said, after the very able speech made by the hon. the Secretary of the Admiralty last night, he was anxious to avoid troubling the House with a repetition of the matters of detail which were then so fully explained; but, notwithstanding the ample consideration which the House then bestowed upon the state and efficiency of the British navy, there were several points of great importance which were not touched upon; and in particular, the condition of the officers and men. Such being the case, he felt himself called upon to press the subject on the attention of the House and the Government. He knew, from a life of lengthened service, what was really wanted by the officers and the men; and his object in bringing their case under the attention of the House, was, to endeavour to prevail upon the Government to do that which he believed to be but bare justice, and requisite, to banish all cause of discontent from the officers and men in our naval service. The question was one easy of arrangement—a question of regulations; and discontent existed owing to those regulations, from the admiral down to the very lowest class and portion of the service. The House should consider the position in which our navy was placed by the maintenance of what is termed the peace complements. No ship in the British navy should ever be sent to sea, without having such a complement of men, and being fitted out in every respect in such a way as to enable her to meet and be fit to contend with any exigency she may have to encounter. He would enable the House to determine, whether our ships of war are manned in such a manner as to enable them to meet such exigencies. In our naval engagements of the 1st of June and 29th of May, or Lord Howe's engagement in which he served, we had eleven men to every 18-pounder, and thirteen to 32-pounders; but at the battle of Navarino, he had only, on an average, nine and a-half men to every 32-pounder. Now, he asked the House, whether a constant diminution in the number of men to our guns was safe for the public interest, or just to the officers in command, or men who are afloat? He was unwilling to go over the same matter twice, or to go into details that might fatigue the House after the debate of last night, but he must say, that every man who is acquainted with the duty of officers in command of ships afloat, would agree with him in this, that they would prefer the oldest almost of our ships of war well manned and well found, to the newest ships, manned as they are now manned; and he would venture to say, that he would go into action with the oldest ship under those circumstances, and come out victorious. It is not a question of stores—of Whig stores or Tory stores. The navy care very little about that part of the subject. What they want is to have officers and ships' companies that are efficient; and what he meant to show was, that justice had not been done to the officers or the men. He undertook to show, that there was not a single officer in the civil service of the Government who was not allowed to retire after a term of half service, without receiving double the retired allowance which was paid to an officer of similar rank in the navy. He would not fatigue the House by entering into a detailed comparison; indeed, he formerly gave it to the House, and need not now mention names; but look at the cases of Sir R. Keats or Sir S. Hood, and other officers of long and arduous service, who had been in many actions; yet their half-pay only amounted to 766l. 10s. per annum, after fifty or sixty and more years' service. Out of their pay they contributed to Greenwich Hospital, and to a Widow's Pension. Let Gentlemen compare that with the Pension-list, and with the amount which different ladies received for pensions, and then let them say whether justice was done to seamen. He believed great disappointment had been felt in consequence of certain pensions not having been considerably reduced on the revision of the pension-list; and when they found that certain pensions were still continued without any claims whatever, and that the widows and daughters of an admiral, who had distinguished himself for his bravery, would be only allowed 120l. a-year, he thought some further revision was wanted, not only of the Pension-list itself, but also that pensions and rewards should be given to officers of the navy. But he did not complain of the amount given to others. His complaint was, that officers of the navy should be treated worse than any other class of persons who served the Government. It would appear, as though it were a luxury to run the risk of being shot at, and it had been said, "Oh! but you gain honours." He had alluded to this on a former occasion, and no doubt honours were very pretty to look at, but there was very little substance in them; and when a man was called upon to pay for them, perhaps they were not so very desirable. He thought honours ought to be given without being asked for, and certainly without being paid for. He could mention the case of an admiral who died a few years ago, and whose two daughters were obliged to go to a private charity, called the Benevolent Naval Society, and receive 25l. a-year each, to keep them from starving. He would ask, whether that was the way in which the children of an admiral ought to be treated? This was a question that had nothing to do with party—and there was no man, in or out of the House, that did not feel ashamed that such a state of things should be allowed to continue, and who would not express his willingness to endeavour to have them remedied. Those who were in power ought to come forward boldly, and ask for a sum of money requisite for the purpose of meeting such cases. He would now refer to an Admiral's full pay; and here he had to find fault with the mode in which it was put down in the official documents. The Admiral's pay and the table money was put down as the Admiral's pay only. The table money and the Admiral's pay ought to be kept distinct. The pay of a Rear-Admiral was 1,095l. a-year, and he was certain that unless he was always living at sea, or lived in a very close manner, he must spend a great deal more. But then what had he to retire on? He had to retire on half-pay, 450l. a-year, so that he was expected to save money out of 1,095l. a-year, and to live upon 450l. per annum. Then, again, the table money was a mere pittance, and was not sufficient to enable a man to keep an open house. He thought he had stated enough to show that Admirals were not paid in proportion to the duties they were called upon to perform. He wished the House to consider the situation in which flag-officers were placed and he hoped the Admiralty would be induced to come forward and remedy those grievances. He might mention one instance, that of Captain Fitzroy, of the Beagle, who had expended no less than 7,000l. of his own money in fitting out his ship, and performing his duty in an efficient manner. He could mention a great number of instances in which officers were out of pocket, but he thought this an instance which required the attention of the Admiralty. If the Admiralty had not the means of remunerating that officer, he would urge them to come forward and state the case, and he was sure the House would not only give the money, but that the country would cheerfully consent to it, for it was not right that an officer who was desirous of doing his duty efficiently should pay for the honour of performing it. He had said that Admirals were very ill paid, whether on full or half-pay. He had documents to prove it. He now came to the class of Commanders, in whose situation there was great peculiarity. They did not rise regularly as Post Captains did, and they had no retirement. Now he could not understand what hesitation there could be in giving a retirement. Let them give those gentlemen who had no chance of rising in the service an inducement to retire, and it would be the means of clearing the list. In his opinion a proper commuted allowance should be given so as to encourage officers to emigrate and induce them to settle in Canada where they were much wanted. That would be a most beneficial thing for the Government and the country, if carried into execution, and he could not understand why it was not, as the First Lord of the Admiralty, fully agreed with him in opinion. Amongst these various complaints there was one case, that of the Lieutenants, which he had brought before the House on a former occasion, and which he would advert to now. It was well known from the quantity of Lieutenants that it was absolutely impossible to employ any considerable proportion of them. But the Lieutenants regularly rose on the half-pay list within a certain portion of time to receive instead of 5s., 6s., or 7s. a-day. It took now nearly double the time formerly required to arrive at that sum, but in consequence of many of these Lieutenants complaining, a boon was given to them to be allowed to be called Captains, but on condition that they were to have no more than 7s. a-day. There were thus several Commanders on the retired list at 7s. per day. Now, whatever the regulations of the Admiralty might be on this subject, the wording of the votes of that House was that three hundred Lieutenants should have 7s. a-day each, and he, (Sir Edward Codrington) should like to know by what right this money was withheld from them which was voted to them by the House. He had moved on a former occasion, for the production of the documents authorising this. Observations had been made on these Orders in Council. He could not understand why these Orders in Council were not produced. Why should doubts as to the construction of these regulations exist? Why should the officers of the Navy not know what they were? In order to know what they were it was necessary that the naval officer should buy every quarter one of those little blue books, which were so wretchedly printed that they could scarcely be read, and as he had not for some time past been actively employed, he really did not know any thing about it. He thought that these things should be so regulated that superior officers in the service should have it in their power to refer to these regulations, so as to be able to give information to those who might apply to them on the subject. He should be glad to have these Orders in Council put before the House, in order that it might be known what were the regulations at present existing on the subject, He would now draw the attention of the House to another class of officers who were suffering under great hardships. As an instance he would relate the case of lieutenant Keys. He believed, that that officer had recently (since attention had been drawn to the case) received the out-pension of Greenwich hospital, which amounted to 50l. per annum; but this Officer had been thirty-nine years in the service—he had been twice wounded, and he had received no pension. He had jumped overheard and saved a man from drowning by so doing. He was suffering from ill health at the time, and this produced such au effect upon him, that he was forced to retire from active service. At that time he received no remuneration from the Government; and he would ask the house was it right or just that such a roan should he so treated. He would next draw the attention of the House to the case of toasters of the navy. These officers, who were in general promoted from the class of acting masters had five shillings a day half-pay. If they were ordered to go to sea, they had to fit themselves out for the service at an expense nearer 200l. than 150l. end what could the House think they had in addition to their half-pay to meet this? Why 5d. per day. He would ask if this was not a disgrace to the country. He knew the value of these men—the duties they had to perform were of the most important description. It had been supposed, that in consequence of this these officers endeavoured to avoid going into active service, but if they re, fused when called upon by the Admiralty they were scratched off the list. This was a sad alternative, and he did trust the House would enable the Admiralty to bestow something on this deserving class of officers. This class of officers served for a long time as acting masters, and they were apt to remain in that situation after their merit entitled them to promotion, because they feared to be unemployed. He was obliged to state these facts, because he knew that several hon. Gentle, men were unacquainted with them, notwithstanding he had stated them before. He now came to the class of surgeons and assistant Surgeons, and he wished them to be compared with the surgeons and assistant surgeons of the army, be, cause although he knew the army was very ill treated, yet it was not quite so ill treated as the navy. The assistant surgeons in the army were entitled to more half-pay than the assistant surgeons in the navy. The surgeon in the army was entitled to retirement after twenty-five years service, but the surgeon in the navy must serve twenty-nine years and eleven months. If any hon. Gentleman would examine the lists of promotions since 1815, he would find that more than 100 medical officers of the army had since that period been promoted to the higher rank, giving an increase of half-pay, whilst only one naval surgeon had been so promoted. All the time of the assistant surgeons in the Army was taken into account in the calculations for pensions, while the assistant surgeons in the navy were entitled to reckon three years only. He had been a member of the lighthouse committee, before which there had been a question of giving to the collectors of customs the task of receiving the light duties. The observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth upon that occasion was, that they could not impose this duty upon the collectors of customs without giving them an additional remuneration. Now, when the Royal Naval Asylum had been placed in connexion with Greenwich Hospital, the duty which had previously been performed by the surgeons resident in the hospital was increased by the necessity of undertaking the medical super-intendance of more than 1,000 additional children, without one farthing additional remuneration. He had more than once strongly advocated the claims of another class of singularly ill-treated individuals—he alluded to the pursers; and he felt it requisite to call the attention of the House again to this subject. The pursers at the present day were extremely ill off, compared with what they were at the time of the peace. The half-pay of a purser of twenty years service was, at the end of the war, 5s. At present the lowest scale was 3s., and the highest 5s. They must serve from thirty-five to forty years before they arrived at the same situation as at the end of the war, which fell very hardly upon them indeed. The situation of a purser on actual service was such, that he could realize a considerable sum of money; but the number of those employed was but small. They memorialized the Admiralty for an increase of their half-pay, but were refused. The body of pursers met, and arranged, that those who were lucky enough to be employed should give a portion of their receipts to their poorer brethren who did not enjoy the same advantage. They accordingly proposed to the Admiralty that their remuneration of one-eighth on the provisions should be reduced to one-tenth, on the consideration of the remainder being applied to the purpose to which he had before alluded. At length this arrangement was entered into, and the sum tints allocated in the course of a year (three years since) amounted to 7,000l. He contended, that by this time the Government had made more money by this arrangement than they had expended by the granting of this additional 1s. per day, and he knew not why this was not divided amongst them. He hoped that some information would be given on this subject when they came to discuss the estimates, because the money was really taken out of the pay of the pursers, to be devoted to the assistance of their poorer brethren. If any doubt existed on that subject, he would refer to those words of the order, which stated that an account thereof should be kept by the Comptroller of the Navy, which sums shall be hereafter applied in raising the half-pay of the pursers of his Majesty's navy. He was sure the object of the House was to do justice to the navy, and he hoped that the case of these men would not be overlooked. There was another class of persons, who were generally Secretaries to Admirals; and these men who held that important confidential situation, were treated in a most extraordinary way. It was stated, that they were noncombatants, although his own Secretary was seriously wounded in action, and the House was aware that Lord Nelson's Secretary had been killed under similar circumstances. It happened that Sir Thomas Usher was called upon to engage a very superior flotilla in the Gut of Gibraltar, to save his convoy. That gallant Officer did not consider the inferiority of his force, he looked to nothing but the safety of his convoy. In consequence of that inferiority, he ordered that every man in each ship, except the surgeon, should go to the guns. Among them was of course the purser, who received several severe wounds, and lost an eye. He got employment as a sort of compensation, but in consequence of the loss of his eye, it happened that he was run over by a carriage, which disabled him from employment, and obliged him to relinquish his situation. He (Sir E. Codrington) knew that that man was at the present moment in absolute distress, and literally starving; and he asked the House if it was fitting that such a man should be thrown upon the world without any pension, after having been disabled in the service of his country? Now, he had great doubts whether these cases could be reached by the commission for naval and military inquiry now sitting, and he intended to move for an enlargement of their powers, to enable them, if they so chose, to enter into the consideration of any other matter which might tend to the good of the service. They were good judges of what would tend to this, and he was sure, that they would not enter upon the consideration, unless they thought it would do good. Whilst on the subject of pensions, he must allude to the pensions of midshipmen. If there were two midshipmen, A. and B., and the one, after a gallant action, were suffering severely from a wound, and the other had not been wounded at all, there would be allotted to the first (A.) a pension for his wounds; but if for their gallantry, both were promoted, A. who had been wounded, would be deprived of his pension, and placed on the same footing as B. But why should a person who had earned a pension for services in the early period of his life, be afterwards, on promotion, deprived of his pension? He would not complain of the pension-list, but he thought that it would be the duty of any Government to take a per centage from the pensions on the list to supply the few that were required. He thought, therefore, that if the Admiralty came forward and stated these things to the House, they would have full liberty to carry out their designs. The subject was the cause of much discontent in the navy; parties were called upon to serve, and were puffed off for good conduct, but there were no pensions; he denied, therefore, that justice was done, or that the feelings of the country were in favour of the present system. With respect to himself, he defied any thing that might happen to him, in consequence of the line he took; he saw that injustice was done, and, therefore, nothing should deter him from doing his duty. He would also press upon the Government the necessity of sending ships to sea in a condition to do their duty, not only with credit to themselves, but also with safety and success. Officers ought not to be called upon to risk their lives unnecessarily or wantonly, and with that view the ships ought to be put into a condition for service without any unnecessary loss of time. In no case did a ship go into action well fitted, without suffering less comparative injury. An officer would carry his ship, if well fitted, into action, even against a superior force, with greater ease; there would be more dexterity, and a better understanding between the officers and men; it would be more easy to renew the action, or to go upon other service. For himself, before the battle of Navarino, and for his own credit's sake, he wrote to the Lord High Admiral, showing how the crews of the ships were comparatively divided, and how they were limited. He had shown that he had only nine and a half men to work each thirty-two pounder, where he ought to have had thirteen; and he would state boldly, that if he had to choose between five ships in the condition he would wish to see them, and as they ought to be, and eight others in an infeferior condition, he would rather take the five than the eight, and he knew that there would be less injury to those ships than with the larger number and the small complements. As in the army, the soldiers would fight better if well and closely formed, so, if they got ships well together, which they could not do if they were but half manned, they would do their duty with half the injury to the ships, and with twice the celerity. What was the use of a large vessel if they could not manage her? She would only run away with them. Upon that ground he intended to move, that, "with a due consideration to the exigencies of the State, it was important that all her Majesty's ships should have such a complement of men as would put them in a condition to meet any emergencies." With the opinions in the pamphlet which had been so often referred to last night, he fully agreed; he honoured the gallant Gentleman for putting them forth, and whether he now suffered for the statement of those opinions or not, he had done good service by giving them to the world. But what had provoked this pamphlet? Why, another publication, by another gentleman, the second Secretary of the Admiralty. Whether that publication had or had not the sanction of the Admiralty—though he understood that it was not sanctioned by the Admiralty—did not signify; it was published. He would not combat the statement about the number of ships in commission; yet he must say, that no officer of the Admiralty ought, when writing of a gentleman, to have used the terms which were contained in it. He called the "remarks" of a flag officer "disgraceful, impertinent, frivolous, and withal, mischievous; and in another place he designated them "springes to catch woodcocks;" and again he said, "the impudent assertion which follows, is enough to make the blood boil of every British officer and seaman." Was this fit language for the Secretary of the Admiralty to use? In the first place, also, he said, that the remarks could not be the production of a flag officer; and next he supposed that it did proceed from such a person; and then he hoped, that his "bit of bunting"—was that the way to speak of the national flag?—that "his bit of bunting may never fly at the mast-head of any of her Majesty's ships." But what the Secretary himself added, he would apply to him, and he would say emphatically, "let no such men be trusted." The Secretary said, further on, "there was a time when this flag-officer might have in- curred some danger of suffering the penalty inflicted on the gallant Admiral Vernon, for a very similar, though a much less culpable proceeding." What had the Secretary to do with these parts of the subject. The statements in his pamphlet, as to the ships, might be correct; but was he, the Secretary, to hold out such a threat as this against any flag-officer? The Secretary next referred to the case of Captain Craufurd, who first went to sea under his (Sir E. Codrington's) auspices—whom he made a lieutenant early for his services—and who, besides being the son of one distinguished officer, was the brother of another, Sir Andrew Barnard, who had highly distinguished himself. He had thus started in the service with some personal grounds for consideration, and instead of idling away his time at home, as many other officers did, he took trips into different countries, and saw their navies. Among them he saw the Russian navy. This navy had been called a "pasteboard fleet;" but he had commanded a Russian fleet; he had been in action with them, and he thought that no man would find them a "pasteboard fleet," though they were held so cheap. The publication of Captain Craufurd was known at the Admiralty—it had done him great credit, and he believed that he had obtained employment in a sloop of war much earlier than he would have done, because of that letter. He deserved real credit for the information he had given—it was his duty to do it, and he had done it ably—he had done it openly, and he had done it with judgment; and if a man were allowed to write in this way, he would like to know what harm Captain Berkeley could have done, as he had done. Was it because the Secretary had 1,500l. a-year, and the young man only 150l., that he acquired the superiority? But this gave him none in his (Sir Edward Codrington's) mind. He had never written statements himself in the papers; he had always stated in the House what he wished to make known. But the Secretary said, why were not these facts made known to his superiors? Why, Captain Craufurd did this; and if the information were kept back, as the Secretary implied, blame attached to the Admiralty. Why, two Sessions before Captain Craufurd wrote, he (Sir Edward Codrington) had said, that the Emperor of Russia had shown him his fleet; and he had told the House the real facts, though they were passed by unheeded. At all events, Captain Craufurd did but his duty in making his statements, and he had no right to be treated as he had been by this jack-in-office. It was said, that it would "be charitable to suppose that the young commander was really ignorant" of the real state of the navy, and the number of ships; and it was said, that "this silly opinion of a youthful commander may be taken for what it is worth, and no more;" and so he (Sir Edward Codrington) said of the Secretary's statement—it was to be taken for what it was worth, and no more. He recollected having read a book called "The Life of Lord Howe," a man whose life deserved to be written in a very different manner, one of the greatest admirals we had ever had, and who had rendered us as many services as almost any other; and when the Secretary of the Admiralty said, that "if young officers would take the trouble to read what their seniors and 'superiors' had seen and said," he doubted whether they would have gleaned much useful information. He had, in his notice, proceeded to call the attention of the House to the condition of the naval department—he had done so, and he would now move "That with due consideration of the exigencies of the State, it is important to the interests and honour of the country, that all her Majesty's ships in commission shall have such a complement of men as will render them efficient in any emergency; and hat an humble Address be presented to her Majesty praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to enlarge the powers of the naval and military commission now sitting, so as to embrace the subject of pensions, and every other subject which they think beneficial to the public service."

