The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PciItLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF. LORDS, June 21.
The Royal Assent was given to-day, at three o'clock,
by coramssion, to the following Bills --The Sugar
Duties Bi!l, the Assessed taxes Composition Bill, the
Bill of Exchange Bill, the Ecclesiastical Commission
Bill, the Militia Ballots Suspension Bill, the Court
of Chancery Bill, the Copyhold Tenement Bill, the
Tithe Commutation Bill, the Frivolous Suits Bill,
the Vaccination Bill, the Victoria Park Bill, the
Sewers Bill, the Ordnance Survey Bill, the Turnpike
Roads Bill, the Highway, Bill, the Western Australia
Bill, the New South Wales Bill, the Scotch Entail Bill,
the Arms (Ireland) Bill, the Court Houses (Ireland)
Bill, House of Industry (Ireland) Bill, the Insol-
vent Debtors (Ireland) Bill, the Birkenhead Church Bill,
the Great North of England Railway Bill, the London
and South Western. Railway Bill, the Leinster and Mun-
ster Railway Bill, the Bristol and Exeter Railway Bill,
the North Eastern Railway Bill, the Newcastle-upon-
Tyne and Carlisle Railway Bill, the Dublin Wide
Streets Bill, the Wells Market Bill, Exeter Market
Bill, the Pilots' Regulation Bill, the Ipswich Dock
Bill, the Exmouth Dock Bill, the Belfast Harbour
Bill, the Gordon Harbour Bill, the Forth and
Clyde Navigation Bill, the Newry Navigation Bill,
the Edinburgh and Glasgow Union Canal Bill,
the Birkenhead Gas Bill, the St. Pancras Pav-
ing Bill, the Canterbury Paving Bill, the
Kentish Town Improvement Bill, the Stamford Im-
provement Bill, the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Improve-
ment Bill, the Kidderminster Poor-rates Bill, the
Exeter Small Debts Bill, the Hatfield Court of Re-
quests' Bill, the King's Norton Court of Requests
Bill, the Launceston Small Debts Bill, the Blackburn
Small Debtsßill, the Wigan Small Debts Bill, the Newark
Small Debts Bill, the Totness Small Debts Bill, the
Staffordshire Potteries Small Debts Bill, the St. Helen's
Small Debts Bill, the Burnley Small Debts Bill, the
Salisbury Small Debts Bill, the Gainsborough Small.
Debts Bill, the East Retford Small Debts Bill,
the Church of England Life and Fire Marine Insurance
Company's Bill, the Imperial Life Assurance Bill, the
Hull Flax and Cotton Mill Bill, the Rhymney Ironworks
Bill, the Stead's Wood-paving Company's Bill, the Scot-
tishMarineAssurance Company's Bill, the Dumfries Road
Bill, the Wells Road Bill, the Hagley Road Bill, the Barn-
stable Road Bill, the Sedgley Road Bill, the Brighton
find. Shoreham Road Bill, the Selby and Leeds Road Bill,
the Farringdon Road Bill, the Rowley-Regis Chapel Bill,
the f.lriffith's Estate Bill, the Bowyer's Estate Bill,
Jackson's Estate Bill, Whitehouse's Estate Bill, Erskine's
Estate BiO„ Clay's Estate Bill, Newton's Estate Bill,
Warrender's Estate Bill, Glamis's Estate Bill, the St.
John's Hospital Bill, Dutton's Estate Bill, Abingdon's Es-
tate Bill, the Fishmonger's Estate Bill, the Great Yarmouth
Estate Bill, Lyon's Letate Bill, the Oldbury Charity Bill,
Abingdon Inclosure Bin, the Great liordham Inclosure
Bill, Wadham Chace Inclosure Bill, Shaw's Divorce Bill,
Larkins' Divorce Bill, Goring's Divorce Bill, Wyatt's
Divorce Bill, Hall's Divorce Bill, Giordano's Naturali-
zation Bill, and the Whitmore Inclosure Bill.
