said, he had a Petition to present from 3,107 inhabitants of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, comprising many respectable tradesmen, but for this most part the mechanics and artisans, on whom in case of need, the country depended for defence, complaining that they were excluded from the share to which men were naturally entitled in the representation, and were therefore in a state of slavery. He wished he had seen the hon. member for Bramber (Mr. Wilberforce) in his place, as he would have made him a fair offer. He (Mr. J.) was one of those unfortunate persons who inherited property in the West Indies, and he would willingly bargain to use his utmost endeavours to promote the abolition of the slavery of the blacks, if the hon. member would use the same exertions to abolish the slavery of the whites. What was a slave but he who was obliged to give up his will to the will of others? And, when a thousandth part of the population was at liberty to rob the rest, to shut them up in dungeons if they complained, to cut them down when they assembled to remonstrate, what were the majority but slaves? In this free country, as it was called, the slave was allowed to go out of his own house in the morning, but he was waylaid in the evening, and half his earnings were taken from him. The exciseman arrived with penalties, instead of cart whips, tasted him on the soap with which he washed the sweat from his weary brow, and the salt, with which he savoured his frugal meat. By heaven! if the black slave were to change with the white one, the exchange would not be to his benefit. The petitioners, enumerating the evils they had suffered from the want of equal representation, particularized the suspensions of the Habeas Corpus act, the restraints on the liberty of the press, the funding system, which taxed children yet unborn, the Bank-restriction act, and the confiscation act, commonly called Peel's bill. The petitioners prayed for universal suffrage, annual parliaments, and votes by ballot as the only means of national relief; in all which he (Mr. J.) fully concurred.

expressed his belief that the hon. member and the petitioners, were labouring under mental delusion. He did not know where the distress and misery of which they talked existed. For his own part, he never saw in any other country so many fat, sleek, well-clad, and contented looking people as he saw in England.

observed, that the individuals whom the gallant admiral had seen, and whom he represented to be so fat and sleak in condition, must be individuals who lived on the taxes.

seeing the attorney-general in his place, took the opportunity of presenting a petition, to which he had already called the attention of his majesty's law officers. The petition came from Mr. R. G. Butt, whose case he should proceed to state as briefly as possible. It would be in the recollection of the House, that Mr. Butt brought actions of false imprisonment against sir N. Conant and Mr. Newman, the keeper of Newgate, having been imprisoned before a bill of indictment was found against him, and that the Jury returned a verdict in his favour with 1s. damages. The case was afterwards argued before the four Judges of the court of Common Pleas, who laid down for law a doctrine which he believed to be utterly illegal, and in this opinion he was supported by the authority of lord Camden. The consequence of this decision was, that the costs of the actions amounting to 155l. in that against sir N. Conant, and to 93l. in that against Mr. Newman, were thrown upon Mr. Butt. The hard part of the case, however, was, that when the friends of Mr. Butt waited upon the defendants to pay the money, the defendants stated, that they could not receive it, for that the Treasury had paid all their expenses. It was to this part of the case that he was anxious to direct the attention of the House; for he maintained, that the Treasury could not legally pay the expenses of any individual in a law-suit, and by that means become the creditor in place of the original creditor. Sir. N. Conant having declared that he could not receive the money without subjecting himself to an action for fraud, as he had already been paid by the Treasury. Mr. Butt applied to the keeper of Newgate, who also declined receiving the money on the same ground. Mr. Butt then applied to the Treasury, arid was told that he did not stand as debtor upon their books; upon which he made an application to Mr. Justice Richardson, who recommended him to move the court of Common Pleas. After a learned argument from Mr. Serjeant Vaughan, the rule to show cause was refused; Mr. Butt next applied to lord Sidmouth through Mr. Sheriff Parkins, and lord Sidmouth said that Mr. Butt was not confined under any Crown process, and that he could not interfere. An application to Mr. Sheriff Waithman was equally unsuccessful; for that gentle- man, after having consulted his solicitor, was unable to point out any means by which Mr. Butt could obtain his release. Mr. Butt next petitioned both Houses of Parliament; and from parliament he obtained the usual relief—that was to say, no relief at all. At the time of the Coronation, when all the king's debtors were discharged, Mr. Butt expected that he should be included: but an exception was made against him, and he was not released. At length, both the defendants died, and Mr. Butt then applied to young Mr. Conant, who stated distinctly, that though the action was defended by his late father, the expenses were paid by the Treasury, and it was to that board, therefore, that Mr. Butt was indebted for the costs of the action. Here was a direct avowal that the Treasury had interfered in this action, and employed the public money to support a justice of the peace, against whom the action was brought. Another application having been made by Mr. Butt to the Treasury, he was told, that if he chose to take the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' act, they would take no steps to prevent him. He would ask whether this fact did not furnish a convincing proof that the Treasury considered themselves the creditors? What right, he would ask, had the Treasury to pay the money in behalf of sir N. Conant? Their interference was a direct violation of the statute against maintenance; an offence, defined by Mr. Justice Blackstone, to be, the intermeddling in a suit, by furnishing money or other assistance to either party to prosecute or defend it. The Treasury at length consented to the discharge of Mr. Butt, after this unfortunate gentleman had been confined 26 months and 14 days, for a debt which he had offered to pay.

.—He did not offer to pay it.

resumed. The solicitor-general denied, in a manner not the most courteous, that Mr. Butt had offered to pay the debt. He (Mr. H.) took the liberty to say that he had offered to pay it: but, whether he had or had not was immaterial to the main question. The main question was, the legality of the transaction; and he believed that even the learned solicitor with all the modest assurance which belonged to him, would not venture to stand up in his place, and assert that the Treasury could legally make itself the creditor of an individual, by paying the expenses of a private suit. He had letters showing that Columbian bonds were offered in payment of the debt, at a time when the value of those securities was not impeached. He had felt it his duty to state this ease at some length, that the House might mark its sense of the transaction, and prevent its recurrence; for, if the government could buy up individual debts, such a power might be grossly abused, and the public money might be applied to purposes of injustice and oppression.

said, that since the hon. member had mentioned the case on a former day, he had brought the correspondence between Mr. Butt and the Treasury, day after day in his pocket, which, he believed, would have satisfied the House that the Treasury had acted with the greatest moderation and forbearance towards Mr. Butt. Today he had not brought down the letters in question, but he would state the nature of the transaction to the House. Mr. Butt, after having been convicted in the court of King's-bench, published a most offensive libel upon lord Ellen-borough and the marquis of Londonderry, which he caused to be placarded in all parts of the town. The secretary of state sent to sir N. Conant, desiring him to take measures to prevent the continuance of this nuisance. Sir N. Conant accordingly issued a warrant for the apprehension of Mr. Butt, and upon his refusal to give bail, Mr. Butt was committed to Newgate. Mr. Butt having been advised that the whole transaction was illegal, brought actions against sir N. Conant and Mr. Newman, the keeper of Newgate, in the court of Common Pleas, in order to try the legality of the warrant. The case was conducted on the part of sir N. Conant, not by the Treasury, but by sir N. Conant himself and his own solicitor. A special verdict was found, and a special case reserved, in consequence of the great importance of the question, involving, as it did, the legality of another transaction which had been much discussed in that House—he alluded to the well-known circular of lord Sidmouth. The case was elaborately argued in the court of Common Pleas, and the court, after much consideration, were of opinion, that the warrant was legal, and judgment consequently passed against Mr. Butt. As Mr. Butt could not pay the costs, which amounted to 500l. the secretary of state (thinking it extremely hard that they should fall upon sir N. Conant and Mr. Newman) wrote to the Treasury, requesting that they might be reimbursed. He would put it to the House whether there was any thing irregular or improper in this transaction? The hon. member had said, that Mr. Butt had offered to pay the costs to sir N. Conant. If the hon. member knew, of his own knowledge, that such an offer had been made, he could not, of course, say that it was not so; but he had made every inquiry, and the result certainly was, that no such offer had ever been made. Mr. Butt had offered a warrant of attorney to the lords of the Treasury, as a security for the debt; and the result of this application was, that the Treasury had declined the warrant of attorney, and granted his discharge without any condition. So far was Mr. Butt from having any just ground of complaint against the Treasury, that, in a letter addressed to the lords of the Treasury, he had expressed great gratitude for their moderation and forbearance.

