The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-11 00:00:00

JOURNEYMEN COOPERS.

Mr. HUME said that a case was put into his
hands by the journeymen coopers, in which a
complaint was made that they were obliged to
spend six days now in work, which they could formerly
have performed in five. He would say that, since the
year 1804, when the Combination Act was repealed, the
greatest apathy prevailed both in the masters and in the
men. A third party interfered ; be would ask the right
bon, baronet what was the result of the inquiry made on
the subject?
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that the statement he made
last Thursday was correct; 21. 4a. a week was the
amount of wages instead of 1/. 19s. It was totally dis-
proved that mare labour was required in consequence of the
materials lately used in the work ; a dil,gent man could
make 21. within a week. Something had taken place
on the subject in the correspondence between the
Admiralty and that trade; he would suggest that some
hon. member would move for the production of that cor-
respondence.

Mr. O'CONNELL hoped that the suggestion of the
right hon. baronet would be complied with. A similar
deputation from the body had waited upon him—perhaps
they deluded him, but he was informed that their work was
increased one-sixth in duration and difficulty ; in fact,
that the human frame was incapable of supporting the
increase of labour. They only demanded that wages
should be increased in proportion.
Mr. YOUNG hoped that a broader view would be taken
of it than that proposed by the right hon. First Lord of
the Admiralty; if so it would be found that the wages which
the journeymen were capable of earning were the very
maximum of what the trade could allow, preserving the
interests of both masters and men. There was a system
of tyranny exercised by the men over the masters, espe-
cially as regarded apprentices, whom the latter had not the
option of taking.—(Cries of " [lear, hear.") If it were not
put down, it would lead, if not to rebellion, at least, to
subversion of all order and regulations in trade.
Mr. HUME begged that the house would not be led
away by any statement till the entire matter was properly
sifted.
Here the subject dropped.

Mr. COBBETT gave notice that he would on the 27th
of May move for a repeal of the whole duties on malt.

ARMY ESTIMATES.

The house then resolved itself into a committee of
supply on the army estimates.
Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON immediately rose to
bring forward his motion for a remuneration to Capt.
John Ross for his public scrvices, upon which
Mr. BERNAL, the chairman, informed the hon.
member that the army estimates must take precedence
of his motion.

Mr. ELLICE then 'rose to propose that a sum
not exceeding 82,1791., be granted to his Majesty for
paying the expenses and charges of the volunteer
corps of Great Britain and Ireland from 31st of
March, 1834, to 31st of March, 1835. He stated
that the sum required for clothing the first three
years was three pounds which wasincreased to 5/ , but for
the present half year, Government intended to make such a
reduction as wonld, without injury to the public service,
make the expense 22,0001. instead of 55,0001 , being the
difference of '7s. per day and 3s. 4d. per day.—(Hear,
hear.) He understood that some objection would be
made on both sides, especially on the part of the
honourable member for Middlesex, who thought the
whole volunteer corps unnecessary, and had moved for a
return which he (Mr. E.) had brought to the bar, and
from which it would appear that the yeom airy corps of
Uxbridge had been doing service without calling upon th
public to pay any part or the expenses which they ❑otv
made application for the first time to be relieved
from. The yeomanry corps would not object to Imo.
.be wiAes of government, and to accept what was deemed

