wished to ask the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) a question respecting New South Wales. He observed from the newspapers of that colony, that there had been in the legislative council a measure propounded by the Governor for the general education of the youth of that colony. It appeared that by that measure the Roman Catholic youth of the colony were to be educated in one school, in the principles of their own religion, but that all the other youth of the colony were to be educated in one common school, in which, in order to avoid religious dissensions, no religious instruction was to be given, therefore giving to the Roman Catholics the benefit of religious instruction, but withholding it from the children of parents professing other religions. This proposition had, however, not met with the approbation of the Legislative Council. Now, what he wished to ask was, whether this proposition had been made by the governor in consequence of any directions from the Government at home?

in the first place, wished to observe, that he had received no despatches on this subject from the governor of that colony; therefore all the information which he had on the subject was probably derived from the same source as that from which the right hon Gentleman had derived his information, namely, from private letters and the colonial newspapers. He, however, gathered from them a somewhat different conclusion to that which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at. He understood that the governor had made a proposition to the legislative council of the colony, on the subject of the education of the youth of the colony. He proposed that there should be one system of general instruction to all classes of Protestants, in conformity with the plan acted upon by the British and Foreign School Society. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that this was a system of which religious instruction did not form a part. Now, the fact was, that a part of the instruction imparted in the British and Foreigh Schools was reading in the Bible. If the right hon. Gentleman adopted the language of another person, who stated that there was no religious instruction in connexion with this society, and that instruction in the Bible did not in itself constitute religious instruction, he could understand his observation. The proposition of the governor was, that all the Protestant children should be taught reading in the holy scriptures according to the system pursued in the schools belonging to the British and Foreign School Society. With respect to the Roman Catholic children, he understood that it was proposed that there should be separate schools for them, and that the religious instruction to be imparted to them should be by their own teachers. Great objections were made to this proposition in the colony, and the governor did not persist in it. He did not find that any instructions had been sent out to the governor of that colony authorising him to make this proposition.

observed, that the question was as to whether or not any religious instruction was to be given in the schools proposed to be established for the Protestant children; but it was whether the children of Roman Catholics were to have provision made for their education in their exclusive schools in the Roman Catholic religion, while the children of the members of the Church of England were to be educated in schools from which religious instruction, in connexion with the Church of England, was to be excluded.

replied, that he had received no official information on the subject, but he imagined that it was proposed that the religious instruction to the children of Protestants was to be given in their schools, and that they were to be taught to read the holy scriptures, and of course not excluding them from religious instruction by their respective clergymen. The instruction in the Roman Catholic schools was to be in conformity with the faith the children professed. He, however, could only repeat, that he had received no official information on the subject.

said, that after the facts which had been stated by the clerk of the Crown, he thought it would be generally felt, that he was fully justified in calling the attention of the House to this subject. It appeared from the evidence given by the clerk of the Crown, that whatever had been done with regard to issuing the writ had not been done by the Clerk of the Crown in person, but by his chief clerk. It appeared to be the practice of the office, as far as he could gather from the answer which had been given, that on receiving information that a new writ would probably be moved for at the meeting of the House, the Clerk of the Crown at once prepared the writ. Perhaps that was attended with general convenience. It appeared on the present occasion that the Clerk of the Crown had exercised his discretion on the subject, and naturally conceived that the writ to be moved for on Friday would be made out in exact accordance with new writs in similar cases. In consequence of the discussion which had taken place in the House, the regular form had been departed from in the warrant, and so the mistake had arisen. It appeared from the evidence of the Clerk of the Crown, that though the writ was not sent to the Lord Chancellor to be sealed until the warrant was received, yet it was despatched without the warrant having been read. There was another point of some importance as being without precedent. It was without precedent that the Clerk of the Crown, and still more his subordinate officer, should take upon himself to write to a sheriff to order him to return a writ which had been issued from the office. The House had always exercised the greatest jealousy in reserving to itself the discretion of issuing, suspending, or superseding new writs. He thought it was a question deserving of the consideration of the House, whether in cases of this kind a special report should not have been made to the House, in order that the error might be corrected, the first writ superseded, and the new writ issued by the authority of the House. No practical inconvenience had arisen in the present case, but there did not appear any sufficient justification for the clerk's negligence in despatching the writ the moment he received the warrant, without taking the ordinary precaution of reading the warrant, in order to make out the writ in conformity. He trusted that hon. Gentlemen would agree that this case, at all events, ought not to be drawn into a precedent. Under these circumstances he did not wish to pursue the question further, but he hoped that greater care would be taken in the issuing of writs in future.

thought the hon. Gentleman quite right in calling the attention of the House to this subject. It did not appear that there was any error in the warrant of the Speaker, but that it occurred entirely in the office of the Clerk of the Crown. It was quite right that this case, and every other case of a similar nature, should be brought before the notice of the House; and he agreed with, the hon. Gentleman that, attention having been called to it, it was to be hoped that no similar error might arise.

, the Chairman of the General Committee of Elections, moved "That the order of the 19th of February, for the attendence of panels No. 1 and 2 on the 12th and 16th of March be discharged, and that the petition of George Hooper and others be referred to the general committee of elections."

