Sitting of 13 July 1846

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT. For St. Ives, v. William Tyringham Praed, Esq., deceased.—For County of of Kilkenny, v. Hon. Pierce Butler, deceased.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN. For London, Right Hon. Lord John Russell.—For Tower Hamlets, Charles Richard Fox, Esq.—For Halifax, Right Hon. Charles Wood.—For Devonport, Right Hon. Sir George Grey, Bart.—For Taunton, Right Hon. Henry Labouchere.—For Chester, John Jervis, Esq.—For Evesham, Lord Marcus Hill.—For Greenwich, James Whitley Deans Dundas, Esq.—For Gloucester, Hon. Maurice Frederick Fitzhardinge Berkeley.—For Nottingham, Right Hon. Sir John Cam Hobhouse, Baronet.—For Tiverton, Viscount Palmerston.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2o. Ordnance Survey; Western Australia; New Zealand Loan.
Reported. Baths and Washhouses; Battersea Park.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Compton; from Minister, Churchwardens, and Principal Inhabitants of the Parish of North Stoneham, against the Union of Saint Asaph and Bangor, but at the same time providing for the Immediate Appointment of a Bishop to the newly erected See of Manchester.—By Mr. John Dundas, from Shipowners and Agents of and at Kingston upon Hull, praying that all Expenses for the Erection and Maintenance of Lighthouses, Floating Buoys, and Beacons on the Coasts of the United Kingdom, should be henceforth defrayed out of the Public Revenue.—By Mr. Morris, from Richard Bullock, late of Sheffield, in the County of York, and now of Islington, in the County of Middlesex, complaining of Loss of Practice consequent upon the passing of the Act to Amend the Law of Insolvency, Bankruptcy, and Execution, and praying that his Case might be taken into consideration, and some Compensation or Employment granted him.—By Lord John Manners, from Merchants, Tradesmen, and other Inhabitants dwelling within the Jurisdiction of the Newark Court of Requetss, in favour of the County Courts Bill (1844).—By Mr. Smith, from Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the City and Borough of Norwich, respecting the Employment and Reformation of Discharged Prisoners.—By Lord John Manners, from Fustian Cutters of Manchester, Salford, Warrington, Lymm, Heywood, Royton, and their Vicinities, for the Adoption of some Measures regulating their Trade.—By Viscount Adare, and Mr. Christie, from several places, for Repeal or Alteration of Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.—By Mr. Barnard, from Members of the Justices Clerks' Society, for Alteration of the Poor Removal Bill.—By Captain Pechell, from a number of places, praying that Trading in Prostitution may be made a Penal Offence.—From Wholesale and Retail Traders, Householders, and Inhabitants of and in the Vicinity of Lincoln's Inn Fields, Westminster, for Redemption of Tolls on Waterloo and other Bridges.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—HIGHWAYS BILL.
SIR J. GRAHAM: There are three
1066
Orders of the Day which stand for this evening, with reference to which I wish to make some observations. The first is the Highways Bill, which stands for the second reading, the principle of which has not been adopted by the House. I observe that several petitions have been presented against this Bill, and different opinions are entertained respecting it; and, looking at the period of the Session, the length of the Bill, and the progress made in the Bill, I think it would be better that I should at once withdraw it, and let it become a dropped order. With respect to another Bill, the Poor Removal Bill, that has been read a second time; and I confess I am most anxious that, at least as to some portions of that Bill, some progress should be made in the present Session; and I allude more particularly to that part of it which provides that persons residing for a fixed number of years should have the right of not being removed from their residence. There are other parts of the Bill which I am of opinion are not necessarily concomitant with that provision, and for which it is not necessary to demand the sanction of the present Parliament. But, considering that this is a measure of so much importance, I do not think it expedient that an individual Member of the House should take charge of it. I should be quite willing, if it be the wish of the House and of the noble Lord opposite and his Colleagues, to take charge of the Bill, to which I attach great importance; but, upon the whole, I think, subject to the concurrence of the House, that it will be better to leave it in the hands of Her Majesty's present Government, who will deal with it in such a manner as they shall think best for the public good. I propose, therefore, to postpone this Order of the Day till Thursday next; and on Thursday the noble Lord will say what course he will take with respect to it. The other measure I refer to has come down from the other House; its principle has, I believe, received the sanction of this House. I attach great importance to this measure, with respect to which there is no great difference of opinion. It is a measure for enlarging the powers given to the Enclosure Commissioners respecting disputed boundaries; and, generally speaking, for improving and enlarging the powers given by the Act of last Session. There are some clauses which I wish to introduce into this Bill, and I hope the House will allow it to go through Committee pro formâ; and if this arrangement is convenient

1067
to the Government and to the House, it would afford the House an opportunity of exercising its judgment upon the subject. These are the arrangements which I propose to make with, the consent of the House.
MR. V. SMITHsuggested to the right hon. Baronet whether, instead of withdrawing the Highways Bill, he could not proceed with parts of the Bill which were not objected to, and which might pass with the consent of the House. It was a measure very much wanted. There was one provision making it compulsory on districts instead of parishes, which was a valuable arrangement, as well as the putting highway rates under a more effectual audit. The right hon. Baronet had earned so much honour by this measure, that he hoped he would not cast off a Bill which was so beneficial, and parts of which he had an opportunity of passing without any difficulty whatever.
SIR J. GRAHAM: I am not disposed to shrink from any personal labour in endeavouring to carry the measure referred to by the right hon. Gentleman; but when I look at the late period of the Session, and at the amount of business of paramount importance which remains to be transacted, I cannot think it possible that in the present Session sufficient time can be given to this Bill. Regarding the enactments to which the right hon. Gentleman attaches importance, namely, that the management of highways in districts should be made compulsory, that is the essence of the measure, and the machinery to carry it out is contained in the Bill; that is the best part of the Bill, and yet it is objected to in many quarters. So that, upon the whole, it seems better that the measure should stand over till another Session. But if the right hon. Gentleman pleases, I shall be glad to hand over the measure to him.
SIR G. GREY: I think the principle of the Bill is a good one; but, looking at the opposition it has met with in various quarters, the postponement of it, I think, will tend rather to advance than retard the measure.
Order of the Day for the second reading of the Highways Bill put off till that day six months.

POOR REMOVAL BILL.
On the Motion that the Order of the Day for the committal of the Poor Removal Bill be postponed till Thursday,
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he understood
1068
when those great measures of commercial reform which had just passed through Parliament were proposed that the Poor Removal Bill, the Highway Rates Bill, and another Bill, for the purpose of giving some sort of compensation to the tenant-farmers, were to be part and parcel of those "great and comprehensive" measures, and that the Government of the day were pledged to the passing of them—as a portion of their great and comprehensive scheme of commercial reform. These three measures, in short, were proposed as a sort of inducement to the country Gentlemen to permit the passing of the great and comprehensive measures of commercial reform. He had said at the time the promise was made that he entertained some suspicion as to the good faith of the Government with respect to these measures, and that the people of the manufacturing districts had just cause to complain of their conduct with regard to the Poor Removal Bill. The right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had said, and the late First Minister of the Crown agreed with him, that the honour and faith of Parliament were pledged to these measures, and that he would see to their being carried and conducted to a safe and successful issue, so that they and "the great and comprehensive measures of commercial reform" might go on pari passu. Well, what was the course to be taken now with regard to the Highways Bill? The right hon. Baronet had now thrown it over; and now, when they came to the Poor Removal Bill, that he presumed was also to be thrown over by the noble Lord; and the right hon. Baronet said now that it was not imperatively necessary that these measures should be carried if the consent of all parties could not be obtained. If the pledges of Ministers were to be thus broken, he wanted to know what the public and the labouring classes would think of the pledges of the Ministers of the Crown? They were bound to pass the Poor Removal Bill before the Irish Coercion Bill. On one occasion, when the Coercion Bill was brought forward, he contended that the Poor Removal Bill should be taken into consideration first, because he foresaw what was about to take place. And what had taken place since? The late Government had, in his opinion, been guilty of a gross breach of faith in not having proceeded with these measures which were held out as measures of compensation to certain parties. What the noble Lord was going to do with the Poor Removal Bill he

1069
knew not; but he thought that he should not be far wrong in saying that that Bill would not pass this Session of Parliament. Those who were responsible for it—those who had introduced it, had deserted it; and he would only add that consequently the working classes had been hardly dealt with, and that they had just cause to complain of the conduct of the late Government.
SIR J. GRAHAM: Sir, before the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) addresses the House, as the hon. Member for Finsbury has brought a charge against the late Government of a breach of faith, I hope the House will allow me to make a few observations. The hon. Gentleman says that the measure has been thrown over by the Government. I think he should have said that the Government itself has been thrown over, having lost the confidence of the House. If I had now been one of Her Majesty's advisers and enjoyed the confidence of the House, I should not have had the least difficulty as to this measure, and it would have been my duty to proceed with it. So far from the measure being abandoned, I am yet to learn that Her Majesty's present advisers will not, in the present Session, obtain the consent of Parliament to that important provision for giving the poor the great advantage of residence. I am of opinion, and I think the majority of the House is of that opinion, that this is the most important part of the measure; and my opinion is, that unless accompanied with a union settlement, many parts of the Bill will be attended with great hardship. I am willing that other parts of the Bill should be tried as an experiment; but I think that the parts which the hon. Member for Finsbury thinks of the most importance will prove harsh without a union settlement. I should say that such of the separate clauses of the Bill as had received the sanction of the majority of the House might pass into a law; but as to charging the late Government with a breach of faith, I assure the hon. Member that if we had remained in the service of Her Majesty it was our fixed intention to have proceeded with the measure, and I hope the noble Lord will proceed with it, and that it will pass and become law.
LORD J. RUSSELL: After what has passed, it may be convenient that I should state to the House the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Poor Removal Bill, which may tend, in some degree, to remove the suspicions of
1070
the hon. Member for Finsbury. As I understand the right hon. Baronet now, and as I understood him before, it was his intention, if he had continued in office, to go on with this measure, and to add to its provisions that the poor should not be removable under it without a union settlement. The right hon. Gentleman now thinks it better that the Bill should be left in the hands of the present Government. Now, I assure the hon. Member for Finsbury, not only that we mean to proceed with this measure, but that it is the very first measure we mean to proceed with. But the House will do me the justice to recollect, that upon the instructions moved by the hon. Member for Malton, I expressed a very strong opinion as to union settlements, and considerable doubt whether, though they might be beneficial in certain cases, they would on the whole operate beneficially. Now, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport hopes on Thursday next to go into Committee on this Bill, and settle whether the period shall be five years or shorter, to enable poor persons who have resided in a particular district to establish their claim to relief in the district in which they have resided. With respect to that part of the Bill which relates to union settlement, I propose to leave out that part of the Bill, and to make it a matter for inquiry. The hon. Member for Evesham has given notice of a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the Poor Law; and I believe the right hon. Gentleman opposite was not prepared on the part of the late Government to offer any objection to a general inquiry into that subject. At any event, if there be any likelihood of this inquiry being prosecuted with effect in the present Session, or if not, then in the next Session, I would not object to an inquiry into the whole law of settlement—it is a most difficult and complicated question, and I think most important evidence can be received with respect to it. I am not satisfied now with the adoption of union settlements by this House without further inquiry; but I do trust that a Bill which will give all the benefits of the Bill as first introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, will pass during the present Session. Having said thus much with respect to the Poor Law Removal Bill, I may perhaps be permitted to make a short statement to the House. Her Majesty's Ministers have but lately accepted office; since that period they have been in distant parts of the country for the purpose of their elections, and, as they

1071
have not all assembled yet, I do not think it will be wise or advisable now to state the particular measures with which we shall proceed, or in what respect it may be advisable to adopt or alter the Bills now before the House; but I will take an early opportunity of making this statement, and I hope to do so on Thursday next. There is one subject in particular with respect to which I will make a statement on Thursday as to the day when I will bring forward my proposal—I mean the important question of the Sugar Duties. I am aware of the importance of that subject, and the injury done to the trade by a protracted suspense. I will therefore on Thursday next fix an early day for that discussion. I believe, also, it will be necessary to give notice of a Bill to continue for a further limited period the present duties, as the measure which I may introduce may give rise to considerable discussion, and it will not be desirable to lose the present amount of duties. I know not whether I have any further statement now to make to the House, and I trust that the House will give me till Thursday next to make the statement to which I have referred.
MR. WAKLEYhad heard with great satisfaction the statement of the noble Lord. He had taken the right course on a subject which was of great importance, and had attracted great attention in the country. The noble Lord had promised an inquiry into the whole subject; and he, therefore, trusted that the Committee would be appointed early in the next Session, and that nothing further would now be done than giving the poor the protection of relief after a residence for a certain time. He believed the noble Lord to have proposed the best course, and he hoped it would receive the sanction of the House.
SIR J. PAKINGTON, also, expressed his high satisfaction at the course about to be taken by the noble Lord.

