was no employment for those two ships; if so, they ought to be disposed of, instead of having more money spent upon them to make them serve as transports.

repeated, for the information of the hon. Member, that the ships must be kept in commission, therefore he was mistaken upon the subject of expense. But was there a single Gentleman in the House who ever understood a subject as the hon. Member did?

said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had a very convincing way of expressing himself. He understood that his defence of the Government was, that there was no additional expense to the country, and that because these ships were doing nothing, they were to be employed as proposed. It seemed to him that the common sense view of the case was this—if there were ships of war of no use, if they were doing nothing they should be laid up. But the opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were wider than the imaginations of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, for he saw that a thrill of terror ran through the Treasury bench when the hon. and gallant Gentleman hinted that the ships of the line ought to be employed hereafter only in transporting troops. [" No, no."] He thought hon. Gentlemen had been rather hard upon the transport service, in the sweeping charges they had brought against it, and certainly they might produce very serious effects. No one could doubt that it was a system liable to abuse, and that the Government should guard against abuse; but he would tell hon. Gentlemen that the charges told not against the mercantile marine, but against the official heads of the public departments, who ought to exercise a proper vigilance in the matter.

had said nothing aganist the merchant ships; on the contrary, he was quite ready to give his testimony as to their efficiency, as far as he had observed. As to the ships of war, it was clear that in time of peace, a period which he trusted would be of long continuance, there was nothing for the navy to do, but to keep in readiness in case its services were needed. Vote agreed to. On the question that 100,335l. be granted for the expense of convict ships,

wished to call the attention of the Government to the accidents which had happened to several convict ships. He was not satisfied that great blame did not attach to the surveyors or examiners of those ships.

was not prepared to say what particular precaution could be taken to prevent a ship driving from her anchor in a tempest, nor was he aware that any convict ship had foundered at sea for many years past. As to ships going to pieces, when they struck upon a rock or upon a shoal, it was impossible to prevent this, build them ever so strongly. He must say, however, that the convict-ship which ran ashore at the Cape was found to have been in a very bad condition.

was understood to suggest that a regular establishment of ships, attached to the service, to be employed in rotation, should be kept ready for the transport of troops and convicts. The plan would give employment to junior post-captains, who were always anxious to be afloat.

observed, that although the ships of the line would be proud to convey her Majesty's troops, there would naturally be some little delicacy felt in the navy with regard to a certain class of persons called convicts. Vote agreed to. The next vote was for 429,202l. to defray the charges under the Post-office department of the contract packet service.

said, that there were many items in these charges which appeared to him to be objectionable. There was the sum of 240,000l. for the West India mails, which he took to be a contract between the Government and the Royal West India Packet Company. Many complaints had been made of the irregularity of the mails. Fifty-four days nineteen hours out and home was the time allowed, including the collection of passengers and correspondence, for the voyage. It appeared from a report which he held in his hand, that the packet which sailed on the 1st of October took sixty-five days, which made her overdue ten days. The packet which sailed on the 1.5tb of October took sixty eight days, which made a loss of thirteen days; the packet which started on the 1st of November took sixty-two days, being a loss of seven days; the packet sailing on the 15th of November was out seventy days, showing a loss of 15 days; the packet which sailed on the 1st of December took sixty-nine days, losing fourteen days; and the packet which sailed on the 15th of December, took seventy-one days, being overdue as many as sixteen days. These delays were of serious consequence to the public, and frequently occasioned great loss to the commercial community. He believed that some new arrangements had been lately entered into on the part of the Government; and he was anxious to inquire whether they were such as to insure greater regularity in future? The contract he believed, had been ruinous to the company, which, however, in itself, was not well managed. The contract had been too hastily agreed to. The present state of things was by no means satisfactory, and he hoped that this service would be made fully efficient.

