The Sun. — London, England, 1821-05-12 00:00:00

'T . f ~'► i:~ =~i:c_ .:~:.,~ but he understood it to be the case of a reporter . -turitilig; o , resented once'embertfi as US T ifi t ;re - preS..;; sions to another which were not uttered in the •fpeech -.sox reported: , ?Ili! that ca:se ran parallel with,the pre:sentne was for the House to. Judge ; ~; la , at as to-the libel 'before thern conld.conceive -.nothing more atrocious it smelt Of- blood. If : ,the individual' who; wrote • it designed .to .push matters to those , extremities which he seemed to ..suppose were Irntriinent, - if his designs were to excite a breach of the peace, he could not have taken a more ..direct •course. Should the House 'soar its Mianbers to be•goaded iii this manner ,impunity, let it never ; vindicate its privi -les-es again. What libels (let the Noble Lord de clare them) had been protected or 'winked at by 'him and his lion. 'Friends, of the atrocious and - sanguinary character of the one in question ? He . did not. believe that there could be any mention ed. Certain he was that the - public would pa- It - anise tho'se papers which were the freest from libels on .private characters. The reason why the chief London newspapers flourished as they did was, because they were almost entirely free from 'private . libels., . The Marquess of LO N DONDERRY .explained. — lie congratulated himself and the house that his warmth should have drawn such an explicit, and satisfactory explanation from . .the . Honourable and'Learned Member. He was ready to avow that he had been under the delusion that the H on. and Learned Gentleman had in hiS speech inti mated the probability of persons engkiged either in the councils of his Majesty, or those of the na- Aion, being concerned in, or giving:countenance to, these libels. Now certainly the' evidence at ' the bar was not calculated to remove such an in sinuation. He was, therefore, the more highly gratified at the conduct of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman in wiping it away. His chief object in speaking had been to secure the conduct of the House from the imputation 'of partiality. Ile could not allow any, distinction to be taken be -tween this and the former libel to which he had referred the House.—They both had a tendency 'to cause the effusion of blood. In the former instance there were words put into the mouth of one Member which caused an explanation to be sought by another Member. Sir R. FERGUSON said, that the Noble Lord had imputed motives to him which he could have no right, to impute. Where he got his omnis cience from, as to the feelings. and motives of others, he (Sir R. Ferguson) knew not, but the Noble Lord would do better to look to his own motives. If he (Sir R: Ferguson) felt indigna tion, it was at least an honest indignation, at the base and cowardly attacks made on the character of English women. For his own part he cared ' very little for political libels; and was always un willing to take any notice of them. The Marquess of LONDONDERRY again ex plained. He only wished that the same indig nation had been expressed by the Gallant Gene ral and his friends, and that they had taken notice of other libels no less gross and offensive than the one before them.—(Cries of " Name, name," from the Opposition side.) — Mr. WyNNE said, that in all cases like the pre sent he had taken an equal course ; and had look ed only to the honour of the House. He thought that in the course of the last autumn libels had been issued as. much on one side as on the other ; libels disgraceful alike to the Press and' to those who had to administer the course of Justice. Had they occurred during the sitting of the House, he thought the vengeance of the House ought to have been visited upon the authors. The libel which had been brought under considera tion two years ago, was, he thought, a most flagi tious libel. It stated, as a part of a speech, that ' which had never been 'spoken, and marked the .part by the supposed approbation of the House: The writer, on being called to the Bar, said he had mistaken the language, but he (Mr. W.), thought it scarcely possible. However, as a Member had intimated an ,opinion that the writer might have been mistaken, the punish ment was mitigated. It . was his firm belief that the remissness of the : House on that occa sion had. encouraged libels. Indeed, he consi .dered the lenity of the House had been mistaken on that. occasion. If the Amendment of the Noble Marquess were adopted, he thought it would be worth no Member's while to make any com . plaint to the House. He had seen many wilful misrepresentations of the Debates of the House ; 'but in the present case,: he looked to the question immediately.before him.. lithe person who had been examined. at. the bar had shewn any disposi ' tion.tO tell-the truth,, he should, have been glad to lay hold. of., any circumstance which could be offered in : mitigation - of punishment but as he considered the present a libel of the grossest de seription,,ke should vote for the originat-motion ; for he thought the support of,the privileges of 'the House nearly connected with the liberties of ~t he people. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY . said he had not denied the atrocity orthe-peesent libel; He merely wished the House to have . regard'to its former judgments in similar cases. said, he should always support an equal distribution-of justice, for he considered that nothing could. be more injUrions than an: opi-, - nion t r hat.it would be safer to attack a Gentleman -2.:4f..one;party than of another. The Hon. Mem ber then referred to the libetof.lB.l9.- It stated - .(profes'sing to report a.speech .of the Hon. Mem ber for Aberdeen), that his' Right lion. Friend, bad rendered - himself indifferent to the sufferings 'of his 'fellow creatures, by waking. them objects '"of habitual ridicule. . This. was a general attack - upon a man's' whole, life ; and _was cult; to answer' thada,SPeOficicharge . . tle.thOught • the House should act consisteutlys_and give the same' Udgrnent on, the present Cidasion, as . it had given in the year 149,—Mr. WYNNE explained. LordionN R SSELL' , thoughtsthat in' Cases. of . !yr; vtlege the inilderltirtishnikifCw"aS alWays the 'best,....-P:n the Occasion. refetTed to by the libel .I:.fof 18195 there certainly 'hatl - Aieen:a. laugh, and thiS::had given 'rise to an.efi:tin,OUS opinion that the :'Might' Hon. Member 'allnded-to had turned the sufferings of his fellow-creatures into' ridi tute. , Ile. road .not recognise.. the distinction 'Which had been taken between• the:two cases-. If, forsitietatice,: a persim accused the NebleMur-, gals of cruelty during his goyu rnment.in Ireland, to a - part'of and was capable of Contradiction:;, bat thts was very different from- . a case in which an attack was made upon . _tic'e • fetivales of his . family. Charges of. Sucli.a . dts , C,ription were always painful, though ' they were as false as hell ; for there *was a deli cacy about the female character which avoided public notice. The libel, the judgment upon which Vitt(' been cited as* 'precedent, could not be • ; compa,red with the.bbels which had appeared in the newspaper before the Iloase ; and he re gretted that he could . not acquit the friends of GovernmeFit of the charge of patronising the Paper. lie had been given to understand that the paper bad been sent to the Ambassadors re presenting his Majesty abroad. Those who took in the paper, and paid for it, in his opinion, paid for amoral assassination. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said the Noble Lord was just as correct in his foreign politics as he was in his Trish information.(A laugh.)— If the Noble Lord would satisfy him that any person in his office had circulated this Paper in the way to whiCh the Noble Lord had alluded, that .person should be immediately discharged.--- (Hear, hear o—With respect to female honour, he knew not whether. he might venture to rival the -Noble'Lord in this respect—(a laUgh)—but he could ass'u're the Noble Lord-that he . viewed any attack upon female honour with as much in dignation as himself. Libels, however, of the most atrocious description had been circulated against the highest characters, and had been but too generally encouraged.' Even Majesty itself had been attaCked in the most daring manner; and he shotild be glad to know whether the Noble Lord himself had never taken in Mr: lloneTs publication.—(Cheers.) COURTENAY said, the attention of the House ought not to be-drawn into a general - dis; cession, when the immediate question arose out of-a distinct paragraph. He though the analogy of the two cases perfectly clear. The libel was equally false in both cases; and justice, he thought, should be distributed with an equal hand. Lord 'JOHN RUSSELL, in explanation, observed, that he could not say that he had taken in Mr. Hone's publications. Mr.W.Smrrifsaid,he would never give his vote for bringing a Printer to the Bar of that House for what is called a political libel. The present case, however, was that which resulted from a false accusation against a Member of having told a falsehood from fear. The accusation might -have led to a - murderous quarrel, and he thought no punishment too severe for it. The libel of 1819 involved a question of interest. He thought the person who. was called to the Bar of the House in 1819,-had not misrepresented Wilfully. The present was a wilful and malicions libel, and he therefore should vote for the severer punishment. It really seemed that his Noble Friend (Lord' Nugent) wished this delinquent to escape, merely because he was a mean, dirty, Prevaricating fel low. Mr. C.HurcniNsoN protested against the com parison of the two cases. This