itActlent to maintain clisalplint; Hem dad mihar,
that five consecutive days' service entitled the volunteers to
exemption from the e uty payable on horses, the y
be very glad to receive the proposition of government.
He was satisfied that in bringing forward that statement
be had done no more than his duty, in calling the attention
of that house to the great and valuable services of thet
force, when they bad been called out in cases of public
emergency. He had no doubt that the reduction which
its had proposed (and which would be only tempora:y)
would not prevent that body from acting with as much
zeal and efficiency as usual, whenever they might be
called upon,—(Hear, hear.) The other difference between
the present estimate, and the estimate of the previous year,
was the entire charge for the yeomanry staff of Ireland.
He had made ingeiries as to bow often that corps
ead been called out during the last three years and he
ad ascertained that there had been no service required
prom any large portion of that staff during that period,
ind he had therefore thought it was quite time that the
xpense of maintaining that force should he meved to
he country.—(Heare hear.) On these grounds the
.taff of the Irish yeomanry would be abolished, and if
•ompensation would be required, or called for by any in-
iividuals who had spent a large portion of their time in
hat service, he should be ready to make any provision
chat the circumstances might require.
The CHAIRMAN then put the question that a auto not
-xceedeg 82,1791. be granted, &c.
Mr. HUME rose. His right hon. friend bad properly
:tared, that it was his intention to object to this grant,
for he really wished to put it to the house whgther the
country might not be saved this expense. In what way,
'4e would ask, could taxes be reduced, if government would
:lot reduce the standing army and navy in a time of peace?
One question with him was, and one which hr thought well
worthy of the attention of the house, whether title corps
:id any thing for which they required, and ought, to he
oeid ? He del not wish fur one moment that they should
e reduced, but he wished them to he actuated with a
similar spirit to the people of France and other countries,
who came forward to protect their property, and that
of their country without being burdens, ur expecting any
remuneration from the public purse.—( Hear.) The right
hon. gentleman, in bringing forward this subject, had
not noticed tee Wiltshire Corp.. The member fir that
county was colonel of the corps, and be had assured
hint (Mr. tinine) that there were several hundred men,
is well disciplined and equipped as any corps in the country,
who bad done their duty, in the most trying periods, with-
out the expense of a farthing to the coma, y. Such
being the case, he asked if it was not fit to see whether that
expense might not be dispensed with altogether. He
had made similar objections to this grant for the last
13 or 14 years, and when the Marquis of Lansdowne was
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he
had expressed an intention of putting an end to those corps.
In his opinion, if the expense of those corps was to
continue se enormous, it would be much better, and far
less expensive to the country, to keep up three battalions.
Although the charges appeared to be small in
amount, yet, taking the manner in which the
expenses were incurred into account, it would ap-
p-ar, by official returns, that since 1816 not less than
2,379,7221. had been paid on behalf of the volunteer corps.
Now he would put it to any one whether the services ren-
dered by those corps bore any proportion to that expense.
He submitted to the house that such a charge ought to be
put an end to in future, and let the country see
whether there was not patriotism enough in the
country to protect the public peace without those corps.
In France, about every other living man capable of bear-
ing arms was ready to be enrolled at his own expense.
That was the caae also in Holland and Belgium, and
why should it not be the case here? If we had
infantry and cavalry of that description, much of
the misshief which had occurred three years ago
would have been prevented. Although his right boo.
friend had dispensed with the past, he yet called on the
house to grant clothing for three years. That, and the pay
likewise, be (Mr. Hume) was convinced might be dispensed
with. He knew that the right hon. Secretary for
Ireland bad said the charge was but Is. or Bs. each,
but even in that case it ought to be put an end to. Let
the Government try the experiment for one year, and if
the corps chose to disband themselves, there were
plenty who would come forward without being
influenced by such a paltry and unbecoming motive as
pay.—(Hear.) In addition to the vote of 82.179/. all
these individuals were excused the expense of their horse!,
and therefore it was probable that the expense to the
country might amount to as much as 140,0001. a year.
Under all the circumstances, be hoped the vote would be
altogether withdrawn, unless Ministers would show its
aleeilute necessity. The hon. member concluded by
moving that the vote be omitted.
Colonel DAVIES quite agreed with the hon. member
who had spoken last, in the propriety of not confining this
corps to one set of men, but he could not agree with
him in the propriety of abolishing the corps altogether. It
was a most useful and serviceable body of teen. He knew
from his own experience one instance in which the
Yeomanry had been called out for several days
together, when they were exposed to considerable
risk, and when they had to come in contact with
riotous persons—armed both for the offensive and de-
fensive; and was it to be expected that they would
leave their houses and business for several days together,
e it hout receiving any remuneration at all ?—(Hear, hear.)
What they received was not in the way of bounty, but
would barely cover their expenses. He was not acquainted
with the history of the corps alluded to by the bon. member;
but lie had no doubt that on inquiry the corns would be
found to have very little duty to perform. His hon. friend
bad referred to the National Guards of Paris; but there
was a great distinction between them and the yeomanry
corps of England. Ours were volunteer corps, In the dis-
tinct sense of the word, whilst the service of the National;
Guards was compulsory. He assured his bon. friend that
he had taken some pains to inform himself on the subject,
and upon the strength of that information lie was enabled
to say that the National Guard was a compulsory service.
He contended that the yeomanry were a most useful body
of men, and the question was whether they were to have
such a body of men, or whether they would support a
standing army, which would receive pay for every day in
the year. For this reason be must oppose his hon. friend.
Mr. LITTLETON quite agreed with the hon. and
gallant member fir Worcester, as to the danger that would
arise from getting rid of the yeomanry corps. He had
had several yt ars' experience in Staffordshire on this sub-
ject, and he knew that in a great variety of cases, hut for
the ex rtions of the volunteer collet, much mischief would
have been done.

Mr. O'CONNELL that no doubt occasions
might arise in which the aid of the yeomanry force might
be required; but the question was, whether it might not
be practicable to obtain that aid gratuitomly. When, in
1710, all the regular troops were drawn from Ireland,
sixty thousand volunteers in that country clothed and
armed themselves, and acted without receiving a single
shilling of pay. Surely, in so wealthy a country as Eng-
land, a similar force might be embodied without purling
the country to the expense of eighty thousand pounds a
year. The effect of withdrawing the grant for the staff
of the Irish yeomanry would be in a great degree nulli-
fied, if arms were still to be left in the bands of the yeo-
manry. For 29,000 men it appeared there were 32,000
stand of arms.

