The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-12 00:00:00

~'► i:~

=~i:c_

.:~:.,~

but he understood it to be the case of a reporter
.-turitilig; o,resented once'embertfi as USTifit;re-preS..;;
sions to another which were not uttered in the
•fpeech -.sox reported:, ?Ili! that ca:se ran parallel
with,the pre:sentne was for the House to. Judge ;
~; la,at as to-the libel 'before thern conld.conceive
-.nothing more atrocious it smelt Of- blood. If
:,the individual' who; wrote • it designed
.to .push
matters to those ,extremities which he seemed to
..suppose were Irntriinent, -if his designs were to
excite a breach of the peace, he could not have
taken a more ..direct •course. Should the House
'soar its Mianbers to be•goaded iii this manner
,impunity, let it never; vindicate its privi-
-les-es again. What libels (let the Noble Lord de-
clare them) had been protected or 'winked at by
'him and his lion. 'Friends, of the atrocious and
-sanguinary character of the one in question ? He
. did not. believe that there could be any mention-
ed. Certain he was that the-public would pa-
It-anise tho'se papers which were the freest from
libels on .private characters. The reason why
the chief London newspapers flourished as they
did was, because they were almost entirely free
from 'private. libels., .
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY .explained.—
lie congratulated himself and the house that his
warmth should have drawn such an explicit, and
satisfactory explanation from
..the. Honourable
and'Learned Member. He was ready to avow
that he had been under the delusion that the H on.
and Learned Gentleman had in hiS speech inti-
mated the probability of persons engkiged either
in the councils of his Majesty, or those of the na-
Aion, being concerned in, or giving:countenance
to, these libels. Now certainly the' evidence at
' the bar was not calculated to remove such an in-
sinuation. He was, therefore, the more highly
gratified at the conduct of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman in wiping it away. His chief object
in speaking had been to secure the conduct of the
House from the imputation 'of partiality. Ile
could not allow any, distinction to be taken be-
-tween this and the former libel to which he had
referred the House.—They both had a tendency
'to cause the effusion of blood. In the former
instance there were words put into the mouth of
one Member which caused an explanation to be
sought by another Member.
Sir R. FERGUSON said, that the Noble Lord
had imputed motives to him which he could have
no right, to impute. Where he got his omnis-
cience from, as to the feelings. and motives of
others, he (Sir R. Ferguson) knew not, but the
Noble Lord would do better to look to his own
motives. If he (Sir R: Ferguson) felt indigna-
tion, it was at least an honest indignation, at the
base and cowardly attacks made on the character
of English women. For his own part he cared
' very little for political libels; and was always un-
willing to take any notice of them.
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY again ex-
plained. He only wished that the same indig-
nation had been expressed by the Gallant Gene-
ral and his friends, and that they had taken notice
of other libels no less gross and offensive than
the one before them.—(Cries of " Name, name,"
from the Opposition side.)—
Mr. WyNNE said, that in all cases like the pre-
sent he had taken an equal course ; and had look-
ed only to the honour of the House. He thought
that in the course of the last autumn libels had
been issued as. much on one side as on the other ;
libels disgraceful alike to the Press and' to those
who had to administer the course of Justice.
Had they occurred during the sitting of the
House, he thought the vengeance of the House
ought to have been visited upon the authors. The
libel which had been brought under considera-
tion two years ago, was, he thought, a most flagi-
tious libel. It stated, as a part of a speech, that
' which had never been 'spoken, and marked the
.part by the supposed approbation of the House:
The writer, on being called to the Bar, said he
had mistaken the language, but he (Mr. W.),
thought it scarcely possible. However, as a
Member had intimated an ,opinion that the
writer might have been mistaken, the punish-
ment was mitigated. It . was his firm belief
that the remissness of the: House on that occa-
sion had. encouraged libels. Indeed, he consi-
.dered the lenity of the House had been mistaken
on that. occasion. If the Amendment of the Noble
Marquess were adopted, he thought it would
be worth no Member's while to make any com-
. plaint to the House. He had seen many wilful
misrepresentations of the Debates of the House ;
'but in the present case,: he looked to the question
immediately.before him.. lithe person who had
been examined. at. the bar had shewn any disposi-
' tion.tO tell-the truth,, he should, have been glad
to lay hold. of., any circumstance which could be
offered in :mitigation- of punishment but as he
considered the present a libel of the grossest de-
seription,,ke should vote for the originat-motion ;
for he thought the support of,the privileges of
'the House nearly connected with the liberties of
~the people.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY. said he had
not denied the atrocity orthe-peesent libel; He
merely wished the House to have. regard'to its
former judgments in similar cases.
said, he should always support an
equal distribution-of justice, for he considered
that nothing could. be more injUrions than an: opi-,
-nion trhat.it would be safer to attack a Gentleman
-2.:4f..one;party than of another. The Hon. Mem-
ber then referred to the libetof.lB.l9.- It stated
-.(profes'sing to report a.speech .of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Aberdeen), that his' Right lion. Friend,
bad rendered-himself indifferent to the sufferings
'of his 'fellow creatures, by waking. them objects
'"of habitual ridicule. . This. was a general attack
-upon a man's' whole, life ; and
_was
cult; to answer' thada,SPeOficicharge.. tle.thOught
•
the House should act consisteutlys_and give the
same' Udgrnent on, the present Cidasion, as.it had
given in the year 149,—Mr. WYNNE explained.
LordionN R SSELL', thoughtsthat in' Cases. of
.
!yr; vtlege the inilderltirtishnikifCw"aS alWays the
'best,....-P:n the Occasion. refetTed to by the libel
.I:.fof 18195 there certainly 'hatl-Aieen:a. laugh, and
thiS::had given 'rise to an.efi:tin,OUS opinion that
the :'Might' Hon. Member 'allnded-to had turned
the sufferings of his fellow-creatures into' ridi-
tute. , Ile. road
.not recognise.. the distinction
'Which had been taken between• the:two cases-. If,
forsitietatice,: a persim accused the NebleMur-,

