appeared at the bar and said, that her Majesty had taken into consideration the Address which was agreed to by her faithful Commons on the 27th of February last; and was desirous that the best means should be adopted for carrying the wishes of her faithful Commons into effect, with due regard for economy, and for the just claims of all the branches of her naval and military service. The noble Lord said, that in moving the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, he thought it proper to state the course which her Majesty's Ministers had judged it fit to adopt with respect to the Address which had been agreed to by that House, and the answer from her Majesty which he had just communicated. Upon the night of the 27th of February, the House had agreed to an Address to her Majesty, with reference to the corps of Royal Marines. That Address was carried by a majority of thirteen, 100 Members voting for, and eighty-seven against the motion. Upon that Address being communicated to the department with which its subject had connexion, her Majesty's Government at the same time intimating their desire that the whole subject should be submitted to the inspection of that department, it appeared that this was not a solitary instance with respect to officers serving in her Majesty's army and navy; that at the end of last year an Address had been carried with respect to the naval officers in her Majesty's service, and that there were several notices besides connected with the subjects of the promotion and rewards of naval officers lying on the table of that House. It was, therefore, not thought fit that this Address should be immediately carried into effect, without calling the attention of the House of Commons to this subject in general, with a view to make some arrangement by which the public service might be carried on in the most satisfactory manner, according, to the usual practice in the constitution; that rewards and promotions should proceed from the Crown, and that the check and control of public expenditure should proceed from the House of Commons. This was a practice which appeared to him (Lord John Russell) to be no less conformable to reason and to a just view of the constitution, than it was conformable to ancient and invariable custom. The officers serving her Majesty in the military, the naval, or any other public service, had a right to look to the Sovereign whom they served for promotion and reward; and, on the other hand, there could be no more grateful duty than that which devolved upon the Sovereign of distributing those rewards and promotions which faithful, meritorious, and lengthened services might seem to require. If, however, any excess of expenditure took place, the people of the country had a right to call on their representatives in the House of Commons to check and control that expenditure, and inquire into all the circumstances by which it was accompanied. But if motion after motion were to be made, and if, as in a recent instance, such a motion were to succeed in that House, the wholesome rule to which he had refer- red must fail. And if an officer or officers of the navy or army, having preferred a claim to the Board of Admiralty, or at the Horse Guards, were refused, they would, probably, be led to expect that they might receive from the House of Commons that promotion, those honours which had been peremptorily refused to them by the executive departments. He could not, in the discharge of his duty, refrain from calling the attention of the House of Commons to this subject, because he should be sorry to see precedents established which might hereafter be most disadvantageously misapplied. Questions of this description might possibly be carried through the House by small majorities, sometimes owing to a thin House, and at other times in consequence of public attention being absorbed by different subjects; and it might not impossibly happen that a great and mischievous change might be introduced insensibly into the constitution of this country, and that the House of Commons might seriously interfere with the prerogative of the Crown, by taking upon itself the rewarding and encouragement of those services which it was the proper province of the Crown to reward and encourage. Considering the subject, therefore, in this view, the advisers of the Crown had thought it proper to advise her Majesty that an answer should be returned to the Address expressive of the willingness of her Majesty to comply with the wishes of the House of Commons, but at the same time recommending that a Commission or Committee should be appointed, composed of persons distinguished by their rank and station, both in the naval and military services, combined with a certain number of civilians, to consider the whole question as regarded promotion and the present system of rewards conferred for naval and military services. With respect to this subject, he was desirous of calling the attention of the House to another circumstance that occurred in the debate which took place the other night with respect to the marines. His hon. Friend who sat near him, the Secretary of the Board of Admiralty, said, that in deference to the expressed wish of the House of Commons, the Board of Admiralty had taken the subject into consideration, with a view to further promotions amongst the marines, but also with a view to public economy. One Gentleman, certainly, who voted with the majority, said that the wishes of the House of Commons had been mistaken, and that it was not the intention of the House of Commons that economy should be consulted at all with regard to the promotion of deserving officers of marines; that the subject, in fact, was not one upon which it was necessary to look to principles of economy. If these were the sentiments which had been expressed by an hon. Member in that House, and received, as he thought, with approbation, it behoved them well to consider, and ere long the House of Commons would have to consider, on what principle these public services were to be carried on. For many years past—since the year 1821—these services had been carried on by the several departments of the executive government with a careful view to economy in the public expenditure. In 1821, the hon. Member for Kilkenny moved an address to the Crown, expressing, among other matters, that economy should be carried out to the greatest extent in the military and naval departments of the country. To that resolution an amendment was moved by Mr. Bankes. Lord Londonderry, who was then the leader of the House of Commons, declared that the sense of the original motion and of the amendment were the same, but that he preferred the amendment, as the motion implied censure, but that in the general substance of the address he fully concurred. At the end of this address it was stated:—

"And, further, that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that every possible saving that can be made, without detriment to the public interest, may be effected in those establishments which the country is bound to maintain for the safety of the United Kingdom, more especially in the military expenditure, and by a constant and vigilant superintendence over that and all the other departments connected with the expenditure of the supplies voted by this House."

