The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,_ FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 12, 1847.

self, that she had great hope that this event would improve
the amicable feelings between this country and Russia. To
that he would only say, if the result of his visits was to be
such acts as the suppression of Cracow, he hoped he would not
put himself to any personal inconvenience in visiting this coun-
try, or in gracing them with his presence.—( Laughter and
cheers.) He begged, however, to thank the Hon. Member
for Montrose, in the name of his constituents, for bringing the
question before the House, so that he had given the Noble
Lord, who aspired to be the future Chancellor of the
Exchequer, an opportunity of expressing. his sentiments on
the subject. The money part of the question he ( Mr. Dun-
combe) thought the least important, but the opinion of the
House ought to be expressed in the most decided terms, in
order to strengthen the hands of the Government should it ever
be required.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, if the views of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, in proposing his resolutions, were just
and right, he would at once admit the consistency of proposing
a series of resolutions in relieving themselves from the obliga•
tions which the Conventions of 1815 and 1831 imposed, in
taking on themselves the payment of the debt contracted by
Russia with the subjects of Holland. He thought the Hon.
Gentleman has pursued a Parliamentary and consistent course
in proposing the practical resolution by the circumstances on
which that motion was based, and if they agreed to the 4th
resolution there would be no great difficulty in affirming the
resolutions, if not in their present form, at least in substance.
But he had the greatest doubt as to the right of this country
to relieve itself of the obligations of the Convention of 1815
and of 1831, and if there was any question as to the right, he
doubted the policy of construing the convention in favour of
such a course.—( Hear, hear.) By the convention of 1815,
this country assumed the obligation of the debt on two grounds.
The first was on account of the exertions made by the Po, ers
who were party to the treaty of Chamount, inducing Belgium
to part from France, and to annex herself to Holland ; and the
second, which was one that affected the honour and character
of England, was not because peace had been concluded, but
because Holland had consented to give up to this country the
valuable possessions of the Cape of Good Hope, Essequibo,
and Berbice. He thought the letter of the Marquis
of Londonderry, which had been recently published,
decided this question. That Noble Lord said that the prin-
ciple of the convention was such as he had described, and that
while it contained the obligation that the payment of the inte-
rest on the debt to Russia should be transferred to England,
while the latter, as an equivalent for this pecuniary payment,
should take possession of the colonies in question. But what
else did the treaty stipulate? It expressed the stipulation
which had been recognised by an Act of Parliament, and this
was a matter not before referred to in the debate. It expressed
the stipulation that this obligation should endure—that the pay.
ment of the half of the interest of the Russia-Dutch loan should
continue even in the event of war between Russia and
this country.—( Hear, hear.) Supposing, then, with th,
Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montrose, that the treaty
had been violated in so flagrant a manner as he had described,
and even were a war to arise, he ( Sir Robert Peel) con-
tended they were bound to continue the payment. While it
was expressly stipulated that Russia should be bound to the
arrangements in relation to Belgium, so would England be
bound, in consideration of the colonies which had been ceded
to her, even in the case of a war with Russia, to pay the in-
terest on the debt.

Mr. HUNIE.—Was there not another condition—the an-
nexation of Holland to Belgium