gals of cruelty during his goyu rnment.in Ireland,
to a -part'of and
was capable of Contradiction:;, bat thts was very
different from-.a case in which an attack was
made upon.
_tic'e • fetivales of his
.family. Charges
of. Sucli.a. dts,C,ription were always painful, though '
they were as false as hell ; for there *was a deli-
cacy about the female character which avoided
public notice. The libel, the judgment upon
which Vitt(' been cited as* 'precedent, could not be
• ;
compa,red with the.bbels which had appeared in
the newspaper before the Iloase ; and he re-
gretted that he could. not acquit the friends of
GovernmeFit of the charge of patronising the
Paper. lie had been given to understand that
the paper bad been sent to the Ambassadors re-
presenting his Majesty abroad. Those who took
in the paper, and paid for it, in his opinion, paid
for amoral assassination.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said the Noble
Lord was just as correct in his foreign politics
as he was in his Trish information.(A laugh.)—
If the Noble Lord would satisfy him that any
person in his office had circulated this Paper in
the way to whiCh the Noble Lord had alluded,
that .person should be immediately discharged.---
(Hear, hear o—With respect to female honour,
he knew not whether. he might venture to rival
the -Noble'Lord in this respect—(a laUgh)—but
he could ass'u're the Noble Lord-that he. viewed
any attack upon female honour with as much in-
dignation as himself. Libels, however, of the
most atrocious description had been circulated
against the highest characters, and had been but
too generally encouraged.' Even Majesty itself
had been attaCked in the most daring manner;
and he shotild be glad to know whether the
Noble Lord himself had never taken in Mr:
lloneTs publication.—(Cheers.)
COURTENAY said, the attention of the
House ought not to be-drawn into a general- dis;
cession, when the immediate question arose out
of-a distinct paragraph. He though the analogy
of the two cases perfectly clear. The libel was
equally false in both cases; and justice, he
thought, should be distributed with an equal
hand.
Lord 'JOHN RUSSELL, in explanation, observed,
that he could not say that he had taken in Mr.
Hone's publications.
Mr.W.Smrrifsaid,he would never give his vote
for bringing a Printer to the Bar of that House
for what is called a political libel. The present
case, however, was that which resulted from a
false accusation against a Member of having told
a falsehood from fear. The accusation might
-have led to a-murderous quarrel, and he thought
no punishment too severe for it. The libel of
1819 involved a question of interest. He thought
the person who. was called to the Bar of the
House in 1819,-had not misrepresented Wilfully.
The present was a wilful and malicions libel, and
he therefore should vote for the severer punishment.
It really seemed that his Noble Friend (Lord'
Nugent) wished this delinquent to escape, merely
because he was a mean, dirty, Prevaricating fel-
low.
Mr. C.HurcniNsoN protested against the com-
parison of the two cases. This he thought was
confounding innocence with guilt. The indivi-
dual (Mr. Collier) who was at the Bar in 1819,
was a gentleman of high respectability, and be-
longed to a most respectable establishment. That
gentleman had no intention to wound the feelings
of any one, and he believed no one at their Bar
had ever conducted himself with so much pro-
priety- and manliness as Mr. Collier, and no man
had .ever been subjected to the censure of the
House more innocently. The present; on the
other hand, was a case of gross, malicious, and
unmanly libel. lie was generally inclined to.
lenient punishment in all cases; and his object
in rising had been principally to do justice to a
most respectable individual.
Mr. WILMOT said he should support the mo-
tion for the severer punishment, as he thought the
analogy which had been drawn between the two
cases was completely destroyed.
Mr. BARING said that more of party feeling
had been exhibited in the debate than he could
have wished ; but he trusted lion. Members
would divest themselves of this feeling on coming
to the vote. He regretted that the House could
not come to an unanimous decision.
Mr. BANKES begged to suggest to his Noble
Friend (the Marquis of Londonderry), that he
should withdraw his Amendment, as a consider-
able part of the House was opposed to it..
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, that what
be had heard in the course of the night upon the
two cases had certainly altered his original view
of the present question, and he thought the pre-
cedent of 1519 -had better be broken than ob-
served.- Ile,therefore should certainly withdraw
his Amendment, '
Sir J. MACKINTOSH. said, that as: the' Noble
Marquis had withdrawn his Amendment in con-
sequence of:-what had passed, he presumed his
Noble Friend (Lord Nugent) would-a inulto for-
tiori feel himself pressed to withdraw his Amend-
ment,'.whiCh*4. .for the Mildest punishment of
• The paper-in , question he thought was di-.
rected by the most savage hostility, and had a
tendency to barbarize political warfare. •
Lord NUGENT acquiesced. he should With-
draw his amendment, which be had been inclined
to make because be thought the -contemptible.
person in question was not the author of the libel.
He (Lord Nugent) thought that one of thenu-
merous falsehoods uttered -by that individual at
the Bar, bad been his statement that he was the
author.- -
Mr. BROUGHAM begged to be alloWed'to state
his recollection of what -Occurred in. the case of
'Mr. Collier. In his opinion the House was not
called• upon to act so inconsistently-as was by
some =imagined. lie had understood that the
House had there awarded the lesser punishment,
itspan-a conviction that 'the misrepresentation was
not wilful but unintentional, and- that the gen-
tleman who made it made it innocently.—(Hear.)
—Circumstaniesi were mentioned- -by hirri -at the
-Bar-to establish'.this:fact t• his manner of stating
them (for:that ought always to 'be taken 'into the
account), which. had, produced a strong feeling
in his favour; the consistency of the statement,
and the confirmatory evidence-of a -Member, who
intimated that-he had some recollectitwon the'