said, in rising to second the motion of the gallant Admiral, he must address a few words to the House which he trusted would not be deemed irrelevant. It had been shown by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the expenditure consequent on the present system of management in the navy was one of those by which the revenue was exceeded; therefore he would put it to the House whether some saving and benefit might not be achieved by lessening the number of ships at present in commission, and as they were all under their full com- plement of men, concentrating the crews, so as to render those vessels retained on service more effective in their duty. Undoubtedly, it might be very pleasant to the First Lord of the Admiralty by the larger number of ships to extend his own patronage; but individual ascendancy or the patronage of any board ought not to be considered when the honour of the British flag might be tarnished by the means with which that official power was Upheld. It had been acknowledged by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Wood) in his statement on the navy estimates, that for the last six months unceasing condemnation and public antipathy had attended every act of the Board of Admiralty. Now, if this had been the case, he desired no stronger proof of the fallacy of their proceedings than such public condemnation, for were all united in disapproval, it would be folly to suppose, that there was not something glaringly improper in the nature or effects of that administration. It had been asserted by some that in the event of a war breaking out it would be easy to increase the crews of the different vessels to their full complement of men; but how was this to be effected, under short notice, as regarded the ships on foreign service, in remote stations, and in distant ports, spread over the seas as our navy was known to be? What, Were the British ships to skulk in port till their reinforcement of men arrived? Were they to be bearded by an insolent enemy at the harbour's mouth, dispirited and restrained by a sense of their own Weakness? Depend upon it, weak in numbers, as they might be, a British man of war would never skulk from the presence of an enemy, and the present non-effectiveness of the crews would lead to a lamentable loss of life. The gallant Member for Sandwich (Sir T. Troubridge) seemed, during the debate of yesterday to take great umbrage, at a remark which had fallen from his (Mr. Berkeley's) relative, the Member for Bristol, and as it would grieve him much to suppose that the hon. and gallant Member, for whom he begged to say he had every respect, should for a Moment labour under an appellation, from such a quatter, unjustly bestowed, he felt disposed to withdraw the simile of a wasp's nest, as he denied the sting, and to substitute, in lieu of it, the name of a nest of drones. For, certainly, in their manning of the navy, they were not sufficiently la- borious. If, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member for Sandwich was better content with the latter appellation, he was welcome to the hive, and the first Lord of the Admiralty might reign the queen bee of it, if he pleased. The first Lord of the Admiralty, the Board, had not, as had been shown, the confidence of the country, and if as the letter to Captain Berkeley, which had been read to the House, stated, through his or their mismanagement, the British flag had suffered defeat, even in the furling of a sail, the first Lord of the Admiralty did not deserve that confidence. By the statement put forward by the Government it appeared that many of the suggestions made by Captain Berkeley, to whom he felt himself permitted to allude, from the remarks which had fallen from the gallant Admiral, had been and were about to be complied with. He trusted then that the rendering the coast guard fit for sea service would also not be forgotten. One instance more he would put to the House, as regarded his relative: suppose they were to reverse his (Captain Berkeley's) position tin the late occasion of his pamphlet, that instead of Sir John Barrow's views coinciding with those entertained by the first Lord of the Admiralty, Captain Berkeley's had done so, and Sir John Barrow's had been in the contrary direction, would Captain Berkeley then have been removed from his situation? No, he would have retained his seat. Even now, he (Mr. Berkeley) congratulated Captain Berkeley on the result of the matter, for he had at least shown that he, as he (Mr. Berkeley) trusted every individual of his family, if placed in a similar situation, would show, that he would not tamely sit and see the maintenance of abuses without raising his voice against them; or suffer himself, while sitting as a judge, to be considered in the light of a mere puppet, to dance in blind obedience at the beck of his superior. The hon. Member concluded by stating his firm belief that the motion of the gallant Admiral was calculated, by drawing the attention of the country to existing abuses, to be of essential service.