could not understand how the Treasury had a right to apply the public money to the buying up of the debts of an individual, and thereby to keep him in prison at their pleasure. He trusted that a proceeding like the present would not be repeated; as it gave to the government an unlimited power of oppression.

denied that the solicitor-general had taken the edge off the case. One point only he had made clear; and that was that the law had been violated; for he had not ventured to maintain that the Treasury had a right to pay the expenses of a private law suit. He begged the House to consider what an engine of oppression such a power might become, if, when magistrates committed any act of injustice and oppression, the government could defend them out of the public purse. It was merely to say, that sir N. Conant and not the Treasury, had defended the action in question. The learned solicitor had talked of the moderation and forbearance of the Treasury. Those qualities belonged only to the just exercise of power, but the Treasury had no just power. They had acted under an usurped authority. It was absurd, therefore, to talk of their moderation and forbearance.

repeated the statement of the solicitor-general, and contended that the conduct of the Treasury was neither unjust nor illegal, in remunerating sir N. Conant for expenses which he had incurred, at the instance of government, and which the court of Common Pleas had declared to be perfectly legal. He must be permitted to state, that he thought the opinion of the court of Common Pleas, on the legality of holding persons to bail for libel, was quite as likely to be correct as that of the hon. member for Westminster, much as he valued himself on his legal knowledge. For his own part, he did not believe that Mr. Butt had ever been in a condition to pay the costs. If he had tendered the money to sir N. Conant, and that individual had refused to receive it, he ought to have immediately moved the court upon the subject.

said, he had founded his opinion of its being illegal to hold individuals to bail on charges of libel, upon the authority of lord Camden; and trusted that the House would not attach too much weight to the counter decision of the court of Common Pleas, when he informed them, that in that court, for the first time since the Revolution, a judge had ventured to stand up for the character of the Judges who had tried the Seven Bishops, and to state, as Mr. Justice Park had done, that lord Camden had, in particular, pressed too hard upon the character of that wretch, Mr. Justice Allybone. He understood well what was meant by the sneer of the learned attorney-general; but he would tell him, that he did not think the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown, on a point where the liberty of the subject was concerned, to be worth that! [Snapping his fingers]. Every body knew for what purpose they were sent into that House; every body knew out of what wood it was that an attorney and solicitor-general were hacked. Ex quovis ligno fit Mercurius. It was not to be endured that they should turn out of their course to taunt the unlearned with ignorance of law, at the same time that they did not show any willingness to enlighten their darkness. If an unexperienced layman complained of any grievance which he conceived to have been offered to any of the king's subjects, it was the duty of the attorney and solicitor-general to show him, if they could, that he was mistaken in his opinion: not to taunt him with his ignorance of the subject. In the present case, nothing had dropped from the regular defenders of regular abuses, that at all went to establish the legality of the conduct of the Treasury. It had been stated, that their conduct was fair and proper; and much had been said about the hardship it would be on sir N. Conant to allow him to be a loser; but not once had it been stated that they had acted legally. No. He defied the hon. and learned gentlemen opposite to the proof upon that point; "and let me tell them," continued Mr. H., "that I am confident I am right in this instance, because I am opposed to them. At the same time, I think it only fair to state, that my opinion rests, not upon any confidence in myself, but upon my distrust of them; and that I am not so much certain that I am in the right, as I have a tolerable assurance that they are in the wrong."

objected to the motion, and maintained that not the slightest imputation could rest upon the barrister who, with so much ability, presided over the county court of Middlesex.

was of Opinion, that a committee could not be better employed that in inquiring into the establishment of this court, and whether it could not be improved and the salaries diminished.

said, that the motion, of which he had given notice, was a very important one, and he hoped that the motives which had induced him to bring it forward would not be misunderstood. It was not with British seamen that he would find fault: these he had always held in the highest estimation, and he hoped that nothing would occur to alter that good opinion of them. But he had no hesitation in saying, that since the commencement of the peace, the admiralty bad not used those powers with which they were vested, in the way that appeared to be most useful, either in promoting the interests of the country or the honour of the navy. He denied the most distant intention of casting any reflection upon the navy itself. That navy had been, and it always ought to be, the honour and glory of the country; and he hoped that the country would never forget, or fail to acknowledge, their gallant deeds. He looked upon the navy as the most important branch of our national defence: to it the country owed air its honour and glory; for the trophies of the army had been always the consequence of the triumphs of the navy. He held the characters of naval officers in the highest respect. He coupled with their names all that was gallant and manly; and he trusted that they would not look upon the present motion as in any way directed against them. He could have no feeling of hostility for such men. Nay, on the other hand, he wished to be considered their best friend. He wished that those who had really fought the battles of their country should get the honour and the reward due for such services, The conduct of the admiralty since the war had given great dissatisfaction; not only to the country, but to the officers of the navy themselves. Old and brave men, who had seen a great deal of service, and whose service and hardships in war entitled them to honour, had not met with that attention and reward which their merits deserved; for many officers who had entered the service long after the war, had been promoted over their heads. Now, he would contend, that if any thing was more degrading than another, or more hurtful to the feelings of a veteran officer, whether of the navy or the army, it was to see a junior, with perhaps he claim but family connection, put over his head—to see a youth removed and put over a man who had been his instructor and his commandant; nay, to see this very young man put in command over him, and raised two or three steps above him, sometimes in the very ship where he had served. If he (Mr. H.) were correct, in the instances he should state, they were an abuse of power on the part of the admiralty. If he was not correct in these, he should be very ready, on sufficient explanation and proof, to admit his error. The first fault he had to find with the admiralty was, that they had not, in time of peace, employed those officers, who, from the extent and importance of their services in war, had a fair claim for employment, but had employed young men in their stead; and not only in this, but they had failed also to give them their due share of the promotion which had taken place. From this it appeared, at least the people would be very apt to say, that they kept up the large establishment, and continued the promotions in the navy, not for the good of the country, but for the advantage of young men belonging to certain families. This ought not to be the case; the rewards of the navy, paid as they were out of the public money, ought not to be given to young and inexperienced men; but to those whose services had been of use to their country. He wished to see the British navy in the high commanding attitude it had assumed until of late years; and he had no hesitation in stating; that many old and able officers entertained great doubts, whether the course now pursued would furnish officers in time of need, capable of maintaining the power and honour of the country. On these accounts he did not hesitate to say, that the admiralty were not taking the proper course, that they had not employed the proper means for continuing to the navy that character, and consequent power, which it ought always to hold. If these charges were not supported by facts, they would of course fall to the ground, and he should be ready to withdraw his motion. But, entertaining these opinions, he would not do his duty, if he had not brought forward that motion. If the expense of the navy had been necessarily great during the war, the public had a right to expect, that, with the termination of the war, the expense of the war would have, ceased. He was ready, very ready to admit that, the half-pay of. the navy must, after so long and extensive a war, be large, and he was convinced that there was not a man in the country, however much he might blame the want of economy in the government in other respects, but was of the same opinion. There was no disposition in the people to withhold a due reward for services; but it was only to those, however, who had really served their country, that the reward should be given. The finance committee had, in their report of 1816–17, calculated that the half-pay would decrease rapidly in time of peace: and it was the duty of the House to attend to the suggestions of that committee. At the close of the war, there was a large list of between 5,000 or 6,000 naval officers; and it was reasonably calculated, that, from the long and hard services to which many of them had been exposed, the expense of that department would be rapidly decreased. If the expectations which were then held out were not realized, the House had a right to inquire into the causes. In order to show that this had not been the case, he would point out what had been our situation in 1793; at the end of the war in 1816; and now, as to the number of officers—the number, at the close of the war, was necessarily large, on account of the great number of ships that had been in commission. In 1793, the number of officers stood as follows:—

Admirals	10
Vice-Admirals	19
Rear-Admirals	19
Captains	444
Commanders	160
Lieutenants	1409
Making a total of	2061	Officers.

In the year 1816, the numbers were,

Admirals	67
Vice-Admirals	68
Rear-Admirals	75
Captains	850
Commanders	803
Lieutenants	3994
Marking a total of	5857	Officers.

