said, he would beg to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War why the staff of the Leitrim Militia was not to be quartered in the county town in accordance with the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the county?

said, that the arrangements respecting the staff of the Irish Militia rested with the Irish Government. There had not been any correspondence on the subject with the War Department.

said, he would then beg to address his question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

said, that, not having any notice of the question, he was unable to answer it.

said, he wished to put a question to the hon. Under Secretary for War. Considerable dissatisfaction had been felt by the men of the Army Works Corps because they did not receive a written or printed discharge on their return to this country. That omission had, however, been repaired by a subsequent arrangement; and he now wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the claim made by the men to pay from the date of their landing up to the receipt of their discharge would be taken into the early consideration of the Government?

said, he was informed that the great body of the men had been settled with on their arrival, and had returned to their homes perfectly satisfied; had a small number had moved this question relative to the sums to which they supposed they were entitled. There could be no doubt their discharge dated from the period of their arrival in this country, and they would therefore all be paid up to that time, but they were not entitled to anything more.

said, he wished the Government to consider that these men, not having been discharged, were unable to obtain employment elsewhere. They wished to be placed on the same footing as the militia. The number that had brought forward this grievance was not so small as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose. It was above 400 men. He would ask if the Government would take the case into their consideration at an early moment.?

said, that he had investigated almost every one of the claims that had been made; and in every case he had found that the statement about their not being able to obtain employment elsewhere was groundless. In not one case had there been the least difficulty through their not having a written discharge. The terms upon which they had been engaged were that they should have a free passage to this country, and on arriving here should receive a gratuity. They had received their gratuity, and had given a written receipt for it; and the men had all been dealt with according to the original arrangement.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War if there was any objection to lay upon the table the documents bearing the names of the British officers and soldiers upon whom the medals granted by the Emperor of the French had been conferred.

said, there would be no objection to lay those documents upon the table.

I rise, Sir, to put a question of which I gave notice on Saturday. The House will recollect that both the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War stated the other night that the inquiry into the conduct of General Beatson was still pending, and that the House ought therefore to abstain from expressing any opinion on the subject. On the day after that statement was made, the 23rd of July, a letter was written by the Government to General Beatson, based upon documents which had been in the possession of the War Department a fortnight before, and giving a full acquittal to that officer. I wish to ask the noble Lord whether he was aware of those documents when he addressed the House the other night? I suppose he only spoke the words that had been set down for him. That excuse cannot, however, apply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel), who must have had cognisance of the documents when he made his statement to the House.

Sir, the circumstance to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alludes only shows the bad results attending the interposition of hon. Members, at the instigation of persons not in this House, upon matters which are still under the consideration of Government, and have not yet been made the subject of action, I practised no deception on the House. I was quite aware that this question had been considered by my noble Friend at the head of the War Department; and I stated the other night, as distinctly as I could, that in a very few days a decision would be come to by the Government and a communication made to General Beatson. I did not think it proper then to inform either the hon. and learned Member or the House what would be the decision on this matter at which the Government were likely to arrive. If any inconvenience has arisen it is owing, therefore, to the impatient haste of the hon. and learned Gentleman, acting on a suggestion of General Beatson, on a question that was pending elsewhere. Of course, until the decision had been definitively taken, and regularly communicated to the gallant officer concerned, it might have been liable to a change in the event of certain circumstances being brought to the knowledge of my noble Friend.

said, he would only add to the statement just made by his noble Friend, that in answering the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) on a previous evening, he (Mr. F. Peel) said, in substance, that although the correspondence had not been completed, yet the communications received by the Government did not support the charges made against General Beatson.

The hon. Gentleman said that the inquiry was still pending.

I made use of no such an expression.

said, he would give notice, that early next Session he should call the attention of the House to the manner in which officers in the army were put upon their trial on the most serious charges, without receiving any previous notice of the accusations brought against them. That practice was one deeply affecting the honour and discipline of the army, and must touch the feelings of every soldier.

said, he should be glad to know whether, now that the inquiry in General Beatson's case was concluded, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had any objection to mention the name of the gallant officer's accuser?

Sir, I do not know from whom General Shirley received the information which he communicated to General Vivian, and which the latter sent home to my noble Friend at the head of the War Department; nor am I aware that my noble Friend knows their names either. One officer whose name has been mentioned in connection with this matter is Colonel O'Reilly—a man of perfect honour and the highest integrity, who was distinguished for his ardent desire to improve himself in his profession, and who with that view served as a volunteer in the Sardinian army, and also in the armies of other countries. He afterwards went to Turkey, where he was appointed to the command of the Turkish cavalry. As far as anything communicated by General Shirley originated with Colonel O'Reilly, I am confident, therefore, that the latter stated only what he believed to be strictly correct.

said, he thought the proceedings instituted against General Beatson, whoso accuser was allowed to remain anonymous, were extremely harsh, and contrary to the spirit of the law of England.

Sir, while General Beatson was in England the parties from whom the information came were at Schumla, and afterwards at Kertch. The inquiry ordered by my noble Friend was merely a preliminary one, to see whether further steps were necessary.

said, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as Smithfield could not again be converted into a cattle-market, there was any objection to the immediate removal of all the pens and barriers remaining there, so as to enable it to become a place of recreation for the inhabitants of that crowded locality?

said, that no doubt Smithfield was in its present state very unsightly, and also somewhat inconvenient. There were difficulties, however, which existed as to the ownership of the site; and it was impossible, under any circumstances, to appropriate it without an Act of Parliament. If the railings were now to be removed, there would be a large open space left, which it would be difficult to keep in proper order.

said, the Report recently laid on the table with reference to the condition of the army in the Crimea attributed many of the disasters which took place to the want of forage, he wished to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any notice of the very gross neglect which had been exhibited by Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was at the head of the department responsible for such supplies?

replied, that Sir Charles Trevelyan was not examined before the Board of General Officers, and he had not an opportunity of making any statement as to the course pursued by the Treasury. Sir Charles Trevelyan was only the organ of the Treasury, but of course an opportunity would be afforded him, as an executive officer of the department, of giving any explanation he might think necessary.

said, that he would take an early opportunity, in the next Session of Parliament, of bringing the subject under the consideration of the House. Sir Charles Trevelyan had positively refused to attend the Board, and had issued a pamphlet containing statements which in his (Colonel North's) opinion, were most disrespectful to the Board.

said, that Sir Charles Trevelyan had sent in a written statement to the Board of General Officers, but, inasmuch as neither his conduct individually, nor the conduct of the Treasury, was referred to the consideration of that Board, Sir Charles Trevelyan did not think it his duty to appear before the Board to give evidence. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been in communication with Sir Charles Trevelyan on the subject of the Crimean inquiry; and, with reference to the notice which had just been given by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire, he thought it right to state that Sir Charles Trevelyan disputed altogether the correctness of the conclusions at which the Board had arrived so far as the Treasury were concerned.

said;