did not rise for the purpose of making any remarks upon the subject of the case of any officer, of the intention to refer to which no notice had been given, but he merely addressed the House as a member of the naval and military commission, and he begged to express his opinion that the duties which they had already to perform, were such as they could properly or conveniently get through. The appointment of that committee took place in consequence of an Address presented by this House; and their attention having been called to the situation of the different branches of her Majesty's service, their report would be given as early as possible. It was extremely improper, therefore, that they should be called upon to undertake the very general inquiry which was proposed, or that they should be called upon to consider every subject by which it might be thought that the public service would be benefited. If, indeed, such were to be required of them, he did not know when their labours would cease. He had already expressed the opinion which he entertained himself, and he thought that this statement would have still greater weight with the House when he said that he had the authority of the Duke of Wellington to say, that he also concurred in his views. The commission had met that morning, and he had taken the liberty to ask his Grace whether he might say that the subject-matters of inquiry already before the committee were sufficiently extended, and his Grace distinctly answered by expressing his decided opinion that the objects of the inquiry should not be extended. He trusted that these few Words would be sufficient to satisfy the House that however this resolution might be disposed of, which was joined in a most extraordinary and singular manner with the motion for an Address, they would, at all events, refuse to accede to the latter proposition.

as a friend of Sir John Barrow, to whom allusion had been made, begged to say, that that individual had been a servant of the country during thirty years, and that he thought, that the House would not consider, that they threw away any time which they might Occupy in an inquiry into his case Sit John Barrow did not publish his work in his capacity of Secretary to the Admiralty, and it must be taken therefore to contain his own individual opinions. In anything which Sir John Barrow said in that work, he was sure, that he did not wish to wound the feelings of any individual; but when charges were made by others, he thought, that he was justified in making such an answer as he could to them, and he was of opinion, that in what he had said he had done so satisfactorily, for in the state- ments made by the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Admiralty, last night, there was a distinct confirmation of what Sir John Barrow stated.

did not mean to enter at all into the question between Sir John Barrow and the Admiralty, but he must express his extreme satisfaction tit the manner in which the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Admiralty, had performed his duty last night. He did so in the most effective manner, and he Should have been glad to have had an opportunity of stating on the spot that tribute to which he considered the hon. Gentleman was entitled. Although he agreed in some of the facts which he had stated, he must at the same time say, that he had some difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman in same of his points. He regretted, that the noble Viscount, the Secretary at War, had said, that it was not the intention of the commission to take into its consideration all these matters; but he felt still greater pain when he heard, that the same opinion was entertained by his Grace the Duke of Wellington. He must concur with the gallant Admiral in what he had said, and he must express his belief, that the officers of the navy were not placed in that position to which they were entitled, The peerage was not open to them, and there was not one of them who had arrived at those honours which he was sure the country would be glad to see showered upon them. In the late installation of the Order of the Bath only four naval officers received the appointment; and the same system was observed in the selection of the governors of the various colonies. Let the House look to France and see how the Government of that country acted. It had appointed many of the naval officers to such situations, and he begged to inquire whether the consulships of Calais, of Boulogne, and of Bordeaux might not very well be filled by such persons? It would be very proper, besides, that the pages of her Majesty should be introduced into the navy as well as the army, and that a commission should be offered to one of-them for the former service in the course of every year. With respect to the pensions, he hoped, that the Government would well consider the position of naval officers. At present pensions which had been granted for good services were taken from the officers on their being appointed to any situation, even though the appoint- ment should be to a vessel in the navy. He differed from the hon. Secretary as to the opinions which he had expressed in reference to the manning of the navy, and as to the justification which he had given of the Admiralty in not increasing the complement of men to each vessel. It was said, that the complement in peace was equal to that which was given in war, but if in peace it were found necessary to detach some of the crew with the prizes taken, and the remainder were found insufficient, it was clear, that the complement was not great enough. The vessels on the coasts of Africa were called upon frequently to perform very important services in the cases of slave vessels or of piratical vessels appearing in sight, and they were, of course, compelled to send away a part of their crews on their capturing the enemy; but it was found, that the number of men then left in the vessel was insufficient for its purposes, and was in consequence compelled to accompany the prize into port, thus leaving the cruizing ground open. An instance had occurred within his own experience which showed the importance of vessels being sufficiently manned. He was the commander of a vessel on the West-India station, which was called a Jackass frigate, or a Donkey frigate, which was a ship of that class that could neither fight nor run, and on one occasion, after very great difficulty, and with considerable fatigue, he managed to bring her alongside of a piratical vessel; and although the latter had only ten guns, her complement of men far exceeded the number which were under his command. The consequence was, that in shifting the prisoners they laboured under considerable difficulties in compelling them to keep order, and he was after all obliged to accompany his prize into port. He did not blame the present Admiralty for this, but the system; he must do honour to the gallant Officer for his expressions and exertions on this subject; and he fully agreed with the gallant Admiral as to the necessity of sending ships to sea in a state of efficiency; and he did hope, that the House would support the Admiralty in their endeavours to remedy the defects which existed on this subject. The gallant Admiral had admitted, that great injustice had been done to the midshipmen, and he rejoiced, that they possessed so good an advocate. According to the return which had been made, they were paid 1s. 8d. per day, which amounted to 30l. 6s. 8d. per year. It appeared, that the pay and emoluments of the whole number employed amounted to less by 200l. than the sum required for the remuneration of the Lords of the Admiralty. He did not say, that the latter had too much pay, or that they did not care what the former received; but he contended, that the sum expended upon the large number of midshipmen employed was small in comparison with that required for the Lords of the Admiralty. The case of the midshipmen was peculiarly hard with respect to pension. The gallant Admiral had drawn the attention of the House to the case of a midshipman who, in consequence of an accident on board a steam vessel lost his leg, and had been, in consequence, allowed a pension of 60l. a-year; but when this officer had received an appointment to a guardship, this pension had been stopped the gallant Admiral had, consequently recommended him to promotion, and had in consequence remedied the injustice. He should not now go more particularly into any topics which had been alluded to, but he should reserve any further observations which he might have to make until a future opportunity.

thought, that this subject was one which it was extremly fit that the Admiralty should consider. The gallant Admiral had spoken at very considerable length upon the subject, and he certainly should not attempt to follow him in the topics to which he had referred. He had so mixed up the questions before the House, however, that he was somewhat at a loss to know how it was possible to give a distinct vote upon the subject. He agreed, that if some inquiry were made into the rate and rule of granting pensions, very considerable benefit would accrue. There were different pensions for the army and navy, and he thought, that the commission was a fit tribunal to take them into consideration. The question of the armament of ships was one of very great importance, and it was one on which differences of opinion existed, and might very fairly exist. He should not now venture to give any opinion upon that subject, or upon any other of the numerous topics which had been touched upon; but he should be ready, on the discussion of the estimates, to give his opinion upon them, so far as he felt competent. With respect to the present motion, all its object was to procure an address to be presented to her Majesty, he could not support it, and he should therefore decline giving his vote to the gallant Admiral.

only rose to express his concurrence in the opinions of the gallant Admiral with respect to the propriety of an inquiry into those matters in which the navy were interested, and especially pensions, and he hoped that because it was said, that the commission could not undertake the investigation, there would be no reason given why the matter should not be referred to the Board of Admiralty.