Now the estimate held out was, that these would be annually reduced about 3 or 4 per cent, and that thus, in the 7 years which had elapsed since 1816, there would have been a reduction of nearly one-third. He would take it, how* ever, at a fourth or a fifth. But instead of that proportion of reduction, there had not been a diminution of 1 per cent. The numbers on the list now were:—

Admirals	59
Vice-Admirals	64
Rear-Admirals	70

Captains	829
Commanders	814
Lieutenants	3720
Making a total of	5556	Officers

which was a reduction only of about 310, instead of being between 900 and 1,000. From 1816 to 1823, there had been 965 steps of promotion, including 513 first commissions. He would not object to the 44 post-captains who had been raised to admirals, or the admirals who had been promoted, for he felt convinced, that they had all served for 23 or 24 years, and of these there had been only a few promoted. There had been no fewer than 513 promotions of midshipmen to be lieutenants, although at the close of the war, there were 3,994 lieutenants in the service; and the object of thus promoting so many midshipmen was stated to be, to bring into the Service all those who were deserving,—to bring in all those who had claims for Service. This was so far well if it could be proved to have been the case; but it would require some better reasons than he knew to justify the large addition that had been made, of men who had no claims from service. Within the last 7 years, the higher promotions were as follows:—222 lieutenants had been raised to the rank of masters, and 125 masters and commanders posted. Such an increase in a period of peace, after the hopes that had been held out of reduction in the numbers, was not consistent. The country has been disappointed; but if promotions were to be made, they should have comprehended old and valuable officers, whose services entitled them to the preference. It was necessary here to anticipate an objection that had been made on a former occasion, and would most probably be re-introduced in the present discussion. It would be said, that these promotions were made on foreign service—that the admiralty had no direct interference with them—that they were essential to the well-being of the service, and were altogether free from that official influence and interest to which he (Mr. H.) was so decidedly averse. To meet this argument, he would state the extent to which promotions, exclusive of the admiralty authority, had really taken place; for he had moved, with a view to such exposition, for a return in detail of the officers who had been promoted by officers in command abroad within the last seven years. A reference to these documents would best explain the facts, and give the best refutation to their statement. He found that the number of promotions necessarily made by deaths and dismissals for the last seven years abroad, was, commanders 5, post-captains 6, lieutenants 45. That was the whole of the casualties on foreign service, and the extent of the patronage of admirals abroad; but there was another class of officers promoted, namely, those by flag-officers on striking their flag. As each command continued for three years, the opportunity, according to the custom of the service, was afforded of making, on the 13 flag stations, 13 commanders and 13 lieutenants. Making, then, the due allowance for the casualties by death and dismissal, and the flag promotions, the number of lieutenants promoted by the admiralty amounted to 432; of commanders, 180; and of post-captains, 120. It might be said, that such as were promoted on foreign service were out of the influence of the admiralty. The fact was not so; for with the exception of the cases mentioned, the promotions abroad were just as much under admiralty influence as those which took place in London: a list was forwarded by the admiralty to the commanding officer of each station, containing the names of officers who were sent out for promotion, and on a vacancy taking place by invaliding the first of that list, for the time being, the commanding officer must of necessity promote, subject to the approbation at home. He thought the admiralty was bound to show why such an increase in promotion had, under the circumstances of the country, taken place in these 7 years, oft, profound peace. The misfortune was, that our number of naval officers was not necessarily proportioned to our number of vessels. In every other branch of service—in the army, for example—the power of promotion was limited to the number of regiments, and the vacancies that occurred. If there were ten regiments, it was impossible to promote a greater number of officers than the complement prescribed to these ten regiments required. A very contrary course existed in the administration of the naval service. Though there were only 300 ships; of, every rate (the 6 rates), it was at the discretion of the admiralty, at least in modern practice, to appoint as many commanders and captains, as they chose. The House was called upon, in his judg- ment, to affix some limits to a discretion which he had shown to have been so grossly abused, and hereafter likely to be improperly and expensively exercised. He would take the list of ships employed and in ordinary in 1823. He would allow the proper number of officers to every ship in the navy, in ordinary and afloat—he would officer the vessels upon the most liberal scale; he would allow 8 lieutenants to a first rate, 7 to a second, 6 to a third, 5 to a fourth, and so on. Over and above this, he would allow 50 lieutenants for guard and receiving ships—he would officer every vessel that could swim; and to do all this he would require only 244 captains, 147 commanders, and 1,538 lieutenants; whilst, at present, we had near 850 captains, more than 800 commanders, and 3,720 lieutenants; being a surplus, as regarded the lieutenants, of near 2,200. He was bound to say that he had received from the admiralty every facility for his present motion; he still, however, con tended, that they held a dangerous discretion, and he thought the calculation he had just made, proved that that discretion should be limited. Passing by the effect on the officers superceded, let the House look at the expense—the mere cost—which these useless promotions had en tailed upon the country. In the year 1816, the whole amount of the navy half-pay, including superannuations and pensions, had been 1,137,308l., and the estimate of the present year was 1,079,536l.; being a decrease of 57,772l. in the seven years of peace to meet all those hopes of rapid reduction held out by the committee of finance in 1816–7. In fact, the expense of the promotions of the last seven years, allowing for the differences of pay, had amounted to more than 78,000l. a year. If we compared the number of ships in the six rates in the service in 1793, it would be found, that they were nearly as many as in 1816, although there were only 2,061 officers in the former year, and 5,868 in the latter. Was any promotion, he would ask, requisite with such a number of officers in the service? Let us see what had been the conduct of the admiralty after the American war. In the six years from 1784 to 1789, there had only been 160 promotions in the navy, whilst, in the six years from 1816 to 1821, there had been 797 promotions. With so many more officers in the service in 1816, than in 1784, how could this be defended? And now he would consider the propriety of the promotions; that was, the discretion with which officers had been selected for promotion—a point of far more interest to the nation than the expense of their half pay. In such an inquiry it was not fair to dwell upon particular instances; and he believed that his list of cases, as it was pretty extensive, would also be found tolerably impartial. First, he had a list of 40 post-captains, who had been lieutenants at the close of the war, and had, consequently, gained two steps in time of peace—one step, he (Mr. H.) submitted, would have been quite sufficient for all their services performed. The gentleman at the head of the list, captain Fanshawe, was a lieutenant in 1813, and had been promoted as commander in 1815, passing over the heads of 2,610 lieutenants, and made post in 1816, over the heads of 770 commanders. The next was Houstoun Stewart, who was placed over the heads of 630 commanders, and who was posted on the 10th June, 1817. The third he should mention was the hon. G. Perceval, who had passed over the heads of 2,700 lieutenants, of 685 commanders, and been posted on the 7th Dec. 1818. The next was the hon. G. Gambier, who passed over the heads of 3,280 lieutenants, of 745 commanders, and posted the 4th of June, 1821. He begged the attention of the House more particularly to the two next cases; namely, that of lord H. F. Thynne, and the hon. F. Spencer. Lord H. F. Thynne was made a lieutenant the 27th Nov. 1817; a commander, in June, 1821, having passed over the heads of 3,588 lieutenants, and been posted in July, 1822, having passed over the heads of 755 commanders. And it should be remark, ed, that lord H. F. Thynne had never served one day as a commander. The hon. F. Spencer was appointed a lieutenant the 14th July, 1818; made a commander, in March, 1821, having passed over the heads of 3,642 licutenants; he was posted in August, 1822, having passed over the heads of 749 commanders. Captain Spencer was, he believed, prompted abroad; that was, according to the system of accommodation often so improperly practised of creating a vacancy when required, by getting the senior officers invalided. Against such a system, where a certificate of ill health was often given, where it was well known there was no ill health, the House was bound to set its face. The hon. member went on with a large list of instances, in which officers had been needlessly promoted to the rank of captain since the peace, and unfairly promoted, as regarded the claims of their fellows. He gave particular examples of supersession, in the case of captain Gambier of the Dauntless, who had been a midshipman at the close of the war, and whose first lieutenant, Mr. S. Jervois, was an elder lieutenant by five years than himself; the case of captain Maclean, of the Blossom, whose first lieutenant, W. G. Agar, had been 17 years a lieutenant; and the case of captain, the hon. F. Spencer, now commanding the Creole, and having two lieutenants under him, Mr. T. Phipps and Mr. W. Robertson, both of them lieutenants for years before their captain had gone to sea. Let the lords of the admiralty consider the mischief which these unfair promotions did to the service. Let them look at the four officers—lord Thynne, and Messrs. Spencer, Gambier, and Maclean, who had received three promotions—lieutenants, commanders, and post-captains, since the peace—and judge of the feelings of the old and meritorious officers over whose heads those gentlemen had passed. The others of the 40 cases which he had selected were of the same description, in all of them great super, session, though in different degrees. There were, also, 51 commanders, who had obtained two commissions since April 1814, and who were promoted over the heads of hundreds of their seniors. Some of them superseded 3,600 lieutenants, and all of them upwards of 2,200!!! [hear]. He stated these facts from documents with which, in conformity with the order of that House, the admiralty had laid upon the table. He had no reason to complain of any reluctance on their part to furnish the returns for his motion. It was one in which the public interest was much excited, and they had acted wisely in affording the information asked for. He had no party feelings on the subject—he had no personal objects through disappointment to gratify; as he had not a relation connected with the Navy. (An hon. friend near him suggested, that if he had such a connexion, he would not probably take his present course [a laugh].) He felt that it would make no difference with him, and it was known to his friends, that he had done so in another branch of the service where he had a relation. He next came to the employment of officers, a point of considerable importance when coupled with that of promotion. If the rule for promotion upon any extraordinary occasion—the rule, for instance, observed at his Majesty's Coronation, had been to select officers according to their seniority in the service, he should have been content. But the seniority which had led to promotion in that instance, turned out to be seniority as to employment in the time of peace, and not as to employment in the time of war. When it was stated by the admiralty, in answer to officers applications, that attention would be paid in all the coronation promotions, to seniority and service, lieutenants of 10 or 17 years standing, and the greater part of that time a service in war, had naturally expected to be made commanders. But the admiralty afterwards said,—"You shall be selected with reference to the length of your service during the peace, and not according to your service during the war." Whether that rule was just or not he did not now inquire, but supposing the admiralty to have previously made up their minds, that they would promote at the Coronation those officers whose length of employment during the peace was greatest, how easy was it for them, by previous arrangement of that peace employment, to place the claim for promotion in whomsoever they pleased. He was aware that family and parliamentary interest might be expected to have a certain weight; but, looking back to the list which he held in his hand of 51 lieutenants made commanders, he could not but think that the effect of that influence was much too great. As a specimen of the promotion at the Coronation, he referred to the list of commanders then made post captains. They were—