subject, (whether precise or .not, „Ite (Mr..
13r09gliarn.) „Ohl nathear in snind), all tended to-,
show that. the report of the speech of the Mts.
Member- foy ,Abertleeti (Mr. Hume): was:"ira-
tended. to be, given fairly and truly. It ap-
peared in eVidence that while the young ',gen--
tiers-tan was' occupied. ig taking notes, a noise
occurred. in the gallery;- which' prevented him
froth hearing distinctly, and ;he therefore took
the sentence complained of, or part of it, from
a stranger who professed to give it correctly: In
the case now before the' House, all these circum-
stances were wanting, but especially that iinpor-
tant circumstance of testimony to the respectabi-
lity 'of the character of the individual which Mr.
Collier had received from a most unexception-
able quarter.—(Hear, hear!)-L--If, indeed, he
had been guilty of inserting a falsehood for the
purpose of gratifying private malignity, he (Mr.
Brougham), instead of
.being inclined- to spew
him the slightest lenity, should have voted for
the severest infliction ; for he knew of no punish-
ment that could be too severe for so wilful and
detestable an offence. It was needless to dwell
on the distinctions between the two cases ; for in.
that' immediately under -consideration, not a
single circumstance of --exculpation had been
shewn : all palliation being out of the question,
he felt called upon to support the severer reso-
lUtion for sending the offenders to Nets-gate.
Lord NUGENT said, he must maintain his opi-
nion, altliough he had consented 'to withdraw his
amendment, through deference to the general
Wish of the House.—The House then divided—
For the Motion - - - 109
• Against it - - - - - 23
Majority for Mr. Baring's motion , that H.
F. Cooper be sent to Neirgate - - -36

