observed, that the Committee up stairs had gallopped through the Bill. They had made no alteration of importance. There were many provisions of which he approved, but there were others which he deprecated as dangerous, novel, and unconstitutional. The commissioners of highways would not have time to attend to the duties devolved upon them; and he objected to the extent of rating allowed by the Bill. The Government had neglected the subject of turnpike trusts too long; but no measure for regulating the internal communication of the country would be effective which did not include a total revision of the system.

could not think of allowing the Bill to pass through Committee when the attendance was so scanty as at that moment. The Bill gave the way wardens power to impose a rate of 2s. 6d. in the pound. A parish must have four miles of turnpike before it could have a way-warden. But it might be taxed by the waywardens of the union for a road in which it had little or no interest; its rates might be mortgaged as well as those of the other parishes. The parishioners had no effective means of checking the expenditure of the union; they had access to the accounts only after they had gone before the auditor. The inconvenience of such a system had been felt in the Poor Law unions. He objected to the powers of the Central Board in London. If the Bill were only to pass through Committee now, and not be further proceeded with at present, that it might be examined by the country in as perfect a shape as possible during the recess, he would not throw any obstacle in the way; but if the Bill was to be forced through the House and crammed down the throats of the country, its further progress ought to be stopped.

had not the least desire to force the Bill through the House, still less to cram it down the throats of the country. The measure was not a new one. With the view of securing for it that consideration which the hon. Gentleman thought it was not likely to receive in a Committee of the whole House, the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee, which the hon. Baronet said had gallopped through the clauses, and made no alteration of importance. He believed the Bill had undergone very careful consideration before that Committee; and his right hon. Friend who had charge of it would consider any objections which might still be stated. They would be better able to judge of the validity of such objections by going at once into Committee, and considering them in detail. He repeated that he had no wish to force the Bill down the throats of the country; but what he was anxious for at present was to go into Committee to consider the clauses of the Bill, as presented to the House in the amended shape in which it came from the Committee; and then they would be able to see what prospect there was of the Bill being passed this Session.

opposed it; the interference 'of the Commissioners was unnecessary.

thought the Bill was not understood by the country; the public did not know that the management of the roads was to be wholly taken from the local authorities, and placed under a Government Commission; he thought, at all events, the measure ought not to be pressed in the present Parliament.

considered it was throwing away the time of the House to discuss the several clauses of the Bill without coming to an understanding whether the power was to be given to the Commissioners or not; he thought the word "Commissioners" ought to be struck out of the clause, and he felt it his duty to bring it to the vote; he moved as an Amendment that the word "Commissioners" be omitted, and "justices of peace in quarter-sessions assembled" be substituted.

said, the Amendment did not raise the question fairly, and suggested it should be withdrawn, and the decision taken on the Amendment of the hon. member for Dorsetshire.

said, that as the result of the division on this important clause of the Bill evidenced a disposition on the part of the House to condemn the measure, he would not further press it. The Government had brought the Bill forward with the sole object of remedying what appeared to be a very great evil, and under the belief that it would meet with the general wishes of hon. Gentlemen. He begged to move that the chairman report progress.

did not consider that the Government had met with anything like a defeat. The majority of two might be a triumph to the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment; but it would be looked upon out of doors as a defeat of the wishes of the country. He sincerely regretted that the Government had thought it right to give up the Bill; he had expected from such a measure the greatest advantage to the public at large.

thought the hon. member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), who was not in the House till a short time ago, could know nothing about the supposed display of triumph which he attributed to Gentlemen on his side of the House. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to abandon the Bill, merely because that House had decided that no Commission should be appointed. He denied that there was anything like party feeling or a wish to oppose the Ministry in the vote that had been given.

regretted that the Government should give it the aspect of a party question by giving up the Bill, because the House had decided that there should be no Commission. The moment the House said there should be no Commission, Her Majesty's Ministers said then there should be no Bill. The House generally were in favour of the measure, though hardly any one had spoken in favour of the great powers proposed to be conferred upon the Commissioners; and for himself he must say, that he hoped it would be introduced again, though without any proposal of a central Commission.

thought that the Government had only themselves to blame in not having taken care to secure a larger attendance of hon. members. Their defeat that morning arose from their having last night pursued the very unwise and injudicious course of taking contested business after twelve o'clock at night. Hon. members were so utterly exhausted, that they were unable to again attend at the noon of the same day. He trusted this would operate as a caution for the future.

thought that such an interference with the legislation of that House had scarcely occurred within the memory of man. He could not consent to hand over the rights of the Crown and intrust the interests of commerce to a committee of the Common Council and Aldermen. He did not think them the proper persons to take charge of the river. The Committee of that House had affirmed unanimously that one-third of the proposed Board should be chosen by the Crown from parties interested in the commerce, wharfage, and docks of London; one-half would have been a more just proportion. The city of London, however, rejected the proposition in favour of which the Committee had decided. The question was, whether, because the Common Council at the eleventh hour had agreed to accept the Bill, not as offered by the House, but as framed to please themselves, the House of Commons ought to submit to such a degradation? Were they to authorize a body to expend 400,000l. or 500,000l. (at which the improvements were estimated) without any control on the part of the Crown or community? Every shilling given to the conservators ought to be applied to the removal of obstructions. The whole of these improvements were to be effected by the corporation by means of money to be raised by way of rates and charges on the general imports into the river. Why did not the Government raise the money on the same security, and effect the improvements themselves? The evidence before the Committee showed that many of the impediments in the navigation of the river had been frequently pointed out, and the removal of them recommended; but those recommendations were never attended to. It appeared that the House of Commons was cringing to the city of London, instead of dictating to it. Great public loss was sustained by reason of the river Thames not being navigable in consequence of the shoals and nuisances that were allowed to accumulate. This was well known to the corporation of the city of London; and yet, while that body suffered this evil to exist, they did not hesitate to avail themselves of their power over the river Thames to interfere extensively with the private property that was on the river side. The present Bill would continue to them that right of interference. The amount of revenue raised by the corporation from the public traffic on the Thames was enormous. The metage of corn amounted to between 50,000l. and 60,000l. a year, a great part of which went into the pockets of the cor- poration. He certainly did not conceive it possible to carry this measure, before a very searching inquiry was instituted into the nature and amount of the income of the corporation of the city. He hoped that one of the first duties of the new Parliament would be, to ascertain the extent of the power of taxation exercised by that body. The recommittal of this Bill would be only making another concession to the city of London; while they were already granting it a great boon in affording it the means of expending no less a sum than 400,000l. or 500,000l., which was to be levied on British shipping. In the course he was now pursuing, he could not be said to he taking the city unawares; for from the moment the corporation objected to the constitution of the Conservancy Board as recommended by the Committee, he furnished them with a copy of the Resolution which he intended to submit to the House. He would move as an Amendment—

"That this House will on Tuesday next resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to take immediate measures for carrying into effect the requisite Improvements in the River Thames; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will supply the means for carrying into effect these most necessary improvements."

would he sorry to throw any obstruction in the way of a Bill having for its object the improvement of the river Thames. The state of that river was not merely a scandal to the corporation of the city of London, but to the country at large. But having had the honour to be on the Committee to inquire into the navigation of the river Thames, he was compelled, from the knowledge he had acquired on the subject, to oppose the Motion of the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty, and to give his cordial support to the Amendment of the hon. member for Montrose. He thought the right thing to be done upon this subject was for the country to take it into their own hands, at whatever cost, and to bring in a public measure for the conservancy of the river Thames. The security of the public required it. The corporation of the city of London appeared to be labouring under a great delusion on the subject. They said that they had always had the conservancy of the Thames; and they also claimed a right to the soil of the river. If the corporation had that public spirit which they often professed, there would be no difficulty whatever in effecting an arrangement; because the whole value of the soil was only about 700l. or 800l. a year. But what was this conservancy? It was very true that the corporation, from all time, had been conservators of the river Thames; but what did that mean? Had they ever possessed the powers which that Bill would give them? Had they the power to raise, at once, 100,000l. and 200,000l., or 300,000l, eventually? Nothing of the sort. Had they a right to call upon persons to erect wharfs on the river side, and to tell them, that if they did not, the corporation would do it at their expense? Nothing of the sort. The corporation had always and still contended that they had no power to remove the shoals in the river. Captain Bullock, formerly a member of the Admiralty, stated before the Committee, that the corporation had the right and the power, and that nobody else had the power. The evidence of every person connected with the Admiralty was in favour of transferring the conservancy of the Thames to some active, impartial, and efficient Board—such as the Board of Admiralty—and went to show that the corporation of the city of London had abused their powers; had granted licenses for erection in the water very injurious to the navigation of the river; and had proved by all their acts that their object was not the conservancy of the Thames, but to make out a case to establish their right in the soil of the river. But if the corporation were the conservators of the river, why did they not exercise their conservative authority? Their excuse was, that they had no funds. Was that the fact? The revenue of the corporation of the city of London appeared to be 210,000l. a year; and he found in the corporation report of 1834 a statement of the expenditure of this sum. He would mention two or three items: "Expenses of the Mansion House, 2,956l.; salaries and allowances to the Lord Mayor. &c, 23,000l.;" and then came the item, "Conservancy of the river Thames, 3,374l." That was all that was spent by the corporation out of their enormous revenue towards the improvement of the river Thames. At the time the corporation became the conservators of the Thames, the city constituted the whole of London; but, now, it was only one-ninth part of the metropolis. Was it then to be said, that the whole management of the river Thames, in which, not only the metropolis—not only England, but the whole commercial world, had an interest—was it to be said, that the management of such a river was to be exclusively confided to a close corporation of that description, representing, as he had already stated, only one-ninth of the metropolis in which it locally existed? He entertained a strong opinion that this ought to be a public and not a private Bill.

said, that the hon. member for Montrose appeared tonight in a new character—as the champion of the high prerogative of the Crown—and was seeking to revive the odious privilege founded upon the principle of nullum tempus occurrit regi. But the fact was, that the corporation of the city of London had enjoyed a full and entire right over the soil and bed of the Thames from the time of William the Conqueror down to the present. It was perfectly true that for 50 years—the hon. member might have said 700 years—the corporation had not been able to remove the shoals from the bed of the river; but that arose from their having no funds to appropriate to that purpose. The question now before the House was, whether they would accede to the proposition of the hon. member for Montrose, to form themselves into a Committee of the whole House, and address the Crown to the effect that they were prepared to support Her Majesty in any supply that was necessary to carry out the improvement of the Thames. Why, the improvement of the Thames would cost 500,000l. sterling at least; but if the public took it up, they would have, in addition, to pay a compensation to the frontagers and wharfingers on both sides of the river; and it would be impossible to say whether one or two millions, or what number of millions, would suffice to make good the compensation. What the corporation proposed to do was, to give leave to all the frontagers on the river to advance their frontages to a particular line, which was marked out by Mr. Walker, one of the first engineers of the day; but no sooner did the corporation adopt the scheme of Mr. Walker for the improvement of the river, than in stepped the Crown to take it out of their hands. The city, with a view of setting the disputed matter at rest, had agreed to cede a certain portion of their privileges; and, with respect to the shoals, the corporation were ready to remove them forthwith as soon as the Bill was passed and the means of raising money for the purpose put into their hands. It appeared to him that there never was a fairer proposition made than that which was made by the corporation of the city of London in the present case; and he saw no "degradation" whatever in the House of Commons acceding to it. He thought that, if any party had a right to accuse another, the city had a right to accuse Parliament, and not Parliament the city. He should give his hearty support to the recommitted of the Bill.