CAPTAIN WARNER'S INVENTIONS.
On the Motion that the Speaker do leave the chair for the House to go into a Committee of Supply,
VISCOUNT INGESTRErose for the purpose of again bringing under the notice of the House the invention of Mr.—for he was told that he must not call him Captain—Warner. He was aware that he incurred a great deal of ridicule by his perseverance on this subject; but he was aware, too, of the value and originality of the discovery, and that no fair trial had yet been
1072
afforded to the inventor. Before long he was confident that the subject would attract a great deal of attention. The noble Lord entered into an examination of the correspondence, at various times laid upon the Table, and read an extract of a letter, dated the 25th of May, 1842, to show that Sir K. Peel had been mistaken, in point of fact, when he stated that Mr. Warner had required a direct promise of 400,000 l. for his invention. He also read passages from letters to the Master General of the Ordnance and to other persons, in order, as he said, to remove the erroneous impression that Mr. Warner was a swindler and an imposter. His Lordship maintained the reverse; and insisted, on the authority of the whole body of pilots at Brighton, that when the experiment was tried off that town, there were no ropes hanging from the exploded ship but such as had been used to tow her from Shoreham. The noble Lord also adverted to the subsequent offer of Mr. Warner to communicate his secret to Sir G. Murray, Sir R. Peel, and the naval Lord of the Admiralty, and expressed his regret that they had not consented to investigate the matter. The right hon. Baronet always, when applied to on the subject, paid great attention to it, as far as referring it to the ordinary channels; but on the latter being applied to, their invariable answer was, that they had no authority to act. The House was aware that there were two classes of inventions brought forward by Captain Warner—one which he denominated the "invisible shell," and the other, the "long range." Now, Captain Warner had always been most anxious that the first of these inventions should be investigated, and placed before the country on its own merits, before the other was at all considered; and he had repeatedly expressed his regret to him (Lord Ingestre) that he had ever been induced to mention the subject of the long range until the subject of the invisible shells was first in some manner disposed of, as both together had to so great an extent been made topics of amusement and ridicule. It was agreed on by the Commissioners appointed to investigate these inventions, that the invisible shells should first be investigated; but the correspondence which took place on this subject ended in an offer to appropriate a sum of 500 l. to the experiment, though Captain Warner had previously repeatedly stated the amount which the trial would require; and it was, therefore, absurd to suppose

1073
that he could go on with an expenditure of only one-fifth of that which he required. Of these Commissioners, though one was an experienced officer, the other was a young man whose experience could have been but small; and, as a proof that there was no intention to give the subject a fair trial, he might add, that Captain Warner's demand that a third Commissioner might be appointed on his nomination, who should be capable of explaining the principles of the invention, was refused, though the suggestion had met with the approval of Sir George Murray. When the late Mr. Somes gave the ship which was blown up at Brighton, the Government could have sent men on board to examine her, and could have adopted any other precaution that they might think necessary to satisfy them that there was no trickery intended to be practised. He (Lord Ingestre) could pledge his word of honour that there was no trickery in the matter. He had himself given the signal from the shore for the destruction of the vessel on that occasion; and he was permitted to take any moment for doing so that he might think proper out of a period of two or three hours. He wished to make this explanation, because he had put his name to a document, in conjunction with two naval friends, stating that the ship was destroyed in one minute after he hoisted the signal on the shore, though, as he had just observed, he was allowed any moment he wished, out of a period of two or three hours, for giving the signal, Captain Warner being altogether ignorant of the precise time to be selected. He would next refer to the astounding power possessed in this invention. When the matter was first brought under the notice of the late Sovereign, King William the Fourth, His Majesty referred it to that distinguished officer, Sir Richard Keats, who was afterwards assisted by Sir Thomas Hardy; and they reported the inventions to be of a most powerful character. The next authority to which he would refer was that of an officer who had seen a great deal of service, having been seventeen or eighteen times in action, and who was of the highest possible character and experience. He alluded to Lieutenant William Webster, who had been selected by Sir William Parker to report to the Government on the subject. [The noble Lord here road the report of Lieutenant Webster, in which he stated, in reference to the invention, that he was firmly convinced it was utterly impossible
1074
for anything afloat to resist it for a single moment.] In fact, a hundred sail of the line would be utterly useless against a single vessel provided with these invisible shells. Lieutenant Webster had since then unfortunately died; but he who knew that gentleman well, could bear testimony to his great ability and experience. [The noble Lord next read a letter from Sir George Murray, in which he expressed his belief of the possibility of discovering such destructive substances, and that he thought the application was the only difficulty.] He could also refer to the authority of Colonel Chalmers, who told him that he was quite satisfied of the experiment on the ship at Brighton; and he would further call as evidence the opinion of the great mass of the people who witnessed that experiment, and the bulk of whom felt convinced of its complete success. He had been ridiculed and laughed at on account of his advocacy of this invention; but feeling strongly on the subject, he could not as a naval officer of this country refrain from exercising his right of asserting his opinion, and showing the grounds on which that opinion rested. It had been alleged as one of the arguments against him, that the inventor of these shells, though called a captain, in reality held no such rank. He admitted the truth of this assertion. He believed that Captain Warner had in his early career been commander of a privateer employed in landing spies on the coast of France; but he was paid by the Government for this service. He performed that dangerous and difficult duty exceedingly well; and instead of its being a stain upon his character, it was in his (Lord Ingestre's) opinion an honour to him. There was no modern instance of a great discovery in which those who deserved the merit had not in the first instance to go through an ordeal, whilst others reaped the benefit. He might only allude to the instances of gas and steam. The man who introduced gas, from which they all derived so much benefit, died an insolvent debtor in prison. Again, they all knew the difficulties that were thrown in the way of the application of steam, and of that wonder of the present age—railways. Mr. Warner's mode of destroying ships and batteries was perfectly easy and feasible; and he asked the House to pause in the construction of harbours of refuge and fortifications until the merits of Captain Warner's inventions had been investigated, because they would then be found totally use-

1075
less. With one single ship, by means of these inventions, he (Lord Ingestre) could blockade or destroy a whole fleet in Brest, Cherbourg, or any other harbour. He implored the Government for these considerations to investigate the subject. He would be happy to render all the assistance in his power; and he hoped the House would give him credit for honest intentions in doing what he considered to be his duty to his country. The noble Lord read a letter addressed to himself from Captain Warner, dated July 2, in the present year, announcing his intention of applying to the now Administration for a fair investigation of his inventions, and entering into a statement of the privations and disappointments he had suffered. Last autumn the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth stated he would request the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Master General of the Ordnance to ascertain if something could not be done. Negotiations were consequently opened with the Earl of Haddington and Sir George Murray; but just as a meeting was about to be held, the noble Earl left the Admiralty, and suggested that the subject should rest until his successor was appointed. The question was therefore again renewed, and a meeting was appointed between the Earl of Ellenborough and Colonel Chalmers. They investigated the subject with great patience. Lord Ellenborough admitted the power of the inventions, but desired to have certain matters of detail cleared up, to which he (Lord Ingestre), on the part of Captain Warner, said at once there was no objection. This related to the invisible shell. Lord Ellenborough said, he would report to the Government in favour of an experiment being made; but the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) then said, it was the long range which was wanted, and that it must be referred to a committee of officers, upon the basis of the letter of 1845. He stated this was a departure from the investigation originally proposed; and that if a specific answer could not be given, he should conclude the Government meant to abandon the invisible shell. An investigation upon the basis of the letter of 1845 was vague and unsatisfactory; but notwithstanding this, he afterwards wrote a letter, inquiring how many and what officers were to constitute the committee. He was told there would be two officers appointed, Sir T. Hastings and Captain Chads. To Captain Chads, Captain Warner had no objection; but he did object to
1076
Sir T. Hastings, on the ground that he had already prejudged the case. The matter now rested in this state; and under these circumstances he requested from hon. Members a fair and candid perusal of the correspondence of 1844 and 1846. If he should succeed in calling the attention of the country to this important subject, he should feel he had not occupied the House unprofitably. He trusted the present Government would impartially consider this case. He was not in a position to give them general political support, but he should not offer them any factious or intemperate opposition. All he asked for on the part of Captain Warner was fair play and no favour; and he felt confident if that principle were adopted, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would one day thank him for having pressed this subject upon the attention of the Government. The noble Viscount concluded by moving an Address to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to give directions for the investigation of Mr. Warner's inventions.
CAPTAIN PECHELLseconded the Motion for the sake of investigation, but said he had no faith in the inventions. The hon. and gallant Officer ridiculed the experiments which had been hitherto made, and recommended the noble Lord to turn his attention to the promotion of free trade and the extension of commerce, rather than to the introduction of inventions which he firmly believed were not required.
SIR HOWARD DOUGLAS: Having in common with both my gallant associates, first, Vice Admiral Sir Edward Owen, and then Admiral Sir Byam Martin, declined having any thing more to do with this affair, unless positively ordered upon it, as a duty which we could not disobey, I should be too happy to escape from taking any part in this discussion, had not the noble Lord the Member for Staffordshire reflected upon the spirit and character of the Commission to which I had the honour to belong, in terms which, I think the House will admit, impose upon me the obligation of defending my gallant Colleagues and myself from the imputations which the noble Lord has cast upon our proceedings. The noble Lord, premeditating, as it now appears, this attack, and intending to refer particularly to my name, ought, I think, to have given me notice of such an intention, as due in courtesy. But I am too much of a tactician to be taken by surprise. I could not, indeed, have expected from