He conceived that every Government since had been bound by the spirit and terms of this address. The Government of that time carried economy to a great extent; the Government of the Duke of Wellington carried economy further than it had been carried under preceding Governments; and the Government of Earl Grey still pressed forward the principles of retrenchment and reduction of the public expenditure. He thought there could be no doubt that, if economy and retrench- ment were not to be their guiding principles, there should surely be no limitation of the powers of the Crown, and that such extension of liberality should proceed from the Crown, and be made to the House by the recommendation of the Crown. If the House was prepared to say, as some votes to which they had already come would seem to imply, that a more liberal rule should be henceforth adopted, that meritorious officers should receive more ample rewards for lengthened services than hitherto, the whole of the subject should be looked into, a comparison of the services of different classes of officers should be made by competent persons, and the result of this inquiry should be laid before the House. The House of Commons would then have before it—first, the question of what promotion or increased allowance should be made to certain officers in the naval and military service; and next, the question, which was not to be lost sight of, that the House of Commons should provide for this increased expenditure. This was, he repeated, a question not to be lost sight of, because he could not but observe, without mentioning any parties in particular, that nothing was more common in the House of Commons, that when the question was one of rewarding deserving officers, or giving encouragement by increased rewards, the House was all generosity; but when the question came to be considered as regarded taxation, the disposition of the House appeared to be, on the other hand, to deprive the Crown of those means by which alone such increased rewards could possibly be given. He had judged it necessary to state this much to the House, because he thought the Government would not be doing its duty if it allowed one motion after another to be carried in relation to one particular service, and did not call the attention of the House to the whole subject. The mode in which the Government proposed to do this was by appointing gentlemen known to the country by their high character and great activity in the service of their country, both naval and military, with whom would be joined some gentlemen connected with the civil service also, who, united, would form a Committee to take the whole of this subject into consideration, and having done so would report to the House. If necessary, there should be a recommendation made to the House, who would then decide upon the question, having the whole of the subject before them, and would not be niggardly in awarding promotion, nor, on the other hand, by an over liberality or laxity of disposition, incur the danger of introducing a most serious and pernicious change into the constitution of this country—one which would naturally make officers engaged in our naval and military service look for nothing but delay, hardship, and denial from the Crown, and liberality only from the House of Commons. He trusted that the course which had been taken by the Government would bring the whole subject before the House in a manner so fair and impartial that it could not meet with the disapprobation of any party. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply.

said, that he did not rise for the purpose of entering into any lengthened discussion on the topics which had been adverted to by the noble Lord; but he was anxious not to lose this opportunity of expressing his concurrence in the principles which had been laid down by the noble Lord, and of tendering to the noble Lord his feeble authority, with a view to inculcate on the House the propriety of not interfering by votes of that description with the discretion of a Government as to the distribution of promotion and emoluments in the different branches of the public service. He held this to be above all the paramount duty of the Government, and he held it to be equally the paramount duty of the Government to bring into operation whatever influence they could exert within the walls of that House to carry into effect the principles which the noble Lord professed. The noble Lord must also give him leave to say, that if the Government, in the discussions which took place on questions of this nature, exhibited to the public symptoms of vacillation and uncertainty with regard to the course to be pursued, it was in vain for the noble Lord to call upon hon. Gentlemen, either on one side of the House or on the other, to support those principles which he advocated. When hon. Gentlemen saw in that House individuals closely connected with the Government voting against the Government upon questions of this description, the noble Lord might look in vain for that support which he and others on his side of the House would be always ready to afford him upon a question of this nature; he might look in vain for the consistent support of those who sat at the noble Lord's own side of the House, because instances of this description—instances such as that which occurred on a previous evening, did more to overturn his arguments, and defeat his effective power, than all the opposition which he might be fated to meet with in a fair and regular way. He merely thought it his duty, in furtherance of the noble Lord's object, to state thus much, the more particularly because he well remembered, that in the debate of the previous evening hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opsition) side of the House, who felt disposed to oppose what he considered to be the just view of the question, had been taunted by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House with having been actuated by the consideration, that they represented a marine constituency. Many of them had, and justly had, repelled that imputation; but if there was an individual in the House who had been so influenced, it was that very Member connected with the Government whose vote had been given in a majority against the Government. He did not wish to pursue this question any further. He felt the justice of the principle laid down by the noble Lord; but he could tell the noble Lord, that if the public saw, that on questions materially affecting the public service, the interest of the Government was not enforced to produce the result which in their opinion was that most to be desired, their appeal would be in vain, and their practice on the one side would quite outweigh their principle on the other.

hoped the House would allow him to explain the circumstance alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, of a Member of that House connected with the Government having voted against it. Most undoubtedly if that right hon. Gentleman had spoken to him (Lord J. Russell) on the subject previous to the debate, he would have frankly told him his opinion—namely, that it was impossible for him while holding a situation under Government to act contrary to that Government. He knew nothing of that right hon. Gentleman's vote until after the division, when he (Lord John Russell) had been informed by him, that he had felt himself bound by something which had passed on a former occasion between him and certain officers of the marines—that he felt himself in honour bound to vote as he had done. It always appeared to him, that where there was any difficulty respecting an individual vote, the better course to pursue was to enforce as far as possible the authority of the Government; but if a question arose upon which an hon. Member conceived himself in honour bound to adopt a line of conduct different from that of the Government, then did he conceive, that the exercise of that authority might be construed into an unnecessary degree of strictness towards that individual. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated, and justly stated, that the course which had been pursusd by the right hon. Gentleman alluded to, afforded an encouragement to others in connexion with the Government to act similarly, and that no blame could be imputed to them for doing so. He having stated the reason why he thought, that Government ought not to take any further notice of the matter in this instance, would merely observe, that he regretted the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in defending the prerogative of the Crown, had not been followed by more of his political friends, of whom he believed somewhere about seventy or eighty had taken an opposite view of the question, although they generally expressed themselves favourable to the prerogative of the Crown.