was fully aware that a great many complaints had been made about the West India mails; but it must be taken into consideration that the scheme was most gigantic and complicated, and that there was no possibility except by experience of judging how the routes would answer. The company certainly had met with very serious losses, and that because the scheme of routes was so very extensive; unless some reduction was made in the amount of work to be performed, it would be impossible for the company to go on with the first contract. A larger payment was therefore contemplated, and a different line of routes had been proposed, and at the expiration of the present contract, at the end of this month, a new scheme would be adopted, by which he hoped that the company would be put on a better footing, and the communications be made more regularly.

said, there was another point in connexion with these Post-office communications that was not undeserving: attention. Our communications with the Levant were less perfect than those of our neighbours. France sent three steamers to the Levant monthly, whilst we had only one. It was desirable, too, that we should extend our steam communication with the northern parts of Syria. With Beyrout there was already a com- munication, but our intercourse with Scanderoon and the northern parts of Syria was exceedingly irregular. We ought, too, he thought, to extend our communication with the Black Sea. It was highly important that such a country as this should have the means of communicating through Constantinople with the Euxine. He believed that a proposition had been submitted to her Majesty's Government on some of these points; and he should be glad to know whether it was intended to take any steps with a view to acting on such proposals?

said, it was perfectly true that a proposition had been submitted to the Government, having for its object to establish a communication from Malta, Constantinople, and with Syria. That proposition was under consideration, and, in a short time, he had no doubt, but that he should be enabled to inform the hon. Member what was the decision at which they had arrived.

had understood that the Swedish Government had made an offer to facilitate the communication between this country and Sweden, and further that they had proposed to take on themselves a considerable proportion of the expense of such communication. He should be glad to know whether the Government had any intention of increasing the facilities of intercourse with that country?

replied, that the question put by the hon. Member was not one which he could at that moment satisfactorily answer.

made an observation which was nearly inaudible as to the great increase in the vote for Post-office purposes.

said, that undoubtedly the introduction of steam had caused a great addition to the expenses of communication, but that the public gained in time what they lost in money.

thought that the increased facilities of our communication with India would alone almost warrant the additional expenditure. We could now communicate with Bomby in less than thirty days; and certainly in the present, and what was likely to be the future state of India, it was highly important that that communication should be maintained.

