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

rHE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 18:39.

Bill by bringing 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 regulating labour?
This and several other questions were put 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, and he thought it might he said, without
any such derogation of the dignity of a Member of that
House—(Cheers)—because amongst so many persons
.
some must be mistaken 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 of the Committee to institute 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
honourable 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, that no two gentlemen could have
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 thought 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
othey
ewsoeul go
witnesses,
any l
Angus
to effe
ct hei r purpose. One
of e
st
ede
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 House back from personal discus.
sions to that which he felt ought to be more especially
considered the business of the House. He had seen for

nthe
thelast
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 wtinefficienthhaot thhsatedar tee 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 had now arrived to
show the House the necessity of this being done. Ho
would request the attention of the House to certain facts
connected with the returns relative to the half-pay. In
1822 Lord Bexley, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, had
proposed a loan for the dead weight, and the 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 ;
tolNnuor tcinowngi
weighttt
hi
withinthen )tu aanlldy iwar,nar increasing
cteahrwneeda
pp3nriwnonegtne
pounds
wwts
protestations
ttraiheosi i
nnmns otuohwef
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 they were
wanted, instead of young officers being als'pointed who had
entered the service after the war had ceased, considerable
as
civil muchcl epaasrittm::ts 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 this
system which took away five million for inefficient services.
lion Members might think these matters of little importance,
recollected that in 1 792, all the
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 relief which t hey required
; the
people had suffered the pressure of war, but they had not
enjoyed the blessings of peace; h t erefore he would ap-
peal to the House, whether 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 Estimates ;
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 as 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 exercising the right that he 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 the
present. He was sorry that 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 the 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 every
feeling that should animate the soldier would be wilfully
destroyed.
Mr. G. BERKELEY would not detain the House a
point upon which the Hon. and
moment, 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 upon 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 his own profligate habits, in hospital,
and receiving punishment—had an advantage over a good
soldier by being nominally worn out, or in point of fact
completely worn out, after 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