The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 4 1855.

meat, he animadverted with some severity upon the con-
) dust of Sir John M'Neill, the chairmen of the, Board of
So oervi,ion, V% ill re!at;oo to aca a ~, 91e,o•!,! lip
' thought, he need make no :,pology for asking the House
ttr, at his bill a second time. The bill proposed that
inspectors of character and position should he appointed
to superintend the local administration of the Scotch
Poor-law, having analogous powers with those exercised
by the Poor-law inspectors in England. They should
be personally wholly independent of the Board of Super-
, vision, and only subject to it as regarded instructions as
to the way they should perform their duty. It was the
object of the bill to secure a regular visitation of the
different parishes, a month's notice being given Of
the visits of the inspectors, who would have power
to call for documents and examine persons on
oath. He did not desire that any special power
should be given them, but only that they should
satisfy themselves of what was going en in the different
parishes, and make reports to the central board, which
might then interfere if necessary. As a check on the
central board, be proposed that abstracts of the reports
of the inspectors should be made to Parliament. The
duty of the inspector would be not to interfere with the
existing law, but to see that it was properly administered
in districts removed from the influence of public opinion.
He proposed that these inspectors should be appointed
not by the central board of supervision—for such an ar•
rangement would be useless after what had taken place
—but by the Home Secretary. He understood that the
Lord Advocate intended to oppose this bill, but if the
learned lord would suggest any other course—if he
would promise him a committee before which he could
prove his case, he should be content. His only wish
was to see justice done, and so long as the case am not
evaded he should not complain. All the statements
which he had made to-night were contained in printed
papers lying on the table of the house, and they could
not, therefore, be got rid of. In the face of such a sr ate of
things, he could not conceive that any Government
would expose itself to the odium of standing by idle, and
he felt convinced that sooner or later something must be
done to remedy, the evils which he had described.
The LORD-ADVOCATE said in opposing this bill it
would not be necessary for hint to follow his hon. friend
through the details into which he,. had entered .for the
purpose of proving his case. His hon. friend certainly
entertained a very exaggerated idea with regard to the
deficient administration of the Poor Law in Scotland.
' (Hear.) He had sat on the Board of Supervision in
Edinburgh for some time as Solicitor-General ; and he
' could bear his testimony to the indefatigable zeal and in-
dustry with which Sir John M'Neill had discharged his
arduous duties. 'As to there being any difficulty in the
way of a pauper appealing to the board, he could assure
his hon. friend that certain hours were devoted to the
consideration of nothing else but these appeals, and that
very frequently cases were remitted more than once to
the parochial boards for their revision, because the cen-
tral board had not felt satisfied with their first decision.
He was far from saying that the Scotch Poor Law was
a perfect system—no Poor Law was, or could be ; but,
considering the difficulties necessarily attending the ques-
tion, it certainly was not desirable to disturb the settle-
ment-made in 1845, without very good cause being
shown. His objections to this bill were, first, that it
did not seem to be in the slightest degree required, look-
ing to the powers already existing under the present
' act ; and, secondly, that it was not -in the least calcu-
lated to produce the effects which his hon. friend seemed
to expect from it. By the llth section of the pre-
sent act, the Secretary of State and the Lord-Advocate,
or either of them, had the power, whenever it seemed
' to them necessary, of compelling the Board of Supervi-
sion to appoint inspectors such as the hon. gentleman
proposed to appoint—not being members of the board
—to exareire into and report on the administration (1
the Poor-law in any part of the country, and the machi-
nery proposed by the hon. gentleman was perfectly un-
necessary. It was unfortunate that there was nu direct
representative of the Board of Supervision in the house
to answer the hon. gentleman's speech, though he did
not think it was open to the strong charges which his
hon. friend had made against it, The board had had an
arduous task to perform, for there were many elements
in Scotland to be taken into consideration—the famine,
for instance, which bad occurred owing to the failure
of the potato crop ; the evictions in various parts of
the country, and the peculiar character of the pro-
p'e, all of which had ma le the administration of the
P. or-:aw a work of considerable difficulty. In the
cese in which he had directed an inquiry he had cer-
tainly disagreed from Sir J. 111.'Neill's interpretation of
the law, which was to the effect that, unless a pauper ap-
plied to the inspector for relief, the inspector had no duty
to perform towards him. If Sir J. M'Neill's interpreta-
tion was right, then unquestionably there had been no
neglect of duty on the part of the inspector in that par
ticular case, but, without doubt, though there was no
application for relief, there was an amount of distress
known to the inspector which he was bound to relieve.
The point, however, was one deserving of very serious
consideration. The machinery proposed by the bill was
too crude to be introduced into the act of 1845 ; but
whether an inspector was or was not bound to relieve
distress and misery wherever he found it was a point
which called for immediate attention. In the absence
of Sir J. M'Neill he could not pledge the Government to
any particular course, but he hoped his hon. friend
would feel satisfied with having brought this case before
the house, and would withdraw his bill, leaving the ques-
tion in the hands of the Government, to consider what
' further course they should take with respect to it.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER congratulated Mr. Ellice on hav-
ing dragged to light a system of abuse and cruelty on the
part of the parish authorities in Scotland which he was
sure would not be tolerated either in England or Ireland.
Some remedy must be found for this state of things ; and
now that the hon. gentleman had done so much to bring
the abuses to light, and as the Lord Advocate admitted
their existence and promised a remedy, he would advise
him to leavq the matter in the hands of Government.
Mr. J. E. ELLIOT also advised Mr. Ellice to withdraw
his bill, at the same time that he believed a remedy was
much required, as the abuses referred to by his hon. friend
existed in other parts of Scotland than the Highlands.
Mr. C. BRUCE defended the conduct of the poor law
inspectors in the Highlands, and quoted from the official
reports several instances of perverse and contumacious
proceedings on the part of the paupers in certain districts.
As one proof of this, he stated that in the parish of
Glenelg pauperism had increased from 1 in 70, which it
was two years ago, to 1 in 15; showing that poor relief
was more attractive to the poor than daily labour. He
concluded by saying that if Government had not opposed
the bill he should have felt it his duty to do so.
Mr. DUNLOP denied that the rates allowed to Scottish
paupers were so high as to induce them to leave their ordi-
nary labours. He recommended Mr. Ellice to withdraw
the bill.