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had called his attention to the difficulty in which the general committee of elections found themselves in reference to this subject, and had consulted him as to the course which ought to be taken. With the permission of the House, he would state what the difficulty was, and what appeared to him to be the remedy. The difficulty had arisen from this circumstance—that the Ludlow Election Petition was an election petition of last ses- sion. By the 93rd section of the bill brought in by the right hon. Baronet opposite, it was enacted that all petitions of a former session should be brought forward before any petitions of the present session. He believed, that petitions, when so brought forward in the present session, would be subject to all the provisions which would apply, supposing the petition had been in fact presented in the present session. It appeared, that in the Ludlow Election Petition, the sitting Member declined the defence of his seat. Certain electors petitioned to be let in to defend in his stead. The clauses which related to such a state of things he had read to the House. The first section which applied to it was the 19th, which provided, that when the sitting Member declined defending his seat, notice thereof should be given in the London Gazette. By section 20 the electors might be let in to defend in his place; and upon their admission, the petition should be treated in all respects as an election petition. Section 30 provided, that all election petitions, and petitions treated as election petitions, should be referred to the general committee; that proceedings, in cases where the sitting Member declined defending his seat, should be suspended for thirty days after the appearance of the required notice in the London Gazette. It provided further, that the general committee should make out a list of petitions, putting them in the order in which they have been reported on by the examiner of recognizances, and not including in the list any petition in which the proceedings had been suspended; that is, petitions in which the sitting Member had declined to defend his seat. In every case in which proceedings should be afterwards suspended, it was provided, that it should be struck out of the list of the general committee and placed at the bottom of the list. This section, therefore, directed, that the list to be prepared should not contain any election petitions in which proceedings had been suspended, and also contemplated cases in which proceedings might be suspended afterwards. By this section he believed the present difficulty would be determined. The 47th section directed the general committee to give three weeks notice of the day appointed for choosing a special committee, and required those special committees to be chosen in the order in which they stood on the list. The 48th section provided that notice of the day should be given to all parties, including the parties let in to defend instead of the sitting Member. These were the questions affecting this case. The Ludlow election petition was referred to the general committee, who, believing it regular, proceeded to appoint the day for nominating the special committee, and to give the proper notices. It was afterwards discovered that, by reason of the omission to refer to the committee, the petition of the electors praying to be let in to defend, there was no provision for giving notice to the parties connected with that petition. The day was now approaching on which the special committees should be nominated in the order in which the petitions stand on the list. The Ludlow petition stood early on the list, and the committee, for the reason he had mentioned, were not in a situation to nominate the committee upon it. The question then was, what were they to do with the remainder of the petitions—whether to propose all, or to postpone the Ludlow committee only, and proceed to nominate the others? It had been proposed to postpone; but he (the Solicitor-general) submitted, that that was not necessary. It would induce an inconvenience by no means necessary, resulting from the act of Parliament. By section 30, the Legislature had provided for cases in which, after petitions were put upon the list, proceedings were suspended, by directing such petitions to be struck out of the list and placed at the bottom. He thought, from the short consideration which he had been able to give the question, that there would be no difficulty in the general committee striking the Ludlow petition out of the list, and placing it at the bottom. They would then be in a situation to proceed with the nomination of the other committees. He might farther observe, that if this particular case was not exactly provided for by the act, it should be borne in mind that those sections in the act which had reference to the point were the director's part; and, therefore, though the House was bound to adhere to them, and, in certain cases, parties might be punished for not doing so, yet if the necessity of the case compelled steps to be taken which the act did not provide for, they would not affect the validity of the proceedings under it.

said, that perhaps it would be better to withdraw his motion if the course pointed out by the Solicitor-general was the proper one to be adopted.

did not gather from the observations of the learned Solicitor-general, that, in his opinion, the general committee had authority to suspend the proceedings in the Ludlow petition only. No doubt it would be productive of advantage if they had; but it appeared to him that an order should be made for the purpose by the House itself. The provisions of the act showed the greatest jealousy of allowing the general committee to alter any of the arrangements by which the committees were chosen.

thought, that from the provisions of the 30th section, the general committee might exercise the power of striking out the Ludlow petition from the list, and placing it at the bottom.

said, that there appeared to him to be great doubt whether the committee could exercise such a power.

thought it would be desirable that this question should be adjourned till Monday, to give time for consideration. He was disposed to think that the committee had not the power of themselves to place the Ludlow petition at the bottom of the list. The cases in which election petitions could be struck out were specially provided for, and this did not appear to be one of them.

said, that it appeared to him of the greatest importance that the course which they took should be consistent with justice to the individuals concerned, and should not be such as to establish an inconvenient or dangerous precedent. He thought it desirable that they should have the opportunity of a few hours' consideration. He thought the hon. and learned Solicitor-general observed that he had not had time fully to consider the act. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had time to express a positive opinion, that opinion would be decisive with him (Sir R. Peel). It was, therefore, with perfect respect for his legal opinion, that he suggested it might be advisable to take some time for consideration. There were two questions—one was, whether the general committee had the power of suspension in this case, which he confessed he had some doubt of. It should be recollected, that their inherent and constitutional power was fettered by positive enactment, and if the power of the committee were doubted, another question might arise, whether the House had power to make an order on the subject. He trusted it would be found that the House had that power, because no authority but the House could exercise it satisfactorily. He submitted that there would be no inconvenience in the delay, and if the debate were adjourned till Monday, perhaps the learned Solicitor-general would have the goodness maturely to consider the question.

