The Sun. — London, England, 1839-03-05 00:00:00

7 T - EN G EDITION. '"'Pu sati, ns upon Members of i hat House, and comment '"g'. anon p rocee di ngs o f that House, and brin e i ng i n a vast -es'al Of extraneous. matter, and that this Report ;vas , r4lO - et e d b y the Home S•.cretary, and laid upon t h e ! ta'ol e of that House under his authority and sanction, " land that it was printed and circulated at the expense of 1 ' the country, he ( Lord A.) thought the matter had 1 assumed such a serious aspect, that he was justified in calling upon the Secretary for the Home Department to maintain those charges or to withd raw them.—(Hear.) That was an act purely voluntary on the part. of the ( Home Secretary. By the Act of Parliament the in• i Spector was to make a Report to the Secretary of State for the Horne Department ; but the Aet of Parliament ) said nothing about the Noble Lord la; ing that Report on the table of the House. It also bound the hispee tor, and hit', down the precise terms and character of the report-. For it said that he should report the state ant workin:r of the factories and mills, and the children employed therein, and whether such factorie s o r mills were or were not conducted accordant; to the Clirections of that. House and the laws 01l the realm. No further was he to go. When, therefore, the Noble Lord received 4 Report full of extraneous mata.er, having nothing to do with the subject in band, and cow:tilling personal charges against Members for their conduct in the Committee ~. r.nd in that House, he thought the Noble Lord Wright have said to the Inspector that, not being a 1 report within the terms of the Act and beyond his I. jurisdiction, that he might wi!hdraw it, and present one more suited to the occasion. The Noble Lord, how ever, took no such course.—( Hear, hear.) He adopted the Report and the allegations it contained, and laid every thing on the table of the House. givin g the sanction of his high official authority to it, and causing it to be printed and circulated at the ex pense of the country. Now the portion to which he wished to call the attention of the House was that con tained at page 53, and the Report there stated that the only legitimate object for which the Committee was ap pointed was to inquire into the proceedings of a"Y combination s o f wor k men or t h e emp l oyers iof workmesi, an object a lt oge th er f ore i gn to the in qu i ry w hi c h h a d b een i nstituted. by the Com thittee. There, in the ou t set , t h e C omm i ttee was charged with having violated the order of reference for purposes exclusively their own. In the came page he found it stated that the intention of the Committee to institute such an investigation was in no way made known to the factory owners—(Hear)—that it was incumbent on the Secretary of State to prove that the Committee had no such intention. The Report also complained that no intimation bad been male to him as I nspector of Factories in the district, and it added that th e course followed by the Committee in coneealing their intention to include in their inquiry infringements on ti..e Factory Act was the more liable to animadversion becaus e one of the Members, previously to the examis natio n of three cotton spinners, had a private meeting, and questioned them respecting the violation of the Acf• in their factories. There the Committee was charged with having designedly and sedulously con cealed their real objects, and in that proceeding that they were liable to severe animadversions. That might be a fair charge for the Noble Lord to make in his place, but he asked whether it was within the jurisdiction of all Inspector of Factories to comment upon the pro ceedings of the Committee in a public document, ne twithstandine• the privileges of the House, and to circulate that at the public expense. Now, involved in that sentence, there was also a personal charg e , " It is more liable to animadversion, because on e of the Members of the Committee had previously a Meeting with the cotton spinners," Would the Noble Lord say who that was? Lord JOHN RUS: - .iELL—I don't know. Lord ASHLEY—There was the difficulty. The Noble Lord threw on the table a charge against some on e he did not know.—(Tory cheers.) There was a personal charge against some one Member, which the Noble Lord sanctioned by his authority, anti yet be now said, that he had no notion of the person against whom th e c h arge was ma d e. %Ir. O'CONNELL—It means me.—( Loud-laughter and cries of " Order.") Lord ASHLEY—No doubt the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin WAS perfectly capable of defending himself against any charge. There was another charge against the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, in which he (Lord Ashley) believed the Hon. Member would not acquiesce. The next passage to which he wished to refer was in the 54th page. This was an answer, which affected himself personally, not so much for his conduct in the House as in the Committee. It stated that Messrs. Holden, Todd, and M'Naught, three master cotton-spinners, were selected by the master spinners of Glasgow as the fittest persons to attend before the Committee, yet not a single question respecting the operation of the Factory Act was put to Mr. Holden, or Mr. M'Naught, and that when Mr. Todd, in answer to Lord Ashley's second question, stated that he took no children under thirteen years of age, his Lordship did not put another question. Noiv just let him show what was the state of the matter. In the 522 d question, Lord Granville Somerset asks, “1 - low soon do you take children in to work?" The answer la," We do not take in any below the age allowed by the Act, thirteen years old." He (Lord A.) then threw in the Tiestion, "Do you take none under thirteen ?" The ans wer was " n o n e ," an d t h ere i t ended. Now, upon k4 l Was brought a charge of some unfair dealing, the Whole scop e o f w hi c h h e could not quite gather. He Perfectly recollected, when the witness said he took no children under the age of thirteen, that he (Lord j Ash ieY) merely w i s h e d to ascert a i n thi s p o i n t. He ~,ad lea rnt that in many o f the mills throughout ka l e, , Jand a n d S cot l an d , t h e masters, b e i ng anx i ous ‘ 0 be quit o f a ll t h e b ur d ens o f t h e prov i s i ons of th the law had det erm i ne d to e m pl o y n o c hild ren un d e r e age restrict e d to e i g h t h ours a d ay. H e, t h ere f ore, wished to know whether this was one of the mills. He 1 ::At th e quest i on, and having received the answer he as "tiSti ed• How was it possible, with a charge so indefinite,i he could give a more definite answer.—(A old only augh.) The Noble Lord might smile, but he (Lord A.) say, on his word of honour as a gentleman, that lie tion had f no other motive.—(Cheers.) He had no inten distinoctaoin indistinct, Factory Act, and he had no view, it theertotrtin °Pero towards an exhibition of the in to as lye parts of the Factory Act. He merely wished such e a rt o be that simple fact, and having ascertained left it ; and yet on this there was built from accusation, that, if he was to judge mor e wh " appeared n the Morning Papers, a person N o , !l u estionable, never figured in this House. tnio nt • In the next question, in page 54, in the exa son . 1 " of the combined cotton spinners and Mr. Alli thl ! t Was said that it was conducted in such a way as awe_ lt could not fail to infotm the witness of the an rogart t hat would be most agreeable to the inter /104°r. He was extremely sorry to delay the do . se, I 'ol he thought it was necessary that he should 4410 c onsidering how he had been attacked. The o et t a l c would observe that, in all these matters, he was culp r it Person to introduce the Question, as the real 24, It seemed to be the Honourable and Learned t aher at what for Dublin, for that Learned Member asked faes nri „ age children' were taken into spinning menu taken ;$ at Glasgow. He asked whether till) , were an swer s Young as nine years of age, and upon being opinin answers in the negative, he asked whether it was the out byn or the witness that the law was honestly worked did not taking any children under nine years of age, " ti th e w . 'e witness think there was any fraud ? to which eis er „:!ness repli e d, that lie must state di s ti nct l y t h at t h e t he -- I ..'e cott on - s pi nners were necess i tate d to overlook taki a a ``; in order to keep their machines moving by Up, g in children under eight nor nine years of age. vOn hearing . "th en this answer, he (Lord Ashley) directly said Qenttet:nyeour knowledge the law is set at. defiance?" Hon. ibio, l co n opposite might smile, but he (Lord Ashley) witness's, nfess that he +IS struck by the strength of the 4„e 4uestion‘ ,l : o tn l gua ge , an w d l then it was that he put the Could any. ;our knowledge the law is set at defiance . fia nce wben one doubt that the law was set at de cotton., i the witness stated that the operative la w, ,13 one were necessitated to overlook the erassivtotii it right., such being Iri orer to keep their machines moving the case, that such charges t wo 4 be brought against him, because he had put those 6 4 questions ?—( Hear, hear.) Then, in pages 58 and el:4°re were a number of special charges against him— Lord" which he felt bound to tell the Noble cOtoi a ,, °Pposite it would have been more be lions' in him if he h a d made pu bli c l y i n t h e Was st t_ than b y a pu b lic document. In page 55 it coo n _ e ated, th a t h av i ng explained the circumstances would led with the proceedings of the Committee, it lion, be seen th at t h ey were of an ex-parte &scrip- W otl Td Ve r y quest i onable in their representat i ons. ques t opbc Noble Lord say, in what respect they were lang n " a ble ? Was suc h l anguage as h e h a d rea d p ro p er fes en a ge to b e use d b y a Government of fi cer i n re iostelie to proceedings of that House. The Noble Lord, • hav e matte making them in a public document, should ItirQlt them the ground of a substantive motion. *lie slo nsa ‘ W , ont on to state that a statement made in that N oel e %as calumnious. The Hon. Member for Dublin d b _ th e l ,: best able to say whether it was so or not, as by b i 2L'Oed calumny was contained in a speech made (Lo r( i, . Mr. Stuart then went on to state that he sli nuid ? ) wished that offenders against the Factory Act or inur e Punished in the same way as midnight robbers tnttent Was Would the Noble Lord adopt that sen officer ni , ~. that proper language to be used by an Mew,: of with reference to the conduct of of a 'v e e r _ I that House, and while acting in the capacity Was Lniber of that House ? He thought the House ti e , , "'ld to take notice of the Report, in jus -1 CO i t , °W ed till OWn character ; for was it to be M any one, more especially a paid officer of th e G o ` % t nir ,.