he thought was confounding innocence with guilt. The indivi dual (Mr. Collier) who was at the Bar in 1819, was a gentleman of high respectability, and be longed to a most respectable establishment. That gentleman had no intention to wound the feelings of any one, and he believed no one at their Bar had ever conducted himself with so much pro priety- and manliness as Mr. Collier, and no man had .ever been subjected to the censure of the House more innocently. The present; on the other hand, was a case of gross, malicious, and unmanly libel. lie was generally inclined to. lenient punishment in all cases; and his object in rising had been principally to do justice to a most respectable individual. Mr. WILMOT said he should support the mo tion for the severer punishment, as he thought the analogy which had been drawn between the two cases was completely destroyed. Mr. BARING said that more of party feeling had been exhibited in the debate than he could have wished ; but he trusted lion. Members would divest themselves of this feeling on coming to the vote. He regretted that the House could not come to an unanimous decision. Mr. BANKES begged to suggest to his Noble Friend (the Marquis of Londonderry), that he should withdraw his Amendment, as a consider able part of the House was opposed to it.. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, that what be had heard in the course of the night upon the two cases had certainly altered his original view of the present question, and he thought the pre cedent of 1519 -had better be broken than ob served.- Ile,therefore should certainly withdraw his Amendment, ' Sir J. MACKINTOSH. said, that as: the' Noble Marquis had withdrawn his Amendment in con sequence of:-what had passed, he presumed his Noble Friend (Lord Nugent) would-a inulto for tiori feel himself pressed to withdraw his Amend ment,'.whiCh*4. .for the Mildest punishment of • The paper-in , question he thought was di- . rected by the most savage hostility, and had a tendency to barbarize political warfare. • Lord NUGENT acquiesced. he should With draw his amendment, which be had been inclined to make because be thought the - contemptible . person in question was not the author of the libel. He (Lord Nugent) thought that one of thenu merous falsehoods uttered - by that individual at the Bar, bad been his statement that he was the author.- - Mr. BROUGHAM begged to be alloWed'to state his recollection of what -Occurred in . the case of 'Mr. Collier. In his opinion the House was not called• upon to act so inconsistently-as was by some =imagined. lie had understood that the House had there awarded the lesser punishment, itspan-a conviction that 'the misrepresentation was not wilful but unintentional, and - that the gen tleman who made it made it innocently.—(Hear.) —Circumstaniesi were mentioned- -by hirri -at the -Bar-to establish'.this:fact t• his manner of stating them (for:that ought always to 'be taken 'into the account), which. had, produced a strong feeling in his favour; the consistency of the statement, and the confirmatory evidence-of a -Member, who intimated that-he had some recollectitwon the' subject, (whether precise or .not, „Ite (Mr.. 13r09gliarn.) „Ohl nathear in snind), all tended to - , show that. the report of the speech of the Mts. Member- foy , Abertleeti (Mr. Hume): was:"ira tended. to be, given fairly and truly. It ap peared in eVidence that while the young ',gen - - tiers - tan was' occupied . ig taking notes, a noise occurred. in the gallery;- which' prevented him froth hearing distinctly, and ; he therefore took the sentence complained of, or part of it, from a stranger who professed to give it correctly: In the case now before the' House, all these circum stances were wanting, but especially that iinpor tant circumstance of testimony to the respectabi lity 'of the character of the individual which Mr. Collier had received from a most unexception able quarter.—(Hear, hear!) -L--If, indeed, he had been guilty of inserting a falsehood for the purpose of gratifying private malignity, he (Mr. Brougham), instead of .being inclined - to spew him the slightest lenity, should have voted for the severest infliction ; for he knew of no punish ment that could be too severe for so wilful and detestable an offence. It was needless to dwell on the distinctions between the two cases ; for in . that' immediately under -consideration, not a single circumstance of --exculpation had been shewn : all palliation being out of the question, he felt called upon to support the severer reso lUtion for sending the offenders to Nets-gate. Lord NUGENT said, he must maintain his opi nion, altliough he had consented 'to withdraw his amendment, through deference to the general Wish of the House.