said, that having voted for the address on the 27th ult., he felt himself called upon, after the speech of the noble Lord, to offer some explanation to the House, the more particularly as the noble Lord had referred to the motion upon this subject of 1821. He was not disposed to challenge the rule which had been laid down on that side of the House, and supported by the other, respecting the necessity of hon. Gentlemen holding official situations under the Government giving to that Government their support; but he was disposed to challenge the right of the Government to recommend to her Majesty a course of manifest injustice. He referred the noble Lord to his speech of 1822. The noble Lord would there find that he (Mr. Hume) had on that occasion called the attention of the House to the services of the Royal Marines, as contrasted with those of the army. He then alleged that great partiality existed on the part of the Government respecting certain branches of the public service; that some corps received very great emoluments for very trifling services, while others, and the marines in particular, whose services were more valuable to the country, were very much neglected, or altogether passed by. That he considered unjust, and he had brought the question forward at the period referred to with a view to have it remedied. On more than one occasion since, he had noticed the very rapid promotion and large emoluments that were conferred on some corps without service, while scarcely any attention had been paid to those whose services had been very great and important. In pursuing this course he did not conceive, that he was in any degree infringing upon the royal prerogative. He appealed to the noble Lord who had brought forward the motion the other night for an Address to the Crown, to say if he had not recommended him to withdraw the latter part of it, because it related to salaries and other details which he did not think it would be proper for the House to interfere with. But he held it to be perfectly within the province of that House, when fully satisfied, that injustice had been done to a large portion of her Majesty's servants, to take steps for the redress of that grievance. He did not mean to say, that the, House should dictate the precise promotions which ought to be made, because he admitted with the noble Lord, that such a course might lead to precedents which would be extremely inconvenient. The power of the house should, no doubt, be very carefully and judiciously exercised in reference to this subject, but he entered his protest against the opinion of the noble Lord and right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the House, in coming to the vote it had come to the other evening, had at all interfered with the prerogative of the Crown.

wished to state why he had not voted on this question the other night. He was of opinion, that the Secretary of the Admiralty had fully made out his case, and he had risen on that occasion to say so, but was not fortunate enough to attract the Speaker's notice. He did not, however, vote for the amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he did not think it a constitutional mode of meeting the question. He might have been in error, but he understood that the orders in council had frequently before been laid on the table.

fully approved of the plan proposed by the noble Lord, and only regretted it had been postponed so long. He had frequently instanced cases in which certain officers had received for less than half the servitude more than double the remuneration given to much more distinguished and meritorious officers in her Majesty's navy. The proposed investigation, however, he was sure would lead to the desired result, that of doing equal justice to all. Before he sat down, he would take the liberty of correcting a misrepresentation contained in a weekly newspaper of what he said a few nights since, with reference to "head money." The paper had put these words into his mouth—"How dared the noble Lord utter such a falsehood!" He had never said one word of the sort. He believed no such words were imputed to him in any one of the daily newspapers, and it was rather gratuitous in a paper which had an opportunity of seeing all the others to publish so gross a misrepresentation.

would not have risen but from what had been stated by the gallant Officer opposite, who well knew that the majority was not acting on that occasion in pursuance of the same opinion that had influenced him in abstaining from voting. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Cambridge University, if it were possible for any individual to place the issue of a vote more distinctly upon an interference with the prerogative of the Crown, than he had done. He followed his hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Admiralty, in stating that it would establish a most fatal precedent of direct interference with the Royal prerogative in reference to naval and military affairs. He had asked the House to ascertain what had been done before they proceeded to vote upon the question, and it was in that sense only he had moved his amendment. The whole of the arguments of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, were founded on the principle that it was an undue interference with the prerogative of the Crown. If the House of Commons brought itself in contact with naval and military affairs, and happened to interfere improperly with the administration, depend upon it the time would come when they would be obliged to act upon the defensive. The hon. and gallant Officer was aware, that the majority had not been occasioned by his statement, but by a resolute determination on the part of the gallant Officer's own friends to support the orginal motion.

said, before the House went into a Committee of Supply, he wished to call its attention to the appointments on the part of her Majesty's Government in various departments, more particularly to the recent appointment to the situation of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital; secondly, to move that the number of Commissioners appointed in conformity to the act of 10th George 4th, cap. 25, entitled "An Act to provide for the better management of Greenwich Hospital," be forthwith reduced to four in the government of the affairs of the said hospital; and that the Commissioners shall be limited to the aforesaid number of four, and shall, together with the clerk of the works, and all officers of the said hospital, be selected from persons who have or may hereafter have served in his or her Majesty's navy; thirdly, to move the repeal of clause 7 of the act of the 10th of George 4th, cap. 25, entitled "An Act to provide for the better management of Greenwich Hospital," "And be it further enacted, that all officers who shall be hereafter appointed to any employment in the said hospital (except the future Commissioners of said hospital, and the clerk of the works), shall be selected, as far as may be, from persons who shall have served in his or her Majesty's navy," and to substitute the following words—viz., "that all such officers as shall be hereafter appointed to any employment in the said hospital, shall be selected from those persons who have already or may hereafter have served in his or her Majesty's navy." He was not about to enter into detail as to these appointments, as that would be interfering unnecessarily with the business of the house; but when he looked to India, to Ireland, to Canada, and, as was relevant to his motion, when he looked at the recent appointment of a Member of that hon. House to a Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital, he thought it would be well for the Government to inform the House if the gentlemen so appointed were likely to attend to their duty. It might be said, that this was an ungracious motion, and one interfering with the prerogative of the Crown; but he wished to have a freer exercise of that prerogative than there was at present, and to have it less controlled by what took place in that House, and by advice out of it. He was one of the last persons who would interfere with the due exercise of the Royal prerogative, but he felt convinced that the appointments to which his motion referred, emanated not from the Crown, but from a vacillating Ministry. The appointment to which he particularly alluded, was that of the hon. Member for Tipperary to the commissionership of Greenwich Hospital. He knew he might be told, that by the 10th George 4th. chap. 25, it was expressly declared that the appointment of the Commissioners—five in number, of whom three were paid Commissioners—should be made at the pleasure of the Executive Government, and that in that act there was an exception, why he could not tell, to the effect that the Commissioners and clerks of the works should not necessarily be professional men. Now, it was precisely of that he complained. He did not see why there should be such an exception made in reference to those situations, and he hoped the House would agree to repeal that portion of the act. When he looked to the appointment of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, although he admired that hon. Gentleman's transcendent talents, he could not help complaining, on the part of her Majesty's naval officers, that their meritorious services should be overlooked. When there were so many admirals out of employment, so many captains, the relations of so many distinguished naval commanders whose names were dear to the country, and yet who were not engaged in the public service, he could not but lament that none should have been selected from those honourable classes to fill the situation which had recently been bestowed upon the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary. It, of course, could not be asserted that amongst those classes many individuals might not be found fully capable of discharging all the duties appertaining to the situation with assiduity and ability; he would ask who were so well qualified to manage the affairs of Greenwich Hospital as were naval officers? In making this motion, however, he begged to be understood that he made no complaint of the individual; he complained of the Government who made the appointment, and of the system under which it was made. He thought it the more remarkable that such an appointment should have been so bestowed at a time when a post of considerable importance was going a-begging—it had never been offered to him. Unless it had been filled up since Saturday last, he was justified in saying that the appointment was going a-begging. In almost every circle where political subjects were a topic of conversation, the question was asked, "Who is to be Clerk of the Ordnance?" but no one could answer the question; neither could any one answer this question—why was such a post vacant? Probably the noble Lord opposite could solve the mystery; and yet, perhaps, it was too much to say that he could solve any mystery; possibly the noble Lord was then dreaming of resignation—a dream which he hoped might soon be realized.