__ e 'ernment, should impute such motives—such h e T a llp a. motiv es to any one who took up a question as Mr, Stuart'i done upon principle ? In page 56 of that Report go e , the ~d on to say, that the real object of all en . n ro vocate s of the Ten Hours' Bill is altogether differ issorvets mintthoe atvilo,wed one. They probably deceive them belief that they were acting in P l o v i: e u r r. ()if_ the children, but by giving no discretionary their chiefu the Inspector with regard to prosecutions. alai was to pave the way for a Tee Hour gee5..........._ rHE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 18:39. Bill by brin g ing the present law into discredit. Would the Noble Lord justify such languag-e—language im puting such motives to a Member of that House acting in the dis,harge of his duty? His conduct was per fectly justified by what had fallen from the Hon. Under Secretary of State (Mr. P. Maule), when moving the second reading of the Factory Bill. Had he (Lord A.) spoken for a week he could not have said so much con demnatory of the law, as that Honourable Gen tleman had done ; it completely justified the line of conduct he had pursued with regard to that mea sure. There were many other personal charges brought arainst him throughout the Report. but as they did not refer to him in his capacity of a Member of that House, he would not bring them under the notice of the House. These charges were contained in this Report ; it lid been sent into the Noble. Lord, adopted by him, printed and circulated by him, and therefore the Noble Lord was bound to give him (Lord A.) every opportunity of explaining the inuendoes and direct insinuations made against his conduct in the Report, which could not fail to do hi:n much discredit in the: country. He found a very sharp attack on himself because that he had sent a e3py of the evidence taken before the Combination Committee to whom; Mr. M'Nish, while not one of the master cotton-spinners in GlasgoW were in possession of a ' copy. The insinuation there was that he (Lord A.) had misused his privilege, and that he had sent to M'Nish that which was withheld from the masters. Now, if the masters bad not a copy of the evidence, it was their own fault. Now, how stood the facts of the' case? He had actually bought and paid for the copy sent to M'Nish at the establishment which had been opened by that House, for the sale of their papers, with so much advantage to the public.---(Cheers.) He would not go into the question at any greater length, because the other charges brought against him were personal, and did not at all trench upon the privileges of the House. Tim Noble Lord had received a Report which was not required by the Act of Parliament. It was full of insinuations against Members of that House, imputing improper motives to them, and without any inquiry into the truth of those charges, the Noble Lord adopts the report, and spreads it abroad throughout the country. He had then a right to ask him not only as the Home Secretary, but as a gentleman, whether he would withdraw those dark insinuations, or would he substantiate them ? One or other of those courses must be taken, he cared not which—it was a matter of in difference to him which course the Noble Lord adop ed, but he was fairly entitled, in his opinion, to de mand one. Lord J. RUSSELL—If he understood the Noble Lord correctly, he complained that in the report made by Mr. Stuart, improper motives were attributed to him ? Lord ASHLEY, after reading an extract from the Report, said he wished to know whether worse motivei could be assigned to any public man than making use of the law of the land as an instrument of oppression to carry out particular views of his own 1 ) Lord JOHN RUSSELL was glad his attention had been drawn to the point upon which the Noble Lord made his statements ; with regard to the whole of his statement he must say that the charge against the Noble Lord, if it could be called a charge, was that he. had listened to persons not worthy of credit on the factory question. It was stated in that House publicly, and particularly by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, that the Factory Act was in no way put in force in Glasgow, and when that statement got abroad, there arose a statement against Mr. Stuart, not merely that the Act had not been enforced in Glasgow, but that he being a Fac tory Inspector, bound to the utmost of his power to carry the Act into effect, had reported to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, froln time to time, there being seven or eight Reports from Mr. Stuart, that the Act was generally carried into effect—the fact being that it was notorious that it was not carried into effect, and that its provisions were violated every day in Glasgow. He asked could there be a heavier charge against a public man ? Could he (Lord John Russell) say to Mr. Stuart, " True, you are charged with a violation of your duty —you are charged with making false reports —you are charged with a total ignorance or concealment of facts, which passed daily before your eyes, but I, the Secretary of State, tell you that that charge which has been made before the Houseof Commonsyou, of course, must submit to, and it is not in your power to say a • single word to prove its falsehood." Were he to say that to any man employed in an office subordinate to his own, he felt that would be treating Mr. Stuart unworthily and in a manner which no official supe riority on his part entitled him to do. He had no no right to say that the Noble Lord might insinuate what charges he pleased against Mr. Stuart of a vio lation of his duty, but that it was not compe tent for the latter to say a single word to prove that he had acted honestly and fairly in the duty imposed upon him. That was the object of Mr. Stuart's Report. The object, as the Noble Lord observed, was to show the manner in which children were employed, and showing that, how could he do otherwise than attempt to show that the charges made, that they had been employed in total violation of the provisions of the Act, were not true, or that they had taken place in such a manner as to have escaped his notice, or that when brought under has attention he had taken means to prevent the violation of the Act ? That he was certainly bound to :do, and if he (Lord J. R.) had permitted him to go on for six months without making any defence, and with these charges hanging over him, it Would have been said that that was most extraordinary conduct, and under such circumstances it would have been his duty to dis miss the Inspector. Having allowed him to make a de fence, was he to keep that defence a secret ? If he had said, " True, Mr. Stuart has given me reasons which are sufficient to satisfy my mind, but the House of Com mons has no information on the subject," what course would the Noble Lord have taken ? It appeared that the Noble Lord charged him with having presented that Report to Parliament. He really thought that in doing so he was acting in• conformity to the wishes of the Noble Lord himself ; soon after he came into Parliament he had desired that more fre- quent reports should be made than usual—that they should report quarterly, and likewise that the superin tendents should give them an account of where they had been every day during their course of inspection. He did that, thinking and imagining that he was acting in accordance with the wihes of the Noble Lord and those with whom he acted. The Noble Lord brought the matter forward in a sin- gular shape, and the inferences he had drawn were still more singular, but it was perfectly competent for the Noble Lord to show that all these statements were mistakes, that what he has frequently mentioned in this House is substantially correct, and that Mr. Stuart, although naturally eager in his own defence, has made a wrong statement of facts on this occasion. But he (Lord J. Russell) was respons;ble for nothing more than allowing the defence of Mr. Stuart to be brought be fore this House.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) He believed the Factory Act would be best carried into effect, by allowing general statements to be made upon this subject, and allowing all those who were charged with the execution of it to revise or amend their proceedings ; but if they were to be told that men were to make no defence—(Cheers)—that they were to submit to charges in silence—they could not expect that any man who had the least regard for his reputation— they could not expect that any man who had the least regard for his character, would submit to hold one of these offices, and be one of the Inspectors under the Factory Commission. In the beginning, Mr. Stuart first stated the question of the Noble Lord, of which he had given an explanation—"Do you know that the law is set at defiance ?" the opinion of the person giving evi dence being, thit it was necessary to take children be low thirteen. The answer, as he understood it, did not mean that there was a wilful disobedience of the law. But there was another question in the same page, put by Lord Ashley—"Withregard to the master and manu• f.tcturs, what rule will they ray down for spinners, for the employment of children ?" That was a very fair question and he should have thought that the person asking the question and desiring to elicit the truth, would have stopped there ; but the Noble Lord having had previous information, on which, no doubt, he fully relied, he did not stop for an answer to the question, but asked a second in the same breath—" Did they not tell them they must have children in at all hazards ?" If he had merely asked for the rule laid down, the witness might have told him, but be sugzested an answer which the witness immediately gave. In page 30 the Noble Lord asked if it was one of the objects of the late combination to enforce the observance of the law for regulatin g labour? This and sever a l o th er quest i ons were pu t by Hon. Members, and the answer given by Capper and the other witnesses did certainly contain a charge against the Factory Inspectors, and tended to show that the Act was continually