—The House then divided— For the Motion - - - 109 • Against it - - - - - 23 Majority for Mr. Baring's motion , that H. F. Cooper be sent to Neirgate - - -36 Upon our re-admisSiOn, to the Gallery, we found the House engaged in a.discussion as to the mode of disposing of the remaining parties who had been examined at the Bar. . _ Mr. S. BOURNE thought the House was placed in an embarrassing situation, in being called upon to punish persons for what they had done in the course of an, examination at the Bar of that House into their private concerns. That examination had certainly been carried further than even -he' had recollected the House ever to have gone be fore, and had it not been for the obloquy attached to such an interference,, he should more than once have stood up for the protection. of the wit nesses against questions tending to criminate themselves. Besides this, many Members could not be prepared to vote on this part of the ques tion,'not having been present during the whole of the evidence. In order to enable them to form a judgment, the evidence ought to be printed; but he was prevented from voting for that, fr,or - 2 conviction that a'great part of the examination had been of so indiscreet a nature on the part of the House, that it would not reflect much credit upon it. Sir J. - m k_cioN•rosn expressed deep. regret that his Hon. Friend who had just 'Spoken . should have been able to sit silently by and witness the continuance of an examination which he consider ed as derogatory to the House, and dangerous to its reputation, without interfering. He did not know how • his Honourable Friend could reconcile to his: mind, for fear of the obloquy attendant upon interference, to remain ,silent, whilst a radically unjust and oppressive course was being pursued by the House. When it was too late, and the statethent. was gone abroad, he could get, up and do his utmost to bring the greatest unpopularity upon - the House, as far as in him lay. He regretted that a man whom he highly esteemed could be capable of making such a statement to • the House. He regretted also that he did not point out in what respect in this examination the. House had gone be yond the bounds set by the farmer practice of Parliament in similar cases. He (Sir J. Mackintosh) maintained that they were to be guid ed in this case by the .ex et consicetuda and as the Hon. Member had not pointed out any deviation from that principle, he would, undertake to be able to,shew, that in the material :parts of the .examination there had been no trans gression of the practice of. Parliament hitherto.— Besides, he conceived his Hon. Friend had made a direct reflection on the want of proper vigil ance in that Right Hon. Person, who, from his. office, is the guardian of the honour and good conduct, of that House. Had his watchfulness slumbered .for a moment such an improper course would have been stopped by, some lion. Mem ber; for he was sure there were some who would not' have: silently looked on and suffered the HOuSe to cast disgrace and infamy on itself, and then come forward, when too late, to rivet that disgrace, the more firmly. ' He had before declar ed how much .tie deplored the lukeWarmness of many Members of .that House, but now he must .state, that -if he thought there were many who could be guilty of such conduct as this, he should think the House near its deStruction: Mr. S. BOURNE, in explanation, said he had never tisetlthe words "infamy" or" disgrace" at all, still less had he applied them to that House. He had stated his fair opinions, and he must say, that he still thought that it was carrying on eX atnination beyond Its just limits when it went to elicit answers rendering the persons who gave them liable to punishment for. the offence which they proved thereby against themselves.-- (Cheers:)—He had so often on forthei occasions interfered to restrain questions without success, 'that he confessed , he felt backward to draw on himself; the obloquy of So doing when it was to • ,have no . effect. . , Sir J. MACKINTOSH explained. Mr, SCARLETT observed, that the length and minuteness of examination 'complained of by the Right llon. Member were rendered , necessary by the prevarication of the, witnesses; which ,made it necessary to send-for all the others.; • Sir:W. DE CRESPI.GNY made a few:observations; which were not - audible in the gallery. " • 'Lord NI7GENT and Mr. S. .Bour.NE mutually explained. Mr. WI - N..4: said, that the witness' Weaver had beer. clearly guilty of . pievarication, arid it was difficult to object to a question, unless the motive of was known. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY observed,' that if the discussion were to betontinued upon the comparative testimony of the witnesses, it would be better to have the .I•videnee printed, and the decision deferred: This was a case hi which the House ought to avoid incurring thetharge of precipitation. •Sir JOHN NEWPORT coincided - in the 'opinion of the Noble Marquess. Mr. DENMAN said, he was not prepared to vote all the witnesses guilty of prevarication, without having the whole'eyi--- .sle,ncerevousiy printed. • He had voted for sending the:editor to Parliament (a cry of ,Newgate,, and a lawb)—he meant ' Newgkte, becaii Se! lie 'hitt .'head'Vzhaf Zt.