said, that, with respect to the observation made by the noble Viscount (Viscount Howick) on the subject of the commission, he might state at once that the most complete inquiry had been made into the several means of promotion and retirement of officers of the army and navy. As to any further duties being placed upon that commission, he was gratified to hear the opinion expressed by the noble Viscount, backed as it was by that of his Grace, the Duke of Wellington, and he believed, that no further inquiry was necessary to carry the desired object into effect. With regard to many of the topics alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport, he conceived that their further consideration had much better be postponed until to-morrow, when the whole subject would again be under discussion. But, at the same time, he conceived that as the commission had not yet published its report, it would be premature to enter into the inquiry which was proposed at all. As to the peace complements, to which allusion had been made, he thought it was requisite to keep up a sufficient number of men for the protection of commerce, and also for the carrying into effect any treaty which might be entered into. It had been said, "Let there be fewer ships and more men;" but he said, "Have as many ships as can be properly managed." The system which had been adopted having given very general satisfaction to the country, he could only regret that anything should have occurred which should have justified Captain Berkeley in putting before the public that pamphlet which hi had written, the effect of which was hi retirement from the Board. He sincerely regretted that that should have been the result of the publication of the pamphlet for there was no man who sat at the Board who performed his duties better or more ably. But at the same time he could not stand there and admit that the statements contained in that pamphlet were true. With regard to the complaint made by the hon. Member for Brighton that members of the naval profession were not advanced to office, he begged to state, that it was made without much foundation, for there were at present several examples of naval officers being employed in situations of great importance and responsibility.

protested against any further pensions being granted, although he concurred with the hon. and Gallant Admiral, Sir E. Codrington, that a great many persons received pensions disproportioned to their services, while there were many persons in the army and navy who did not receive adequate remuneration. In the returns of the last year, it would be found that upwards of 11,000,000l. was paid for the services, effective and non-effective, of those in the army and navy. 7,158,000l. was paid for the whole efficient service of the army and navy, while 4,114,000l. was paid for pensions. That was a singular fact. He considered that the whole question of pensions required revision. There were too many who received pensions and did not deserve them. The House of Commons last night was in a very extraordinary state. Talk of Tory Houses—talk of unreformed Houses—he had never witnessed such symptoms of extravagance in all his life as were manifested last night. Ever since he had been in the House, it had been his good fortune or rather his had fortune to attack the public departments for having the estimates too large, but last night the Minister was put on his defence because the estimates were not higher. That was quite a novelty. He had never expected to hear it said, "we have never made any reduction, we have gone on increasing year after year," and the House, will it be believed, was in raptures with that statement. After that he would say no more.

in reply, only asked for pensions for those who had been severely wounded, and who were entitled to them for their services. A complaint had been made that he had not brought this subject on when the estimates were moved, but he begged leave to say he would; grasp every opportunity for advocating the r cause of the navy—it was a duty he had prescribed to himself, and he was determined to pursue it. He felt justified in having called the attention of the House to the subject on the present occasion. Although he never wished to go into battle again, yet he would be glad to do so if he could take all the Ministers with him, and he should also like to have the hon. Member for Kilkenny. They would then, perhaps, alter their tone, and would say that seamen were very ill paid. It was all very well for men to sit in that House and to say that pensions ought not to be granted. He agreed that pensions ought not to be given to men who had large stipends, but pensions ought to be given to those who fought for their country, and who deserved them. With regard to the two publications that had been alluded to, it ought to be recollected that Captain Berkeley's pamphlet was consequent upon Sir John Barrow's. He thought Captain Berkeley was perfectly justified in having put forth those opinions. Capt. Berkeley was an excellent officer, and made an excellent member of the Admiralty, and he was sorry that the Admiralty had been deprived of his services.

would detain the House but a very short time in bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice. He wished this measure had been taken up by the Government, or by the hon. Member for Hants (Mr. S. Lefevre). In 1836, in a committee, of which he had the honour of being Chairman, and after investigating the matter as far as possible, they felt compelled to come to the same determination as the committee of the House of Lords. His object was to obtain a select committee for the purpose of taking into consideration the best means, in the first place, of consolidating the various turnpike trusts throughout Great Britain, which had been recommended by committees of both Houses. His next object was, to ascertain in what manner the 8,000,000l. of debt now owing by those trusts could be liquidated. It was perfectly clear, that the establishment of railroads throughout the country would not only increase that debt, but render the security on different lines of road perfectly nugatory. The money had been advanced, not by wealthy parties, not even by the middle classes, but by persons whose all had been advanced for the security of the tolls, which now, by the establishment of railroads by this House, had been utterly done away with. The evidence taken in 1836 went to show, that in all the lines of road which had run parallel with the railroad, the tolls were lessened in a most unparalleled degree. Railroads were essentially a monopoly—they must become the carriers of both goods and passengers along the whole line on which they went, and it was essentially necessary that the Legislature which had given existence to those monopolies should, by some system of legislation prevent the evils attendant thereon. He imputed no blame to her Majesty's Ministers, nor to any one—the Legislature was in fault. He thought that when it allowed railroads to be established, it had been guilty of a great oversight in not laying down such a code of law for them as would have prevented the companies which had the management of them from converting the monopoly of conveyance which was thereby granted to them from becoming injurious to the public. He would not call upon the House to lay down such a code for the railroads already in existence, for he was not inclined to make ex post facto laws, but he called upon it to join with him in considering how far such a code could be framed for the better governance of those railroads for which bills might be brought in hereafter. He did not find fault with railroads; on the contrary, he was a great friend to them, and had always supported them in that House, but, at the same time, while they conferred a lasting benefit upon the country, care ought to be taken that individuals should not be deprived of that security upon which they had advanced their money, viz., public tolls. They were good property at the time the money was advanced, and the security had been done away with by the Acts of the Legislature. It was for her Majesty's Government to do as they thought fit on this subject; all that he (Mr. Mackinnon) was anxious for was, that justice should be done. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a Select Committee to examine into the subject.

said, he thought the only ground which the hon. Member had made out for a committee, was to inquire into the effect of railroads in deteriorating the securities on public roads. With respect to consolidation, there had been in both Houses committees ad nauseam. Twice had the Government brought forward measures for consolidation, and offered to advance the requisite securities; but the influence of those interested in the present system had prevailed with Members opposite to defeat those propositions. At the present period no Government could be expected to advance the public funds on securities so much deteriorated. If the hon. Member would alter his motion, and confine it to the effect of railroads on the public roads, he (Mr. F. Maule) would agree to it.

consented to that alteration.

said, the hon. Member had clearly enough exposed the evil; but he had not found a remedy.—As to the deterioration of the securities on the public tolls on turnpike roads by railroads, the results of the railroads were not at present clearly known.—For instance, in the case of the post-horse duty, which it was expected would have been quite annihilated by the railroads, the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other night, had shown that this expectation was mistaken. And from the proposition of the Secretary for Ireland, as to Irish railways, it was doubtful what measures were to be taken by Government in respect to railways in general.

thought the committee, as now proposed, would be premature, as it would have, if appointed, not to inquire into facts which had taken place, but to exercise the gift of prophecy. There was but one great line of railroad yet completed, viz., that from London to Liverpool, and surely it would be better to wait five or six years to ascertain what would be the result of the railways at present in progress of formation before any step was taken.

did not think the hon. Member, the Under Secretary for the Home Department, had stated the case fairly. If the House adopted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridport, they would wait until much more mischief had been done, which it was the object of the committee he proposed to appoint, to avert. If the House granted that committee, clauses might be introduced in all future railway bills to prevent the mischief which was likely to take place. He would however withdraw the motion in conformity with the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite.

said, that understanding the bill of his hon. Friend is intended to carry out the Reform Bill, and not to contravene it, he should not oppose the present motion, and if the bill turned out to be such as to meet the approbation of both sides of the House, he should be very glad of it, although he did not give credit even to his hon. Friend for being able to bring forward a measure which should please all parties.

would be glad if the time of polling was shortened, but, at the same time, the number of polling places ought to he increased. He believed, the Liberal party in Ireland were against giving each member of the constituency an opportunity of voting without being intimidated by the mob. He would appeal to the hon. Member for Tipperary whether the voters in that county had not frequently to travel upwards of eighty miles to Clonmel to record their votes. He would ask the hon. Gentleman whether it was his intention to introduce a clause appointing a polling place in each Barony, as it was useless to facilitate the acquisition of the franchise, unless the exercise of it was facilitated also.

was sure, that if the hon. Gentleman had read the report respecting the number of polling places in England, he would not have asked the question. His hon. Friend could have no objection, and he (Mr. Hume) should wish to see the number of polling places so increased, that each voter would not have more than five miles to travel, and this he thought he might walk without putting the candidates to any expense—with regard to intimidation, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman voted for the ballot, but the ballot was the proper remedy for intimidation. He would contend, that it was so—that improved registration, an increased number of polling places, and vote by ballot, were the proper remedies for diminishing the expenses of election and preventing intimidation.

hoped, that in any bill regulating the registration in Ireland, an appeal would be given both ways? for at present if the Assistant Barrister chose to grant the franchise there was no appeal from his decision, and hence there were many on the registry who had no right to be there. At present the register was regulated only once in eight years, and many who had been placed on the register in 1832 remained there yet, although their leases had expired—many men in this situation had produced their register dated in 1832 at the last Sligo election and had polled against him. He would appeal to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether he was not cognizant of the fact, that certain voters on his estate whose leases had expired by the death of William 4th, had, at the last election, sworn they were still in possession of their freeholds, and had polled against him. He trusted the hon. Member would introduce a clause for getting rid of fictitious votes from the register; and he would follow the example of the noble Lord opposite, and not oppose his bringing in the bill.

regretted, that the taking the polls in counties in one day, was not made a substantial part of the bill. That was the greatest defect in the Irish system. It was the cause of enormous expense, and of every species of demoralization and corruption. The evils under which they laboured were so notorious, that it was almost unnecessary to mention them. In counties, it was necessary to take a great body of electors forty, fifty, or even sixty miles to the place of polling. Suppose an election occurred in the depth of winter, and hundreds of people had to be taken over a mountainous country, the expense incurred was enormous, independent of keeping them three or four days in the county town, during which time, they might be assailed by the opposite party, and subjected to every species of corruption, bribery, and intimidation. If the poll was taken, as in this country, which was a great benefit conferred by the Reform Bill, the electors might come up in their own neighbourhood and poll, and return home at night. There would be an end of all pretence for the necessity of treating. It would also do away with the great cause of not and intimidation, for the result of the election would not be known. It would be the greatest blessing that could be conferred on Ireland, to assimilate the taking of the poll to that of England. With regard to the registration there was no law which needed more revision, and he regretted to find, that the hon. Member wished to keep the really beneficial part of the measure in the background.—Leave given.