said, the noble Lord had stated that there never was a fairer proposition made than that submitted by the city of London. He was not aware that the city had made any proposition at all. The House was called upon to recommit the Bill upon a statement by the Secretary of the Admiralty; that hon. Gentleman had stated, that if the House recommitted the Bill, he expected that the city of London would, in their condescension, make some suggestion to the Committee. Why, what had already occurred regarding the Committee? On the 7th Juno the Committee came to a resolution that the Conservancy Board should consist of fifteen members—ten to be appointed by the city, and five by the Crown. They adjourned until the 11th, in order that the city might be put in possession of the resolution. On the 11th they met, and were informed that the city could not agree to the proposition. The Committee sent another communication to the city, to the effect that perhaps they would have the goodness to make some suggestion of their own, and adjourned till the 15th, when they received a reply from the city that they had no suggestion to other. They would have nothing to do either with the House or the Bill. Under these circumstances the Secretary of the Admiralty said, "We had nothing else left for it but to report to the House; the city is obdurate, and there is no use in going on with the clauses of the Bill." That report was now made. The Secretary of the Admiralty, in moving the recommittal of the Bill, said, he had been told the city had now some proposal to make to the Committee. He thought, but he did not know positively, that this was not a respectful way for the city to approach the House of Commons. They ought to have approached the House by petition; and the House would degrade itself by acceding to the proposition now made to it. He adhered to the opinion that the corporation of London ought to have nothing whatever to do with the conservancy of the Thames; but that it ought to be managed by a public Board, responsible to the Crown, and through the Crown to that House.

said, that the game reason which induced him originally not to withhold his consent from the introduction of the Bill, nor from its subsequent progress, was equally operative upon him now not to withhold his consent to its recommittal. That reason was the strong opinion which had been formed by the Board of Admiralty, acting upon the competent advice upon which they were accustomed to rely, that the Bill as it now stood would effect a speedy and an immense improvement in the navigation of the Thames, which would be indefinitely retarded by the prolongation of the suit in which the Crown and the city were now unfortunately engaged. He was not able entirely to accept the version of the law of the case as laid down by the noble Lord opposite. The Crown rested its claim upon the common law of the land; and the grounds upon which it was made had been acknowledged and sanctioned by the advice of successive law officers of different Governments; but the Government were unwilling that the assertion of right should stand in the way of a manifest public improvement. He was willing to believe, from such information as he had received, that such an improvement would result from the Bill, that the corporation would not merely be content to exercise the powers of conservancy hitherto employed by them; but that they would now act under the control of a superior Board, and subject to the inspection of a competent officer appointed by that Board. They would also be expressly bound to proceed immediately to the removal of the shoals which were complained of. He had been willing, as a member of a Committee, to be a party to the proposition that the city should appoint five members in addition to ten others; which five members should be subject to the veto of the Crown; but of course it must be made a matter of arrangement that the city should not suggest the names of persons whom it was not perfectly fitting for the Crown to adopt, because the Crown would insist that the great mercantile interest and the city interest and the dock interest should be fairly represented. The city, it was true, rejected that proposal. He now understood that they had thought better of it, and were prepared to accede to the proposition. He was therefore not unwilling, having been ready to come to that agreement—to allow them room for penitence. He could not think that the House in doing so were guilty of any act of degradation. The proposition which was now submitted to the House was not brought forward out of deference to the corporation of the city of London, but simply with a view to remove the inconveniences and obstructions which had been described by the hon. member for Montrose. If the Amendment should be substituted for the Motion, no steps could be taken in this matter until next Session; under these circumstances, therefore, he would vote for the recommittal of the Bill, in the hope thereby of seeing improvements in the navigation of the Thames carried into immediate effect.

said, if the Government had acted a decisive part, a satisfactory arrangement would have been the result; but that he did not anticipate now; and the Government, by their vacillating conduct, had placed both themselves and the House in a degraded position. The city of London intended to raise funds for carrying out their part of the arrangement by the sale of the soil on the embankments, which was a most objectionable proceeding. The Bill bore upon its face evidence that the corporation of London had neglected its duty, for no fewer than fourteen shoals were stated to exist in the river, not one of which would have been allowed to form if the corporation had properly discharged its duty.

could assure the House that the corporation represented only the lowest classes in the city; the merchants, bankers, and great traders had nothing to do with it. The noble Lord the member for Lynn was mistaken in supposing that the corporation of London had exercised the rights of conservancy over the Thames since the time of William the Conqueror; but, granting that they had, it was no reason why they should retain it longer. The charters of corporations dating further back than that of the corporation of London, were sot aside a few years back for the public advantage; and on the same ground the exclusive privileges enjoyed by the city of London ought to be abrogated.

said, that although the corporation of London were blamed for not having done this and that, they had nevertheless done all that the present Bill proposed to effect; but they had not the power to compel the removal of encroachments, in consequence of the claim advanced by the Crown to the em- bankments. It had been invidiously remarked that the corporation derived 50,000l. a year from the metage of corn; hut the fact was, the corporation expended that money on 2,500 freemen, constituents of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Those men wore called fellowship porters, and they worked hard for their money. Then again the coal duties, about which so much was said occasionally, were expended in improving the city of London; and he asked whether there was another town in England which could boast of such improvement as London within the last twenty-five years? He hoped that the House would recommit the Bill, and afford the corporation an opportunity of acceding to the proposition of the Government.

rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury the following questions:—"1. Should the supporters of an existing National school, in a parish where Nonconformists are not sufficient in numbers to form a separate school, desire, in consequence, to adopt a rule of management which shall admit the children of Nonconformists with exemption from attendance at church, and from instruction in the catechism; and should the National School Society refuse their sanction to such rule, will the Committee of Privy Council on Education consider the desire on the one part to adopt this rule, and the refusal of the National School Society to sanction or grant aid under such circumstances, as reasons sufficient to form a 'special case?' 2. And in the event of the Committee of Privy Council deeming a National school, adopting such tolerant rule and practice, to be within the class of 'special cases,' will the loss sustained by such school by reason of the refusal of assistance from the National School Society he taken into consideration in determining the proportion of aid to be granted by the Committee of Privy Council? 3. It having been intimated that additional Minutes are contemplated by Government to meet the case of Roman Catholics, will the noble Lord at the head of the Government inform the House whether Congregational Dissenters, who approve the principle of Government aid to education, will have a similar measure of liberality extended to them which is thus so justly intended towards their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and to which they are equally entitled; to the effect that additional Minutes may also be hoped for, to enable Congregational Dissenters, upon special application, and without touching the previous Minutes as affecting Church of England schools, to accept Government aid, without being constrained to render any account to Government of the religious knowledge or duties of the monitors and pupil-teachers?"

, in reply, said: Sir, I will answer the different questions which my hon. Friend has put to me, although, of course, I cannot enter into any particular case. With regard to the general principle on which the Committee of the Council of Education are prepared to act, I think it has been stated in previous debates, that if the managers of any school should think proper, while they conform generally to the rules of the National Society, not to require the children to learn the catechism, or to attend church; and thus to admit the children of Dissenters, thereby becoming, as I believe, separated from the National Society, the Committee of the Council of Education will feel themselves at liberty to extend their aid to such schools. As to the second question, the loss to the schools owing to the refusal of the National Society to give assistance, each case must rest on its own merits, and each case will be considered on its own merits; and aid will be given to Church schools generally which admit Dissenters, in aid of local subscriptions in each district. With respect to the third question, the regulation has been introduced not only to meet the case of Roman Catholics, with respect to whom a Minute has been prepared, and the draught of which has been submitted to the Catholic Institute; but it has also been introduced to meet the objections held by Congregational Dissenters—objections which I think of an extremely refined nature—but which I still think ought not to prevent aid being given to schools which would otherwise be assisted. The Government Minutes would be satisfied without the inspector giving an account of the religious examination of the schools, if the managers of the schools should say that they were satisfied. This, I think, would amount to no interference; but many Congregational Dissenters who entertain strong religious opinions, and who are remarkable for praiseworthy conduct, think that this is some interference; and if the Privy Council are satisfied that this may be made a ground of religious objection, they will not require that the local managers shall state that they are satisfied. A Minute on the subject has been prepared; it lies by for consideration; but it will be probably adopted at an early meeting of the Privy Council. With regard to the Roman Catholics it is right to state, to prevent any misapprehension, that the regulations will relate to future grants only, and that the grants now made will be administered strictly in accordance with the declarations made in this House. We shall endeavour to extend education by Parliamentary grants as widely as possible; but with respect to grants already made, they will be distributed according to the declarations made in this House at the time they were granted.

said: If, Sir, on former occasions, when it has been my duty to bring the subject of my present Motion under your attention, I have felt it necessary to crave the indulgence of the House, still more do I feel that necessity on the present occasion, when I cannot but be aware that the subject has become stale and wearisome; and when I have not only an adverse report to contend against, but also the authoritative dictum of the hon. and gallant member for Liverpool near me, given—I will not say how fairly—that the whole thing was the greatest humbug that had ever been attempted to be palmed on the gullibility of the British public. I shall not pause to inquire what grounds the hon. and gallant member has for pronouncing that opinion, knowing, as I do, that he has never had an opportunity of forming his own deliberate judgment on the matter, and that he must necessarily have taken his facts from hearsay evidence. Neither will I dilate on the manifest injustice of an opinion being so expressed by so high an authority as the gallant Officer, in answer to a question put to him by an hon. Member when no reply could possibly be given. I cannot conceal from myself that the whole tone and temper of the hon. and gallant member in this matter, from its very first introduction to him, has been marked, not only by a contemptuous dislike for the unfortunate inventor, but an ill-concealed determination to swamp him and his inventions; as if, in tendering a valuable discovery for the benefit of his country, he had caused some personal injury to the hon. and gallant member. The whole matter, as between the hon. and gallant member and Captain Warner, is, that one is a scientific man, and the other is avowedly not one; but still he can accomplish, with all his ignorance, whatever the hon. and gallant member can perform; whereas the gallant Officer cannot perform one tithe of the feats of the unlearned subject of his vituperation. It is equally apparent to me, that the right hon. Baronet the member for Tamworth, whose absence I regret on this occasion, from the way he put some questions in the early part of the Session, participates strongly in the feelings of the hon. and gallant member; and I am sensible, from the general laughter with which his remarks were received, that I have also the prejudices of a largo portion of this House arrayed against me. Fully aware, Sir, of these difficulties, hut still undismayed by them, and being actuated by no overweening confidence in myself, but acting from a conscientious sense of duty, I feel compelled to bring the matter once more under the consideration of the House. I trust that in so doing I may be acquitted of any obstinate adherence to my own opinions, and that my perseverance may be attributed to its true motive, that the House and the country should be made fully aware that their attention is invited to a matter of great public importance, and which it is most desirable they should understand, before they are called upon finally to reject inventions not yet fairly investigated. Much, Sir, having been said in former debates on this subject calculated to injure Captain Warner, I shall shortly endeavour to remove those erroneous impressions. First, in August, 1842, it was said by the hon. member for Salford, that these inventions had been offered for sale to other Powers; and an anonymous letter was read by him to the House, setting forth that Captain Warner had sold them to Don Pedro for 500,000l., but that he constantly evaded the carrying out the contract unless the money was paid down. The whole of this statement was publicly denied by Captain Warner. The anonymous correspondent was challenged to give his name and his authority; and I am now prepared to produce official documents which will show the real nature of the contract with Don Pedro, and the service on which Captain Warner was employed, with the sanction of His late Majesty William IV.; but per- haps it would be sufficient were I to read to the House a letter I have received from General Sir John Milley Doyle. He was a party to all their transactions, and cognizant of all the facts:—

"Osmond's Hotel, Strand, June 11.