€ llouse_alean) ; . . . . . J Mr. BERNAL thought that after. the.gon.: ItlembcT •fpr Shrewsbury had cleared u his honour, it WoUld,aSeheen better not to proceeded with this case: • ) Mr. W. SMITH contended, that the, House must- have the power of coming at the truth by examination ; 'andifit.pps, sessal that power, - it must' also'poss es's • the' power : of 'eatiStitin g „fo; Kevaiitiation thiar. If the House wcrc to agree to come - to resolutions of ttlfisure(helkhould not dish to to any ; farther, and'it would then be unuece:zary to print the eviden,ce. He moved,'" That it is the opinion of this llouse,'th'at:R. T. Weaier has grossly prevaricated in . the evidence he has gisen before this House." . ••• , • ..„ Mr. T. WILSON said, that having been present during the whole of the exaininatiOn, he was enabled- 07state:that - there was More impropriety in the examination of , the Rouse, -..than prevarication on the Weaver of the witness. It did not Appear to him that the witness Weaver hail been guilty of that prevaiica tion ascribed to him. ; He believed that Messrs. Shaeliell'and Arrowsmith, finding the difficulties they were likely.. to -get into from the nature of their publicacion, had some time :back. made a bargain with Weaver, that if he would take the responsibility ofi' their backs, he should in return become proprietor. Consi dering the time they had spent already in the business, .11e ; was not disposed to go any further into it. Lord STANLEY said he was present at the whole of the examination, and he must say that if ever he witnessed a gross attempt to defeat the ends of justice by prevarication, it was in those witnesses. They all of them seemed to have some mental reservation, and in every answer chewed a wish to induce A.dif- , ferent meaning from what they in fact entertained. . .; • The Gallery was then cleared for a envision., During our absence, we understand some conversation ensued; when Mr.. W. Smicrit proposed to withdraw his amendthent, and substitute for it, " That R. T. Weaver be ordered into the• custody' of the Serjeant at Arms, and be brought to the flat, to be reptunanded by the Speaker." This was. oppos - A by , Mr. WYNNE, who moved, " That R. T. Weaver be sent to. ew gate." On this the House divided, when the numbers .werei— For Mr. Smith's, Motion - - - - - - - Against it 7 ---- - •' 34- • Majority in favour of Mr. Wynnes Amendment -7 When strangers were re-admitted, Mr. BROUGHAM was speaking.—He vas" ot prepared to give a vote on the case of the individuals nowbefore the house, without Having the printed evidence before him. Whether they had prevaricated or not, he did not know at that time, and therefore he wished the further consideration of the subject to be adjeurned. . - Mr. BARING tind Sir J. Nk - Wrore offered a few words which could not be distinctly heard in the gallery. _Sir W. DE‘CRESPIGN 4 moved that the evidence should be printed. Sir C. LONG hearing the whole of Mr. Arrowsmith's evi dence, could see nothing like prevarication in- it. Ile had heard nearly the whole of :Mr. 'Weaver's evidence, arid did not see that he had prevaricated. He doubted whether, consistently with the dignity of the House, they could go further. Mr. BARING wished the motion to be withdrawn. It did not seem desirable that they should proceed further. He did not know that the parties had prevaricated. Though their evi dence was by no means clear, he slid not think they would be justified in doing more than they had already done. Colonel DAVIES, thought would appear rather extraor dinary if they were now to stop short and let the two greater delinquents escape 'punishment. It might be better not to no tice such cases at all ; but if once taken up_, they could admit of no half measures, and ought to go on. He hoped the pietism Would be persevered in. Mr. C. WYNN had no doubt, and he thought the House Could have none, that the individuals on whose case they were now to decide, were the Proprietors of the Paper. ' To him , it appeared that they were more guilty than the men of straw who had been already -committed to Newgate. He did not consider . that it was necessary to print the evidence. In a case like the _present, where the offence complained of was proved to have been committed by the pasties brought before them, he thought the heaviest punishment ought to be inflicted. Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY considered there were sufficient grounds for moving that the evidence should be printed. The Gallerv-was cleared for a /division, but the House did not divide. We understand the minutes of evidence were or dered to be printed ; and it was intimated to. Messrs. Arrow smith and Shackle that they were at liberty to depart. SUPPLY =AFFAIRS OF EUROPE. Mr. R. WARD moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply. Mr. lltrcnissoN, though he had so lately, ad dressed the House on the subject of the present state of Europe, was desirous of again calling the attention of the House to the passing events, which he thought endangered the liberties of this country as well as others, and at Least record his own sentiments on the Journals. He wished to go at large into the subject, but feeling, for va rious reasons, that it would he improper to detain the• House then, he would fix a motion ,for the first open day, which was Tuesday, the 22d inst. ORDNANCE. HumE called the attention of the House to the extravagance of the OrdnanCe establishment. He was the more anxious to do this, as it had been recently stated by the Hon. Gentleman, the Clerk of the Ordnance, that the utmost anxiety had been.manifested by the Noble. Duke at the heak of that department to :adopt measures of economy •in every 'department. — The ,estiMate fur the present year was .1,327,000/. This was 53,0001. less than the estimate for 1820 ;. but making a deduction, whieh ,ought to be taken into the account for old stores, from this apparent saving it would be fOund that the public paid exactly the same as in 1820. In three years 1790, 1791, and 1792, the average amount of the Ordnance Estimates was 473,0001. Their average amount in 1818, 1819, and 18.20, was 1,286,6531., being three times as much as that of the foriner period. It ought to be known to the House that there was a difference between the Estimates for the Ordnance and the actual expenditure, amounting, to. some hundreds of thousands of pounds. To shew this, he would take three years, 1817, 1818, and 1819, the ac counts of those having been made up. From these it would be seen that the total amount Of the 7 . - - - - - • , Ordnance Estimates in those years was - £3,764,000 The Expenditure was• - - -• 1;387,000 Making a difference of - 4623,000 In the Ordnance Estimates, nothing was' charged for ships used toCarry stores backwards and for wards,., yet these, it would be found, created a charge of 11,5001. He adverted to other charges that were kept out of sight, com plained of the mode in which the accounts were-kept, and repeated What he had before as serted, that so far was that department from being distinguished by its regard for economy, that the greatest negligence prevailed. I,t had been triumphantly announced to the House, that 68 persons connected with the Ordnance had been reduced Since the Noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had been placed at the head of the Departtfient. But it appeared from the Returns he had moved for, that since 1816, 67 new ap poii,anients had taken place. These took the situations of those who were . placed on halfq)ay. SOme of these who had been so lately appointed, had been placed on half-pay after two years ser vice. Among these persons were some of the ages of thirty-Seven and forty-three; and there was one person dio was sixty-three years old. Others were but seventeen or eighteen 'years of age, and One was aged only fifteen years and ten Months. He thereforecontended/the Board of Ordnance was not' entitled to the confidence 'of the House. as every Department ought to . • be, with respect .to r the . pensions and al), pointaients; I he. precept though 63,q0N r ,loAler:than those-of iit-10; t:xceeded the -Estsicnate of 4819 by no - le,ss than' 1:1 - 5,000/., and 43,4341. above the average, of the Estimates of 1818, •1819 1 -and 1820; lie thought there was no neces s ity for so large an Ordnance Establish ment." The Ise ought not• to :sanction such l Estimates. lie . - -then yrnovet.ll:san Amendment, whiclt embodied the principal comparative state ments%in i s speech, and:finished with a recom mendation •to the Committee to sanction every practical reduction of expen - ce:in the Ordnance Department.' - Mr.R.: WARD • suggested that "it might be more : , convenient that the ifouie•should go into the Committee before he - ..rep . to the Hon. Gentleman. . - Colonel -DAvuEs thought- it iwould be better that the. debate should . 