wished to state the case clearly, as regarded the hospital. In the year 1829 an Act of Parliament was passed, placing the government of the hospital upon a perfectly new footing, and by the arrangements then made, the commissioners were to have nothing to do with the management of that establishment beyond what related to the care of its property. The question before the House lay within a very narrow compass; the Commissioners had nothing whatever to do with the pensioners; they had nothing to do requiring naval experience; their duties simply related to the property of the hospital. At the time that Sir John Cockburn's Bill was introduced, in 1829, there were twenty-two directors of Greenwich Hospital, of whom only five were naval officers, and seventeen had never in any other way been connected with the navy; in effect, the whole business of the establishment was managed by the treasurer, the auditor, and the secretary. This system was changed during the administration of the Duke of Wellington, in 1829, and the Government of that day got great credit for removing a body of irresponsible persons, and placing three responsible Commissioners in their stead. The hon. and gallant officer had very properly referred to the Act of 1829, but if he took the trouble to inquire into the general administration of the affairs of the hospital, the gallant officer would find that every thing which related to the inmates was, as far as possible, under the care and direction of naval officers; but the Commissioners, as he before said, had only the care of the property of the hospital just as the Commissioners of Woods and Forests administered the territorial revenues of the Crown, and surely the House must see that the naval profession imparted no peculiar fitness for that duty any more than it did for any other. The management of estates involved duties merely civil; and with respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman lately appointed to one of the Commissioner-ships, the House would recollect that the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln had given him full credit for distinguished abilities, and therefore the objection was not to the individual, but to the Act of 1829.

was understood to support the motion, and to contend that appointments of this nature should be bestowed as much as possible upon naval officers, the situations being peculiarly suited to them, and they to the situations.

could not follow in the wake of the gallant Admiral who last addressed the House, neither could he support the motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln. Not that he doubted the perfect fitness of naval officers for any situation, even that of Lord High Chancellor of England. He had heard from the highest authority, that a natal officer might be Lord High Chancellor of England; it was no wonder that indignation should be felt at the non-appointment of naval officers to situations of this description when cornets of dragoons, as happened in 1235, were found filling the situations of lay-Lords of the Admiralty. Still he could not support the present motion. If the hon. and gallant mover were sincere in the wish to reform these abuses, he ought to proceed upon a broader principle; he ought not to apply himself to a single case, but to propose a total repeal of the Act of Parliament. For his part, he should vote against any Government in a matter that concerned the interests of the navy or marines, but the proper way to meet the evil was not by interfering in isolated cases with the patronage of the Crown.

thought a proceeding of this sort amounted to an interference with the prerogative of the Crown, which he did not feel disposed to sanction. His hon. Friend found fault with the qualifications of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, and he proposed that the House of Commons should find fault with those qualifications; the interval was short between that and suggesting the name of another to fill the place. He was unwilling that the House of Commons should take any step tending even to set an example of interference with the legitimate prerogative of the Crown—nothing but a very strong case indeed should induce him to agree to any proceeding which might seem to imply a preference for one appointment over another. He hoped therefore that his hon. Friend would not press this question to a division, though certainly the House might, if it thought proper, reduce the number of the appointments, but he would not sanction the sort of interference with the prerogative of the Crown which the motion before the House involved.

said, that he had discharged his duty in bringing the subject under the consideration of the House.

rose to put a question to the noble Lord opposite on the subject of the Java Duties. The parties most interested in the question traded from the out-ports of this country with Java. These duties in which both the merchants of this country and the East India Company felt much interest, were levied in a manner contrary to the letter and spirit of our treaty with Holland on the subject. The noble Lord opposite some time ago said, that he soon expected to have a communication to make to the House relative to it; he wished now, therefore, to know whether her Majesty's Government were prepared to afford any information whether any satisfactory arrangement had been made with the Dutch Government, or whether there existed any prospect of such a result.

