begged to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary of state, in consequence of a regulation of the House respecting the fixing of notices, if he would place upon the notice book the day upon which he meant to bring, forward the motion of which he gave a general notice on Friday, and which had reference to recent proceedings in the other House of Parliament? It would be for the general convenience of the House if the noble Lord would intimate the day upon which he proposed to bring it forward.

observed, he had no difficulty in answering the question. He had already said, that he would bring forward the motion referred to, the week after the recess, as it was necessary it should be disposed of at as early a day as possible. He would now fix it for Thursday, the 11th of April.

in moving the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension Bill, observed, that although he stated the object of the clause he meant to introduce in giving notice of it the other evening, yet, as attacks had been made not only upon him, but upon a near relative of his, who, he thought, had been very unnecessarily brought into question, he felt that he should claim the indulgence of the House while he stated the fast respecting the proposal he had to make. It had been asserted that the object of the clause he was now going to in- troduce was to enable a near relative of his to fill the deanery of Exeter, which he would not otherwise be able to fill. Whoever made that statement must have made it either without having read the clause, or having read it, must have mis-stated it. The object of the clause was, that the Bill now in operation should "not prevent the collation or appointment of a canon or prebendary to any canonry or prebend which shall become vacant by reason of the vacancy of any deanery in any cathedral or collegiate church." What he had explained to the House was, that it had been found by quite an unintentional mistake that he bill did not confer the power of filling up prebends in those cases where it had been usual for the Crown to appoint the dean, and where the dean could not be appointed except he had previously held the prebend. It was, therefore, thought fit to remedy the omission. It certainly had been stated to him by some members of the Church Commission, that as the mistake in the original bill was unintentional, it would be well that the clause should apply, to vacancies now existing as well as to any that might hereafter exist. He had, however, thought it would be much better that no suspicion should interfere with the operation of the law now in force, and therefore had declined to make the clause apply to any vacancy now existing, and to those only hereafter existing. After the manner in which the person in question, his near relative, had been spoken of in connexion with this subject, he thought he should be permitted to state that, in recommending him to the favour of the Crown, through the Prime Minister, he knew he was recommending a person who was an ornament to the Church. He likewise knew, in asking that this particular deanery of Exeter should be conferred on him, that if it should be found, which it had been, by the joint opinions of the law officers of the Crown and Sir W. Follett, that the Crown could not appoint, he knew that it would not be any disappointment to his relative not to receive the intended preferment. He knew that, not only from his long and affectionate intimacy with him, but he knew it also from the fact that his relative, having obtained, as was usual with young men belonging to families having church preferments, two livings—one of between 400l. and 500l. a year, and the other 1,200l.—and finding, after some years' experience, that he could not perform the duties of both, he surrendered the living of 1,200l. in order that he might devote his time and attention exclusively to the other. He therefore trusted, in proposing a clause, to enable the Crown to retain the power it had hitherto held respecting deaneries and prebends that should fall vacant, that neither his relative, Lord Wriothesley Russell, nor himself, would be subject to any imputation for the part they had taken in reference to this matter.

was of opinion, that the noble Lord in proposing this clause, would meet the wishes of all persons interested in the subject, as it had been found, that the dean of Exeter was also prebendary of. Exeter—a circumstance which had escaped the notice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He was not personally acquainted with Lord Wriothesley Russell, but the feeling which had been just evinced by the House clearly proved, that his general reputation, as glanced at by the, noble Lord, was fully borne out, and that there was no person better qualified to fill the deanery of Exeter. He felt, that the clause, even if it had an ex post facto tendency, was so much in consonance with the intention of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that if the noble Lord had any delicacy of moving it in that shape, in consequence of his relationship with Lord W. Russell, he (Mr. Harcourt) would willingly undertake to do so.

bore testimony to the excellent character, exemplary conduct, and high professional attainments of Lord Wriothesley Russell.

rose to move an address for a copy of the order issued to the marines, obliging them to provide their, own great-coats. The Admiralty, she contended, had no right to sanction the deduction of a sum out of the pay of the marines for that purpose. There was regulation made which bore date the 20th of September, 1819, which had reference to the proper and sufficient clothing of the marines while doing duty on shore. According to this regulation, as he apprehended, they were entitled to great coats, at all events, while on shore. He had no access to official documents, but had merely been supplied with information through private sources, he conceived, however, that even upon the grounds which he could lay before the House, such a case could be Made out as fully to justify and require its interference. It was perfectly true, that according to one of the regulations, a copy of which he held in his hand, a commanding officer was authorized to cause recruits to be furnished with knapsacks and greatcoats at the expense of the Government and the reason of that regulation was this, that young men joining the marines frequently manifested a disposition to mutiny when they were at their very entrance into the service subjected to such heavy stoppages as the additional charges for the great coats occasioned; it was, therefore, found expedient to remit this regulation in the case of the recruits and confine it to the old soldiers. By an order dated the 15th of August, 1805, the officer commanding was authorized to order watch coats for marines serving, on shore, to cause proper care to be taken of them, and to see, that they were carefully reserved for future occasions; thus, half at least of the men were under the two orders to which he had referred, entitled to great-coats, and all the recruits were entitled to them, so that it would require but very little additional expense to put the remaining portion of the marines upon the same footing as the soldiers of the He would suppose a possible case, that of marines directed to advance upon a military position, encumbered with knapsacks and great-coats. The officers commanding would at once desire them to fling them away; suppose the coats were lost, would it be contended, that the prices, of these coats ought to be stopped from the poor men? Then why persevere in the present absurd and obnoxious practice? Why should they be worse treated on foreign service than at home, or at sea than on short? The evil of which he complained could be remedied at an expense probably not exceeding 5,000l. or 6,000l. a year. He admitted, that the obnoxious practice had not arisen during the administration of the present Board of Admiralty, but that circumstance by no means lessened the obligation under which they lay to remove it; he entreated the House to recollect whose cause he was pleading; it was that of men who had never flinched from the performance of their duty in times of the greatest danger. They were men on whom devolved the painful duty of turning their arms against their own fellow-countrymen, whenever it became necessary to repress mutiny; from that danger they had never flinched, and yet, in many respects, they were worse off than the seamen. He could confidently say, that no men could have discharged their many and arduous duties more zealously or more efficiently than had the British marines at all times, and under all circumstances, and he, therefore, with confidence left their case in the hands of the House. He concluded by moving an address.

observed, that the hon. and gallant Member had given a very good reason for not complying with his own motion. He alleged, that the Admiralty had no authority for refusing the great coats; if so, how could they produce the order for which he moved. He did not expect, that the motion of the hon. and gallant Member would come on that evening, and he, therefore, could not say, that he was prepared to enter into the question at any length; but probably his hon. Friend near him would favour the House with his views of the question then under consideration. He should only observe, that it had been the invariable practice for marines to find their own great-coats, and the instances which the hon. and gallant Member opposite gave, were exceptions which only proved the rule. The establishment of perfect uniformity throughout every department of the public service would be almost impracticable and if practicable, would be unjust. Marines were for the most part employed at sea, and if uniformity were valued so highly, it should be recollected, that the seamen were not provided by the Government with great-coats.

stated the practice to be, that one coat was provided for the recruits upon entering the service, and for this reason, that they could not have any arrear of pay coming to them to meet such extra expense, It was a mistake, however, to suppose that the marines paid full value for their coats; on the contrary, they were furnished with them at a very reduced price. The complaint then made to the House was one which appeared to him to be perfectly new; he had never heard of anything of the sort before that evening. There could be no doubt, if the marines were asked whether they would rather pay for their coats or receive them without payment, that they would prefer the latter; but he professed himself unable to discover any real grievance in the case before the House. If there were any grievance, and that it underwent proper examination by the competent authorities, and was investigated regularly through the several departments, there could be nothing more agreeable to the Government, nothing in which they could feel a greater interest, than redressing such a grievance. It was, however, always the practice of Government to wait till complaints came from the proper quarters, and if those complaints were well founded, the Government had the greatest possible interest in removing their cause.

wished, that there should be no distinction between the marines and the seamen on the one hand, and the infantry on the other.

