Sir, seeing the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board in his place, I beg to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to put a stop to the revolting cruelties practised in the deportation of paupers long resident in England to Ireland?

Sir, with reference to the question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I beg to remind him that, towards the latter part of last Session, a Select Committee was appointed for the purpose of investigating the whole subject of the operation of the present law of removal of Irish paupers from England and Scotland. In consequence of the lateness of the period at which that Committee was appointed, the number of the points raised before the Committee, and the very conflicting nature of the evidence given before it, the Committee resolved unanimously, at the close of the Session, simply to report the evidence they had taken, and to accompany it by a recommendation to the House to resume the inquiry as early as possible in the present Session. I beg to state, therefore, to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that it is my intention, within a fortnight from this time, to move the reappointment of that Committee, so that they may proceed to complete their inquiry as soon as possible. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will see, however, that until that inquiry has been completed it would be quite impossible for the Government to pledge itself to any particular measure relating to the removal of paupers.

I beg to give notice that if the Government do not act immediately, and without waiting for an inquiry, I will myself bring in a Bill to effect the object in view.

said, he regretted the necessity under which he felt himself placed in putting a question to the Senior Naval Lord of the Admiralty, whom he then saw present. The question was one of extreme importance, and related to the statements which had recently been made at a public dinner by the late Commander in Chief of the Baltic fleet. He wished, therefore, to inquire whether it was true that the Board of Admiralty had censured or dismissed Sir Charles Napier? what instructions were given to that gallant admiral respecting the performance of his duties in the Baltic? and whether such instructions had fettered him in any way in carrying out his operations there?

Sir, no one can regret more than I myself do the necessity the hon. and learned Gentleman feels in putting this question. No one can regret more than I myself do that my old and gallant Friend, Sir Charles Napier, should have been so highly indiscreet as to have made the speech which he has been report- ed to have made at the late dinner at the Mansion House. Having expressed these regrets, it is my duty to inform the House, in reply to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Ayr, that Sir Charles Napier has not been censured by the Admiralty; that Sir Charles Napier has not been dismissed from his command; that Sir Charles Napier was not goaded into improperly attacking any one fortification in the Baltic; that Sir Charles Napier was not restricted in any way from attacking those fortresses, if he had so thought proper; and that Sir Charles Napier was informed by the Admiralty that the country expected everything that such a fleet could perform to be carried out and executed against the enemy. I regret extremely that Sir Charles Napier is setting so bad an example to those officers whom he would command. I regret extremely that it is my duty to state, as the Senior Naval Officer of the Admiralty, how highly we must disapprove of such conduct in any officer in Her Majesty's service. While Sir Charles Napier is complaining of the want of confidence in the Board of Admiralty, Sir Charles Napier should reflect whether, by such conduct—whether, by the conduct he is pursuing towards his superiors—he is showing an example which is fitting for those who are under him to follow—whether he is able, by such conduct, to secure the confidence of those officers who are under him, if such confidence they have in him; and whether such conduct is becoming in an officer who assumes to command a fleet in conjunction with our allies the French.

said, he put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Exchequer yesterday which he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood. He asked him whether the sum which the House had just voted for warm clothing and other comforts for the army in the Crimea had already been expended, and whether the money was required for the payment of articles already furnished to the troops. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to state, in reply, that the amount just voted was for the purpose of supplying the army with the articles mentioned; but in that he must surely have misapprehended the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, because the troops would not require winter clothing to the amount of 1,000,000l. in the summer, which was so near at hand, and it could hardly be said that the articles were wanted for the next winter. He therefore begged to ask the same question again, with the view of clearly understanding whether he was mistaken or not.

said, he was very sorry there was any misunderstanding between the hon. Gentleman and himself respecting the question he had put yesterday. What he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) intended to state was, that all the payments that had been made by the Ordnance Department up to the present moment had been made out of grants which had already received the sanction of Parliament. That, he believed, was strictly and literally true. He now understood the hon. Gentleman to ask him whether any obligations had been contracted by the Ordnance Department, to the fulfilment of which the vote granted yesterday would be applicable. He had no doubt that the necessities of the service had compelled the Ordnance Department, upon their own responsibility, subject to the sanction of the Treasury, to contract obligations to which the Vote of yesterday would be applicable.