	Date of Commission at Commander.	Officers passed over.	Sea Service in peace.
J. Gore	May, 1808	125	3	ys.	3	mths.
J. C. Carpenter	April, 1809	137	1	ys.	4	mths.
R. Hockings	April, 1809	137	1	ys.	10	mths.
G. B. Allen	July, 1809	144	2	ys.	3	mths.
J. Cod	May, 1810	158	4	ys.	0	mths.
R. L. Colson	June, 1810	166	4	ys.	3	mths.
Edw. Lloyd	May, 1811	194	2	ys.	11	mths.
J. Gedge	Sept. 1811	211	4	ys.	8	mths.
B. M. Kelly	Nov. 1811	213	2	ys.	10	mths.
H. F. Jauncey	Feb. 1812	216	4	ys.	3	mths.

These were the promotions of the Coronation, made over the heads of highly deserving officers who had been wounded in the service. He should mention some of the names of these neglected men:—

	Date of Commission.
George Luke	June 23, 1794
George Robinson	Nov. 5, 1794
J. Johnson	April 27, 1801
J. Douglas	April 29, 1802
James Grant	Jan. 12, 1805
W. J. Hughes	Sept. 25, 1806
Wm. Coote	May 6, 1807
B. Warburton	Dec. 16, 1807
H. C. Thompson	Aug. 29, 1808
C. Beacroft	Oct. 3, 1809
H. N. Rowe	May 2, 1810
T. L. R. Laugharne	Feb. 12, 1811
J. H. Garrety	May 3, 1811

He would ask again, if such a system was not calculated to discourage every man who served his country, much more those who had bled in her service; and who naturally looked forward to some of the distinctions of their professions? Again, with respect to the employment, he had made out a list of the 57 commanders, the total number now employed in the navy. Five were employed upon survey; but of the remaining 52, how many would the House suppose were old officers who had served in time of war; and how many of them officers made since the peace? Half and half, as regarded the numbers, would perhaps be the general idea. No such thing. Of the 52 commanders now employed, of whom he spoke, 6 only had been made before the year 1813—that was during the active period of the war; all the rest had been promoted subsequent to the year 1814 in time of peace.—Was not such proceedings calculated to discourage and to disgust officers even the most attached to the naval service, and eventually to impair and destroy its efficiency? It might be said, as it had already been said, that the old officers did not wish to be employed. He would meet that argument, if it was used, by saying that he knew to the contrary. He had made out a list of 98 lieutenants (now serving under new-made captains), older sailors and better entitled to promotion by their services than the men who commanded them. Every one of that number had been upwards of 10 years lieutenants, and some upwards of 20 years—From that number of old officers the promotions might have been made! In looking to the advancement and employment of officers who had seen long service, it occurred to him that many of the midshipmen who had served during the war were placed in a very hard situation. After the promotion of 1,000 midshipmen, in 1814, which was to meet all claim for services in time of war of that classy it had been said, indeed, that no further promotions were to take place; but still there had been an understanding, that such midshipmen as should still continue in the service, would have the chance of advancement in preference to new claimants. This promise, however, as far as it could be called a promise, had not been fulfilled in good faith. On the 1st of January, 1816, there were 1,509 passed midshipmen, and of that number only 188 had been up to this date, promoted to be lieutenants, and 163 of those who were in the service in 1816, still remained in the service as midshipmen! He had found on board the flag ship at Portsmouth in the month of March, of the present year, 10 midshipmen whose united periods of service amounted to no less than 142 years [Hear, hear.] Every one of these were young men of exemplary character; and the cases of some of them were well known to many members of the House. One had been fifteen years in the service, and he was happy to learn this day, that he was about to be employed in the Isis. He trusted he was at length in the way of promotion. The next on the list, Mr. H. S. Burmston had been also 15 years a midshipman. His claims were numerous. He had been in several actions; had distinguished himself at Algiers; had been thanked for meritorious services by the king of Holland; and had received a medal from the Humane Society, for having saved a seaman from drowning. He had no acquaintance or connexion with any of them; but having accidentally learned the singular fact of such a number of midshipmen of such long standing, having been on board one ship, he felt extremely solicitous to be informed of the particular history of each, which he then had in his hand, but would not take up the time of the House in stating more of them. If such was the illustration which one ship gave, as to the hardship of the old midshipmen, what must be the state of the case when the whole service was taken into account. He hoped, however, that in charity such an example was not very common. Turning from the meritorious, but the neglected, to the fortunate young men, he found the names of 10 midshipmen promoted to be lieutenants immediately after they had served their time; and whose united service as midshipmen did not amount to 60 years, including the time at the Naval College, and those, all years of service, during the peace. Amongst these 10 midshipmen so promoted, was the name of one Mr. Purvis, whose name was not yet published in the Navy List. That practice, he believed, was a recent but not uncommon one. With the view of keeping secret such promotions, an interval of 3 months took place between the promotion and the period of making it known to the public. It came within his knowledge, that an officer had received the communication of his promotion in December, while no insertion of it was made in the official list until the April following. There were three of these midshipmen promoted, on the ground of having attended the king to Scotland. One of these, however, (Mr. Seymour) did not accompany the king, though that was the reason assigned for his promotion. He should not trouble the House with giving the names of all the other numerous fortunate midshipmen, who, in time of peace had been promoted nearly ns soon as they had passed their time; but there were some names which he felt it his duty to mention, viz:—Hope Johnstone, hon. G. Ryder, Henry Dundas, Chas. J. Hope Johnstone, W. F, Martin, A. Fitzclarence, hon. R. S. Dundas, G. J. Hope Johnstone (three promotions in one family rather a little too much), H. M. Blackwood, Chas. Talbot, Wm. Pitt Canning, E. Wodehouse, H. B. Martin, &c. &c. Did not the whole of these arrangements shew overwhelming influence? Did they not prove that a man's interest had more share than his length of service, or his merits, in his advancement f Let this be admitted to him—and to deny it would hardly be possible—and, as to argument, he should be satisfied; he had done sufficient, if he had proved to the House, that the public was put to great expense, by the promotion of young and inexperienced men of family, whilst young men of highly meritorious and long public services were neglected [[Hear]. Promotion—and he would maintain the fact to be so—was as unfairly, as it was extravagantly distributed. If it were yielded to him that these promotions took place chiefly by interest and not by merit; he asked no more, that was all he wished at present to substantiate. He left the conclusion to every hon. member, whether the satisfaction of the officers, and the good of the service were likely to be promoted by such a system, particularly when the House was informed that there were at this moment employed afloat 98 lieutenants of from 10 to 23 years service, swerving under captains, the majority of whom never served in time of war. He then complained, that the admiralty who considered promotions necessary did not act on the same principle towards the royal marines and pursers. He believed there was no man who knew the royal marines, but would concur in praise of their services, as not inferior to that of naval officers; and yet, what was the treatment the marine officers met with? The royal marine corps in January, 1816, consisted of 6,949 officers and men. It was now 8,494; making an increase of 1,545 men in seven years. The navy had not been increased, and yet the number of promotions of officers in the marines which had been increased, bore no proportion to those in the navy. The promotion of lieutenants, captains, and majors together only amounted to 37 steps in the 7 years of peace.—There had been 5 first commissions; 11 lieutenants made captains; 11 captains majors; 10 majors to lieutenant-colonels; in all 37 steps among nearly 1,000 officers—while there had been 960 steps in the navy, and only 400 or 500 officers employed at one time.—The disproportion and injustice were here manifest. The question was, why this difference existed? It was clear that the promotions in the navy and marine service were not sanctioned by any principle of equal justice. And the true reason was, that the marines had no connections in that House; they had no borough influence; they were not supported by an alliance with great families, and therefore their chances of promotion were so very few [hear!]. It ought not to be forgot that the very distinguished loyalty of the royal marines, induced the government to change their facings to royal blue? The case of the marines supported completely his charge of influence. The number of marine officers brought from half pay in 6 years had been 210, and only five new commissions had been given. In the navy 513 new commissions had been given! The fair principle of promotion which he contended ought to be adopted in the navy, had been recognized by a regulation which had been passed with respect to purser's in 1814; in which it was ordered, "that with the view of preventing the improvident and unnecessary increase of pursers, no person should be warranted for that situation until the number should be reduced to the number of ships on the list of the royal navy, exclusive of the ships building." It was his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, that some such rule should be laid down relative to the officers of the navy, that there might be no more officers than would be sufficient to officer all the ships that we bad either afloat, in ordinary, "or building.—A proof of the advantage of that regulation was, that in 1816, there were 950 pursers, and there had been, in consequence of the regulation alluded to, but sixteen promotions of pursers in seven years, and these had been made chiefly on foreign service; there were now only 747 pursers, so that the number was at present reduced 203 below that of 1816; and if the sixteen promotions abroad were deducted, it would make 219 actual decrease in the 7 years—That circumstance showed that a proper regulation for stopping unnecessary promotion had produced the best effect in two branches, the marine officers and pursers and the same rule ought in justice to the public to be acted with naval officers. On all these grounds he thought the House was bound to institute an inquiry—He concluded by moving the following resolutions:—