said, that in his opinion, the marines were in a situation superior to that in which the infantry were placed; the marines paid nothing for their rations when at sea, while the infantry generally paid. This question appeared to him one with which the House ought not to deal rashly or without full and minute examination, and he hoped, that the application then made would be refused. If there were any species of application worse than another, when addressed to that House, it was an application on behalf of a body of armed men. If the House once began to listen to such applications, it would be regarded as an encouragement, and he did not hesitate to say, that it would be fraught with great danger to the safety of the country. These were matters which ought to be left in the hands of the executive; he even considered, that the mere discussion of them in a popular assembly was not unattended with the possibility of dangerous results.

bad always expressed the strong objection which he felt to discussions of that kind in the House of Commons. The army and the navy ought to look up to the Crown, and the Crown only—by no means to the House of Commons. The military force of the country should be the army of the Crown, and not the army of the Parliament. At the same time he must observe, that his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Chippenham, did no more in principle than had previously been done by the noble Lord the Member for Sussex. He should have voted against that motion had he been in the House as he should vote against the present motion, for he thought they were alike in principle, and both objectionable. With regard to this particular question, his opinion was, that wherever, as at the present moment in Spain, a battalion of marines, acting as soldiers on shore, performed the same services as infantry, the Government, as an act of justice, should supply without charge great-coats to the marine force as well as to the infantry. He hoped the Admiralty would hold out a promise liberally to consider the whole matter, and upon that understanding he would urge his hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham to withdraw his motion.

protested against being considered as admitting this complaint to originate in any grievance. At the same time, if it did, he was sure the Admiralty would be ready fully to inquire into it.

did not think that a primâ facie case for inquiry had been made out; but if any grievances were proved, it would undoubtedly be fit that a remedy should be applied.

could not but admire the delicacy with which the noble Lord (Howick), the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty, and the hon. and gallant Officer opposite, contrived to dispose of this question. The army, said they, belonged to the Crown, and to the Crown must they look in all matters of this kind. But suppose the Crown acted unjustly and tyrannically, what then? There would be inquiry, perhaps, but no redress. He had frequently heard complaints made in that House, and substantiated, of the injustice which had been perpetrated both with respect to officers of the army and navy, but in no case had the grievance been redressed. He lamented to see the "ins" and "outs" hold together on such occasions, because they felt their own authority was impeached, and the manner in which they performed their executive functions. The noble Lord (Howick) was just going out of office, and the gallant Officer was about to succeed him ["No, no," and a laugh]; that was apparently the case, and for himself he wished to see frequent changes in the Government; it was his wish to keep the two factions constantly before the eyes of the people; the deeds of the Tories seemed to be a blank in the eyes of Englishmen at present; but they knew something of the Whigs, and there was a general outcry against them from one end of the country to the other. [Loud laughter.] With the mere exception of the palace, he really did not know where a single Whig could be found. He hoped the gallant Officer who introduced this question would divide the House upon it, unless the Admiralty gave a distinct pledge fully to inquire into the ground of complaint.

rose to move an address to her Majesty upon a subject which involved most intimately the safety and honour of the country. The other night he had the pain to hear all the dreadful anticipations he had formed fully confirmed. The hon. Secretary for the Admiralty had acknowledged that we were not in a condition to repel the Russians at sea, if they should think proper to attack us. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the Russians might do us much injury on the English coast. He believed the Russians might attack England next July if they pleased, and with much greater injury than the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty would allow. He would proceed at once to state the grounds of the fears he entertained, and the extent of the injury which he apprehended. It was acknowledged on all hands that the Russians had twenty-eight line-of-battle ships at Cronstadt, well-manned, well-equipped, and in all respects well-appointed. The gallant admiral commanding at Portsmouth, no doubt, had told them that when the Russian navy joined Lord Duncan before the battle of Camperdown, they were found totally inefficient. The gallant admiral had also told the House that the Russian fleet, when it was sold to Portugal, was found on passing the Bay of Biscay to be totally inefficient, and was in consequence obliged to be broken up. The times had, however, changed since then, and no one, he thought, would be found at present hardy enough to give a similar account of a Russian fleet now. Every naval officer with whom he had conversed now said, that a Russian fleet would prove no despicable enemy. The Russians had now a fleet of twenty-eight sail of the line in Cronstadt. Our Ambassador, the Earl of Durham, had sailed with that fleet, as had also Commander Craufurd, who had given an account of its state of preparation, for which the country could never be sufficiently grateful. The year before last the Emperor of Russia had brought the whole of those twenty-eight sail of the line together at Cronstadt, and had taken them out to sea to manœuvre in one fleet. Last year he would not bring them together in one fleet to insult England; he and his councillors were too wise for that; for the proceedings of the House of Commons in the mean time had struck fear into their hearts. But the twenty-eight sail of the line were still at Cronstadt, and all last year 80,000 Russian soldiers were on the coast of Poland. "I put it to the Whigs," said Mr. Attwood, "for I think little of them. I put it to the Tories, and I think little of them too. I put it to the Radicals in this House—and of all the three factions I think them the worst—I put it to them all three, and, though bad is the best, I think the Tories the least wicked of all.—yes, I fear that Whigs, and Tories, and Radicals, have entered into a compact, a treasonable compact, to introduce Russian soldiers into this country to humble us poor Radicals out of doors. This appears to be a wild suppositionv—and the days are wild in which we live—and we see wild circumstances arise every minute—and when I know the miseries of the people of England, their grievances, and their thorough discontent, and when I know that Whigs and Radicals have year after year turned a deaf ear to the sounds of calamity and woe, I may be allowed to imagine that there is such a thing as treason in this House. I'll not say that it is so, but I must be permitted to imagine that it may be so. Either treason or imbecility it is. I have no suspicion of the integrity of my hon. Friend below me, the Member for the Admiralty. I forget the place for which he is a Member ["Halifax"] but I have a strong suspicion of his want of knowledge. I will not say that we should have been a bit better under Tories, because I recollect their doings in 1827, in 1828, and in 1829, and then we were no better off than we are now. I could enter into a state of the degradation inflicted by them upon the country, which would make every honest man in the House blush, if they would only believe me, or if they would only refer to the documents in the library, in case they won't believe me. Yes, the Tories began the career of their country's shame. The Whigs, under Earl Grey, carried it out in Poland, and the Whigs, under Viscount Melbourne, are now carrying it out in every part of the world. The right hon. Baronet knows this well, nobody better; for in 1827 the Russians made a treaty with him called the 6th of July. [Sir R. Peel—"I was not then in office."] True, you were not in office then, but you were six months afterwards. That treaty of the 6th of July, established the principle, that Russia was not to make war upon Turkey, except with the consent of England. The gallant Admiral near me (Sir E. Codrington) had in the discharge of his duty to exercise a great judgment on the Turkish fleet. He had then in his pocket orders from George Canning to enter the Black Sea, and to protect Turkey from the designs of Russia. [Sir E. Codrington—"No, no."] I must request the gallant Admiral not to contradict me now. He can answer me when I sit down. I hope he will let me explain. I say, that after the battle of Navarino, when the Turkish fleet was destroyed by an untoward event, the gallant Admiral had orders to enter the Black Sea and protect Turkey from Russia. ["No, no," from Sir E. Codrington.] I assert further, that whilst the gallant Admiral was repairing his fleet, after the battle of Navarino, George Canning, by an unhappy fate, died. The Duke of Wellington and Sir R. Peel then succeeded to the Government, and Sir Pulteney Malcolm was sent out to take the command of our fleet in the Mediterranean, with orders not to enter into the Black Sea? What was the consequence? The Emperor of Russia violated his compact with us, and ordered his troops to cross the Pruth. The Earl of Aberdeen, who was then a member of the Duke of Wellington's Government, remonstrated with the Russian Cabinet, and asked them why they had gone to war with Turkey? There was then an apology made to us. The Russian Cabinet said, "it was a private quarrel of their own," and promised that they would confine the war to the Black Sea. Then the right hon. Baronet, to his immortal shame, and the Duke of Wellington, for whose services no man feels deeper gratitude than I do, became associated with this degradation of their country. Yes; they were at the head of affairs in 1827, when the Russian troops passed the Pruth, in defiance of England. It was true that they remonstrated with Count Nesselrode, but what did he say to them? "Be content, we have a private quarrel with Turkey, and we must be the arbiters of our own honour." Then it was that the right hon. Baronet and the Duke of Wellington pocketed an insult to England such as England had never pocketed before. Count Diebitsch, the passer of the Balkan, should never have passed the Balkan. A Russian fleet then came out from the Baltic. I believe that there was not a man either in this House or in the other House of Parliament, which equally misgoverns England, that did not expect that that fleet would have been introduced on its passage into an English port. That, however, did not happen; but that fleet passed by us with contempt and insolence, and almost sweeping the Channel with a broom, as Van Tromp did in the time of Charles 2nd. It passed through the straits of Gibraltar into the Mediterranean, and then proceeded to blockade the Dardanelles. The Earl of Aberdeen proceeded to remonstrate again, and what said the Russian Ministers?