"My Lord—I have been requested by Captain Warner to state, for your Lordship's information, what I know of his conduct in Portugal during the period he was connected with the service of Her Most Faithful Majesty, under the Emperor Don Pedro, respecting which some injurious representations, on anonymous authority, have been reported as been made in the House of Commons by Mr. Brotherton. During the whole time that Captain Warner was in Portugal, I was aide-decamp to Don Pedro, and constantly acted as interpreter between His Imperial Majesty and Captain Warner, who was present at the siege of Oporto by the Miguelite forces. Don Pedro, I know, had the highest opinion of Captain Warner; and the confidence he openly placed in him, the authority with which he from time to time armed him, was supposed to have excited the jealousy of many officers as well Portuguese as British auxiliaries; and to that feeling may, perhaps, be attributed the disparaging rumours of "which Captain Warner had so much reason to Complain. During Captain Warner's stay at Oporto, and off it, with his schooner—it very often, at that period, being the only armed vessel on which Don Pedro could rely—Captain Warner was prevented, I understand, by the command of His Majesty William IV., from using his destructive implements on shore; and for reasons which can only be known to the then commanding officer of the Queen of Portugal's naval forces, he was not allowed to operate, as he expressed his desire to do, against the Miguelite squadron, then retired into the Tagus. But he did good service to Don Pedro's cause on several occasions by his judicious and ingenious suggestions of the disposition of many of the batteries, and especially by his once landing a quantity of gunpowder by means of his own boats in a heavy gale of wind, when Don Pedro had no boats in the Douro fit for this hazardous service—and rendered, moreover, at a critical moment, as the garrison were reduced to their last barrel of powder. Presently after, Captain Warner proceeded to England with a contract from Don Pedro to return with a steamer armed and fitted out after a fashion of his own, and to employ it in Don Pedro's service. Captain Warner, however, as I have reason to believe, having been induced by His late Majesty William the Fourth to abandon foreign service never returned to Portugal. I repeat, that during Captain Warner's service under the Emperor Don Pedro, he enjoyed his Imperial Majesty's esteem and confidence, as well as that of the Portuguese Ministers. Some of the British auxiliaries, whom Captain Warner certainly took no pains to conciliate, were tin-questionably unfavourable to him, and to them have been attributed the calumnies to which an undue credit has been given by some Members of the House of Commons. I have had no intercourse with Captain Warner for many years: I have no connexion with him now, nor any interest in his inventions. I am moved by a simple wish to do justice to a gallant and meritorious man, who I think has been harshly used. I authorize your Lordship to make any use of this communi- cation you please, and have the honour to be, my Lord, your obedient humble servant,

" J. M. DOYLE.

"The Viscount Ingestre, R.N.,

C.B., M.P., &c"

Again, Sir, much prejudice has been excited by an answer given by Captain Warner to a question asked him by the hon. and gallant Member for Liverpool about the destruction of a privateer. In the first place, I would observe, that Captain Warner had no idea that the questions and answers were being taken down in writing; and he justly, I think, complains, that if they were to be so taken down, he was not made aware of it, and his answers shown to him afterwards, that he might affirm or deny their correctness. Secondly, the answers given prove the loose way in which the questions and answers were taken down, inasmuch as Folkestone and St. Valery are nearly opposite to each other in the Channel, and the whole thing evidently refers to one transaction, although a reference to the questions and answers before alluded to would give the notion that Captain Warner asserted he had destroyed privateers on two separate occasions. Lastly, can any one suppose that any man engaged in the sort of secret service he was then employed in, changing his vessel or her rig almost every day to avoid recognition, was likely to make a minute entry in a log book, a log being probably never kept at all; and that an accusation of falsehood was to be made because no record could be found at the Admiralty—more especially as the Admiralty had nothing whatever to do with Captain Warner? I should indeed have been much surprised if there had been any. I cannot omit to notice also the prejudice created against Captain Warner by the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) in August, 1842, stating, that—

"Mr. Warner, before he would proceed to try any experiments, required that a sum of 400,000l should be guaranteed to him by Her Majesty's Government in the event of his being successful."

On the 25th of the preceding May, Captain Warner wrote a letter to the right hon. Baronet, in which is the following pas-sago:—

"I am contented to leave the question of amount to your decision as to what you may consider, under all the circumstances of my case, and with reference to the value of my discovery, the rate of my remuneration ought fairly to be."

He stipulates, in addition, a personal conference with the right hon. Baronet, and the appointment of a, third commissioner. Again, in a letter addressed to Sir George Murray, then Master General of the Ordnance, on the 6th of the preceding month of July, is the following passage:—.

"I observe in your letter that you twice dwell upon the large remuneration I ask. I have already expressed, and I repeat, my readiness to leave the amount to your own arbitration; no difficulties shall be presented by me on this head,"

I must also refer to the wish expressed by the right hon. Baronet in his letter to Sir George Murray, October 5th, 1841, in which he says—

"Could not the Ordnance make a shell of their own by way of experiment, with nitrate of silver, or whatever constitutes the most powerful exploding matter, and try the effect of that concurrently with Mr. Warner's?"

But, Sir, allow me here to ask, what on earth have all these questions to do with the merits of the case? Whether Captain Warner was entitled to be styled Captain or not, and other puerilities of that description. What we want to ascertain is, has Captain Warner, or has he not, made valuable discoveries, which are likely to be useful to the country, or detrimental to it if in other hands? Anxious, Sir, to avoid wasting the time of the House, I will merely state the broad fact, that during the Administration of the right hon. Baronet, no satisfactory arrangement could be arrived at. The subject might have been looked into with a determination to get at the truth. The inventor, instead of being treated as an impostor, and insulted with a string of petulant, pedantic, and irrelevant questions, might have had evinced towards him a disposition to treat him with decent respect, consistently with a determination to guard the public interests against imposture and deceit. But it was too manifest that the astounding invention of Captain Warner—so completely upsetting all previously conceived theories and practice—had arrayed against him a powerful clique of those interested in the maintenance of the present order of things. I make no doubt that if Captain Warner's plans had been merely the production of some projectile power that would only exceed that now in use, retaining those existing means, he would not have met with the absurd and petty professional jealousy he has had to contend with. Now, Sir, with respect to more recent transactions. Shortly after the accession to power of the present Government, I had an opportunity of bringing this subject under the attention of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, and I was met by him with every courtesy and attention. The plans were shown to the noble Lord. Two commissioners were appointed, and approved of without hesitation by Captain Warner. It was asked, and at once conceded by the noble Lord, that to prevent any misunderstanding, I might be present at all the meetings of the commissioners, and at all trials, and that I should sign all records of the proceedings, so that I could not afterwards question their correctness. It was also further agreed that all reports were to he considered as most confidential, and were to be given to Lord Anglesey as Master General of the Ordnance, in the presence of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and in no way to be laid before the Board of Ordnance. After a preliminary meeting or two, and the instructions to the commissioners had been read over to Captain Warner, and approved of as most proper and just, an experiment was decided upon, which was to be conducted with great secrecy, and Captain Warner gave an estimate of the expense, and the money was advanced to him, upon his giving security that it should be duly expended in the experiment. Some considerable time elapsed in finding a suitable spot combining the requisites of affording sufficient scope and facilities for carrying on the operations with secrecy and without observance; and at last, with the kind permission of Lord Anglesey, Cannock Chase was selected. I wish to speak with all respect of the two commissioners, both officers of distinguished character; but I must remark that in their journal an imprersion is given that an unnecessary delay was created by Captain Warner. The delay was occasioned by the desire of the commissioners that an additional weight of shot should be carried beyond what was at first mentioned, and which wish, although involving the purchase of a balloon of greater capacity, Captain Warner was anxious to comply with without hesitation. Now, Sir, as to the report itself. The commissioners' report is very short. They pronounce the experiment to have been a failure; and I must say, that in so doing, in my opinion they have come to a very wrong and hasty conclusion. They remark that Captain Warner had the choice of the place of operation. This was to a certain extent true, as I had selected it, and Captain Warner and Colonel Chalmer had both agreed to it. They state that he also had the choice of direction. This is also to a certain extent true; there was a tree on this common, in which direction the greatest scope was afforded; and, therefore, if the wind proved suitable, that was doubtless the direction in which Captain Warner wished to operate. But Captain Warner always said, "If I am in a fixed spot, and I am to operate in one direction only, I must wait for a wind in one particular quarter. "If, as would have been hut fair, when laying these papers before the House, the original trial required by the commissioners, and written in the journal of the proceedings, and signed by myself, had been produced, it would have been shown that Captain Warner never undertook to aim at any particular object, but merely that he would convey the prescribed weights the prescribed distances. The day before the experiment he received a most urgent letter from the commissioners, calling on him to perform his experiment, or to remove his apparatus to a place where he would be able to operate with greater chance, from having wider scope. This would have been tantamount to throwing all the expense already incurred entirely away. On the morning of the experiment, thinking the weather might suit, he summoned the commissioners, having first sent up a pilot, by which he ascertained the true wind to be N.W. instead of N., and being told he might safely drop his shells four miles in that direction, towards the town of Rugeley, and having been told by Colonel Chalmer that he would be satisfied with four miles, he determined to let it go. Colonel Chalmer, it was understood, should be stationed a short distance from where Captain Warner was to see the direction of a pilot to be let go shortly before the main machine, and then let Captain Chads and Lord Anglesey, who were stationed at a considerable distance forward, know in what direction they were to expect it. This, from some mistake, he neglected to do, and the consequence was considerable delay, arising from Captain Warner not knowing whether to let the balloon go or not. However, he did let it go, and after it rose out of the hole in which it started from, and clearing the eddies, it took a direct course to where its last flight of shells was dropped, at a distance of upwards of four miles, carrying double the number of shells required by the commissioners, and dropping them in divisions in a continuous line. With respect to the balloon twisting about, this was after it had discharged its cargo, and when it was making its descent after the gas had es- caped. Two shells remained in the frame, which had been originally put there for the purpose of destroying the balloon and the frame, but from which at the last moment the communication was cut off with a view to save the balloon for another trial, if the present one should not have been thought satisfactory. I should not omit to remark that shot, and not shells, were used, and that consequently they were very difficult to find, buried as they were at a depth of four and five feet deep in a hard shingley substance, in ground covered with heath; and which difficulty of finding them was why the ground near Shoe Bury Ness would not do, as it was a quicksand, and where not only a favourable wind was required, but also necessary that the tide should be out. The commissioners did not think proper to remain to see where the shot fell, which was a main, if not the only object of their commission; but some were dug out in the presence of the Master General of the Ordnance, who also examined the frame from which the shells were projected, and from which it was evident they were projected in divisions as Captain Warner had described. I had the advantage, which the commissioners had not, of seeing the places where the shot fell, and am prepared to state that they fell in a direct line from the place of starting, and attained to a distance of upwards of four miles. I am told that the hon. and gallant Member for Liverpool is in possession of a diagram, describing the course of the machine. How he is so I cannot understand, as it was expressly stipulated that all reports were to be made to the Master General of the Ordnance, and to him alone; and I am prepared to show that if there was anything tortuous in the course of the balloon, it was only when it was rising from the valley from which it started, and at the end of its course when it had discharged its missiles. Be this, however, as it may, I think it is unprecedented that any invention should be condemned on a single trial. Moreover, Colonel Chalmer stated to me the day after the experiment, that there could be no doubt as to the power of going the distance required, or any other distance, and what was required to be ascertained was, that the direction could be made certain, and that the missiles could be dropped with precision. To this I replied that these two points could be easily ascertained by stationing a person dead to leeward, and starting a quantity of small and inexpensive balloons to note how near they came to each other in a direct line; and that nothing could be more easy than to suspend the frame to which the shells are appended, and desire Captain Warner to cause them to drop at any intervals of minutes or seconds he might be required. This, Colonel Chalmer replied, would be most satisfactory to him, and this Captain Warner consented to do; but I have heard nothing more of Colonel Chalmer, and the only result is an adverse report without sufficient inquiry. Much has been made of an admission on my part—I would almost say an extorted admission—that the thing was a failure. Doubtless, I used the expression; but it was before I knew that Captain Warner was not to fire in the direction of the oak tree, but only in the direction that the wind at the time would admit of. If advantage is to be taken of expressions that fell from me, I may equally take advantage of expressions that fell from others; and I would ask, what is the meaning of the Master General of the Ordnance saying "that it was a pity Captain Warner's brains were not knocked out long ago, and that he hoped it would be a failure?" Here, I must complain, that, according to the stipulation agreed to in the outset of these proceedings, I was not consulted as to the report, and the facts connected with it, and that the commissioners made a report upon one single trial, made under the most adverse and difficult circumstances, and without a sufficient examination of the result. The noble Lord, with characteristic fairness, sent me a copy of the report, and permitted me to make my observations upon it, which I did in a letter bearing date the 12th December, 1846. Captain Warner was also permitted to add his observations, and in the latter part of his letter occurred the following passage:—

"The commissioners remark that the principle of action will be always discovered on the first exhibition. I am as sensible as those gentlemen of the impolicy of publicity; hence the patience with which for years I have endured ridicule and injurious imputations, rather than make a public exhibition. But I beg to observe that very many years will probably elapse between the first revelation of the motive power I employ for my long range and the method of employing it with precision as a vehicle for the distribution of destructive substances; and if its first exhibition should be in actual warfare, the country against which its terrible agency is directed will be little comforted in its crippled condition by discovering too late the source from which its destruction has issued."