Sir ROBERT PEEL -said there was no such ob-
ligation, though against England, in the event of
hostilities with Russia, there was a distinct and enduring ob-
ligation to continue the payment of the debt. It was because
he doubted the right of England to relieve herself, that he op •
posed the resolutions. Consistently and equitably he main-
tained that the spirit of the convention imposed on this country
the payment of the debt, and they had no moral right to
relieve themselves. Whatever pretext they might
have at any other time to relieve themselves,
at the present time such a course could only lead to suspect
their motives, and it would be said that the object they had in
view was to gain a pecuniary advantage. He was more
anxious than ever that they should honourably and equitably
fulfil their engagements, because of the different sentiments
of the Minister of France in relation to this transaction. M.
Guizot said in his protest, " No power could free itself from
the obligation of treaties without freeing others that were also
parties to it. France had not forgot the fearful sacrifices
imposed on her by the treaty of 1815, and such a violation
of a treaty as had now taken place would be made a precedent
for the regulation of the conduct of other powers." He
(Sir Robert Peel) protested against the language of the
Prime Minister of France. He totally denied that the mis-
deeds of certain powers—if misdeeds they were to be considered
—could sanction the violation of a treaty by those powers,
because he believed the present state of Europe was such as to
make such a proceeding dangerous. By adhering to trea-
ties, was the best mode of securing peace. If they
stood alone they ought to furnish an honourable example
in the face of the world of maintaining inviolate the
obligations they entered into with other nations
On these grounds—on grounds connected with the name and
honour of England—he could not concur with the Hon. Gen-
tleman in taking the first step towards relieving themselves
from this liability. He found that there were gentlemen who
concurred with him in thinking that the obligations of the con-
vention were still binding, and although they dissented from
some of the resolutions of the Hon. Gentleman, they con-
curred with him thus far in believing that the three Powers
had violated the treaty. Now he (Sir R. Peel) thought the
resolutions of the Hon. Gentleman consistent, if a practical
conclusion could be arrived at; but if no conclusion was in-
tended to follow, the three first resolutions were without support
or foundation. The Hon. Gentleman wished them to declare
that they viewed the proceedings of the three Powers with
alarm and indignation. On the part of the Hon. Gentleman,
this resolution might be very proper, and with his opinions it
comprised everything. After a solemn declaration in the face
of Europe, were they to view the conduct of the three powers
with alarm and indignation? What did the Hon. Gentleman
propose that they should do ? He did not think that for a po-
pular assembly for the representation of England a proceeding
like that recommended by the Hon. Gentleman would be a
very dignified one, unless they were prepared to follow that
proceeding up by some practical and determined step. He
considered the Noble Lord was justified in the distinction which
he drew between the executive Government and a popular as-
sembly. The Crown had entered its protest against the annihi-
lation of Cracow as a free and independent State. It was the
duty of the Crown to make such a protest on the part of this
great empire ; it was the duty of the Crown to make a repre-
sentation of that nature. The Crown was the channel through
which the embodied opinions of this country should be made,
but he confessed that as they were not prepared to take any
practical step on these resolutions, he felt the difficulty of ac-
ceding to them, although they themselves abstractedly consi-
dered might appear fair and reasonable. He could not see the
necessity of coming to any of the resolutions brought forward
by the Hon. Member. He thought that the House should
rather leave the matter in the hands of the Government ; he
thought that they should rather leave it in the diicretion of
Ministers, and refer it to the responsibility of the executive.
On these grounds, he could not agree with the Hon. Gentle-
man in supposing that any practical conclusions could be founded
on his resolutions, and therefore he was not prepared
to accede to them. At the same time, although it was
his opinion that to assent to these resolutions would lead to no
practical result, at the same time that he deprecated any mere
declaration of opinion on the subject, he felt it his duty to ac-
company these expressions of opinion with the distinct declar-
ation that he (Sir R. Peel) adhered to the opinion which he
had expressed on the first day of the Session—that the Act of
the three Powers, extinguishing the independence of Cracow—
in annihilating its existence as a free state—was equally con-
trary to the stipulations of the treaty, as it was inimical to the
confidence which ought to exist between the great Powers of
Europe ; and, therefore, while he retained his opinion that,
while it was of the utmost importance that they should main-
tain friendly relations with these three great Powers, he, for
one viewed with the utmost satisfaction the amicable under-
standing that for some years past had existed with the neigh-
bouring country—an understanding only interrupted by
what had taken place with respect to the Spanish