"We have a question affecting our honour to settle. It is true we have made a compact with you not to carry the war into the Mediterranean; but Russia is the guardian of her own honour. If a Russian ship is attacked by a Turkish ship, you cannot deny to Russia the right of acting in her own defence. We find the Pasha of Egypt is coming up with his fleet to assist the Sultan of Turkey, and we must be prepared to meet him; but to show you that we mean no insult to your great country, we give you a pledge that every English ship which is cleared out for Constantinople before the 28th of October, 1828, shall be allowed to enter this Dardanelles."

Is there any man who can refrain from blushing when he hears of such language being addressed to his country? The right hon. Baronet,—I wish he would lift up his head and let me see his face. [The Speaker, "Order, order."] The right hon. Baronet must listen awhile to what I am about to say. The right hon. Baronet consented to submit to a burning insult, which must cause every Englishman to blush with shame. Yes, we were insulted by Russia, and basely submitted to the insult. This career the Tories began. Then we came to the treaty of Unkiar 'Skelessi. We saw the Russians, when the Turkish fleet was destroyed at Navarino, enabled thereby to move their artillery by sea and take Varna, and advance upon Adrianople. They never could have passed the Balkan, if the Turkish fleet had not been destroyed at Navarino. The hon. Member proceeded to contend, that if under such circumstances the Sultan had asked for the loan of an English fleet, whilst he was engaged in repairing that fleet which England had destroyed by "an untoward event," he would have been perfectly justified in making that demand. Without it he was too weak to resist; and the consequence was, that the Russians advanced on Adrianople. They made a treaty there. The Tories were then in power. That treaty gave to Russia the delta of the Danube, the district of Circassia, and the sovereignty of Abasia. Russia was under contract to England that she would take nothing from Turkey at the close of the war, and yet she took the gifts which he had just mentioned. She took the delta of the Danube to which she had no more right than England herself. She took the district of Circassia which Russia had no more right to take than Turkey had to give, for Turkey exercised no dominion there. Thank God, and the exertions of the brave Circassians, she had not yet got possession of the latter gift. Next to the Dardanelles, Circassia was the most important military point in Europe, and the Tories made us submit to the deep and burning degradation of acquiescing in the gift of it to Russia. But there came a deeper and more burning degradation still—the treaty of Unkiar 'Skelessi. Of all the treaties which ever disgraced the diplomacy of England, that was the most burning and damning. We suffered the Dardanelles, which had been an object of ambition to the ancient Romans, and the possession of which had now, for two centuries, been sought by the Russians—we had suffered that glorious military position to be placed in the power of the Russians without even a word on our part. It was true, that they had not yet obtained possession of it, but they soon would if that House did not awaken from its slumber. The Russians had now twenty-eight sail of the line at Cronstadt, and twelve sail of the line at Sebastopol. He would not at present enter into the question whether the fleet at Cronstadt would sail to attack our shores, though he thought it would not, for reasons which he should state hereafter to the House; but be would ask any hon. Member then present, what there was to hinder that fleet from passing the Sound, from traversing the Channel, from entering the Mediterranean through the Straits of Gibraltar, and from presenting itself at any moment at the Dardanelles. When it arrived there, it would find eleven English ships of the line on the station. Would any man in that House expect the captains of those eleven English ships to sacrifice their vessels in a contest against twenty-eight Russians? If there was such a man in the House he blushed for him. He knew that our ships and their commanders would perform their duty nobly under any circumstances, but ought we to expose them to so fearful a collision? It was well known that the Bosphorus was not fortified. The Russian fleet might therefore attack Constantinople when it pleased; eleven English ships of the line might frighten them from attacking it at present, but let twenty-eight Russian ships-of-the-line once come from the Baltic, and form a junction with twelve others from Sebastopol, and what motive would the Emperor of Russia have to prevent him from gratifying the ambition of 200 years, by taking possession of Constantinople and the Dardanelles? He said, that if this country only remained quiet, Russia would take possession of them both by next July. It was true that we might retake both, but at what a sacrifice of blood and treasure! It would require an army of 50,000 men, and a fleet of thirty sail of the line. He was afraid that the political economists with Mr. Hume at their head would oppose such a proceeding on the score of expense. But would he (Mr. Attwood) recommend it? Yes, he would, and the time would come when England would command it. Those who measured honour by the ell, and prowess by the pound, and whose souls were rapt up in pounds, shillings, and pence, might call this advice romantic. But such was not the light in which the great statesmen of the better days of England would have considered it. Would the great Chatham, that clarum et venerabile nomen, who said that he would stake the whole empire in the contest, rather than suffer Russia to get possession of a single village on the Black Sea, have submitted to the arrogant menaces of the Czar? Here was Russia insulting us in every way; they had got Odessa to the north of the Danube, they had got the sea of Azoph, they had got the mouths of the Danube itself, they had attempted Circassia, and almost taken Trebisond; next month they might have Constantinople, and the Black Sea would be a Russian lake as completely as the Thames an English river. Were we to stand still and see all this going on without making a single effort to prevent this fatal accomplishment of the destinies of England? We ought to be awake, and awake in time. We ought not to quarrel about Tories, Whigs, and Radicals, as the Greeks of Constantinople, when the Turks were thundering at the gates, disputed abou grace and free will; we ought to forget every low squabble about Churchmen, Catholics, and Dissenters; all were in danger, and the common interest of all required common exertion; every unworthy feeling ought to be discarded, and a determined effort made to protect the safety and honour of the country. He thought he had now traced the misdeeds of the Tories well enough, and shown that he was no friend of theirs, although by no means a friend of their opponents; he had proved that they had neglected a great duty in making no provision for the security of England. Now he came to the Whigs, and would show that the aggressions of Russia were still going on. The Tories had borne the aggressions of Russia on Poland. They stood by and saw them without remonstrance; or if they did remonstrate, they remonstrated as a coward always remonstrated—in a meek and dainty fashion. They did not hold a sword in one hand and a cannon ball in the other, but uttered a kind of humble and deferential remonstrance. He knew that there had been communications made by the various Governments from 1815 to 1830, but every one knew, that during that time the constitution of Poland was violated by the Emperor of Russia. All the institutions guaranteed to it by treaty had been smashed and annihilated. In 1830 and 1831 the Whigs were in power. He was quite sure the Whigs could have saved Poland by merely lifting up their finger, if they had pleased. He saw the hon. and gallant Admiral near him at Ramsgate in 1831, with his fleet, and thought it had been intended that the gallant Admiral should go up the Baltic. Every Englishman thought so too; and if the gallant Admiral had done so, not a gun would have been fired, or needed to have been fired, but Poland would have assuredly been saved. This was not done, and Poland was abandoned and betrayed—betrayed by England, and worse betrayed by France. That great and glorious nation was given over to the tender mercies of its cruel foes, the Emperor of Russia and his myrmidons, who had rebelled against its liberties and constitution. The Whigs abandoned the friends of liberty in Poland, and the French Government did the same. Louis Philippe said, they had received the most honourable assurances that the nationality of Poland would be protected. Louis Philippe and Earl Grey threw dust in the eyes of the unfortunate Poles; instead of giving them protection, they had given them treachery, and the consequence was, that the independence of Poland expired. But Poland was not dead; as her own children said of her, she but slept; and the right hon. Baronet opposite might be assured, that when the proper time arrived, when England awoke, Poland would also awake. The Whigs had betrayed England as well as Poland; the Vixen cried out against them on one side of the world, and the Express packet which had been attacked by the French, on the other side. There was no sound of English vengeance—no vindication of English honour by the Whigs. One would cost us four-farthings, the other three-farthings, and the Whigs at once said, "Let English honour go to the winds, and let us save our farthings." But this was not a doctrine which the people of England would endure; the Whigs had already covered themselves with greater contumely than the Tories, and their day was drawing to a close. The people of England would give back with heart and soul all that they had got from the Whigs, if they would only give back to the industrious classes the prosperity they had enjoyed during the war. But if prosperity at home was to be accompanied with shameabroad, the people of England never would be content, whether