on behalf of a very numerous, respectable, and deserving class of society, asked the House to give him leave to bring in a bill to relieve them from some of their liabilities. The innkeepers had patiently waited for the interference of the Legislature. The innkeepers of this time were a very different class of persons to what they formerly were, and the same excuse for imposing liabilities on them as in former days, did not apply now. Innkeepers were liable to make restitution for the loss of any goods in their house, but it was not fair that they should be liable for the loss of money. In the case of Kent v. Shuckhard, it had been laid down by Lord Tenterden that no distinction could be made between money and goods, and that an innkeeper must be considered in the light of a common carrier. He would instance the case of a "respectable gentleman" who made his appearance at one of the hotels in Brighton, ordered his supper, and went to bed. The next morning he rung his bell, and ordered the servant to brush his cloak. The cloak was brought back to him, he went down to the coffee-room, ordered his breakfast, called for the landlord, and told him that he had lost 80l. in his house—that no person had had access to his room but the servant who came up to take his cloak, and that he insisted upon having some compensation. After a great deal of remonstrance, the landlord agreed to give 40l. A few years afterwards conscience smote this gentleman.—He inclosed the sum of 40l. to the innkeeper, with compound interest thereon, stating that he had been driven by adverse circumstances to do the act—that he had twisted and tormented his imagination, in order to devise the means of raising the wind. He would give another instance—a few years after, a gentleman, a lady, and their daughter, took up their residence at the Old Ship in Brighton—the following morning after they arrived, the lady and daughter took a walk, as he hoped all hon. Members would do when they visited that place—they went purchasing throughout the town as he hoped hon. Members would also do—and on their return, the lady declared that she had lost 60l. out of her reticule. The landlord felt himself in a had mess—the lady said, that if she had not lost it in the town she must have lost it in the house—the reticule was found, but no money in it, and the landlord being sued, determined that upon this occasion be would resist; the trial came on before Lord Tenterden; and the verdict passed against him for 50l.; a nonsuit was entered, on the ground that money being carried about the person was not under the care of the landlord. A second trial was had, and the landlord was again defeated; that was before the Legislature had altered the law with respect to carriers: that law had now been altered, and therefore he came before the House, with a good grace, to ask that the innkeeper should be relieved, because he could not like a carrier, refuse to receive either a guest or his luggage. All that he wanted was, to restrict the liability of the landlord to 10l., unless the guest gave his money or goods into the keeping of the landlord. It was to be recollected, that money was an invisible article. He hoped that the House would allow him to bring in the bill, so that it should be brought under the notice of the country, and he promised that he would not press the second reading before Easter.

did not think the time of the House had been very well occupied, notwithstanding the very amusing anecdotes the hon. Member had given. The hon. Member himself utterly abandoned the principle he set out on, because he allowed, that innkeepers were to be liable for all goods in their care. Why? Because there was a liability cast on them by law and necessity; the danger was so great for fraudulent collusion between an innkeeper and his servants, that the traveller would have no security without this responsibility. But the hon. and gallant Captain said, the character of innkeepers were so marvellously improved that they might now trust them with anything. Was that since the last Session of Parliament? It was a very rapid improvement. There had been last Session an almost unanimous determination not to alter the law; but now there had been such a complete and sudden improvement in the characters of innkeepers, that they might trust entirely to their honour. The hon. Member advocated responsibility of innkeepers as to goods, but not as to money. If it were confined to invisible money, he could have no objection, provided it were shown to the innkeeper. He (the Attorney-General) would extend the responsibility to the purses of travellers. He thought it very hard that a traveller going on his journey, with the greater part of his property in his purse, should be liable to have that property stolen from him while under the roof of the landlord, very probably by the servant, while he was asleep. He thought that there ought to be no distinction whatever between invisible money and visible goods. He should, therefore, oppose the bringing in of this bill.

had voted against the bill of the hon. and gallant Member the previous Session, but upon that occasion he had said, that if the bill was modified it might have his support. The present bill of the hon. Member was a very different one from that of last year, and therefore he thought the taunts which the hon. and gallant Member had thrown out against hon. Members for dividing against him was not justified. He thought no good could arise from the Bill. According to the law at present, if any person committed perjury, and supported their case by perjury, they recovered, and so they would under the bill of the hon. Member. He (Mr. Darby) doubted if an innkeeper, when he gave notice that he would not be responsible for 100l., unless placed in his custody, would be liable for such a sum—As to an innkeeper allowing himself to be frightened by the threat of a prosecution, to the paying money which had never been brought into his House, that was a kind of intimidation to which any man was liable, if he chose to submit to it.

said, the hon. and gallant Member who had brought forward this motion had often distinguished himself by local legislation, and if he would confine the bill to the town of Brighton he would not oppose it.—But being anxious to protect the commercial interests, with which he was more immediately connected, he must say, that he believed this bill would sap the very foundations of security for travellers: and that it was much better, both for commercial travellers and for innkeepers, that the law should remain as it was now.

said, that it was his intention to have brought under the consideration of the House the propriety of going into a Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of ascertaining how far the First Fruits and Tenths of the Church might be made available to the augmentation of the maintenance of the livings of the poor clergy. Bet his noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department having, since his notice was entered on the books, intimated his intention of appropriating 130,000l. a-year, under the Ecclesiastical Revenues Bill, from the cathedral revenues to that purpose, be rose to postpone his motion till he could ascertain more fully how this relief was to be afforded; and whether, under the altered circumstances, it might be necessary to make any modification in the plan that he had for three successive Sessions brought under the consideration of the House, and which had the last year been sanctioned by the favour of a considerable majority. Before the Easter recess, the plan of the noble Lord would be more fully developed, and he should then determine upon the course that he should pursue with regard to his object of making the first fruits and tenths to be paid by the prelates and dignitaries of the Church, as well as by the more highly beneficed clergy conducive to the better maintenance of those who had so long suffered from an inadequate reward for their spiritual labours.

rose to move for a return of any dispatches, communications, and correspondence that have passed between the British mission at Stockholm and her Majesty's Minister for Foreign Affairs, during the years 1837 and 1838, relative, to the port of Slito, in the island of Gottland. He had been disposed to postpone his motion, but seeing the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, who had probably come down for the purpose of answering any question he might put on this subject, he did not think it would be altogether courteous towards that noble Lord to defer it. He would, therefore, introduce the subject as briefly as possible. It was probably not known to many Members of the House, that the subject of the motion involved considerations affecting the commercial interests of this country, and more especially the Baltic trade. Hon. Members were aware of the geographical position of Gottland in the Baltic, at the entrance to the gulfs of Finland and Bothnia. All ships bound to the eastern coasts were obliged to pass it. The port of Slito, situated on the north-eastern coast, had considerable depth of water, with facilities of ingress and egress for vessels of any size. At the close of the year 1837 and during the year 1835, several petitions were presented to the Swedish government by the inhabitants of Gottland, and several other Swedes, and supported by British merchants in Sweden, praying the Swedish government to make Slito a free port. The question was submitted on different occasions to the Swedish government, and in the first instance they had shown a willingness to listen to the petitions, but subsequently after the interposition of the Russian minister they had evinced considerable supineness. At the time when these petitions were presented to the Swedish government, the British minister at Stockholm showed considerable indifference and apathy on the subject. Now, it would not be difficult to prove, that the greatest benefit must result to British interests, and particularly its shipping interest, from making Slito a free port. In the first place, the port of Slito was open six weeks earlier and six weeks later than any port in the gulf of Finland. A voyage, too, was made to Slito in a much shorter time. The rate of insurance was less, because the risk was much less. There would be these advantages to British interests in making Slito a free port. But it was stated, on the best authority, that while on the one hand the greatest activity and influence was exercised by the Russian minister to prevent the Swedish government from granting this concession, the greatest possible indifference and apathy had existed on the part of the British minister. During a considerable period, too, there was no consul and no minister at Stockholm. British interests there were intrusted to a chargé d'affaires, who was left in a forlorn condition. The late consul, Mr. Foy, died in 1837, and up to the present period, sixteen or seventeen months, he was not aware that any appointment to the vacancy had taken place. If there had been any appointment, it had not gone so far as to induce the individual to commence the duties of his station. But the fact, that sixteen or seventeen months had been allowed to elapse without appointing a consul, did at all events evince great indifference to the affairs of Sweden and Norway. It was true, that the absence of the British minister had been caused by a severe domestic infliction, but no minister had been appointed to take his place, and the charge d'affaires was left alone, during the period that this important question was under the consideration of the Swedish government. He (Mr. Gibson) did not know on what ground his proposal could be objected to by the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. But he had some suspicion that the noble Lord would object to it on the ground, perhaps, of its being inconvenient or injurious to the public service to produce papers. It was a very favourite ground under which a great deal of neglect often found shelter. Now, he should be guided as to the amount of credence, or perhaps not exactly credence, but the degree of trust he would place in the statements, by the way in which the noble Lord might make them. If he could state that the public interest would be seriously injured by the production of the papers—if it appeared that a bonâ fide negotiation was going on—not a mere red tape and fictitious negotiation to be pleaded as a reason for the non-production of papers—but a real bonâ fide negotiation going on with the Swedish authorities relative to making Slito a free port—then he would not divide the House upon his motion. But unless the noble Lord would say, that the production of the papers would be detrimental to the public service, or that a bonâ fide negotiation would be interrupted by it, he should feel it his duty to call on the noble Lord to explain what course the Government had taken for the protection of British interests when this important question was before the Swedish government. It appeared, that the Russian minister had been extremely active and influential in protecting the interests of Russia. But it might be said, that this was a question of internal arrangement for Sweden herself to decide. He admitted it; but he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the noble Lord near him, what a diplomatic agent was for, if not to watch the effect of internal arrangements in other countries, and observe whether any of them were of a character to affect injuriously or beneficially the interests of their own country, that they might oppose or support them accordingly? But this country ought not to remain in a state of indifference upon this question as a matter of internal arrangements with which they had nothing to do. The Russian minister had actively endeavoured to prevent this concession, so advantageous to British interests, from being made by the Swedish government, which, if left alone, would have been willing to grant it. It was the duty of this Government to interfere for the protection of British interests, as Russia interfered for the protection of those of Russia. It might be said, indeed, that there had been no petitions on the subject—no pressure felt from British merchants. But how were British merchants to originate a question affecting the internal arrangements of another country? If the question were once taken up by the Minister of the country, and if there were an efficient consul to manage it on the spot—British merchants would then have legitimate sources through which to become acquainted with it. He had no wish to make a long set oration. He would conclude by repeating, that there was no doubt of the immense advantages to this country of making Slito a free port. It would open the Baltic trade, as he said, six weeks earlier and six weeks later. It would diminish the rate of insurance. It would prevent numerous wrecks, such as now took place on the coasts of Gottland and Finland. It would save British ships from several obnoxious regulations, and irksome and disagreeable rules which they were obliged to observe in going to the port of Cronstadt. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty that she will give directions that there be laid before this House copies or extracts of any dispatches, communications, and correspondence that have passed between the British mission at Stockholm and her Majesty's Minister for Foreign Affairs, during the years 1837 and 1838, relative to the port of Slito, in the island of Gottland."