said, that in rising to bring these estimates under consideration he should not detain the House for any length of time. The estimates for the present year had been framed with a strict regard to economy, and he was happy to state that they presented a great diminution upon those of last year. That diminution indeed, amounted to not less than 258,129l., and he believed he might say that had it not been for the calamitous fire which occurred at the Tower, and which had entailed a heavy extra expenditure, there would have appeared on the face of the returns a diminution of not less than 100,000l. in addition to the amount he had stated. Before, however, he went into particulars he desired to call the attention of the House to a matter on which some comments had been made by two hon. Members within its walls. He referred to the statements which had been made as to the condition of the old flint muskets. Several singular statements had been made on this subject. An hon. Member had said that on board a certain vessel scarcely one musket would go off except at half-cock. As soon as he (Captain Boldero) heard that assertion he decided on sending an ordnance inspector to examine the muskets of the ship in question. That inspector had gone down to Portsmouth and had made a report. He stated that the chest of muskets was brought on shore at twelve o'clock on the day of the arrival of the ship in question—that it was opened in his presence—that he found it to contain eighty-seven muskets with regular flint locks, thirty-five of the Indian pattern and had ten of the altered Indian pattern, being 132 in all; that of those 132, five muskets had had their cocks broken by violence, no doubt by accident, and that the rest were perfectly sound, only that about twenty had seen more service than the rest. The inspector put aside the five which were broken, and collected the 127 to be cleaned and freed from dirt, putting in new flints where they were wanted. No repairs were made to any of them, and by half past one o'clock the same day they were put into the hands of a party of the Royal Artillery, who fired three rounds from them in the presence of the inspector and their officers. The result was, that of the three rounds fired, two muskets missed in the first round, three in the second round, five in the third round, and six in the fourth round, being sixteen casualties out of 381 rounds from these flint muskets fired, as he said before, in a dirty and neglected state. These muskets were then tried at half-cock, and none of them were found to go off; so that the assertion of the hon. Member to that effect was evidently not borne out, and the circumstance he detailed, if it even occurred at all, must have arisen from the muskets not being kept clean on board the ship, and not, as had been insinuated, from the inefficiency of the fire-arms themselves. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Carlow on the same subject, he would tell that hon. Member what was the condition of the musketry of his own regiment. He believed the hon. Member belonged to the 32nd foot. [Captain Layard: I have that honour.] He would give that hon. Member an account of the state of the fire-arms in that regiment. The last official report stated that the arms of the 32nd were in a serviceable condition—quite clean, and in a fit state to be used. Now with regard to the new muskets. The percussion principle was first introduced into the British army under the auspices of the late lamented Master-general. Lord Vivian, however, took four years to consider and test the merits of these muskets before he ventured to sanction their introduction. He knew, no doubt, the dangers of too suddenly changing the arms of the British soldier, and he took time to consider the advantage which would be gained from the introduction of the percussion lock, as well as the comparative merits of the other designs which were submitted to him. The result was, that he at last decided that no better system could be invented, and in 1839 he accordingly brought the percussion into use. He might here mention, as worthy of observation, that since the last peace, a period of now nearly thirty years, not a single musket had been purchased by the Government. The establishment at Enfield had been abolished, but it was re-established by that distinguished officer, the late Master-general, and in combination with the Tower of London and the Government establishment at Birmingham, enabled the ordnance to construct 1,000 muskets a-week. It was said by some that these muskets were not made with care, and that new inventions and improvements were not subjected to a fair test. Now, it was a fact, that no less than eighty-four specimens of improvements and inventions had been within the last five years submitted to the Government. In every case these specimens had been sent down to Woolwich, and subjected to a test by competent judges at the Arsenal, who had hitherto found that nothing superior to the percussion had been designed. But, as he was saying, 1,000 of these muskets could be manufactured with ease in a-week. He believed, that if it were necessary, they could extend the power of manufacturing to 2,000 a-week, and that if an imperative necessity should arise — which God forbid, they might make as many per diem as they now made per week. The muskets, in that case, would not of course be so highly finished as they now were, but, although deteriorated in value, they would be equally secure. But now he had to state how far the percussion muskets had been introduced into use in our army. At present-fifty-one regiments were possessed of them; the coast-guard and the constabularly force used them to the exclusion of all others, and they were also used by all the cavalry and rifle regiments, with the exception of the Canadian regiment just raised, which would however be supplied with them in the course of three months. He would just run over the different votes, and point out the different alterations which had been made in them since last year. The first vote was for the civil service of the Ordnance, including the Tower, the office at Pall-mall, the departments at Woolwich, the out stations of the United Kingdom, and the foreign stations. In this vote there was a small increase of 3,034l., arising from an increase in the pay of the junior branches of the service. The next vote was for the Royal Engineers, Sappers and Miners, and in this, too, there was a small increase of 1,572l.,arising from more officers being employed. In the third vote, for the Royal Artillery, the charge this year was 6,688l. less than last year, which was the consequence chiefly of 300 men being employed less this year than the last. He had to inform the House that a body of African gunners had been added to the artillery in Jamaica, which had been found remarkably serviceable. He thought it right to state to the House, on the authority of Colonel Rudyard, from whom the hon. Member quoted a report, dated November 14, 1842, that the body had answered ex- tremely well, It was very creditable to Colonel Rudyard. He had also the satisfaction of stating that the mortality amongst our troops at Jamaica had considerably diminished, it having been by the last returns not more than 2 per cent., and there were very few persons in the hospital. The fourth vote, "The Salaries to Barrack-masters in the United Kingdom and on Foreign Stations," was about the same as last year, and required no remarks. The fifth vote concerned the important works which had been begun by the late Government, and were considered necessary by the present Government for the permanent accommodation of our troops in different places in the manufacturing districts. The temporary barracks had been found both inconvenient and extravagant; and the late Government had resolved on erecting permanent barracks, which the present Government approved of. In 1839 there had been voted for this purpose 10,000l.; in 1840, 12,000l.; last year 30,000l., and this year 45,000l. He had himself inspected the state of our barracks last year, and he had found them in some places extremely bad. At Bolton he found the temporary barracks quite disgraceful. In a room seventy-two feet long by thirty-six broad, and twelve high, he had found forty-eight soldiers crowded, and the smoke was so thick that he could not see them. The barracks were so bad, that he had recommended that the troops should be withdrawn, if better accommodation for them could not be obtained; and when the inhabitants were threatened with the withdrawal of the troops, they provided a better temporary barracks for them. He believed it was necessary for the safety of the troops to build a barrack for them, for on one occasion a plot had been laid to seize the arms of the soldiers, which might have caused great mischief. To have a secure place for the soldiers, therefore, apart from the people, would prevent bloodshed. At the same time, there would be a considerable saving of money, for at present a large sum annually was expended in providing very imperfect accommodation. The sixth vote showed a small decrease of 13,937l. The seventh vote, relative to stores, showed a great diminution, no less than 81,804l. The eighth vote he passed by, under the head of unprovided. Under the ninth vote, that for superannuations, there was a decrease of 1,983l., as compared to last year, in consequence of the falling in of some superannuated allowances. In the tenth vote, for the commissariat supplies of the United Kingdom, there was a diminution of 24,721l. He had now gone through all the votes briefly, without departing from the subject immediately before the committee, and he would conclude by moving, that the sum of 124,861l. be voted to her Majesty for the salaries of the officers of Ordnance civil establishments at the Tower, Pall-mall, Woolwich, the out stations in the United Kingdom, and at foreign stations.