Lord GROSVENOR thought it well worthy of con-
sideration whether it was desirable to have large bodies of
men arming themselves independently of the Government—
(Hear, hear.) He thought that, in not calling them out
for annual exercise, the Government would in some de-
gree discourage them in their zeal for the public service.
Lord HOWICK declared that in the circular of Lord
Melbourne there was nothing that could he considered
offensive to the different Yeomanry Corps. No slur
whatever was intended. The reason for not calling them
out this year was simply to save expense.
Mr. EGERTON said that Manchester had been twice
saved by the corps be had the honour to belong tn.--
(Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. BELL eulogised the Yeomanry Corps as " brave
men," and said that their efficiency would be impaired
unless they were called out every twelve months.
Mr. BRODIE said that the Salisbury volunteers, which
he had the honour to command, bad been highly useful
on several occasions—they were clothed by voluntary sub-
scription, and armed by the government, and their cost for
wear and tear and ammunition, did not exceed 10/, per
annum. By establishing such corps in different places,
they would be able at once to reduce the army—not by
9,000 men, as bad been proposed by the hon. member for
Middlesex, but by 20,000 men.

Mr. GILLON considered the vote as worse than useless
—it was downright mischievous. Tbese regiments never
answered any good purpos,, for they were always compos-
ed of men governed by locrl prejudices and party feeling.
An Hosr. AIE:%IBEIL considered the remarks of the hon.
and gallant member for Salisbury wholly inapplicable, fo
Lid men, when c tiled out, only acted as special constables.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS considered that public feeling bad
undergone a very great change in respect to yeomanry
corps, but he thought it was only fair to draw a distinction
in the Manchester case between the
yeomanry and the
magistrates. The yeomanry on that occasion, be trust
say, in general behaved well, though, on the Prt of on,
corps, no one could deny there had been some impetuos ty.
Mr. F. SHAW said, that for the sake of a very palty

saving the government had given great offence to a ro t
armful body of men.
Mr. O'DWYER poked upon the yeomanry as mere
appendage of ascendancy.
Mr. LITTLETON said that the King's army was per-
fectly competent to maintain the peace in Ireland. There
were "3,000 troops to eight minions of people—a force
which was amply sufficient, especially when hon. mem-
bers recollected that for the last three years there hd been
no occasion to call the yeomanry out. He strongly de-
nied that the Irish Government was unmindful of the past
services of the yeomanry. He trusted, if the necessity
should ever arise for the general formation of volunteer
corps, either to repress tumult at home or to repel ag•
greasion from abroad, that Catholic and Protestant would
be found without distinction serving in the same ranks in
the co:mmon cause of their country,—(Hear.)
After a few words from Mr. O'CoNNELL, Col. SEALE,
Col. EvAxs, Lord EBRINGTON, General SHARPE, and
Mr. Bl.rrr,
Mr. COBBETT said that a man, who was then no
more—Major Cartwright—had called the yeomanry corps
the body guard of the boroughmongers ; that body was
now dead—(Laughter)—anti he could not see why the
corps should be kept up.—(Much laughter.) He could
not adequately express the satisfaction he felt to find that
no gentleman on the ministerial benches had arisen to at-
tempt to vindicate the foul proceedings of Manchester.
Earl GROSVENOR spoke a few words, which were
inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. HUME briefly replied. The Manchester yeo-
manry corps were so ashamed of their justly-designated
" foul proceedings," that they had voluntarily dissolved
themselvee._(Hear.)
After a few words from Lord HOWICK, the house di-
vided, when there appeared—.
For the original Motion
For the Amendment

Majority -83
On our re-admission into the gallery, we found Mr.
ELLICE on his legs, who spoke a few words previous to
the question that a sum not exceeding 16,5401. 12s. 10d.
be granted for defraying the rewards due to military ser-
vices, in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies, from
let April, 1834, to 31st March, 1835.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE would not then move an
amendment, but be protested against the decision which
the Committee had come to. Up to ISIS, there was
30,0001. ailotted for rewards, which sum might be drawn
upon at any time, from the battles of Blenheim and
Minden; and the resolution of the Committee, he would
contend, was both unfair and illegal.
Mr. HUME stated his objections to an increase of the
army. Yet be felt towards them every feeling of respect
which they demanded. They bad fought and bled for
their country—(Hear, hear)—and they had deserved the
thanks of every member ; but still he felt the expenses of
the country should be reduced. Let us look to the list
(said the hon. member), and we shall see 262 General
Officers. He knew no better way to reduce the army
than to shut out all undeserved rewards. Yet he did not
intend to oppose the grant, but confine it alone to pre-
sent individuals. The extravagance of the Civil De-
partment, he admitted, was greater than the military.
A sum of 18,0001. bad been proposed in the committee,
wbicla he had voted against.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE said the number of general
ufficers in 1792 was greater than now, having been 30 ;
at this moment they were 26. The emoluments of
1833 were also less than those of 1792, and yet he found
the Civil Departments bad greatly increased. His case
was, thetefore, stronger, as the injustice to the army was
greater ; and that the emoluments were much greater 100
7ers since.