Mr. ELLICE acceded to their united requests, believing
that the question could be better dealt with by the Go-
vernment than by a private member.
The bill was withdrawn accordingly.
SUNDAY TRADING (METROPOLIS) BILL.
The order of the day having been read for the second
reading of this bill,

Lord- GROSVENOR presented petitions, signed by
15,000 persons from all parts of the metropolis, iu favour
of the measure.
Petitions to the same effect were presented by Sir John
Shelley, from Westminster; Viscount Ebrington, from
Marylebone ; Sir W. Clay, from the Tower Hamlets ; Mr.
Montagu Chambers, from Greenwich and Woolwich ; and
Sir J. Duke, from the city of London, signed by 9,030
persons.
Lord It. GROSVENOR moved the second reading of
the bill.
•
Mr. WILKINSON felt it his duty to offer the objec-
tions he conscientiously entertained to this measure, which
would interfere with all the operations of trrdo and inter-
rupt the pursuit of many avocations which had hitherto
been exercised without prejudice to any one, and with
advantage to the community generally. Ho could not
admit that any religious principle was necessarily involved
in this question. He regarded the measure as in feet
directed against the interestsof the poor, and going beyond
all propriety of legislation, though he should not insist on
himself dividing the house against it.
Viscount EBRINGTON supported the measurl, mainly
on religious grounds, though quite prepared also toadvocate
it on the lower grounds of expediency and political economy.
They had been told by Mr. Bianconi that horses which
'rested on Sundays did more work in six days than others
(lid in seven, and he maintained that the repose of the
Sabbath was necessary both for man and beast. The pe-
titions iu favour of the bill were mainly signed by those
who were suffering under the operation of the present state
of things, whidi led to unfair competition between trades-
men, and to injurious treatment of workmen. He believed
the amount of money spent and custom given to shop-
keepers would remain unaffected by such a measure as was
now proposed. As regarded the labouring classes, he be-
lieved that six days' work with one day's rest was better
than ono continuous round of labour during the Weak.
The,Marquis of BLANDFORD supported the second
reading of the bill, citing in its favour the committee
which sat upon this subject in 1832. One most important
matter which he recollected on the subject was the bondage
which one class of tradesmen exerted on another in this
question of Sunday trading. 314ny persons who would
close their shops on Sunday were obliged to keep them
open in consequence of others keeping theirs open. Now
not:iing could be more advantageous than to relieve those
persons from a tyranny most galling to their consciences.
He was sorry to see that (no doubt, for good reason,) this
bill while dealing with the sale of other articles did not
touch the sale of beer or spirits on Sunday. He congra-
tulated the house on the introduction of this bill, by pas-
sing whicb, he believed, they would take the course most
conducive to the glory of God and the advantage of their
fellow-subjects. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY agreed in the propriety of sending the bill
to a select committee, and ho hoped that this attempt to
check Sunday trading would be more successful than pre-
vious measures had been. It introduced no new principle,
but merely attempted to remedy certain defects in the ex-
isting law. Under these circumstances 11 thought the
discussion need not be protracted.