1077
the noble and gallant Member, that such an attack as this would be made, without notice to the parties accused; but, fortunately, I look at the Orders of the Day, and if I find anything likely to come on, in which I feel an interest, and may take a part, I arm myself with any minutes I may have made on that matter; and so, seeing the notice of the noble Lord in the Order of the Day, I put in my pocket the papers which I had Laid by two years ago, and thus luckily am provided with the ammunition which I am now, off-hand to use, without, however, having had time to refer to them in detail, to prepare myself the better to vindicate the conduct of the Commission on which I served. I shall answer, severally, in the course of what I have to say, the strictures and assertions of the noble Lord. First, as to the spirit and character in which our proceedings were conducted. To show this, it will be necessary to explain, in full, the stipulations and conditions under which I undertook, reluctantly, a duty which, having had a good deal to do with inventors and projectors, I foresaw would be difficult and laborious. And I request the attention of the House to a brief explanation of the several documents and minutes which became the basis of the instructions under which we acted, and in strict conformity with which the whole of our proceedings were regulated. When my gallant Friend, the late Master General of the Ordnance, with the concurrence of the late Prime Minister, requested me to undertake that duty, I did all I properly could to excuse myself, having then but recently returned from foreign service of considerable duration. But the proposition was pressed upon me in a manner which I could not decline: my acceptance, however, was conditional on certain stipulations which I made to Sir George Murray, in a letter dated the 31st of Dec. 1841, of which the following are extracts:—
"The duties of the commission will certainly be difficult, and highly responsible; but I undertake this as a duty, from which I feel that I ought not to shrink; and it affords me great satisfaction to learn that I am to be associated with such a person as Vice-Admiral Sir Edward Owen." I submitted "the necessity of coming to a clear and distinct understanding with Mr. Warner, in writing, as to the nature and extent of the preliminary experiments, and the locality where they are to be carried on; and that these be on a scale so extensive, as to ascertain, positively, the real service powers and effects of the invention." I stated that I should decidedly "object to anything short of experiments upon a large scale, to which, as they were to be made at the public expense, Capt.
1078
Warner could have no reason or pretence to object." I also stipulated "that I should have nothing whatever to do, either with the principle, or amount of reward or compensation, or be committed in any way with any proceeding that has already taken place, or with any expectation held out to, or entertained by Mr. Warner, as to any pledge, expressed or implied, for the purchase of his discovery." "I undertake this commission solely and entirely to investigate, ascertain, and verify by actual experiment the real service power, safety to the users, and practical utility of the invention, and reporting upon these accordingly, to leave the Government perfectly free to negotiate, or act in all respects thereafter with Mr. Warner as they may judge fit, on receiving our report of the absolute power, efficacy, and safety to the users of the invention, if applied by us, and consequently the detriment that would result to the national interests, by not scouring the secret to ourselves."
These conditions were expressly admitted; I was appointed, accordingly, a member of the Commission, and, by seniority, became its chief. Vice Admiral Sir Edward Owen signified to the Master General of the Ordnance on the 5th of January, 1842, his acceptance of that duty, and expressed "great satisfaction in being associated in the inquiry with an officer, whose experience and character," he was pleased to say, "would ensure to it a searching investigation and candid interpretation; and that in this feeling, he would meet me with every disposition to second my views in the fulfilment of our duty." I quote from this letter, as I shall from others, to show the perfect unanimity that reigned between the Members of the Commission on which I acted, to refute the allegations and fabrications which have been circulated to the contrary. On the 22nd of January, 1842, Sir George Murray, the Master General of the Ordnance, issued the following memorandum, which formed the basis of our instructions: a copy of that minute was previously communicated to Mr. Warner:—
"1st. To agree upon a series of experiments to be made under Mr. Warner's directions, in the presence of Sir H. Douglas and Sir Edward Owen.
"2nd. To frame an estimate of the expense which will attend these experiments that it may be submitted to the Treasury previously to any expense being incurred.
"3rd. That when the expense has been sanctioned by the Treasury, the experiments should proceed.
"4th. That detailed minutes should be kept of every step of the investigation, i. e. all particulars of such experiments.
"5th. That Sir E. Owen and Sir H. Douglas should draw up a report as to the result of their observations to be submitted to the Prime Minister, and to which they will be pleased to annex, as an appendix, the minutes above mentioned.
"6th. Sir H. Douglas and Sir E. Owen will be

1079
pleased to consider the whole proceeding in this matter strictly confidential."
The House will perceive that in conformity with my express stipulations, and the views of Her Majesty's Government, not a word of any promise or guarantee as to remuneration appears, and that the Commission should consist of two Members as therein named. To this memorandum Mr. Warner expressly consented, as declared by Sir George Murray, in his letter of the 30th of April, and 13th of May, 1842, (Parliamentary Papers, pp. 25 and 28) in which he states, that Mr. Warner's refusal to proceed to the experiments for which we had made all the arrangements, unless we guaranteed remuneration, "was wholly at variance with the basis which he, Sir George Murray, had laid down, and to which Mr. Warner had given his concurrence and assent." Mr. Warner accepted the proposed nomination of the Members, in a letter, of which the following is a copy:—
14th January, 1842.
"Sir—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 12th instant.
"Any day after Wednesday next that may be convenient to Sir Howard Douglas, Sir Edward Owen, and yourself, I shall hold myself disengaged, and shall be most happy to attend upon you at the Ordnance, as you propose.
"I would have named an earlier day, but I have some plans and drawings to replace that I have destroyed, for the sake of security.
"From the character I have heard both of Sir Howard Douglas and Sir Edward Owen, I am highly gratified with the choice the Government has made in those distinguished officers.—I am, &c. (Signed) "S. A. WARNER."
Thus Mr. Warner entered into the most express engagement, in writing, as to the powers, instructions, number, and persons of the Commission. It became my duty as the chairman, to prepare a minute in detail, to be submitted to the Commission, by which, if approved, their proceedings should be regulated. The following is a copy of that minute:—
"That all communications with Mr. Warner should be made in writing; and minutes kept of all that took place in our meetings with that gentleman, in conformity with articles 4 and 5 of the Master General's Memorandum.
"That no attempt should be made to obtain any part of Mr. Warner's secret.
"That he should be forbidden to answer any question that might in the slightest degree tend, if answered, to disclose his alleged discoveries.
"That he would be required to exhibit the practical efficacy of his inventions, on a scale sufficient to enable the Commission to ascertain and report upon their practical efficacy, and utility to the public service.
"That we attached by far the greatest importance
1080
to that part of his alleged discovery, which he denominated 'The long range.'
"That we were strongly disposed to proceed at once to witness any experiments he might exhibit of the astounding powers which he attributed to that alleged discovery.
"That we were likewise ready to witness the powers of his invisible shells, if tried in an open sea-way, and in strong tides.
"That we should not report separately on the two branches of his alleged discoveries, but wait until we should have witnessed experiments, on a scale sufficient to enable us to ascertain, with certainty, the applicability, efficacy, and value, of the 'long range' to the public service.
"That these experiments should be tried in the most retired locality, and conducted with every possible regard to the retention and safety of his secret.
"That these experiments should be conducted at the public expense."
In this we went beyond our instructions; but we were resolved to do everything in our power to bring these alleged powers to a full and conclusive test, and to do nothing that might afford Mr. Warner the slightest pretext for getting up a grievance against the Commission, to be used as a plea for compensation, which we, at a very early period, foresaw would be attempted.
"That the experiments with the invisible shells should be such as to test their power and applicability with safety to the users, the value of the invention to us, the use to an enemy if neglected by us; the power of control, management, and direction, which the inventor possessed over these astounding powers; what reasonable certainty or seeurity there might be of our retaining the exclusive use of the invention, should it be proved to possess the powers which Mr. Warner asserted; or whether, should the Government purchase his secret, there was any probability that the philanthropic and humane purpose of protecting the human race from so desolating and destructive an agent, could be accomplished.
"That for the trials with the invisible shells we should provide two vessels of considerable strength and magnitude; that we should cause them to be taken to some retired bay; that Mr. Warner should have due notice to prepare his means of destruction; that the hulks should remain in our charge to the last; that he should never be permitted to visit or have any communication with them; that he should have every facility for attempting to destroy them, but not allowed to do this under circumstances which the ordinary precautions of real service would not permit.
"The trials to be made: first, against a vessel at anchor, and then against a vessel in motion; Mr. Warner having nothing to do with the traction or movement of the vessel whose destruction he was to attempt.
"The effects of the 'long range' to be tried at the full distance of what Mr. Warner states to be the powers of his 'long range,' namely, six miles.
"First, against a hulk at anchor; then against a vessel in motion; under such circumstances of wind and weather, &c. as the Commission might propose.

1081
"That the 'long range' should be tried against a fort or other building or erection to represent a fort situated on a hill, at the full distance of the 'long range.'
"Against a real fort of considerable magnitude, which we were prepared to indicate to Mr. Warner, at the full distance of the 'long range,' and not much elevated above the position of the assailant.
"That the experiments with the 'long range' should be made from a vessel in a sea-way—first, to leeward of the hulk, and afterwards directly to windward of the vessel to be destroyed.
"That experiments should likewise be made, to enable the Commission to ascertain how far bodies, which, immersed in in the sea, or used at a 'long range,' would explode on the slightest concussion can be safely handled and applied, or resist, as in the case of the 'long range,' the percussive force of so powerful an agent."
The Commission met on the 25th of January, 1842. At that interview I read to my Colleague my letter of the 31st of December, 1841, which I had addressed to the Master General of the Ordnance, and the minute which I had prepared, suggesting the course which our proceedings should take. In the whole of these views and propositions, Sir Edward Owen expressed his entire concurrence. We had another meeting on the 27th of January, at which it was settled, that though we attached by far the greatest importance to the "long range," and were much disposed to proceed at once with experiments to test its powers, we would consent to commence with the invisible shells, as desired by Mr. Warner, but only as a path to get at the "long range." At this meeting it was settled with Mr. Warner, that he should report to us when he was ready. A case has been endeavoured to be gotten up, among other alleged grievances, that considerable delay then took place by my having been called away to Liverpool for my election. I went to Liverpool on the 1st of February, and on the 9th had the honour to take my seat in this House. And so far from my absence having occasioned any delay, I was ready, and Sir Edward Owen, who did not leave London to hoist his flag till towards the end of the month, was ready likewise; but during the whole of that time we heard nothing from Mr. Warner. On Sir Edward Owen withdrawing from the Commission, he addressed a letter to Sir George Murray on the 7th of February, 1842, an extract of which will be found in the Parliamentary Papers of 1844, p. 13, to the seventh paragraph of which I particularly refer. The time has now come, and this is the proper place, for me to deny and refute assertions and statements advanced by Mr. Warner, which have appeared in
1082
several of the public papers, and some of which it seems the noble Lord believes. These gave me no individual concern; and I should not now condescend to notice them, did it not appear to me that the public interests require, that the House and the country should know, exactly, what sort of a person the Commission had to deal with, and the manner in which two British Admirals and a British General have been maligned in the performance of an arduous and highly responsible duty, which they have discharged to the best of their ability, acting fairly in strict conformity with the spirit and letter of their instructions. The following paragraph appeared in several of the public papers soon after the proceedings of the Committee were brought to an abrupt termination, by Mr. Warner having refused to proceed with the experiments we had arranged, unless we complied with demands wholly at variance with the conditions to which he had assented, and which he had no authority to grant:—
"Sir Howard Douglas has represented that there was a concurrence of opinion with respect to my inventions between himself and Sir Edward Owen. I will take the present opportunity of declaring that this is a misapprehension on Sir Howard's part. For when Sir Howard made light of some naval operations, which as a soldier officer he probably did not understand, Sir Edward Owen came forward in my defence, and expressed his belief that I could carry my plans into effect; and when to save time I offered to go down to a secluded part of the coast, and enter into some operations before Sir E. Owen, during Sir H. Douglas's canvass at Liverpool, Sir Howard would not permit a single explanation to be entered into during his absence, though Admiral Owen reminded him with a smile, that he felt himself competent to form a judgment of any naval movements, without the gallant General's assistance. I regret, to this hour, Sir Edward Owen's departure for the Mediterranean, for I believe that his knowledge of seamanship and candid disposition would have brought my affairs to a different termination than has befallen them."
I transmitted, on the 29th of August, 1842, this identical extract to Sir Edward Owen, who answered (12th of September)—
"Decidedly no such conversation ever passed between us. There was no difference of opinion. We both considered Mr. Warner to be trifling with the inquiry. The invisible shell is an acquaintance of forty years standing. You wished to get at once to the long range, in which I heartily concurred, and consented to go into the invisible shells as a footpath to the long range. I was prepared for the finale of Mr. Warner's proposition, which appeared to me to contain nothing more than an unusual share of the most barefaced charlatanerie."