their rulers were Whigs, Radicals, or Tories. He had now detailed the difficulties and dangers of our position, our want of preparation, and the magnitude of the Russian preparation, but he had a word more to say. He might be told we had no right to interfere with the Russian fleet; that they had a perfect right to keep up as many ships of war as they pleased: no doubt; but he contended we had a right to ask them why they kept up so many ships in time of peace. If they told us they were going on an expedition against the Chain of Tartary, or a cruise throught the deserts of Siberia, or against Denmark or Sweden, or against ourselves, we had a right to say, "Dismantle your fleet instantly or we shall do something." The rights between man and man, in his view, were not more plain than those between nation and nation; we had a right to ask why a particular fleet was kept up, and if we could get no satisfactory answer, we had a right to take such measures as should seem required for the assertion of our rights and dignity. The Secretary for the Admiralty on a previous night, in a speech that was very clever, but rather mal-à-propos in its illustrations, had the honesty to admit that Russia might do us great injury. "But," said the hon. Gentleman, "so may any robber do to me when I go home, if he chooses to attack me." Now, he (Mr. Attwood) never carried pistols nor any such murderous weapons, and if such an accident as that supposed by the hon. Secretary were to-cur to him, he should be rather puzzled; but if he saw some banditti watching him when he had 1,000 sovereigns about him and was carrying them with great anxiety, and if two or three were to approach him, presenting pistols to his breast without saying a word, he supposed he should understand what that meant; he supposed that was a case in point. If he saw these ruffians present their pistols, he supposed he should not stop to argue with them, but dash their pistols down and take his chance. The hon. Gentleman below him could not deny that the Russians had been levying black mail upon them for seven years or more. There was a little country called Circassia, and another called Turkey, where they had been making sad havoc with our interests. Circassia received no assistance from us, although we ought to defend her independence as a nation till the last gasp. The Turks had gone, the Danube was gone, the Poles had gone, and what was to go next? The Secretary of the Admiralty had talked of Malta the other night. He supposed some one would advise them to give it up to the Russians to quiet them. But if they did that, the Russians would soon drop a civil request for Gibraltar; and if that were granted, we should have them next at the Isle of Wight. The fact was, we must take up the bow, the spear, and the battle-axe, but God forbid we should have occasion to use them. Only put ourselves in fitting order, and then he was convinced the Russians would never dare to attack us; but remain unprotected, and he would be content that the truth he was now uttering should be taken for falsehood if we did not receive some burning insult from the Russians next summer. Next summer, if we remained as we were, a Russian fleet might enter the mouth of the Thames. They would, if they were wise, next July take possession of Sheerness; that would be a terrible affair; that would break the Bank of England in forty-eight hours; he begged the House would pay attention to this; he begged they would be prepared for the burning of Sheerness and the breaking of the Bank of England. They must stop payment in gold in forty-eight hours. Now, he would tell them what would prevent the Russians from taking Sheerness; for he rather thought hon. Gentlemen were not aware of it. He would tell them why the Russians would not take Portsmouth; although he was sure no noble Lord or right hon. Gentleman on the bench below would say that if the Russians chose to attack us in an unperceived manner next July they might not take Sheerness and Portsmouth by landing 30,000 men from their 28 line-of-battle ships. There were40 sail of the line in Portsmouth harbour; he did not know how many at Sheerness; and both these places might be taken with great ease. If they chose to embark 50,000 men in line-of-battle-ships and transports, they might take London—an event unknown in the history of the country, for London had not been taken even by the Normans. But so miserable was our Government, so alarmed our people, and so weak our army and navy, that he had a perfect confidence that the Russians, if they pleased, next summer, might get possession of London, unless we made preparations to avert the danger. 50,000 Russians landed in the Thames might get possession of London in three days. The people had been insulted, deceived, and distressed for so many years, that he very much doubted whether they could be relied on in such an emergency. If 50,000 men landed, we could not bring 20,000 to oppose them. It would be a very easy thing for the Russians to do that, for he knew from credible authority, that last summer 80,000 men had been encamped on the shores of Courland, within a week's sail of England, and the Russians had been buying transports in this country within the last three months. They had been providing large steamboats also lately. Did hon. Members suppose these transports were intended to convey troops to Kamtschatka or Columbia River? The Russians were no fools; the "cold shade of aristocracy," as Colonel Napier called it, did not paralyze them; their nobility possessed very little power; all the power they had was that of bowstringing the Emperor when they pleased. In Russia the army was despotic; their generals, and admirals, and diplomatists were selected from adventurers from all parts of the world; they were not great big Lords and dandies, like fat cows or fat bullocks, but able adventurers, such as Pozzo di Borgo, Capo d'Istrias, and Wittgenstein—the most intelligent men on the face of the earth. These men never slept, or, if they did sleep, they slept like the Bristol men, with one eye open; and they were watching an opportunity for a collision with our English aristocracy, whom they would deal with as a mere bonne bouche. But they would have to deal with the democracy besides, and that, he would tell them, would be like dealing with Æolus. When the Russians attacked England we should have a fearful vengeance, no doubt, a fearful reckoning, as the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty had said the other night; but, unhappily for us, if the country remained in its present state, it would not be executed upon the Russians, but upon the Ministers, and upon their friends and dependents. The very moment Chatham and Sheerness were burnt would be the signal for a revolution in England, and a far more fearful and terrible revolution than that of France in 1793; and a revolution in England would within one month produce a revolution in Europe. This was our protection: the Russians durst not attack us, lest the vengeance of the English people should fall upon them. A namesake of his hon. Friend near him, David Hume the historian, whose character had something of the prophet as well as the politician, seventy years ago foretold, in beautiful and interesting language, that the day was not distant when the government of England would come into the hands of men more interested in supporting the national debt than in maintaining the interests and honour of their country, and at that time, said Hume, the country will submit to all manner of insult and degradation; but it is probable that foreign nations will have regard to her former power and glory, and will be fearful of outraging the English people, lest that glorious people should rise up and execute vengeance upon their assailants; and therefore foreign nations will probably use measured insolence in their aggressions. Now, he could explain the prophecy of Hume; no doubt the Russians would use measured insolence, They would not take Sheerness, not because they could not; they would not take London, not because they could not; but because, if they did so, they would rouse the fury of the English people, the Ministers would be sacrificed, and a revolution of the most dreadful character would instantly burst upon Europe. Half a million of Russians might be landed, but they would be instantly swept into the German Ocean; they would be destroyed by the fury of the English people. Their fleet might escape, but it would be pursued into the Baltic; the ports of the Baltic would be seized, and the Russian Emperor would have a bowstring round his neck in six months. If any Gentleman would explain any weak point to which He (Mr. Attwood) had alluded, he would be much obliged to him. He believed in his conscience the Russians might attack us, and do us great injury with apparent impunity, but we should be avenged by a revolution in England, and that revolution would in one month be followed by a fiery revolution throughout Europe. As a friend of peace, of order, of humanity—as a friend of England, wishing to increase the happiness of its people, and to protect the little liberty they enjoyed, having no other object in all he had said or done in that House than to augment the comforts and prosperity, not of labourers and artisans only, but of masters and employers;—wishing to protect the three estates of the realm, Crown as well as Commons, and uphold that glorious constitution under which English freedom had flourished for 1,000 years, and wishing to see all classes of the community co-operating zealously and harmoniously for the national honour and defence, he was most anxious that Government should take steps to provide against the dangers that now menaced the empire. Considering the circumstances in which the country was at present placed, and having reference to the dangers which menaced our interests from the quarters he had mentioned, he warned the House to guard against those dangers; and to guard in due time and to effect that object, he moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to adopt timely and efficient measures for obtaining a due supply of able seamen for the royal navy.