had no objection to the postponement of the debate. He wished to give no opinion upon the point. He was inclined, so far as a bias went, to think, that if the general committee could decide the question, it ought to be decided by them. One of the inconveniences of the former practice was, that so many questions were brought for the decision of the House. Questions of this nature could be decided with much more deliberation, in the committee than by the House at large.

had called the attention of the House on the previous day to some irregularities in the service of notices, signed by the chairman and the general committee. In order to inquire into those irregularities, he should now move, "That Mr. Rose, the clerk who attended the committee, be called to the bar."

called in and examined: He stated that he was clerk to the general election committee, and he had received the notices from the chairman of the committees for the parties in the Ludlow election petition; these were notices for the petitioners who defended the return, as well as for the petitioners against the return. He stated, from memory only, that he had received two notices, signed by the chairman, more than twenty-one days previous to the 12th of March. He delivered these notices to the messenger of the House, and directed him to deliver them to the parties in the same manner in which they had been delivered in the last session, as well as the previous session. The messenger had not informed him that he had served the notices upon the several parties. He conceived it to be the duty of the messenger, if he had served those notices, to inform him of the circumstance. He had since received an intimation that the notices had not been served upon the petitioners, or their agents. He received that information from one of the agents of the petitioners. He received that notice on Monday last. He then inquired what had become of the notices that he had given the messenger. He then found that by some accident they had not been given to the petitioners against the return; but had been taken as notices to the persons who prayed to defend the return. The names of those to whom the notices were addressed were at the bottom of the notice. He was told, that they had not been duly served on the proper parties. These notices had since been seen in the possession of Mr. Coppock. Mr. Coppock was not the agent of the sitting Member, as at that moment there was no sitting Member. Mr. Coppock did not give him any reason for his coming into possession of the notices. He presumed that the notices were still in the possession of Mr. Coppock: he had seen them in Mr. Coppock's possession on Tuesday last. He did not know if they had been given to Mr. Coppock by the messenger to whom he intrusted them. Mr. Steyne was the messenger to whom he had intrusted them. The reason he gave the notices to Mr. Steyne was, that Steyne had been accustomed to serve notices on former parties. He did not direct the messenger to go to Mr. Coppock's office. He adopted the same course with the other notices that had been pursued with respect to the petition for Ludlow. The notices were directed to Mr. Alcock, and to the parties defending the petition. He was not clerk of the recognizances. By a reference to that office the agents might be discovered.

messenger, called in and examined. He said that he had received notices from Mr. Rose to deliver to the parties in the Ludlow election, and was told to serve them on the different parties. He had not served them. He gave them to Poingdestre, and told him to inquire of Mr. Parkes or Mr. Coppock who were the agents of the parties. Poingdestre told him that he had delivered them to the wrong person. He heard that Poingdestre had given them to Mr. Coppock; but he knew nothing except what he had heard. The whole of the proceedings upon the present occasion were the same as in the former session of Parliament. In former sessions he had served those notices himself; but he was not now so employed, as he was on duty in another part of the House.

examined. He had received notices to deliver in the Ludlow election. He had to inquire as to who were the agents in the Ludlow election petition, and he was directed to apply for that information to Mr. Parkes and Mr. Coppock. He met Mr. Coppock in the lobby of the House and asked him for information. Mr. Coppock said, if he gave him the notices all would be right, as he was concerned in the petition. He delivered all the notices that he had in his possession excepting one, which was for Sir Thomas Cochrane, he being a Member of the House. The notices were addressed to the petitioners and to the sitting Members. He had himself been for three years a messenger of the House. He delivered all the notices to Mr. Coppock on the 18th instant. He asked Mr. Coppock for information with regard to the agents in the election petition for Ludlow on both sides. Mr. Coppock requested him to deliver them to him, as he was concerned in them. Mr. Coppock stated to him that the trial would not come on. The practice was to deliver the notices to the agents. Mr. Rose did not inform him who were the agents. He had told Mr. Rose, but he did not know how many days ago, that he had delivered the notices to Mr. Coppock. He considered that he had discharged his duty in the matter. He had served notices on the Totness and Cambridge electors, on Mr. Parkes, and another on a Member of the House, who was known to him.

said, that it must now be apparent the very extraordinary and very negligent manner in which notices were served, it being in the power of any party to take those notices from the messengers, and thus defeat the intentions of the House. It appeared that the proceeding with the Ludlow election, which had been appointed for the 12th, must be defeated, independent of other circumstances which had transpired. The House he was sure must feel that the matter could not rest here, and that Mr. Coppock should be ordered to attend to explain why it was that he asked for and obtained from the messengers the notices, and retained them from the 18th instant until the present time.