1083
On the departure of Vice Admiral Sir Edward Owen, a successor was appointed, whose high character, eminent services, and qualifications, rendered him peculiarly fit for the difficult duties which I foresaw we should have to discharge; and it was with the highest degree of satisfaction that I found myself acting under Admiral Sir Byam Martin, who now, by seniority of rank, became chief of the Commission. I immediately transmitted to him all the papers and documents relating to the inquiry. On the 31st of March, 1842, I received from Sir Byam Martin a minute, dated that day, of which the following is a copy, and which I beg leave to read to the House, because it shows the approbation and concurrence which the lately appointed chief expressed in the previous proceedings, and his adhesion to the proposed arrangements; thus proving the perfect harmony and unanimity which reigned throughout between the two distinguished Admirals and myself. [The gallant Officer read the minute, which was in entire conformity with his statements.] With respect to the objections to the enlargement of the Commission, by the appointment of a third member, whether the noble Lord or any other person who had previously been connected with this investigation, and which he complains of as unfair to Mr. Warner; we expressly stipulated that we should have nothing whatever to do with any previous proceedings or persons. We foresaw, distinctly, that attempts would be made to connect us with previous experiments, said to have been successful, but of which no documentary proof could be found, and which were stated to have been made in the presence of some eminent and distinguished men now no more. We undertook this as a new Commission, the terms and composition of which were, as I have said, expressly assented to, in writing, by Mr. Warner. We stated, that if his subsequent demands for the enlargement of the Commission were deemed advisable, we were ready to withdraw; but that having commenced our labours in conformity with those engagements, we would either proceed undisturbed by any alteration of the Commission, to complete the duty intrusted to us, or resign. Soon after Sir Byam Martin's appointment, he, unfortunately, became considerably indisposed; and, under those circumstances, it appeared to the Master General of the Ordnance, that if the unfavourable state of Sir Byam Martin's health should prevent
1084
the investigation from proceeding, it would be necessary to appoint another Commissioner; and, accordingly, Sir George Murray intended in that case to give me another Colleague. The noble Lord the Member for Staffordshire denies, and does not permit me to correct him, that the intention to appoint another Commissioner had reference only to the unfavourable state of Sir Byam Martin's health. I shall set the noble Lord right, by reading from Sir George Murray's letter of the 27th of March, 1842, which I hold in my hand:—
"As Sir Byam Martin's health is happily restored, and the apprehension of delay on that account has ceased, the motive for Mr. Warner's suggestion ceases also; for it must be obvious to every one, that it is both for the interest of the public, and fair towards Mr. Warner, that the investigation should be continuous, and that it should be begun and finished by the same Commission, if that can possibly be effected."
Sir Byam Martin's health having happily been speedily re-established, we met and addressed conjointly to Mr. Warner a letter, dated April 4th, 1842, stating—
"That we are ready to proceed in the investigation of your discoveries with as little delay as may be consistent with our instructions—that it is our intention, first, to have your 'long range' exhibited, and afterwards a practical illustration, of the effect of the 'invisible shells;' in both cases the materials to be prepared on such a scale as you may deem to be necessary for real service."
And further requiring to know what assistance Mr. Warner might deem necessary. To this we received, on the evening of the 13th, from Mr. Warner, a letter dated the 11th, which will be found in the Parliamentary Papers, from which I read, for brevity, the following extracts:—
"You express a desire to see an exhibition of the powers of my 'long range' first, and then some practical illustration of the efficacy of my 'invisible shells.'
"With regard to the reversal of the order in which the investigation was commenced, I do not think it advisable. As I have already commenced my explanations, with reference to the 'invisible shells,' to Admiral Sir Edward Owen and Sir Howard Douglas, I think it better to complete that investigation first, and then proceed to the 'long range.' If an experiment is insisted upon, I am quite prepared to make one, and enclose, according to your request, an estimate of the probable expense as well as I can, in the absence of any specification of what you require to be done. I, however, submit to your consideration whether this expense might not be avoided, when I can refer, as eye-witnesses, to the following Gentlemen now holding high offices of State — the First Lord of the Treasury, the Master General of the

1085
Ordnance, the Senior Naval Lord of the Admiralty, &c.
"With such testimony as to the actual power of explosion under my control, it may be a question worthy the consideration of Government, whether a repetition of an experiment of an explosive character may not incur unnecessary expense and loss of time, besides the risk of attracting public notice, which to a certain extent is unavoidable, whatever precautions may be taken.
"But I must here stipulate that in the event of the experiments (with the invisible shells) proving successful, I have to be paid the sum finally agreed upon, and on the receipt of the money for the invisible shells, will forthwith proceed to demonstrate the power of the long range."
Thus the House will perceive that whilst our main object was to get to the "long range," and that Mr. Warner had been distinctly told by us that we had no power, whatever, to enter on the question of guarantee or remuneration, and that although he had expressly assented to arrangements which left that matter exclusively to the consideration of the Government, he now positively refused to enter on experiments at all, unless we gave some guarantee or promise on the part of the Government, as to the remuneration he demanded. On the 16th of April the Commission addressed a letter, of which the following is an extract, to Mr. Warner; and as this contained a distinct specification of the experiments we desired to witness, it is important that I should refer to the more material passages of that letter. The gallant Officer read from the Parliamentary Papers, p. 18, the passage he referred to, and of which the following are the principal points:—
"We therefore readily assent to your wish that the invisible shells may be first tried; but our report must embrace both classes of experiments, and cannot be made until both have been concluded.
"You say in your letter now before us, 'I, however, submit to your consideration whether this expense might not be avoided, when I can refer, as eye-witnesses of an experiment, to the first Lord of the Treasury, the Master General of the Ordnance, the Senior Naval Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary at War, Lord Hardwicke, and Lord Ingestre.'
"If we were to be satisfied with the opinions of others, our commission would be an absurdity; and we frankly tell you we cannot permit ourselves to be influenced by any thing which has hitherto occurred.
"To us, it does not appear that any experiments have been made either on a scale, or under circumstances, or in a manner, to warrant a conclusion that the power, whatever it may be, which you call invisible shells, is applicable, or practicable, under all the conditions and circumstances of real service; and with respect to the long range, to which we attach, from your own assertions of its prodigious powers, a degree of importance in-
1086
finitely beyond any that can be assigned to any submarine mines or fougasses, whatever be the force of the explosive composition they contain, or the mode of action; we having nothing but statements which you made of a power so astonishing and omnipotent as must, by your own admission, be incredible to those who have not witnessed it—nothing, therefore, can satisfy us but practical proofs on a large scale, and under circumstances common to land and sea service in time of war.
(Signed)" T. BYAM MARTIN,
"HOWARD DOUGLAS."
With respect to the vessel or hulk, against which the experiments were to be tried, we acquainted Mr. Warner that we could not consent to his proposition to provide, or cause to be constructed, the hulk against which he was to try his alleged powers. We intimated to him, that we charged ourselves with this, as with every thing else that the public could provide without prying into his secret; and that conducting the experiments in a real service manner, he would not be permitted to communicate with, or go nearer the vessel to be destroyed, than he would be allowed to board or approach an enemy's ship; that when he reported himself ready, we should convey the hulks to the locality selected for the experiments; and that the movement or traction of the vessel to be attacked in motion, would be managed by the Commission, and not dragged by the assailants to certain destruction. The noble Lord denies that Mr. Warner insisted on providing the vessel himself. The noble Lord is again in error, as the "Estimate," transmitted to us by Mr. Warner in his letter of the 11th of April, will show. I now come to some other assertions made by Mr. Warner, which I shall characterize by no other term, than that of being wholly and entirely groundless; and which, as I am not fond of bandying strong words, I shall at once dispose of:—
"Sir Howard, in a very peremptory manner, told me I must disclose my secret agent, and explain its nature, properties, and composition, as well as exhibit and explain my mode of operation. This I at once declined, when Sir Howard said, without such disclosure he could not recommend my inventions to Her Majesty's Government."—Extract of a Statement which appeared in The Times, Morning Post, Naval and Military Gazette.
To this, I adduce first the Minutes of proceedings of the 19th day of April, 1842, annexed to our Report, in conformity with Articles 4 and 5 of the Master General's Memorandum of the 22nd January, 1842:—
"Present: — Admiral Sir T. Byam Martin, Lieutenant General Sir Howard Douglas.

1087
"Having at our last meeting, on the 16th instant, decided upon the answer to be given to Mr. Warner's letter of the 11th, he was appointed to meet us, this day, at three o'clock.
"Mr. Warner was called in, and the two following paragraphs read to him:
"You have desired in your letter of the 11th instant to stipulate for a reward for the disclosure of your secret, and remuneration of your expenses, if your inventions are proved to our satisfaction.
"The letter now about to be delivered to you is in answer to yours, in which you are informed that we have no authority to entertain any such proposition. We think it right to tell you this before we ask any questions, in order that you may exercise your own discretion as to whether or not you will answer them.
"Mr. Warner made no objection to the questions being put.
"We then read to him this paragraph, viz., 'Before we proceed to ask any questions respecting the practical application of your inventions, we think it right again to warn you not to impart to us any part of what you term your secret; if you do so, it will be your own fault, and contrary to our wishes. You will therefore decline to answer any questions you may think objectionable.'"
The House will perceive from this, that in our letters to Mr. Warner, and in all our meetings with him, we invariably charged him not to answer any question, or say anything that could in the least tend to divulge any part of his secret, and that we as invariably acquainted him that we had no authority to entertain any proposition or stipulation relating to remuneration. Two days after this meeting we received a letter from Mr. Warner, dated Clarence Chambers, 12, Haymarket, 19th April, 1842, which proves that after everything was prepared, he did refuse to come to the point, unless we made promises or gave guarantees wholly at variance with the conditions to which he had assented. He said—
"As I made this the basis of my offer to Her Majesty's Government, I feel it impossible to proceed any further until you have received authority to promise me, on the part of the Government, the remuneration I ask, in the event of my proving to your satisfaction my ability to effect what I have unfolded in the document to which you have done me the honour to refer."
On the 20th of May, we wrote to Mr. Warner, acknowledging the receipt of his letter of the 19th of May, and stating—
"Our functions having ceased by your 'finally' declining to proceed to the experiments upon which we were prepared to enter (unless under a guarantee, which we are not authorized to give), we should have confined ourselves simply to an intimation of the transmission of your letter to the Master General of the Ordnance, were it not for that passage in it wherein you say, 'I put it to your candour, whether I have not already made many important disclosures to yourselves.'
"To this appeal we give a decided negative, not
1088
only for ourselves, but for the Commission as originally constituted."
The noble Lord makes a serious charge against the Commission, that the minutes of what passed between the Commission and Mr. Warner on the 19th of April, 1842, were written unfairly, after the meeting, instead of being taken down at the time in his presence and with his knowledge. This is another error amongst the many into which the noble Lord has been led by his client, and another injustice he has done to the Commission, by believing this, to their prejudice. The whole of the minutes, questions, and answers, annexed to the proceedings to which the noble Lord refers, were written down at the time by Sir Byam Martin, as enjoined by our instructions, in the presence of Mr. Warner, with his knowledge, and without any appearance or expression of objection. The noble Lord complains that these minutes should have been produced! Why, he moved for the production of the papers: the minutes of the proceedings were inseparably connected, by our instructions, with the despatches of which they were enclosures; and the Government had no alternative but to give all or none. This brought to light the affair of the Nautilus, and the destruction of the two French privateers off Folkestone, to which the noble Lord has adverted, as to a fact that should have satisfied us. [The hon. Member appended here a long note to show Mr. Warner's assertion that he had destroyed two French vessels with all their crews had been inquired into; and that no trace whatever of any such destruction could be found either at the Admiralty or at the Foreign Office, under which Mr. Warner alleged he was employed at the time in the Nautilus.] Then Mr. Warner has stated, and the noble Lord seems to believe it, that I made observations which led Mr. Warner to suppose that after he had proved all he professed to do, he should receive no remuneration—that I made remarks from time to time to the effect, that after the disclosure should have been made by him, what was to prevent me from asking 400,000 l. for the secret? I positively deny that any such conversation took place. The whole of the questions put that day, with the exception of those which followed incidentally from the reference to the affair of the two privateers sunk off Folkestone, were prepared by Sir Byam Martin previously, were put by him, and the answers written down by him, and I am now in possession of that