This paragraph produced from the noble Lord the following most extraordinary letter:—

"Sir—I am desired by Lord John Russell to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th inst. With reference to a passage in the latter part of your communication, I am directed by his Lordship to inform you that should any British subject be found in arms, or in a hostile manner aiding and assisting a Foreign Power against his own country, he will immediately be brought to trial for high treason.—I have the honour to be, &c. "R. W. GREY."

This was replied to by Captain Warner, giving to his Lordship, as acknowledged, a satisfactory explanation of the passage in question; and the end was a refusal on the part of the Government to entertain any of his inventions. I feel personally so grateful to the noble Lord for his conduct in this matter, that I do not wish to dwell on this part of the subject, nor to the unfairness of withholding these explanatory letters, when the papers were moved for by the hon. and gallant Member, and by the right hon. Baronet. Sir, I was always most desirous that the mode in which these missiles were sent should be a secret, not for the inventor's sake, but that such a wholesale mode of destruction should not be generally known, even with much inferior explosive powers; and hence the reserve I have always held on this subject. But when, Sir, I found that the report was current in London both at the Ordnance and Admiralty Boards a few days after the experiment was made, that such was the agent employed, I felt that it was an injustice to Captain Warner that the report only, and that an adverse one, should be laid upon the Table of the House, without the explanations before alluded to; and for that reason I urged upon the noble Lord, that if he allowed anything to be published in the matter, he would allow all to be made known. Sir, I think it is most unfortunate that such publicity should be given to the matter; but still there remains the secret, not only of how the balloon is managed, but also of the extraordinary explosive power it is quite evident Captain Warner possesses, and which he was desired not to use in this experiment. I cannot forbear to allude to the circumstance, trivial enough it is true, hut sufficient to show how every trifle has been made use of to throw a slur and a doubt on these proceeedings. I have before mentioned, that Captain Warner had to purchase a balloon; this he did from the noted Messrs. Green; and wanting necessarily some persons to aid him in the manual labour of making the gas and inflating his balloon, he employed one of the Messrs. Green. This gentleman went, for the sake of secrecy, by a feigned name, as, by the by, did Captain Warner himself, and also one of the commissioners, to whom I addressed a letter by way of precaution in another name than his own. Wishing to take up as little time as possible, I will not further advert to this experiment than to say I think it was most incomplete—that Captain Warner, in my presence, offered to repeat it, and to obey any suggestions made to him. I would now shortly refer to the other invention, the "invisible shell:" in my opinion the most valuable to us as a means of defence in an insular position, making us comparatively secure from invasion, and a great preventer of bloodshed, by enabling us to blockade a fleet in any hostile harbour, and preventing their coming out; and withal a most economical plan, as compared with the heavy outlay we are contemplating for harbours of defence. The efficacy of this was most fully proved off Brighton in 1844, and I have only to refer to the report of Colonel Chalmer and Captain Caffin to confirm it, although the Government of that day refused to be made acquainted with the mode in which it was done; and I can only regret that the Government should peremptorily reject all Captain Warner's inventions, because one was supposed to be a failure. Sir, after all the virulent animosity that has been manifested by the hon. and gallant Member for Liverpool on this subject, I expect to have a learned and perhaps pedantic diatribe upon the merits of these questions—that I may be told that gas cannot be carried in tanks—and that no provision is made for its expansion in different atmospheres; all this may be said to be contrary to the laws of nature, and all the dogmas he studied in early life. Be it so; to all this I answer by anticipation, you speak without book; you have never condescended to be informed or instructed in the matter; and, moreover, that the same obstacles might have been and were advanced against the introduction of gas, steam, electrical powers, and of all the useful sciences that even with my limited experience I have seen rise from these difficulties, and obtain the sanction of mankind. Sir, I feel a great responsibility in thus taking up the time of the House, and thus obtruding my opinion; but I am justified by officers of high standing and great reputation. First, I have a report to his late Majesty William IV., signed by Sir R. Keates and Sir T. Hardy, forward- ed to me, I believe, by a relative of one of those distinguished officers; but as it did not reach me in an official form, I will not make use of it. Secondly, I have the report of Lieutenant Webster, a man selected to examine these things solely on account of his long and meritorious services. And, thirdly, I have at a later date the unsolicited opinion of a talented and disinterested officer, Captain Harvey. Here, then, Sir, I rest my case: firstly, that the experiment, however fairly entered upon, was incomplete, and was no failure, and that the Commissioners reported without a thorough investigation; secondly, that the other invention, for the defence of harbours, roadsteads, &c., has been proved to be eminently successful, and therefore ought not to be condemned, even if the long range was worthy of the designation given it by the hon. and gallant Member. I am aware, Sir, of the difficulty of introducing a subject of this description to the House, rendered, as it is, wearisome by the frequent repetition, and by being imperfectly understood by the great majority of people, who look on the matter as out of their province and not within their capacity, and by a considerable number who fully know the magnitude of these powers, but who dislike the inventions, and are determined by all means to throw them into the back ground. I can confidently tell all such that these efforts will not succeed, and that sooner or later truth will prevail; that patriotism may sometimes burn as ardently in the humble breast as in that bedizened with stars and decorations; and I can also add, though not without fear that, according to the noble Lord's views, I may be indicted for misprision of treason—that these inventions cannot remain where they are—and that perhaps we may awake as from a dream and find these extraordinary and wonderful powers used, not only for the certain destruction and annihilation of all our commercial marine, hut also to the humbling the British flag, when proudly waving over the sea. and bidding defiance to the world. I have only, in conclusion, to apologize to the noble Lord for the form of bringing forward this Motion, which more or less implies a degree of hostility, and which I have only adopted to insure my having an opportunity of getting a hearing; and, thanking the House for the attention they have paid me, I beg to move for a Secret Committee composed of civilians, Members of this House, who are as capable of judging of this matter as profes- sional men, and without their professional prejudice, before whom I would have examined not only the commissioners but the Master General of the Ordnance, and all parties present at the late trial, who I fearlessly assert could not but give evidence of these extraordinary powers; and I feel assured that Committee would have proved before them that not only can Captain Warner discharge these powerful missiles, but direct and control them. The noble Lord concluded by moving as an Amendment, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the report of the Commissioners appointed to investigate Captain Warner's invention.

seconded the Motion; he hoped the Government would grant the Committee. It was very desirable that this invention, as it was termed, should be demonstrated to the country to be nothing more than a deception. He wished for a Committee, to go into the facts, because the successful experiment at Brighton did not seem to have been accomplished by means of the same agency employed in the experiment upon which Colonel Chads and Captain Chalmer had reported. There was no balloon used at Brighton; at any rate nobody ever saw a balloon; and it was subsequent to that experiment that Captain Warner had applied to Mr. Green, the well-known aëronaut, requesting his services. He would state to the House the substance of a letter which he had received in reference to this affair from Mr. Green. That gentleman said that he had three years ago first constructed a balloon for Captain Warner, and that in August last that individual, giving the name of Palmer, had again called on him, requiring him to construct another balloon, which would be capable of taking up about 500 1b. Mr. Green was told that the balloon would be paid for by the Government; that it was to be applied to an experiment undertaken at the direction of the Government; and that, if the result was successful, the balloon would be returned, with adequate remuneration for the services employed. He was taken down to the Marquess of Anglesey's estate, and he inflated the balloon. A ponderous machine, as he described, was placed about sixty yards to windward of it; and after some delay this was attached to the neck of the balloon, which then was loosened from the ground. It ascended at a great velocity to an immense altitude, changing its direction with different currents, until it burst in the air from the great expansion of its gaseous contents, caused by the rapidity of its ascent into so rarefied a medium. The gunpowder in the machine, it proved, when the balloon was recovered, had not exploded. The greatest secrecy was preserved in the business; the people concerned went by assumed names; and Mr. Green, in his own words, had "turned Brown, as many greens do at that time of the year." He now complained that none of the articles or the apparatus which he had lent to Captain Warner for the experiment had been restored to him, and he had been left in ignorance of the address of that gentleman. The letter continued:—

"The week before Easter, his servant called to say the things I left in Mr. Palmer's care would be in town to-morrow, and should be sent to me next morning, and that he had orders from Government to sell the balloon for what it would fetch, and they expected to get 200l. for it. I told him I was satisfied Government had nothing to do with the selling of it; but if he brought it to me with articles I left with Mr. Palmer I would examine it, and say what it was worth to me. The balloon came, but nothing except that. On examining it I found it in so mutilated a condition, and the texture of the silk and net so much impaired by its having been packed up wet from November to that time, that I declined having anything to do with its purchase, and wished to know how, and by whom, I and my brother were to be remunerated for the great loss of time and expense we had been put to. He said Mr. Palmer would call on me in a few days, and my things would be returned safe in a day or two; but if I did not purchase the balloon he must take it back. I told him it should not leave my premises until I got my property. The same afternoon he brought me a letter he said from Mr. Palmer—in which letter this Mr. Palmer, for the first time, acknowledges by his signature (without any address) that he is no other than the notorious Captain Warner, and states that he purchased the balloon for Mr. Palmer, whose property it is, and if I did not immediately give it up, legal means would be taken to compel me. Still refusing to give it up, till I either got my property or its value, I was served with a copy of a writ, which my attorney, Mr. Spencer, settled for 3l.; this writ was at the suit of Mr. G. Palmer, and issued, by an attorney of that name, who charged 9l., which Mr. Spencer got reduced to 3l."