at the bar, and examined. He was agent for the petitioners in defending the return for the Ludlow election. The messenger Poingdestre had delivered to him two notices—one for the sitting Member, and the other for the petitioners. He was agent for the petitioners—for the petitioners who defended the return. To what parties was the notice addressed?—It was addressed to the parties petitioning against the return, for whom I am not agent. The notice was addressed to the petitioners opposing the return. He had a conversation with Poingdestre, who met him as he was coming up the lobby, and asked him if he knew the agents in the election petitions, as he had some notices to give them. Poingdestre then went up stairs, and brought them down to him. He took those which he conceived related to himself, and gave the messenger back the others. The others related to the Totness and Cambridge election petitions. He did not examine them closely; one was an address to the sitting Member, complaining of an undue return; and upon the other the name was written small, and petitioners in large letters, and he conceived it was for the parties for whom he was interested. He did not discover his mistake until Monday last, when he gave to Mr. Alcock his notice, and then it was that, for the first time, he discovered that he had the notice addressed to the other parties. When he discovered that the notice was not for him, he supposed that the agent on the other side had got that which was intended for him. He thought the notice was good, as it was a mere change of papers. He had the notice at home. He had received a notice which ought not to have been delivered to him, but he had not received a notice which ought to have been delivered to him. Both these would be of a precisely similar description, merely fixing the day of trial. Immediately that he discovered the error he consulted his counsel as to the course he ought to adopt as to waving any objection, and the reply of the counsel was, that he could not wave the objection, as his clients had not received due notice.

would at once declare, that he must adhere to the schedule as at present constituted.

reminded the Committee, that Belfast had petitioned against being included in schedule A.

thought, that a different rule ought to be adopted towards those four towns that had petitioned against being included in schedule A, and those who were willing to be included in it.

objected to the insertion of the town of Galway in this schedule, and stated, that the House of Lords had excluded it from a similar bill last year, upon sufficient grounds being shown before the Committee. He therefore moved, that Galway be expunged from this schedule.

seconded the amendment.

was satisfied, that it would be more in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants of Galway if that town were placed in schedule B.

thought, that Galway ought to stand in schedule A.

regretted, that he could not comply with the request of his hon. Friend; but as in the case of Belfast he had evinced an insensibility to the allurements of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, so in the present instance he must prove equally coy when courted by his hon. Friend. He could not consent to remove Galway from schedule A.

supported the amendment. He believed the inhabitants of Galway to be unanimous in their wish to have that town placed in schedule B.

thought the hon. and learned Member could hardly be serious in pressing a proposition so entirely inconsistent with the principle and frame-work of this bill. It was not necessary for him to argue the question. The hon. and learned Sergeant said, that most of the present freemen were Protestants, and that might be so; but, looking at some of their late proceedings in the corporation of Dublin, looking at the vulgar squabbles in which they had been engaged—charges banded about of peculation and corruption—there was at present a dispute, he believed, about the disposal of one Church living, looking, too, at their recent conduct with regard to the learned Recorder, he must say, that a body of men who could treat one of their stoutest defenders as he had been treated, were not exactly the class of persons most fitted to take, the management of local interests. He should oppose the amendment as being at variance with the spirit of the bill.

thought, that nothing could be more destructive of the principle of this bill than an amendment like the present.

said, that anything equal to the profligacy with which the corporation of Dublin had squandered 200,000l. could not be conceived. The hon. and learned Sergeant admitted, that he had spoken from inaccurate returns; but he reminded him of the lawyer who replied to an objection, that certain evidence was not legal,—"True it's not legal, but it's good enough for the jury." And so the learned Sergeant said—" It's not accurate, but it's good enough for the House of Commons." The bill would be good for nothing if they let these freemen in. The evil would remain during fifty years. Roman Catholics had been admissible to the freedom; but not a single one had been admitted in that period. The object of this bill was to throw religious distinctions aside, and to substitute, by way of qualification, the resident property of the town. The great cause of the present quarrel between the corporation of Dublin was, that he had defended them from the charge of being an exclusive corporation; but they insisted that they were. They had, no doubt, been exclusive, and this bill was proposed to remedy that evil.

said, that if the returns referred to by the learned Sergeant were correct, he could only rejoice that the Liberal party were so strong; and the learned Sergeant ought not to be quite so sure that there would not be a Liberal majority even in Belfast and Londonderry. He regarded the discussion upon this measure with great satisfaction, because he looked upon it as the last time on which those questions would be discussed in that House. They seemed now, indeed, to be coming to the whispering of a faction, not strong enough to be heard out of that House, and very little within it.

had referred to the only returns which were at his command, and they were the parliamentary returns laid on the table of the House. They at all events gave an approximation to the truth; and if they were not quite accurate, the disproportion was so great, that his argument would not be effected. The proportion between the Roman Catholics and Protestants was as two to one, or as three to two in all the towns in the schedule, except Londonderry and Belfast. This was a Protestant constitution, and the local Government of these towns ought not to be transferred wholesale from the Protestant to the Catholic inhabitants. It had been said, that if the property were in the hands of the Roman Catholics, then they ought to have a voice in the local government on account of that property. But he denied the fact; for though a majority of those who occupied 5l. and 10l. houses might be Catholics, still the property of the country was in a large proportion in the possession of the Protestants.