1089
document, to which, as I now perceive, Sir Byam Martin affixed at the time the following minute:—
"Mr. Warner has been treated with great favour and indulgence; and if all the sanguine projectors who may be expected to present their contrivances, are to have them proved at the public expense, and with stipulated promises of reward, the national revenue would scarcely be sufficient to meet their demands. "T. B. M."
I transmitted on the 3rd of September, 1844, Mr. Warner's assertions, as above' to Sir Byam Martin, and received the following answer:—
"During the time I had the satisfaction to be joined with you in that duty, I can safely say that no conversation of the nature stated in his letter ever took place in my presence; and, as far as I saw, the whole bearing of your conduct towards Mr. Warner, was the reverse of what is described in his published letter.
"So far from desiring to procure from Mr. Warner a knowledge of his secret, you cordially agreed with me in forbidding him to answer any question that could have the least tendency to draw from him any thing leading to its disclosure. You will no doubt recollect, that in order to give this warning the greater force, I committed it to writing, and read it to Mr. Warner before any question was asked of him. This I trust will appear in the papers which, by his desire, are about to be laid before the public.
"No projector was ever more favoured by the Government; he had every assistance offered to him—men, vessels, and materials, free of all charge; and I can confidently assert, that he received from us every fair consideration and attention. — Ever truly yours, "T. BYAM MARTIN."
In reply to the many insinuations or assertions that the Master General of the Ordnance attributed the abrupt termination of the proceedings to any error or failure on the part of the Commission, or that we had acted in any way contrary to the letter and spirit of his instructions, or that Her Majesty's Government disapproved of our proceedings, it is only necessary to refer to the letters which were received from the Master General,* approving of having refused Mr. Warner's proposition, as wholly at variance with his (the Master General's) Memorandum, and with the arrangements to which Mr. Warner had assented; that we had judged rightly in what we had done; that he (the Master General) had no authority for such a preliminary guarantee as Mr. Warner now requires, nor would recommend such a proposition to the Government; and Sir George Murray, moreover, communicated this to Mr. Warner himself in his letter of the 4th July, 1842:—
* In his published pamphlet the gallant Officer appended here the letters referred to.
1090
"Ordnance Office, 4th July, 1842.
"Sir—Since receiving your letter of the 1st instant, I have reperused the original memorandum drawn up by me with reference to the mode in which it seemed to me that Government might proceed with regard to your discovery. You were informed of the contents of that paper, and have, if I mistake not, a copy of it. It was submitted by me in the outset to Sir R. Peel, and it having received his sanction, I proceeded, as you are aware, to act upon it.
"I retain the opinion I had then formed, that the mode of proceeding suggested by the memorandum above-mentioned, is one which is fair and just both towards yourself and towards the public; and I have no authority to pursue any other course.
"The perfect knowledge which you possess of the nature of your discovery, and of the result of the various trials to which you have seen it subjected, may have satisfied your mind fully of the great power of the agent which you employ, of the safety and facility of its application, and of the high value of your secret to any country which obtains the exclusive possession of it. But before the Government of this country can pledge itself to a remuneration so large as that which you claim, it seems reasonable that it should obtain some practical evidence that the opinions and expectations which you yourself entertain with regard to your discovery rest upon solid grounds, and have been formed after a full and impartial investigation of the subject.
(Signed) "G. MURRAY."
On the 25th of April, we reported to the Master General that our proceedings, in the investigation of Mr. Warner's alleged discoveries, had been brought to an abrupt close, by his refusing to observe the terms and conditions to which he had assented; and we made the following report, to which I now particularly request the attention of the House, and claim the support of Her Majesty's Government, in adhering to the resolution which we finally came to, and which Her Majesty's late Government determined to observe:—
"That Mr. Warner should be pushed to submit immediately to extensive experiments with the 'long range,' at a distance of six miles, to prove that the 'long range' can be applied, with perfect safety to the users; that these astounding powers may be safely and accurately directed: that if he shall effectually destroy a work and its defences, and a hulk or hulks at that distance; if he can prove that this may be effected at any time and under any circumstances of wind and weather, by exhibiting it, first directly from the leeward, and then directly from the windward of the ship or fort to be destroyed; we shall report that he has made an omnipotent discovery, which will place him pre-eminent in the annals of the world, and entitle him to liberal reward for a discovery of such immense magnitude and importance, as to be, in Mr. Warner's own words, 'perfectly incredible.'"
But after having devoted a life to the study and practice of such matters, I avow my

1091
entire incredulity, as to the existence of any such power, or if it did exist, the physical impossibility of the "long range." The noble Lord has spoken of this as one of the most important of modern inventions, and which, in his judgment, classes Mr. Warner with the sages to whom the world is indebted—for gas, railways, and, I think, the noble Lord said steam, and far superior to the invention of gunpowder. This leads me, likewise, unexpectedly and off-hand, to make a few observations on the noble Lord's philosophy, and I think I said credulity. It is true, that gas for illuminating our streets, and the giant power of steam, are now effecting, what would have been deemed impossible and visionary half a century ago. But these agents are latent powers of nature, set free by discoveries made, and gradual improvements, pursued, through the paths of science. Gas is distilled from coal—steam vapourised from water; and these most useful and powerful agents act according to the immutable laws of nature. But Mr. Warner asserts a power which sets the most important laws of nature at defiance. Gravitation, by which the system of the universe is maintained—resistance, by which some of the most benign purposes of Providence are accomplished, are nothing to Mr. Warner. When Colonel Chalmers, a member of the late Commission, cautioned Mr. Warner of the prodigious powers of resistance to his long range, he exclaimed,* "Who can frame laws to govern a force which has never before been heard of—a force a hundred times greater than that of gunpowder?" More was urged by the Colonel, but, as he says, Mr. Warner was too dogmatical to reason with. Who can frame laws to control such a force as Mr. Warner imagines? Why, the Almighty Maker of the universe. Does the noble Lord not know, that the doctrine which excludes resistance, would assign powers of range to projectiles surpassing infinitely any that has ever been attained, or can be reached? A projectile, whose random range is about 1,300 yards, with a velocity of 600 feet per second, would range three times as far, were it not for the resistance of the air; and this, which, with moderate velocities, is as their squares, increases in a higher ratio with greater celerities. When a projectile is forced through the atmosphere with a velocity greater
* Parliamentary Papers, Minutes of Proceedings, page 44, line 16.
1092
than that with which air can rush into a vacant space (and which, in a mean state of atmospheric pressure, is about 1,400 feet in a second), a vacuum is formed behind the projectile, by which the resistance suddenly and greatly increases. It rises to a higher ratio with a greater velocity, and a solid shot projected with 3,000 feet velocity, which would range only about 3,000 yards, would, by the parabolic theory, attain to forty times as far! This, I think, must be the theory of the "long range." It is precisely because Mr. Warner's alleged projectile force is, as he says, a hundred times greater than that of gunpowder, that it would be met by a resisting force greater in an increased ratio, by which the projectile would be opposed, controlled, and reduced to moderate velocities, and limited ranges. We possess in gunpowder a greater force than we require. We reject the random use of it, to gain accuracy. The mighty power by which one of the cliffs of Albion was recently blown into the sea, and the Royal George out of it, is more than adequate to any that war requires, or can be used with advantage in projectiles. A shot discharged with great initial velocity is, by the resistance to its flight, reduced, after passing over certain spaces, to the celerity which it would have, at that point, if projected with a lesser charge, that is, with a moderate velocity. The greatest range that ever yet has been attained was by the mortar or howitzer, the trophy that now stands in St. James's Park, which threw a shell filled with lead about three miles into Cadiz, but with such random effect as to do little or no harm. By using the denser metal, lead, that range was procured, and the momentum of the shell, so filled, augmented. A British 13-inch shell filled with lead discharged from a mortar with the full charge, may be projected about as far as the Cadiz mortar threw its shell. I do not say that greater ranges may not be attained; but taking the relation between the calibre and the projectile, length, magnitude, and weight of gun, charge and elevation, and applying these to compute the powers of artillery of size beyond any thing at present in use, or that can possibly be used in war, no great increase, even of random range, could be obtained, by increasing the magnitude of the gun to almost any size. And even then it would be a random range, ascending to an immense height to fall upon a point in an amplitude of 31,600 feet, to compute which, according to the doctrine

1093
of chances, might require experiments or practice of twenty years' duration, before a vessel could be touched, if such a long range, by any projectile power, were physically possible. My life has been devoted in a great degree to matters of this kind, and I assert, that it is physically impracticable to procure a range of six miles by any projectile force. Mr. Warner first asserted that his long range was not a projectile: he has since asserted that it is. But it may be a balloon, or a kite: if so it is old, and nothing worth.* It may be a compound of projection and propulsion. This were still more ridiculous. I have said, that we possess in gunpowder explosive force quite adequate to effect what Mr. Warner asserts in his invisible shells, and more than sufficient as a projectile force. Captain Harvey of the Navy, soon after I made this observation, exhibited very sufficient proofs of this in his very ingenious experiments, in which he destroyed a vessel quite as expertly and effectually as Mr. Warner did at Brighton; and I believe no other agent was used than gunpowder and, perhaps, some "ready-light" match. I do not deny that Mr. Warner may have hit upon some explosive compound more potent than gunpowder, and some improved mode of causing it to explode, either by mechanical or chemical action; but as to the modus operandi, so far from there being anything new in Mr. Warner's process, I hold in my hand a work published at Paris five and twenty years ago—"Memoire sur les Mines Flottantes et les Petards Flottans, ou Machines Infernales Maritimes; par Montgery, Officier de Marine," containing a history of many different modes of blowing up ships by marine fougasses from very early times. This work has for its frontispiece, the destruction of a vessel by an invisible shell loaded with gunpowder, which did its work more effectually than in the case of the John o' Gaunt. Mr. Montgery details in this work, different processes for blockading vessels in bays or harbours, by laying down "torpilles à ligne d'accouplement,"
* It was proposed during the threat of invasion in the late war, to endeavour to destroy the Boulogne flotilla by such agents; but this was laughed at. It is well known that Sir W. Congreve proposed to destroy towns and forts by the aid of kites. They were to be made of canvass, and of a very large size, so as to be able to carry very great weights. When the kite had reached its place of destination, and stood over the devoted fort, camp, or ship, the shell was to be dropped into the midst of the place or vessel.
1094
across their entrances, these torpilles being made invisible by being retained below the surface of the sea by anchors, and connected with each other by lines, so that no vessel could pass, without coming in contact, either with a torpille, or with the line connecting one with another, causing both to collapse, strike the vessel, and explode. Mr. Montgery likewise details the process by which a vessel in chase of another may be destroyed by the use of two torpilles, connected to each other by a line.
"Vessels of all sizes, but above all steamboats, may make use of these torpilles connected with each other by lines. A vessel may even sink another by torpilles connected with each other by lines. Vessels or boats chased by superior forces may deliver themselves from their enemies, by throwing into the sea one or more of these mines flottantes connected with each other. The operation of shutting up an enemy's port, ought to be executed at night, otherwise the enemy having knowledge of it, would easily frustrate the attempt."
This is exactly the Brighton experiment. It were easy to adduce from Mr. Montgery's work, and many others, abundant proofs that there is nothing new in the proposition for submarine mines, as suggested by Mr. Warner. After bestowing a great deal of consideration and research on this subject, the Commission was of opinion that Mr. Warner's invisible shells were of very minor importance, and we attached very little value to them; we consented to witness that class of Mr. Warner's experiments as the only way of getting at the long range. We were of opinion that the Government and the country might safely abandon the invisible shell, to any use that the projector can make of it; but having failed in our endeavours to bring Mr. Warner to the test of his long range, upon the fair, liberal and equitable terms which we proposed, according to arrangements to which he expressly assented, we urged the Government to have nothing more to do with Mr. Warner, unless he would forthwith exhibit to competent persons the actual powers of his long range, which, after all that has been said and written, he confesses he never has tried against a ship, vessel, or building. Let him place his vessel or apparatus where he likes; let the vessel to be destroyed be brought on a given day, by a steam-tug to within six miles of his position, and there anchored or cast loose, directly to windward of his position; let the same thing be done to the leeward: if under these circumstances he succeed in destroying or damaging the hulk, I shall retract all I