Mr. Green, therefore, believed the alleged invention was a mere deception, and he petitioned the House to compel Captain Warner to return the apparatus. Considering that 1,300l. had been spent upon a man who did not even give his address, or let any one know where he lived, it was not asking too much to require that he should restore to their owner the various articles which Mr. Green had made use of in preparing the balloon for the experiment. He hoped that the House would grant the Select Committee, but that it would refuse to make it a Secret Committee. It was much to be wished that the public should be made aware of the little value of the suggestions of Captain Warner; and there could be no objection to agreeing to the proposal of the noble Lord, if no fresh supplies were asked for any further experiments.

wished to detain the House a few moments, while he replied to the observations of the noble Lord, in reference to some statements which, on a former occasion, he (Mr. Brotherton) had thought it his duty to make. The charge urged by the noble Lord was, that he had read anonymous letters to the House, and that he had no foundation for assertions contained in those letters. He knew nothing of Captain Warner, and cared nothing about him; his only object in reading those letters had been, not to injure Captain Warner, but to protect the public purse. The facts were these—he had received letters from a gentleman at Madrid stating that Captain Warner had offered the supposed invention to Don Pedro for a certain sum of money; but that nothing had resulted from the offer, inasmuch as Captain Warner would not explain the invention until he had obtained the money; and the parties who were to be the purchasers did not think it wise to deposit the price until they knew what they were about. He had received also a letter from Colonel Sir C. Shaw, late commissioner of police at Manchester, in which it was represented that some time ago, at Oporto, Captain Warner had been called on to destroy a battery with his invention, and that after every facility had been offered to him he delayed from day to day, and behaved in such a manner that Colonel Shaw was led to believe that it was "all humbug." Captain Warner had written a letter to the Times, contradicting all that he (Mr. Brotherton) had said, and all he had read from these letters; he had not answered that letter, because he thought it was the duty of Colonel Shaw to do so; and when the experiment which was atterwards made had been tried and failed, Colonel Shaw then wrote, apologizing for not having noticed Captain Warner's letter in the Times, but reiterating every one of his former statements. All he had now to say was, that as 1,300l. was already gone, he hoped the Government would not advance any more money.

I should have hoped that this question might have been set at rest by the experiments to which the noble Lord has alluded, without the appointment of a Select Committee, and indeed without further debating the point. The obligation under which I placed myself, to sanction any experiment at all, was less from any hope I had of a succesful result, than from the persuasion that many persons entertained the idea that Captain Warner had made an invention of great value, which, by means of what he called the "long range," would send a projectile, as it was understood to be, a distance of five miles with a certainty of aim and secrecy; and it was only in consequence of that persuasion that the Government was induced to think some experiment ought to be tried, with a view to dissipate all doubts on the subject. A commission was originally appointed, composed certainly of very able men, and that commission was in a fair way to set the whole question at rest, when, from some reason or other, not well explained, Captain Warner objected to their further proceeedings. The gallant Officer opposite can explain better than I can what took place under that commission. When the Government agreed to the request that they would institute some experiment, I thought the best course I could take was to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Master General of the Ordnance to name to me two officers of experience and ability to whom this question might be referred, and through whom any experiment might be tried. I agreed with my noble Friend the Marquess of Anglesey, at the same time that the long range, being the matter of the greatest difficulty, of the greatest importance if it succeeded, and altogether that to which the public attention had been most turned, should be taken as the test of these inventions of Captain Warner. The noble Lord who has made this Motion, agrees, I think, that the terms proposed were altogether fair; and he has borne testimony this evening very handsomely to the manner in which the Government showed its willingness to see if there was anything practicable in this invention. The officers appointed—Colonel Chalmer and Captain Chads—were men of ability and experience, and perfectly competent to the task assigned them. They understood that the Government desired some decisive experiment to be made. At the same time, with regard to the expenditure, I said the experiment was to be made, and that, on the part of the Treasury, I would undertake to authorize such an expenditure as they should declare to be necessary; but I directed them not to incur any expenditure not absolutely requisite for their purpose. They were told, in the first instance, what was the nature of the invention; and they declared at the very commencement that their first impression was, they did not consider it capable of realizing that certainty of aim, that impenetrable secrecy, and that power of being used under all circumstances, which Captain Warner had always ascribed to the long range. Their impression was unfavourable; but, nevertheless, as they understood an experiment would be desired, they thought that 1,300l. might be the extent to which advances should be made with that object. Well, then, as the commissioners say, the ground was chosen, if not by Captain Warner, by the noble Lord who has been always the intimate ally of Captain Warner in all those inquiries. I do not mean to attribute any undue degree of credulity to the noble Lord; hut he has always been considered as co-operating with Captain Warner. The commissioners waited for some time for their experiment to be made; and at last, as I had always stated the experiment was to be made under conditions to be settled between the commissioners and Captain Warner and the noble Lord, a spot, called the "Fair Oak," was fixed upon as the point to which the long range should be directed. The noble Lord says, it is inconceivable that persons should go and place themselves at the very point to which it had been arranged that the projectile should be directed. I do not wondor that those gallant officers, knowing the balloon was to be the mode employed, should have ventured to station themselves exactly at that spot. I own my apprehension was, when the secret was committed to me, not that Captain Warner should destroy some particular object appointed to be his aim; my fear was, that he would destroy something very wide from the aim; and when the commissioners informed me that, at one time, there was a question as to trying the experiment on the Downs, in Sussex, I said, "Well, I hope you will take care there are no villages on one side or the other, because I am afraid that the shells may not fall on the downs, as intended by Captain Warner, but on the villages on either side, and do serious injury." The officers, however, did take their post at the Fair Oak. They waited for some time; and my noble Friend says it was necessary that there should be a particular wind in order that the balloons should go in a certain direction. [Lord INGESTRE: From a fixed spot.] Exactly, from a fixed spot; but, then, unfortunately, that necessity exposes the defect of the whole invention. They were to go to S.S.W.; let the direction be what you like, it was impossible, except under certain circumstances, that the balloon should precisely reach the point desired; and those circumstances were such circumstances as Captain Warner could not have commanded, had he stayed there, not for three days or a week, but for three years. It is not merely necessary that there should be a wind exactly in that direction, from the one fixed spot to the other fixed spot; but it is necessary that the wind must have a certain force and velocity, so as to carry the balloon in the very same time as the pilot balloon. If that is not so, the experiment fails; and if, at ten in the morning, as the noble Lord says, the wind was going at the rate of ten miles an hour to carry the pilot balloon at that rate, and if afterwards, at four in. the evening, the wind was going only at the rate of four miles an hour, and would carry the larger balloon no faster, though still going in the same direction, in that way the experiment would fail. So that unless you have the wind going in the direction you wish, and at that velocity according to which you had made your calculations, the experiment would be sure to fail. And that, in fact, makes the whole worthless, because what you would want, in war, is to be able to go from some spot fixed in order to aim at some other object likely to be fixed; and if the wind is not in that direction, or were to vary in velocity after having despatched the pilot balloon, you would fall short of the mark, or on one or other side of it. And let me here state that what I understand from these papers was, the expectation of the officers was borne out by the result. It was said that a certain number of these shells or balls were to be dropped at distances of three, four, and five miles. The noble Lord says it was afterwards agreed that they should not go more than four miles, and that they should go in a certain direction. The result was that five fell within one mile of the place to which the balloon was sent, and that a great many others fell at different points, some of them a mile and a half and two miles to the east- ward of the points for which they were intended, thereby proving that their discharge would have been a total failure if they had been used in war. It was found that the balloon, as the noble Lord says, "wabbled" in its course; it crossed in an easterly direction and disappeared; and, as I have already observed, the projectiles never reached their destination; that, in short, these balls were not found to answer at all to the engagement that had been taken that they were to fall at certain spots and fixed distances from the place from which the balloon was sent out. The commissioners very properly said, in their letters of the 21st of August, that what they had in view was, to ascertain in the first place the "certainty of aim" which Captain Warner promised. But there was no certainty of aim whatever. The next thing was, "the power of using it under all circumstances;" but it was perfectly evident that there was no power of using it under all circumstances. The noble Lord seems to think that we ought to give Captain Warner the opportunity of making the experiment with the wind more favourable to his object, or without any wind; but this could not be done when engaged in actual war; and the projectiles would then be of no use unless there was a hostile army on every side. Unless in each particular case the wind was found favourable—as, for example, that the south wind should blow when it was wished to send them to the north, and the north wind when it was wanted to project them towards the south—the employment of these missiles would be entirely useless. The third condition of the experiment was "impenetrable secrecy;" but this, after the experiment had been gone into, was impossible. There were various attempts to conceal what was going on. Mr. Green, as we have heard, took the name of Brown, the more effectually to carry out concealment; but, notwithstanding these disguises, it was evident that not merely the Admiralty and the Ordnance must have known the secret, but that it would come to be known that a balloon and a number of shells or balls had fallen, and thus the public would be made aware that a balloon was the means which Captain Warner had employed; therefore it was impossible to keep that part of the experiment a secret. I say nothing with regard to the other inventions of Captain Warner, as they were not under question. We wanted to try this long range, which certainly had at- tracted a great amount of curiosity, and would unquestionably have been, if Captain Warner's statements were verified, a most extraordinary discovery. The commissioners, however, have shown that it was not likely to be of any use; and I may observe, that so far from the use of balloons for such purposes being a new discovery, from the early commencement of the last war offers were repeatedly made to the Government to produce, by means of balloons, destructive effects against the enemy. As my hon. Friend (Mr. Brotherton) has remarked, we may have spent l,300l. too much in this experiment; but it cannot be said that, considering the fair play shown to Captain Warner, this experiment has not had every chance of success that Captain Warner could have asked. The noble Lord says, "Let us have a steam ship, and try the experiment in an operation against the gulls." I do think there have been gulls enough already, and that such a proposal as that of the noble Lord is not called for. The Motion before the House is for a Select Committee; but I do not suppose the House will be disposed to think a Committee of Inquiry necessary, seeing that in the opportunities which have already been afforded to Captain Warner, he has completely failed in the professions and promises which he has given.

was by no means satisfied that it was not necessary to pursue this inquiry further. It had been some satisfaction to him to hear the speech of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), for, notwithstanding the jocosity which he had exhibited, his speech was, on the whole candid and fair towards Captain Warner. Every kind of misrepresentation and obloquy, and all sorts of sarcasms and abusive language, had been employed against that individual; and no opportunity had been lost of raising the laugh against him, by parties who evidently knew little or nothing about the matter. He believed few of those who ridiculed the professions of Captain Warner had taken any pains whatever to understand the question. He should like to know how many had gone to Arlington-street, to see for themselves the application, to a certain extent, of the materials embraced in the discovery, where they might have seen models and plans, and everything, indeed, with the exception of the secret, as to how it was to be used in war. How many of those who talked about gulls, and deception, and delusion, went to see and examine for themselves? He knew nothing about Captain Warner; but he did go in a spirit somewhat more sceptical than now, and received evidence that did not certainly convince him that the discovery would be valuable in war, but which brought him to this conclusion, that the subject was one that was neither ridiculous, nor absurd, nor disgraceful either to Captain Warner or his abettors. It was not a matter intended to gull or cheat the Government, but one deserving of inquiry before the Government or the country ought to pronounce it a failure. Every kind of misrepresentation had been raised on this subject out of doors. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hollond) had read part of a letter from Mr. Green, and he was anxious to hear whether he would pronounce the use of a balloon for such purposes absurd; but he found that Mr. Green did not speak of it as absurd. His letter merely referred to a petty squabble as to whether he should not get payment of 3l. or 4l. for certain property which he contended belonged to him. Among other misrepresentations to which Captain Warner was exposed, the experiment at Brighton was said to have been a deception; and some people seemed to connect the use of the balloon with that experiment. But the experiment at Brighton had nothing to do with the balloon. It was with what was called the invisible shell, and it formed no part of the investigation on which the commissioners had reported. As to the experiment itself, when he read the report, he thought it might be made to appear that Captain Warner had been guilty of misrepresentation, and that he had brought about delay after delay in order to tire out the officers and drive them away, so that he might be able to say he had not had a fair trial; but the moment it came out that the explosion was to be accomplished by means of a balloon, it was made evident that the object of Captain Warner could not be delay, but sufficient time to make preparation for the experiment. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had argued as if the engine ought to be used from a fixed point to a fixed point, and then said, "But you must always wait until the wind is due south or due north." But he dissented from the noble Lord's proposition altogether; he had understood that this was an invention intended to be useful at sea or against towns on the coast. Again, when he (Mr. Aglionby) read the report of the commissioners, he had been led to believe that they stated that none of the shells had fallen. [Mr. HOLLAND: The commissioners do not say so.] They did not say so; but to his mind the report led to this impression. They did not say that no balls fell, but they said no balls were found; and he had believed they meant that no balls came at all. But heavy balls were projected at different intervals, as Captain Warner had promised. What would be the expense of a further inquiry? He did not ask the noble Lord to expend the public money; but he should like a Committee before whom not only officers but scientific men might be examined; and he hoped the Committee moved for would be appointed.