Mr. COBBETT said the hon. gentleman considered
the rewards as nothing ; yet he would admit there was a
difference between now and 1792. The effective state of
the army was what he looked to now. It would appear we
had now 14,000 officers, instead of twelve or fourtee❑
kuudrol. He thought that the ministers might take cif a
little. T! ere was another charge in 1792, of 92,9001.,
which had been augmented in 1833 to 212,8741. When
the hon, gentleman talked of Watet 100, of B enheim, and
of Minden, did he not remember there were services per-
formed on the other side of the Atlantic? He considered
the services of the army in America were not less deserv.
ing of commendation, for their services were not the least
arduous. He observed upon the list the name of the
governor of the Isle of Wight. For his part, he knew not
bow he came there, for he was not aware of any great ser-
vices rend, red by him in connection with the army.
Mr. ELLI CE replied.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE said, that in 1792 the
number of officers was 4,000, which gave twelve men to
each officer ; whereas now we had but seve❑ men to an
officer, He admitted that the army last year was most
effective.

Mr. ELLICE said, the committee last year had recon).
mended some allowance, but they had met with so many
impediments that it could not be carried into effect. The
opposition had opposed every proposition fur increasing
such allowance, and yet the pvernment did not feel jus-
tified in making one reduction.
Lord EBRINGTON moved, that a sum of 6,4001.
should be voted.

Mr. ELLICE wished to refer the noble lord to the esti.
mate., and he (Lord Ebrington) would find that sum
would increase them.

Sir H. HARDINGE thought the house should take
the King's pleasu:-.2 as regarded the army. He should
therefore object to the proposition of the noble lord (Lord
Ebringron).
Mr. ELLICE stated most distinctly that he thought it
better to concur with the other party.
Mr. HUME—The hon. gentleman had said he took
his Majesty's pleasure as regarded the army ; in point of
form he should have done the same ; and it was most
important that the army should look to the King and not
to the house.

Mr. ELLICE never thought that the army should look
Ile the house.

Captain DUNDAS would refer to the list of general
officers who were not in the army.
Lord EBRINGTON referred to the rewards of the
army, and would ask whether they were diminished ?
Those rewards had produced glorious results.
Mr. COBBETT said there appeared to be a difference
between the sister forces. He would ask whether the
aum of 111,000/. was for full or half.pay to the general
officers ?—(11Ir. Ellice observed, half.pay.) Was it a
charge for respective ranks, or was it wholly half-pay ?
(Mr. Ellice said, half.pay.) Was, then, the country to
pay the enormous sum of 111,000/. for half-pay to gene-
ral officers, and not serving? He would ask the noble
lord whether he thinks the people of Devonshire would
like to see such a sum voted? Would they not consider
200 general officers too many? Let the world tremMe—
(A laugh)—no one dare go to war with us—we had 200
general officers ! The admiral might smile, for we had
also on the navy list two or three to every ship. He did
not think the country should be taxed to support 200
general e,fficers. Words could not express his feelings at
its enormity ; be should therefore vote against it.
Lord EBRINGTON was sure the men of Devonshire
would not shrink from paying their share as a due reward
for past services to their country.
Mr. COBBETT would ask the hon. secretary whether
Prince Leopold was among the general officers ?
Mr. ELLlCE—Certainly not.
Mr. HUME opposed it. _

Sir HENRY .HARDINGE would inform the house
-that the reduction of 1001. taken from the regiments
would supply the amount given to general officers, the
amount of which, in gross, did not exceed 7,0001. a year.
The colonels of regiments had been reduced from 6001. to
600/. a year.
Lord EBRINGTON made some observations, but from
the low tone in which he addressed the house we could not
catch what he said.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE said, that the number of
General officers was less by 167 iri-1833 than in 1817.
The vote was then agreed to.
Mr. ELLICE then moved that 82,0001. be granted to
defray the expense of the full pay of reduced and retired
officers.—Agreed to.
Mr. ELLICE then moved that 607,000/. be granted to
defray the expense of the half-pay of reduced and retired
officers for the ensuing year, and stated that within the
last year the number of officers on half.pay had been
reduced by 295, of which number from 50 to 60 officers
were brought from the half to the full pay.
After a few words from Colonel EVANS,
Sir HENRY HARDINGE said, that the subject of
promotion was a very difficult one. It ought, however;
to be known that since the peace a decrease had taken
place in the number of officers in the army of not less than
7,000, making a saving to the country of a million and a
half per year.