was not disposed to find fault with the reductions announced by the hon. Member, but he thought they ought to have been greater. We were now returning from a state of war—for we had been at war—to a state of peace, and he, therefore, saw no reason for keeping up such large establishments. He saw by the votes that they still kept up the establishments at Pall-mall and the Tower, and they would save a great deal if they would place all the stores in the Tower, and have only one office. He objected also to the ordnance being a department of itself, and thought that it should be regulated here as in all other countries. In Russia, in France, in Belgium, the military branch of the ordnance was placed under the commander-in-chief, and formed part of the army. So it ought to be here. Our ordnance establishment should be divided: the military branch of it should be placed under the commander-in-chief, the civil branch should be a mere store department; and, if that plan were adopted, he was sure they might save one-third of the present expense. He was of opinion also, that in general the Government should contract for stores, instead of buying them. He did not object to the establishment at Enfield, because the Government, it was said, could not get good muskets, unless it made them—could not get them elsewhere; but there were no other stores, he believed, but what might be purchased cheaper than they could be made. He objected also to the immense sums expended in our colonies, which ought to provide for their own defence. Within a few years full 15,000,000l. had been expended under this head, and it was time that this source of expenditure should be got rid of. He did not wish to give the committee the trouble of dividing, but thought it right to state his opinion.

thought that most of the reductions mentioned by the hon. Member were temporary, and there was nothing to assure him that the votes might not be increased quite as much next year as they were reduced this year. One great reduction was in stores, but next year they might be called on to make up a deficiency of stores. Since 1826 not less than 2,000,000l. had been expended in bar-racks, and this was, he thought, a most monstrous outlay. Gentlemen talked of the necessity of making the soldiers comfortable, but they ought to think also of the people. The hon. Member who had visited the barracks at Bolton should have examined the condition of the people, and lie would have found that the people who had to pay the taxes, and whose industry, in fact, paid them, were destitute of all the comforts of life. They had neither good dwellings, sufficient clothing, nor enough food. The soldiers, in fact, were a great deal more comfortable than the working classes. At Liverpool alone he believed that not less than 5,000 families dwelt in cold damp cellars, such as no soldiers were suffered to inhabit. He thought the expense of barrack-masters actually uncalled for, and he should divide the committee on that question. The hon. Member's reduction, too, was overstated, or the whole amount in fact only came to 3,900l.