•.,.rhe Commissioners were the LORD CHANCELLOR, the
Earl of CLARENDON, and. Viscount DUNCANNON.
The Bill was read a third time and passed.
The AcYroptiation Bill was read a third time and
passed

.TUSTICE BILL.
The Marquis Of NOTIMAN73Y moved the third read-
ing.
of the CrirainM Justice
The Earl of WILTON said he shen:ld strenuously op-
pose this Bill on account of a certain g7ntleman con-
nected with Manchester (as we understooc.l, who, if
this Bill passed, would be visited with gross' injustice.
He (the Earl of Wilton) should therefore move that 3:."a-
-chester should be exempted from the operation of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the claims of the
gentleman; whose cause the Noble Earl had advocated,
had been considered in the House of Commons and
rejected. He thought the claims of one individual
ought not to deprive the public of the benefit of a mea-
sure which, as a general measure, he thought none of
their Lordships opposed.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said the Noble and
Learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham) had always
held, that when such reforms as these took
place, care should be taken that the parties who
were affeCted by them, should have compensation. He
(the Duke Of Wellington) thought there never was a
stronger case than this. He advised their Lordships
never to consenf to be the means of inflicting injustice.
Lord BROUGh743I said there was no difference as to
the principle entertaiL'l by the Noble Duke and himself;
the difference lay in the 'znuinion of its application. The
gentleman to whom t fey were referring held
his situation at the pleasure of certain individuals,
it was not a permanent situation.
Lord LYNDHURST said they h, granted, compen-
sation to the clerks of the Magistrate' of Birmingham
and Warwick, and he could not see how they could ex-
clude from compensation the gentleman was clerk
to the Magistrates in Manchester, and who haul held his
office for upwards of 35 years.
The Slarquis of NORMANBY said he thought .1111
no Noble Lord who left that House, on Friday evening;
supposed that this subject would be again brought on for
discussion this evening.—(Hear, hear.) He thought their
Lordships did not understand the situation which this
Gentleman held. He was clerk to the stipendiary Ma-
gistrates. Now suppose the Magistrate was to die, this
gentleman, holding a situation at the pleasure of one per-
son, might, thereby, be deprived of it. How, then, was
he entitled to a compensation ?
Lord ABINGER said he had known the gentleman to
whom reference had been made, all his life, and he had
held his situation under several stipendiary Magistrates,
and he had given satisfaction to them all. His was a
public situation, and he had filled it to the satisfaction of
all parties. He (Lord Abinger) thought if they gave
compensation to one they ought to give it to another.
The Earl of RADNOR said it was understood on
Friday evening that this discussion would not be
brought on again, and he understood the Noble Earl
(Wilton) when on his legs, to have said so.
• The Earl of WILTON.—No, no ; I did not.

The Earl of RADNOR.—Then it was generally un-
derstood by many Noble Lords on the opposite side of
the House, that it would not be brought on again. The
Noble Lord who spoke last, said that justice ought to
be done to this gentleman, by giving him compensation.
Why did not the Noble Lord propose compensation ?
The Noble Lord was willing to do injustice to the
people of Birmingham and Warwick, to give compensa-
tion to this one person.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from the Earl of Warwick, the
Marquis of Salisbury, and the Marquis of Normanby.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that he had voted
against his Noble Friend the Earl of Wilton, but he fully
understood that this subject was to be brought on again
this evening.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said that he wished
their Lordships not to divide without knowing that by
agreeing to the proposed amendment they would alter a
money clause, the clause being one of compensation.
Lord LYNDHURST said the effect of the amendment
would be simply to withdraw Manchester from the opera-
tion of the Bill, and surely their privileges were not to be
checked in that respect because the clause was a compen-
sation clause.
Their Lordships then divided—
Contents
Non-contents
Majority for the amendment —34
Bill read a third time and passed.
POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Marquis of WESTMEATH wished. to ask the
Noble Marquis opposite a question relative to the late
proceedings in the Clonmel Union. It appeared that Mr.