said, it appeared to him that the general practice of that House was, that a Member who proposed to call for papers should show sufficient parliamentary grounds for the motion he made. It did not appear to him that the hon. Gentleman had laid any such ground for the present motion. The hon. Gentleman had expatiated on the advantages which he conceived English commerce would derive from the establishment of Slito as a free port. That point he was not at all disposed to contest with the hon. Gentleman. There was no doubt that it would be advantageous to our commerce if Slito were made a free port. He was quite sum that it would be advantageous to our commerce if as many free ports as possible were established in all foreign countries. On that point there was no question between him and the hon. Gentleman. But the point that he did contest with the hon. Gentleman was, that this House or the English Government had not any business to meddle with the internal affairs of the government of Sweden. The question whether Slito was to be, or was not to be a free port, belonged to the government of Sweden to determine. If the Russian government had interfered, and if they had attempted to induce the Swedish government to refuse this concession, it had done what was exceedingly improper. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that he did not consider himself at liberty to take any active steps with a view to influence the government of Sweden in the matter to which he had alluded. Therefore, the return to his motion, if the House should agree to it, would simply be a statement from the chargé d'affaires or minister of Sweden mentioning the fact, that a certain number of Swedish merchants had applied to the government of Sweden to make Slito a free port, and that the Swedish government had, and still has, the subject under consideration. The hon. Member had stated that there was, on the part of the Government, great indifference to British interests connected with Sweden; and he had mentioned as a proof of it, that during a certain time the chargé d'affaires had been left alone at Stockholm and the office of consul had not been filled up. With regard to the first point, he who seemed to have bestowed a good deal of his attention on continental affairs might have known that nothing was more common in all countries and on all missions than that the minister should, from time to time, have leave of absence, and that during his absence his duties should be performed by a chargé d'affaires, or by the secretary to the mission or the embassy. This certainly proved no indifference on the part of the Government to the interests of the country. It was but the ordinary course of things, and it often happened that the business was as well done by the chargé d'affaires as by the minister himself. [Laughter]. Yes, there were many able men who were chargé d'affaires. Hon. Gentlemen, opposite, at all events, could say nothing against the individual who held that position at Stockholm. However the office might be laughed at, they could cast no sneer at the able Gentleman who was discharging his duties there. With regard to the consulship, it was perfectly true that no person had been appointed consul, but no neglect of the duties of the offices had taken place, for there was a person at present acting as consul to the satisfaction of the chargé d'affaires and of the Government. His answer, therefore, to the hon. Gentleman was, that this was a matter that concerned the government of Sweden, and it did not appear to him that the British Government, and still less that the British House of Commons had any occasion to interfere with matters purely domestic on the part of the Swedish government. If the hon. Gentleman should persist in his motion, he would be disposed to propose as an amendment that they should inquire as to what steps had been taken by the Swedish Diet relative to making docks at Southampton, or the management of the dockyards at Portsmouth and Plymouth. The Diet had just as much right to interfere in such matters as we had relative to making Slito a free port. He should certainly resist the motion of the hon. Gentleman. If carried it could obtain nothing more than simply a report from the chargé d'affaires, or minister at Stockholm, that a certain application was made to the Swedish government, and that that government was proceeding to deliberate on the application in reference to the interests and convenience of Sweden herself.

said, that the question before the House was one of considerable importance to a most respectable body of his constituents connected with the Baltic trade; and though they had not petitioned the House on the subject, they could show that the statement of the hon. Member for Ipswich was fully borne out by the facts. It could be shown, that much property was destroyed, and many lives lost by the wreck of vessels trading to the Baltic, and that similar losses would be prevented if the port of Slito were declared a free port. It was therefore of great importance to our Baltic trade to have access to that as a free port; and he regretted to see, that the Government did not exert itself more actively in the promotion of that object. The noble Lord had said, that it was a matter solely for the consideration of the Swedish Government, and that we had no right to interfere in it. It was no doubt a question between merchants of Sweden and, their gym Government; but it was one in which British interests were greatly concerned, and therefore a matter in which the good offices and friendly interposition of our Government might well be applied. One thing which was not denied by the noble Lord was, that Russian influence was actively employed to prevent the Swedish Government from acceding to the petition of seine of its own subjects to have the port of Slito declared free; that being so, he thought that to counteract that influence would be a legitimate object of British diplomacy. If it appeared that Russian influence had been active in this respect, and that the British Minister was required to counteract that influence, he had neglected his duty. He would support the motion, because he thought a case had been made out for the production of the papers in question, and that it was one which greatly affected the interests of British commerce, as well as the preservation of life. If the Swedish Government had not been forward in this matter, it was more from Russian influence than from any want on their part to comply with what was wished for, which was the opinion of many of the English merchants at Stockholm.

said, that the hon. Member for Ipswich had, in the course of his speech, spoke of the absence of a British Minister from Stockholm; but the noble Lord had said in reply, that this arose from accident, was of no importance, and that there had been no complaint made about it. Now, he must say, that representations on the part of the British merchants had been brought under the notice of the Foreign-office as to the appointment of a consul at Stockholm; for fifteen months ago he had himself laid such papers before the noble Lord, who fully agreed with him in the necessity of such appointment, and never had he had the honour of presenting to the Government, papers so numerously or respectably signed. He understood, that such an appointment had been made, but that it was afterwards cancelled. No doubt the noble Lord had some good reason for this, but application was again made to the noble Lord by memorial, and an individual was recommended for the office, but the noble Lard from that moment to the present time had taken no notice whatever of it, and the appointment had not taken place. He must say, that when a large number of the merchants of London did come before the noble Lord, and laid their case before him, stating their interests in the question, it was most desirable that the foreign department should condescend to pay some attention to their statement. The hon. Member for the city of London had said, that he was deeply hurt at no attention having been paid by the Government to this subject, but the noble Lord had said, that he believed, during the absence of the Minister, the duties of his office had been discharged in the most satisfactory manner. But, in his opinion, the stetement of the hon. Member was net met by the noble Lord; and if he could not give a more satisfactory answer, he must support the motion for the hone Member for Ipswich.

said it was perfectly true, as his hon. Friend had stated, that he did press the appointment of a particular individual as consul at Stockholm some months ago, and it was also perfectly true, that for certain reasons he had thought it his duty not to appoint that person; but his hon. Friend was mistaken if he thought that the appointment was still vacant for there was an individual performing the duties of that situation as well as the individual whom his hon. Friend had named, would have done.

said, it appeared, that the noble Lord either did not, or would not, understand what he was about. He only stated the opinions of some of our British merchants, and they certainly did think, that the British commercial interests had been neglected in the quarter referred to. If our Minister was not there, he ought to have been there, and, if he were not necessary there, why then remove him, and save his salary. His hon. Friends had stated, the strong opinions there were in the commercial world, that our affairs in Sweden were not attended to, as if there were a resident Minister, and that a mission would not satisfy the people of England; and he thought, that when it was found, that both Swedish and British interests were contending for the same point, as it was the interest of Russia to prevent England having any hold in that country, that the English interests could not be attended to, when there was no proper officer there. The motion was, in his opinion, a very fit one; but when the noble Lord stated, that the hon. Gentleman had directed great attention to continental affairs, which was very much to the credit of the hon. Member, for he had been to Sweden, where the noble Lord had never been, and, therefore, understood this subject; he wished the noble Lord was on the Continent, and he should like to see those who were sent abroad, more alive to the interests of their country; for three-fourths of those who were sent, did not attend to their duty. He thought, that the noble Lord had not given a full answer to the case which had been so ably stated by the hon. Member, or to the neglect with which the Government had been charged in this instance.

would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Kilkenny on both his points, either as to the neglect of British Ministers generally at foreign courts, or as to the neglect of the Ministers at Stockholm. He would confine himself, however, on the present occasion to the last point, and to the question of Slito. The papers connected with this subject had naturally come before him in the duties of his department, and he defied the hon. Member, or any of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who had any knowledge of the subject to point out any period at which one half the attention was paid to our British commercial matters in that country as had been the case in the last few years. Considerable correspondence had been carried on between the Ministers there and the Government here relating to a better system of commerce, in order that every facility might be afforded to the commercial connexion between the two countries, and no subject relating thereto had been passed over by the Chargé d'Affaires or other Minister, nor any opportunity lost of extending and securing the commercial inter- ests of this country. The hon. Gentleman had asked why they did not renal the. Minister or the Chargé d'Affaires if he did not attend to his duty, but he must say that the charge of neglect could not be brought against any of the gentlemen who had lately been employed in Sweden—he meant Mr. Bligh, Mr. Bloomfield, or against the gentleman who was now there, Sir Thomas Cartwright; for correspondence had passed under his eyes, from which it was impossible to say that more attend in could have been paid to he subject of the commercial interests of England than had been paid to it by those gentlemen. They had directed the attention of the House government to the fact of the ease which was now brought forward, and every, thing had been done that could be expected or desired. Still that did not justify the motion then before the House. The hon. Member for Ipswich had stated, on his own authority, that the Russian Government had interfered to prevent making a free port of Slito. That might be so, and still we might have been able to afford some assistance or countenance to the establishment of that port. This, however, on one side and the other, could only have been by friendly representation, and by advice; however, as had been stated, the affair really regarded Sweden alone, and did not justify the remonstrances of foreign states. That circumstance, therefore, would form no ground whatever for this motion; no ground whatever for the production of these papers; for whatever might be the authority or recommendation for their production, they were of a character and description which the House had not a right to ask, and which, if granted, would only defeat the object of the hon. Mover. It would lead to a precedent for the production of all papers of this kind, and, instead of furthering the present object, would materially mar and prevent the efforts the Government were now making to effect it. He could again assure the hon. Gentleman that, whether he regarded the reduction of duties, or the taxation of British merchants in Sweden, or the question of the canal, or the port communication, or their interests generally, there had been no neglect, no indifference, no want of attention; but if the Howe supported the hon. Member in calling for these papers they would injure the promotion of our commercial interests in that part a the world, and would greatly mar their own object.

observed, that there was a great discrepancy between the statements of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The noble Lord had said, that no mischief would ensue from the production of these papers, but that no case had been made out for their production; and most undoubtedly, from what the noble Lord said, that he should have been induced to vote, if the House divided on the question, with the Government; but when the right hon. Gentleman had said, that it was not on that ground he objected to the motion, but because it would be most detrimental to the object in view to produce them, when two such different opinions were given by Members of the Government, it was hardly possible for him to decide as to his vote. The noble Lord, however, had more to do with this subject than the right hon. Gentleman; and therefore he must conclude, that he was right, and the right hon. Gentleman was wrong. He should support the motion, though he should have voted with the Government if it had been shown to have been detrimental to their proceedings.