moved that a sum of not less than £.113,924 be voted to Her Majesty for defraying the salaries of the officers and other expenses of the Admiralty-office.

wished to put a question to the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty. If he were rightly informed by the public prints, the Hastings, of 74 guns, had some time back been appropriated to attend upon the Queen Dowager on her way to Malta; it had, as he understood, proceeded to Lisbon and to various ports of the Mediterranean, and was now about to return again in attendance on the Queen Dowager in her journey home. He understood there was beside a steamer at her Majesty's disposal. Now, considering that her Majesty, the Queen Dowager, enjoyed an income of 100,000l., paid by the people of this country, he must object to sending 80-gun ships and steamers to attend upon an individual (no more could have been done in the case of her Majesty Queen Victoria herself), at a time when it was alleged that we were in want of ships to protect our commerce in different parts of the world. He wished to know on what principle the Board of Admiralty could defend the appropriation of a line-of-battle ship to such a purpose as this, and he wished to know whether the accounts he had seen were correct in stating that the Hastings was now coming home, after having attended the Queen Dowager.

said the hon. Member was, to a considerable extent, misinformed in the statement he had made. It was perfectly true that the Hastings had carried her Majesty, Queen Adelaide, to Naples, and subsequently to Malta. Surely the hon. Member did not mean to object to a ship of war attending upon the Queen Dowager of England when she had occasion to go abroad. He could not believe it. However, the hon. Member was mistaken in thinking, as he seemed to do, that in sending out the Hastings they had a vessel the less for the defence of commerce; so far from that vessel not being made available as a ship of war, it had been employed since leaving England in several services, and services totally unconnected with the Queen Dowager. It would, however, return to this country with the Queen Dowager; and though during the period of the voyage, it of course could not be available to the public service, yet it would be immediately upon arriving in port here. The extent, therefore, of the withdrawal of the ship from the public service would be comprised in the periods of the passage out and the passage back. To this, he thought, no hon. Member could seriously object.

said the hon. Gentleman was very much mistaken, for he did object to it altogether. In his opinion, there could not be a more improper misapplication on the part of the officers of the Admiralty of the power placed in their hands. He did think that it was a very serious matter, when they heard of the ships of war of the country being every where inadequate to protect its commerce. He objected to make the public pay another 100,000l., or whatever the cost of sending this vessel might be, in addition to the large income already paid by the people to her Majesty Queen Adelaide. He wished to know, also, whether a steamer really did accompany her Majesty.

replied in the negative. The Hastings had been fitted to convey Lord Durham on a public mission, and the Queen Dowager went out in her, fitted as she was. Upon the Queen's arrival at Malta, the Hastings was employed in the public service, Sir Robert Stopford having sailed in her to Port Mahon, and to the coast of Spain. In fact, the Hastings had formed one of the squadron of ships which was intended to prevent the Russians from coming to burn Sheerness, as the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. T. Attwood) seemed to expect. As for the expense, surely if there was some expense, no man would say that such an illustrious and excellent person was not deserving of the expense. While on this subject, he might take the opportunity of stating, that the Queen Dowager had insisted that the country should not be put to one farthing's expense for the maintenance of her establishment while at Malta.

said, if the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) knew the circumstances of the case, he would be the last man to object to a ship of war accompanying the Queen Dowager on a voyage for the recovery of her health. The state of the fittings of the Royal Yachts rendered them unsuitable for such a service. It was only in a ship of war that accommodations were to be found adapted to a person in her Majesty's delicate condition of health.

did not think it reasonable to object to the appropriation of a ship of war to such a purpose, but he thought that when her Majesty, Queen Victoria signified her pleasure that a ship of the line should wait the orders of her royal Relative, it ought to have been commissioned for the purpose.

said, the hon. Member for Kilkenny was, he believed, the only person in the country who would think of grudging the expense of a ship on such an occasion. With regard to another subject; the employment by the Board of Admiralty of certain line of battle ships of the third rate, and rating them as fourth rates—he begged to offer an observation or two to the House. He felt a very strong objection to the assumption by the Admiralty of the perfectly unconstitutional power, as he believed it to be, of altering in this manner the rates of pay, as fixed by the King in Council, of the officers and petty officers. He doubted whether, constitutionally, the Admiralty had any such power; and he also very much doubted whether the exercise of such power was not illegal; so that, if the officers chose to bring actions against the Admiralty, they would recover the difference of pay. The case of the Cornwallis was one in point; that vessel was a third rate, but was rated as a fourth, and the pay of the men and petty officers on board was altered accordingly. Since that, she had been again put on the rating of a third rate. He must say the practice was most inconvenient, and likely to create discontent in the navy. He should like to know whether the Admiralty had adopted this system on the authority of their legal advisers. There was certainly no power given the Admiralty by the last order in council on the subject, which would enable them arbitrarily to alter the rates of pay fixed by that. He was quite ready to admit, it might be very convenient for an Admiral going out to a hot climate, such as the West Indies, that his family should be accommodated in a roomy vessel, but such an arrangement ought not to be effected by the Admiralty at the expense of the officers and petty officers.

said, the petty officers knew perfectly well at entering, what rating their ship was of, and, therefore, what pay they were entitled to receive. They had nothing to complain of. With respect to the concluding remarks of the hon. Baronet, he fully believed that the regulations of which he spoke gave the Admiralty full powers to make these alterations. So far, at least, it was clear that two successive boards of Admiralty had been of this opinion, and had acted upon it.

said, that the same thing was done when the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Clerk) was at the Admiralty, and that the flag-ship at Portsmouth was rated in this way.

said, that with respect to the Cornwallis, if she had not gone, a fourth-rate must have gone, and the officers would not have been a bit better off. A principal reason for sending her out was, that in the then state of the West India islands, it was desirable to have a ship on the station capable of conveying a battalion at once from one island to the other. It was quite a mistake to suppose the officers had been unfairly dealt with; they had no less an amount of pay than they would have had in a fourth-rate.

insisted that he had heard no reason assigned why the people should find a line-of-battle ship to convey the Queen Dowager abroad. He must also refer to the charges for the packet service, which were made out in various different items scattered over upwards of 50 pages of the estimates. The whole amount was 173,623l. He submitted, that the portion of this aggregate which related to the Post office charges should be so brought forward as that they might have a statement both of the receipts and of the expenditure of the Post-office before them at once. They would then be able to see what was the separate expense of the navy packet department. He wished to know whether the Admiralty intended to adopt his suggestion.

said, the present was the first occasion on which the several items of the packet service had been given in the estimates in a distinct and separate shape. There could be no difficulty in giving the expense, but it must be broken up into details, which would be very unusual, and for which they were not prepared.

said, in No. 3, page 11, of the estimates for the Admiralty there was an expense of 950l. for "controller of steam machinery and of the packet service," for salary and house rent. He wished to know what were the duties of that officer, and who that officer was?

Sir E. Parry.