began by referring to The exploits said by Captain Warner to have been performed by him with The long range in the last war. The captain stated that he had sunk two French privateers, one off Folkestone, another on the French coast. These achievements were said to have been performed from a cutter called the Nautilus, which belonged to Captain Warner's father, and which was hired by the Admiralty for the King's service. Now, the former Commission of Inquiry, of which he (Sir H. Douglas) had been a member, thought it their duty to make reference to each and all the departments under which these services were said to have been performed, and they never could find the remotest trace of any such vessel or any such circumstance, He now came to the subject immediately under discussion, and with respect to it he could only reiterate the opinion which he had formerly expressed, that there never was a greater imposition practised on the credulity of any people, and that there never had been started a proposal so absurd as that of the long range. It was an imposition, which by a specious use of terms of scientific import—applied to the long range—led many who were unlearned in these matters, and even those who had a smattering of science, to believe in the discovery of some new and tremendous kind of projectile force. And hero he would put it to the noble Lord (Lord Ingestre) whether he—not designedly, of course—but whether he had not absolutely sanctioned the imposition by applying the terms "long range," "aim," and "bombardment," when he knew that all these phrases referred to operations to be conducted by a balloon. Why, what was a range? A range was the amplitude of a path described by a pro- jectile. What was to aim—to take aim? To point the engine, before discharging the instrument? Now, all these terms led the public to suppose that the long range was a new and stupendous projectile power. Why, every nation on the Continent was astonished at our gullibility. For his own part, he had been amusing himself in calculating the magnitude of those monster balloons which would be required to take up the great weights necessary to carry out Captain Warner's plan. First, there was the small class of balloons to take up in their ascent 45 missiles, weighing 10 lbs. a piece, or say in round numbers 500 lbs. Now, to take up that weight a balloon would require to be 33 feet in diameter. Then, supposing it to be globular in form, the gas requisite for its inflation would be 18,816 cubic feet. The surface of the balloon would be 380 square yards, and the quantity of silk requisite, at three feet in width, would be 570 yards. He understood, however, that the species of silk necessary for the manufacture of balloons, cost 8s. a yard, and was made only two feet in width, so that they would have to make an addition to the calculation on that scale. The result, however, was, that a balloon of 33 feet in diameter would cost about 300l. in stuff alone, exclusive of making up, of netting, or of gas. He now came to balloons of the larger class, for the conveyance of 40 missiles of 25 lbs. weight each. They would require to be 40 feet in diameter, would contain 33,570 cubic feet of gas, would show 569 square yards of surface, and would require 854 yards of material, which latter item would cost 455l.. Now, monstrous as this was, Captain Warner stated that it was nothing to what he could do, and he talked of discharging missiles by volleys of 100 at a time, of projectiles weighing each 500 lbs. Now, for such an exploit, there would be requisite a balloon 123 feet in diameter, charged with 974,349 cubic feet of gas, having 5,298 square yards of surface, and requiring 7,947 yards of stuff—[An Hon. MEMBER: All stuff!] Yes, and costing about 3,000l.. He thought that the commissioners had done their duty most ably. Nothing could have been more complete than the failure, and, as he understood, the noble Lord himself admitted that it was a failure. It was expressly stipulated that Fairoak Tree was to be the target; but the balloon ascended to a great height, got entangled in different currents of wind, and took a very tortuous direction—a sketch showing the general nature of which he held in his hand. [This sketch the hon. and gallant Gentleman handed across the Table, amid some mirth, to Lord John Russell, who inspected it with some interest.] The balloon, he repeated, went in a most tortuous direction, and came to the ground with a bag of powder and nine balls attached, which it had not fired. The "long range," it was evident, then, was good for nothing on land; but it was said that they could use it from steamers, which could paddle in the wind's eye, so as to get a windward position. Why, fancy balloons of the magnitudes he had stated, triced up to the masts of a steamer, in a breeze of wind, either to be inflated, or already filled. He would engage to riddle them at 1,500 yards with a spherical shell from a 32 pounder. And think of the size, a balloon of 123 feet diameter! Why, the globe of the Pantheon was only 144 feet in diameter. The dome of St. Peter's was about the same size; the Whispering Gallery of St. Paul's was only 100 feet. And then, setting aside the expense, how was the process to be managed? He believed that in the Ingestre and Warner's museum there were models of steamers with apparatus for the inflation of balloons, and cases, or gasometers, to fill others. But for this, the gas must be compressed. How, and by how many atmospheres? No doubt hydrogen gas might be compressed 30 atmospheres, but it must be contained in an immensely strong case, out of which, be it remarked, it would find an exit at fissures impenetrable to any other sort of gas. He certainly did think that such a body would prove a dangerous inmate on board a steamer in the midst of fire and sparks, and lighted fuzees; and the noble Lord would find it so, when he hoisted his flag with a squadron of Balloniers. But if the flight of a balloon be as the noble Lord and Mr. Warner say, a range, why limit it to five or six miles? We have the authority of a person who has risen to great eminence in his vocation, and who, no doubt, will be aeronaut-general of the new system of warfare—we have his authority that the range of a balloon is at least as far as hence to Nassau, and then the balloons must be burnt or lost. This is to burst or destroy your gun, as well as expend your ammunition. Expensive practice this! Throw away balloons costing from 300l. to 3,000l. at every discharge. But no! it appears, the balloons are not to be let go; but to be held captives like kites, and after they had dropped their missiles be hauled back and charged again. In that ease, the lines must be pretty long ones to fulfil the condition that the people who sent up the balloon should be out of harm's way. The retaining cord must be three or four miles long, and then of course the necessity of adding vastly to the ascending power of the balloons that is increasing their magnitude, in order to carry up the rope. And what sort of rope would be necessary? Not a mere string—not a mere ratline—no—they would require at least a young hawser. He had calculated the immense additional ascending power that would be required to take up such a rope, and to stand the oblique action and vertical weight; but he would not enlarge upon that absurdity. And now as to the invisible shell, and the destruction of the John o'Gaunt, off Brighton. That destruction was not effected by the long range. Yet Captain Warner declared to Mr. Somes that it was to be by the long range, and by no other means, that he proposed to achieve it. The Captain had published a challenge in the daily newspapers, in which he undertook to destroy a hulk moored at the back of the Goodwin Sands—and in that challenge, it was distinctly stated, that the agent employed should be a projectile. When the Government had refused to go into the matter, Mr. Somes gave the ship John o'Gaunt to be destroyed by the long range; and he (Sir H. Douglas) had the authority both of the late and the present Mr. Somes for the fact that the ship was thus to be destroyed. But the destruction of the John o'Gaunt was a trick of the same class as the blowing up of the punt on the fish-pond, which consisted merely of shells sunk and anchored under the water, and a long rope attached to the punt, which at a signal given was drawn by a team of horses, and which on striking the composition blew up the vessel. The destruction of the John o'Gaunt was just the same, except that a steamer was employed to drag the vessel to unavoidable destruction instead of a team of horses. He (Sir H. Douglas) held in his hand a sketch of a vessel destroyed by means of gunpowder quite as effectually as the John o'Gaunt. We wanted no new force; we had more force in gunpowder than we required. The elastic fluid generated by the decomposition of gunpowder, expands with a velocity of 10,000 feet in a second, and at the moment of decomposition exerts a force 2,000 times greater than the atmosphere upon the same surface. We have seen a cliff, one of the cliffs of Albion, blown into the sea, and the Royal George out of it; there was nothing that might not be done by gunpowder, and by a small quantity of it; ever so little in the heart of a rock would destroy it, if you could ignite the gunpowder. He (Sir H. Douglas) detected in his first conversation with Mr. Warner that his mighty agent was a balloon. As to the "bottled lightning," said to be contained in the invisible shells, if Captain Warner would walk up to the Royal Institution any morning, Brande or Faraday would show him that there was no invention or novelty in this matter at all, and that he had merely got hold of one of those compounds that were well known, though not used, because so dangerous. When he (Sir H. Douglas) first read Mr. Warner's most astounding assertions, he came to the conclusion that the man who wrote them, if he believed in those powers, must be mad; and if he did not, he must be an impostor. Mr. Warner has himself said, "Were I to promulgate these statements to the multitude, I could only expect to be derided as an impostor, or pitied as the dupe of my own fancy." He (Sir H. Douglas) adopted the more charitable conclusion suggested by himself, that Mr. Warner was under some strange hallucination upon this subject.

said, the hon. and gallant Officer had so completely blown Captain Warner out of the field, that it was unnecessary for him to add anything. He merely wished the House to remember that if they granted a Committee, or made further inquiry into this subject, there were many Captain Warners in this town who would come forward and demand to be placed in the same position. It behoved the House, therefore, to be cautious how they voted, or they would have to try the experiments over and over again.

said, that it might have been Mr. Somes' impression that the ship was to be destroyed by the long range, but it had not been so understood. As he saw that the tone and temper of the House were against the Motion, he would not trouble them to divide.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite would consent to the production of the correspondence he asked for, it would be unnecessary for him to trouble the House; but otherwise he must trespass upon them with a short statement. He was about to move—

"That there be laid before this House a Copy of the Correspondence which has taken place between the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the convicting magistrates, relating to the illegal imprisonment of Mary Dawson in the West Riding of Yorkshire Gaol."

The girl, whose case he was about to bring forward, was hired by a manufacturer in Keighley to weave. When she went to work she was placed at a loom in which there was a warp partly woven. She finished that, and was placed at another, where there were two or three warps. Being unable to weave it herself, she hired another girl of the same age to assist her, but finding she could not complete the work and make the wages, she left work. Her master summoned her for leaving work in the loom. The magistrates dealt leniently with her case, and tried to persuade the girl to return to her work. She refused. The foreman of the manufactory appeared against her, and pressed for a committal to prison; but the magistrates at that time declined to commit, and expressed the hope that she would return. The girl at once said, "I will not return; and I would rather be imprisoned if the foreman wishes me to be sent to gaol." The girl then went to another manufacturer, and obtained employment. Mr. Hattersley, her former master, wrote to her second employer, and asked him to discharge her, and compel her to go back to his mill. Mr. Mitchen, the second employer, refused, expressing his opinion that the girl had committed no offence. Her late employer then applied to another person to finish the warp; but she was unable, on account of its badness. Another weaver then attempted the work, but gave it up in despair. A third at last completed the weaving. These circumstances occurred soon after the 10th of March, on which day the girl left her first employer. She continued to he employed by her second master until the 13th of April, on which day a constable entered the mill, and without giving her time to change her clogs or working clothes, hurried her through the streets of Keighley to the railway station, put her into a carriage, and conveyed her to the house of correction, where she was delivered over to the gaoler, who placed her on the treadmill. She was worked on the treadmill for three weeks. Her father—she was a girl under age—was as respectable a person, although a labouring man, as any in that part of the country, went to the magistrates who signed the commitment, and asked for a copy of it. It was refused. He then went to the magistrates' clerk to ask for a copy, and was prepared to pay for it, but it was refused. But when he went before the magistrate, he said, "Ah, John, is that you? I did not know that you were servant to Mr. Bus feild, the Member for Bradford; if I had, I would have dealt leniently with your daughter." The reply was, "If my daughter has committed any offence, she ought to be punished like any other person. But I only want justice, and I ask for a copy of the commitment." This, however, was refused, and the father then wrote a letter to him, and he advised him to present a petition to the House of Commons, and promised to state the case. He (Mr. Ferrand) then went to the Home Office and saw the Under Secretary of State on the matter, who had paid him every attention in his power; and he was requested by both father and daughter to tender their grateful thanks for the release of the girl from prison. And in justice to the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Home Secretary, he was bound to say that that right hon. Gentleman had offered him a private view of the correspondence, hut had informed him it was contrary to the usual routine to place the correspondence on the Table of the House. But he believed he should succeed in inducing the House to order the production of the papers. The right hon. Gentleman had ordered an inquiry to he made; and the result was that the girl had been released from prison, hut not until she had been illegally confined and worked upon the tread-mill for three weeks amongst vagabonds and prostitutes; and when released she was so weakened by the labour on the mill that she could not walk without assistance. What the defence of the magistrates was he knew not; but this girl had committed no offence against the law of the land, or against any rule founded on the law. If the magistrates were going to protect themselves under the Worsted Embezzlement Act—one of the worst that had ever passed the Legislature—he contended that that Act did not apply to the case, for that Act was passed to punish those who received wool to comb, or warps to weave, at their own dwellings; whereas this girl was working in the factory of her master. He did not mean to charge the magistrates with improper motives. He had acted with them for several years, and had seen them inclined to err on the side of leniency rather than of severity. But having had this case put in his hands, he was bound to fulfil his public duty in bringing it before the House. He should be happy if the magistrates justified themselves. He might be told that the girl could have redress in a court of law; but it was ridiculous to talk about a power-loom weaver bringing an action against magistrates who could back their defence with an expenditure of 200l. or 300l. The only chance of justice was in that House; and it was his duty to state, that in the manufacturing districts there were other magistrates who were adopting the same course, and committing to prison persons who had left their work in the same way this girl had. Unless the House acted in a manner to convince these magistrates that such conduct would be visited at least by a vote of censure from the House, if not by the punishment of the law, there was no chance for the redress of the grievances of the working classes. The hon. Gentleman concluded by submitting his Motion.