marriages. lie perceived with satisfaction the cordial relations
which exfsted between this country and France, because these
relations were of the greatest importance to the cause of civili-
zation and the peace of the world, and it was with pain that he
had seen that interruption ; but while he was strenuous for the
cultivation of friendly relations with France, he never wished
to cultivate these relations by any secret understanding with
France that should give cause of suspicion or jealousy to the
other Powers with whom it was expedient that they should
maintain similar relations with those three Powers, as would be
honorable to the parties concerned—serviceable to the cause
of civilisation—to the general interests of humanity—and con-
ducive to the peace of Europe. He must say, that in his ex-
perience the cordial relation which England had maintained
with Prussia, Austria, and Russia, was justified by their ac-
tions towards Great Britain, and the just confidence they
had placed in this country's policy. He thought that the
maintenance of their friendly relations with France was per-
fectly consistent with their maintaining similar relations with
the other powers. He thought, as he had already stated, that
these three powers, during the five years of which he had had
experience, had justified the confidence which had been placed
in them, and therefore it was that from a feeling of this kind,
that he was obliged to express his regret that he could not
concur in the opinion which the Noble Lord had just expressed
that these countries were entitled to a public acknowledgment
on the part of England. He could not find in the elaborate
argument of Prince Metternich a justification for the conduct
of these Powers—for if he took the general treaty of the
Congress of Vienna, he was told that the liberty which was
given to Cracow was given by some separate and independent
act to which England was not a party. He was told that the
three Powers consented among themselves—consented to give
Cracow her independence—and that France and England were
merely passive and registering parties to the policy pursued by
these three Powers. When he read that treaty, he found that
the contracting parties had, on the 30th of May, 1814, in
pursuance of the 32d article of that treaty, met at Paris for
the purpose of embracing as one common transaction the
various results of that negotiation. They united in one gene-
ral act the various treaties which had been signed by the
different powers. If he were not to assume that these several
acts were to form one treaty—if the language did not convey
that these separate treaties were not to form portion of this
one act—what, he asked, could be the meaning of the term
that the separate treaties would have the same force as the
general act, if they were not intended to be so ? Did it
mean that a part of the treaty had a bearing on
some of the states of Europe, and that other
Parts of the treaty had not such a bearing ?
The Ministers had met together for the purpose of confirming
these treaties, and after they had been confirmed, was it pos-
sible to maintain that they had not the same force when united
into one general treaty, as if the Ministers of every country had
been at the framing of each separate treaty ? He found that
the parties met at Vienna. He would not speak of the several
conventions of Cracow and of Warsaw, but he would refer to
the sixth article of the treaty of Vienna, and he did not see that
any circumstances could arise that would in any way
invalidate the substance of
that
article.
thatßy the
that
sixth article, it was expressly guaranteed
independence of Cracow should be supported, and he
did not see that anything had occured to invalidate
the terms of that treaty, or that the terms of the sixth article
was in any way to effectuate the destruction of the terms of
that sixth article. He did not wish to invalidate in any way
the terms of the general treaty. Far from it. Ile could well
consider hat events might well take place, which would render
the continuance of its existence an intolerable grievance to
the neighbouring powers, and prove injurious to their interests.
On this ground, he felt that just complaint might be made of
the interference with their interests. He did not say that just
comdlaints might not be made upon this point, nor did he
intend to deny that discussions might be raised on this subject.
Far from him, to deny that'every Government had a right to
he had never advocated, and on the same ground he
regulate its own proceedings. That was a doctrine which
distinctly denied, and totally denied that the geographical
e
position at all affected the question
b f the H
would not speak of the position of the Government. But they
had to settle the matter on another account ; but there was one
ore ouse. le
question that was alike of importance to this country as to all
countries, and that was the principle of defending the strong
against the weak. In this country, if a complaint was made by
a pauper it was taken up by the parties, but much more_. espe-
cially in proportion as the poor man was able to keep his posi-
tion in the State.— (Loud cheers.) He deeply regretted that
this measure had been viewed as it had been by the Govern-
ments of Wirtemburg and Russia, for both were vitally inte-
rested in the preservation of the independence of Crecow
surrounded as it was by powerful states. It was, therefor*,
doubly unwise to take this question as it affected the geogra-
• phical position of Cracow....(Lond nor with le"