violated. Mr. Stuart accordingly en tered into a great deal of proof to show that wilful neglect had not taken place—that the Factory Act is observed—and that he had not stated those wilful falsehoods in his Report, which any one would have concluded who attended to the statements made before the Committee. He now came to tl.e pas sages of which the Noble Lord had compl?.ined, and certainly it was very difficult for him to ascertain which of them it was which implied that the Noble Lord or any other Hon. Member of this House had been actu ated by the worst of motives. He could see in all these statements nothing but this, that there were certain per sons in Glasgow and other places whose object was to gain a ten hours' Buil—that they would go very great lengths to obtain that—and that several Members of this House, and the Noble Lord amongst them—had been misled by the views of those persons. That was the whole of it, an d he thought it might he said, without any such derogation of the dignity of a Member of that House—(Cheers)—because amongst so many perso ns . some must be m i s t a k en in the views they took of a particular measure or a particular law. The paragraph to which the Noble Lord had referred, stated that the ktention o f t h e C omm i ttee t o i nst it u t e such an investigation was in no way made known to the factory owners of England, or generally in Scotland, nor to the three persons who were examined before the Corn mittee. It was a very remarkable circumstance, which the Noble Lord had not coadeseended to explain, that although these three cotton-spinners were examined at such length, they should not have been examined upon those points ❑pon which the Hon. and Learned Mem ber fir Dublin had founded his statement.—(Cheers.) He did not sec that it was a sufficient answer to say, " If you point out that remarkable circumstance you are guilty of a breach of privilege—that it is a charge against a Member of this House." A man in his de fence might fairly say "you examined witnesses, who were sure to give evidence against the Act, but not those who would give evidence the other way." He (Lord J. Russell) thought a person might be permitted to say thus much, when his duty as a public officer was attacked, without committing any great offence against this House. In the 54th page there appeared this ques tion, which certainly did seem extraordinary on the part of some Members, " Are children taken under the age of 9 ? No, I cannot say there are any under the age of 9.—Do you know at what age parents bring them to the mill ? I can only speak in general terms as to that. I have seen them below the age of 13.—D0 you mean below the age of 9 ? No ; below the age of 13.—You will not undertake to say there are none under 9 ? No. I will not."—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) These questions certainly did show that those who asked them were under the belief that there were children under 9, and that they were determined to ask very leading questions, in order to bring out, if possible, such a statement. It did not appear by whom these questions were asked, but they were stated by Mr. Stuart as a part of his defence. He now came to page .56, upon which the Noble Lord had founded his statement, that the charge was made against him and against the Members of this House of being instigated by the worst of motives. He (Lord J. Russell) certainly read that statement as being intended to reply to Capper, M'Nish, and those who agreed with them in their view of the question. They all said they were advocates for a ten hours' Bill— they all said, let there be law for the prohibiting em ployment beyond a period of ten hours—and all of them ie pursuance ci that object endeavoured to show there could be no practicable measure for children. They all attempted to show, that, the regulations with regard to the children were not observed, and that no provisions of Parliament could be observed. Now, was that the case with the Noble Lord on the Committee.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord asked him if he adopted this Report. lie certainly believed that there were persons concerned in promoting a ten hours' Bill, who did go the greatest lengths in their statements with respect to the operations of the present Factory Act, or the mode of carry ing it into effect, thinking that by decrying t he Act,and en listing the humanityof those who disliked the employment of children in their service, they would get a law which would prohibit the employment of adults for the greater period of ten hours. He did not know whether the Noble Lord denied that to be the case. He (Lord J. Russell) conceived it to be so. He did not see that either the Noble Lord or any other Member was in cluded in this denunciation, that there are advocates for a ten hours' Bill, who depreciate the present laws, with the view of obtaining that change ; and then the Noble Lord, with the blindness which he exhibited on this subject, took the sentence in which only three per sons were named, upon himself, identified himself with them, and chose to say this must be a breach of the privileges of Parliament, and must be intended as an accusation against Members. Certainly he (Lord J. Russell) denied that interpretation. There were per sons in Glasgow who had been engaged in carrying on a ten hours' Bill, who had been engaged in it in a manner which was far from doing them credit ; but there were also persons, as Mr. Harrison says, who would take any means to carry their observations into execution. Did Mr. Harrison say they were the Members of this House who were engaged in this conspiracy ? Cer tainly not ; but there were persons, amongst whom he included the Noble Lord, who were anxious for the sake of the children, to have the hours of labour li mited, and see that any provisions of the law should be carried into effect ; there were others engaged in pro moting a ten hours' Bill, and wished Parliament to enact such a Bill ; and there were a third class, which Mr. Harrison described thus :—" Their principle is to carry their objects into execution if they can by legal means, and if not, by illegal means." But then the Noble Lord had mixed all this up together. No one accused the Noble Lord of having investigated this sub ject without good motives.—( Hear, hear.) He (Lord J. Russell) thought he was so blinded by his zeal upon this subject that he was ready to listen to persons of very discreditable character, totally unworthy of belief, and then did not listen, but even shut his ear to the state ments made by others, because they were master manu facturers who were highly respectable, men of the utmost integrity and truth, and who he ought to rely upon with far greater confidence. He made a charge against the Noble Lord of excessive credulity, in all that was said about cruelty in factories, anti of excessive incredulity in anything to be urged in their defence. He (Lord J. Russell) thought that the truth would he better. .ascertained by allowing Mr. Stuart to make his own defence in his own way. Undoubtedly there were some phrases in the Report which, had he (Lord J. Russell) been consulted, he should have advised Mr. Stuart to omit. But he would never say to a man engaged m a public duty, •' You are exposed to the world as a person who can wink at the greatest cruel ties—as a man who neglects his duty. and misleads the Government under which.. you ;.were appointed —but you must not venture to say a word in opposition to a Member of Parliament—what is said against you was said by a Member of Parliament, and therefore, be it tyranny or be it injustice, your defence can never be presented to Parliament."—(Cheers from the Ministerial side.) Lord GRAN VILLE. SOMERSET said that he did not think the Noble Lord had fairly put the point before the House.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposi tion.) The Noble Lord had not clearly answered the question—whether he adopted the sentiments expressed in this Report—that the Members of that House pro- fessed to have one object while they really had another. —(Hear)The Noble Lord would find few so credulous as to believe that his phrase referred to the witnesses who were examined before the Committee—[The No ble Lord then went on to read a long passage from Mr. Stuart's Report, beginning at the obnoxious passages, but Lord John Russell des;red the Noble Lord to coin- menee a little further back where Mr. Stuart stated that two witnesses examined before the Committee had denied that they knew of any instances in which the Act had been violated—and after animadverting upon this, Mr. Stuart went on to say, " That the real object of those who advocated the ten hours' system, and of those who take part in such proceedings.—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial Members)—was different from what they professed.") And the Noble Lord went on to contend that from preceeding passages it was to he inferred that this last sentence alluded to Members of Parliament. The Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had talked about Mr. Stuart's defending himself, bu't he (Lord Granville Somerset) did not complain of that gentleman's defending himself. His complaint was that Mr. Stuart had thrown general imputations upon the characters of Members of - Parliament. The whole ten dency of the report was to leave the impression of such imputation. The general tone of the report was to insi nuate that all the Members of the Committee were interested—which was very unjust, because he (Lord Granville Somerset) would say, at least for him self, that he had no interest whatever in that matter. With regard to the charge, that the owners of the fac tories had not been informed of the charge made against them, that was the fault of those members of the Go vernment who were on the Committee. Mr. Stuart had also alluded to the want of cross-examination, to which it was sufficient to reply, that Mr. O'Connell was on the Committee.—(Hear, hear.) He (Lord G. So• merset) mnst, in conclusion, beg of the Noble Lord to state whether he adopted the sentiments of this Report ? If the Noble Lord would only state that he believed the Committee had done their duty, he (Lord G. Somerset) would be sati?fied. • Mr. O'CONNELL said he was really surprised to see such excellent argumentation and such lofty indig nation expended on a very trivial affair.