Stanley and Mr. Nichols had left the responsibility of
those proceedings upon Mr. Hawley,Hancock, and
Mr. Phelun ; and he now wished to know; whether the
Government intended to retain those
Marquis
in office.
With regard to Mr. Phelan, he (the
West-
meath) should say, after having carefully weighedcluistf evidence, that unless he was much mistaken, thel
man had grossly prevaricated when examineda gentle-
man had
Lordships.
The Marquis of NORMANBY complained of the
manner in which the Noble Marquisup
had mixed ques-
tions and assumptions. He did not think, however, tha
that was the time for entering into an ekamination of
those assumptions, and he should therefore content him-
self with saying, in reply to the question of the Noble
Marquis. that it was not the intention of the Government
to dismiss any of the gentlemen named from their situa-
tions.
The Marquis of WES TMEATH—Then I wish the
Noble Marquis and the Government much joy of having
such functionaries under them.—(Laughter.)
Loid BROUGHAM complained of the language
•'which the Noble Marquis had used towards a party who
had been examined as a witness in that House. He had
not himself any knowledge of the conduct of the witness.
in question ; but if there was any thing to blame in that
conduct let him be properly tried, and, if just, let him
be punished. He thought the Noble Mayquis ought to
re-consider his expressions.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said that after the
evidence had been lying for months on the table and left
unnoticed, it was a most improper proceeding to com-
ment upon the characters of witnesses. The Noble Mar-
quis ought in his opinion to retract the language he had
used.

The Marquis of WESTMEATII—I cannot, I regret
to say, do that consistently with my own good opinion of
myself.—(Laughter.)
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL then rapidly ad-
vanced amidst general laughter to the table of the House
for the purpose of presenting a petition of which he had
given notice. The Noble Earl having silenced some
other Peers who attempted to address the House at the
same time, proceeded to say that he had to present a pe-
tition from certain rate-payers of the Union of Fermoy.
The petitioners complained that the Commission-
ers haft attempted to compel the guardians of
the Union to purchase for a poor-house the
;barracks of Fermoy, although that building was in a
ruined and dilapidated state. The guardians had, be-
sides, ken promised that the purchase of the building
should not e ,qt more than 4.900!., while the sum now
den allied fin wed to 7,8001. The Noble Earl, having
entered into some details upon the subject, concluded by
expressing his condemnation of the conduct of the Com-
.

missioners.
The Marquis of NORMANBY thought it would be
idle to enter into the merits of the statement of the
Noble Earl, inasmuch as it was made up of details which
it was impossible for the House at present to judge of.
As it appeared that the question was to be brought before
a Court of Law, he would not himself offer any opinion
on the difference between the Commissioners and the
guardians.

b~'TheFaxl of MOUNTCASHEL explained, and the
subject dropped.
SCOTCH CHURCH,
The Marquis of IMEADALBANE presented 120 pe-
titions from different parts of Scotland signed bu-
wards of thirty thousand p
tion of Church patronons, praying for the aboli-
age ers y p
in Scotland. The Noble
Marquis said he had now presented upwards of 220 pe-
titions on this subject,

The Earl of ABERDEEN would ask the Noble Mar-
quis whether he supported the prayer of the pe itioners.
He (the Earl of Aberdeen) would rather abolish Church
patronage in Scotland, then suffer such a vote as had
been passed by the General Assembly. He thought that
their anti-patronage agitation had been a complbte
failure, and as to the petitions that had been presented,
he did not believe that the generality of the people of
Scotland concurred in the prayer of those petitions.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE said that in answer
to the Noble Earl, he would state that he concurred in
the prayer of the petitioners, to a certain extent. He
was a decided advocate for the principle of non-intrusion.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM,
The petitions wereC oORN-rdered to be laid on the table.
LAWS.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
from Marlborough, in favour of the Ministerial measures.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL presented several pe-
titions from Ireland against any alteration in the corn
and timber duties.