said, the explanation which he had to give of the circumstances of the case which was brought before the House by the hon. Gentleman, was a very short one. The hon. Gentleman had correctly stated, that the case had been brought under the notice of the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, and that immediate attention was given to his communication, as was always the case where any representation was made with reference to a case of illegal commitment. A communication was immediately addressed to the magistrates, calling on them for a copy of the committal in this case; and on a copy of the committal being furnished by them, he was advised by the most competent authority, that the commitment was—with reference to the facts as they were—an illegal commitment, on the ground that the magistrates having committed this girl under a certain Act of Parliament, the committal ought to have been taken under another and a different Act of Parliament. With regard to the facts of the case, he was bound to say it did not appear that there was the slightest misconduct on the part of the magistrates. The case having been brought before them, they were bound to adjudicate upon it; and he was satisfied they had acted with the greatest consideration and leniency towards the girl. They did not proceed to commit her until they had used every other means to induce her to return to her employment, and complete the warp at which she was engaged. The evidence was, that having been engaged to weave a warp of a certain length she had left it unfinished, and engaged herself to another employer; and she was told by the magistrates that she had no right after her engagement with Mr. Hattersley, to take an employment, with higher wages, until she had in the first instance fulfilled that contract. He (Sir G. Grey) was of opinion, on the face of the facts as they appeared to him, that there was not the slightest misconduct attributed to the magistrates. They had merely proceeded under one Act of Parliament instead of another; and he (Sir G. Grey) understood that considerable doubt existed as to whether the one Act or the other applied to the case. He was bound also to state, that the magistrate, Mr. Ellis, to whom a certain conversation with this girl's father was attributed, had distinctly, and in the most unqualified manner, denied that such a conversation as was represented had taken place. He did say, he did not know that she was the daughter of this person; but observed "that that would make no difference—that he had hut one course to take, and that was, to execute the law to the best of his judgment." With respect to the allegation that this girl had been placed on the treadmill, it was stated by the gaoler of the House of Correction that she had not been on the treadmill even for an hour. lie held in his hand a statement with reference to her daily employment during the whole period, from which it appeared that during some days she had been employed in sewing, and other days in washing, and that she had not been on the treadmill.

observed, that he knew the gaoler of the Wakefield house of correction to be a highly respectable person, and no doubt he had spoken the truth. He (Mr. Ferrand) had, however, been told that the girl had been placed upon the treadmill; and that she was lame when she left the prison. He must state most distinctly that no agreement had been entered into by the girl with Mr. Hattersley; that she was not twenty-one years of age; and that her father had not entered into any contract for her employment. Under these circumstances it was clear the girl had been improperly convicted. Would the right hon. the Home Secretary state under what Act of Parliament she had been committed?

Under the 17th George III., c. 56.

believed, that the magistrates who had acted in this case were most upright men, and there were no men whom he would he more willing to trust to in a case of his own. The committing magistrates had written to him a statement of what took place, from which it appeared that twelve pieces were delivered to the girl, that she had woven nine pieces and one-half of the tenth, leaving two and a half pieces unwoven. She then absented herself and went to another mill-owner, where she got better wages and work. She was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, the period of imprisonment under the Act being "not more than three months, and not less than one month. "So that the magistrates were obliged, if they thought her guilty, to commit her for a month. He was not there to say what was the right interpretation of the Act; but he was bound to say, that, since this proceeding was brought under the notice of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the magistrates had been informed that the committal was legal. They had resorted to the best advice they could get; they had laid a case before an eminent counsel on the northern circuit, and it was his opinion that the committal was in exact conformity with the law. If a doubt could be entertained in such a case, he should be sorry that the girl suffered any unnecessary confinement; but he also contended for it, that the magistrates had acted from pure motives; and there was reason, also, to think they might have acted in conformity with the existing law.

replied to a question by Mr. Wakley that he would have no objection to the production of the copy of the committal, but would not consent to the production of the correspondence.

wished to hear from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester whether such was the practice when he was Home Secretary? His belief was, that on several occasions the right hon. Baronet had, without opposition, furnished such correspondence. If a magis- trate acted correctly, it was right that the Home Secretary should shield him in that House; hut when, as in this case, and on the acknowledgment of the Home Secretary, a magistrate had acted unlawfully—had committed a girl illegally—who had been dragged through the streets as a criminal, and subjected to the odious punishment of the treadmill—["No.no!" Sir G. GREY did not admit any of these facts.] It was the statement of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, and the Home Secretary did not deny it. The right hon. Gentleman did not deny that the girl was committed to gaol—he did not deny that on his interference she had been liberated; and he admitted that the commitment was illegal. ["No!"] The right hon. Gentleman stated, that, from the best information he could obtain, he believed the commitment to be illegal; and, therefore, ordered the girl to be liberated; but, at the same time, stated, that he believed the magistrates had been guilty of no misconduct. It was proper when magistrates had acted rightly, that they should be protected by the Home Secretary; hut when they acted illegally, he was placed in a painful position if he refused to produce the correspondence. The House ought to see the correspondence, and also a copy of the warrant of committal. He must say, that when an illegal act like this had been committed, he regretted that it should be in the first instance brought before that House. If, as the right hon. Baronet had admitted, there had been a violation of the law, a remedy must be supplied, not in this House, but in a court of law. The hon. Member for Knaresborough asked how it was to be obtained? Why, if it was quite clear that the act of the magistrate was illegal, the magistrate was a very good mark for some skilful attorney to aim at; and he had no doubt that there were plenty of attorneys who, when they saw the report of to-night's proceedings in the public journals, would feel considerable commiseration for the poor girl. In conclusion, the hon. Member expressed a hope that the practice of refusing correspondence of the description required by the hon. Member for Knaresborough would no longer he continued.

thought the House ought not to he satisfied without the production of the correspondence; and the question at present was not in the situation in which it ought to be left.

feared that after the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury a very wrong impression with respect to this case might go forth. Now, in the first place, the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ferrand) were denied; and he did not impute any improper motives to the magistrates, or say that they behaved harshly to this girl. [Mr. FERRAND: I said I had no proof of it.] The hon. Member did not impute any harsh conduct to the magistrates: and, in fact, the statement made by his noble Friend (Sir Gr. Grey) showed they did their best to induce this girl to do what was right before they committed her; and the statement that she was put on the treadmill was denied by the keeper of the bride well. Every statement made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) was denied, with the exception of the single fact that she was committed to prison. [Mr. FERRAND: She told me herself that she was on the treadmill.] But that does not prove it is true.

observed, that the statement with respect to being placed on the treadmill was asserted strongly by the girl, hut was denied by the gaoler; and if the papers were produced, it would then, probably, be seen who was right and who was wrong. Then, it was stated that eminent counsel on the northern circuit had said the committal was legal; but the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said, he had received an opinion the commitment was illegal; and if they had the correspondence, they would possibly see who was right and who was wrong. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department appeared to think it was contrary to all precedent that such papers should be returned; hut the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury said that his experience did not bear out that statement at all. The hon. Member had then appealed to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester, as to his opinion of the practice; and some light might be thrown by the production of the papers upon that part of the question; therefore he thought they were justified in asking for the production of the papers.

moved for copies of a despatch from the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors of the East India Company to the Governor General of India, re- specting the ex-Rajah of Sattara, dated the 24th March, 1846, and of the answer thereto, &c. In doing so he said he would not have introduced his Motion at that late hour (past twelve o'clock) were it not that the subject he had to bring forward involved a case of great injustice towards an individual, as well as a grave charge against the Government. His statement was necessarily a long one. but he would compress it into as brief a space as possible. It was painful to him to be obliged to state that the papers which he had moved for on former occasions, and which would go to exonerate the Rajah of Sattara from the charges which were made against him, had been refused by the Secretary of State on the ground that copies of them had been surreptitiously obtained; but though the right hon. Gentleman had promised to produce all the documents which he wanted, such had not been done, and it was on that undertaking that his former Motion on the subject had not been pressed in the shape in which it originally stood. In that respect, therefore, he had to say he had been deceived. The right hon. Gentleman formerly in office had given his sanction to the dethronement of the Rajah of Sattara without any evidence of a satisfactory nature having been adduced against that individual. He had been hurled from his throne and sent away a thousand miles from his country, and was now an exile in a foreign land, without having the opportunity of a trial, such as would be afforded to any British subject, being given to him. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. C. Hob-house) and his predecessor in office, had agreed to lay various documents connected with that case on the Table of the House; but those only which tended to inculpate the Rajah had been produced, while such as would go towards his exculpation had been withheld and refused. He had presented Lord Ripon, when in office, with a letter from the Rajah, stating his case in full; but that noble Lord, though exhibiting great sympathy towards the individual in question, had said that he could not receive any papers from anybody in India, except through the Governor General. The Rajah had been accordingly advised to adopt that course, and he had accordingly directed a letter to Sir Henry (now Lord) Hardinge, stating the particulars of his case. That letter had never been received. Though twice ordered by the House, the right hon. Gentleman would not produce it. He had been told that it was not at the India House; but it had not been said that it was not in this country. He believed it was lodged in the secret department of the right hon. Gentleman's office. That right hon. Gentleman had more power in some respects even than the Crown; but he believed the right hon. Gentleman was not fully aware of the importance and injustice of his conduct in this respect. What he complained of in this case was, that the Rajah of Sattara, whether guilty or innocent, had not a fair trial. There were documents to prove his innocence, and they were suppressed by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control. What he wanted was, that an opportunity should be afforded of fully ascertaining the truth in the matter. He believed he would be able to prove, if such an opportunity were given, that the Rajah was the victim of a gross conspiracy, to which the British agents must have been parties. As long as he lived he would endeavour to obtain justice for a much-wronged man. He made his appeal to the justice of English Gentlemen; and he would bring the case on again, when he would have the opportunity of dividing the House upon the question.