1. "That it appears, by returns to this House, that there were 3,994 lieutenants, 813 commanders, and 851 post-captains, on the list of the royal navy, in January 1816, and that, notwithstanding so great a number of officers on the list, there has been, between 1st January 1816 and the 8th of January 1823, an additional number of 860 promotions (exclusive of post-captains to be admirals), viz. of 513 midshipmen to be lieutenants, of 222 lieutenants to he commanders, and of 125 commanders to be post-captains: and that although peace has existed for seven years, there were on the 8th January 1823, 3,720 lieutenants, 814 commanders, and, 829 post-captains on the list of the royal navy; a number more than sufficient to officer a fleet of twice the number of ships of every description in the british navy, if they were all at sea at the same time.

2 "That there are 814 commanders on the list of the royal navy, and 57 of them now on full pay, of whom only 7 were promoted during the last ten years active warfare (from 1803 to 1813), and 50 who have been promoted since June 1814, the termination of the war in Europe.

3 "That many of the promotions have been made in the royal navy without due regard either to the length of service, to the merit of the midshipmen and officers, or to the efficiency and advantage of the navy, and that the expense of the half-pay of the officers of the navy, necessarily great after a long war, has been thereby greatly and unnecessarily increased to the country.

4 "That there were 6,949 officers and men in the corps of royal marines in January 1816, and 8,494 in January 1823, being an increase of that corps of 1,545 men and officers in seven years; but there were only 5 first commissions granted, and 32 promotions to higher rank, in that period.

5 "That there were 950 pursers on the list of the royal navy in January 1816, and 747 in January 1823, showing a decrease of 203 in the seven years, exclusive of 16 pursers added to the list in that time.

6 "That an humble address be therefore presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to direct an inquiry to be made into the manner in which the right hon. the lords of the admiralty have exercised their power, both as regards the placing on full pay those officers already on the list, and the promotion of the several officers to higher rank in the navy, since the peace in 1815."

said, that the hon. member; while he stated himself to be a friend to the navy, had advocated principles which would be destructive to the service which he affected to uphold. He was sure that any one who had paid attention to the means by which the glory of the British navy had been achieved, would be convinced that the principles laid down by the hon. member would, if I they had been acted upon hitherto, never have allowed it to have attained its present high and splendid pre-eminence. The hon. member had set out with high sounding calculations, but the number of abuses which he had been able to allege was very small. He had laid great stress on the numbers promoted by interest and family connexions; but he (sir G. C.) considered it of great moment that persons of rank and importance in the country should be induced to enter the service. When persons, born to every advantage that society could afford, chose to abandon the comforts of which they were in possession, to fag with others upon the seas, in the service of their country, they were entitled to peculiar consideration. He allowed that a quantum of promotion ought always to be assigned exclusively to merit; but he was convinced the country would not grumble at the elevation of a certain number of men of that class to which the country must look for its safety, and the House for its defence. He believed neither the navy nor the public could be at all angry to see such men get forward. He would allude to the case of lord Henry Frederick Thynne, which was one of those upon which the imputation of the hon. member had been thrown. The fact, however, was that his name stood at the bottom of a list of seven officers who were made because they were oldest commanders on stations abroad, thus, seven were promotions for merit to one for interest. But, even in respect of the promotions for interest there was a law which prescribed what service an officer should have undergone; and, if he were the king's son, it was necessary that he should perform it. That law required, that he should be six years a midshipman before he could be promoted. And surely, when a person of rank gave up the comforts of life, and consented to fag for six years, he had earned his commission, when given him, with fairness. But the young nobleman to whom he alluded had served some time as a lieutenant in the Mediterranean—[Here Mr. Hume asked what ship?]—He did not then recollect, the name of the ship, but he had also been a lieutenant in the Albion, and sir, J. Gordon, had honourably reported his services to the admiralty. He had also volunteered in a ten-gun brig to South America, and it did so happen that a junior officer was put over his head; yet this young nobleman made no complaint, but conducted himself in a manner that clearly entitled him to the promotion which he had received. As to the charge which had been made of that officer having been sent out to take the command of a vessel in the East Indies, which had not been launched, it was true it had not been launched before he set out, but it was expected to be launched before he arrived. With respect to the case of the hon. Frederick Spencer, upon which was grounded another complaint of parliamentary influence it shout be recollected, that his connections acted with the opposition. How, there fore, could that have been a case of parliamentary influence? The hon. member seemed to be of opinion, that with the end of the war, there ought to have been generally an end of promotion. But what did he think that such a war which was eminently a naval war, could have closed without leaving great claims upon the gratitude of the country? Those claims were indeed constantly diminishing on account of vacancies by death, and by those who left the service; and if some young men were not brought in, what would become of the navy in the event of a new war?—The hon. member had found fault with the coronation promotion. But what was the fact? There were no midshipmen promoted then, but such as had passed in 1813, and the oldest commander on every station was promoted; the youngest of whom was made either in 1811 or 1812. The lieutenants who were selected were those who had been employed for the last eight year. There was an immense number, indeed, employed during the war; but many of those had since entered into other service, or gone out in merchant vessels. Therefore, the admiralty had picked out for promotion all who had been employed for the last eight years, as being within their reach. There was no favour. The oldest had been made in 1794, and the youngest, he believed, in 1806. He could inform the hon. member, that there had once been a promotion on his principle. It was a jubilee promotion, in which the oldest officers were taken according to seniority; and he considered it a foolish promotion. The first lieutenants of flag-ships were generally the best officers, picked out by the admirals; and it sometimes happened that admirals had an inclination to keep them out; of their promotion too long. They were consequently fit subjects of promotion. As to the gross numbers to which the hon. member had referred, he had unfairly stated them. When he found fault with the number of promotions since 1814, it should be remembered that there had been fought since that period a certain battle of Algiers, which attached to it extensive claims. Many, claims had also arisen out of the coast blockade, in the counties of Sussex and Kent. Officers employed on that station frequently risked their lives, by dashing into the waves to save shipwrecked mariners. It would not be denied that such men deserved promotion. Then there had been pirates of a most audacious character in the Red Sea; and our officers had signalized themselves in their extirpation.—There was also slavery to be put down on the coast of Africa; and our officers showed their zeal for its extinction, by dashing up rivers, and attacking sometimes five times their own number: and, were not such men deserving of promotion, when covered with glory, and suffering from wounds? Such services had swelled the list of promotion, and swelled it proudly—and the admiralty was glad of it.—The hon. member had alluded to three persons of the name of Johnston Hope. But the fact was, sir W. Johnston Hope had not made one of them. One of them had been made after he had pulled down his flag, and the others had been made in virtue of an old promise given by sir Home Popham.—He then adverted to the case of another officer, who had been promoted when a reduced lord of the admiralty was requested by lord Melville, from a sense of his services, to name an officer for promotion; and he did name the officer in question. As to the invalids, the hon. member had thrown out an unjustifiable imputation, by speaking of an invaliding job, to make promotions. Would he have officers who became sick in the African and West-India stations, be cruelly kept there to die? The admirals were only allowed to fill up vacancies occasioned by death or court-martial; they had therefore no interest in having officers invalided. No officer could, in fact, be invalided, until three captains and a surgeon declared it necessary for his health that he should return home; and any captain who connived was liable to be cashiered. When he returned he was examined at the admiralty, by two of the chief medical officers of the board. Could this be a job? The unhealthy climates of Africa and the West Indies caused a great increase of invalids; and, when the hon. member spoke of the small number of deaths, he did not take into account the number of those who died after having been invalided. As to the promotion of captain Gambier, it happened by his being in the East Indies when his captain died. The hon. member had objected, that the promotion in the marines was not commensurate with that in the navy. The reason was, that the promotion in the marines was according to that favourite practice which he wished to introduce into the navy; namely, the rising by seniority. The marines were not placed in the same situation as naval officers, for it was quite necessary to put a captain into a ship at the moment of a vacancy; but it was not so with the marines. The principle followed in the navy was, that every third vacancy should be filled by a young person; otherwise there would be no persons in the service who were not of 40 or 50 years standing. With respect to pursers, the regulation which the hon. member quoted was found to be so inconvenient, that the admiralty was obliged to apply to the king in council to have it repealed. For the reasons which he had given, he was confident the House would go along with lim in believing, that nothing more than a proper and becoming attention had been paid to the claims of the naval officers of noble and distinguished families, at the same time that the meritorious services of others had not been overlooked [Hear, hear.] He would therefore give the third resolution a direct negative, and meet the rest with the previous question.