WATER FOR THE METROPOLIS.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER said he should
move in the next Session of Parliament for a Committee
to inquire into the reports that have been made respect-
ing a better supply of water to the metropolis. He had
no doubt from those reports, that a better supply could
be obtained, with a better quality of water. No doubt a
Bill would be brought in in the next session for the pur-
pose of effecting this better supply.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 21.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before three
o'clock, immediately after which the Deputy Usher of
the Black Rod entered, and summoned the House to the
House of Peers, to hearthe Royal Assent given to up-
wards of 148 Bills, for which see our Lords' Report.
On the motion of Viscount INGESTRE the Report
of the Smithwick Chaplery Estate Bill was brought up,
and the Bill read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Mr. ESTCOURT the Lords' amend-
ments to theßlackburn Town's Moorßill were agreed to.
C ORN-LAW S.
Sir R. INGLIS presented five petitions from Tippe-
rary against any alteration in the Corn-laws.
Mr. DENISTOUN presented 156 petitions from
Scotland, signed by upwards of 20,000 persons, praying
for the repeal of the Corrilaws.
Mr. VILLIERS presented petitions praying for the
repeal of the Corn-laws from the following places :
from Can Lame, Buckland, and Craddock ; nine petitions
from Walsall, from Messrs. Ankrett's iron foundry, and
from the Primitive Methodists at Lock, in Staffordshire,
from Tring, Wigginton, and the Primitive Methodists
in Derby ; from Glossop, Poyntor and Buxton, in Hertsq
from Messrs. Early, woollen manufacturers, at Hailey,
and Stokin-church, Oxfordshire, from Wilkin's work-
people, Aston, Netherton, four different mills at Stock-
port, Society of Friends, Sulton and Frodsham, male
and female inhabitants, Weston, Messrs. Marshall and
some mill-owners, Protestant Dissenters in Marple,
Macclesfield, and Morley, Lindon End, Wesley, Teachers
of Wesleyans Sabbath School, and from the congre-
gation of Ebenezer Chapel, Hazel-grove, Cheshire,
from North Meols Trapp ; weavers in Rochdale ; silk
spinners at Newton ; machine-makers at Todmorden ;
and Society of Friends, Rochdale, Lancashire ; from
Marsh Gibbon ; Grendon Underwood ; Edgecott ;
Dorton ; Newport Pagnell ; Olney ; Woughton ;
Weston ; Ashwood ; Akeley ; Leckhamstead ; Castle-
thorpe ; Milton Keynes ; Passenham ; Fulmer ; Pidding-
ton ; Fenny Stratford ; East Stratford ; Stony Stratford ;
Lavendon ; Westcott ; Boarstall ; Great Linford ;
Hogshaw : Beachampton ; Brill ; Swanbourn ; Lad-
gershall ; Upton ; Barton ; Quainton ; Thornton ;
Claydon ; Water Stratford ; Oakley ; Hardmead ;
Newton Blossomville ; Chelwoode ; Hitcham ; Ember-
ton ;
Calverton ; Lillingstone ; Little Hampden ; Shal-
stone ; Shenley ; Lenborough ; Stoke Pogeis ; Biddies-
den . Rave piston.; Chilton ; Preston ; Warrington,
Buckingharnsh from 250 people at the Stock-Ex-
change, London ; 7oolwich • Covent-garden ; Regent-
street ; Iron-works, }2.rringdon-street ; from Tower
Hamlets (6) ; and 20 other
districts in the metropolis.
Mr. HOBHOUSE on behaltOf an Hon. Member, who
was absent, presented a number of petitions from Che-
shire, praying for the total repeal, or 2.lodification, of the
Corn-laws, and for the adoption of the Dfinisterial plans
for Commercial Reform.
Mr. PLUMPTRE presented petitions from Stoke
Golding, in Leicestershire and other places, against any
further grants to the Popish College of Maynooth.
Mr. HINDLEY presented petitions from the West
Riding of Yorkshire, praying for the repeal of the Corn-
laws, and for a revision of the tariff.
Mr. RICH presented a petition from Kentish Town,
praying for a reduction of the duties on Corn, Sugar, ant!
Timber.