gard to the position of this country, he could not but feel that
the restitutions which this country was enabled to make, that
the subsidies which she had granted, was a sufficient guarantee
of the faith which they had professed to keep. When he
looked to the noble post which this country assumed, sad
which she had been enabled to maintain—when he recollseted
that this country had acted as a sea-mark to the whop `A ix,;l,
he felt assured that whatever position she might assurre, that
her honour and her principle remained intact. Wiisn he
looked back to the position which she had taken at the earlier
period of the revolutionary war of France, and at the
position which she had assumed afterwards, he felt this re-
proach to be utterly unmerited, and that her disinterestedness
was entirely clear. In making this candid avowal he was
perfectly frank in the declaration of his opinions, and in the
firm belief that after a treaty of thirty years standing that no
infraction ought to have been committed without a previous
announcement to all the parties interested, and the three
Powers who had been parties to this contract ought not to
hare acted without notification to the other great Powers with
whom they were engaged—( Hear, hear)—and he thought
that this was a question amenable to the public opinion of
Europe.—( Cheers.) Ile greatly questioned the policy which
had been pursued, for he did not believe that it would be wise
to act upon the wild declarations of demagogues rather
than upon the assumptions and deductions of statesmen.
But there did at the same time pervade the intelligence and
feeling of a great part of the community, a sincere desire to
witness the progress of sober and well considered national
freedom, there had always been felt a strong objection to any-
thing like retrogressions, there was a strong feeling now in ex-
istence which sympathised with one power whose liberality was,
perhaps, least to be expected. There was a strange desire in
this country to assist the progress of those reforms which were
being carried out by the spiritual power of another country.
and with respect to Cracow it was felt that the three Powers
had
-violated every principle of intelligence and independence.
The treaty of Vienna, in providing for the freedom of the
town of Cracow, intended to give an example of
a free Polish constitution, and independence. The
Noble Lord opposite had stated that it was impossible
that Poland could be restored to its previous ex-
istence, but he begged to remind the Noble Lord that he
would find in the correspondence of Lord Castlereagh a dis-
tinct suggestion to the Emperor of Russia, that his moral du-
ties would compel him to ameliorate the condition of his
poorest subjects. Now, there was one method by which the
Emperor of Russia could have carried out that suggestion in a
favourable manner, namely, by restoring the Poles to
their rights as an independent community. Lord
Castlereagh conveyed to the Emperor of Russia,
on the part of Austria and Prussia, a dis-
tinct assurance that those Powers would readily acquiesce
in the necessary accomplishment of that object. The Noble
Lord would find that the correspondence contained a feeling,
he would not say a condition, that the Emperor of Russia
would give to Poland in a new form something of a national
character. In the treaty of Vienna it was declared that Poles,
who were the subjects of Austria and Prussia, should obtain
representative and national institutions, to be regulated ac-
cording to the degree of political consideration each of the
Governments to which they belonged should judge expedient
and proper. Whether or not the conduct of the Poles
in 1831 justified the withholding of these national institu-
tions was another matter ; but what he contended for
was, that the treaty of Vienna intended that independence and
free Government should be given to the Poles, who were the
subjects of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. He must again say
that he deeply regretted what had passed. He could not find
any sufficient justification for this conduct with regard to Cra-
cow. He thought the arguments urged in support of the course
were as serious as the course itself, and he heartily approved
of the protest that was entered to it by the Noble Lord. He
thought the Noble Lord acted wisely in deter-
mining the relations in which this country stood with
regard to France to protest on behalf of this country,
in a perfectly separate and independent character.
He concurred in the tenor of the protest, and felt it to be his
duty to give to the Government such support as might be found
in the simple expression of his opinion in favour of the course
they had, and were, pursuing.
Sir J. WALSH moved the adjournment of the debate.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not too strongly express his un-
willingness that this debate should be adjourned.—( Hear,
hear.) Because it would be exceedingly injurious to the
tquestion, deeply affecting the
carrying on of the public business of the State. They had
beforewelfar e themand safety meat
a m
of i
onem p o
r ta n
portion of the United Kingdom, and
the adjournment of the debate might interfere with its pro-
gress. He had repeatedly felt in the past session the greatest
inconvenience from having Bills of great importance deferred
till a late period of the session, when the number of Members
attending the House of Commons was greatly diminished,
while he had felt still more strongly the inconvenience arising
from sending measures to the Upper House of Parliament
when a sufficient number of Peers could not be found in Lon-
don to attend deliberately and properly to the necessary legis-
lation of the country. He therefore objected on
public grounds to this debate being adjourned till Tuesday.
He thought that the motion
of the Hon. Member should not
be allowed to interfere with those great subjects brought un-
der the consideration of the House by the Government with re-
spect to Ireland. He hoped the debate would be continued un-
til it was decided, and that the House would not come to an
adjournment,— ( Hear, hear.)
Mr.AV. S. O'BRIEN thought that justice would not be done
to the subject by continuing it at the present time. He had
wished to address the House himself upon the subject, and he
bad also had aeommunica ' tion with his Hen. Friend the Member
for Shrewsbury, and several other Hon. Members, who had not
yet addressed the House, but wished to do so. He hoped that
the debate would be adjourned, and if the Government were
not disposed to concede that point, he was prepared to divide
the House upon the question of adjournment.
Mr. LABOUCHERE was surprised that any argument in
favour of the adjournment of the debate should have come
from the Hon. Member for Limerick.—(Cheers.) The Go-
vernment had been accused by that Hon. Member, and other
Irish Members, of doing nothing for Ireland, and he certainly
was not prepared to hear any proposition for putting off the
measure proposed by the Government, emanate from the Irish
Members. He thought that it would be most unfortunate,
considering the present affairs of Ireland, if the present debate
was adjourned. It was absolutely necessary that a speedy de-
cision should be come to by the House upon the subject of the
measure proposed by the Government for Ireland, and he hoped
that nu course would be pursued by the Home calculated to im-
pede the progress of those measures. He thought that for Irish
members to propose the adjournment of a debate upon Poland,
to the exclusion of questions relating to Ireland, was certainly
most strange, especially after the charges which had been made
by Irish Members against the Government.
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN, who rose amidst cries of " Spoke,"
expressed a hope that the House would allow him a few words
1 in explanation, after the charge made against him by the Right
lion. Secretary for Ireland. If he had thought that the ad-
journment of the debate would have interfered in the smallest
degree with the progress of Irish business, nothing would have
induced him to move it He had no' intention of moving the
adjournment to that day ( Friday ), but thought that the re-
sumption of the debate on Tuesday could not possibly cause any
Mr. M. O'CONNELL had heard with regret the language
of the Right Hon. Member the Secretary for Ireland to the
effect, that Irish Members ought not to take a part in debates
upon the condition of Poland, he thought that there was no
question so near to Irishmen, and upon which they might so
well claim the attention of the House, as upon questions con-
nected with Poland, the eastern Ireland of Europe.—( Hear. )
Mr. LABOUCHERE denied that he had said anything
which might be construed into an argument against Irish
Members joining in a discussion in that House upon the affairs
of Poland. What he had said was, that be was surprised that
Irish Members should, for the sake of Poland, oppose any
obstacles to the measures proposed by her Majesty's Govern-
ment for the relief of the great distress at present existing in
Ireland.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he did not distinctly hear
what the Hon. Member said when he moved the adjournment
of the debate. He thought he appointed this day for resuming
delay in those measures.
the debate, and it was upon that understanding that he made
the observations he did. He had no objection, however, that
it should be adjourned till Tuesday the day the Hon. Member
appointed.
The debate was accordingly adjourned till Tuesday.
HARBOURS, DOCKS, AND PIERS 131 LL.
This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted.
LANDED PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for the further consideration of the
report on this Bill,
The Earl of LINCOLN moved the amendment he proposed
on Monday last with respect to corn mills.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BMEN seconded the motion.
_Es
After a few words from Mr. Bentew and Mr • v 17.,
Sir D. NORREYS and Sir R. FERGUSON were in favour of
making the clause as general as possible.
number of corn-
Sir R. PEEL considered that a greater
rivate interest
mills would be constructed, if they were lef,teatobp the Bill.
than if they were interfered with, as PrEQUI°P°'
H R acceded to
The CHANCELLOR of the EXC
the proposition of the Noble Lord, and all the words after
clause—thus
" stones '' were accordingly omitted from the
leaving these mills and other buildings to the interested
p_
ill having been
B
Some further verbal alterations in the
made, the report was agreed to.
The House then adjourned at One o'clock.