Mr. COBBETT—Are we dearly to understand that
the half-pay is a retaining fee for future services?
Mr. ELLICE—And a reward for past services.
Mr. COBBETT—Then it was both as a reward for
past services, and a retaining fee for future services, and
the King bad therefore a claim on the future services of
the individuals who received it. He hoped then that the

right hon gentleman would inform him whether there wa,
any claim on the clergymen who received half-pay as
ufEcerl ever since the war, There were many clergymen
,tc:Oyerj, their emolument@ WI tiergmen 9,1 the one
WWI their injf ray fur future witiwy owvi4tia an ‘ilif

Ar• tsl'o't only that, but after receiving that half pay
for twelve years, they had been allowed to sell out, and
pocket the money. He hoped some gentleman present
would inform him whether there was any way in which
the half ray received by clergymen for 12 years could be
recnshred.
Mr. SHEIL begged to ask the right hon. Secretary at
War whether tbere was any provision to be made for the
Romin Catholic clergymen who attended the prisons and
hospitals in Dublin ?
Mr. ELLICE said that the matter was under consi-
deration of the government, and especially since the preju-
dices on this subject had in some measure vanished.
The vote was then agreed to.
Mr. ELLICE then moved, that the sum of 51,240/. be
granted to defray the half-pay allowances for wounds and
widows' pensions of the officers of the disbanded foreign
torps.
Mr. COBBETT complained, that by this vote two mil-
lions had been sent out of the country since the peace, to
enrich foreigners at the expense of this country. Such
a grant was not legal, as it was contrary to the Act of Ist
William and Mary, that foreigners should hold places of
emolument, either civil or military, under the crown of
England. Besides, this could not be called a retaining-fee,
for they could not, i❑ any case, be called on to serve again.
He complained, too, of an omission in the estimate, as the
❑ames, number, and country of the officers receiving these
allowances should have been stated. He believed that there
were many of them Frenchmen, and he asked if they ought
to be pensioned ? He was determined to divide the house
on the que,tion, even if he stood alone.
Mr. ELLICE said that the country was bound by con-
tract to pay these allowances. He would put it to the
house whether, in law or justice, they could refuse to make
good claims to which they were bound by their own con-
tract ? He begged the house to remember that many of
these officers had rendered very distinguished services
during the war.—(Hear, hear.) They bad now nut to
consider how far the exigency of the times required the
services of foreign troops ; but having called in the service
of these troops, they were to say whether they should
fulfil the contract. This sum was not only for the half-
pay of these officers, but for allowances for wounds re-
ceived in the service, and for the pension for widows of
officers killed in the service.
Mr. COBBETT would only remark, that there was
2,0001. a year more paid as half-pay to these foreign—
these German officers, than was paid as the half-pay of the
whole of the officers of the British army before 1792.
Colonel DAVIES believed that some foreign officers in
the pay of this country received pay from foreign Poten-
tates also, and that others had pay from this country who
were not in existence at all.—(A laugh.) He ti.ought
that some precaution ought to be taken against frauds.
Mr. ELLICE said that there was no denying that
there were sometimes frauds committed. He was sure,
however, that they were not considerable. The half-pay
of any officer who was known to have entered any other
service would certainly be stopped.
Sir. H. HARDINGE said, that none cf these officers
could serve in any other army without permission from
the King of England, and be had known instances in
which permission was refused.
After a few words from Mr. O'CoNNELL and Colonel
VANS,

Mr. AGLIONBY said, that if these foreign officers had
not been granted a pension they would not have entered
the British army, and having engaged them on that con-
dition, the contract ought to be kept to.
Mr. COBBETT contended that the act of of parlia-
ment under which they were engaged, was contrary to,
and in defiance of the law.—(A laugh.) It was in
defiance of another act of parliament fully as good as it
was.—(Laughter.) If they could repeal the act by which
the crown was held by the house of Hanover in this
respect, they might do the same in some other respects.
Mr. HUME would vote for the grant, as he conceived
the country to be bound by the act of parliament.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 4
For the motion 200
Majority
On our readmission to the gallery, we found

Mr. ELLICE moviug that a sum not exceeding 47,6001.
be granted to his M.jesty to 'meet the charge of the pen-
sions of w!dows of officers who had been in his Majesty's
Land Forces.

Mr. COBBETT complained of the vote. It rested with
that house to reduce the taxation of the country; but if it
did not encourage Ministers to reduce taxes, they could
not be expected to do it.—The vote was then agreed to.
Mr. ELLICE moved for a grant to his Majesty of
161,5001. to meet the charge of allowances on the Com-
passionate List ; of allowances as of his Majesty's Royal
Bounty ; and of pensions, gratuities, and alio« aneo, to
Officers for Wounds.—Agreed to.
Mr. ELLICE moved that the sum of 1,327,8481. be
granted to his Majesty to defray the charge of Chelsea and
Kilmainham Hospitals; of the in-pensioners of those
establishments; and of the out-pensioners of Chelsea
Hospital.
Mr. COBBETT complained of the allowance given to
the in and out-pensioners of those establishments com-
pared with the wages received by bald-working labourers
in this country.
Mr. O'CONNELL begged to take that opportunity of
asking the right hon. Secretary at War whether there
was any truth in a report which was in circulation, that
officers in Dublin were about to be deprived of their resi-
dences in Kilmainham Hospital, and to be compelled to
come over to Chelsea Hospital? The displacing of these
persons would cause great dissatisfaction in Dublin, as the
spending of nearly 11,0001. a year by these individuals was
an object of some importance to that city.
Mr. ELLICE said it was true that arrangements were
making, on the mere ground of economy, to enable such
of the in-pensioners of Kilmainhain Hospital whose health
permitted, to come over to Chelsea Hospital, and those of
them who were infirm would be removed to the Artillery
Barracks, which were now being provided for their
reception.