IDOLATRY IN INDIA.
Sir R. H. INGLIS, seeing his Right Hon. Friend the
President of the Board of Control (Sir J. C. Hobhouse)
in his place, begged to put some questions to him upon
the subject of idolatry in India. In the first place he
perceived that some returns in relation to the matter
moved for by a Right Rev. Prelate in the other House
,hui not been presented to Parliament in a complete form,
azd he begged to know whether the deficiency could be
? He also wished to ask his Right Hon.
Fred :whether he could state to the House that any
measures hi: 4
_been taken, or were now in progress, for
the purpose of :ratting an end to the connection between
the Officers of East India Government, and the
practice of idolatry, IC: consequenee of their being ap-
pointed as superintenden" over the collection of the
tribute in the temples.
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE said that he would take care
lionthat the returns referred to by his _
. Friend should be
presented in as complete a form as po.:(cible. He also had
to state that he had lately received a me2vJrandum from
India, from which it appeared that measures..tvere about
4 to any
to be taken for the purpose of putting an ens „a,
connection between the officers of the Co:ll;'3'v
and the idolatrous practices in the natives. He .
on the receipt of the memorandum, written at once to
the Government of Madras, expressing his satisfaction
at the measures about to be taken, and requesting that
no time should be lost in carrying them into effect. He
should always use his best exertions in the subject.
Mr. BAINES expressed his gratitude for the exertions
of the Right Hon. Gentleman in attempting to suppress
practices which could not be creditable to this country.
Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a petition from place
in Gloucestershire, praying for Church Extensilh.
Mr. LEADER presented a number of petitions from
various places in the metropolis praying for a repeal of
the Corn-laws and fiscal reform.

Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from Dr. James
Henry, in Ireland, complaining of the conduct of the
enumerators appointed to take the late census in that
country. From the inquisitorial nature of their ques-
tions they had raised great opposition, and thus ren-
dered the returns imperfect.
Mr. DUGDALE presented a petition from the North
American Colonial Committee against any alteration of
the timber duties.

Mr. LEADER presented a number of petitions from
Leicester and the neighbouring villages, signed amongst
others by 11,200 females, in all by 17,000 persons, pray-
ing for the immediate abolition of the Corn-laws.
Mr. HINDLEY said, seeing the Noble Lord the Se-
cretary for the Colonies in his place, he wished to advert
to a petition which he presented the other evening from
the Aborigines Society, complaining of the conduct of
Colonel Gawlor. It appeared that in consequence
of an alleged murder by a party of the natives in
South Australia Colonel Gawlor ordered some of
them to be hung. He (Mr. Hindley) wished to
ask the Noble Lord what had been the conduct of the
protector of the aborigines in the colony, or whether he
had any powers by which he might maintain the rights
of the native tribes.
Lord J, RUSSELL replied in a very low tone. We
understood the Noble Lord to say that the parties had
been tried, and that their trial was conducted with the
concurrence of the protective.
Mr. THORNELY presented 52 petitions from dif-
ferent parts of the metropolis, praying for the repeal
of the Corn-laws. .

Mr. WAKLEY presented five petitions from various
parts of the metropolis to the same effect.
Colonel PERCEVAL presented a petition signed by
1,328 residents of Market llarborough against any alte-
ration in the existing Corn-laws.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE BELL.

On the Order of the Day for the third reading of
this Bill being read,
Mr. HINDLEY said, of course, he would not oppose
the passing of the Bill, particularly as its operation was
to be limited to the space of one year. He hoped the
Bill would receive better consideration next year, than
it did this.
_ _

was calculated to
made subser,l•Eientcotomtphl
Mr. iiim
Mr.irthlie cLoTrnR eailnaedndetdhainttetrheestusury laws were
benefit
TheS reitahloculgahsstest Bill
.he
The Bill was
then read a third time, and passed.