wished that the cost of making arms at the Government establishments might be detailed, that the House might know how the large sum voted for this purpose was expended. Two millions were expended on these matters, and the House ought to know how it was applied. The country was broken down by the enormous expenditure of the Government, when there was no trade; and he thought at the present time they should think more of the people and less of our establishments.

called the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the circumstance that officers in barracks were allowed fuel, while those who lived out of barracks were not allowed fuel. This fell very heavy on married officers, and he hoped it would be taken into consideration. He was glad to hear that attention had been paid to provide the army with percussion muskets, and he hoped that the fifty-one regiments which were not yet provided with them would soon receive them,

saw that 1,500l. had been laid out for temporary barracks at Bolton. The inhabitants had offered to provide accommodation for the troops, but the Master-general of the Ordnance had stated that the vicinity of Manchester, and the facility of transporting troops by railroad, rendered it unnecessary. He had, however, made a further communication on the subject, and barracks were provided for troops at Bolton.

denied that the inhabitants of Bolton wished for troops. He could take it on himself to make that statement, and leave the House to judge betwixt him and his hon. Colleague.

, without wishing to interpose between the rival Members for Bolton, could assure the House that he was on the point of recommending the withdrawal of the troops from Bolton, when he received a letter signed by men of property of all parties—he did not say by the populace—requesting that the troops might be allowed to remain, and offering to provide them with accommodation. On that representation the troops were allowed to remain, and instead of temporary accommodation, a permanent barrack was to be provided for them.

observed that in Cork and fifteen other places the offices of storekeeper and barrack-master were filled by the same persons. He wished to know why this was not done in all cases; in Guernsey, for instance, where there were-at present a storekeeper and a clerk, as well as a barrack-master, with five barrack sergeants.

said there were very important stores at Guernsey, which required a storekeeper, who should be a respectable man. In all cases where it was possible to combine the two offices it was the desire of the master-general to do so.

complained of the expense of 10,000l. for the repairs of the Rideau Canal, in Canada —a work of little utility.

said the receipts from tolls were at present 13,000l., leaving a balance of 3,000l. after payment of expenses and repairs.

inquired whether the expense of the establishments for the Ionian Islands was balanced by contributions from thence.

said there was in the army estimates a credit islands for 24,000l.

said the contributions from the islands had fallen much in arrear from a series of unfavourable seasons. With respect to the Rideau Canal, of which the hon. Member for Coventry doubted the utility, the hon. Member should recollect that it was intended to secure a military connection with Upper Canada, and that for that purpose it was absolutely essential.

stated that they had made the commencement of the formation of a geological collection in Whitehall-yard; and next year he hoped that they would be able to continue the geological survey in Ireland. 194,850l. for the ordnance survey, and military and civil contingencies.

stated that the survey of forty-six English counties had been completed, and the triangulation in Scotland.

objected to the organic remains being left in Whitehall court; they ought to be removed to the British Museum.

wished to know if the hon Gentleman desired them to postpone the formation of the collection until they got a large grant of public money for a building. When the collection was formed, it might be a question whether they should not be removed to the British Museum.

wished to have a proper building. He had much rather give twenty or fifty thousand pounds to finish the Museum, than in having the money frittered away in alterations and salaries, that might be saved, and ultimately for no use. What he objected to was extravagance, and never to money being devoted to a useful purpose.

remarked that here there was no money frittered away. 200l. was applied for the alteration in the rooms, but these rooms were applied to public purposes and would be used hereafter.