—(•Hear, hear.) It was, indeed, quite true that no Committee could have acted with more impartiality, or with better motives, than the two Noble. Lords who had just spoken. But he was really surprised that the Noble Lord (Ashley) should have considered the vindication neces sary, or should even think it imperative on him to enter at all into this discussion. He (Mr. O'Connell) would defy any one who had read that Report, to say that he (Mr. O'Connell) was not the person who was principally attacked in it.—(Laughter, and hear, hear.) He (Mr. O'Connell) quarrelled with Mr. Stuart for two things. First, because he disparaged his (Mr. O'Connell's) powers of cross-examination—(Laughter) which he thought exceedingly discourteous, because he was an old lawyer, and also a Member of Parliament—( Hear, and laughter)—and, next, because he said the Com mittee had gone out of their way in the examination, in having had some members of the Combination and the Glasgow Cotton-spinners Association, brought before them. He saw two or three of those persons outside the House, and he thought it would be giving fair play to the enemies of the combinators, to examine them. They had made out a complete case, if it were true ; but, if it were false, it was a paramount duty to take care that the House did not act upon it. And he (Mr. O'Con nell) would have been obliged to Mr. Stuart, or any one else, who should show them that they were mistaken. Mr. Stuart reproached the Committee, for not hav ing examined the master manufacturers. The Noble Lord did put one question to a master manufacturer, and obtained a negative answer, which precluded fur ther inquiry. This was before the evidence of M . Nish—and Mr. Stuart was wrong in blaming the Committee for not having put those questions to the master manufacturers, the necessity of which they could not have known until they bad heard M'Nish. But the fact was Mr. Stuart was a little angry when he wrote his Report.—(Laughter, and hear.) No doubt he would have done his business better if he had written in a better temper. Still it was natural that he should have felt so, for if the evidence wen! true, it showed that Mr. Stuart had violated his duty—that he had neg lected that for which he had received the public money, and to do which he had taken an oath or made a decla ration. The evidence went hard on the master manu facturers, who, if the charges were false, ought to be defended. But he (Mr. ()'C.) did not think that the Noble Lord was at all disparaged by the passages in the Report he complained of. It was not for him to counsel the Noble Lord—nor did he want to obtrude a compliment upon him. But the fact was the Noble Lord stood too high in the estimation of his friends and the public to be affected by such imputations. —( Hear, hear, hear.) There was no man who must not admit that his exertions and his anxiety on the factory question had been influenced by the most honourabl e motives. He (Mr. O'C.) differing, as he did, from the Noble Lord in politics—a difference which he had never ventured to avow—felt it now his duty to state that, in the opinion of all who knew him, the cha racter of the Noble Lord was not in the slightest de gree tarnished by Mr. Stuart's aspersions. The Noble Lord had, he submitted, therefore, had quite enough of this affair. He would also, as he bad already said, excuse Mr. Stuart for his hasty language, as he had been accused of neg!ecting duties which involved an obligation of the highest order of humanity—namely, the protection of those children on whose behalf the factory statute had been enacted. He (Mr. O'C.) would now sit down, repeating what he had set ouz with asserting—namely, th at no two gent l emen cou ld h ave acted with more strict impartiality than the two Noble Lords who had last addressed the House.—(Hear.) Mr. GOUL BURN quite agreed with the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. No one who heard the discussion could have supposed that the slightest impu tation could have rested on either of the Noble Lords. Still he was not sorry that this affair had been brought before the House, because it materially affected their dignity, their freedom of discussion, their privileges, and their powers.---( Hear, hear, hear.) They should not permit the notion to go abroad, that a person might, in a Report, through the hands of the Government, make attacks on Members of Parliament, which if made in another way upon per sons not in the House would entitle them to redress in a Court of Law.—( Hear, hear.) If the Noble Lord (J. Russell) now thou g ht Mr. Stuart justifiable, he might have defended his conduct when it was censured in the debates in that House, and so have saved Mr. Stuart the necessity of his attack. The Noble Lord's (Ashley's) character was not, however, in the slightest degree affected by Mr. Stuart's imputations. His Lordship's motives were of the purest nature—his course had been most benevolent towards the persons employed in the factories, and had been productive of much benefit in their behalf.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. FOX MAULE said that the Noble Lord (J. Russell) was not in his place when Mr. Stuart was at tacked in the House ; but he (Mr. Maule) had spoken for him, as he would show on reference to his speech.— (Here the Hon. Gentleman read extracts from his speech on that occasion.) But Mr. Stuart was not only attacked before the House, but also before the Com mittee. There three individuals stated that all the mill owners and factory proprietors had been accessories to Mr. Stuart's neglect of the obligations of the law in Glasgow. He thought, considering the feelings of the operatives towards the manufacturers, that it was no slight impu tation to make, that the law was set at defiance, and that the masters and manufacturers aided in this breach of the law. Mr. Stuart considered that he was only 1 doing an act. of justice to his own character, and the character of the manufacturers of Scotland, by giving a refutation of the evidence of these individuals before the Committee. He was sorry that this debate had arisen, because it could not possibly lead to any practical re sult, bst the conduct of that Committee had left Mr. Stuart no other alternative. Did not Mr. Stuart offer the Noble Lord every opportunity ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Did he not ask him to point out the circumstances of any case in which the law hid been broken ?—(Hear from the Ministerial benches.) If the Noble Lord was not prepared to point out any such circumstances to Mr. Stuart was it too much to say that Mr. Stuart was not to clear himself? He would next draw the attention of the House to the situation of three persons who had given their evidence ; who were these three witnesses ? They were all com hinators, of whom a very high authority had said that o they e w s o e ul go witnesses, any l Angus to effe ct hei r purpose. One of e st ed e and detained in prison for three weeks under a charge of murder, connected with these combinations. Yet it was said that this evidence ought to have been gain sayed ; and how was Mr. Stuart to have gainsayed it? He would refer Hon. Gentlemen to the two opposite statements ; then let them see what credit was attached to the evidence. The first statement his Hon. Friend had disposed of satisfactorily, and had proved that none but those who wished to take to themselves the obser vations of others, could accuse Mr. Stuart of having exceeded his duty. With regard to the second point, the Noble Lord, the Member for Monmouth shire, had made a quotation from page 32 of the Retort, and had endeavoured to create a prejudice by the construction which be placed on that passage. He trusted the Noble Lord would excuse him if be put a different construction on this passage. Mr. Stuart meant, evidently, that the examination should take place by persons who were cognizant of the fact, and who were unprejudiced on the subject, therefore he must state it as his opinion that in this Report Mr. Stuart bad no intention of showing any disrespect 'either to the House or to the Committee. Lord ASHLEY stated that seeing the House was anxious to go to the public business of the evening, he would not trespass long on their time. Nothing had been further from his intention than stating anything which should preclude Mr. Stuart from his right of defence,but that of which he did complain was that Mr. Stuart, in defending himself had thrown foul imputations on the Committee ; but as the Noble Lord had receded from the position he had previously taken up he (Lord Ashley) would not press the matter further. SUPPLY. On the Order of the Day being read for going into a Committee of Supply, Mr. HUME said that he was anxious to say a few words before the Speaker left the chair. They were now about to commence voting money for the service of the year, and he wished to bring the Hou se b ac k f rom p ersona l di scu s. sions to that which he felt ought to be more especially considered the business of the House. He had seen for nthe the last countrytwo or hadthree h e ebeers continually Sessions that the increasing, regular d, judg ingodmfiedndftronsoo.omrthse,btlmhne outcry which was continually being made out oft: much the t fearedhose wt inefficient hhaot thh s a t ed a r t e e r teas se daonutrh intentionpublici outcry—large e existing b sh to make the estimates this year still larger. He establishments doubtless conduced greatly to the be nefit of the officers employed by them, but they were not for the benefit of the people who paid the money. He did not blame the officers for acting in this manner; they acted in their vocation in doing the best they could for themselves, and he (Mr. H.) acted in his vocation in saving as much money as he could for his coun try. Many of the taxes were a great inconvenience to the public, or pressed with peculiar hardship on some parti cular branch of industry ; and when it was proposed to re peal these taxes, and thus afford relief to the public, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he might admit that these taxes were injurious, would refuse to consent to their repeal, because he wanted money. The time was now come to put it to the House whether they were to continue to go on without some knowledge of what they were about. Year after year, for the last three or four years, the Estimates had gone on increasing. They seemed to know no bounds—a deficiency in the revenue had not caused a stoppage of expenditure. The time h ad now arrived to show the House the necessity of this bein g done. Ho would