said, the noble Lord had said something about the vulgar squabbles of the corporation of Dublin, but was that the only place where vulgar squabbles occurred. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had charged the corporation with peculation and profligacy to the amount of 200,000l., but was that House the tribunal to decide such a case? If the case were true, the Courts of Law were the proper tribunals to appeal to. No ground could be more untenable for the destruction of a class of persons holding vested rights than that particular persons had not always spoken and acted with discretion.

said—The hon. Baronet seems to have taken offence at the words "vulgar squabbles," which were used by my noble Friend; but the hon. Baronet, I think, has heard words not much more civil used on the part of the Orange Association in Dublin.

was perfectly satisfied that this clause had not been proposed with a view to carrying it into effect. The learned Sergeant could not carry it into effect; but though he acted according to the letter of the arrangement which had been made, he seemed disposed to violate its spirit. He, however was rejoiced to see that the hon. and learned Sergeant bad by his conduct driven away the leaders of his party in that House. It would be much better to oppose the measure openly and honestly than, professing to support the principle of it, to attempt to introduce clauses calculated to defeat its main objects. As to the corporation of Dublin, they had admitted eighty-three freemen between the years 1832 and 1835, of whom, only one was a Catholic.

said, that hundreds of the freemen of Limerick had never seen the place, the drummers and fifers of a particular regiment, he believed, on one occasion, had been made freemen.

said, there was no ground for charging his hon. and learned Friend with factious opposition to this Bill; he had last Session given notice of the same motion as the present, and had only been prevented by an accident from bringing it forward. He believed that the present unpopularity of the learned Recorder of Dublin, which he hoped was only temporary, had arisen from the part he took in supporting the second reading of this Bill; but that hon. and learned Gentleman had together with himself and his learned Friend near him (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) felt themselves bound in honour so to act in consequence of their acquiescence in the proposition, that if the tithe question were settled on a satisfactory basis, they would not oppose the principle of the Government corporation plan.

could not see how it would be just to admit a rabble of 700 or 800 men to vote along with the rate-payers. The parties who paid the rates were those who should alone exercise the municipal right, and therefore, although he had assented to all the other propositions of his hon. and learned Friend, he could not support him in his present motion.

proposed, that the sum of 1,142,504l. be granted to her Majesty to defray the charge of wages to seamen and marines, and to the ordinary and yard craft, which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st of March, 1841.

wished for some explanation from the hon. Secretary, as to some parts of the paper which he held in his hand, which purported to be the naval balance sheet for the last year. He also wished for some explanation as to the addition to the estimates that appeared to have occurred in the course of last year, more especially as regarded the charge for naval stores, for the wages of artificers, and also for the conveyance of troops, &c. Previous to putting this question, he wished to state, that he had intended to have proposed a motion for returns, which would have given the House adequate information respecting the present state of the navy; but when he was told that the motion would be opposed on the ground that furnishing the returns would embarrass the Government, he felt it to be his duty not to press for them. He confessed that he thought it was very questionable policy to adopt a course of concealment as to the state of the navy of this country. He did not think that any disclosure that the Government could make respecting it could do one-half the injury that the system of concealment respecting our naval force was likely to produce. No one who had not been recently abroad could be aware of the extent to which the feeling prevailed, that the naval force of this country had declined, and it was believed, that it was in such a state, that it was utterly impossible for us to enter upon a war with a great naval power. He could not see why the Admiralty could not follow the example of the French government, which annually made a clear and elaborate statement as to the naval force of that power. If there was any deficiency in the navy, he was sure that the country, and the House, would not hesitate to come forward, and supply any defect that might arise, and if it appeared that, notwithstanding the statements that had been made, we had a large naval force, it would cause the country to be respected by any power that had a hostile feeling to it, and it would command the confidence of our friends. He was convinced that the system of concealing the real state of things must prove deeply injurious to the best interests of the country. He now wished to ask the hon. Member for Kildare explanations as to two points which he found in the naval balance sheet. In the first place, he found last year the actual charge for the wages of seamen and marines fell short of the sums voted, by not less than 74,892l. 12s. 10d., and there was also a falling short in the charge for victuals for seamen, &c, to the amount of 46,340l. 4s., making together the sum of 121,232l. 16s. 10d. Now, this sum was somewhat about equal to the charge for the maintenance and wages of 2,160 seamen for one year. It appeared, also, that there were great additional charges in other departments connected with the Admiralty, and these additional charges had been liquidated out of this falling short of expenditure in comparison with the income. It would appear, then, that the Admiralty was falling back into the system that was pursued some years ago, of transferring the balance of one vote to the deficiency of another. He had always understood, that when the right hon. Member for Pembroke introduced the balance sheet, that the system he had adverted to was never to be pursued again. He knew that the right hon. Baronet strongly condemned the system, and thought it to be so objectionable, that he introduced a clause on the subject into the act, for the regulation of the civil department of the navy. Indeed he had always understood, that the chief reason of the balance-sheet was to show that the money voted for one purpose was not devoted to another. He therefore hoped that the Secretary for the Admiralty would explain how it happened that sums of money which had been voted for the wages of seamen, and for their victualling, had been applied to dock-yard establishments, to the wages of naval artificers, and to the purchase of naval stores.