Upon our re-admisSiOn, to the Gallery, we
found the House engaged in a.discussion as to the
mode of disposing of the remaining parties who
had been examined at the Bar. . _

Mr. S. BOURNE thought the House was placed
in an embarrassing situation, in being called upon
to punish persons for what they had done in the
course of an, examination at the Bar of that House
into their private concerns. That examination
had certainly been carried further than even -he'
had recollected the House ever to have gone be-
fore, and had it not been for the obloquy attached
to such an interference,, he should more than
once have stood up for the protection. of the wit-
nesses against questions tending to criminate
themselves. Besides this, many Members could
not be prepared to vote on this part of the ques-
tion,'not having been present during the whole
of the evidence. In order to enable them to form
a judgment, the evidence ought to be printed; but
he was prevented from voting for that, fr,or-2
conviction that a'great part of the examination
had been of so indiscreet a nature on the part of
the House, that it would not reflect much credit
upon it.
Sir J. -m k_cioN•rosn expressed deep. regret that
his Hon. Friend who had just 'Spoken . should
have been able to sit silently by and witness the
continuance of an examination which he consider-
ed as derogatory to the House, and dangerous to
its reputation, without interfering. He did
not know how • his Honourable Friend could
reconcile to his: mind, for fear of the obloquy
attendant upon interference, to remain
,silent,
whilst a radically unjust and oppressive course
was being pursued by the House. When it was
too late, and the statethent. was gone abroad, he
could get, up and do his utmost to bring the
greatest unpopularity upon -the House, as far
as in him lay. He regretted that a man whom
he highly esteemed could be capable of making
such a statement to • the House. He regretted
also that he did not point out in what respect
in this examination the. House had gone be-
yond the bounds set by the farmer practice
of Parliament in similar cases. He (Sir J.
Mackintosh) maintained that they were to be guid-
ed in this case by the .ex et consicetuda
and as the Hon. Member had not pointed
out any deviation from that principle, he would,
undertake to be able to,shew, that in the material
:parts of the .examination there had been no trans-
gression of the practice of. Parliament hitherto.—
Besides, he conceived his Hon. Friend had made
a direct reflection on the want of proper vigil-
ance in that Right Hon. Person, who, from his.
office, is the guardian of the honour and good
conduct, of that House. Had his watchfulness
slumbered .for a moment such an improper course
would have been stopped by, some lion. Mem-
ber; for he was sure there were some who would
not' have: silently looked on and suffered the
HOuSe to cast disgrace and infamy on itself, and
then come forward, when too late, to rivet that
disgrace, the more firmly. ' He had before declar-
ed how much
.tie deplored the lukeWarmness of
many Members of .that House, but now he must
.state, that -if he thought there were many who
could be guilty of such conduct as this, he should
think the House near its deStruction:

Mr. S. BOURNE, in explanation, said he had
never tisetlthe words "infamy" or" disgrace" at
all, still less had he applied them to that House.
He had stated his fair opinions, and he must say,
that he still thought that it was carrying on eX-
atnination beyond Its just limits when it went to
elicit answers rendering the persons who gave
them liable to punishment for. the offence which
they proved thereby against themselves.--
(Cheers:)—He had so often on forthei occasions
interfered to restrain questions without success,
'that he confessed, he felt backward to draw on
himself; the obloquy of So doing when it was to
•
,have no. effect. . ,
Sir J. MACKINTOSH explained.
Mr, SCARLETT observed, that the length and minuteness
of examination 'complained of by the Right llon. Member were
rendered, necessary by the prevarication of the, witnesses; which
,made it necessary to send-for all the others.; •
Sir:W. DE CRESPI.GNY made a few:observations; which
were not-audible in the gallery. " •
'Lord NI7GENT and Mr. S. .Bour.NE mutually explained.
Mr. WI-N..4: said, that the witness' Weaver had beer.
clearly guilty of .pievarication, arid it was difficult to object to
a question, unless the motive of was known.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY observed,' that if the
discussion were to betontinued upon the comparative testimony
of the witnesses, it would be better to have the .I•videnee printed,
and the decision deferred: This was a case hi which the House
ought to avoid incurring thetharge of precipitation.
•Sir JOHN NEWPORT coincided- in the 'opinion of the
Noble Marquess.
Mr. DENMAN said, he was not prepared to vote all the
witnesses guilty of prevarication, without having the whole'eyi---
.sle,ncerevousiy printed. • He had voted for sending the:editor

to Parliament (a cry of ,Newgate,, and a lawb)—he meant '
Newgkte, becaii Se! lie 'hitt .'head'Vzhaf Zt.€
llouse_alean) ;
. . . . . J
Mr. BERNAL thought that after. the.gon.: ItlembcT •fpr
Shrewsbury had cleared u his honour, it WoUld,aSeheen
better not to proceeded with this case: • )
Mr. W. SMITH contended, that the, House must- have the-
power of coming at the truth by examination ; 'andifit.pps,
sessal that power,- it must' also'poss es's • the' power : of 'eatiStitin g
„fo; Kevaiitiation thiar. If the House wcrc to agree to
come-to resolutions of ttlfisure(helkhould not dish to to any ;
farther, and'it would then be unuece:zary to print the eviden,ce.
He moved,'" That it is the opinion of this llouse,'th'at:R. T.
Weaier has grossly prevaricated in . the evidence he has gisen
before this House." . ••• , •
..„
Mr. T. WILSON said, that having been present during the
whole of the exaininatiOn, he was enabled- 07state:that-there
was More impropriety in the examination of , the Rouse, -..than
prevarication on the Weaver
of the witness. It did not Appear to
him that the witness Weaver hail been guilty of that prevaiica-
tion ascribed to him. ; He believed that Messrs. Shaeliell'and
Arrowsmith, finding the difficulties they were likely.. to-get into
from the nature of their publicacion, had some time :back. made
a bargain with Weaver, that if he would take the responsibility
ofi' their backs, he should in return become proprietor. Consi-
dering the time they had spent already in the business, .11e;was
not disposed to go any further into it.
Lord STANLEY said he was present at the whole of the
examination, and he must say that if ever he witnessed a gross
attempt to defeat the ends of justice by prevarication, it was in
those witnesses. They all of them seemed to have some mental
reservation, and in every answer chewed a wish to induce A.dif-,
ferent meaning from what they in fact entertained. . .; •
The Gallery was then cleared for a envision.,
During our absence, we understand some conversation ensued;
when Mr.. W. Smicrit proposed to withdraw his amendthent,
and substitute for it, " That R. T. Weaver be ordered into the•
custody' of the Serjeant at Arms, and be brought to the flat, to
be reptunanded by the Speaker." This was. oppos-A by, Mr.
WYNNE, who moved, " That R. T. Weaver be sent to. ew-
gate." On this the House divided, when the numbers .werei—
For Mr. Smith's, Motion - - - - - - -
Against it 7 ---- - •' 34- •
Majority in favour of Mr. Wynnes Amendment -7