said, the Dutch Government had engaged to issue a tariff in conformity with the stipulations of the treaty. Such a treaty he understood had been published in Java, and he was in daily expectation of an official communication on the subject from the British Minister at the Hague. In the mean time, having received a copy of that document from a private source, he believed he might say it would be found in some respects satisfactory, in others not. The right hon. Baronet was aware that the stipulations of the treaty made the difference of duties depend not on the nationality of the goods, but of the vessels and importers. Goods imported into Java by British subjects in British vessels were to pay double the duty of goods imported in Dutch ships by the subjects of Holland; and where there was no duty levied upon articles imported by Dutch subjects and vessels, the duty of 6 per cent, only was to be levied on English goods. By this time a scale of duties had been properly arranged, and he was inclined to think the distinction would be made to depend on the commodities themselves, as well as on the nationality of the ships importing them. If, on receiving the official communication on this subject, which, as he had said, he daily expected from our Minister at the Hague, it were found that the stipulations of the treaty had not been duly attended to, it would be his duty to insist on such changes as were necessary.

was sorry to detain the Speaker in the Chair a moment longer than was necessary, but the fact was, that the press had stated much that was, not said in that House on a former evening, and left out much that ought to have been inserted, with regard to the honour and character of naval men. The hon. Member then alluded to what was said the other night relative to officers of the navy taking head-money for captured slaves, &c., and said that, so far from officers in that service refraining from taking slave-ships before they should have got their cargo of slaves on board, he himself had frequently known the contrary to be the case, and had been witness of the contrary during the American war. He might mention among many others the names of the gallant Sir Hyde Parker and Captain Broke of the Shannon, who, in keeping up the blockade of Boston, lost a great amount of money by burning and sinking ships which they might have allowed to have sailed, and attacked when their cargoes were on board. It was not, then, fair that these charges about head-money and blood-money should be allowed to go before the public uncontradicted. He knew that officers appointed to this particular service exerted themselves to the utmost. This country had entered into a treaty with the Spanish Government upon the subject of the slave-trade, but it was not that Government only that was to be blamed; for it was on record in the library of that House that vessels of the United States of America carried out those very shackles with which the slaves were bound, and doing that which we had heard so much of as being done under the flags of Spain, Portugal, and the Brazils. The slave-ships were so fitted up that they could not be boarded, or the case would be very different. He did think that the honour of our naval officers ought to be protected—for they had shown in numerous instances on the African coast that they had nobly performed their duty with respect to the capture of slave-ships, and that, too, in a climate possessing far greater inconveniences than that of other stations. Those officers had not, and they never would, deviate from the course they had pursued up to the present time—and he hoped it would now go forth to the public that in doing what they bad done they had strictly performed their duty.

said, he thought that it would not by any means become naval officers having seats in that House to allow statements such as had been made against their characters to go forth to the public without contradiction—and he would say, that the charges which had been made against them were most unjustifiable. The speech of a certain noble and learned Lord he then held in his hand, published in the shape of a pamphlet, and, therefore, he should be out of order in alluding to it. The British navy wanted no defenders either in that House or elsewhere. At the same time it might be supposed that if they remained silent when these charges were made they acquiesced in what had been said. He, for one, did not acquiesce in any such thing, as the officers of the navy had done their duty in the most trying circumstances, as the returns which had been moved for would show. He rejoiced that those papers had been called for, as they would show not only that naval officers had done their duty, but that they had suffered very great expenses in doing that duty. The character of naval officers was safe in that House. With respect to his remarks on a former occasion on this subject, he had made them more in sorrow than in anger, and for the purpose of affording the noble and learned Lord who had made those charges the opportunity of making a further disclaimer of them, and which disclaimer he re- gretted that noble and learned Lord had not made. He never had been in the habit of using harsh words, but he did not on that account feel the less strongly; and he must say that he considered the statements which had been made and the charges which had been brought forward against naval officers were a proof that the powers of eloquence might be preserved long after reason itself was lost.