still extensively practised on the benevolent poritlii,, I
r,1.„,(1,
community, by parties transmitting lettcrs
.fro
iorini.:
the
t
detailing cases of touching distress, and
waCrnAtuhrelp°uNb.l—ic 170
-----------Vf
ea
fohramv have f frequently
imposition
which ad
aopepc,aasr,isootnf,,
the
,o
man in Keith recently received
belonging
to the humbler
apparently written by a personfroni
a Mrs. Ann Mills
classes, and purporting to come
means of returning to their native
iad been wrecked off Cape
who, with three children,
join her husband in Ame-
oc"tnthorsyllei:PdAocul'ineienltiltes,
taos a colour-sergeant in the
was accompanied by a printed
signed by two justices of the
certificate, pretending to be
of
and otherwise bearing marks authenticity; but on
peace,
Clear,r7i7etah,
Rwehg while
Regiment.
we
noatns. herrepresentedT h epalests
taegre .
a s of fictitious distress, the particulars of each being
favouredthe
with
napsiedryieisnguftuotthheer
documents, n Poli cdee-toaffin ra
shesimilar
was
slightlycases
varied. It is almost unnecessary to add, that these
are all fabricated statements, and the chief difficulty in the
way of ,
the conviction of these parties lies in the want of legal'
proof. However, it is hoped that an exposure of their nefa-
rious schemes will have the effect of preventing their realiza-
tion. —Aberdeen Herald.
DARING OUTRAGE.—A few days ago, two ruffians
unceremoniously entered a hou,e during the day at Bal-
s
ronie Castle, and seeing no one but a woman, they very
rudely demanded money from her; when, in order to get
rid of such unwelcome visitors as quicklyh as
thep other ac-
complice
ossible, l
consented to give each of them a few coppers, which they
scornfully rejected, and with threatening language at-
w
1 tempted to compel her to yield to their unjust demand ; one
of the villains at the same time produced a pistol, and
the apartment, when
both gave vent to fearful threats with the view of extort-
ing the above-named sum. The woman by this time was in
sternly -desmoiaznedded a a
gun l l.
wnoutienhfr wasotn tier,n while
great terror. Her husband was absent, and there was no
one within cry of her to lend assistance in such a perilous
moment. She was just about to submit to their heartless
demand, when a stratagem occurred to her of loudly calling
with energetic impatience on some one she feigned to ad-
dress from the window of the room. The plunderers on
seeing this fled, without waiting for their object, and scam-
pered off in full speed, nor have they been heard of since.
Intimation was without delay conveyed to the police station
at Markinch, and ever since a careful search has been making
for the merciless depredators.—Edinburgh Advertiser.
AN EXTENSIVE SLIP.—An extensive slip has oc-
curred at Shakspeare's Cliff, which seems to he gradually
breaking up its establishment and leaving England in dis-
gust. This may be in consequence of the little hold Shak-
speare has lately had upon his native country; and the cliff,
probably, is only crossing the Channel to seek a home in
more congenial lands. Whither will it go to? Will it settle
on the French coast, or sail direct for New York? It would
be curious to find Shakspeare's Cliff at Calais with a board
stuck up, " Removed from over the way." We are con-
fident that Shakspearo himself would be thought all the
more of if lie had a firm footing in France, and that his
drama and his cliff would rise much higher in the public
estimation when pieces of it could be taken from the French.
Punch.