1095
have said; allow that the studies of a life are at one blow overthrown, and I shall admit that Mr. Warner has made an omnipotent discovery, which will give him that high place among the sages of the world, which the noble Lord would assign him, and supersede all existing modes of warfare. Sir, I must say that the manner in which this affair has been treated, and the terms in which the Commissioners have been maligned, is not very creditable to the science or public press of the country, or to the service to which we belong. I say nothing of myself: I, individually, entirely despise such attacks and misrepresentations; but two British Admirals and a British General have been accused of treating unfairly, partially, and unfeelingly, a projector whom it was their duty to treat, and whom they did treat, with urbanity, consideration, and the utmost liberality. Some, indeed, of the scientific and literary journals did review and express themselves upon this very important and interesting case in an able, creditable, scientific manner, and in a fair and liberal spirit. The Artizan (article ix. 1844), a valuable and well-conducted periodical; the Polytechnic Review, which I regret to find is discontinued; the Athenæum, (No. 881, p. 829) and some of the daily and weekly journals, have likewise treated this matter fairly and learnedly. Some great organs have been led into error by their mathematical department; but I have been most surprised at the articles which have appeared in a highly respectable military journal, the editor of which ought to have known better. I trust the noble Lord will see how grievously he has been imposed upon; that the House will think that I have completely vindicated the Commission, of which I was a member, from the imputations, aspersions, and fabrications, with which it has been assailed; that the country will see the manner in which Mr. Warner has endeavoured to practise upon public credulity; and, in conclusion, Sir, I trust it will be admitted that the Commission did its duty fairly, impartially, liberally, and considerately towards Mr. Warner, in conformity with the spirit and letter of our instructions; that we had made every preparation that depended upon us, to enable Mr. Warner to prove the existence and efficacy of the astounding powers which he asserts; and that the proceedings of the Committee were brought to a termination, by his flying from the engagements into which he
1096
had expressly entered with Her Majesty's Government.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. C. Wood), hoped his noble Friend would withdraw the Motion. All Captain Warner asked for was a fair opportunity of proving the value of the invention before persons appointed by the Government, and in whom the Government had confidence; and the Government were perfectly prepared to appoint impartial officers, to whom there could be no objection, to investigate the merits of the inventions, and a thorough consideration would be given to whatever report might be made by those officers. Captain Warner had offered objections to the last Commission on account of some individual Member of it; but the Government would endeavour to avoid any such difficulty.
MR. BROTHERTONbelieved that, some years ago, an opportunity had been presented to Captain Warner by Colonel Sir C. Shaw, in Portugal, of putting his inventions to the test; but various excuses were then made, no eagerness was exhibited to seize the offer, and the gallant Colonel then stated, that such had been the conduct of Captain Warner, he had lost all faith in him and his vaunted invention. It had been said that The Times newspaper was a strong advocate of this invention, and he believed that, formerly, such was the fact; but he had placed the letters referring to the transaction he had mentioned in the hands of a gentleman connected with The Times, and, so far as he was aware, The Times had never since said a word in favour of Captain Warner. He objected to grant 400,000 l., not because he considered it was too large a sum for the invention, but because he could not find it in his conscience to vote one shilling for the encouragement of inventors of such an infernal machine as this appeared to be. If they gave any encouragement, they would have infernal machines by the dozen; and men, to produce them, would leave all useful and peaceful employment. To grant such a sum was rewarding a man for destroying his kind.
MR. WAKLEYthought, that, whether the long range succeeded or did not succeed, the question ought to be settled. They were wasting hours every Session in discussing the subject, and it had now become a perfect farce. They heard all sorts of recriminations, all sorts of charges and counter-charges, and nothing would satisfy the public but a trial. The right

1097
hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated now, that the Government would appoint, as a Commission, officers in whose judgment and in whose impartiality they could confide; but then there came the question—would those officers satisfy Captain Warner? What he would ask the Government to do was this—that, in addition to the officers in whom they could confide, they should select two or three persons of acute observation and strong common sense, who should go into the question without any prejudice at all, and represent accurately to the House what they absolutely saw of Captain Warner's invention. The gallant Officer (Sir Howard Douglas) was far from being prejudiced in the matter; but he had a strong conviction of the impossibility of any projectile being discovered with a range of six miles; and even the senses were sometimes discredited when novel experiments in science were concerned. Above all, before they proceeded to any trial, they should have Captain Warner's statement in writing that he was satisfied with the preliminary arrangements, or the question would be brought before them again and again. Considering the just view the Government had taken of the question, he hoped the noble Lord would withdraw his Motion.
SIR H. DOUGLASexplained, that Captain Warner did, on the former occasion, assent to the appointment of Sir Edward Owen and himself.
VISCOUNT INGESTREthanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the spirit in which he had announced the intentions of the Government, and complimented it on its first public act, being what he considered an act of justice. He assured the hon. Member for Salford that he had been misinformed in what he stated relative to Captain Warner, and he should be happy to put him in possession of proofs that he was in error. All he wished was, that the Government and Captain Warner should understand each other thoroughly; and he offered to become the medium of communication between them.
Motion withdrawn.

ESTIMATES.
MR. WILLIAMSwished to make a few observations before the Speaker left the chair. The Estimates about to be moved showed a large increase. Now, as our differences with America were happily settled, the necessity for a large naval and
1098
military force no longer existed. There was a vastly increased expenditure since the late Government had held office. The whole charge for the year 1835, when Lord Melbourne's Government was in power, was 48,780,000 l. The Estimates for this year amounted to 55,500,000 l., making an increase of 6,750,000 l.; and as a saving of 600,000 l. had been effected by the reduction of the 3½ per cents, the real increase was 7,320,000 l. He admitted that the late Government, from the aspect of affairs when they held power, were perfectly justified in increasing the army and navy; but the increase of our expenditure had been in general so much, that on the Miscellaneous Estimates there were from 2,000,000 l. to 3,400,000 l. There was now no ground even for an increase of the army and navy, as he was quite satisfied that the noble Lord at the head of foreign affairs would use the great ability which he possessed to cultivate peaceful relations with all countries. He had shown that our proposed expenditure over that of 1835 was 2,500,000 l. more than the income tax, and 2,000,000 l. more than the malt tax. Was it not worth an effort of the Government so to reduce our expenditure, that either of those obnoxious imposts might be repealed? A Commission had been appointed to ascertain the cost of the collection of the revenue; but it had made only one report, and on inquiring as to its proceedings a short time back, he discovered that it no longer existed. It had been ascertained that no less than six hundred places, from 200 l. a year upwards, were created by the late Government. This was an expense which the country could not afford, and would not much longer permit. He trusted that the present Administration would follow the example of Lord Grey, and revise the whole system of expenditure, with the view of effecting large and extensive reductions.
MR. HUMEbogged to call the attention of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government to the course which had been adopted with respect to the salaries of public officers by Lord Grey's Government, of which the noble Lord had been a member. A Committee had been appointed to revise all the salaries of public officers, from the Secretary of State downwards; and the country had looked upon that appointment as an earnest of the determination of Lord Grey's Government to practise strict economy in every branch

1099
of the public service. That Committee had issued a report; but it had been found impossible to carry all its recommendations into effect, or to carry the inquiry into other departments, as far as might have been desirable. However, the spirit of economy evinced by that Government had been highly creditable to them, and had gained them the confidence of the country. He wished to know if the noble Lord had any objection to have the several public establishments and departments submitted to such an inquiry as that to which the Irish Estimates had been submitted in 1830, and begged to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should cause all the estimates to undergo the scrutiny of a Committee similar to that to which he had alluded.
DR. BOWRINGcalled the attention of the House to a most important subject, which would, as he believed, prove a great means of relieving the public from a considerable burden, and render a great public service. The noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government had been a member of a Commission to inquire into the public accounts, which had issued a report wherein certain principles had been laid down for the public accounts, the chief of which had been that the whole of the gross revenue should be paid into the Exchequer, and that all sums should be paid out of it in like manner. At present, however, there was no less than from 6,700,000 l. to 6,900,000 l. a year, which altogether escaped the attention of Parliament, and was taken up by various public departments for their expenses in the progress of the revenue to the Exchequer. There were also public departments that received large sums of money from the sales of stores and other sources, which were not known to Parliament, and of which the House had no cognizance. This was, as he conceived, very great irregularity, and he thought that all moneys should be paid into the Exchequer, and that no money should be issued from the Exchequer without the control of Parliament.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that the hon. Member for Coventry had called the attention of the House to the naval and military expenditure, and to the amount of the expenses of the collection of the revenue. As to the first observation of the hon. Gentleman that the whole increase of expenditure in those branches of public service was to be attributed to the apprehensions
1100
which prevailed that the differences between this country and America would grow into something serious, he could not agree. He remembered at the time having asked the question of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Administration; and the purport of his answer had been, that though this consideration had not been left out in framing the Estimates, yet that the increase of the Colonies, and the demand for civil and military forces, was sufficient to account for the increase of the Estimates. In that view he concurred. The hon. Member for Coventry also spoke of the expenditure of former years; but if he were to make a balance of the expenditure of former years, as compared to that of the present year, he must take into account the increased demand for naval and military forces in our Colonics, and the necessity for stationing naval forces for the protection of our increased commerce. It was but bad economy to exhaust the strength of regiments by over-exertion in foreign service. As soon as he entered office, he had looked into the subject, and he found that there were regiments which had been little more than four years at home that were ordered for foreign service, and that regi-which had been sent abroad in 1825 were abroad still. When such was the infrequency of relief he must say that he could not think it right to make any reduction of military expenditure, which would make this relief less frequent. He could not but think that it was very desirable to carry out the system of having each regiment ten years abroad and five years at home. With respect to the statement of the hon. Member for Bolton as to the expenses of the collection of revenue, the hon. Member must excuse him if he did not give him at present any positive answer. He would, however, turn his attention to the subject. He remembered also the report to which the hon. Member alluded; but he remembered that there had been practical difficulties in carrying its recommendations into effect. The hon. Member for Montrose had spoken of the increased amount of the Miscellaneous Estimates, and wished that they should be referred to a Committee of Inquiry. That subject was of a totally different nature, and had reference to a different question from that of the Naval and Military Estimates. He was not prepared to say that it would not be advisable to have a Select Committee in the course of another Session, to inquire into the Mis-