request the attention of the H ous e to certain facts connected with the returns relative to the half-pay. In 1822 Lord Bexley, then Chancellor of t he Exche q uer, had proposed a loan for the dead weight, and t he calculations on which that loan was founded, supposed that the then dead weight, occurring at the close of the war, was so large in consequence of the accumulation of officers con sequent upon the war, that, in the course of fifteen or twenty years, it would be so much decreased by officers dropping off that sufficient would accrue from this source to enable them to pay off the loan. They were told that rules had been laid down at the time respecting to the dead were in 1822. pensions and promotions, of such a nature, that hence- forth promotion in the Navy, Army, and Ordnance, 1 we had gone would be so restricted that they would only take place according to the actual wants of the service ; but promotions years; and had continued to go on to a greater extent in comparison in the naval,mi_to the number of ships in commission than they bad done 17 there years wasag o ; t o l Nn u o r tcinowngi weighttt hi within the n )tu aanlldy iwar,nar increasing cte a hrw n ee d a pp3nriwnonegtne pounds wwts protestations tt r aih e osi i nnm n s o tuoh w ef eh plaaasys last economy,eg four at this moment, the dead weight was more than it was in liter},lB 3, and as only a decrease of 32,0001. instead of there being such a decrease as there ought to have been if such fixed plan had been adopted. If officers of the navy had only- been made when t h ey were wanted, instead of young officers being als'pointed who had entered the service after the war had ceased, considerable as civil muchcl ep a a s r i t t m::t s 8, reductions would have been made. Could any one say that • were regulated for the good of the such promotionsservice, must or the good of the public? He protest against t hi s system which took a wa y five million for inefficient services. lion Members might think these matters of little import ance, recollected that in 1 792, all t h e but it should be rec expenses of the State amounted but to 5,000,0001. ,1 , and now the half-pay list amounts to 500,0001. While this state of things continued, they could never give the people that relie f which t hey required ; the people had suffered the pressure of war, but they had not enjoyed the blessings of peace; h t erefor e he would ap peal to the House, w hether this was not a proper opportu nity for taking into consideration the state of the ex penditure. No attention had been paid to facts they knew not whether they had a surplus or a deficiency of revenue. The Navy and Army Estimates had been in creasing every year, for the last three years—he would ask where this was to stop ? /Within three years an in crease of two millions had taken place in the E st i mates ; this increase must be kept down—the revenue in 1;36 amounted to 48,787,000/., and in 1837 to 50,814,0001., and in 18:/8 it had got back to the same a s it was in 1836, while an increase had -taken place in the amount of ex penditure. This increase demanded the attention of the House. This was the reason why we were in debt, and he would ask were we to go on 1 until we became bankrupts ? The documents which he had in his possession stated that the revenue of last year amounted to 46,530,0001., while the expenditure amounted to 1,428,521/. more than the revenue, and that before the expenses for Canada had been all brought in ; and when all those were brought in he thought the defi ciency would be more near 2 000,0001. He would ask if they ought not to call upon the Chancellor of the Exche quer to state the revenue up to this time, in order that the House might see how he had made up the deficiency. There was an excess this year in the expenditure more than in the last, and the House ought to know how this money was to be provided. It appeared to him a reckless state of things if such were the case. Ile did not now wish to enter into the details, but he thought that the Government were bound to inform the House why they allowed the public credit to be in the doubtful state in which it was. He thought that some explanation ought to be offered to the House before they voted a single shilling. The House ought to know how the deficiency was to be made up--if it were to be made up by new loans, that would bring new taxation upon the country. He consi dered that he had a most undoubted right to call upon the present Government in an especial manner, be cause, when he had pressed former Governments, they bad joined with him in calling fur a reduction. A reduction had not been made by the present Government, which the people had a right to expect. He should be glad to hear any reasons assigned why the Naval and Military establish ments of the country should b.• kept up to the extent which they were at present. A great outcry hid been raised by those who were anxious for show, as to theinef ficiency of the present establishments. He did not believe that those outcries were called for, as he believed that the offi,!ers in the English army, as compared with the men, were greater in number than in any other army in the world. It was the duty of the Government to see that not a single shilling was expended that the service of the country did not require. He ( Mr. Hume) did not see any other way in which he could take the sense of the House on this subject, than by proposing a resolution for their adoption, and that resolu tion would be founded on the following facts, that it ap peared from the accounts laid on the table of the House, that the public income of Great Britain and Ireland, in 1833, was 46,119,450/., and that the expenditure was upwards of 47,000,000/. showing the excessive expenditure of upwards of 1,400,0001. The estimates of the army in 1833, were upwards of 600,0001., while in 1839 they were 900,0001. showing an increase to a very large extent. A similar increase had also taken place in the navy estimates. Such being the state of things, the effect of his resolution would be, that it vas expedient for the House before it voted the supplies, to have an account of the state of the revenue and expenditure of the country, and also a state ment of how the excess of charge was to be provided for. Mr. WARBURTON seconded the resolution. Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON was anxious to say a few words. It was not his business to see whether the establishment was sufficient or not, but it was necessary for the interest of the country, whenever a ship went out, to see it was properly manned to answer all purposes. No ship ought to go to sea with such a complement of men as he believed had been the case with the ships that had lat terly been sent out. He believed that if naval officers were to be called before the House they would state that they were not in a situation that would enable them to earn that credit to which they were entitled. When they talked of a man of war they meant a ship that would perform all du ties required from it, whether for battle or any other pur pose, as he understood the ships Of the present day were not competent to do either one or the other. That was his complaint, and if he was not irregular, he would then submit a motion to that effect. The SPEAKER said That the Hon. and Gallant Mem her could not ds that. Sir EDWARD CO DRINGTON said he would bring the subject before the House to•morrow, when he intro duced his motion on the subject of the Navy. Captain BOLDER() had been greatly amused by the inconsistency of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny. On Friday last he had spoken against a grant of money for railways, and had afterwards voted for it—( Hear, hear)._ and now he had come forward and prevented the regular bujness of the House going on, by attempting to prevent him from e x erc i s i ng t h e r i g h t t h at h e possessed of address ing the House. It was now wanted to reduce the military service. Why, did the House know the state in which Europe wi:s at present placed? They had a war in India and Spain, and Russia did not appear very likely to remain much longer on good terms with this country, although it bad been stated that she would do so, in the Queen's Speech. In his (Captain 13.'s) opinion, if ever there was a time when the military services of the country should be placed on a firm footing, that time was th e present. H e was sorry t h at the Estimates were not larger than they were.—( Hear, hear.) Perhaps the Hon. Se cretary of the Admiralty, when he moved the first Esti mates, would allow him to bring forward his motion.— ( Cries of " No, no.") Being then in possession of the House, he believed he had a right to speak to the ques tion—he was speaking on the subject of the Royal Navy. —( Hear, hear.) He had brought forward a motion con nected with the Royal Marines. Of late, the House must be sensible that the public attention had been di rected to the condition of the Royal Navy. Now he ( Captain I3oldero) thought it would be far more im portant that the attention of the public should be directed to the condition of seamen and marines--( Hear, hear,)----a body of men who, under hardships and privations to a great extent, had tended in a material degree to add to the safety of the empire. lie was sure, such being the case, if these men had any grievances to complain of, the House would take into consideration the best mode of relieving them. The other night, he had moved for an Order in Council, and had been told that it was informal for the Crown to grant it.—( Hear.) Now, he held in his hand an Order in Council, and perhaps the Noble Lord opposite would have the goodness to say whether that was the same that he intended to move for. The order was dated, 12th July, 1837, and provided that no marine shall receive a pen3ion for length of service under twenty-one years, and that two years service on shore should reckon only as one afloat. Such an order (said the Gallant Captain) could never surely have been advised by any Lord of the Admiralty, who must know something of naval matters : it must have been owing to the influence of some Clerk in the financial Department. Why the order it was utterly impre ticable to carry into execution. Take the case of a sergeant-major of marines, who had been eight years at sea and fourteen afloat—twenty-two years in service ; he would not be eligible for a pension. And bow could he help himself? He could not send himself to sea.