The Postmaster-General had an interview, yesterday, with
the Chancellor o the Exchequer.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.
(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)
THURSDAY, MA ncri 11.

NOTICES GIVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL-OFFICE.

The following Railway Bills are appointed to be read a
second time :
MONDAY, MARCH 15.
Midland (Mangotsfield to Bath).
Glasgow,;Paisley, and Greenock (Branches at Port Glasgow).
Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock (Branch to the Caledonian
Railway and Diversion of Canal). _ _

THURSDAY, MARCH 18.
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Act Amendment
and Branches.
South Devon Extension and Amendment).

RAILWAYS.

An Account of the proposed Amount of Capital, and of the
Sums authorised to be Borrowed, in the Railway Bills de-
posited with the Commissioners of Railways, for the present
Session of Parliament
Amount of Capital
Amount of Sums authorised to be Borrowed 41,314,259

Total Capital and Loan ...£123,867,409
FREDERICK W. A. BRUCE, Secretary.
Office of Commissioners of Railways, March 10, 1847.

CAPT. WARNER'S INVENTION.
A Copy of Report of Officers appointed to make a Trial of
Mr. Warner's Long Range, addressed to the Master-
General of the Ordnance.
(Confidential.)
To Field-Marshal the Most Ilonourable the Marquis of
Anglesey, K.G., &c. &c.
London, Dec. 9, 1846.

My Lord Marquis,—We have the honour to forward to
your Lordshp, for the information of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, the journal of our proceedings as a Committee ap-
pointed to inquire into Captain Warner's inventions.
Our attention has as yet been directed only (agreeably to
our instructions) to that denominated the " Long Range,"
the trial of which took place in your Lordship's presence on
the evening of the 28th of November.
From this document it will be observed that our earnest
desire has been to bring this long-pending question to a fair
practical proof, by giving Captain Warner every facility of
exhibiting his invention, consistent with our public duty.
The amount of Captain Warner's own estimate was fur-
nished to him by the Government, the place of operation was
chosen by himself, and also the direction of the object to be
operated against; finally, after Captain Warner had stated
his preparations were complete, fire days elapsed before all
circumstances suited his perfect convenience and were fa-
vourable for making his experiment.
We have now the honour to report that this trial proved
a failure; and having given the subject our most serious
consideration, we are of opinion that the difficulties attend-
ing (and from the complicated nature of) the mode of opera-
tion, and the uncertainty of precision of aim, this invention
of the " Long Range"- cannot be made available for the
general purposes of war; and we beg further to remark that
the principle of action will always be discovered upon the
first exhibition.

We await your Lordship's orders as to our future pro-
ceedings, Captain Warner having stated that he would not
enter into the subject of his " explosive powers," or other
inventions, until the long range is finally disposed of.
We have, &c.
(Signed) H. D. CHAOS, Captain, R.N.
J. A. CIIALMER, Lieut.-Col., R.A.

By order of the Master-General and Board of Ordnance.)
It. BYIIAM, Secretary.
Office of Ordnance, March 5, 1847.