Mni T. DUNCOMBE said the working classes had no
desire to desecrate the Sunday; but necessity compered
them to purchase their provisiens on Sunday ioining•
and, before thi4 measure could work, they must alter the
system of paying wages late on Saturday night, and they
must also improve the dwellings of the poor. He thought
this law, if passed at all, ought to apply to the whole
country. He would prohibit all Sunday trading on all
subjects, and applicable to all of the country Afterll
o'clock, and he beNeved that would meet with universal

assent.
Mr. JAMES MACGREGOR supported the bill, and he
believed that all the intelligent artisans of the metropolis
were of the same opinion.
Sir J. SHELLEY, objected to the bill being sent to a
select committee. He found that both the tradespeople
and the working classes of Westminster were in favour of
the measure, and that it would be beneficial to both.
There were portions of the bill to which he entertained
objections ; but upon the whole ho believed it was a ra-
;ikr p.
J. tint-1M and practical measure.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS supported this measure as an effi-
cient means of improving the condition of the working
classes, and especially of compelling masters to pay their
wo
eop atp Eta
iL
Tn
reasonableo R Et
otnbej
aotnt
eSd aturday.
certain details of
,
the bill, but would not divide the house against it.
Mr. HADFI
ELD urged upon the house the propriety
putting upon the
committee practical wen, who under

stood the system of paying wages early, as that was nu
essential towards the proper working of this hit)
Mr. \Y J. Fox ~,pp„rt

,

bill
1 .1.
1,:1d Rh.. i reply, objt-eted to sending
the bill to a select committee, which he was certain would
only give the measure an intramural bud id. He under-
took the bill at the instance of the people whose interests
it was intended to affect, and its *visions he might say
were framed under their auspices. He hoped the house
would not insist upon sending the bill to a select com-
mittee.
Mr. MASTERMAN also objected to a select committee ;
after which the bill was read a second time.
Mr. DUNCOMBE then moved that it be referred to a
select committee, which was the usual course in all ques-
tions of this nature.
Mr. WILKINSON seconded the motion.
Sir G. GREY said there was no rule of the house to
send such hills to select committees, and the fate of former
bills did not encourage his noble friend to follow that
COUTO.
Mr. DUNCOMBE withdrew his motion, and the bill
was ordered to be committed on Wednesday, the 13th
June.