said, there was no inconsistency between his statement and that of his right hon. Friend, for his right hon. Friend had not said that the production of the papers in question would be detrimental to any proceedings on the part of the Government, but that it would most likely defeat the object of the hon. Mover.

thought the papers should be produced; first, because the English public were not generally informed of the importance of this station, and, secondly, that if they were laid on the Table their attention would be called to this subject, and consequently the attention of the Government would be drawn to it as well. There was no question about the importance of this station; and, in his opinion, it was of the utmost importance to establish the closest possible alliance between this country and Norway and Sweden.

said, there was no difference of opinion on the part of any of the Gentlemen who had addressed the House in the course of the debate, as to the importance of the establishment of a free port in the island of Gottland; but the question was, how, in a matter of internal legislation belonging exclusively to Sweden, that object could be best attained. Reference had been made to Russian influence; but suppose that there were interests in Stockholm contrary to the establishment of a free port at Slito, did they think, putting the question in that point of view, that Russian influence would be best counteracted be best affected by the interference of that House. Let them remember the question of inland warehouses in Great Britain, which had frequently been mooted. When that question was before Government and Parliament did the House think that a satisfactory settlement of it would have been in any shape favoured by its being urged forward in the Chamber of Deputies in France? He would only ask them to apply to foreign countries the same rules which we should ourselves adopt, sensitive as we were to foreign interference in British affairs. Even at the present time, when the question of the corn-laws was being agitated, how would hon. Gentlemen opposite relish discussions in foreign countries tending to control or even to influence our own legislation on this subject, and yet if they carried the motion of the hon. Member they would sanction and recommend the adoption of that principle. His noble Friend had stated, that there was no political danger in the production of the papers, and yet that statement which had been made with the most perfect candour on his part, had been most unfairly turned against him. Nothing had been easier than for his hon. Friend to have passed over that part of the subject, and he then would have answered the motion: but though there was no political danger, what he doubted was, whether a case of political expediency had been made out to qualify the production of these papers, or rather whether there was not a case made out showing the political inexpediency of our Legislature interposing in the internal concerns of another country. He was fully warranted in saying, that there had not been a single application from any quarter asking for his noble Friend's interference in obtaining the establishment of this free port. How then could the Secretary of State be charged with neglect. And would it not be a case of direct Quixotism when there had been no representation on the subject, made to the Foreign Office, where there was consequently no complaint of neglect, it would be a case of Quixotism for the House to come forward and say that there had been neglect, and that there was a necessity for the active interference of the Foreign Secretary in such a matter. When ever complaints had been made to the Government, they had never been dismissed without inquiry; and this was the first instance in which any individual Member had come forward, and in the absence of all complaint had endeavoured to make out such a case against the existing Government; the House would remember the admission made by his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Foreign Department, that the establishment of this free port was an object of importance to British interests, but coupled with this, there was the mere assertion that the House ought not to interfere actively with the internal affairs of another country. The House might assert and vindicate its perfect freedom of action within our own territory, but there could be no doubt that if the papers were granted, and if the House should interfere, such a step, marking censure and want of confidence in the Government would only tend to counteract the exertions of the Foreign Office, and mar the object they all had in view.

said, that to employ the language of remonstrance in a case of the kind, would be to use a species of coercion, which neither Government would be justified in exercising towards a friendly Power, in regard to its internal interests. If he supported the motion of the hon. Gentleman, that support would rest more on the speeches of the hon. Gentleman's opponents than on his own. However clearly the hon. Gentleman had made out his case, still he (Mr. Ward) did not think it a case which called for the interference of that House. There was no violation of British interests, no disregard of British remonstrance. This was not a case, therefore, for Parliamentary interference. The support which he should give to the motion of the hon. Gentleman rested on the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The noble Lord laid down as a maxim, that British diplomacy ought not to meddle in such an affair, but if this were so, of what possible value could diplomacy be in the mercantile affairs of this country. He thought this a proper case for diplomatic interference, and when it was found that Russian influence was employed to prevent the establishment of a free port at Slito, was it not the duty of the representative of British interests at Stockholm to counteract that influence. It was essential to the trade of this country, as well as that of Sweden, that there should be a free port at Slito. This country had no political interests with Sweden, our communication with that country was merely mercantile, and therefore, if our mercantile interests were not facilitated by the British agent at Stockholm, he should like to know of what advantage it was, to keep up the expense of such an establishment. Suppose the question relating to the Danube on a system of reciprocity of trade being introduced, could it be said that the influence of Russia, or of any other power adverse to this country, should not be counteracted by our accredited agents. He thought it could not, and therefore, as he considered it highly expedient for the noble Lord himself that the papers should be produced, in order that it might be seen how far the interests of this country were supported in Sweden, he should certainly give his vote in favour of the hon. Gentleman's proposition.

in reply, said, the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had admitted that his statement as to there having been no Consul in Sweden the last sixteen months, was correct; but he added, that, although such was the case, nevertheless there was a person at Stockholm who performed the duties of Consul quite as well as if he had been appointed. Now, that might be satisfactory if the House considered that an alien, a native of Sweden, a man engaged in trade, the partner in an extensive mercantile house in Stockholm, not trading even with this country, a man receiving no salary, and responsible to no one would be as fit to look after the interests of this country as a British subject. Unless they considered this, they could not admit the argument of the noble Lord, but for his (Mr. Gibson's) own part, he must say that it was monstrous to intrust the duties of consul to this kind of person, and the more especially when they must know that his whole time was fully occupied by his own concerns. When he found, that there had been no British Consul in Stockholm for nearly seventeen months, he must presume, that there was some truth in the rumour which was current, that our interests had been neglected at Stockholm. The parliamentary ground on which he rested his motion, and he thought no better could be required, was, that the public had a right to the production of these papers, in order to see that the government had not suffered the interests of this country to be prejudiced in Sweden. The party in charge of British interests at Stockholm, was, no doubt, a most respectable person, but it was not to be justified that he should have been left in so forlorn a position, and without the advice of either a Minister or a Consul, properly accredited from this country to assist him in the protection of British interests. It was as much a matter of justice to the noble Lord, as to satisfying the public that there had been no grounds for the charge of neglect which was imputed to the noble Lord that called for these papers.

in rising pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the sale of beer, said, though he was fully aware of the importance of this subject, both as it affected the morals and the comforts of the people, and the finances of the country, he should not enter into any opinions of his own upon those points at the present moment, but should content himself with briefly stating the heads of the measure which he now proposed to introduce; reserving what he had to say upon the obnoxious and pernicious features of the present system till the second reading of the bill. He was the more induced to take this course, because he believed that there would be no opposition to the introduction of his bill, though he fully anticipated it would meet with a good deal of opposition from various quarters in its future stages. He begged to state, in the first place, that he had no intention to repeal the Beer Act, nor to do what would amount to a virtual repeal of it, namely, to impose any restrictions which should prevent the sale of beer. With respect to the consumption of beer on the premises, although he was not pre- pared to say, that nothing short of the abolition of that practice would meet the objects of improvement he had in view, yet he did not think he could give his support to any bill which did not impose very material restrictions in that respect. Looking at the complaints against the present Beer Bill, which had been made by petitions to this House, he thought that they principally resolved themselves to these two points, namely, the great number of beer-houses established under the new Act, and the low and disreputable character of a great portion of those houses. He should endeavour, therefore, to reduce the number of beer-houses, and also to impart to those which remained a more respectable character than those now existing generally enjoyed. To effect the latter object, he should propose, that, after a certain period, which he should fix at a distant day, in order to allow all parties whose interests were concerned to wind up their accounts, no licence should be granted to any person who was not rated to a certain amount—a distinction being made between the ratings in large towns and the rural districts: and he should also propose, as some additional security for the parties' respectability, that a certain extent of previous occupation of the premises should be required. He should likewise propose that the amounts paid on account of licences should be increased, varying according to circumstances. Though he was not sanguine that these provisions would meet all the evils attributable to the present system, he yet hoped that the Government and the House would give their consent to them, and that they would go far to remedy the abuses so loudly complained of by a large portion of the community.

had great pleasure in seconding the motion. The measure proposed by his hon. Friend was of so moderate a nature, that he thought it would be very likely to be allowed to pass; but had it been of the same character as the one introduced in another place, he had no doubt it would meet with great opposition, and perhaps be defeated.

had already, in answer to a noble Lord, stated the general feeling of her Majesty's Ministers upon this subject, namely, that they were not prepared to pass any measure for the repeal of this law. He admitted, that some regulation on the subject was neces- sary, but, at the same time, he thought, that the application of any such regulations should be general and impartial; not confined to the beer houses only, but to all houses in which beer or spirits were consumed. He did not know whether this principle were precisely that of the hon. Member's bill, but in any case he did not think, that his principle would be at all compromised by acquiescing in the introduction of this measure. The question, however, was one which should be approached with great caution and a most dispassionate feeling of impartiality, as the interests of no less than between 40,000 and 50,000 persons who had invested their property in business under the provisions of the new Beer Act were involved in the result. He would observe, that the Act itself was one which had been passed, not by the present Government, but by an adverse Government, although certainly with the support of the Members of her Majesty's present Government.

said, if this bill were to be considered as a measure of police, applicable to all houses, as well those that sold spirits, as those that sold beer, he would give the hon. Member his best assistance to carry it through the House; but if it were to be confined to beer houses only, he should oppose it. A Committee of the House, which sat in 1835, recommended a general measure for the regulation of all houses that dealt in beer and spirits by retail; and as a proof that the beer houses were not conducted with less regularity and propriety than houses of other descriptions, he would refer hon. Members to a return which had been made this Session, by which it appeared that the convictions before magistrates, for disorderly conduct in spirit houses were 95 per cent., whereas the convictions in beer houses were only 5 per cent. With these facts before them were they to condemn the beer-houses and leave the spirit houses unnoticed? He wished the hon. Gentleman would distinctly state whether he intended his Bill to be a measure of police regulation, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recommended? If so, he would give him his support.

doubted whether the Bill of his hon. Friend would effect the object which the people of this country desired; or would remove the evils which now existed. For his own part, he was anxious to put an end to the system of licensing beer houses for the consumption of beer on the premises.

thought that every lover of even-handed justice would agree with his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, in the observations he had made. It would create great alarm in the country, if the House were to adopt the proposition in the shape now suggested by the hon. Member.

was of opinion, that many magistrates in the country were unaware of the powers which they possessed with regard to the regulation of beer houses. If they would carry those powers more stringently into effect, many of the evils now complained of might be prevented.