Mr. O'CONNELL said the case was one of great hard-
ship to the pensioners thus about to be removed.
Mr. ELLICE said, no person would be removed whose
age or infirmities rendered it improper for them to be
taken to this country. Government thought that, as the
lease of Kilmainham Hospital was expired, and the budd-
ing out of repair, it would be proper, on the score of eco.
nomy alone, to make arraageinents for the reception of the
aged and infirm inmates in the Artillery B wracks. The
whole number of in-pensioners in Kilmainham Hospital
was only 247, and yet the expense of their maintenance
in that estailishrnent was nearly 11,0001.

Mr. O'DWYER thought it a case of great hardship
that Kilmainharn Hcspital was thus about to be broken up.
It had been founded out of money taken from the pay of
the soldiers themselves, and had an estate of '7l acres,
invested in the Crown, and granted by the Crown, which
it held by a perpetual tenure.

Mr. HUAIE was sorry to hear words against economy
spoken in that house.—(A laugh.) As the breaking up
of the establishment at Kilmainham would effect a great
saving to the country, he would support it. He only
hoped that equal justice woutt be done to Chelsea Hospital.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was opposed to any proposal
for doing away with Chelsea Hospital. He wished to
state, with rtlerence to the pensions paid to certain officers
under the King's warrant, that it had for a long time past
'teen the custom to appoint to these pensions persons
whose principal merit generally consisted in being akin to
the Paymaster of the Forces for the time being, while the
warrant itself expressed that the pensions were to be given
to officers who had done meritorious service, or bad suf-
fered in the service ; but since he (Lord J. Russell) had
come into office, he had made every exertion to do away
with the old abuse, and to bestow those pensions on officers
who came under the description on the Royal warrant.
Sir H. HARDINGE was very happy to hear the noble
lord's determination to support the establishment. He had
one word to say with reference to the Rev. Mr. Gleig,
whose appointment, which did so much credit to the no-
'
bleman who made it, had drawn down upon both giver
and receiver such a series of low-minded and contemptible
abuse. The rev. gentleman had well merited the appoint-
ment, not only by his private character, and his talents as
a writer, but by his distinguished services in the penin-
sula; and he (Sir 11. Hardinge) was sure that Mr. Gieig's
appointment was matter of satisfaction to all parties—(An
hon. member expressed his dissent from this proposition
by a very decided and peculiarly toned no ! which excited
some laughter)—all parties, he repeated, except the few
individuals who had busied themselves in serving their own
purposes by attempting to overwhelm the generous donor
and the meritorious receiver with their vulgar and con-
temptible vituperations. He would ask the house, and
pat tieularly the member who bad favoured them with so
peculiar a specimen of his vocal powers—he would ask
whether, when the Duke of Wellington bestowed some
appointment upon Mr. Grey (the present Bishop of Here-
ford, we believe), this appointment had been met by such
disgraceful howlings and yelpings as had been sent forth
on the present occasion ; or when the same noble duke
appointed a member of that house, in no way connected
witb, or rather hostile to his Grace—Mr. Abercrombie—
to art office, had the same vituperations been thrown upon
him as upon the right hon. Paymaster of the Forces on
the present uccesion? Oh, no. He (Sb' H, HO had
aloe to pruner eseiett the syettlut r""1"1"'i