Societies The Loan
passed.
ed.wAKLEy,
pursuant to notice, rose to move for
" A copy of any
correspondence between the Lords of the
Admiralty and Mr. Warner' relative to a certain discovery
,y of h
said,co
pto be applicable
report
of t o
naval
Lieutenant and
military tactics," also
Webster, RN., on
the same subject." The Hon. enleman proceeded
a Mr. few day's
to say, that, having noticed thesubject
since, connected with the discoveryWarner,
and, finding that a great deal ofo sympathy was
entertained in that House towards that gentleman,
also finding since that time that there was a
very and
ing on the subject out of doors he (M r. W.) xi strong feel-
was anxious
it
that the matter should not rest precisely where was
when it was last discussed before the House. It ought
ought not to be called a discussion, as it was merely a
conversation arising out of a question which he (Mr.
Wakley) had put to the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Staffordshire (Lord Ingestre). The answer
of the Noble Lord to his (Mr. Wakley's) question,
excited in his mind the greatest astonishment. He (Mr.
W.) was exceedingly surprised that the subject had been so
much neglected by the Admiralty, and he but partook of
astonishment which was almost universal. From articles
published in the Times on the subject it appeared that the
invention was brought under the notice of his late
Majesty William IV. so far back as the year 1830. The
subject was then referred to Admiral Keats, who was
engaged in investigating for two years, when Admiral
Hardy joined him in his examination of the
invention. At a subsequent period various changes in
the administration of the country took place, and Mr.
Warner was led to go abroad ; on his returning, he
found Sir James Graham First Lord of the Admiralty.
Shortly after that period a Committee was appointed to
investigate the matter, and Admiral Sir Robert
Stopford was to act as chairman to the Committee.
Before the labours of the Committee were brought to a
conclusion, the Admiral went to take the command in the
Mediterranean. Ultimately; however, Viscount Mel-
bourne's attention was called to the subject, and Lieut.
Webster, R.N., was appointed to make an investigation,
and report on the matter, and it was to that report that
he (Mr. Wakley) wished to call the attention of the

House. Viscount Melbourne concurred in the appoint- I
ment of Lieutenant Webster, who made his report in
1839, a period now of very nearly two years since. 1
That report Lord Melbourne referred to the since. 1
Board ; yet on a recent application the secretary of l
Lord Melbourne informed Lieut. Webster that Lord
Melbourne had received no report whatever from the
Admiralty. This was a mode of conducting the business
of the country which he (Mr. Wakley) was at a loss
to comprehend, and was not even calculated to raise
in the public mind a feeling of respect for the Lords of
the Admiralty.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley) had
never witnessed any of the experiments, and was
therefore incapable of forming any opinion on them,
his opinion was founded upon the opinions and
representations of others ; but those opinions
had been brought forward in so tangible a
I shape that it was utterly impossible that they should
fail to make a . strong impression on the public
mind. What he (Mr. W.) was anxious for was
that the House should be put in possession of
the report which Lieutenant Webster presented to
to the Admiralty. He thought the House was entitled
to see it. The Hon. Gentleman then read some extracts
from the report, in which Lieut. Webster stated that he
was convinced of the efficacy of the invention, and that it
would vest the sovereignty of the sea in the hands of the
first Power that adopted it; that he was convinced that
it was impossible for any thing that floated to resist it,
either in its immediate vicinity, or within a range of
five or six miles, and that one hundred sail of the line
would be useless against a vessel so constructed.
The report then proceeded to eulogise Capt. Warner
for his forbearance and patience undr the neglect he
had suffered and difficulties that had encountered him,
and concluded by entreating their Lordships not to
neglect the man on whom the safety of the country de-
pended. Subsequently Lieut. Webster addressed a letter to
Sir W. Parker on the subject, in which, after again urging
the claims of the inventor and the merit of the invention,
he said that the responsibility of neglecting it would rest
not with him, but with those who might have to answer
for their conduct to the British nation. This was the
report of the officer, who, under the sanction of Lord
Melbourne, was appointed to make the investigation, and
to report upon it. And how was Captain Warner
treated ? If he had been the greatest imposter
he could not have been treated with greater
neglect ; and Lieutenant Webster, an officer in her
Majesty's service, met with similar treatment. Was it fair
under the circumstances that the matter should have
been shelved from that day to this ? But other parties
had been treated worse than these gentlemen, and they
were the British public. Captain Warner did not blame
Lord Melbourne, but the Lords of the Admiralty; and
he (Mr. Wakley) much regretted that although
notice had been given of the motion not one of
them was then present. He did not desire to make
any specific motion on the subject, but he thought Capt.