Is he an engineer?

replied he was not. Sir Edward Parry had the management of the whole of the packet service, including the repairs of the machinery; and visited the different stations when necessary. He had discharged the duties of his situation in a most efficient manner and without such assistance it would be impossible for the Board to fulfil the duties which devolved upon it.

said, Sir Edward Parry was first appointed superintendent of packets, and then controller of steam machinery. He wished to know how it was possible that a captain in the navy could become fit to fill the situation of inspector and controller of steam-engines. In no other country, would they go to the army or navy for a man to fill such an appointment, but would appoint a man bred up to the profession: and, above all, no other country would give such a man a salary, more than was given to the best engineer that the country could afford. He thought, that a most distinguished engineer would have been selected; whereas, he appeared to be an officer of the Navy.

begged to draw the Secretary of the Admiralty's attention to a point which had been the subject of much complaint, namely, the stoppage of pensions for good conduct when the parties returned to active service.

said, that the practice was not a new one, nor confined to the Admiralty. On the contrary, it had been a principle acted upon for upwards of twenty years in. all public offices, that no man should receive pension and pay at the same time. He was not prepared to introduce any measure to alter the rule in the present case. In his opinion, whatever objections might be urged against it, he thought that this rule had two good results of no slight importance. In the first place, it tended to keep up a reserve of seamen, upon which the service could draw in time of need; and, secondly, the existence of these pensioners served as an example and an inducement to other seamen to prefer the Queen's to the merchants' service. By a measure, however, which was passed a few years ago, it was provided that where pensioned seamen are called upon by proclamation to serve, they were to be allowed their pensions together with their pay.

rose to call the attention of the House to the present inadequate rate of wages allowed to shipwrights in her Majesty's dock-yards, which was inferior to that paid in merchants' yards, and, consequently, the best men would necessarily prefer the private to the public service. Now it was of the highest importance that the public should have the benefit of the most skilful men in this department; it was as essential that the shipwrights should be of the first class as that the materials should be of the best quality, and the ships constructed upon the most perfect plan. While the present disproportion existed between the rate of pay given by the Government and that afforded by private individuals they could not hope to have in the dock-yards the superior description of artisans. In her Majesty's dock-yards there were two classes of men—three out of fifteen were appointed to the first class, and received 4s. 6d. a-day, the remainder of the fifteen received 4s. a-day. The wages paid in merchants' yards on the River Thames was 6s. a-day, and in addition to that the shipwrights were allowed to take away chips, a privilege at one time enjoyed by the workmen in the Government yard, but which was discontinued, and a compensation of 6d. a-day granted. That compensation, however, was withdrawn, and the worst class of men in the merchants' yards earned as much as the first-class men in her Majesty's dock-yards. The shipwrights, also, had to purchase their own tools out of the wages they earned, while their pensions had been abolished. There was a difference of from thirty to fifty per cent. in favour of the private employment. The same class of workmen could earn in the merchants' yards, if in constant employment, 90l. per annum, 60l. per annum if they remained idle four months in the year, who in the dock-yards could only earn 60l. if they worked every day and every hour. No one who considered the principles by which workmen were commonly regulated could imagine that it was possible, while paying an inadequate rate of wages, to obtain the best class of workmen. And as to those shipwrights who were retained in the public service by the fear of forfeiting the pension, which was only to be acquired by a certain period of service, it was unjust towards them to oblige them to work at a scale of wages which afforded them no fair remuneration for their talents or their experience, and so much below what they could obtain in private dock-yards. He (Mr. W. Attwood) was prepared to state that numbers of skilful workmen had left the public dock-yards, in consequence of their being able to find more profitable employment elsewhere. In Chatham twenty men, of high character, had lately left her Majesty's dock-yard; several at Woolwich; and thirteen had left at Sheerness. And these men could not be replaced with men of equal skill and ability, without increasing the rate of wages. An interview had taken place between the men who had left Chatham dockyard and the Captain-superintendant; and when they were asked their reasons for leaving the dock-yard, they stated that it was entirely owing to the inadequacy of the pay which they had received. To skilful workmen it was exceedingly disagreeable to be paid at a lower rate than the ordinary scale of wages; it placed them in an unfair position, and naturally in- disposed them to exert themselves with that zeal which they would otherwise display. It was the interest of the country that the dock-yard men should be paid liberally, in order to secure for the public service, the best class of workmen. And if the shipwrights in the public dock-yards were paid at a lower rate than those employed in the private yards, the public service must necessarily be performed by an inferior class of workmen. In bringing this case forward, he (Mr. W. Attwood) did not wish to throw censure on any Government. He attacked the system; and whether it was a Whig Government or a Tory Government against the system were his remarks directed. He hoped the subject would receive the attention of the Admiralty; for one more important had never been brought forward among all the questions which had been discussed relative to the Navy.

was not surprised that the hon. Member should have brought this subject forward. It had not escaped the attention of the Admiralty, by whom a representation had been made to the Treasury, which was still under consideration. Formerly there was a superannuated allowance not only for skilful workmen, but for ordinary labourers. That system was very properly altered. But it was another question, whether the superannuation allowance should be altogether done away with. It was a totally distinct and a very important question, whether it would not be proper to give a retired allowance to the skilled and experienced workmen, in order to secure a sufficient supply of such workmen in the public dock-yards. The Treasury were not indisposed to recommend that a just provision should be made as superannuation allowances, for those skilled and experienced workmen. It would be a very false economy if, by neglecting to make proper provision for such workmen, the public service should be deprived of their assistance. At the same time it should be recollected, that the benefit of the superannuation system was, that it would be an additional inducement to such workmen to remain in the public employment, and they could not expect the advantage both of increase derived from the fluctuations of wages in the private dock-yards, and the certainty of superannuated allowance. And it should also be considered, that men had many inducements to remain in the public dockyards, from the credit which was naturally felt from employment in her Majesty's service, and he did not think there would be any difficulty hereafter in procuring able workmen for the public dock-yards.

was glad to hear, that a superannuated allowance would be granted to able workmen in the public dock-yards—but he did not think this alone would do. He entirely concurred in what had fallen from his hon. Friend. He considered that job work was the life and soul of every business; and he hoped, that system would be adopted in the public dock-yards.

said, that the able statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Attwood) had saved him the trouble of making any lengthened speech. He might however, say, that when the dock-yard shipwrights were discontented with their remuneration, they were told by the Admiralty, they might leave if they liked, thus adding insult to injury. By the system of classification at present adopted—by lot—the apprentice was often put over his master. Was that a proper arrangement? He was happy to find, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated his willingness to do something towards removing that discontent which at present existed, and which would leave the dock-yards, perhaps, deserted just at the crisis when able workmen were most required.

thought the House and the country were under great obligations to the hon. Member(Mr. W. Attwood) for bringing this subject before them; and it must be gratifying to find that measures were likely to be taken for removing the evils of the present system. He agreed with the hon. Member, that the pay of the shipwrights in the Government dock-yards was not sufficient to insure the services of the most efficient men. Shipwrights were a class of men requiring considerable instruction before they could perform their work well; and in proportion to the skill that was requisite, was the difficulty of obtaining men of that class. Nothing but high wages could secure their services. The work of a shipwright was of a very laborious description, and it was impossible to expect men working at inferior wages to exert themselves so much as they would, if they were paid in proportion to the labour they performed. The system of classification now adopted was most injudicious. At the time of the peace the workmen had the option of accepting reduced wages or going away, but owing to the depressed state of the merchant shipping, the greater part preferred remaining. The difference then was not so great between the merchants pay and the dock-yard pay as it was now. Formerly the shipwrights were allowed to retire on pensions; but this was no longer the case. Hence two causes were operating unfavourably, not only to the men themselves, but to the parishes in which the dock-yards were situated. He thought it worthy the consideration of the Government whether the system of allowing pensions should not be restored, as well as the pay of the shipwrights be increased. He should also recommend them to do away with the classification, and pay the men by the job.