LAND AND ASSESSED TAXES DIVISIONS BILL.
Mr. FREWEN moved the second reading of this bill, the
object of which was to facilitate the formation of divisions
for which meetings of commissioners of land or assessed
taxes might be he held in this country, the present boundaries
of divisions being inconvenient to the inh bitants of them
Me proposed to give power to the Treasury, upon a. state-
ment made by five or more commissioners of land-tax for
any county, to remove a parish from one division to another,
where it might appear advantageous to do so. There were
many cases in which much hardship was experienced from
persons being compelled to go to a great distance to pay
their taxes. The alteration he proposed was that, on a
certain number of local commissioners making a represen-
tation to the Treasury, that they thou,ht a transfer neces-
sary, the Treasury, after making due inquiry, should have
the power to order the alteration to be male. There were
often cases of appeal against what were deemed eurehares,
and every facility should be given in those cases for enabling
the appellant to appear before the local commissioners. Ue
hoped the Government would offer no opposition to the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
aware that any great inconvenience arose from the
present system, and therefore was not disposed to agree to
the second reading of the bill. What he understood the
bill tofpropose was that itiiimald be competent for the local
commissioners of any one division of a county to apply to
the Treasury for the transfer of a parish from one division
of a county to another, or even to another county ; but, as
the rates varied in different counties this might be found
a strong objection to the proposed alteration. If, however,
the law were shown to be in any respect defective, he would
be ready to bring in a measure to remedy such defect.
Mr. SPOONER supported the bill, as he thonght that
under the present system there existed inconveniences
which, though not great in number, were very much felt
in individual cases.

The house then divided, when there appeared--
For the bill 35
Against it 125
' Majority
COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BItILS.

Mr. WHITESIDE prefaced his motion for the second
reading of a series of bills for the reform of the Court of
Chancery in Ireland by adverting to the beneficial results
of the reforms introduced into the English Chancery, which
these bills were intended to adapt, mutcais mutand is, to the
former court. The first abolished the master's office alto-
gether. The second amended the practice and course of pro-
ceeding of the court upon the model of the English Court.
The third bill altered the law relating to the appointment
of receivers; it consisted of matter of law, which was as-
similated to that of England, and of matter of regulation.
The fourth bill provided for the sales of estates, by en-
grafting upon the reformed Court of Chancery all that was
good in the Encumbered Estates Court about to expire,
and transferring the business of the latter court to the
former, giving it the power to add to its decree of sale a pi:r-
liamentary title. As the business of the Court of Chancery
would by these measures be increased, it was necessary to
provide a local court of appeal, and this was the subject of
the fifth bill, which did not create a new court or a single
new judge, but would afford the suitor an opportunity of
a re-hearing of his cause before the Lord Chancellor, as-
sisted b' retired judges. The last bill modified the stamp
duties to meet the altered practice of the Court.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERA f.,D said, if he thought that legis-
lation was required to work out the -wonderful reforms
which Mr. Whiteside had described in his exaggerated
speech, he should not oppose these bills ; but, believing
that they would not accomplish those results, on the con-
trary that they would have an opposite tendency, and as
it this moment, and when these bills were introduced, a
Royal Commission was sitting to inquire into the subject,
it was his duty to advise the house to reject them. Mr.
Whiteside, however, bad described a system and rules that
did not now exist ; abuses. to which he had allude 1, were
reformed by the act of 1851, and they were now dealing
with a new system. But there was not a suggestion con-
tained in these bills which had not been brought under the
notice of the commissioners in December last, and which
was not to be found in the printed questions they had cir-
culated. He assured the hon. member (Mr. Whiteside),
however, that when he came to frame a bill upon the re-
port of the commissioners he should be ready to adopt any-
thing valuable in these bills, and would give the learned
gentleman the credit of it. After a brief review of the bills,
and a severe criticism of those for reforming the procedure,
for the appointment of receivers, and for the constitution
of an appellate tribunal. comparing their provisions with
the suggestions contained in a draught report of the com-
missioners, he remarked that he thought the hon. member
(Mr. Whiteside) would have acted a wiser part if he had
contented himself with laying the hills on the table pend-
ing the report of the commissioners, and he moved to defer
AllO second reading of the bills for six months.
Mr. CATRNS suggested, as a medium course, that the
further progress of the bills should he suspended until the
house saw the recommendations of the commissioners.