1101
cellaneous Estimates. Those which would now be submitted to the House had been prepared by his predecessors. However, he would take the subject into his consideration, and it might be found that the suggestion of the hon. Member was one of considerable utility.
SIR R. INGLISprotested against the principle of the framing of the Estimates being left to any Committee, or being left to any body but the House itself.
LORD J. RUSSELLreplied, that he did not propose that the Estimates should be framed by any Committee, but suggested that it was worthy of consideration whether or not the Estimates might not be submitted to a Committee of Inquiry. His hon. Friend must be aware that there were frequently Finance Committees appointed by the House, and that if he (Lord J. Russell) were to propose such a Committee, he should not be adopting anything new in principle. He should not consider it advisable to continue such a course from year to year; but thought it might be advantageous to appoint a Committee at the end of nine or ten years.
SIR DE LACY EVANSdeclared that he was not now so very anxious for economy in military expenditure as he had been on former occasions. He hoped that, whatever measures might be adopted by Government, they would recollect that, if the military department was unduly diminished, very great extravagance, instead of economy, might be the result. Considering the large expenditure of France in constructing fortifications, and in the support of her army, he thought a necessity was clearly shown to Government for being cautious on this point.
MR. CARDWELLthought it should be borne in mind, when hon. Gentlemen were talking of the increase of expenditure, that within the last eighteen months a reduction of the expenses of collection had been effected in the Excise alone to the extent of 52,000 l., by the suspension of patronage, and by the diligent attention paid to the subject by the late Government.
House in Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY—ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
On the Question, that 3.340 l. be granted for defraying the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England,
MR. E. DENISONsaid, that one half of the Commissioners never attended the Board at all; and that those who did at-
1102
tend declared that the way in which the business was conducted was not satisfactory. On a former occasion, the Secretary of State for the Home Department expressed a similar opinion. He did not intend to oppose the vote; but he wanted an assurance that the state of the Commission would be taken into the consideration of Government during the recess, and gave notice that unless some alteration took place in the present mode of conducting business, he would move for a course of inquiry in an early part of the next Session.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken was quite correct in his statement of his (Sir G. Grey's) opinion given on a late occasion. He thought the constitution of that body, looking to the business they had to transact, and to the increase in that business which had lately taken place, was not satisfactory. Many members of the Commission, who were public officers, were unable to attend the Board. He did not think it would be right to dispense with their services altogether, for though they might not be able to attend regularly, yet they could give their assistance on special occasions, when it might be valuable. What he conceived to be the defect in the constitution of the Commission was, that no one person was responsible for his attendance, nor could be called on to account for the proceedings of the Board. He had already expressed his opinion that there should be some paid person responsible for attendance on the Commissioners; and to whom the House should look for the discharge of the duties of the Board. The subject deserved the serious consideration of Government, and he should be happy to give it his earliest attention.
MR. W. WILLIAMScontended, that the cost of the Commission ought to be paid out of the revenues of the Church, and not from the public funds.
MR. WAKLEYasked, was it right that the public should pay 3,340 l. for being told that a portion of the Commissioners did not attend, and that those who did attend performed their duty badly? It was really bringing the Church into odium, to come to the House and ask for payments of this kind.
SIR G. GREYhad never stated that the Commisioners had performed their duties badly; but had objected to the Commission as defectively constructed, since there was a mass of business cast upon its members,

1103
and no one of them was paid for attending to it; many of them, however, voluntarily devoted much time to it, and most efficiently performed their duties when they attended.
SIR R. INGLISinsisted that the State, and not the Church, called for the Commission. Its object was to carry into effect an Act of Parliament which the Church opposed, because her property, never having been given by the State, ought not to be so controlled by it. The State ought not to impose upon its victim the expense of the proceeding.
MR. HUMEreminded the hon. Baronet that Parliament took the Church property from the Catholics, and gave it to the Protestants; and Parliament which gave, had a right to take when it thought fit. The complaint of the hon. Baronet was very ungrateful, for the object was to reform and purify the Church by getting rid of its sinecures. As to the vote being necessary to give Parliament a control, Parliament could call for an account at any time without this being in the Estimates.
MR. F. BARINGconsidered that the bringing the vote annually before Parliament gave the Legislature a practical superintendence.
MR. TRELAWNYregarded all taxation of this kind as unjust, and advocated the voluntary principle.
DR. BOWRINGasked, why Dissenters were to pay in this instance for the better distribution of money in which they had no interest among a particular body?
LORD J. RUSSELLthought it unnecessary to discuss now the voluntary principle, which he understood to mean that the State was not to pay persons for teaching a particular kind of religion. This vote was asked for to pay a secretary and clerks employed on the business of a Commission, whose office it was to distribute among the parochial clergy, when their stipends were low, certain funds saved from various prebends and sinecure offices; the persons whose salaries were thus to be provided, were no more engaged in teaching, or attempting to teach religion, than if they were clerks at the Admiralty or in the War-office.
MR. J. STUARTthought the hon. Member for Finsbury ought first to complain of the wealth of the Church of Scotland, which was greater than that of the Church of England, in proportion to the number of the Clergy. The present vote was not for the purposes of the Church, but
1104
of the State; and the connexion between the Church and the State subsisted for the benefit of the latter, and not of the former. As to what had been said of the voluntary principle—the principle that money raised from persons of various religions ought not to be applied to a purpose disagreeable to any of them, let the consequences of that be thought upon. Why, then, should Quakers pay towards the expense of any war, however just?
SIR R. FERGUSONwould not resist the vote, but he thought it highly desirable that an inquiry should be instituted into the expense of working the Commission in Ireland; and most ardently did he hope that the matter would engage the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The expense amounted, as he was informed? to between 13,000 l. and 15,000 l. annually. The accounts should be minutely looked into, and the expenditure reduced to as low an amount as was possible under the circumstances.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLobserved that the subject was one to which his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would not fail to direct his serious attention. He expected to have some account from his noble Friend ere long on the question, together with an exposition of his (the Lord Lieutenant's) views as to what ought to be done; and if it should be deemed advisable to come down to Parliament to seek for new powers in reference to the subject, he (Lord John Russell) would be prepared to do so.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS.
On the Question that 120,700 l. be granted to defray the annual expenses incurred in administering the Laws for the Relief of the Poor,
MR. HUMEthought it was exceedingly desirable that this vote should, in part at least, be deferred until a statement of the evidence which had been taken before the Committees above stairs had been laid upon the Table. He had always on principle supported the Poor Laws; and it was with extreme sorrow and distress that he was led by every day's experience to the conclusion that the administration of those laws had been very much misdirected. It was impossible to overstate or exaggerate the amount of the evils which had been inflicted on the country by the present Poor Law Commissioners, who he believed to be totolly incompetent and unfit for their situ-

1105
ations. Indeed so strongly was he impressed with this conviction, that he was prepared to bring forward a Motion for their removal from office, and only waited for the production of the evidence which had been taken before the Committees of that House. Under all the circumstances of the case, he was exceedingly unwilling to vote away the public money (at least in a larger sum than was essentially and imperatively necessary) for the purposes of these Commissioners, until it had been clearly ascertained in what manner they had discharged their duty towards the country. It was trifling with great national interests to permit the present state of things with respect to the treatment of the poor to continue any longer; and most fervently did he hope that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would, with as little delay as possible, take the matter zealously in hand, and devote to it his best attention. He did not want to withhold such sums as might be necessary for the payment of medical officers and other expenses equally important, and to which the public were pledged; but he was for taking a partial vote on account, and leaving the remainder of the estimate undisposed of until the information which had been elicted by the Committees now sitting above stairs had been laid upon the Table of the House—information which would enable the House to estimate in what manner the Commissioners of Poor Laws had acquitted themselves of their duty. He was not for reducing the estimate, but he submitted that the better course would be to take a vote on account for 100,000 l., and leave the balance to be disposed of when the question of the administration of the Poor Laws was formally under the consideration of the House.
MR. WILLIAMSagreed with the hon. Member for Montrose, and thought that great responsibility rested on the Government with respect to this matter. It was undeniable that mismanagement and maladministration of the Poor Laws existed to a scandalous extent, and that the present system of things could not be endured any longer. Such evidence had been brought before the Committees as showed the total incompetence of those who were at the head of the Commission, and their total inadequacy to discharge their duty. The country, he was convinced, would not much longer tolerate the present system, and the sooner the Government looked to it the better.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was now too late in the Session to give to the general question of the Poor Laws as minute and deliberate a consideration as the paramount importance of the subject would require. Whatever consideration might be given to the subject hereafter, or whatever might be the amendments of the present system, which it was desirable should be introduced, it was certain that these objects were not to be attained by resisting the present vote.
MR. HUMEsubmitted, that the House had every right to stop the pay of the Commissioners, if they had not discharged their duty towards the community in a creditable and becoming manner. No less a sum than 6,000 l. was allocated for the salaries of the three Commissioners; and he, at all events, submitted that this amount should be withheld until the House was satisfied that the Commissioners had acted as they ought.
SIR R. INGLISsupported the Motion. He thought that the question of the administration of the Poor Laws was too important a subject to be entertained by so thin a House as the present—there being not more than about forty Members present. The hon. Member for Montrose wanted to get rid of the Poor Laws and the Commission too.
MR. HUME: No, no. I have stated that I have ever been favourable to the principle of the Poor Laws, but I object to the manner in which they are administered, and to the conduct of the Commissioners.
SIR R. INGLISwas still of opinion that the estimate ought to be agreed to. The withholding of their salaries from the Commissioners would be a very severe sentence upon them, and one which certainly ought not to be come to unless on the clearest evidence of their misconduct. No such evidence was now before the House, and he hoped, therefore, that the vote would be passed.
SIR DE LACY EVANSalso supported the vote. He would do so irrespectively of the consideration whether the Poor Laws were mal-administered. Even though misconduct were hereafter to be established against the Poor Law Commissioners, and that on a future occasion they were to be dismissed in consequence, other Commissioners would be appointed in their stead, and the money now voted would be available for the remuneration of their successors.
MR. WAKLEYwould give his most cordial support to the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose, who, he thought, was bound to divide the House on the question. The time had fully arrived when that House should show, in a manner not to be misunderstood, their opinion of the Commission itself, and of the conduct of the Commissioners; and he knew of no better or more emphatic manner whereby to signify their opinion than by withholding from those functionaries their salaries. If only for one week, it should be done, not through a feeling of vindictiveness, but to testify the displeasure and just indignation of the House. He would not attribute unworthy motives to the Commissioners; but he would not hesitate to affirm that the manner in which they administered to the necessities of the poor was most unfortunate, if not most cruel. They received a salary of 2,000 l. a year each; and what did they do for the poor in requital of this? He was sorry that he had not with him just at that moment a copy of the diet table of the Bromley Union, in the county of Kent. He could bring it down, however, any evening for the satisfaction of the House; and by a reference to that document, hon. Members would be enabled to form some idea of the treatment which the poor received. What would hon. Members think of the administration of the Poor Laws when they were informed that in the Bromley Union, situated in the county of Kent—the garden of England, as it had been called—the allowance of animal food for the able-bodied paupers, men of strong constitution and vigorous health, was only four ounces in the course of an entire week. Yes, four ounces of meat in the course of seven days, and nineteen ounces of broad per diem—seven ounces of bread for breakfast, six for dinner, and six for supper—that was the dietary prescribed in Bromley union for men of strong constitutions, and in the full possession of their health, who were unfortunately compelled, through the inability to procure employment, to seek refuge in a poorhouse. The inquiry into the proceedings at the Andover Union presented a horrible picture of the treatment of the poor; but in Bromley, nearer to London, he found a worse diet table. He had it from one of the guardians themselves that the number of the wretched inmates in the workhouse at Bromley amounted to eighty-seven; and it was his impression that the guardian added, that out
1108
of these, forty-seven were on the sick-list. He was sure, at all events, that the number forty was mentioned. Nor was he surprised that the fact should be so; for, speaking medically, he would not hesitate to say that if an able-bodied man were to be kept a year on such an allowance of food, his constitution must be inevitably ruined. Foundations of disease would be laid which would be fatal to him. Was it to be endured that the Commissioners should pocket their 2,000 l. a year for thus treating the poor—torturing men in order to drive them from the House? What did the aged and infirm receive? Fifteen ounces of animal food per week; yet the able-bodied had only four ounces per week, and thirteen ounces of bread per diem. Then, he said, the object of the Commissioners appeared to him to be the object originally designed,—to make the workhouse a place of misery and torture to the able-bodied man; and though the hon. Member for Montrose and others expected that the effect of the measure would be to raise wages, the labouring population viewed the workhouse with such horror that they would endure any misery rather than resort to it for relief. He had been informed that, in a parish in Dorsetshire, the men at the hay harvest struck for a rise of wages, and had what they asked, namely, 5s. a week. What had they before? Why, only 3s. 6d. a week. This was at Frampton, in Dorsetshire. This statement had been made by a person resident there to a Member of that House. He was prohibited, by the forms of that House, from going into the facts stated before the Andover Committee; yet the House was legislating on the subject without that evidence. What was to be done? To mark the sense of the House with respect to the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners. He believed in all the social relations of life they were excellent men; but they were acting on a mistaken principle, and violating the rules of justice to the poor, when they said to the labourer that he should be tortured and driven from place to place by scanty and insufficient diet. From year to year there had been promises of amendment, but none appeared. The tone and manner of the noble Lord to-night, in speaking of this question, inspired him with a better hope. He trusted that the noble Lord was not so wedded to the Poor Law Act that he would not be willing to have a Committee upon the subject. It was quite clear that