which had produced such mischievous effects on the poor
soldiery, particularly on the Irish, who had no poor laws,
and which was a system which bad drawn upon ministers as
much odium as any of their proceedings. He (Sir H. H.)
would have brought this question before the house last
year, had not Sir John Hobhouse, who also objected
most strongly to it, promised to do away with it. He
would now m.k the bon. gentleman, the Secretary at War,
whether be had taken any measures to put an end
to this most objectionable arrangement—an arrangement
which had, in almost every instance, produced the ruin
of the poor fellows going out to the colonies on their
allowance, who had in most cases returned home destitute,
or remained to beg their bread in America? He wished
to know whether, in these cases, the unfortunates had
been replaced on the Pension List? He had observed
tbat in one part of the Estimates there was mentioned
a decrease of 19,0001., while in another place the de.
crease appeared to be 61,0001. This discrepancy was
owing to a defective arrangement of the Estimates, which
the right hon. secretary would do well to correct. It
appeared, also, from the Estimates, that the sum of
61,0001. per annum was paid by the East India Corn..
pany towards the Dead Weight; which sum ought, in
his opinion, to be paid over to the Secretary at War to.
wards diminishing the Army Estimates; and this he (Sir
Henry) suggested should be done.
Mr. ELLICE said that the first thing he had done, in
coming into office, had been to put a stop to the commu-
tation of pensions' system, as be immediately saw how
the pensioners suffered by the arrangement. Indeed no
mistake could have been greater than that under which
the originator of the plan laboured when he thought of
' sending poor old worn-out soldiers to the colonies to dig
their bread out of the hard, uncultivated earth ; more
particularly when it was considered how little the wounds
or habits of living of the men fitted them for such a task.
He had also, in as many instances as possible, restored
their pensions to the unfortunate people, deducting the
amount received by each in commutation.
Sir 11. HARDINGE protested against having had any
thing to do in promoting or supporting the commutation
system, which, on the contrary, he bad done everything in
his power to put down, and in 1831, when the present
Administration had come in, he strongly advised the
right hon. member for Dundee (Sir H. Parnell) against
forwarding the system. The only arrangement he had
supported, was that which gave the 20,000 persons re-
ceiving pensions under the age of 35 years the opportunity
of advano ing their fortunes in the colonies ; but he had
never sanctioned the idea of making old or infirm pension-
ers commute their pensions.
Sir H. PARNELL protested against being supposed
the author of this system—(A laugh)—which was one he
had always bad a particular objection to. On coming into
office he had found it established, but had always done his
best to put an end to it.
After a few words from Mr. SHAW and Mr. O'Dwarmt,
Mr. LITTLETON said, if the degree of saving effected
by doing away with the Kilm iinbam establishment were
small, he would be the last man to support such a pro
position, but he thought very differently of it when it was
shown that the economy would be very large. There

would be no violation of Parliamentary or testamentary
endowments in breaking up the Irish establishment,which
was created in Charles the Second's time, by a tax on the
army in Ireland of 6d. each man.
Mr. SHEIL opposed the breaking up of the establish-
ment in Ireland, which he was sure all Irishmen in the
house, of whatever political party, would unite in sup.
porting. Government did not seem to understand the
golden mean between parsimony and prodigality.
Mr. O'REILLY would not support the establishments
in Ireland, because he felt that the Catholics in Ireland
were none the better for them.

Mr. O'CONNELL could not agree with the honourable
member, for the fact was that the Catholics had equal ad-
mission with the Protestants to these schools--(Hear,
hear)—and were allowed every facility for attending to
their own reigioue duties.

Mr. O'REILLY wished the hon. and learned member
would move for a list of the Catholics who were so ad-
mitted, for he (Mr. O'Reilly) had never heard of any being
admitted. In the mean time he would assure the govern-
ment they need fear no unpopularity among the Catholic
Irish peasantry for any measure opposed by the ascendancy
party, though buNorted by the hon. and learned member
and his friends, who seemed to he shaking hands with
each other.—(A laugh.)

Mr. O'DWYER did not see why political antipathies
should engender private friendships—(Shouts of laugh ter)—
he meant to say that he did not agree with the honourable
member in thinking, as he appeared to do, that political
animosity should affect private frien,lship.
The grant was then agreed to. _ _

A grant of 47,0001. was then proposed to defray the
charge of compensations in the shipe of superanuuatinns,
or retired allowances, to persons belonging to various
public departments.

Mr. HII.IIE did not understand on what principle the
governor of the Royal Military College had a grant of
803/. per annum.
Sir H. HARDINGE explained that this officer, Col.
Butler, if be had nut been superannuated under this
estimate, would have been entitled, by his services, to
the rank of major-general of artillery, in which capacity
lie would have received precisely the same amount as the
mentioned.

Colonel EVANS made an inquiry with reference to the
fees paid in military colleges.
Mr. ELLICE said the subject was under consideration.
The grant was then agreed to.
Mr. BERNAL then reported progress, and the house
resumed.—Report to he received to-morrow.
On the house going into committee on the Mutiny Bill
Mr. ELLICE requested of Major Fancourt to post-
pone his motion with regard to military flogging, to which
the hon. and gallant gentleman consented, with an under-
standing that it should be the first on Friday. The bill,
having gone through the committee with some verbal
amendments, was ordered to he reported to the house—
to be received on Friday, and Major Fancourt's motion to
come up with the report.
JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
The order of the day for a committee of the whole
house to go into the Juries (Ireland) Bill, was then read,
and the bill passed through.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.