said, that the hon. and gallant officer the Member for Scarborough had stated in the House the other night, upon the navy estimates, that in consequence of what had fallen from him (Captain Layard) on the subject of the army estimates, the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham had had a return made out of the new arms which had been served out to the navy, army, and marines, which amounted to 36,000. The hon. and gallant Member for Scarborough, in that courteous manner which distinguished him in everything he did, said that he (Captain Layard) had made too unfavourable a report on the state of the arms. Now, he thought that the very arguments brought forward by the hon. Member, that the 36,000 stand of arms having been given out, and that the remaining arms in the service were to be replaced, proved that the statement made by him was anything but incorrect. But he wished to ask the hon. Member whether the whole of the 36,000 stand of arms were new arms, or old arms altered and repaired? He had been informed that the latter was the case, but trusted that in that he had been mistaken. If such was the case, if the old arms were repaired, he could only say to the hon. and gallant Member, as his master did to him when he took up bad verses at school—" Sir, they are too bad to be altered, go and make new ones;" and that if the old ones were repaired, they could only be formidable to those who had the misfortune to use them. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the House, and particularly of the hon. Gentleman at the head of the Ordnance, that the new stocks, if not made of sufficiently seasoned wood, got so soon out of repair, that very often new arms were nearly as inefficient as old ones, and that as arms generally suffered more from recruits drilling with them than by any other means, he thought it would be a good plan to leave some old arms in every station for that purpose. Then, with respect to bayonets, they were to use an odd expression, so ill-tempered, that the least thing bent them in every direction, and he trusted that attention would be paid to that point. It had been stated to him that some of our regiments had received their arms from the East India Company, and that in the case of that gallant regiment, the 98th, under the command of that distinguished officer Colonel Campbell, these arms had been offered them, which were so very inferior that the officer commanding had refused to take them, and upon such refusal he had been supplied with arms from the Ordnance. Now he (Captain Layard) thought that it was the duty of the Government to see that the East India Company did supply the men with proper and efficient arms. In a book which had been quoted in that House by the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government (Lieut. Eyres's), it was stated that the men in Affghanistan had thrown away their fire, had been exceedingly bad marksmen, and, in short, as far as firing was concerned, nothing could be worse. He believed that this would always be the case if so small a quantity of ammunition was allowed for practice. In a very able and excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Westminster the other night on the navy estimates, he had ably advocated the advantage of temperance in the navy. He fully agreed with the hon. Member in that opinion, and wished that in the army also every inducement should be held out to the men to become sober; and he believed that that would be greatly carried into effect by doing away with the canteens which were now in the barrack squares. The loss might be small to the Government, but the beneficial effects would be great to the men. The hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon had stated to the House, upon the army estimates, that the sum of 130 000l. was spent for the supply of arms; he stated that the new arms were being given to the service, not only for the satisfaction of the House, but to relieve his mind from any unnecessary alarm. As this was an occasion upon which arms were under discussion, he begged leave to say, that the argument brought forward by that hon. Member put him in mind of a weapon made use of by the aborigines of New South Wales: and, as every Member might not be aware what a boomarang was, he would try to describe it to them. It was a piece of carved wood, which, being thrown in a sort of underhand manner at your enemy, if it should not hit him, returns, and sometimes inflicts a wound upon the thrower. Now, the hon. Member's argument that he suffered from unnecessary alarm, appeared to him (Captain Layard), to be very much like an ill-directed boomarung. It had been proved that the arms were in a very inefficient state, by the number of new ones already issued, and by the number that were to be issued, that if any unnecessary alarm did exist, the hon. Member for Huntingdon was labouring under it, in supposing that he meant any attack upon the Ordnance. Now he thought that the hon. Member for Huntingdon ought to be grateful to him for what he was doing, in showing the necessity for new arms: that even the hon. Member for Montrose, who is by no means anxious, and very justly, to spend the public money, said that it was a penny-wise-and-pound foolish economy not to have the very best arms that could be put into the hands of the British soldier. Having had already two shots fired at him from the Ordnance, he (Captain Layard) had every reason 10 believe that he should have a third; but feeling conscious that he had done his duty to the best of his ability, he sat down without any feelings of alarm, thinking that in this case, as in all others, by speaking the truth, any alarm would be perfectly unnecessary.