said, the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory.

said, he intended to have proposed that the House should go into Committee of Supply to-day on a Supplemental Estimate for the Civil Services. The Estimate was laid on the table yesterday at an early hour, and it ought to have been printed and in the hands of hon. Members within a short time afterwards; but he was sorry to say that, in consequence of some mistake on the part of the printer, it had not yet come down to the House. He was not disposed, unless the House should wish it, to proceed with the Votes in the absence of the printed documents; but he might just state what the different items were. The first was a sum of 120,400l., 70,000l. for an excess of stationery supplied to the army in the East; the second was a sum of 56,000l. for the printing of patents, which, how- ever, was not an expense to the country, the money being paid into the Consolidated Fund in the shape of stamps; and the third was a sum of 8,000l. for the extraordinary expenses of Ambassadors at Foreign Courts, incurred in consequence of the large number of messengers employed during the last six months.

said, that, unless there was an absolute necessity for going into Committee of Supply to-day, he hoped the House would defer it till after the adjournment. It appeared to him that 120,000l. was a very large sum for an excess of stationery. Besides, only one stage could be taken to-day, and he did not think any inconvenience could result from delay.

said, his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury had put himself at the disposal of the House with reference to this matter. The casual error of the printer, of course, gave any hon. Gentleman a right to object to going into Committee of Supply at that time, and he should not think of forcing such a measure by the vote of a majority. It was true that only a single stage could be taken that day, but it was material that that preliminary stage should be taken. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) would remember that two days ago a Vote was taken for the Ordnance Department. Upon that Vote, and the Vote taken yesterday for the Navy, a Ways and Means Bill would be founded. Now, the great object in taking the proposed Vote for the Civil Service that day was, that it would enable his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury to include the whole three Votes in the same Ways and Means Bill; and he might remind the hon. Baronet that he would have, in Committee on the Ways and Means Bill, precisely the same opportunity of discussing the details of the Votes as he would have in Committee of Supply.

said, he thought that to propose going into Committee of Supply now was a deviation from the ordinary practice of the House; but in the present state of affairs they should not adhere too strictly to forms. They must, however, on this occasion trust the Government, hoping they would apply the public money beneficially and economically, as far as circumstances would permit, for the public service.

said, he did not oppose the House going into Committee of Supply, but he could not help noticing that when hon. Members on his side of the House called attention to matters of urgency connected with the state of the army in the Crimea they were immediately met by objections grounded on the forms of the House; while, on the other hand, whenever those forms stood in their own way, the Government had no scruple in asking the House to waive them. As to the item of 70,000l. for stationery for the army, it might appear a large sum, but he thought that, instead of being too large, it was, perhaps, not large enough, because, when he was in the East, he was informed that there was a difficulty in the way of the soldiers sending home remittances of their pay to their friends from the want of sufficient paper for the purpose.

said, he would now beg to move the following Resolution—

"That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the deficiency in the Grants for the Service of the year ending the 31st day of March, 1855, the sum of 2,000,000l. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

Sir, there stands upon the notice paper for to-day a question put yesterday by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Mr. Rich) with respect to a statement made by me in a speech in this House, and although the hon. Gentleman is not now in his place, it may perhaps be convenient that I should give an answer to that question. The question is, whether I have any objection to lay on the table of the House a copy of the official papers on which I founded my statement that, exclusive of sick at Balaklava and elsewhere, there was an effective British force of 28,200 men, independently of 3,000 or 4,000 marines and marine brigade. Now, my answer is to this effect. There is a great deal of objection, founded upon general principles, applicable to times of peace as well as times of war, to producing statements declaring the number and distribution of military forces. It has never been the practice of this House to call for such statements even in times of peace, and I need hardly say that, under present circumstances, great inconvenience would arise from the adoption of such a practice. I therefore hope that there will be no disposition in this House to press the Government to produce statements of this character, and thus set an injurious precedent. It is not a thing which should be encouraged; but if the hon. Member for Richmond or any other hon. Gentleman desires access to that information in order to satisfy his own mind as to the correctness of the statement made by me, that access will be most freely given to him by the Government.

thought it would be most dangerous to expose the positions and numbers of our forces to the enemy; but the fault lay with the Government itself, in mentioning the number of effective troops before Sebastopol.