said, that no part of his duty since entering office had been more puzzling to him than that which referred to the payment of the workmen in the dockyards. Previous to 1830, the work was done by task and job; but that system was totally set aside by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke, when First Lord of the Admiralty, who introduced day pay. At the same time it would be extremely unjust to Sir James Graham, if he did not state that the subject was pretty well considered at the time. Whether the information which the right hon. Baronet then received was correct or not as to the rate of wages paid to shipwrights in merchants' yards, he could not say. If the right hon. Baronet were present, he would, no doubt, have been able to satisfy the Committee upon that point. It appeared that he took the trouble to inquire of the principal shipbuilders in the River Thames, at Whitehaven, on the Tyne, and at Liverpool, and that he placed the daily wages of the men in the dock-yards at a rather higher rate than the average of the wages in all those places. One great difficulty attending the paying of all civil servants, unless they were paid by the job, was, that they must necessarily be paid in classes, and this was always to some extent a discouragement to the best workmen. But the Committee ought to bear in mind, that there were many privileges enjoyed by men working in the dockyards which those working in private shipyards did not enjoy. They had medical attendance when hurt, and half-pay during their cure besides superannua- tion allowances. In the year 1837, when this question was again brought under the consideration of the Admiralty, the same course was adopted as that which Sir James Graham pursued in 1830. The Admiralty made inquiry of the principal ship-builders in different parts of the country, and found then that the wages of the men were much about the same as what persons were earning in private dock-yards, with the addition of those privileges to which he had alluded. With regard to classification, and the statement made by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Edward Codrington), as to its partial working, he thought that was a fault of the mode in which the system was carried out, and not of the system itself. The system that a limited number of those who were presumed to be the best workmen in the yard should receive higher pay was not unjust. But the complaints which he had heard from the deputations that had come up from the different dock-yards, against the system of classification generally, resolved themselves into a complaint of the rates of wages. One workman had told him, that he hoped no alteration would be made in the system of paying by the day. With regard to the men working by the job; he should be unwilling to adopt that plan again unless they connected it with the system of unlimited earnings. Most undoubtedly that was the best system they could adopt for the benefit of the good workmen, and also for procuring the greatest amount of work. It had never been practised, however, in the dock-yards since the peace, and there was an objection to working everybody to the utmost of their strength in ordinary times, leaving no means of suddenly increasing the amount of work in case of emergency.

thought, that the country were much indebted to the hon. Member for Greenwich for bringing this matter forward, for it was only when these suggestions were made in the House, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite came down and said, "Oh, we intended to do all this." But if the suggestions had not been made, they would not have heard one word from her Majesty's Government that any alteration was contemplated, nor would any alteration be made. He thought, that the higher officers were too well paid for the services they performed; for instance, there was his hon. Friend (Mr. C. Wood), a very clever man, he had no doubt, but what did he know of naval services? He (Colonel Sibthorp) had told him before, and he repeated it now, that he "would be sea-sick in a punt at Westminster-bridge," and with all his respect for the hon. Gentleman, he must declare, that he could know nothing about the matter.

was glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the subject had been brought by the Admiralty under the consideration of the Treasury, and if he had been aware, that there had been any probability of a satisfactory answer being given to the application, he should have considered it inexpedient to bring the matter forward; he had only done it, however, after repeated applications, and after consultation with other Members connected with towns having dock-yards. He trusted, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's liberality would induce him to do what was requisite to place the shipwrights in the dock-yards on a fair footing. But he must state, that a superannuation allowance alone would not be sufficient. It was necessary, that the pay also should be raised to at least 5s. a day, the pay in private yards being 6s., and the men being sometimes able to earn 7s. or 8s. a day. The present rate had been fixed at a time when the general scale of wages bad been much reduced, and not as the fair average rate of a number of years. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty, he must state, that there was as much fluctuation in the public as in the private service, the men being sometimes employed six days and sometimes only five days in the week. A great injustice was inflicted by the present system on those shipwrights who, having a claim to pensions, were obliged to remain in the service at whatever rate of pay, in consequence of which, men not so fettered had left the service. Twenty men had left Chatham, thirteen had gone from Sheerness, and it was perfectly clear, that unless more adequate wages were given, none but inferior workmen could be expected to remain. The classification system operated most unfairly, only three men out of fifteen being put in the superior class. It was impossible too, to make any difference between the rate of wages of the same class of men; no difference could be made between workmen of the same class, except by the introduction of task work. The workmen would rather have lower general rates, than that three or four, who might be with difficulty selected, should receive a higher sum.

was unwilling to allow the subject to be dropped without expressing the pleasure he felt at its having been mooted by the hon. Member; there was not one Member for a town having a dock-yard, that did not, like himself, wish to see the workmen adequately remunerated.

said, that great complaints had been made of the reduction in the quantity of stores, but if the reduction had been made at the proper time, at the end of the war, many millions of the public money would have been saved. He had some years ago disputed this point with Mr. Croker, and he had then stated, that 22,000,000l. had been spent in building ships, and that the average expenditure for stores was 2,000,000l. a-year; he now held in his hand a statement, that 39,469,000l., had been spent in stores, in building ships, and in wages between the years 1816 and 1838. He begged, therefore, that the Government would not be led away by the statement of the right hon. Member for Pembroke, that we ought to have eighty-four ships of the line, and, of course, other ships in proportion. They ought rather to consider how many they could man in case of emergency; whilst we did not want the same number of ships as all the world beside, we should well man those we had in commission. He believed that the navy would have plenty of good seamen, if they were paid as high wages in the public service as in other services. There was no doubt that the improvements in the navy which had taken place during the last twenty years, and the advantages now given to the sailors would command the best men if we were a little more liberal to them; but in order to do this hon. Members must look at the amount that was thrown away upon the officers. There were 5,000 officers from the rank of lieutenant to that of admiral, and during the time so many were receiving payment, not more than 700 were employed, so that for every officer employed there were six idle. Only let them see the amount of money thus taken, and how the navy was crippled to give promotion to officers, and satisfy the urgent demands of Members of Parliament. ["No, no," and "It is true."] He was glad to find that this was now admitted by naval officers, for when he had formerly asserted the same thing it had been denied. He told the Government, therefore, that no good would be done till they put an end to all promotions that were not really required and deserved. So far from there being any defect in the pay of the officers, they were paying five millions a-year, and yet they were told the other evening, that there were not officers enough to man five sail of the line. He recollected once when there was a committee up-stairs, a gallant Officer not now in his place, had said, "only think of Waterloo; we ought always be prepared for such a contest." He did not blame the gallant Officer for saying so, and doubtless, many naval Officers in the House would, in like manner, wish to keep up a large naval force, always ready to fight such a battle as that of Trafalgar; but he wished to draw their attention to the deliberate report of the Committee of 1817, which Lord Castlereagh had drawn up, and the report of 1828, on the naval estimates, in which it was laid down, that in a time of peace we ought to husband our resources, and that we were not again to anticipate such a war as that we had been lately engaged in. We ought to pay more attention to commerce; we ought to look upon other nations as our friends and not as enemies, and we ought to trust to the influence of friendly intercourse instead of acting as in times gone by, when popular songs and cries were freely circulated to rouse the feelings of the people, and to make them believe that all the nations were our enemies. He was sorry to find so many years' stores laid by, for there must be much loss from decay, and he could not account for any such sum as proposed for the purposes required. By a return he had formerly moved, it appeared that we had twenty years' store of gunpowder, we had also twenty years' supply of top- masts and spars, and he wanted to know what was the use of twenty years' supply of anything?

said, that the principal reason of there being such a heavy stock of top-masts and spars on hand arose from the circumstance, that they were really using up the old stores, a great part of which had been in the yard for twenty years. These spars were useful for many purposes, and kept fresh for a great length of time; while it was difficult to get them of the best quality.

it would be much better to buy these spars as they were wanted.

observed, that he recollected a ship coming out when he was on service in the Mediterranean, and on examining her condition he found it necessary to condemn the whole of her spars and rigging. But the real thing wanted was to get the best seamen: they could easily obtain ships and stores provided they could procure able-bodied seamen.

objected to the vote, and particularly to 25,000l. for a dock at the west end of the yard at Woolwich. He had ascertained, that a sum of four millions sterling had been applied under this branch of the estimates since the peace, and he was afraid, that many of the works now in progress, had been very inconsiderately commenced.

confessed, that he felt strong objection to vote such sums for new works at Woolwich. He observed, that the estimates for Woolwich exceeded 60,000l. He wished also to have an explanation of the vote for Portsmouth. There were two sums of 15,000l. and of 93,000l., in all 108,000l., under this branch; the latter sum being required to complete the works, although, only 15,000l. was asked for the service of the present year.