said, that a contract had been entered into for the supply of arms, but on its completion, the arms were found to be very defective. They were, therefore, returned, and the Ordnance obtained arms of a better quality. With respect to percussion locks, he might state that the 98th regiment on going to India, and the 2nd battalion of guards, serving in Canada, had been supplied with muskets having such locks, in order that the effect of extreme heat and extreme cold upon that quality of arms might be tested and in each instance the arms had been found most efficient. Colonel Lascelles, the officer commanding the 2nd battalion in Canada, had written to the adjutant-general expressing his testimony of the great superiority of percussion caps over flints; and similar testimony had been received from Colonel Campbell of the 98th regiment. The latter officer stated, that on their passage out they placed 25 of the caps in an open port-hole for one week, where there was a strong draught, but the sea air had not had the least injurious effect upon those caps for not one missed fire. In answer to Mr. Hume,

said, arrangements had been, to a great extent, attempted, for the purposejof appropriating a piece of ground for ball practice; but it had been found necessary to postpone it till next Session. owing to the numerous obstacles encountered.

said he wished for explanation as to the circumstance be had heard reported, of a contractor having been permitted to take a share in the Ordnance supplies, after having been under the late Government exposed for connivance in dishonest practices?

denied that there was any truth in the report — alleging the facts to be, that on the trial of two barrack-sergeants for giving false receipts as to supplies, one of them declared, that contractors were in the habit of paying them for so doing; and accused the contractor in question particularly. The court, however, were of opinion, that they were not warranted in pursuing the inquiry thus started on such discreditable authority as that of a convicted felon, and when the charge was renewed against the contractor in question, the Ordnance gave him, of course, an opportunity for exculpation, suspending, meanwhile, their assent to his offer, though it was the lowest tendered. The gentleman alluded to had declared his readiness to take the only means open to him of disproving the charge; offering to pledge his oath, that he had never seen or communicated with the man who had accused him, and appealing to his character and long standing in business, as to the probability of his having so disgracefully committed himself.

declared himself satisfied with the explanation given, so far as the Board of Ordnance was concerned. He believed, however, that a different opinion was entertained as to the complicity of the party alluded to by the late Master-general of the Ordnance and the law officer of the department.

protested most energetically against the secresy which had been thrown around the name of this contractor.

reported progress and obtained leave to sit again.

acquainted the House, that he had received from Commodore Sir Gordon Bremer, the following letter, in return to the thanks of this House communicated to him by Mr. Speaker, in obedience to their commands of the 14th day of February last:—

"The Priory Compton, Plymouth, March 3, 1843.

"SIR,— I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th February conveying to me the Resolutions of the House of Commons of the 14th respecting the late naval and military operations on the coast of China.

"I have to request you will be pleased to state to the House of Commons, that it is with sentiments of the deepest gratitude and respect that I receive this highly valued and honourable testimony of the approbation of the House.

"With pride and gratification I shall obey the commands of the House of Commons, by transmitting the Resolutions, together with your letter, to the officers who served under me.

"Permit me, Sir, to say, that the terms you have been pleased to employ in conveying to me this high honour, demand my most sincere and grateful acknowledgments, and, with sentiments of the highest respect,

"I have the honour to subscribe myself,

Sir,

Your most obedient and humble servant,

J. GORDON BREMER,

"Late Commodore and Commander in Chief of H. M. Ships in China.

"To the Right Honourable

Charles Shaw Lefevre,

&c. &c."