Mr. MALINS complained of the severe terms and sar-
castic tone employed by Ur. Fitzgerald in his criticism of
these bills. Ho complained likewise of the use made by
him irregularly, he contended, of a draught report of the
commissioners—a confidential document. He defended the
bills againstthe strictures of Mr. Fitzgerald, and gave them
his most cordial support.

Mr. KEOGH replied to Mr. Malins, awl proposed that
the debate should be adjourned until the report of the
commissioners was upon the table. He moved to that
effect.

After some remarks by Mr. HENLEY and Mr. WHITE-
SIDE, the debate was adjourned for a month.
The Dissenters' Marriages Bill was read a second time.
The Income Tax Bill was read a third time and passed.
CINQUE PORTS BILL.
This bill was read a second time, and the committee was
fixed for Monday.

ARMY BEFORE SEBASTOPOL COM-
'

The committee re-asembled yesterday moruiug at the
usual hour.

Sir Thomas Hastings was recalled, and his examination
was resumed by Lord Seymour.
He in the first instance stated that he was not pre-
pared to say whether the requisitions sent to the Ord-
nance in June last for a supply of warm clothing, to be
sent out to the East. were made verbally or in writing.
Communications of that description from the War-office
were frequently made verbally. When the Duke of
Newcastle was in office, all orders were covered by a

general sanction.
In reply to Mr. Layard, the witness stated that he
did not know whether there was any record of the in-
structions in his office, but there certainly was the record
of the execution of these orders.
By General Peel—When be did receive a written
order for the warm clothing, he acted upon it without
delay, as he was fully alive to its importance.
By the Chairman—When a requisition of that sort
was sent to you, do you think it ought to depend upon
your memory when you are asked about its execution ?
The witness replied that the record of it if sent would
not be in his office but in the office of the Secretary at
War.

The Chairman—l suppose, therefore, if we sent there
for it we can have it
Witness—Undoubtedly.
Examination continued—When this requisition ar-
rived he (witness) was in the country, but he was sent
for, as the authorities at home said they were getting
into a state of perplexity relative to the warm clothing.
There was a difficulty Aleut enforcing a contract—but
he informed the Board that it had been entered as a
minute of the Board, and that it ought not to be quashed
or rescinideti. He did: not inqidre into the cathe of this
because it might have given—rise to ail unpleasant feeling.
Lord Seymour—We are not inquiring into questions
of unpleasant feeling. We wish to get at the manner
in which business was transacted at the Board of Ord-
nance. Did you inquire why the contract was to be
qua.bed ?

Witness—No.
The Chairman--Why did you not !
Witness—Ml I thought of was to carry out the con-
tract, and to insure a speedy and proper supply.
Lord Seymour—l. wish to ascertain whether or not
the contractor had received orders to stop the supply ?
Witness—l believe be had.
Lord Seymour—Did be tell you so ?
Witness—No, he did not inform me himself ; but I
inferred that he had bad orders to stop the supply from
what Mr. Stacey, the storekeeper, told me. He told
Me that the contract was stopped.
Lord Seymour—Did he tell you on what grounds ?
Witness—He did not.
Lord Seymour—By whose order then was the contract
stopped ?

Witness—l cannot tell.
The Chairman— Do you not, then, see what takes
place, or have you to depend merely upon hearsay ?
Witness—Generally I do not see what occurs under
the Board. The contract might have 13;en stopped by
Mr. Monsell, or by the united order of the Board.
General Pee] here suggested that there were surely
minutes kept of the proceedings of the Board, to which
the witness might have had access.
The Chairman—Do I understand that you ware not
allower! to see the minutes ?
Witness—Oh, no ! When any of us leave tot tn the
minutes of the board are not forwarded to us.
The Chairman—But when you came back you might
have seen them ?