The hon. Gentleman has asked that justice should be done to himself and to the Rajah of Sattara. [Mr. HUME: I don't want it for myself.] I must tell the House in what manner the hon. Gentleman has chosen to deal out justice to a public officer. The hon. Gentleman has altered his Motion no less than four times. [Mr. HUME: I had a right to do so.] In his first Motion he accused myself and the Board of Control of illegality. [Mr. HUME: I do so still.] He dropped that charge, and next said our conduct was impolitic and unjust. He then dropped that accusation. He next brought another charge, and said whether withholding these papers was illegal or not, still that the refusal of them was impolitic and unjust; and now, the whole foundation of his case was merely to ask for two despatches—one of the 24th of March, 1846, and the other the letter which was written in answer to that despatch. How is it possible for me to meet charges thus dropped one after the other? The hon. Gentleman told me that the papers furnished were so satisfactory as to the conduct of the Board of Control, that he could not complain of the refusal of other papers. I gave him my reasons for granting certain, papers and not others. "You can't have the latter," I said, "because they are secret papers." And my refusal was supported by the right hon. Member for Tamworth and by the whole House. I don't believe if the hon. Gentleman had divided on that occasion that four Members would have gone out with him. The hon. Gentleman has brought many charges against us in very vigorous phraseology; but I venture to say that his allegations are about the boldest fictions ever attempted to be palmed on the public. The hon. Gentleman has chosen to say that the Governor General expressed his belief in the innocence of the Rajah of Sattara. I tell him it is not true, and I produce the document itself to prove that it is not. As for myself, I should be very sorry to put myself in competition or contrast with the hon. Gentleman; but when he talks of the injustice—the illegality—the tyranny of the Board of Control—he ought to know the facts; and I beg leave to tell him that he has not stated one of them correctly. Of all the extraordinary statements in which the hon. Gentleman has indulged, the most marvellous is that relating to the despatch of the 24th of March. The hon. Gentleman's friend and patron, Mr. G. Thompson (of whom I shall have a word to say presently), gives this account of the production of this despatch, that he found it one morning on his breakfast table, and that nothing on earth should induce him to disclose how it came there. The hon. Member for Montrose knows that it could not have found its way to the breakfast table of Mr. G. Thompson without a gross betrayal of trust—a violation of the oath of the person who obtained it. Now, I ask the hon. Gentleman, does he know how it came there? I accuse him of having tampered with some public servant either in England or in Calcutta, and thus obtained papers which the party charged with their custody was sworn by his solemn oath to conceal. But the case does not concern the present Board of Control alone. Sir R. Grant, Lord Auckland, Sir James Carnac, again Lord Auckland, the Court of Directors, all investigated and decided this question. The House of Commons has twice voted on this question, and it has been nineteen times before the public; and what is the result? The hon. Gentleman talks of the interest it excites. There are 2,000 proprietors, and out of these the greatest number that ever voted was 82, of whom 56 were against re-opening the question, and the other 26 took the view of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman says that the Court of Proprietors voted for the production of those papers by a majority of two. What was the consequence? The chairman and the others reversed their own vote, and by a majority of 30 refused to re-open the question. The fact is that this case has been got up by a house of agency in Bombay, of which the hon. Gentleman is the instrument and the dupe. The hon. Gentleman has presumed to say that the Board of Control has gone beyond the powers it has a right to exercise; but had the Court of Directors complained of their doing so? On the contrary, by a majority of eight they voted against taking the question out of the hands of the Secret Committee. The hon. Gentleman had, therefore, proved himself not a fit person to make such charges against the responsible servants of the Government. [Mr. HUME: Give us the papers.] When this question was before the House on a former occasion, I stated that when a fitting time came, I should have no objection to produce the letters in question. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the letter he has produced is the real one—perhaps he knows how it was purloined. We have written to India to ascertain who it was who stole the other letter, and whether the hon. Gentleman had any connexion with the matter. [Mr. HUME: It is very impudent of you to say that, when I was in England the whole time.] But do you mean to say you could not have written to India? I insist upon it that the documents, if produced, would disprove every word which you have dared to assert this night. The hon. Gentleman is the receiver of those stolen goods; and he comes down to this House to accuse me of conduct of which I am totally incapable. But these papers, Sir, shall be produced; and I am certain that when the House shall have seen, it will free me and the Board of Control from all the charges that have been brought against us. But, Sir, I do not think it a proper thing for the hon. Gentleman to avail himself of the impropriety of other persons, and to say to us that, as he has by some means got those stolen papers, we shall produce the originals. However I must say that those papers are not in favour of the case of the Rajah of Sattara: and the assertion of the hon. Gentleman, that the letter of the Governor General exculpates the Rajah, and hears out these invectives which the hon. Gentleman has used, I utterly and solemnly deny. The hon. Gentleman, Sir, has spoken much about the injustice and unfairness with which the Rajah has been treated; what does he think of the injustice which he has himself done to a man whom he has brought charges against? What does he think of his own conduct towards Colonel Ovans? How is he borne out in his assertion against that gentleman? [Mr. HUME: By his own handwriting.] Why, Sir, who is this Colonel Ovans, against whom the hon. Gentleman has brought those accusations? He is as good an Indian servant of the Crown as could possibly be. A gentleman of honour and reputation; and this is the gentleman—an English gentleman—who is stigmatized as a suborner of perjury. [Mr. HUME: Hear!] You call "Hear!" Do you believe the charge? [Mr. HUME: I do, and will prove it if you grant me the papers.] Why, Sir, the hon. Member for Montrose is, in my opinion, as capable of forgery, or subornation of perjury, as Colonel Ovans. But when this Mr. Thompson—Thompson I think is his name—attempted to bring the case before the Court of Directors, the solicitor to the Court of Directors would not allow the charges to be advertised, because they were in his opinion libellous, and could not with safety be published. Thanks to the hon. Member for Montrose, the charge is published to-night. But, Sir, I do not think it right that such charges should be brought against public servants who, like Colonel Ovans, have done their duty to their country well and faithfully, and who have never been charged with anything base or equivocal, until a set of men who have a pecuniary interest in blasting the acts of as honourable a man or set of men as could be found, bring forward charges, and get hon. Members in this House to state and support them.

Sir, I do not accuse Colonel Ovans of forgery; but I do accuse him of having brought documents to the Government purporting to be original documents of the Rajah of Sattara, when he had the seal of the Rajah in his possession, and must have known that the seals attached to them could not therefore have been the real seals belonging to the Rajah of Sattara.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control had not met and had not refuted one of the serious charges which had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. The hon. Gentleman had proved in a most convincing statement that the Rajah of Sattara had been deposed and punished on evidence so utterly untrustworthy that it would not have been received in a court of justice in England. The right hon. Gentleman, instead of replying, had confined himself to a very strong and personal attack upon the hon. Member for Montrose; and he had asked the House to wait for the receipt of a letter from India before coming to any opinion upon the charges. He (Lord J. Manners) understood from the hon. Member for Montrose, that he could not go to a division upon his Motion. He only hoped, then, that the hon. Gentleman would bring the question before the House, and press it as soon as possible to a division, and the right hon. Gentleman should have his cordial support.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control had seemed very anxious to defend himself from the attack which had been made upon him by the hon. Member for Montrose. But did not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Rajah of Sattara had a similar right to defend himself from what he considered unjust accusations? The right hon. Gentleman had not been deprived of his possessions. He had not been robbed, or plundered, or exiled; but a few hard words had been applied to him, and his anger had swelled into violent declamation against the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the charges. Did the right hon. Gentleman believe that those hon. Members of that House who had paid attention to the statement of the proceedings against that persecuted and injured man, the Rajah of Sattara, would be contented until he had been afforded an opportunity of defending himself from the atrocious attacks which had been made upon him? Did the right hon. Gentleman think that those hon. Members who supported the claims of the Rajah for a fair hearing, would consider that they had discharged their duty till they had succeeded? He could tell the right hon. Gentleman that they would not have discharged their duty in that House until they should have obtained the inquiry; and he would agree with any twelve Members of the House to bring the matter forward by successive Motions on going into Committee of Supply, so as to prevent the Government from obtaining any sum of money for the public service until an inquiry was granted. A more atrocious case of persecution was not to be found in the annals of India, or of any other country. For upwards of twenty years the Rajah had filled his post with honour and probity, rewards for which had been sent to him from the British Government of India: he had received testimonials of his fidelity. [Mr. HUME: A sword had been presented to him.] And after all, by a series of atrocious and most wicked acts of conspirators against him, he had been subjected to treatment worse than the worst of criminals. He had been robbed, plundered, deposed, and transported. He had been asked to sign a document in which his own guilt was set forth; and it was because he would not sign that document, that he had been plundered and robbed, and transported. It was not denied that that paper had been presented to him, and that he had been at the same time told how great would be the extent of his possessions, and how honourable his future position, if he would but sign the document in which his own guilt was confessed. That had been admitted by former Governments in that House. Now, what did they do with the worst criminal in this country? Did they not give him a trial? Did they not give him an opportunity of making a defence, and of proving his innocence if he could? But would the right hon. Gentlemen contend that the Rajah of Sattara had ever had a trial or an opportunity of ever proving his innocence? If not, why then did the right hon. Gentleman seek to overwhelm the Government of which he was Member with the foul stain of disgrace, which belonged not to him, but to his predecessors in office, who were the first to concur in the vile conspiracy? He could not conceive why the right hon. Baronet should take so much dirt upon himself, except because it seemed to be the universal rule for one Government to adopt and sustain the decisions of another Government. They might disagree on all other subjects; but still the existing Administration invariably adopted and defended the acts of its predecessors. He would not enter into the matter further at present, but trusted that his hon. Friend would bring the question formally before the House without delay, if he was sincere in his statement, that he could prove his entire case in one week. His hon. Friend ought, he thought, to give notice of a Motion on the subject that night, and he would join his hon. Friend with all his heart and strength in resisting the voting of one farthing to any Government until an inquiry was instituted.

said, though he happened to sit on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, he should say that he did not think the Motion had been properly met. What did it signify whether Mr. George Thompson—a gentleman whom he had the honour of knowing—had found a certain document on his table in the morning or not? That could not affect the justice of the claim of the Rajah of Sattara, or the question whether or not successive Governments had gone on deciding unjustly against him. He felt bound as a Member of that House to express his extreme dissatisfaction at the inefficient manner in which the charge of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had been met; and he hoped his hon. Friend would lose no time in bringing the subject before the House.

said, the charge made by the hon. Member for Montrose was, that the Rajah had been deposed by a most vile conspiracy, in which certain British officers were concerned. The right hon. Baronet repudiated the charge; and he expected that the right hon. Gentleman would, therefore, be ready to second any Motion of inquiry that the hon. Member might make; and no doubt those public officers in India would be on their part equally anxious to have the foul and unjust stain removed from their characters.

The House may or may not go into this question of the proceedings with regard to the Rajah of Sattara; but I think everybody must admit that the notice given by the hon. Member for Montrose was not a notice that seemed to indicate any intention on his part of going into the merits of the question when bringing it before the House. The notice was for the production of papers; and my right hon. Friend came down prepared to state whether he would or would not accede to that Motion. At the late hour of the night when my hon. Friend had an opportunity of addressing the House on his Motion, nothing, I am sure, could be more inconvenient than that my right hon. Friend should be expected to go into the details of a most extensive case, which had been investigated under various Governments in India, and various Courts of Directors, and various Boards of Control, and which could not be discussed at this hour of the night with any possible advantage, or any chance of a decision being come to upon it. My right hon. Friend is quite prepared, if the matter be brought forward at an early hour of the evening to enter into those details; but I think the House will agree with me that this is no hour for him to do so.