---7
On the question that the Bribery at Elections Bill be
read a second time,
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, the house would escape the
difficulties in which it had been involved by the Liverpool
and Carrickfergus investigations, if some better tribunal
could be established for the purpose of inquiring into
alleged cases of bribery and corruption. He agreed, and
he was sure the house would also agree, in the
general
object of the bill.—(Hear, hear.) It was certainly highly
desirable th it examples should be made in any instances
where systematic bribery could he proved.—(Hear, hear.)
He would call the attention of the house to the provision
which, in case of an Election Committee being appointed,
and allegations made either as to improper returns or
general bribery, enabled the committee to inquire into
both. He would ask the house whether it would not be
better to keep these allegations distinct ? Ag pin ; in
framing a tribunal for such purposes, the great object
to be kept in view was, that it be so framed as to
inspire confidence. Unless such tribunal obtained the
full confidence of that and the other house, the re-
ports sent in might create a difference of opinion. An
inquiry and discussion might take place in the House of
Lords too late in the session to be satisfactorily concluded,
and the whole business have to be begun again. His object
in throwing out these suggestions, was to aid the noble lord
in his proposed measure ; and therefore it was that be
would have the allegation of systematic bribery first pro-
ceeded with, and then go into the inquiry of improper re-
turns. The selection of committees by chance was a
very imperfect mode, and peculiarly so when the question
was one of individual interest. To place the power of
nomination in government would appear invidious. He
saw no reason why the authority should net be vested in
one in whom the house could place most implicit conti •
dence. Why not intrust the nomination to the Speaker ?
The house would at the same time reserve to itself a power
of controlling this nomination. Committees thus ap'
pointed and constituted by an act of parliament, com-
pelling attendance, should also have power to examine
witnesses on oath, and thus more confidence would be
created in them than would be reposed in any other way-
The noble lord proposed that the report be laid before the
Lords and Commons, and that both should address the
Crown. He (Sir R. Peel) doubted the policy of this
proposition. It was of the very first importance that
that Louse, in pronouncing its opinion, should pronounce
it on its own judgment, and if concurring in the
report, should have grounds for that concurrence. The
noble lord proposed that the committee should report
on general bribery. He (Sir R. Peel) did not like
these vague terms. He should wish the house, before it
were called upon to express an opinion, to be put in pos-
session of the details, and have the extent of the evil speci-
fied. The noble lord's measure required the assent of the
three branches of the legislature. Why introduce the
novel measure of an address ? The address, too, was for
the purpose of requiring the crown to suppress the frau.
chise, or merge that of small towns in their surrounding
neighbourhood. lie (Sir R, Peel) did nit think this was
aood In prineiplc. ,socti a prticgcrling 5y9,114, b. a the
area of waking coiCl444nciel of eni&l Co4Alica

towns. In 111$ epinten, it Would be mere cenvenie n"
to proceed by bill.

Lord JOAN RUSSELL was glad the right hon. baro-
net had turned his attention to the subject, and hoped the
house would see the importance of adopting some better
method than that which at present existed. When be
said he would give his best attention, to the suggestions of
the right hon. baronet, he was not prepared to say that he
agreed in his views. He admitted that the present mode
of selecting committees was not the happiest, but could
not approve of the right hon. baronet's suggestion, which
would have the effect of placing the Speaker in an exceed-
ingly invidious situation.
Mr. W. WYNNE addressed the house at some length,
but was wholly inaudible in the gallery.
Sir R. INGLIS said his own impression was, that the
decision of the committee should be final.

Lord ALTHORP thought the committee should report
facts and opinions, but that their decision should not be
final. Still the suggestion of the right hon. baronet was
well worthy of serious consideration.
Mr. TOOKE wished to know if it was the intention of
his Majesty's Ministers to introduce a bill for the amend-
tnent of those imperfections in the Reform Act, which the
Revising Barristers had pointed out ?
Lord ALTHORP said the reports of the Revising Bar-
risters had been consolidated, and a measure founded on
their suggestions was then under the consideration of the
Government.
Mr. WARBURTON said, as the reports were consoli-
dated, perhaps the noble lord would allow the house the
benefit of them?
Lord ALTHORP thought he was not at liberty to grant
such a request; at all events, not then.
Mr. WARBURTON would, perhaps, ask the question
aptin.

Mr. BAINES said, the most doubtful question was,
whether the qualification, as it at present stood, was one
of amount or of residence. He would observe, that if the
list of Revising Barristers was taken as a standard by
which voters could regulate their qualification, many diffi-
culties would be removed.
The bill was then read a second time.

On the question that it be committed on Monday next,
Sir R. PEEL observed, that the clause which disfran-
chised a man for ever, gave an enormous power, and one
to which the house could never expect the Lords to agree.
As to the idea that the duty which he (Sir Robert Peel)
wished to put upon the Speaker would place that right
hon. gentleman in an invidious situation, he would ask if
they ever looked upon a man who moved for a committee
as so placed ?
The bill was then ordered to be committed on Monday.

The Legal Securities Bill was read a second time, as were
also the Procurator Fiscal Bill, and the Ministers (Scot-
land) Bill.
The Anatomy of Criminals (Ireland) Bill was, after a
short conversation, advanced a stsg.e.