—( Hear, hear.) The Gallant Captain went on to speak of the ab surdity of the order in other respects ; but his style was so rapid and disjointed that we could often scarcely under-. stand him, lie remarked, it would be said that the order might be departed from in particular cases. But he con sidered that a seaman ought to know precisely what were his rights, and not be dependent upon the discretion or caprice of any one.—( Hear, hear.) The terms of the order were so vague and indeterminate, that it might be a question of doubt if service in a guard-ship was to be reckoned as the service for which a pension should be re ceivable. And although he washappy to understand that service in a guard-ship was so to be reckoned, yet he thought such a point ought not to be left in any doubt.—( Hear. ) He would call the attention of the House to this fact, that in the present year there were 5,500 marines afloat, for 3,500 on shore. And under the present system a man might be obliged to serve thirty•feur years—if he did not go to sea but in the usual and regular rotation—before he would be eligible for the pension of lad. a day. Then as to the assimilating of the services, how could it be accomplished ? lie supposed the case of two brothers going on board a ship to-morrow, one as a sailor the other as a marine, for a three years' cruise. At the expiration of three years toe ship would return, perhaps to Portsmouth, and what would be the fate of those two men ? The sailor would be paid off, and perhaps would rove about the country, but the marine was marched up to the barracks. Having been out for three years, and confined to a dirty little gun-brig, the marine became warped in the back, and forgot his drill, so he was taken to the barracks, and had to duty as a soldier. Was that putting men on an equality ? lie might be told that a marine got a better pension than the line. There might be Whig economy in that, but when the Army Estimates came on, he should feel it to be his duty to draw the attention of the House to the subject. A man after 35 years' service had 6d a-day allowed him. Why the poor fellow could not live ; perhaps he would go to the overseer for assistance ; the overseer would say there is a fine building at the top of the hill, you will have every accommodation, and you will have plenty to eat; the poor fellow might perhaps be reduced to enter it, but the overseer would grasp his pension ; and the poor unfortunate man, who had served his Monarch, served his country, been in every chine, and inured to every hardship, is put into a workhouse, there to end his days. lie would never cease its long as ho lived to endeavour to get the pension back to Is. This man had a spirit. He was like a lion, the supporter of the Queen's arms—not like Mr. Van Amburgh's lions— ( Laughter)—he was not so tame—though Mr. Van Am burgh's lions might one day conquer him. —(Lauehter.) But these men possessed high spit its, and he would warn the Government not to tyrannize over them too much. There was a little spirit getting abroad between the army and die marines that might be unpleasant by and bye. par ticularly as their wants became a little better known. It. was very extraordinary that this Order in Council had never appeared in the Navy List. How was that ? Were the Government ashamed of it? They ought to be.— (Laughter.) In the Coast Guard service there were between 4,000 and 5,000 men employed. Why were they not made to serve two years, and how was it that they allowed those men to enjoy such privileges while the poor fellow who endured every hardship, and ran the risk of catching every disease in foreign climates, was not better provided for? That was one grievance. lie had another complaint to make, and he should be glad to have an answer upon this subject from the. Gallant Officer opposite. It was with respect to the Marines' great coats. In the Ordnance Estimates there was a vote every year for the supply of great coats for the Army. The Army was supplied every three years ; but the Marine, who actually required better clothing, and had occasion to use his great coat oftener than the Line, was obliged to find his own great coat out of his pay. lit thirty-three years' service he would have to buy ten great coats. Those were grievances that pressed bard on those poor men, and he had en deavoured to lay them before the House to the best of his ability. There were other grievances which they might well complain of, but those were of minor consideration. He trusted the House of Commons would see that justice was done to a body of men whose loyalty and attachment to th e Crown, and whose service all over the globe, every one could bear testitncny to. If this Order continued, they would compel the men to use art and stratagem, to he invalided, which would be very injurious to the State and injurious to their own constitutions. The men would leave the service at an early period of life, having wilfully placed themselves on the sick list, and thus e ver y f e eling that should animate the soldier would be wilfully destroyed. Mr. G. BERKELEY would not detain the House a point upon which the H on . and mo ment, as there was only Gallant Gentleman had evidently bier misinformed, lie (Mr. G. Berkeley) had the honour of belonging to the line, and he felt himself called u p on to state that the hon. and Gallant Officer was much misinformed when he stated not agree well together. It would not answer for the Go vernment of the country to have a different warrant in existence for the soldiers of the army, sailors, anti marines. —( Hear, hear. ) Every measure of preceding Govern ments bad been to assimilate the services, and the House must Tevise these warrants and endeavour to put sailors, marines, and soldiers, on the same footing. Lord HO WICK could not permit such a statement, being as it was utterly and entirely erroneous as regarded its facts, to pass unnoticed. Coming from such nigh au thority, it was calculated if it went forth to the country uncontradicted, to do great and irreparable injury to the public service. He deeply regretted that the whole sub ject of pensions had been gone into at a time when he had not the slightest intimation that it would be brought forward, and when 113 had with him none of the correspondence referring to it, and none of those documents to which, even with his( Lord How ick's) knowledge of the subject, it was desirable he should have, in order to make his statement as complete as it ought to be. lie trusted the House would excuse any slight inac curacy in what fell from him under such circumstances. He felt confident, however, that in the main the state ; merit he had to make would be correct. It was abso lutely necesaLry from the line of argument which had been taken by the Right lion. Gentleman opposite, that he should state how it was, and owing to what circumstances, that a change of late years in the pensions of soldiers in the British army had taken place. When his Right lion. and Gallant Friend was Secretary at War he peiceked that the burden of their pensions was yearly increasing— that they had a non-effective army which wrs rapidly amounting to an equality with their effective army, and that die burden was perfectly intolerable in its nature which was thus growing on the finances of the country. The Right Hon. Gentleman saw that, and much to his credit, he took the first almost effectual step to counteract the mischief which he saw in progress. It had been the practice to grant pensions on precisely the same grounds as had been stated with regard to the marines. It had been the practice in the Army at once to dismiss men upon pen sions as a matter of course, after twenty-one years of ser vice, whether they were disabled or not. The consequence of that regulation was, that men who had actually hardly passed the middle of life—men of thirty - . nine years of age, with full possession of their health and strength, were dis charged on pensions equal to the pay they had previously received, and they then continued for thirty or thirty. live years a burden upon the country. Thus, atter twenty years actual service, men were placed upon a full pension of one shilling a dry. The Right Honourable and Gallant Officer most properly felt that that was a system which ought not to continue, and he introduced a regulation, which he was quite right in introducing, that no soldier should lie admitted to a pension until by nit dical examination it was ascertained that he was unfit for the service, that die 21 years' service alone should not make a claim to be dis charged from the army.—( Sir Henry Hardinge made an observation across the table which we did not hear.) His Right Hon. Friend said that he did not establish it as a rule, but had introduced the practice ; but in point of fact it was perfectly true that the practice previously lied been that the moment a soldier had served for 21 years, he was as a matter of course discharged from the army. lie be lived that was a circumstance which had attracted the no tice of his lion. Friend at the time he was Secretary at War, but among the other forms introduced by him he had not applied himself to that particular point. It was re served for his Right Hon. and Gallant Friend to effect that reform, and thatßight lion. Gentlemen did introduce a sys tem requiring a medicalcertificate of unfitness before dischara_ ing a soldier from the army ; but it was found in practice, notwithstanding that alteration, that great abuses and evils did still continue. It seas well known that men came r before the Chelsea Commissioners for examination, whose health had been altogether destroyed by their own miscon duct, and by that constant habit of intoxication, which he regretted to say prevailed in so great a degree in the army. It was found that the bad soldier—that the man who was constantly, owing to hi s own profligate habits, in hospital, and receiving puni s h ment— h a d an advantage over a good soldier by being nominally worn out, or in point of fact completely w orn out, a f ter 20 years' service; whereas the good and honest and sober soldier, whose steady and sober habits kept him out of hospital, and who was not broken ('own oy repeated punishments, and by passing a large that in the hour of danger the Line had ever allowed the Marines to take the lead. That was entirely a mistak?.. Captain ECHEL L felt that he was obliged to agree in almost every word that had fallen from the Hon. and Gallant Member; but still he thought the Gallant