When strangers were re-admitted,
Mr. BROUGHAM was speaking.—He vas" ot prepared to
give a vote on the case of the individuals nowbefore the house,
without Having the printed evidence before him. Whether they
had prevaricated or not, he did not know at that time, and
therefore he wished the further consideration of the subject to
be adjeurned. .
-
Mr. BARING tind Sir J. Nk-Wrore offered a few words
which could not be distinctly heard in the gallery.
_Sir W. DE‘CRESPIGN 4 moved that the evidence should
be printed.
Sir C. LONG hearing the whole of Mr. Arrowsmith's evi-
dence, could see nothing like prevarication in- it. Ile had heard
nearly the whole of :Mr. 'Weaver's evidence, arid did not see that
he had prevaricated. He doubted whether, consistently with
the dignity of the House, they could go further.
Mr. BARING wished the motion to be withdrawn. It did
not seem desirable that they should proceed further. He did
not know that the parties had prevaricated. Though their evi-
dence was by no means clear, he slid not think they would be
justified in doing more than they had already done.
Colonel DAVIES, thought would appear rather extraor-
dinary if they were now to stop short and let the two greater
delinquents escape 'punishment. It might be better not to no-
tice such cases at all ; but if once taken up_, they could admit
of no half measures, and ought to go on. He hoped the pietism
Would be persevered in.
Mr. C. WYNN had no doubt, and he thought the House
Could have none, that the individuals on whose case they were
now to decide, were the Proprietors of the Paper. ' To him ,it
appeared that they were more guilty than the men of straw who
had been already -committed to Newgate. He did not consider
.that it was necessary to print the evidence. In a case like the
_present, where the offence complained of was proved to have
been committed by the pasties brought before them, he thought
the heaviest punishment ought to be inflicted.
Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY considered there were sufficient
grounds for moving that the evidence should be printed.
The Gallerv-was cleared for a /division, but the House did
not divide. We understand the minutes of evidence were or-
dered to be printed ; and it was intimated to. Messrs. Arrow-
smith and Shackle that they were at liberty to depart.

SUPPLY =AFFAIRS OF EUROPE.
Mr. R. WARD moved that the House should
resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. lltrcnissoN, though he had so lately, ad-
dressed the House on the subject of the present
state of Europe, was desirous of again calling the
attention of the House to the passing events,
which he thought endangered the liberties of this
country as well as others, and at Least record his
own sentiments on the Journals. He wished to
go at large into the subject, but feeling, for va-
rious reasons, that it would he improper to detain
the• House then, he would fix a motion ,for the
first open day, which was Tuesday, the 22d inst.

ORDNANCE.
HumE called the attention of the House to
the extravagance of the OrdnanCe establishment.
He was the more anxious to do this, as it had
been recently stated by the Hon. Gentleman,
the Clerk of the Ordnance, that the utmost
anxiety had been.manifested by the Noble. Duke
at the heak of that department to :adopt
measures of economy •in every 'department.—
The
,estiMate fur the present year was .1,327,000/.
This was 53,0001. less than the estimate for
1820 ;. but making a deduction, whieh ,ought
to be taken into the account for old stores,
from this apparent saving it would be fOund that
the public paid exactly the same as in 1820. In
three years 1790, 1791, and 1792, the average
amount of the Ordnance Estimates was 473,0001.
Their average amount in 1818, 1819, and 18.20,
was 1,286,6531., being three times as much as
that of the foriner period. It ought to be known
to the House that there was a difference between
the Estimates for the Ordnance and the actual
expenditure, amounting, to. some hundreds of
thousands of pounds. To shew this, he would
take three years, 1817, 1818, and 1819, the ac-
counts of those having been made up. From
these it would be seen that the total amount
Of the 7 . -