Warner ought to be informed that the House sympathised
with his case, which might prevent his carrying his in-
vention to a foreign country. Treatment of this descrip-
tion was but- too frequently the fate of ingenious
men ; they were regarded as fools or fanatics, and
their projects denounced as folly by those who would
not take the trouble to understand them. If any
man had said but a short time ago that a vessel could
sail from America to England in eleven days, he
would have been called a fool and madman.
He (Mr. W.) would beg the House to reinember that
the experiment in February had taken plena in the pre-
sence of Sir R. Peel, Sir H. Hardinge, and Sir G. Mur-
ray. One of these gentlemen, Sir G. Murray, said that
Captain Warner was a man whose frankness of
manners, intelligence of conversation, and whole deport-
ment were of a nature to inspire confidence, and that
his practical knowledge afforded the strongest grounds
for belief that his expectations would, to a great extent
at least, i£ not wholly, be accomplished. Since
he (Mr. Wakley) had last noticed the subject, he had
seen an officer who was present at the experiment,
and he had learnt • from him,
_ as well as from
other accounts, that instead of the statements respect-
ing it being beyond the truth they were actually
far below it.. Under these circumstances he was
anxious that the report should be laid before the House,
and he trusted that in another Parliament Cap-
tain Warner would be rescued from the hands
of the Lords of the Admiralty.—(Hear, hear.)
It had been reported, upon what he (Mr. Wakley) be-
lieved to be good authority, that Mr. Warner had
been offered 300,0001. for his discovery by a fo-
reign Government ; and probably that discussion might
induce others to - offer still larger sums, but from the
past conduct of Mr. Warner, he (Mr. Wakley) had no
fear of him. He did not believe that three times
the sum would induce him to do anything
which could prove injurious to his native country. Still
he temptation ought to be removed • and the Noble
L0r,..1 (Lord J. Russell) should assure the House that the
matter e.llould now be taken up in a fair and impartial spi-
rit,to the pubLl He with a LL,termination to do justice to the inventor
and
(Mr. Wakley) should then be
f
perfectly content ; bit unless something of the kind
e would take care to urge
were said he hoped the o.9us
the question upon the considenition of the Government.
The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for a copy
of the correspondence between the first Lord of the Trea-
sury and Mr. Warner, as he understo;:i there had been
no correspondence between Mr. Warner and the Lords
of the Admiralty.
Sir G. SINCLAIR seconded the motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he was very imperfectly
informed upon the subject ; and he regretted, therefore,
the absence of any of his Hon. Friends at the Admiralty.
He certainly wished that the House should not agree to
a motion for the production of any correspondence
relating to the discovery at that moment, or until
they had heard the explanations of thoge who were pro-
fessionally acquainted with the subject. Even if it were ad-
mitted that Mr. Warner had been unfairly treated, and that
he were entitled to a large sum for his discovery, still it
might not be for the advantage of the country
that the correspondence should be furnished. He
hoped, therefore, that the motion would not be pressed.
tie had reason to believe, from the information he had
' -iced, that Lieutenant Webster, who had made
rect.
a rep,est on the subject, was not the person
originally -i. appointed by the First Lord of the
the Board of Admiralty, for the
Treasury' e - ' meeting the investigation ; but that
purpose of con, ..coravard of his own ace...lrd,
hase
thehf:aliendcoomfe
M. '!
artier ; and his report coula
he same authority as if
not, consequently, have :. (induct the undertaking. I
he had been commissioned to :
referred the mat-
Lord Melbourne had subsequently watered into a
John Rus-
ter to Sir W. Parker, who had ..
negotiation with Mr. Warner. He (Loruloi.x7t
sell) bad always understood that the upon
p
which that negotiation had terminated unsucc7ss"
fully was a difference of opinion as to the
propriety of Mr. Warner's communicating the
means by which he produced the alleged effect.