defended the principle of promotion adopted in the navy. He asserted it to be unconnected with parliamentary influence, and said, that out of seven promotions which had taken place in one batch, two only, were the friends of persons who supported the present administration.

contended, that the system of promotion at present pursued was much superior to the old one, and adverted to the condition of the fleet that sailed under commodore Byron in the American war, when there were officers on board who had not seen the salt sea for 16 or 17 years. He was convinced, that the happy mixture of different orders which composed the naval service, enabled us single-handed to fight the world.

thought it right that, in such a case as the present, some attention ought to be paid to public opinion. Whether officers were promoted on parliamentary influence or were not, an inquiry ought to be instituted.

vindicated the promotion of midshipmen as being indispensably necessary for the good of the service.

said, that the only grounds of promotion ought to be merit and standing in the service; and on this ground he was at issue with those who advocated the existing system. The gallant admiral near him had compared the present times with the American war, and derived great consolation, as to the conduct of the admiralty, from the comparison. Had the question been agitated during the American war, the reference would then have been to the battle of the Hogue. If at the time of the battle of the Hogue, something worse would have alleged, as to tire fleet which watched the Spanish Armada. He thought we were but too apt to praise our own times at the expense of those long past.

said, he had always thought, that the reverse of the hon. gentleman's proposition was the one which was most generally accepted; namely, that we were disposed to extol past times at the expense of the present. He was of opinion, that the case of the hon. mover had been most triumphantly met by his hon. and gallant friend near him. So ably had his hon. and gallant friend justified the principle of selection adopted by the admiralty, that what had been charged as abuse, had turned out to be merit. He considered the question to be resolved into this—whether promotion should go by seniority altogether, or whether a portion of it should be left open to discretion? He contended that the statement of the hon. member had not at all borne out the case which he had pledged himself to establish. With regard to the present state of the navy, he believed that very little difference of opinion existed. He thought that the present plan of the service was the best which could be devised to preserve the glory of the navy in time of war, and to maintain it in peace; and that it was in perfect analogy with the mixed principles of the British constitution.

arose amidst loud cries of "question!" mixed with symptoms of disapprobation. We understood him to suggest to the lords of the admiralty the propriety of advancing officers in the navy according to seniority. He particularly recommended to their lordships' consideration that valuable class of officers, who acted as masters and masters mates. He wished to know from the gallant admiral near him, how many masters had been promoted since the war? He felt deeply upon this question, as his own father had been greatly ill-used, and exposed to the most galling and heart-breaking neglect. He trusted that the government of the country would afford protection to those brave officers who had served their country to the brink of the grave, and not allow them in their latter years to be trodden down like reptiles. The hon. member concluded by moving, by way of an amendment, an address to his majesty, the substance of which was, that while the House of Commons were fully satisfied that the lords of the admiralty discharged the trust reposed in them with fidelity, integrity, and judgment, they felt it necessary to call upon his majesty to take into consideration the propriety of doing away with the practice of making senior captains rear-admirals, with the view of superannuating them; and further to recommend that senior captains should be allowed to pass on regularly to the rank of flag-officers.

said, he should not delay the House with many observations, as he had, in reality, little to answer. What he contended for had been admitted by the gallant admiral (sir G. Cockburn), and declared by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) to be a most triumphant answer to the charges made; namely, that promotion in the navy was given to branches of noble families and to parliamentary interest; "that it was to that class the country must look for its safety and the House its defence." He refused his assent to that principle, as a new and dangerous one, and contended that merit and length of service were the principles on which promotion in the navy had, in better times, been made, and had raised the navy to its late pre-eminence; and it was on officers so promoted that the country could best rely in the hour of danger. Were not lords St. Vincent, Exmouth, Duncan, Nelson, &c. examples? If every man of family who chose to enter the navy were, agreeably to the gallant officer's declaration, to be intitled to promotion, on his simply passing the number of years required by the service, he trembled for the British navy at no distant period, and he protested against such proceedings—It had been asserted confidently, that a large portion of the promotions had been given to merit, and part only to parliamentary and family interest: in one instance, six to one. But whilst he agreed in the propriety of joining those claims, he contended, that the examination of the navy list would show, that merit and length of service had got but a very small share of the employment or promotion since the peace. It was most unquestionable that advantage would be derived to the navy by mixing men of family and interest with other officers as long as they could meet on an equality: but, if promotion and commands should be given to those of family and parliamentary influence, so as to dishearten and disgust the officers of long and meritorious service, he contended that the ruin of the service must ensue. He believed, from the testimony of many able officers, that it had already by these means commenced, and, if so, it was time to arrest its progress. The long lists of forty, fifty, and ninety officers of different ranks, which he had produced to the House, remained substantially correct. An attempt had been made to explain the case of lord H. F. Thynne, as one of rank for seven of merit on the foreign-station list for promotion, as if that had taken place by chance, omitting altogether, to answer the charge made by him (Mr. Hume), that the admiralty sent out whatever persons they chose for promotion, and make such arrangements by change of stations and by invaliding, that those they sent out were certain to obtain the intended promotion. These promotions appeared to superficial observers, to be by chance; but it was well known to every naval officer how that was invariably arranged by previous admiralty orders. The gallant admiral had given credit to lord H. F. Thynne for volunteering to go out in a 10 gun brig under a junior officer: it was well known he was sent out for promotion; and when it was uncontradicted that he superseded 3,588 lieutenants when he was made a commander, how many lieutenants must the officer who had been his junior as lieutenant, and who commanded the brig, have superseded? He would inform the House, he believed the person alluded to, was the hon. F. Spencer, who had, when made a commander, superced a 3,642 lieutenants [Hear, hear!]. That admission aggravated the charge in his opinion. It might be true, that the families in opposition to the government also received their share of the promotions, but did that admission do away his charge of family influence, or lessen the evil to the service and the country? Certainly not. The government ought to make a stand against such influence, from which ever side of the House it came: and the best interests of the navy required them to do so.—He had proved, by a list of fifty-two, all the commanders now employed (except those on surveys) that only six of that number were old officers; and, as the admiralty would not employ a greater number of of old officers whilst they restricted the claims for promotion at the coronation to those who had served in the last eight years, it was quite evident that the admission completely established the charge he had made—the chances of promotion to the old officers was as six to forty-six.x2014;It had been stated, in rather too highly coloured language, that the Kent and coast blockade were irresistible claims to promotions in the navy; but, for his part, whilst he doubted the advantage of that system to the navy, he did not think that any of the noble families had owed their promotions to that service.—There were fair claims for services at Algiers, in the Red Sea, on the coast of Africa, and in cases of shipwreck, which he would not object to; but he contended that these claims had been mainly neglected, and that far the greater number of promotions had taken place on other grounds; and when he considered the very lame and unsatisfactory answer respecting the royal marine officers and the pursers of the navy, he thought his case was fully substantiated, and he should take the sense of the House on the propriety of an inquiry into the conduct of the Admiralty.