Officer would have been a better advocate had he dismissed from his mind all party feeling upon the question. Those on his side of the House were equally as anxious to serve the poor marine as those on the other side, and the Hon. and Gallant Member had got the start of them by his superior finesse. lie trusted that when the Marines were on ser vice in the guard ships, that time so served would be al lowed to count as sea service. Mr. C. WOOD—Although he was very anxious to get to the Estimates, still he would not allow the debate to close without saying a few words in reply to the observa- • tions of the Hon. and Gallant Officer. He had very cor rectly stated the intention of the Government in making the Order in Council—they thought it was very desirable that the marine and the seamen should be placed as near as possible on the same footing. Sir H. Hardinge in giv ing his evidence before the Military Commission, said the army would be dissatisfied by having the prospect of only 6d. a day after long service, while the marine, with not so severe duties, had the prospect of Is. ; on inquiry it was found that the marine had not only an advantage over the soldier of the I;ne, but that he also had an advantage over the seaman. No soldier, however long his service might he, was entitled to his discharge—the marine can claim it and his per , ion besides. The marine and the seaman had always a right t 3 their discharge after a pe,iod of twenty one years' service. It was true the seaman was not alwa3s sure of continuous service, the ma rine was, so that he having continuous service if his service on shore, which was not so heavy as on board ship, was to count in the same proportion, the marine would have an advantage over all the other services. They were not prepared to reduce the pension of the marine to that of the line, but they had determined to adhere, zs near as possible, to the system of bringing the marine and sea man to the same level, and that was the object of the Order in Council. _ _ Capt. BO LDER 0 —G reat boasts !—( Laughter. ) Sir El A RDINGE begged to be allowed to say a few words, as he had been personally alluded to. Before the Military Commission, when he was giving evidence as to the punishments of the Army, he also adverted to what he considered a grievance. He considered that the Army would be considerably dissatisfied if they were perspectively to receive no more than sixpence a they of pension for twenty-one years, and then only when 1 e got his dis charge accompanied with certificates of good character, while the marine, after the same length of service, and without reference to charactef, was to receive one shilling. He felt bound to state that such a de cided preference being given to one service over another must naturally cause dissatisfaction in the army. The Reform Parliament had been very anxious to do away with the punishment of flogging in the service, but at the same time there was such a spirit of economy prevailing, that they were most anxious to reduce the pen sions to deserving men to sixpence a day after a very long service. He appealed to any man, naval or military, whether this difference was not calculated to excite great dissension and dissatisfaction. Formerly, before any change took place in any department, the advice of the other de partments was taken. For instance, in 1829, the navy warrant was not carried into effect until after it had been referred to the Admiralty, to the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, on a financial account, to the Ordnance depart ment, &c., in order that it might be seen whether it was a fit warrant or not. Under these circum stances they assented to the warrant of 1829, which left a marine soldier, after 21 years' service, Is. a day, and gave him Is. 2d. in the event of his being able to serve 25 years. The warrant of 1833 said the soldier should only have 6d. a day after 21 years service, and then ' went on with certain rates of additional pay up to 11d. per day. He thought it his duty to give this evidence before the Commission, but he did more, for he wrote to the Secretary at War cautioning him as to the difficulty of the position in which he would be placing the army ; and this incomenience be felt to be so great, that he had intended in the year 1833 to bring it before Parliament, in order that the just claims of the soldier might be brought before the Rouse. He was spoken to by the First Lord of the Admiralty ( Sir J. Graham), who wished him not to bring the question forward at that moment, as great in convenience would accrue from its being brought forward by a General Officer. Ile was also sent for by the Ad jutant General of the Army, who said that such a course would be extremely difficult in the service. He, there. fore felt it his duty as a military man to abstain from doing so.—( Hear, bear.) Never had he given any op position on the subject of the Army Estimates. He had always endeavoured to support the Govern ment of the day in carrying these Estimates into effect— because he considered this service superior to any party consideration. —( Cheers.) In 1831 and 1833, he strongly noticed a great grievance, he meant a commutation in the soldiers' pensions. He told Sir Henry Parnell, the then Secretary at War, that the step he was about to take would ruin a great number of old soldiers, but he persevered. In 1832 he again appealed to the House, and, in a very long and tedious speech, pointed out the inconveniences of the system. In 1833, when the Hon. Member for Coven try (Mr. Ellice) was Secretary at War, he undertook to put an end to the system ; and lie (Sir H. Hardinge) did not mention it again until this day. He was now called upon, in consequence of the motion of his Gallant Friend, who had so ably brought forward the case of the marine soldier, to state his opinion on the subject of this warrant. It was to allow him Is. a day, but to increase Isis period of service in a very large degree ; and that, in many sn stances, would almost prevent men from obtairing any pension at all.--( Hear.) The marine soldier was one of the most valuable defenders of the country, and his discipline and loyalty had on every occasion been most strikingly exemplified. With regard to the subject of the pension, to show how strong the case of the marine soldier and the army was, he would just advert to the circumstances under which pensions were granted to the three classes, the sailor, the marine, and the soldier. It was known to mili tary men that soldiers had 6d. a day in the year 1798, and shortly after the mutiny at the Nore, the payment of the army was increased to Is. a day, and the most beneficial arrangements made. The marine was placed on the same footing as a soldier in 1806, avowedly because ho was a soldier on shore. The sailor had no claims for a pension up to the year 1815. Without depreciating the rewards which were due to sailors in her Majesty's Beet, he must say by the Order in Council of 1637, which they were esta blishing- to the detriment and disadvantage of the marine service—they were doing a most impolitic thing as re garded the naval service, because they were doing that which might risk the discipline of the tieet, for if these men were to be placed on different allowances, it would not give satisfaction on board, the ships. He could not conceal from the House and the public that a great injury had been committed on the army by the warrant of :63:1. It was the duty of the Government of that day to have pre sented that warrant to the Admiralty to obtain the appro bation of that department, and if the Admiralty had not gone with them, surely there was enough of ability in that Government to have known that two warrants so dissimilar as that of 1833 and the old one, which left Is. a day, could EVENING EDITION portion of his time in prison—that man, on the contrary, was kept a long period in the army. His Noble Friend. now Secretary of State, who was then President of the Board of Commissioners of Chelsea, had his attention forcibly attracted to that circumstance. It was a matter of constant occurrence, that the commanding officers of regiments had inserted in the dischart;es of these men the statement—" character bad, and a notorious drunkard"—and yet in that case the Chelsea Commis sioners had no power of refusing to that man the same pension which was claimed by the best soldier. His Noble Friend, at the time he was a 'Commissioner of the Chelsea Board, perceived very strongly that objection ; and it was also found that after twenty-one years' service there was so little advantage to be derived from a further continuance in the Army, that strong inducements were held out to the soldier to endeavour, by pretending illness, to escape from the service. It was a curious fact in illustration of this point, that in the return of soldiers discharged after that regulation had been introduced by his Right Hon. Friend, in a very large proportion of those who obtained their dis charges and pensions after completing twenty-one years' service, such disorders as chronic rheumatism were frequently given as the cause of the discharg e _ ( Hear.) It was certainly a remarkable coincidence, that after twenty-one years' service chronic rheumatism immediately began to show itself, and that was presutnp tire proof of the desire to get out of the army.