Mr. Warner was unwilling to communicate the secret ;
while Sir W. Parker thought such a communication was
necessary, in order to ascertain to what extent the dis-
covery could be made available. He (Lord J. Russell)
could not say whether or not Sir William Parker were
right, or what was the nature of the conditions required
between the parties. He thought it better that the question
should again be raised in the presence of persons
who might be able to speak from their own knowledge
upon the subject, and that they should not now insist
upon the production of any correspondence. He
knew of no good which could result from such
a course. He certainly thought that some explanation
should be given upon the matter which might satisfy the.
House and the country, and that some further negotia-
tions should be commenced with Mr. Warner—(Hear)—
but he should repeat that he did not think the matter
should be pressed upon that occasion.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said he would not trespass
upon the attention of the House, lint he owed
it to Mr. Warner to say that he had seen
two letters from an individual, second only
as an authority. to the Duke of Wellington, giving a
strong opinion in favour of the invention.—(Hear, hear.)
After what had fallen from the Noble Lord, he wo
not recommend the Hon. Gentleman to press his mots
'
Viscount INGESTRE could not but regret that t is
subject had received so little attention from her Majes-
ty's Government. It was neither proper nor decent that
none of the Lords of the Admiralty should be present on
that occasion.—(Hear, hear.) He had before stated,
and he was still of opinion, that that House was not
the proper place for such a discussion, but he regretted
that so important an invention should be lost to the coun-
try, through the apathy of the Government. The Admi-
ralty had treated the inventor as an enthusiast
if not a madman. Perhaps he (Lord Ingestre) would be
stigmatised as an imposter, who was bereft of all under-
standing. Thisinvention demanded the attention of what-
ever Government might be entrusted with the affairs of the
country.—(Hear, hear.) He was quite confident that it
all the neglect and delay which had taken place on thi:
subject, getting rid of it at one time, and only hall
listening to it at another, instead of boldly facing
it in order to see whether it was worthy of the
attention of Government or not—if that conduct were
known throughout the country, he was confident that it
would have a very great effect upon the trial of her Ma-
jesty's Ministers in the appeal which was shortly to be made.
He thought that the inventor of this machine had been
treated with great neglect, and that he was entitled to
the gratitude of the country. for the forbearance he had
shown with respect to his invention. He thought that
enough had been proved t warrant inquiries, which he
trusted would take placeo . The Report having
printed, he did not see why it should not be laid before
the House ; and if the Hon. Member for Finsbury per-
severed in his motion, he should certainly vote with him.
Mr. COWPER regretted that the motion had been
made, and trusted that the Hon. Member for Finsbury
would not persevere in moving for the correspondence.
He also thought the report of Lieutenant Webster, not
being official, ought not to be produced.
Mr. PLUMPTRE thought that the House and the
country would not be satisfied, unless some assurance
was given that the benefits of this invention should not
be lost to the country.
Mr. WAKLEY could assure the House that the only
reason for his bringing the subject before it was, that
Mr. Warner, whom he did not know, might understand
that there was sympathy for him in the House of Com-
mons, though there was not at the Admiralty. He was
much rejoiced at the expression of feeling which had
taken place in the House, and after what the Noble
`Lord had said, he would withdraw his motion, leaving it
to others, in another House of Parliament, to bring the
subject forward again.
Lord INGESTRE stated that if he had the honour of
a seat in the next Parliament, he should feel it his duty
to bring the subject under the consideration of the
House.
After a few observations from Colonel ANSON, the
motion was withdra
r On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL Vie Loris
amendments to'
agreed to. the Bribery at Elections Bill ware
On the motion of Sir G. CLERK the Lords' amend-
ments to the Controverted Election Trial Dill were
;greed to.