1109
the Commission was useless—that it was worse than useless—that it was a monster grievance engrafted on the Constitution, which ought to be removed. Not but that the poor must have some appeal from the local authorities. It was quite clear that they could not be left to the management of the local authorities. There must be some appeal: how it was to be constituted it was not for him to say; but that a radical change was necessary, must be evident to every hon. Gentleman who for the last five or six months had applied his mind to the subject. Therefore, he entreated the noble Lord at the head of the Government to give his early attention to the subject. No subject more urgently claimed the noble Lord's attention than this. The noble Lord was bound to consider what was the condition of the destitute poor under the present system. If they applied for relief, they were told to go into the workhouse; and if they went into the workhouse, the result was what the House was but too well aware of. It was evident that if in the workhouse relief were given at the rates he had mentioned, the poor man would rather starve, having his liberty, than starve in the workhouse. Therefore he remained out, determining to subsist, as he could, upon any pittance he might pick up, than enter the workhouse. That being known to the employers of labour, they offered wages according to the scale of the poor man's necessities, and the consequence was, that wages, throughout England ranged from 3s. to 10 s. or 11 s. a week. But 12 s. a week was not sufficient for a man to support himself and his wife and children upon. It was quite evident, that as the poorhouse system was conducted, the poor would subsist on anything rather than go into the workhouse. He (Mr. Wakley) thought the poor man ought to be placed in a situation, if not of comfort, at least of sufficiency, whilst he was on the look-out for employment. He entreated the hon. Member for Montrose to go on with his Motion and take a division, in order to show the Poor Law Commissioners the opinion of the House upon the way in which they had discharged their duties.
CAPTAIN PECHELLcordially concurred in the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. He had himself told the Secretary of the Treasury that he was prepared to move the reduction of this vote. Though the Members of the Andover Committee were precluded by a vote of the House from tak-
1110
ing notice at present of the facts which had been brought to light relative to the Andover Union, yet it was not possible for anybody to avoid being aware of what was taking place before that Committee, and of the horrors that appeared in the evidence. From what he had seen in the faithful organ of information on this subject, he was strengthened in his determination to support that Motion. He wished to mark his indignation at the conduct that had been pursued, and also his extreme astonishment that the Government did not agree to the very fair proposition of his hon. Friend, to postpone this vote till the next occasion of a Committee of Supply.
MR. J. PARKERcould not see any sort of reason for refusing this vote. When the allegations that had been made, with the proofs of them, were regularly before the House, then they would be in a condition to go into them; but without the proofs before them, to take the step proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be quite unusual, and might lead to very considerable difficulties.
MR. HENLEYthought, that after what the hon. Member for Finsbury had stated respecting the diet table of the Bromley union, the hon. Member could not do less than move for a return of that diet table; for when it was stated that the allowance in that union-house was 4 oz. of meat per week for an able-bodied man, with 13 oz. of bread daily and 1½ oz. of cheese, it was obvious that was too little for human sustenance. With respect to the vote, it must be remembered that the vote was to defray the expenses of the Commission only till the 5th of April next; and that being the case, he did not consider that any sufficient reason had been offered for its postponement. Till the report of the evidence alluded to had been laid on the Table, they could not properly act, and there could not be time this Session to examine all the allegations that had been made, or come to any satisfactory determination on the subject. The effect of the Motion would be to stop the Commission at once, and the whole of the unions throughout the country would be at a standstill if the Commission were suddenly stopped. To that, therefore, he could not consent, for it would throw the relief of the poor into confusion, and he should certainly divide against the Motion, if the hon. Member pressed it to a division.
MR. HUMEdid not wish to embarrass the Government, and also, and principally,

1111
he felt that the House were not yet regularly in possession of the facts of the case against the Commissioners, and that it would not be altogether fair to press his Motion. But it must be distinctly understood that his object had been that so much of the vote should be reserved as would give the House an opportunity of discussing the whole matter on a future day. He was anxious not to be supposed to object to the system of the New Poor Law as it was originally established, but only to the administration of it at this time. As the question could be raised on other occasions, he should consent to withdraw his Motion.
SIR R. FERGUSONwished to know whether it had been the intention of the late Government that the plan of increased allowances to schoolmasters and schoolmistresses in workhouses, auditors, and medical officers should be extended to Ireland, and whether they had intended to relieve the county rate in Ireland from the expenses of paying medical officers for the poorhouses?
SIR J. GRAHAMreplied, that the sums in the Estimates for the three purposes mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, had been intended by the late Government to be limited to Great Britain, the sum for medical relief more especially. The intention of the late Government had been to relieve the counties in Ireland of the moiety of the expense of the constabulary, amounting to 180,000 l. a year nearly; and, considering that that large amount was added to the public charge, and that 100,000 l. had been voted for education for Ireland, they had thought, on the whole, that the arrangement was fair that this relief, with respect to medical officers, should be limited to Great Britain.
MR. WAKLEYwould follow the example that had been set him, and give way upon the present occasion, hoping that the discussion would be productive of good. Perceiving that it was proposed to vote 70,000 l. for the part payment of the medical officers of the Poor Law districts in England, he wished to know whether it was intended to make any new arrangement with respect to their appointment. It was quite clear that some new mode of appointment ought to be made, which should render the medical officers more independent of the authorities under which they now exercised their duties, It was proved at the inquiry at Andover—not the inquiry before the Committee of that
1112
House—by Mr. Westlake, that he was in constant fear of bringing the abuses of that union before the board of guardians, lest he should be dismissed by them. However, Mr. Westlake did ultimately make a complaint, and he was no longer the medical officer of the union. He had been driven from his office, and there was every likelihood of Mr. Westlake being obliged to leave Andover in consequence of the offence he had given to the influential men in that town connected with the board of guardians. The services which that gentleman had rendered to the public and to the poor by his public spirit were incalculable; their value could scarcely be over-estimated; and yet what was his position? He found that he was deserted by his old friends; he had lost the most important office he held; and after having practised at Andover for several years, maintaining a most respectable character in society, he would now have to go and seek practice elsewhere. When a man was performing services for the destitute poor, who had no power to render him services in return, he ought to be in a position as perfectly independent as possible, and compatible with the honourable and just discharge of his duties. When medical officers were, year after year, entering into now contracts with the boards of guardians, they felt so dependent on their situations that they could scarcely exercise those functions which they ought for the benefit of the poor. It was well known that medical officers in gaols were empowered to order what they deemed necessary for the sick criminals: wine, meat, fish, jellies, &c, they ordered without stint, complaint, or rebuke from the magistrates; and it was right that the medical officers should have these powers, because these orders were made medically. He knew that in many unions the medical officers had given the greatest offence, because they had ordered a quantity of animal food in this or that case out of the workhouse, and had thereby endangered their tenure of office. It was now proposed to pay from the revenue of the State one-half of the income to be granted to medical officers for attendance on the poor: he should have preferred that the State should have taken the whole of the payment and the whole of the appointments on itself, taking away those appointments from the guardians. Let the House consider the condition of a poor man, with five or six children, who in the plenitude of his health received no more than 10 s. or 12 s. a week,

1113
prostrated on a bed of sickness; and if the medical officer in such case ordered meat, jelly, wine, or beer, or anything that was essential for the sick man's welfare and recovery, ought he to receive from any individual a frown or check for the discharge of his duties? In such a case of emergency he ought to be as free as the air he breathed to take whatever course he liked, and ought not to be acting under dread of rebuke or dismissal. This was an extremely important subject, which must force itself on the attention of the noble Lord when legislating on the general question of the Poor Laws in the next Session of Parliament; and he did trust that its magnitude and importance would receive full attention from the noble Lord.
SIR J. GRAHAMthought, that as the Government had so recently come into office, it was impossible for them yet to have given attention to all the minute details of this subject; and he therefore might be excused if he stated the view which he and his late Colleagues took of it. He admitted that the question was a most important and difficult one. It had been the subject of especial inquiry before a Committee of that House, presided over by Lord Ashley; and in consequence thereof a change had taken place by a general order issued by the Poor Law Commissioners, with the sanction of the Government. Two important alterations were introduced under that order. There had been a practice of putting up the office of medical relief to auction, and, consequently, of appointing such medical officers as sent in the lowest tenders, without sufficient consideration as to competency and efficiency. That practice was abolished under the order. Another arrangement was also included in that general order, which, he thought, introduced an improvement, and approximated very much to the principle which the hon. Member seemed to think expedient. The new arrangement was this, that the appointment of medical officers, in the absence of any specific term being assigned, should be held to be appointments during good behaviour, thereby rendering their situation as independent as in propriety it could be; for it was necessary that the power of dismissal should exist somewhere. He thought it necessary that in the exercise of their local patronage, the boards of guardians should have their decisions in this respect supervised by some central body, for the sake of the interests of the poor. The hon. Gentleman thought
1114
that the appointments had better be vested in the Government; but he (Sir J. Graham) was very much mistaken, supposing such a proposition had been made by the Government, if the hon. Gentleman himself would not have objected to such an increase of patronage. As the matter was arranged at present, he thought the plan was, on the whole, the best that could be. The local bodies, having the advantage of local information, made their selection in the first instance; but that selection was not perfect or complete till the central board assented to it. It was the duty of the central board to make inquiries on the subject, to see whether the selection made were good; and, if satisfied, they were responsible for the sanction they gave. He repeated that in the absence of a fixed term of employment, the employment was for life or good behaviour, subject only to the power of dismissal in the governing body. The public paying half the expense of the salaries, would render the boards of guardians willing in some respects to increase them; whilst the other half falling on the ratepayers, would form a salutary check against extravagance. He had stated the reason why this experiment should be tried for one year; and the whole question of the Poor Laws would come under revision next year. There must be some central authority, as he indeed had understood the hon. Member to have admitted; though he (Sir J. Graham) did not say that that which at present existed was the best that could be constituted. He was not aware of all the circumstances attending the case at Andover; but, if he mistook not, the dismissal of the medical officer there was the act of the local authorities, and that circumstance, in the judgment of the hon. Gentleman, must serve as a confirmation of his opinion that local authorities required some control.
MR. HENLEYobserved the sum of 30,000 l. set aside for the payment of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses of the Poor Law unions, and he desired to know in what manner this sum was to be applied? Was there to be an increase in the amount of salaries, or was there any new casting of these offices? As to what had been said relative to the practices observed by the medical officers, it should be remembered that the Poor Law Commissioners originally forced the guardians to set the office up by auction; the local authorities had had nothing whatever to do with the evils spoken of as existing in the medical

1115
department. If, therefore, there was any obloquy in this matter, it ought to be saddled on the right horse.
SIR J. GRAHAM: The power of appointment of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses will remain in the board of guardians, as at present, subject always to the Poor Law Commissioners' consent. There was, in this estimate, a considerable increase in the salaries, more especially in the salaries of the schoolmasters; and the expectation was that, for the future, this would be an inducement to more competent and better educated persons than those who heretofore had filled the situations to accept these offices.
Vote agreed to.
Several other votes having been agreed to, the House resumed, and adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a. Coroners (Ireland); Rope-makers.
3a. and passed. Burial Service; Election Notices {Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Alfred Day, of Wincanton, for the Abolition of Judicial Oaths.—By Lord Campbell, from Rochester, and other places, in favour of the Small Debts Bill.—By the Marquess of Breadalbane, from the Free Provincial Synod of Caithness, and other places, for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—From the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, praying for a Shorter Period for Labour in, and for the Better Regulation of Factories.—From Weobley, for Repeal of Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act, so far as respects the Expense of Building and Maintaining County Lunatic Asylums.