said, although there were many hon. Gentlemen who never before had the opportunity of discussing the estimates, yet the simple form in which they were now laid on the table, together with the full explanation which accompanied each item, would render it unnecessary for him to trouble the Committee at any great length. On going through the heads of the estimates, the Committee would observe that in No. 1, for men and wages, there was no difference. Under the head of victuals, there was a considerable increase arising from circumstances over which the Admiralty had no control—chiefly from the rise in price of several main articles of consumption in the navy. In the Admiralty-office, there was a slight increase of charge, one of the Lords of the Admiralty, from whom a house had been taken, being now put on the same footing as a Lord of the Treasury. Another increase arose from an improvement which they made last year in the situation of the clerks of the Admiralty. A clerk might, according to the former system, be seventy years in the service before attaining the maximum of salary. That was thought unjust to old and meritorious servants, and a change had, therefore, been made, by which second class clerks should rise 15l. a-year, and the first class, 20l., for length of service. With respect to the registration of seamen, there had been a small increase in the number of clerks. It would be gratifying to the authors of that Bill to know that the important objects it was calculated to serve had already been realised beyond their most sanguine expectations. When the office was instituted, the number of registered apprentices was only 5,400, while on the 1st of February this year it was no less than 19,400, showing a positive increase since the establishment of the office of 14,000 registered apprentices. Under the next head, the scientific branch, there was a diminution of 5,000l. Last year he stated it was necessary to take a considerable sum for the purpose of bringing up the Nautical Almanack, so as to be generally available for merchant vessels. He was happy to state his object had been accomplished, and that the Nautical Almanack would shortly be published three years in advance of the present time; so that a ship going out for the, longest voyage would now be enabled to avail herself of the same means of safety in coming home that she had in going out. It was only requisite to carry it another year in advance, and therefore so large a sum as last year would now be unnecessary. In the next head, "establishments at home and abroad," there was no material difference, any diminution taking effect in one place being countervailed by partial additions in others. The next head was the most considerable one, and included the vote for naval stores. The system acted on in 1832, of consuming the stores which were then spoiling in the storehouses, was found during the three succeeding years to reduce them far below the average amount, and he stated two years ago that there must soon be a considerable and progressive increase under this head. The estimate prepared under the right hon. Baronet's Government, was the lowest ever taken for the maintenance of the stores of the navy. In pursuance of the warning he formerly gave, it had now been found necessary to increase considerably the vote for stores, in order to put them in such a state as the importance of this main branch of the naval administration evidently demanded. Connected with this vote there was one announcement he had made in the course of last year, from which, under altered circumstances, it had been found necessary to depart. He then stated, that from the arrangements which had been made as to the store of timber in the navy, they would be prepared to throw open the contract to public competition; and, but for the addition of the post-office packets which had subsequently been thrown on the naval department, they would have been prepared to act upon that engagement. But it was found necessary to provide timber of a particular description far beyond what was usually required for the service of the navy, and which could not be obtained without taking a much larger supply of other sorts of timber at the same time; and, therefore, it was found advantageous to continue the contract for the space of two years, when it would be again thrown open to public competition. The next head of expenditure was that of new works and improvements in the docks and yards—and here he would fairly state, that but for the circumstances in which the revenue of the country had been last year, the Government would have brought forward a larger estimate under this head for the present year. But looking at that circumstance they thought, that whilst they did not postpone any service that was urgent, they were justified in postponing any new works which were not urgent, and of which the non-construction would do no harm to the public service. One of the new works for which he now called on the Committee to make provision, was the erection of a building at Woolwich, for the manufacture and repair of engines for steam-vessels. From motives of economy the General Steam Navigation Company had determined to erect a building for the manufacture and repair of the engines of their vessels; and learning that that establishment had saved that company great expense, the Admiralty had determined to have a similar establishment for the navy. The charge for the head of expenditure, No. 12—namely, that of medicine and medical stores, was the same this year as last—it was 20,000l. Under the head of expenditure, No. 13, for miscellaneous services, there was a charge of 30,600l., for the contracts for the conveyance of mails by steam to and from Falmouth and Gibraltar. Though there was an increase on this head, he expected that it would be ultimately found that this was the most economical mode of conveying the mails to and from this country and the place which he had just mentioned. He had now gone through all the heads of the effective service, the total of which amounted to 3,085,000l. In the heads 14, 15, and 16, which included the half-pay and the military and civil pensions and allowances, there was no novelty this year, except so far as regarded the insertion of service pensions; they had been granted in pursuance of an order in Council, dated the 12th of July, 1837, founded on the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Commit- tee of the House of Commons on army and navy appointments, and amounted to 4,200l. Under the head, No. 18, which related to the transportation of convicts, there was a diminution in the nominal amount of the grant, in consequence of the Irish Government having undertaken to transport its own convicts. But this was rather a transfer than a diminution of expense. The item would not appear in the navy estimates, but would be transferred to the Irish miscellaneous services. He felt, that it was unnecessary for him to make any further observations on the general estimates for the naval service. He assured the Committee that in framing them every attention had been paid to economy, consistent with a due attention to the efficiency of the public service. He then moved a resolution to the effect, that there be employed in her Majesty's fleet for the next thirteen lunar months, ending on the 31st of March, 1839, 33,665 men, including 2,000 boys, and 9,000 royal marines.

had hoped, that the Committee would have been in a situation to make a considerable reduction in the amount of these estimates this year, as the circumstances which had induced them last year and the year before to keep up a greater force in the Mediterranean and the Tagus than was usual had ceased to have any force. Some reason ought to be given why so large an increase had taken place lately in our naval expenditure. For his own part, he was not aware of any circumstance at that time existing in the world which justified an increase in the naval estimates. He recollected well that, in the year 1819, when he, in common with several of her Majesty's Ministers, sat on the Opposition benches, they had pressed the Government of Lord Castlereagh hard, because he proposed to employ for the service of that year 20,000 men, including marines and boys. They had told that noble Lord, that such an establishment was enormous and extravagant, and yet it was now quite evident that since that year they had been retrograding instead of proceeding in the career of reduction. In the year 1825, Sir G. Cockburn, a very efficient naval officer, had pleaded the disturbed state of the South American provinces as a reason for increasing our naval force, but had stated that as soon as those disturbances ceased, there could be no reason, at least he could see no reason, if peace continued, why our naval establishments should not be reduced as low as they were in 1819. Lord Grey, too, on taking office in 1830, had pledged himself to the strictest economy in all the departments of the public service. And yet, notwithstanding that pledge, the naval estimates had gone on increasing regularly year after year, and that, too, without a word of explanation from the Government of the day. Let the Committee just observe what had taken place with respect to the effective and the non-effective service of the navy. The effective service cost 3,000,000l. and upwards, whilst the non-effective, consisting of the half-pay and other allowances, cost 1,500,000l. He thought that this amount of half-pay and pensions required looking into. After twenty years of peace it ought not to amount to any such sum, and it was only kept up to that amount by the present injudicious system of promotions. He wished Ministers would explain what the circumstances were which compelled them to keep up a force of 34,000 seamen and marines now, after the service of the country had been well done in the years 1819, 1820, and 1821, with a force of 21,000 men. The numbers in the two cases were very important: for unless they could reduce the number of men employed, they could not reduce the amount of materiel necessary to support them. In point of fact, we were keeping up large fleets in the Tagus and elsewhere, where we had no right to interfere. He called upon the Secretary of the Admiralty to explain why we kept up so large a force at Lisbon, where a single man-of-war ought to be sufficient for the protection of British commerce.