—( Hear, hear,) He was aware that the pension warrant of 1833 was that originally adopted by that Right Hon. Gentleman when he was Secretary at War. That arrangement, how ever, did not effectually meet the case. Looking at the circumstance, that there was no distinction between the worst and the best soldier, and that on the contrary this worst soldier had the advantage of being sooner worn out, and retiring upon his pension, it was felt by his Right Hon. Frien the Secretary at War, that it was necessary to make an alteration in that respect. The principle,on which that alteration was made was, that when a soldier was discharged at an early period of life from mere disabi lity to perform the active duties of a soldier, he should have a smaller pension than was previously awarded under such circumstances ; but that the soldier who was entirely dis abled from earning his own livelihood, should, on his dis charge, have a larger pension. His Right Hon. and Gallant Friend had represented the existing pension as being only sixpence a day after twenty-one years' service. Why, even by the warrant of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Control, the pension was sixpence a day at the time when the man was only incapacitated from the active duties of a soldier, but for a greater degree of disability it was raised to 9,1., and under certain circumstances it was still further increased, pro. vided it did not exceed the maximum of Is. the amount of his pay. The Right Honourable Gentleman in alluding to the pensions of the army, had totally left out of his con sideration the m,nsiderable alterations made in the amount of pensions received by the soldier, since he (Lord Howiek ) had the honour of being Secretary at War. Before he left the history of the warrant of 1833, he would advert to an observation of the Right Honourable Gentle man and Gallant Officer. The Right Honourable Gen tleman said that previous Governments had thought it necessary, in the alterations they had made, to carry all the other departments with them ; that these departments were consulted before any change was made at the \Var_ office. The same course had been followed by his Right Honourable Friend the President of the Board of Con- troul. That pension warrant of 1833, was framed with the greatest care and attention by his Right Honourable Friend with the assistance of his Noble Friend near him. That warrant received the entire concurrence and appro bation of the Commander-in-Chief.—( Hear, hear). That warrant was also laid before the Cabinet, of which the Right Honourable Baronet, then First Lord of the Admi_ ratty, was a member, and it received the full and entire f approbation of the Ministers in office at that period. This was the mode in which the warrant of 1833 was framed and adopted.—( Hear, hear. ) But at the same time he would admit, and no doubt his Right Honourable Friend would agree with him, that that warrant wanted due means of rewarding peculiar good conduct in the soldier. The warrant laid down a fair rate of pension for ordinary ser vice and discipline, and at the same time had a just regard for the public, from whom the resources were drawn. But some further provision was necessary, as a reward for espe cial good conduct. Accordingly he (Lord H.) had the hotieur of submitting a warrant, which was in like manner ap proved of by the Commander in-Chief, and by the other departments of the Government, and subsequently by his late Majesty, and which authorised " a good conduct pay" io the soldier under certain circumstances and regulations, and fur carrying his extra pay in addition to his pension. Now what was the combined effect of the warrant of his Right Hon. Friend, and under the good-conduct warrant which he ( Lord Ilowick) had the honour to lay before the late King ? He found, on referring to a scale of amounts which he had in his hand, that the soldier, instead of being worse under the provisions of the existing warrant than under those exclusively of the Right Hon. and Gallant Officer, that for some period of service the soldier was now better off, and that he was scarcely more than a fraction worse off in any comparative situation. Under the warrant of the Right Honourable and Gallant Officer, a soldier, after fourteen years' service, would, if disabled, have a pension of from Gd. to 9d, a day ; under the existing warrant he would have from 6d. • to 9d. a day. At nineteen years' service, under the old warrant, he would from Gd. to 9d. ; now he would have from sd. to 10d. A soldier after twenty-one years' service, had a slight advantage under the old warrant, his pen_ sion would then be Is, a day. But, for any period after twenty-three years' service, the soldier had every consider able advantage under this warrant. But the Right Hon. Baronet said that the advantages from the present system were enjoyed under very peculiar circumstances of good conduct. Now, in his (Lord H.'s) opinion, that was the very character which constituted the present system— ( Ilear, hear.) By the warrant of the Right Hon. a , .(1 Gallant Officer, a soldier received his pension, without the slightest regard being had to his conduct, or to the character he bore in his discharge. If a sol dier had been punished ever so often—if be had but barely escaped sentence of loss of service for desertion —if he had merely avoided the brand of absolute infamy, he was entitled to the full pension that could be claimed by the very best soldiers in the army. It hod frequently happened that a soldier coming to Chelsey Hospital, and being, in the official words, " a notoriously bad character, and a confirmed drunkard," receives as high a pension as the most honest, sober, trust-wo r thy, well conducted soldier in the service. Now, be ' ( Lord Hoevick) was not ashamed of the difference be-- tween that system and the present.—(Hear, hear.) The principle of the present system was, that a soldier, who had not misconducted himself was entitled to a higher rate of pension, and unless he had been convicted of some specific offence, he was not to be deprived of that advantage.--( Hear, hear.) If on _ der the existing warrant a soldier once received the good conduct pension, he could not be deprived of it unless be the sentence of a Court-martial ; but if he were deprived of it for only one offence, he might be re-instated in all his privileges within one year He was happy to assure the Right lion. and Gallant Officer that he had over-esti mated the difficulty that a soldier would have to surmount in attaining the advantages of the present system. Con sidering the short time the existing warrant had been in Operation, and the little inducement held out to soldiers to enlist before 1833, a very large number of soldiers had been entitled to claim the benefit of good conduct pay, and were now enjoying it.—( Hear, hear.) He should not say more upon the subject now, but would entreat the • House and the country not to suffer themselves to be impressed with the notion that the remuneration of the British soldier had been unjustly and eruely reduced—( Hear, hear)—he would remind them that now, twenty-five years after the war had terminated, we Its(' a vote of 1,300,0001. for Chelsea Hospital, and that duritug the last year the Chelsea Pension-list was diminished only by 2,000/. under the amount of the year before. Let them remember those facts, and he was sure they would be disin clined to circulate any censures or comments respecting pensions calculated to excite dissatisfaction. No prejudice whatever seemed to exist at present against the army. Within the last few months the number of recruits which had entered was almost unexampled, in time of peace. This fact was a proof that the army had lost none of its popularity ; he hoped, therefore, that lion. Members would see that they ought not to make any remarks likely to ex cite dissatisfaction in the army. lie ( Lord II.) for one should be always most anxious to improve the condition of the soldier, and to consider and reward his merit ; but he should remember at the same time the duty he owed to wards that public who paid those taxes from which the heavy expenses of the army were derived.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. F. H. BERKELEY said that as the question or the state of the navy had cost his brother, Capt. Berkeley, the (Ace which he had held at the Board of Admiralty, he trusted the House would suffer him to direct their atten:ion to the suhject ; and as it was the first time that he had ever had the honour of addressing the house, be felt some little embarrassment.—(Hear, hear.) His brother had formed en opinion, in conjunction with the opinion held held by several most distinguishe d naval officers, thatcob. manning of the navy had been for several .s ducted on false principles ; that morepa mannad. r triseairs past the war the navy had been m ost inefficiently l Long before the conclusion of t he war con f our gallant naval upon this subject ; and if t h e despatches o'paints had existed t drivsince would be found that o . n r o th e e em N pl i ::i:lts ul' had commanders were examined, it to the em time e e l of the crews existed touching the deficient complemen ts n argument to say that of British ships of war. It was. • o h Nav —that the great o t f im t e he o b f att t h he the success attendant on the Brats . Navy ' —that excust.. e deeds of thet naval war could in any ofbatNtlaevar t As the of the Admiralty on this su p. well Carelessness for inhumanity of the master of might we apologize t ex cellent f i erce which. having been urged by him come some s almost superhuman feat, had strained itself in the , performance,The success of the horse would be no excuse for the inhumanity of his master, and the victories which bad shed such lustre on the British flag had been frequently won by ships which had been undermanned. At that time there existed great carelessness on the part of the Admiralty ; but when the combined forces of France and Spain ceased to offer any opposition—when Spain had no vessel on the ocean, and the navy of France was fugi tivcd, demoralized—he had almost said denationalized—th e n this carelessness on the part of the Admiralty became at.)- solute apathy ; they never looked to the other side of the Atlantic—they seemed to have forgotten that there was a Republic on those shores rising into strength in consequence—they had forgotten that that Republic had a navy, young and vigorous like itself. Th e apathy of the Admiralty, with regard to naval matters, could not be bettor proved than by the fact that they actually sent out cast-iron water tanks for the use of vessels intended to cruize on the fresh water lakes. H e believed that an apology for this conduct might be found for their gross ignorance on the subject ; for if they had known better, they would have stood convicted, not f apathy, but of great culpability. The conse quence of this ignorance was the loss of many of our finest frigates ; and never since navy then received a blow which it h as since recovered. The Eperr other icr and sev era l I gallant frigates fell vietims,becau se they were undertnad —they fell victims to vessels of w ar w hi c h were manned 1 a superior manner ; and what had we to show against m unnOTO any reverses? Merely th e v i c t ory o f t h e Sh so Over t to his as a W er. sting flour cnce KO ears, weer tAisb find t And ! ers.) their f the Tha t t ete of t Half :e two ' to tbe no 111"5 in ibis is o, lad' • e• in e he a s tr ts) b. so • l er 0 il itj' f 11' goi 9 re" 14 11' ,C 3 5t°r j 0° of tile lilfi!elti oP" 11l I to y „ c 1 0 '1,e fr e d ip.• oter° 4. 1 0 , ICI ..,.