said, that he rose to submit to the House a motion which involved in its consequences, matters of very great importance. The object of it, as his notice indicated, went to an alteration in the Constitution of Juries, in so far at least as related to the qualification (by possession of property) of those who may be called upon to perform the important functions of a juror. The hon. member said, he hoped the House would not be alarmed at the idea of touching the frame and constitution of juries. He was fully of opinion, that the measure he contemplated demanded their most deliberate attention; but still it was such as, he felt confident they would sanction; and which he thought, indeed, had only failed of adoption ere then from pure inadvertence to the great alteration of circumstances which time had induced. His object was, in fact, simply to render persons possessed of personal property to a given amount, as well as real, eligible, that was to say, qualified, and liable to serve as jurors. And when he reflected upon the vast amount and proportion of personal property in this kingdom which had grown up in latter times, and the character and situations in life of the multitude possessing that species of property, and that alone, he thought the House would feel with him that it was surprising that they had not yet been called out to the service of their country as jurors. From the earliest period of history, it would be found that a juror was required to possess a certain amount of property as proof of some respectability and station in life and a consequent security to the party to be tried. The accused person had accordingly a right to challenge a juror, if he did not so possess an adequate amount. It was, indeed, one if not the chief ground of direct challenge; Blackstone, after reciting the four principal grounds of challenge to the jury given by Sir Edward Coke, propter honoris respectum, defectum, affectum, and delictum, says," but the principal is, deficiency of estate sufficient to qualify him to be a juror." A variety of statutes consequently at various periods of our history are to be found, under which the requisite qualifications have been described. By the 13th of Edward the 1st, jurors must be persons that can dispend. 20s. by the year at the least; which was increased to 40s. by the 21st of Edward the 1st, and 2nd of-Henry the 5th. The 27th of Elizabeth enacts, that every juror shall have an estate of freehold to the annual value of 4l. at least. But the value of money decreasing, this qualification was raised, by the 16th and 17th of Charles 2nd to 20l. per annum. This was a temporary act, and suffered to expire. The 4th and 5th Of William and Mary fixed it at 10l. per annum in England, and 6l. in Wales, of freehold or copyhold lands; which is the first time copyholders, as such, were admitted to serve on juries in any of the king's courts of Westminster; and then by the 3rd Geo. 2nd any leaseholder of 500 years absolute, or on life or lives of the clear yearly value of 20l. above the rent reserved, is qualified to serve on juries. This attention shown by the legislature to the qualification of a juror, is a proof of the importance which has been felt at all times to their possession of some property; and it was as distant as possible from his (Mr. W's.) intention, to derogate in the least degree from the wisdom of our ancestors; on this point, he contended on the contrary that in calling out jurors from the extensive class now excluded, we should more effectually accomplish the real object—that of having responsible and intelligent persons to serve the office. Neither was it any impeachment of the expediency of formerly confining the qualifications to the possession of real property. In former times, every body who had any rank above the lowest class, was an owner of land of some amount, and the possession of land was therefore an indispensable voucher for his responsibility. The case was won derously different now, in this country where the possessors of public securities had an income Collectively amounting nearly to the landed rental of the kingdom, exclusive of joint-stock companies, stocks in trade &c. to an amount beyond all calculation: To Continue these persons under the interdict of antient laws however wise at the time, was now as unwise as could well be conceived. The practical effect was in counties such as might be expected. Not one third of the persons who were, for all real objects, adequately qualified, were ever summoned to the execution of these most important duties. He would not say that the jurors who were summoned were inefficient or incompetent persons; but he would assert that, in the possessors of personal property, there were three times as many not summoned as those who were, that are quite as competent, in every respect, and often much more so. Three fourths of the occupiers of land, many of the most opulent were not possessors of land to the amount of 10l. a year, and consequently not qualified, whilst their very labourers, possessing copyhold tenements to that amount, were known, in some instances, to have been called to the performance of what they must have felt a most expensive and onerous service. But the absurdity of the present system was still more apparent, when we consider that in the city of London and in all cities and towns having a separate jurisdiction, personal property did constitute a qualification. By the 3rd Geo. 2nd, in the city of London, jurors shall be householders possessed of an estate real or personal of the value of 100l., and 40l. is sufficient in other corporate jurisdictions. Upon what possible ground, then, could any body advocate the continued exclusion of the possessors of personal property from this important service of their country in counties. He should propose that the persons who shall be considered qualified by this species of property, shall also be householders and assessed to government or parochial taxes to a given amount which would serve as another test of their responsibility and a prima facie evidence of their possessing the requisite amount of personal property—Mr. W said, he perceived the House was impatient to proceed in the other important business before them, and he believed, he had said fully enough to induce them to acquiesce in the motion, for leave to bring in a bill "to render eligible end qualified persons possessed of a given amount of personal property to serve as jurors."

seconded the motion.

said, the question was of such vital importance, that he certainly should not oppose the bringing in of the bill, though he hoped the hon. member would allow ample time for its consideration. The House would recollect that last year an experiment had been made of the benefit likely to accrue from the establishment of a third assize, This had been found completely successful in the home counties, and it was most desirable that it should be extended to all. It was, however so closely bound up with the measure which the hon. member for Essex had in had that they ought to watch with caution how far the one was likely to impede the other. Leave was then given to bring in the bill. It was afterwards brought in, com- mitted, and the blanks filled up. The amount of personal property proposed was 400l. and the occupation of house assessed to house-duty or poor-rates in Middlesex 30l. per annum: in other counties 20l. and where assessed for land occupied 80l. Notice to be left at the house of persons summoned to serve, a printed schedule for constables to make returns, specifying particulars of residence and property. Nobody to be summoned turned of sixty-five years of age; and one or two other minor regulations.