replied, that with reference to the motion for returns which had been alluded to by the gallant Officer, he could only repeat what he stated on a former occasion, namely, that the Admiralty felt that they could not be given in consistency with the welfare of the service; but if the gallant Officer, or any other naval officer chose to call at the Admiralty, he should be very happy to furnish him with the information which he required. With respect to the devoting the surplus of one vote to any deficiency in another vote in the year, he could only reply, that it was a practice which had always been followed at the office to which he belonged. He had never heard it com- plained of before, and it was hardly possible to avoid doing so in certain respects, in consequence of the system of paying the wages of seamen.

observed, that he should not feel himself justified in going to the Admiralty, and looking over the papers in question, as he could not afterwards avail himself of any information that he might acquire from them there. What he wished for was, that the House and the country should be put in possession of this information in a tangible form. He confessed that the explanation of the hon. Secretary as to the balance-sheet was not satisfactory. The question was not as to the custom of transferring the surplus of one vote to the deficiency of another, or as to whether it was good or bad; but it was a rule laid down by Lord Grey's government, and, if he was not mistaken, declared in an Act of Parliament, and this was a departure from it. He believed that Lord Grey's government introduced the naval balance sheet, with a view of putting a stop to the system. In the year 1831, the right hon. Baronet, then First Lord of the Admiralty, denounced the system in the strongest terms, and said that it was illegal, and if he was not much mistaken, that he had taken the opinion of counsel as to the propriety of undertaking prosecutions for it.

stated, that he was the person who should, properly speaking, have been hauled over the coals by the gallant officer for this transfer, which appeared in the balance-sheet. The gallant Officer stated, and truly, that the right hon. Member for Pembroke, in 1831, blamed the Admiralty for the transfer of any surplus to other votes. He admitted that, according to the rule then laid down, this was an apparent departure from it, but circumstances had arisen which fully justified it in this instance. In the summer of 1838, when affairs bore a more hostile appearance than they had previously done, it became necessary to make some considerable addition to the naval force, which there was no opportunity of providing for immediately by a vote. Since the year 1836, they had been gradually increasing the naval establishments of the country, and it was attended with great inconvenience and expense to make a large increase at once. The course which was pursued was to make a gradual increase in the votes for wages, for the yards, and for stores. A greater increase, however, became necessary in 1838 than was anticipated, and more particularly in the charge for stores. The chief portion of the additional charge arose from the necessity of purchasing vessels and stores for ships in the lakes of Canada. He trusted that this explanation would satisfy the Committee as to the excess in the three votes which had been alluded to. He would now say a few words with respect to the naval balance sheet. He admitted that the right hon. Member for Pembroke drew up a rule for the limitation of the expenditure of the Admiralty to the estimates of the year. He was sure that the hon. Member for Stamford would confirm him in asserting that there was no branch of the public service where the rule could be applied with so little strictness as the navy. There could be no doubt as to the payments in the yards, but as to wages, victuals, and stores, it was impossible that the charge could completely concur with the vote. This was more particularly the case as regarded the payment of the wages of seamen. At present a portion of their wages went to their families, another portion was allowed them in the shape of pocket money, and the remainder was paid when the ships were paid off, after a service of four years. Now, it was impossible so to equalise the payments of their wages, that they could always make the charge correspond with the estimate. By the bill of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke, it was enacted, that immediately the year was out, the credit for the votes expired at the Exchequer, and this might be at a time when large sums were required for wages. If, therefore, these additions were not paid from the surplus of other votes, they could not be provided for during the year. For several years there had been a most extraordinary equality between the amount of the estimates voted and the charges; but still occasionally circumstances would arise, over which the Admiralty had no control, to occasion these additional charges in the votes which must be provided for. The great advantage, as he understood it, of the balance sheet was, that no transfer of payments could be made without their coming before the House and the country.

wished to be informed whether returns from the medical department of the navy, similar to those made with respect to the army, would be made?

said, that statistical accounts had been in the course of preparation for some time past in the medical department of the navy. They were in a state of great forwardness, and he would take care that they should be brought forward as soon as possible.

said, a great inconvenience often arose from the non-payment of seamen's wages until their wages had reached a large amount, and he begged to inquire whether any arrangement was likely to be made by which this evil would be remedied?

answered, that a regulation, by which seamen received a monthly allowance, had been in existence ever since the time at which the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke, held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty; but it was a system which had been much complained of by the officers, as producing habits of intoxication. He was persuaded, however, that in its ultimate effects it would be found to be a proper and useful measure. With regard to any further allowance being paid—that was a subject which required mature deliberation, and it should receive his anxious attention.

wished to correct an error of the hon. and gallant Admiral, who had answered the question of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. The practice to which he alluded had existed for fifteen years.