then rose to move for "copies of all despatches and correspondence which passed between Sir Francis Head, as Lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada, and the Colonial-office, and her Majesty's Ministers, during the time he held that office." He was induced to move for these papers in consequence of some accusations which had been brought against him, and because he was anxious to have the whole facts of the case put into the possession of the House, in order to show the situation in which this country had been placed by the conduct of that Governor. Since he had sat in Parliament no public officer had conducted himself in a manner similar to that individual had done. It was true that according to certain papers which had been laid on the Table of the House, and by garbled statements which had been published, that public officer had made out a very good case on his own account; and he had chosen at the same time to make attacks upon him (Mr. Hume). As soon as he could get the papers. he intended to bring the conduct of that officer before the House, and to show wherein he had departed from his duty. But that he could not do until he got the documents. He could not see why those documents should be kept back. A report from a committee of that officer's packed friends had been laid on the Table of the House, and his character had been implicated, and the public mind misled by it. He would undertake to prove that, if the Government would let him have all the papers he wanted. One of his letters had been published. Why did they not bring out all his letters? He defied them to bring forward a single letter written by him which he was not prepared to vindicate. He was glad to find on a re-perusal of the letter which had been published by Sir F. Head, that it was a most satisfactory one. He had been charged with being an instigator to violence and rebellion, because he had asked for a bit-by-bit reform. Why, he had advised Mr. M'Kenzie to abstain from all violence, to wait patiently, and to proceed properly, but firmly; and he had been found fault with for not being importunate enough. A letter found in M. Papineau's baggage had been published by Sir F. Head; but why did he not publish the other letter-for there was another letter written by him, a letter of introduction to Mr. M'Kenzie, which Sir F. Head took out with him? Why did not the Government give up all the letters and papers at once? A paragraph from one of the letters of Sir F. Head had been promised, in which he (Mr. Hume) was mentioned. He had no doubt that he was not very agreeably noticed. But Sir F. Head had actually left that letter out of his book. So that he was placed entirely at the mercy of the papers on the Table of the House, and the garbled statement put forth by Sir F. Head, and he could not get at the truth. Lord Glenelg had said in the other House that he was anxious that every paper should be produced, and that he was not aware that any one was withheld. Why, then, should they be withheld? He had no doubt that some very curious facts would come to light if all the papers were produced, particularly if the answers to the despatches were printed; and he contended that the House had a right to demand them all. They had a right to know what had been done at Toronto. Was it true, or was it not, that this gallant hero had offered to capitulate at Toronto? He was anxious that the whole truth should come out. For his own part he was not afraid of the truth, but it seemed that others persons were so. The country ought to be made acquainted with the causes that had led to such lamentable doings in Canada. The hon. Under Secretary for the colonies, the other night, appeared to think that sufficient blood had not been shed in Canada. That was what the hon. and learned Member for Dublin complained of, and the answer made by the hon. Secretary seemed to convey that impression. When the resolutions relating to Canada were under discussion in that House, he forewarned them that all the bloodshed that might follow would be on the heads of those who passed those resolutions. Why, then, was he to be stigmatized as the author of evils, when he could point out the very individuals who were the real authors of them? The House was not aware that his accusation was that during the elections, Sir F. Head had signed papers to create votes at the very moment, and by those means had carried the elections, and that accusation was confirmed by Lord Durham in his report. ["No, no," from Mr. C. Buller] The hon. and learned 'Gentleman who expressed dissent might not perhaps remember what had been written in that report, and he ought to let others judge from the acts which Sir F. Head did in violation of the rights and privileges of the Canadians. Therefore it was, that he desired the production of all the documents in order that the public might be enabled, as well as himself, to judge of the matter. At present he was unable to bring forward any statement, because he had not all the facts, as if he did so, he might be turned, as he had been on many occasions round upon, by an official man saying he was possessed of this or that information. As the discussion on the whole question of Canada and Sir F. Head's conduct must take place, would it not be better, when that gentleman had defied the Government, had published garbled statements, as indeed had the Government also, to have the whole information complete, and fill up the chinks with his whole story? He put it to the Government whether it was fair to him, who had been so frequently challenged on the subject, to prevent him from giving up the agents and actors in all the mischiefs. It was not treating either the House or information country fairly not to produce all the; it was important that those who had produced the evils in Canada should be brought forward in their proper colours, and if the documents were refused, it must be, concluded they contained facts which the Government were afraid to make known. Sir F. Head had challenged the Government, and it was fitting the Government should meet that challenge. On all these grounds he should press his motion.

said, he should not allow himself by any observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Kilkenny, to be provoked to enter at that late hour, and in the present state of the House, into any discussion of the very great and important subjects to which the hon. Member had alluded. The hon. Gentleman had justly said, that no long period could elapse before the attention of the House must be seriously called to the state of the Canadas, to the administration of Sir F. Head when he governed the upper province during a very important period of events which had lately taken place, and to all other subjects which related to the peace of those countries. That was a sufficient reason why he should not attempt at this time to enter upon a subject to which, consistently with the time of the House, he could not do anything like justice. He should therefore confine his observations to the point of the motion-namely, whether the House should take the very unusual step of requiring from the Government to lay all despatches and communications, without exception, which had passed during a period of unexampled difficulty between the governor of an exposed colony and the Government at home upon the Table of the House, or whether that discretion which never was refused to any responsible Minister of the Crown, whom the House thought worthy of its confidence should in this instance be allowed to the Colonial Secretary—in other words, whether he should be allowed the province of judging what parts of those despatches and communications could with safety to the public be laid on the Table, and what parts it would be his duty to withhold. If the House had not confidence in the noble Lord now at the head of the Colonial Department, it was its duty to express that want of confidence, and to insist on his removal? If they did, the House ought not to embarrass the Government by insisting on the production of documents which the Government felt it to be its duty to resist. This was a most important general principle, from which he did not think anything at this time had occurred, which ought to induce the House to depart. At the same time he assured the hon. Gentleman, that it was the full intention of the Government, as indeed had been before stated by the noble Lord at the head of the department, to day on the Table every thing that was material for the perfect and complete understanding of the subject of the administration of Sir F. Head without the slightest reserve. The House would therefore perhaps allow him to move as an amendment to the motion of the hon. Member, that copies of extracts from despatches, and extracts from answers to despatches, containing all the information essential to a right understanding of the subject, be laid before the House. He was bound to say there were parts of the despatches which would not be produced; there were some things in them which Sir F. Head, without communication with the Government, had thought proper to publish, but which he knew his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, would not feel it to be consistent with his duty to lay before the House. There were, for instance, personal reflections upon individuals wholly irrelevant to the subject on which Sir F. Head had to treat, and which were improper to be addressed by a governor of a colony to a Minister of the Crown, which would not be laid upon the Table. Again, there were reflections in the despatches of Sir F. Head, and published by him, not upon the conduct, but upon the institutions of the United States of America, which it would not be decent or proper for the Colonial Secretary to recommend her Majesty to communicate to Parliament. He claimed on behalf of his noble Friend, the Colonial Secretary, the right to judge what was, and what was not, fit and proper to lay before the House. An examination would be made in the office with a desire not to keep back anything which could afford the amplest information upon the conduct of the Government, the conduct of Sir F. Head, and, indeed, upon the whole transactions which had taken place in Upper Canada. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had complained very much of the omission from Sir F. Head's book of the sentence in the despatch which was personal to himself. It would seem, however, that the book had been got up in a hasty manner, for the matter was stated in the table of contents, but on turning to the chapter referred to, it would be found to contain no such passage, nor anything like it. He however, would own that there was a sentence relating to the hon. Member in the despatch of Sir F. Head, which had been laid on the Table, omitting that sentence, because it was wholly irrelevant to the subject of the despatch. That sentence did not apply to any act of the hon. Member's, but was a general expression of the opinion entertained by Sir F. Head of the hon. Member, and whether, if placed on the Table, that opinion would show the modesty of the hon. Member, or whether it was of an opposite character, he (Mr. Labouchere) would keep a profound secret. His hon. Friend had also alluded to a letter which he wrote to Mr. M'Kenzie, and which had been found among the papers of M. Papineau. But even if the present motion were granted, the hon. Member would not obtain his object with regard to that letter, for it had been transmitted by Sir John Colborne, and not by Sir F. Head. He was unwilling to enter further into these particulars. He felt the serious difficulties and obstacles which surrounded the great question of Canada too deeply to wish to mix up with it matter of personal character, and he hoped the House would approach that question in a very different spirit. On public grounds, together with a feeling of his duty to the Crown, it was, that he should resist the present motion, and should ask the House not to depart from the usual practice, but leave it to the responsible Minister to judge what ought and what ought not to be produced. He should therefore move, as an amendment, "that copies or extracts from despatches, and extracts from answers to despatches, which passed between Sir F. Head and the Colonial-office and her Majesty's Ministers during the time he held the office of Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, be laid before the House."

said, the right hon. Gentlemon seemed to think, that the motion, if carried, would cast a reflection on the noble Lord, now, the Secretary of State for the Colonies. If he thought there was any reason to draw that conclusion, he (Mr. Hume) would not persist, for he regarded with great satisfaction, that noble Lord's conduct towards Ireland, that he should not be the person to begin throwing reflections upon that noble Lord. On that ground, and trusting to the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman, he should consent to the amendment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give him privately the date of the despatch in which he was alluded to, as he had some letters of Sir F. Head's which might assist him.

observed, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had spoken of garbled statements laid on the Table by the Government. The despatch which had contained the allusion was produced last Session, and he felt it due to Lord Glenelg to state, that, on laying that paper before Parliament, he had communicated to Sir F. Head, that he had omittted that para- graph, and had stated to him his reasons for doing so, and that the noble Lord had subsequently received a despatch from Sir F. Head, acquiescing in those reasons, and in that omission.

was tempted to say a few words in consequence of his having said "No" to the statement of his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, that Lord Durham's report corroborated the charge made against Sir F. Head of issuing patents for land to turn the election. He did not speak to the words of the report (which he had not read so recently, perhaps, as the hon. Member), nor as to how far those words bore out the impression which he knew to have been made and impressed on Lord Durham's mind by the evidence taken with great pains on the spot. He was sure, however, that the object of the report was to free Sir F. Head from the charge of creating fictitious votes, and that conclusion was induced in Lord Durham's mind by the Commissioners of Crown lands, who had fully investigated the subject at Toronto. He could not be supposed to have any great temptation to defend Sir F. Head, but he had felt bound to set his hon. Friend right, and to assure him that, from the best information that could be collected, there was no ground for that imputation on Sir F. Head.