Witness—Certainly, but I did not. I was s aisfied
with what Mr. Stacey told me. I had no official: infor-
mation of the fact.
Mr. Layard—But minutes are usually kept of all
orders, are they not ?
Witness—Minutes until lately were kept regal:: rly of
all proceedings of the board ; but I will not undo rtake
to say there is a minute relative to the matter no w be-
fore the committee. It was the duty of the cli Irk of
the Ordnance to communicate with the Secretary for
War, and he was in the habit of bringing verbal orders
from the War-office, which were at once acted u); on—a
course which was never used antecedent to tha time.
These orders were binding on the Ordnance althout :h sent
by word of mouth. I was then, and am still of o pinion
that public business of that kind should always be re-
corded in writing ; and although the verbal order .of the
Secretary for War was binding on the board, at thee same
time I thought it was important and essential hat a
written order ought always to be given, with a v eiTAr to
its being properly recorded, and in case any question
should arise, that the original order should be th ere to
verify the execution of its directions by the board.
In reply to General Peel, the witness stated that,
under a Secretary at War no order of that i;ort, could
have been taken except through his positive dire .itions.
He did not think the abolition of that office w-.lg any

improvement.
By Lord Seymour--It was probable that the 'vhole
proceedings connected with the contract being irre,pilar,
no minute was kept. It resembled correi pondence
rather than an official act.
Some further conversation ensued respectin g the de-
tails of management at the Ordnance•office; and the
quantities of warm clothing ordered last sumlner, altos
which,
The Chairman said—l have beard it s Fated that
at hospital at Scutari socks of a size for children
were issued to the men. Would that be possible, accord-
ing to your mode of conducting btisiness ?

Witnets—lf we had proceeded as we do in ordinary
times, that would hare been impossible ; .be tt in this
case there was great burry and confusion.
The Chairman—Do you think it possible that it
occurred?

Witness—lt is possible, but I do not t' I;.ink it
probable.
The Chairman—Did you never hear of such an occur-

rence ?

Witness—l heard that the socks were not; of a full
size. (Laughter.)
Mr. Layard—Did you ever hear also that t he shoes
issued to the men were not of the full size ?
Witness—l think that is very possible.

Examination continued—On the 7th Angus t he ap-
plied to the Admiralty for tonnage for a large quantity
of warm clothing. They did not reply iminedkiatE ly, as
it is not the custom to reply until they had b (win ife at
their disposal. They bad no tonnage at disposal until
the 16th October.

The Chairman—And yOu remained quiet all that
tim«, ?

Witness—l made no less than nine applications..
_ .

Lord Seymour reminded the witness that several: ves-
sels, whose names he mentioned, had sailed with c lores
in the interval spoken of by the witness.
The witness said that in all probability they had con-
veyed stores of urgent necessity.
Lord Seymour—Were they sent out in accor, knce
with requisitions previously made to the Admiralty ?
Witness—Most likely they were.
Lord Seymour—Well then, after all, this sum ay of
yours, although of so pressing a necessity that the 'ordi-
nary system of contracts was departed from in proc siring
it, never went out until the 16th October ?
Witness 7-That is so.

Lord Seymour afterwards, in allusion to the meC
stores, said Dr. Smith had stated to the committee
these stores were all supplied by the Ordnance ; and in-
quired when the witness was first made acquainted of
the fact that the Ordnance would be called upon to al up-
ply the hospital furniture, &c., to the hospitals ?
The witness replied that he could not say the em ict
date without reference to some documents, but said he
would inform the committee at a future time.
nomination continued—He received several req:ii isi•
tions from Dr. Andrew Smith relative to hospital fur oi-
ture and medical stores.
Loid: Seymour—We are not speaking of Do,A cor
Smith. I wish to know when an army of 10,000 13 en
was ready to proceed to the East as early as Men ,h,
1854, had you not been directed to provide hospital fi ir-
niture and stores. Was no requisition sent toi y 4 al,
officially ?
Witness—It is impossible to give a precise and. .1 .:fi-
nite answer to that questiou, without referring to my
documents.