'be - taken before the Speaker-left the Chair, and that. the Committee should be.postponed till Monday: .The Marquess of •LosnaxnErtn - 1-'was of opi nion that it would be better "to go into the Com mittee, as he did not think the explanations ne cessary to be given -could be so:WM:supplied in the House... To-the Ainendmeafti y . as . ernbodying a truism, that all practicable-redaetion'aught to be - effected in the Ordnance Departmerii; he could not- : object ; but were ;Me - tided to cast a censure bylinplication. on Ministers:in this way, he must-oppose it. Mr. BENNET thought the subjeefinight be con veniently discussed in the Committee, but ob jected to going into into prejudice the motion of his Hon. Friend. WARD said that the "answer to some parts of the lion. Gentleman's statement was ex trernely easy. The amount of the: Present esti mates had ,been stated to exceed that of the esti mates:of other years. This might-appear to be the fact, but it arose from the manner in which' the accounts had been kept. Fo . rrne:rly, a great many - grants of former years remained on hand that had not been expended. Ile-had frequently seen credits of the Navy of five, six, and seven years standing. To make the house understand the subject, - he must go into a hiSiciry of the Ordnance expenditure. I t appearetithe present estimates exceeded that of 1810, by: a coisidera• '.ble sum. That sum was in a great pat Cconsumed -by-the' grant of 1818, which had remained itt hand, - - and which had been carried to the service of 1819. Grants had been left in hand at vari ous times through different causes. - Some y e ars ' ago credit was taken fcr a'sum to defray, the ex -pence of fortifying the Island of Bermuda. It Was not fortified for a year or two, a nd part of the grant remained to be . expend ed in 1819, though it had been voted p e rhaps in 1816. In particular cases the Ordnance advanced advanced sums for the Army, 'the Navy, or -the Treasury, which were afterwards repaid by those 'Departments. These might ,not appear in the estimates, but- nothing was unfairly kept back from the [louse. Mr. BENNETT objected to the manner in NI hicit the Ordnance Accounts had been kept. Mr. R. WARD thought this had better' be olis - in the Committee. It had been his wisp to alter the mode of keeping the accounts. The House divided— • • For the Motion - .119 For the Amendment - - - - - 56 Majority - - - On our re-admission to the -Callery,,we fond the House in the Committee. . 11Ir. Wan]) rose to open the Estimates. The Itt' Hon.Gent.in a speech replete with fact anti strog argument, answered the objections of GentleW' 'on the other side of the House in the mast V . ': umphant manner. He observed that, conAderi'"A the opposition which had been shown to t he Ordnance Department, his object was to take oF the whole of the subject, and explain to tb e House and the- Country the nature of that W . ' vice.• Pursuing that course, he should.show all tl6 , bearings of the different estimates, and make 1 0 i' foreconotny,, where it could be fairly suggest At the same time he should priAest against th:" I petty warfare which had been recently carrieit, on, namely, fighting upon minute details. was desirous . ,of taking up the subject as a greetsukject, and to discuss it on a liberal scale; if the Opposition was to be confined to petty tails - , he - should call it petty warfare. A Prf,,,Jl, dice appeared to prevail with respect to the u"ay nance Service. Some persons supposed it confined to , the direction of a few objects, "I":, nected with the artillery and engineers, to the c7 l, tent of 7Or 8000 men. The Ordnance Pell e r ment IV '7, S . however of great importance. IP orl to enable 7 orl3ooo metl to take the field it ` r a , necessary to incur expence. it was also 4 pee of vice especially required by.that great bulwar the country, the„navy. Without the Or d . u r ei . Service. .the navy could - not present a it- ' dable shape to the enemies - of the country. ' t be naval service consumed a great portion Ot . „,; r e Ordnance Stores, and the Ordnance there became _a depot for the Navy. In fact, t o whole force of the country depended on ;i,e Ordnance Department. With respect t° present expence of the Ordnance Seri' 0 „ the Committee would find it comparatively J a e o The expence of the Ordnance had of late b c of much reduced, notwithstanding.the extensiOits, Trade and Colonies, which marked the prosll e e ,, j e, of the EMpire. Looking as far back as the ,: l oa t of Cromwell (1652), when England was vFi t d to Colonies, the Ordnance *expellee amouhtc,T ie e, 128,000/., computing the value. of money c ` - t be and attaching, to the service the half-pay present day, the expence could not hav e " t $ less than half a million. It would appear tb b 3 c e4 regular and uniform system of economy ha" ]le adopted during a number of years Past' h ; e ct founded what he asserted , on that sa".' upon absolute reports of the Finance Com'n'ti 3t ll which would justify ail he said. In the Bs , Report of the Commissioners of : a ne rs loort of the greatest merit,. the Coroolis- s '% o o stated, that they had found every disP" in the Ordnance Department to afford 11,1t11 formation and promote economy. The Rile' Report was equally favourable. Th e ' r ijed Honourable Gentleman referred to other b e e ports, in which recOmmenclation. had w to' given to- resort to matters of .vcOnPi"- ,l ' te n flay. had strictly'attended to. . I the C°' ll-, .. , •.• • - ~~ 0