replied, that with regard to Woolwich the great object which the Admiralty had in view was to form a yard there, for constructing steam engines for her Majesty's steam ships. The proximity of Woolwich to the best manufactories made it most desirable to form a concentrated establishment of that description, which would be found of great advantage to the public service. And in reference to the sums wanted for Portsmouth it would be seen, that the expense was chiefly required for repairing the sea wall. It would be a work of three or four years duration. The fact was, that the sea wall was going from one end to the other, having been built on mud without being piled. They would require, indeed, almost to rebuild the wall, and the cost of that, together with the construction of two new slips which were necessary, made the vote amount to the sum stated in the estimate, which would be expended in annual portions till the whole was completed.

stated, that he had strong objections to the principle involved in this vote. By the system of promotion in the naval service, we had 5,000 officers on half-pay, while we never had more than 700 actually employed. He should wish to have a return of the number of officers on half-pay, with a statement also of their respective number of years' service, that they might see the extent to which they were burdened with continued annuities. He regretted much to see old officers of long service passed over, and young men put over their heads. He had very strong objections to the system of promotion, and had documents to show the injustice of it, but seeing the thin state of the House, and the apathy evinced by hon. Members, for there had not been forty Members present almost since they commenced to debate these estimates, he really had no encouragement to enter upon any detail of the subject. He would, therefore, content himself for the present by protesting against the system of promotion adopted by the Admiralty.

on a former occasion, had taken occasion to contrast the remuneration paid to officers in the navy compared with those in the civil departments of the Government. When he looked at the question in that light it was not enough to say, that it was unjust to officers on half-pay, because it was not within the name of common justice. The officers on half-pay were most shamefully remunerated, for there was not one officer in any civil department of the State who did not receive double remuneration for half the same period of service. He did not allude to men who had not seen hard service, but he spoke of such men as Sir Samuel Hood, Admiral Keates, and others—men who had performed the most brilliant actions—who were never out of employment—who had been all their lives at sea, and whose services to their country never could be excelled. Either, then, it was not right to give so much remuneration to civilians, or more should be given to naval officers. He trusted that the commission now sitting on both services would not overlook this hardship, and that something would be done by the commissioners. With respect to the system of promotion in the navy, he thought it most objectionable. It was all in the hands of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who did as he thought fit, and who made it a matter of Parliamentary interest. What did the First Lord know of the merits of officers in the service? It was all managed by him as a matter of patronage. He had heard it said, that this was unavoidable, otherwise they would not get fit persons to make the sacrifices necessary in accepting such a situation. He did not understand what sacrifice was involved in the question at all, seeing that the First Lord was entitled to a pension of 2,000l. a year after two years' service. He felt called upon to enter his general protest against so objectionable a system of dispensing promotion to officers in the navy.

complained that there was no half-pay to midshipmen. That numerous and most meritorious, but ill requited class of officers, placed a firm reliance in the proceedings of the military commission, to whom reference had been already made. He trusted that the hon. Member, the Secretary for the Admiralty, would give some assistance in the matter, and he begged to know whether Government would do anything for them?

said, that he had no knowledge whatever of the proceedings of the commission to which the gallant Officer had alluded, and he thought it would be better to postpone saying anything further until the report of the Committee was on the Table of the House. As regarded the complaints which had been made by hon. Members at the manner in which promotions had taken place in the navy, he thought that there was no good reason for the remarks which had been made. The noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty had paid his utmost attention to investi- gate the claims and merits of officers, and he held in his hand a return of the number of lieutenants who had been promoted for the last nine years, arranged in two classes—the first being those who had been promoted for services, and the other consisting of those who had been promoted for any other cause. Now, the proportions which the first class bore to the second class was as follows:—For the year 1830, one-third; 1831, one-half; 1832, one-quarter; 1833, one-third; 1834, one-half; 1835, two-thirds; 1836, one-half; 1837, one-half and more; 1838, two- thirds.

said, that the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty had shown, that the First Lord of the Admiralty exercised an enormous amount of official and irresponsible patronage.

replied, that his noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty made it an uniform rule to consult the other Lords at the Board of Admiralty, and they gave him their best advice. His noble Friend spared no pains or trouble in the investigation of the claims of officers, and was solely influenced by the consideration of their merits. He would not say, that his noble Friend never promoted a friend—that would be absurd; and no one could expect that any person holding the appointment of his noble Friend would not occasionally serve a Friend. But this he would say at the same time, that there never was a man filling that high office who took more pains to make himself acquainted with the claims of officers, and to make merit the rule of his official conduct.

repeated his objections to the system of promotion in the navy; and as an instance of its unfairness, mentioned, that the First Lord had promoted the three sons of a captain now living, passing over the son of Captain Bathurst; and there was the son, also, of Admiral Brown, who had been a lieutenant now for ten or eleven years.

observed, that the doctrine stated by the gallant Admiral was most startling. He thought, that the noble Lord, the Earl of Minto, held the high office of First Lord of the Admiralty to serve his country, but it seemed from what the gallant Admiral had said, that he held it only to serve his friends.—[Admiral Adams had stated nothing of the kind.] He certainly understood the gallant Ad- miral to have admitted that the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty did occasionally use his official patronage to serve a friend. Had it been a case of two men of equal claims in which the noble Lord was represented to have given the preference to one of them as a private friend, he would not have thought so much of it, but the gallant Admiral did not make that statement. The Queen of England could not burden the country with a pension of 50l. without the approval of that House. But the First Lord of the Admiralty was under no such limitation. There were 4,000 officers on half-pay, and not one of them ought to be promoted except for good services. The system avowed by the gallant Admiral was fixing a heavy burden on the country. A public man who avowed that he served his friends did not serve his country.

remarked that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had not attended to what he had said. He had not stated that his noble Friend had ever officially served a friend. What he did say was, that his noble Friend had occasionally promoted a friend, and he defied any one to point out an instance where the officer promoted did not deserve it.

said, that the document which he had read, was the best answer to the charge that the noble Lord had bestowed his official patronage in any other way than from a just consideration of the merits of officers.

had on a previous occasion alluded to the hard case of the lieutenants. There were 300 lieutenants at the head of the list who were entitled to 7s. a day, but they had not received that allowance, although entitled to it. He wished, therefore, to see the Order in Council on the subject, and meant to ask for that document.

said that, with reference to the lieutenants who had been taken from the top of the list and placed on the list of commanders, they were perfectly aware of the effect of the arrangement, and they were offered that rank if they chose to accept it at the same pay.

said, in answer to a question from Capt. Pechell, that he had stated a few evenings ago that he believed a pension was vacant. On inquiry he found that that was the case, and that the Board of Admiralty had met that morning and bad conferred it on Captain Napier.

referred to the difference in the allowance to the lieutenant-governors of Greenwich and Chelsea hospitals. Both of the officers that held those appointments were very distinguished for their services; the lieutenant-governor of the former was Admiral Sir Jahleel Brenton, and of the latter was General Sir G. Walker. The advantages that the latter enjoyed over the former, however, were very considerable. Sir G. Walker was colonel of the 57th. regiment, and received emoluments from that and other sources; whereas Sir Jahleel Brenton was not allowed to receive his half-pay while he held the appointment. The duties of Greenwich also were much more onerous than those at Chelsea. For instance, the number of pensioners at Greenwich was 2,710, while only 500 resided at Chelsea. He understood that when Sir Jahleel Brenton accepted the appointment, he consented to give up his half-pay as rear-admiral; he, therefore, did not complain of this individual case, but he protested against such a difference in the system with respect to the two establishments. In almost every respect the advantage that military men enjoyed over naval officers was very great. He contended that there should be as nearly as possible an equality.

complained of the expense of fitting out old men-of-war as transports or troop ships. The expense was infinitely greater than that of hiring ships from private persons.

said, that the subject had already received his attention, but that while the expense incurred on behalf of the public was considered, the health of the troops must also be remembered. The existing regulation was matter of economy in fact, for if a transport were employed the troops would be subjected to inconvenience and want of comfort; whereas when a troop ship was used they would be landed in good health, which was of the highest importance. A saving of time, and consequently of expense, was also effected; and while transports would not be entirely given up, it was thought exceedingly ad- visable that troop ships should be generally introduced.