observed, that it was undoubtedly true that he had not stated the reasons why it was deemed necessary by the Admiralty to keep up the present amount of force. But as the House had concurred for the two last years in thinking that that amount of force was necessary, and as some hon. Members had even stated, that in their opinion it was not even large enough, he had not deemed it necessary on this occasion to enter into such a statement. The same state of European affairs which had justified Ministers on a former occasion in proposing an increase of the naval force, remained at the present moment unchanged. He thought it would be a most imprudent measure to diminish the navy, while the other maritime powers kept up navies so powerful, and maintained an attitude so imposing. The number of Russian ships of the line in commission far exceeded that kept at sea by this country for many years past. The French navy had also been recently augmented, and the squadron stationed in the Mediterranean increased. Though he was happy to say that at present there were no grounds for apprehending a rupture with any foreign state, he should be sorry to see other great powers keeping up large fleets at sea, while this country had no countervailing force.

said that, at this time, when every other country in Europe was strengthening its navy, we were neglecting ours. Our navy was indeed most neglected, as he had frequently represented, but without his representations being much regarded. There were midshipmen and mates that had been thirty years in that situation. There was no class of men under the Government who did not retire from service with a greater amount of remuneration than the highest officers of her Majesty's navy. Such was the want of proper management, that if they wanted to-morrow to man five line-of-battle ships they would not be able to do it. The half-pay of a lieutenant was 5s. per day; if he were sent to sea, he got only an additional ls. 6d.; the masters had only 5d. additional for service. He was glad to find that the Government were at last about to take the matter up, and he sincerely hoped that they would do so with a determination to render the navy justice. He would ask, ought a navy officer to retire from the service in such a situation as to be obliged to send his daughters to a charity—and that a private charity, be it remembered? He called on the noble Lord to say whether he meant to go to the root of the evil, sincerely intending to remove it.

trusted that the Admiralty would take into their consideration some measure to improve the pay and condition of the petty officers before the mast. He complained of the inequality of the pay as compared with the service.

said, there was not sufficient encouragement in the navy. There were 363 midshipmen as they were formerly called, but they were now called mates. The first three were forty-one years of age; the next thirteen were thirty-four years. The average amount of their pay was 50l. 12s. 8d. They were sometimes called on to fit themselves out at an ex-pence of about 150l. There were 203 midshipmen, sixty-one of whom appeared to have served on the average nine years beyond their time of qualification. What was their pay? Why, it was 31l. 4s. per annum. What was their half-pay? Last year he stated what it was not: it was nothing a day, and find themselves. There were 175 who served as volunteers at 12l. a year; of these he would not speak, as they were pleased to serve. The total number of the three classes he had mentioned, all of whom came under the denomination of midshipmen, was 741 persons; the expense was 27,200l. a year. There was one case of hardship to which he felt bound to call the attention of the House: it was that of a Mr. Dennyson, who was a mate for seven years, and had been for sixteen years in the navy. In the performance of his duty he had dislocated his ankle-joint and fractured his leg, and was discharged subsequently from the hospital with a wooden leg. He was now performing duty on board, but with the greatest pain and difficulty; that gentleman was, however, capable of performing the duties of a higher office, to which he thought he ought to be promoted.

did not think it expedient to refer to particular cases; but that which had been last mentioned was the case of a gentleman who met with an accident while in the service of the customs. This he could, however, say for the Admiralty, that when the case was brought before them by the customs it would be attended to. He assured the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir E. Codrington), who had repeated the cases of some officers which had been before mentioned by him, that the gallant Admiral was much mistaken if he thought that these cases had not attracted the attention of his hon. Friend and himself.

referred to the gallant achievements performed by Captain Charles Napier, who had been in the service of the Queen of Portugal, and who had, he thought, some reason to complain of the manner in which his name and the services he had performed were introduced into the estimates. Captain Napier was an officer in her Britannic Majesty's service, and had a pension at the time that he entered into the service, of the Queen of Portugal. He was removed from the service of the King, and he also lost the pension allowed to him for the wounds he had received. On the arrangement of the affairs of Portugal he had been restored to his rank, but his pension was still lost to him. Captain Napier, in his opinion, complained with much justice of the manner in which his name had been brought before the public. Only a partial account had been given of his services, and upon his complaining of this he could obtain no redress. Captain Napier felt exceedingly jealous of his being considered a burden upon the country, unless the services he performed were so clearly stated that there could be no doubt about them. As this was the only opportunity on which he could make them known, he felt bound thus to make his appeal to the House.

declared that he only spoke what were the feelings of his colleagues when he declared his willingness to acknowledge to their fullest extent the gallant services that had been performed by his personal friend Captain Napier. In the notice that was given in the estimates not the slightest disparagement to his gallant exploits were intended; and if Captain Napier's wishes had been earlier known, there could not have been the least possible objection to their being put in the estimates. In the case of Captain Napier, as well as that of others, they had adopted as their model the forms employed in the army. All that was intended to be done was, not to put on record all the services of an officer, but such as were sufficient to justify his being put upon the pension list. Withresp ct to Captain Napier, be wished to add, that he (Sir T. Troubridge) had received a severe reprimand from the late Sovereign for attending a meeting in the city to vote a piece of plate to Captain Napier, and he begged to thank the right hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke (Sir James Graham) for the courteous manner in which he had communicated that reprimand to him, He could assure the hon. and gallant Individual who had been so much spoken of, that it was far from the wish of the Lords of the Admiralty to keep back from the world a knowledge of the gallantry and bravery he had always displayed. On the contrary, it was their desire to reward them, and to give them that praise to which they were most strictly entitled.

observed, that every person in the navy was an admirer of the gallant services of Captain Napier. He did not approve of what was called pensions for meritorious services. He was sure that it must bring complaints from many officers. He wished to know whether the pensions were confined entirely to merit?