- - - - • ,
Ordnance Estimates in those years was - £3,764,000
The Expenditure was• - - -• 1;387,000

Making a difference of - 4623,000
In the Ordnance Estimates, nothing was' charged
for ships used toCarry stores backwards and for-
wards,., yet these, it would be found, created
a charge of 11,5001. He adverted to other
charges that were kept out of sight, com-
plained of the mode in which the accounts
were-kept, and repeated What he had before as-
serted, that so far was that department from being
distinguished by its regard for economy, that the
greatest negligence prevailed. I,t had been
triumphantly announced to the House, that 68
persons connected with the Ordnance had been
reduced Since the Noble Duke (the Duke of
Wellington) had been placed at the head of the
Departtfient. But it appeared from the Returns
he had moved for, that since 1816, 67 new ap-
poii,anients had taken place. These took the
situations of those who were.placed on halfq)ay.
SOme of these who had been so lately appointed,
had been placed on half-pay after two years ser-
vice. Among these persons were some of the
ages of thirty-Seven and forty-three; and there
was one person dio was sixty-three years old.
Others were but seventeen or eighteen 'years of
age, and One was aged only fifteen years and
ten Months. He thereforecontended/the Board
of Ordnance was not' entitled to the confidence
'of the House. as every Department ought to
. •
be, with respect .to r the. pensions and al),
pointaients; I he. precept though

63,q0Nr,loAler:than those-of iit-10; t:xceeded the
-Estsicnate of 4819 by no-le,ss than' 1:1-5,000/., and
43,4341. above the average, of the Estimates of
1818, •18191-and 1820; lie thought there was
no necessity for so large an Ordnance Establish-
ment." The Ise ought not• to :sanction such
lEstimates. lie. --then yrnovet.ll:san Amendment,
whiclt embodied the principal comparative state-
ments%in i s speech, and:finished with a recom-
mendation •to the Committee to sanction every
practical reduction of expen-ce:in the Ordnance
Department.' -

Mr.R.: WARD • suggested that "it might be
more:, convenient that the ifouie•should go into
the Committee before he-..rep. to the Hon.
Gentleman.
.

- Colonel -DAvuEs thought- it iwould be better
that the. debate should. 'be -taken before the
Speaker-left the Chair, and that. the Committee
should be.postponed till Monday:
.The Marquess of •LosnaxnErtn-1-'was of opi-
nion that it would be better "to go into the Com-
mittee, as he did not think the explanations ne-
cessary to be given -could be so:WM:supplied in
the House... To-the Ainendmeaftiy.as.ernbodying a
truism, that all practicable-redaetion'aught to be
-effected in the Ordnance Departmerii; he could
not-: object ; but were ;Me-tided to cast a
censure bylinplication. on Ministers:in this way,
he must-oppose it.
Mr. BENNET thought the subjeefinight be con-
veniently discussed in the Committee, but ob-
jected to going into into prejudice the motion of
his Hon. Friend.
WARD said that the "answer to some
parts of the lion. Gentleman's statement was ex-
trernely easy. The amount of the: Present esti-
mates had ,been stated to exceed that of the esti-
mates:of other years. This might-appear to be
the fact, but it arose from the manner in which'
the accounts had been kept. Fo.rrne:rly, a great
many-grants of former years remained on hand
that had not been expended. Ile-had frequently
seen credits of the Navy of five, six, and seven
years standing. To make the house understand
the subject, -he must go into a hiSiciry of the
Ordnance expenditure. It appearetithe present
estimates exceeded that of 1810, by: a coisidera•
'.ble sum. That sum was in a great pat Cconsumed
-by-the' grant of 1818, which had remained itt
hand,- -and which had been carried to the service
of 1819. Grants had been left in hand at vari-
ous times through different causes. - Some years
' ago credit was taken fcr a'sum to defray, the ex-
-pence of fortifying the Island of Bermuda. It
Was not fortified for a year or two, and
part of the grant remained to be. expend-
ed in 1819, though it had been voted perhaps
in 1816. In particular cases the Ordnance
advanced advanced sums for the Army, 'the Navy, or -the
Treasury, which were afterwards repaid by those
'Departments. These might ,not appear in the
estimates, but- nothing was unfairly kept back
from the [louse.