Lord Seymour—Neat with regard to the tents, and
what are called Quartermaster's stares, which, I bet eve,
are supplied by the Orenance, how did you proceed
The witness replied that there was a large quits tity
of tents always in store—and was at that partit Dlar
period—and they were at once, therefore, sent out.. Ile
did not think any old tents were sent out, becauto the
storekeeper had strict orders to examine their g .irea
every year. If any old tents were sent out, the ri
an-
sibility of the occurrence would rest up6n the store-
keeper of the depot from whiCh they were sent.
'Examination continued—When Dr. Smith req nsired
any furniture or stores to be supplied from the Ordit ance
be sent a requisition to him (witness) to furnish to
and it was at, once complied with. He informed Dr.
Smith at the outset that whenever he required I .ny-
tiling if he would Bend a requisition and state that the
matter was pressing;or argent, he (witness) would un-
dertake that the order should be complied with with out
delay or difficulty--and sent out forthwith if there was
no objection on the part of the Minister for War.
Lord Seym,,ur—Were you ever interfered wi tl in consequence of any objections on the part of the
IV Li ais- I
ter of War ?

W itness —No, never.
The remainder of Sir Thomas Hastings' examir getion
was of a rather desultory and generally uninter, ',dog
character, as it had reference chiefly to details 4, the
routine of business in connection with the Ordua,r) de-
.
partmen t.
he stated, in reply to the ebairman, that boo' autl

shnes were ennsifxned to the Clrnrni.c.nr;q, sn,l 'mere
t ,i,.. (Z. q

11,1, ht; ~t. 0.3
Lad reiu,,e,i tai r •.-% the bouts and stl .e 3 no ha I
guilty of a breach of duty.
By Captain Gladstme—He bad received no infor-
mation to the effect that the boots and shoes hai been
conveyed backwards and forwards in transports.
By Lord Seymour—Officers in the Ordnance Depart-
ment frequently overstepped the strict line of their
duty ; but if it appeared that they had acted with dis-
cretion no censure was passed upon him.
The witness then went on to explain the system
under which contracts were entered ipto by the Ord-
nance. -When a contractor did not properly supply any
article he undertook, be was not afterwards employed
by the Government.
Mr. Layard—T have received a letter, in which the
writer states that, a few days ago, he saw at the gun
wharf at Portsmouth several bales of Winter clothing, for
the Crimea. How.was it those goods were not sent out
Sir T. Hastings replied that the Ordnance bad received
orders not to send out any more winter clothing, and
that the writer of the note might have seen some which
had been detained in consequence of that order.
The witness was then examined respecting the tools
supplied to the troops, and in reply to Lord Seymour,
who called his attention to the fact that several officers
had informed the committee that the tools sent out were
very bad, said that he believed the mass of t0.,1s was very
good, with the exception perhaps of the bill-hooks. He
had frequently seen cases in which tools which bad been
condemned as bad had turned out to be excellent. He
believed that the general officers who were leaving heard
from the men that the tools were bad, and thus fell into
a mistake. •
Lord Seymour—lt has been stated in evidence that
the tools at Chobham were bad. Have you heard of
that/

Witness—No.
Lord Seymour—General Bentinck informed us that a
board sat upon the tools at Scutari. What was their
report ?
Witness—l have not seen a report.
Lord Seymour—Captain Sbakspear has stated that he
was president of a board at Yarns which examined into
the tools, and that the board condemned them all ex-
cepting the pickaxes. The tools condemned were spade?,
axes, and particularly bill-hooki.
The Chairman—Are we then to assume that all the
evidence which has been given relative to the tools being
of bad quality, by military officers who have been exa-
mined, is incorrect ?
Witness—l believe the larger proportion of the tools
supplied were good. Some of the tools might have been
bad.

Mr. Layard—Are you aware that the tools were con-
demned at the time of the Portuguese exp,dition ?

Witness—No, I am not.
In reply to Lord Seymour, the witness afterwards
said he wpuld at some future time furnish the committee
with the name of the contractor for the tools and the
price paid for them. He then went on to defend the qua-
lity of the tools, generally speaking, and cited carious
documents in favour of the point.
Tile committee adjourned shortly before forr o'clock.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.