joined most cordially in praise of Captain Napier and his services, and expressed a hope that he, as well as the gallant Member for Westminster, might be created a Knight of the Bath, an honour he well deserved, and which would be most acceptable to the naval service. He begged also to express his approval at the announcement of a commission to inquire into the state of promotion and pay of the navy and marines, and that that commission would also embrace the service pensions of those old and meritorious officers the major-generals of marines; and whose cause, he hoped, would meet with consideration and justice.

must, he said, join in the expression of the opinions entertained with respect to the services of Captain Napier. The Board of Admiralty thought it would have been a work of supererogation to put in the estimates the services of that gallant officer, which were known to all the navy. They put in merely so much as would satisfy the House of Commons that they were justified in going down so far in the list of post Captains as the name of Captain Napier. As they could not give him the out pension of Greenwich-Hospital, they wished to refer to facts which authorised them in giving him a pension. He referred to the names on the list, and he was sure it would be agreed upon all sides that they had acted with justice and fairness in placing them on the list. If they did not or had not acted with fairness in respect to this list, he hoped it would be stigmatised by the House of Commons. He was sorry to hear, from any one connected with the navy, that the present plan of pensions had created dissatisfaction. He heard of this for the first time. He wished to state that when officers had not an opportunity of performing a distinguished action they turned to see if he had not been eighteen years in command of a ship. The pensions which were submitted by the Admiralty had been prepared with great care and attention to the services of each, and he should be much surprised if they had not succeeded in their object of doing justice to all. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport that it would be very desirable that the mates should have retiring pensions; but a Commission was about to take the whole subject into consideration.

could assure the House, that Lord Exmouth thought Captain Napier's services of the highest order, and it was, therefore, hard that Captain Napier should be put on the 150l. list without his services being stated. He thought that but for the services of Captain Napier the Queen of Portugal would not now be on the throne of that country.

said, that he, for one, thought the services of Captain Napier were such as fully to entitle him to be placed on the list; but there ought to be a statement of those services made, in order to put out of the question any jealousies that might otherwise arise.

thought, that the time of the House was wasted in discussing this particular point. He wished to call back the attention of the House to the real question before them. He could not understand why they should be called upon to vote 13,000 more men than during the profuse Tory administrations. Her Majesty, in her Speech from the Throne, declared that this country was on the most amicable footing with all foreign powers, and he therefore could see no reason for thus largely increasing our naval force. As he meant to propose several reductions of taxation, he felt bound to take every opportunity of putting it in the power of the Government to carry these reductions into effect.

said, that there was a subject which had been scarcely alluded to in this discussion, but which he thought it was right to mention, namely, the subject of impressment. He would not go into any long argument on this subject, except to state, that as he was prepared to vote for the abolition of impressment, he felt bound to take into consideration the necessity of increasing our force in the proportion that we deprived the Government of the means of assembling that force when any emergency occurred. It was dangerous to reduce the naval force of the country to such an extent as to be unable to collect a sufficient force when the necessity for so doing occurred. He was, therefore, prepared to vote for the whole amount of force proposed, as he should be prepared to vote for the abolition of impressment when the subject was before the House.

should like to know how the service was carried on when they had 13,000 men less than they were now called upon to vote? He was as desirous as any man in that House to put an end to impressment, and, indeed, he might say, that very few had brought forward that question so often as he had. He was not one who would refuse encouragement to the sailor, on the contrary, he wished to see the discipline and pay such as to induce men voluntarily to enter the service. But would the extravagant vote proposed do any thing towards effecting this purpose? The House was called upon to vote for the service of the ensuing year 34,000 men, out of whom there were but 11,694 seamen; so that the whole naval force of England consisted in fact of 11,694 seamen. To what extent he would ask was this giving encouragement to the naval service? He would ask the House whether they were not in fact weakening themselves in keeping up a large establishment under the delusive idea of being always prepared to meet an enemy? The only effect of keeping up large establishments of this kind was to add to the half-pay list, thus encumbering the country, and preventing that House from paring down the establishments. He must complain of the manner in which promotion in the naval service was obtained. The public money ought not to be misapplied in the promotion of individuals who had nothing but their birth and connection to recommend them over the heads of more meritorious but less advantageously situated officers. He must, however, say, that it was not right to complain that justice was not done to the naval service, as the number of officers to seamen was altogether disproportioned. The number of officers was much too great. He saw no reason for voting 34,000 men, when in the six preceding years they had had but 26,000. The vote appeared to him extravagant, and he therefore felt bound to object to it.

said, that if the suggestions of the hon. Member for Kilkenny were adopted, it would prevent young men from entering the naval service.

wished to put two questions to the Secretary for the Admiralty, namely: first, whether our channel fleet was at present in a condition to meet twenty-six Russian line of battle ships, if they should make their appearance? and, secondly whether our Mediterranean fleet was in a condition to meet sixteen line of battle ships of the same power, in case we wished to pass through the Dardanelles?

said, he believed that we had not twenty-seven sail of the line afloat in the channel, but he doubted not that if the Russian fleet were to make their appearance there, we should be in a condition to meet them. With respect to the Mediterranean, he was inclined to think that the hon. Member had overrated the extent of the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean. He believed that they were only nine in number, and not sixteen. He believed that the British fleet on that station would be in a condition to meet the Russan whenever occasion offered.

took occasion to express a hope that means would be taken to provide swifter ships as cruisers after slavers; and that the captains of the British service should no longer be liable to see a slaver before them and not be able to capture her. An instance of the latter kind he remembered, wherein a ten-gun vessel, after giving chase for two days to a slaver without being able to overtake her, would have had to give up the pursuit altogether in despair, the slaver having got out of sight, when she fell in with another ship, named the Columbine, to whom she pointed out the track of the slaver, and who then pursued and overtook her. It was impossible that the slave trade could be successfully put down until this defect was remedied, and the ten-gun ships now employed in the service, condemned to the same fate as the slavers themselves, namely, sawed in two and pulled asunder.