Mr. BENNETT objected to the manner in NI hicit
the Ordnance Accounts had been kept.
Mr. R. WARD thought this had better' be olis-
- in the Committee. It had been his wisp
to alter the mode of keeping the accounts.

The House divided— • •
For the Motion - .119
For the Amendment - - - - - 56
Majority - - -
On our re-admission to the -Callery,,we fond
the House in the Committee. .
11Ir. Wan]) rose to open the Estimates. The Itt'
Hon.Gent.in a speech replete with fact anti strog
argument, answered the objections of GentleW'
'on
the other side of the House in the mast V.':
umphant manner. He observed that, conAderi'"A
the opposition which had been shown to the
Ordnance Department, his object was to take oF
the whole of the subject, and explain to tbe
House and the- Country the nature of that W.'
vice.• Pursuing that course, he should.show all tl6,
bearings of the different estimates, and make 10i'
foreconotny,, where it could be fairly suggest
At the same time he should priAest against th:"I
petty warfare which had been recently carrieit,
on, namely, fighting upon minute details.
was desirous.,of taking up the subject as a greetsukject, and to discuss it on a liberal scale;
if the Opposition was to be confined to petty
tails-, he- should call it petty warfare. A Prf,,,Jl,
dice appeared to prevail with respect to the u"ay
nance Service. Some persons supposed it
confined to , the direction of a few objects, "I":,
nected with the artillery and engineers, to the c7l,
tent of 7Or 8000 men. The Ordnance Peller
ment IV '7, S. however of great importance. IP orl
to enable 7 orl3ooo metl to take the field it `r a,
necessary to incur expence. it was also 4 pee
of
vice especially required by.that great bulwar
the country, the„navy. Without the Ord.urei.
Service. .the navy could- not present a it-'
dable shape to the enemies-of the country. 'tbe
naval service consumed a great portion Ot.„,;re
Ordnance Stores, and the Ordnance there
became _a depot for the Navy. In fact, to
whole force of the country depended on ;i,e
Ordnance Department. With respect t°
present expence of the Ordnance Seri' 0„
the Committee would find it comparatively Jaeo
The expence of the Ordnance had of late bcof
much reduced, notwithstanding.the extensiOits,
Trade and Colonies, which marked the prosllee,,je,
of the EMpire. Looking as far back as the ,:loat
of Cromwell (1652), when England was vFitd to
Colonies, the Ordnance *expellee amouhtc,Tiee,
128,000/., computing the value. of money c`-tbe
and attaching, to the service the half-pay
present day, the expence could not have "t $
less than half a million. It would appear tbb3ce4
regular and uniform system of economy ha" ]le
adopted during a number of years Past' h;ect
founded what he asserted , on that sa".'
upon absolute reports of the Finance Com'n'ti3tll
which would justify ail he said. In the Bs,
Report of the Commissioners of :aners
loort of the greatest merit,. the Coroolis-s'%oo
stated, that they had found every disP"
in the Ordnance Department to afford 11,1t11
formation and promote economy. The Rile'
Report was equally favourable. The 'rijed
Honourable Gentleman referred to other
bee
ports, in which recOmmenclation. had
w to'
given to- resort to matters of
.vcOnPi"-,l' ten
flay. had strictly'attended to.. I the C°'ll-, ..
,
•.• • -