That was quite true, but the allowance had been increased since its first establishment.

believed a seaman was entitled to two months' pay before he left the harbour, which, with bedding, clothes, &c, and (as the case might be) an allotment to his family, together with his 4s. a-month, would leave him without any claim for two years to come. The only doubt on the subject had been, whether, by allowing him thus to become a debtor to the public, they did not rather hold out to him a temptation to leave the service. He did not think it advisable for the Admiralty to call on the House to vote 2,359 men less than would be required to place the ships now employed on their full complements. He considered that course impolitic and inexpedient. If the Admiralty found it necessary to employ so large a number of ships, they ought to ask the House to vote a number of men sufficient to give each ship its proper crew, according to the present standard, without going so far as to complete them to the full war establishment. The House was also asked to vote a sum of only 880,000l. as wages, instead of 963,000l., which would be required to pay the men, if the complements were filled up. He did not pretend to offer any opinion as to whether it was necessary to keep up the same number of vessels, but the Secretary for the Admiralty and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had told the House that it was impossible to diminish it with safety. He thought, however, that it was most important to give each of those ships its full strength of men, in order that its commander might not have to fear defeat from an adversary with a more numerous crew, but be ready for any encounter at any time. He could not sit down without adverting to the difficulty which had been experienced of late years in manning the navy. During the last five or six years, ships had frequently found it next to impossible to procure an adequate number of men, and had been obliged in some instances, after a long detention in harbour, to quit the ports with a reduced crew. In the event of hostilities unexpectedly breaking out, it was evident that the most lamentable consequences might be apprehended from such a condition. He would strongly urge the Admiralty to allow those seamen to whom pensions for long service had been granted, to receive their pensions while serving on board her Majesty's ships, a privilege which was now denied to them. It was true, that in the year 1816, when those pensions were first granted, a regulation was made that no man should receive it while serving in the navy, but the Committee must bear in mind how totally different the state of our maritime affairs at that time was. There was then an immense number of unemployed seamen in the ports, and it appeared to the Admiralty of the day, seeing that they could only give employment to a limited number of those men, that it was better to prevent them from drawing both pay and pension at once, in order that the means of subsistence might thereby be found for as many as possible. But circumstances were now entirely changed; great diffi- cully was experienced in getting men when they were wanted, and the effect of the regulation was now, to deprive the country of many of its very best seamen, since it operated as a bar against their continuing in the service. It was perfectly clear, that when they received higher wages in merchant ships, and were besides allowed to draw their pensions, they could not be expected to re-enter the navy, where they would get lower wages and forfeit their pensions. He was, therefore, impressed with the conviction, that the rescinding of the regulation he had mentioned would be an excellent means of facilitating the manning of the ships. Looking to the present critical aspect of our foreign relations with various powers, and to the exertions which rival states were making to increase their navies, and place them on an efficient footing, the House must see that it was of the last consequence to give all classes of our ships full and effective complements, and to take measures for improving, if that were possible, the quality and character of the men. In former days it might have been expedient to send out ships with reduced crews, in order that the Admiralty might be enabled to employ a greater number of officers; but now, when foreign navies had greatly improved, it was too much to expect that undermanned British ships could compete with others of greatly superior crews. It was well known that almost every ship which had sailed for the Mediterranean lately, had gone out short of hands, and the sooner such a practice was put an end to, the better would it be for the country and the navy.

thought it absolutely indispensable to restore to old and good seamen their pensions during their time of service, as the deprivation of them was now an absolute penalty against re-entering the navy. He thought there should be no such thing as a peace complement, and that no ship of war should leave a British port without having its crew complete to the full war establishment.

said, that the manning of our ships was not so complete as that of other nations. If in the late conflict with the Chinese we had had to fight with Frenchmen or Americans, the consequence would have been disgrace to our flag. It was a vulgar notion that one Englishman could beat three Frenchmen; but though that had long been ex- ploded, it seemed as if it were still entertained at the Admiralty. At present an English 36-gun ship had not more men than were able to contend with a French ship of 28 guns, if well manned and well armed, as the French ships always were.

protested against the practice which prevailed among naval officers of the present day, of instilling by complaints in that House, an idea into the minds of the men and officers under their command, that they were not equal to the services which they were called upon to perform. He did not believe that our ships were unable to perform the duties which they were required to execute, and he did not believe, although upon this point, as a non-professional man, he spoke with humility, that our ships were under-manned. In all our great naval victories, we had one-third or a quarter less men than the enemies with whom we were engaged.

could not agree with the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, that naval officers in that House were not to express their sentiments on the state of the navy. He should like to know where they were to speak their sentiments, if not in that House. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton in what he had said as to the expediency of fully manning every ship. All that he (Lord Ingestrie) wanted was, that the navy should be in an efficient state, so as to maintain the honour of our flag. He did not think that British officers and men would under any circumstances incur disgrace, but at the same time he did think that our ships should be manned in that proper manner so as to be in a condition to engage with success whenever they were called on to do so. The condition of the mates and midshipmen in the navy was one which he considered imperatively called for amelioration. There were some midshipmen who were actually forty years of age, and one of them forty-four. Now, he thought that twenty-five was quite old enough for a man to be kicked about in the midshipman's berth without any rank or pay whatever. With regard to the mates, many of those gentlemen were put to do the duty of lieutenants, and were obliged to join the officers' mess, and thereby put to increased expenses, although they were not allowed pay. He was of opinion, however, that no further increase was required in the monthly pay of the men, and that it was quite sufficient, if indeed they had not too much already. He must again complain of the profligate manner in which the patronage of the navy had been exercised. There was a young gentleman of the name of Wood who had passed his examination for lieutenant with the greatest credit to himself, and who had obtained several more marks than another gentleman who bore the name of Elliot. The last named gentleman, however, was now a commander of the navy, while Mr. Wood had never received any promotion. He had referred the other evening to the removal of Sir J, Gordon from Chatham dockyard, and he must say, that the appointment of that officer, though he was low in the list, would have been much more palatable to the profession than that of Admiral Fleming to Greenwich. He thought that the removal of Sir J. Gordon was a very hard case. These circumstances justified him in saying, that the patronage of the Admiralty had been exercised in a profligate manner.