now rose to submit his motion on this subject. His objection, he observed, was not so much to the amount of the money expended, as to the principle of its application. A part of it, the House was aware, was paid out of the money given by France as indemnity to this country. The whole sum amongst the several allied powers was 750,000,000 of francs, of which 125,000,000 were paid as our portion. In 1816, the House were told that details would be given of the application of the sums received by this country. The House, however, did not hear of it till 1821, when the late Chanceller of the Exchequer stated, that there were 500,000l. of it applicable to the service of the year That right hon. gentleman added, that he could not then state the amount of the remainder, but that whatever it might be, it would be made applicable in the same manner, and an account given of it in the next year, of which it would form part of the ways and means. The House, however, had got not further particulars of it since then. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had distinctly stated, that the whole surplus would be applied to the service of the year; and what he (Mr. H.) complained of was, that instead of having this account given, 138,000l, of the sum had been applied without the knowledge and consent of parliament. This he complained of as a breach of faith with the House and the country, that the money should have been applied in this unwarrantable and unconstitutional manner; and it was the duty of the House to inquire into the case, which could not be better done than by the appointment of a committee. He had also to complain of the great excess of the expense of the coronation beyond the estimate. What was the use of an estimate, if it did not approximate, in some degree, to the sum to be expended? They were first told that 100,000l. would very probably cover the whole expense, and a sum to that amount was voted by the House; but they now found, that instead of 100,000l., the sum expended was not less than 238,000l. It was said, that the expense had been considerably increased by the delay of the coronation from 1820 to 1821. That might be; but why, in that case, was not a new estimate laid before the House in 1821? He had asked, in 1820, whether it was considered that the 100,000l. would be sufficient, and he was answered, that it would. Now this was unfair; for he was satisfied, that if the whole sum was mentioned to the House at first, it would have required greater persuasion than had been used to induce them to consent to it. Next, as to the application of this immense sum. He would wish to know something on the subject, and he thought the House had a right to expect it—not merely as a matter of curiosity, though that might not be out of the case, but as a matter in which they were interested as guardians of the public purse. He should wish to know, how it happened that such an expense should be incurred for robes. He should like to be informed why that bauble—the crown worn at the coronation—was kept so long at such a considerable expense to the country. He did not know whether it might not have been returned a month or two ago, but he did say, it was an unnecessary expense to have kept it so long at an increased expense. The whole of the jewels of which it was composed was about 70,000l., and the retention of it had entailed an expense of 6,000l. or 7,000l. a year on the country. Why was there so much concealment on a subject which ought to have been open to the investigation of parliament? It was not creditable to ministers to use this concealment. If the expenditure had been just and unavoidable, a committee would not be objected to. The committee could investigate the whole subject in eight and forty hours. There could therefore be no objection to the appointment of it on the score of time. The hon. member concluded by moving, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances which occasioned, in the expenses of his majesty's coronation, an excess of expenditure of 138,238l. more than the estimate of 1820, and into the several items constituting that expen- diture; and also, to inquire by: what authority the sum of 138,288l. has been applied to discharge that excess without, the previous sanction of this House."

said, that he would not rest his objection to the committee, on any wish to conceal from the House the manner in which the sum expended on the coronation had been applied. There was no wish of that kind on the part of government: indeed, it was not imputed that any misapplication had taken place, though an imputation had been cast of a desire for concealment. With respect to the first estimate being so much less than the sum subsequently expended, he would say, that many of the services at the coronation performed by the household were abolished by Mr. Burke's bill, and no traces were left as to what the expenses of particular departments would be likely to create. They were left almost to guess in many instances; so that there could be no certainly as to the whole sum: and when in 1820, it was fixed at 100,000l., it was thought that that sum would be sufficient. It should, however, be recollected, that the expense of every department was greater at the present time, than it had been sixty years ago. With respect to the crown and robes, there had been a charge which could not at first have been contemplated. The value set on the jewels of the crown was 6.5,000l., for which 10 per cent was paid. There were, besides, other parts of the regalia for which jewels had been hired; for instances, stance, the circlet which was always worn by the sovereign on such occasions. The one formerly in use was so much out of repair, that it was necessary to hare several additional jewels added. This occasioned a considerable expense. At the coronation of George III., the jewels hired were valued at 370,000l. and though the percentage at which they were hired was much less than on the present occasion, yet the expense of them for one day was 15,000l. The delay of the coronation from 1820 to 1821 had also considerably enhanced the expense. The crown was made in 1820, in the expectation that it would have been used in that year: and the jeweller was entitled to his percentage for that year as well as for the next. This made the expense on that item double the amount anticipated After the coronation it was thought that the crown might be purchased to add to the royal regalia, to prevent the necessity of hiring jewels on future occasions. But government, knowing that the expense of purchasing the crown would amount to 6.5,000l., felt that they should not be justified in purchasing it, until they knew what the whole expenses of the coronation would amount to; for if they should be greater than the calculated amount, as actually was the case, they were not willing to increase them by the purchase in question. It was only right for him to state that his majesty was strongly inclined to sacrifice a large portion of that part of of the civil list which was more immediately under his own control, for the purpose of purchasing a permanent crown, and placing it among the regalia of the kingdom. But as his majesty, with that consideration which marked every action of his life, had last year determined to give up to the wants of his people 30,000l. from that part of his income out of which he intended to purchase this crown, it was impossible for him to conclude the purchase, until it was previously known how far it was possible to bring the expenses of his household under the still more limited scale which it would be then necessary to adopt. It was necessary that some months should elapse before that problem could be solved; and it was not till the commencement of the present year, that it was ascertained that the royal establishment could not be conducted upon so limited an expenditure as his majesty wished. As soon as that point was ascertained, the crown was sent back; but still the expense of detaining it was incurred. If it had been found expedient to purchase this crown, and it had been detained so long in hopes that it would so be found, its price would not have been enhanced by the detention, for the jeweller was not to have more than 65,000l. for it. If, in the interim, it had been sent back to him, and he had kept it in the same condition as it was at the coronation, it was only natural to suppose that he would, in all probability have asked a larger sum for it, seeing that he could not make any use of or profit by the jewels which were set in it. It was sent back to him, however, as soon as it was discovered that the expense of purchasing it was too great to be defrayed out of his majesty's personal revenues. The other item on which the hon. member called for explanation was the robes. That item was certainly a great one. It amounted to 24,000l.; but he could assure the House that there was nothing with regard to those robes that was inconsistent with the usage of former coronations. The ceremony required that there should be two dresses of a peculiar construction; and the dresses used upon the last were in every respect similar to those used upon former occasions. He could not pretend to say whether there was or was not more fur on the last robes than on any other; neither could he pretend to decide, whether the gold lace was or was not a quarter of an inch broader than it had ever been before. He had no means of making a comparison upon such a point; and therefore he thought that the House would be little benefitted by entering into the proposed inquiry. A great part of the expense of those robes, arose from the high price of ermine; but it also arose from another cause, to which he thought it necessary to allude; because, though the articles in question were properly included in these expenses they still remained in use. It was usual to purchase a new set of robes for every new sovereign to appear in on the solemn occasions of his meeting and proroguing his parliament; and those robes had generally borne some reference to those which the sovereign had worn upon his coronation. It was true that his late majesty had not ordered hew robes for that purpose; but that very circumstance had rendered it necessary for his present majesty to purchase them. The robes which his majesty had worn before his coronation were nearly a century old. They were patched and stitched together in several places; and indeed were so rotten, that if any person had trod upon them, they would have fallen immediately from his majesty's shoulders. It would not, therefore, surprise the House to hear that his majesty had ordered new parliamentary robes. The expense of them was included in the item of 24,000l., which had been rendered so high by the great rise of price in several of the articles which it covered. Having adverted to the two great points on which the hon. member had dilated, be would now touch upon the breach of faith with which he had charged his noble predecessor in office. His noble predecessor had certainly stated, that the amount of the expenses of the coronation would not exceed 100,000l.; but when the nature of the ceremony, the rarity of its occurrence, and the circumstance of there being nothing to guide his noble friend in the calculation of its expenses, were taken into consideration, no person could be surprised that the actual expenses surpassed the estimate. He would also say a few words upon the application of the French indemnity fund towards defraying these expenses—an application by which the hon. member appeared to think that ministers had been guilty of a great unconstitutional impropriety, though they bad not been guilty of any actual breach of the law. He would admit, that in 1816, when the hon. member for Knares-borough made a motion for the House to dispose of this fund by its vote, without the king's direction, his noble predecessor had disclaimed the right of the king to them as a droit of the Crown. But, his noble predecessor had at the same time contended, that this money, being derivable to the Crown by a treaty with a foreign power, though not a droit of the Crown, was a fund applicable by the Crowd to the public service, without the intervention of parliament. Parliament had since, by its conduct, given its sanction to that declaration of his noble friend. The money had not been applied to any individual, but to a public service. That service had been, perhaps, more expensive than suited the notions of the hon. member for Aberdeen; but, if they were to have a monarchical government, then there were certain expenses connected with the administration of that government which they could not avoid. Being convinced that no case for inquiry had been made out, he should meet the motion with a direct negative.