was very reluctant to take up the time of the House, but so much had been said on the subject of undermanning the navy, that, considering the station which he had the honour to hold, and his own connexion with the profession, he felt bound to trouble the House with a few words. He had never shrunk from expressing the opinion which he held of the absurdity of war complements in a time of peace. Such a course must be expensive, and was wholly unnecessary. He admitted that some time ago, in consequence of the alteration made in the complement of guns, it was found necessary to review the complement of men, and the alterations which were proposed had been carried into effect in the new ships, the Pique, the Inconstant, and other ships of that class, and also in some other ships, of a larger size. Now, it would be asked, under what arrangement those additions were made? They were made upon a calculation of the increased amount which became necessary to work the guns of the ship. A gun committee sat in 1828, and the Admiralty had had the opportunity of consulting the very best officers who were connected with the navy, and had particularly studied the subject of gunnery. It was only natural that every officer in command of a ship should wish to have fifty or sixty men more, to make a display with in any port to which he might be ordered. He defied, however, any officer, and indeeed every officer, in the House, to point ont a single case in which our ships, manned as they were at present, had not done their duty. Had our sailors failed in the performance of their duty either on the coast of Africa or on the coast of China? Had they not shown the same skill and the same bravery, and had not their bravery and skill been accompanied by the same success as formerly? Would any man tell him of any disaster they had recently met with? If anything of the kind had happened, he thought that from the situation which he had the honour to fill, he must have heard of it, and yet he had heard of nothing of the sort. There were other charges made against the Admiralty, but they were irrelevant to the vote then before the House, and he would answer them when the items to which they referred came regularly in the progress of the estimates under the consideration of the Committee. He was quite aware of the advantage of taking a vote on this estimate to-night; and he was also equally aware of the impropriety of so humble an individual as himself making a long speech upon it. There were one or two points, however, that he must notice. He had no hesitation in declaring, that in our naval service there were some hard cases, so far as regarded the mates. That was a matter, however, which did not rest with the Admiralty. They could only promote one in three—they had promoted that number, and therefore upon that score no complaint could be made against the Admiralty. The noble Lord had stated that there were a number of hard cases arising from the long service of the mates. No doubt there were; but there were mates upon the list, who, though they had been fourteen and even seventeen years in the service, had not been anything like that time at sea. They had been on board steamboats, they had gone to Australia, they had been in India, and elsewhere, and all for their private emolument. They had not, therefore, the same claim upon the Admiralty as if they had been all the time at sea in the service of the country.

suggested that it would be a good plan to have a supplementary estimate to the navy estimates, and to divide in future the expenses of the marines from those of the navy. The charge of 58,000l., which was made for the marines was nothing less than a fraud on that branch of the service. There was a charge of 1,383l. for the pay of one lieutenant-general of marines. Now, that officer belonged to the navy, and never had been in the marines. There was also a charge of 1,037l. for a major-general of marines. That officer, too, had never served in the marines. There were other charges of a similar description. Now, the Committee ought to be able to ascertain exactly what the marines, really being marines, cost the country. We ought not, as his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sandwich had justly said, to be keeping unnecessarily a number of marines and idlers. He objected to having officers of the navy paid for being officers of marines, when, in point of fact, they were mere idlers. He found that the pensions granted to flag officers, captains, and marine officers, amounted to 4,350l. this year. Would any man who read the words of that estimate believe it possible that not a single marine officer had any share in those pensions? He admitted that two pensions of 150l. a-year had been given last year to two deserving officers in the navy. He was glad of it—he was far from objecting to it; but he should like to see some share in those pensions granted to the marines. He also saw in the estimates one item for eight retired colonels of marines. He wished to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty whether the vacancies occasioned by those eight retirements had been filled up? He believed that two of them were not to be filled up till the report of the Naval and Military Commission which had been so long expected, was made up.

rose for the purpose of just saying a word or two on behalf of these unfortunate mates. He believed that if the Admiralty persisted in their present system, they would find it matter of difficulty to get young men to enter the service as mates. He wished that the Admiralty would promote 300 of them. It would not cost the nation more than 15,000l. a-year. He likewise declared it to be his opinion that no ship ought to leave this country without being fully manned to meet all emergencies.

concurred with the last speaker in the expediency of having all our ships fully manned. He was, nevertheless, of opinion, that what constituted the full manning of a ship was not a point for the decision of the House of Commons, but of the responsible officers of the Crown.

expressed his anxiety that this and the next vote should pass through the Committee that evening. The Committee, however, ought not to grant any further votes until it had before it the report of the Naval and Military Commission. They had been told that not more than another sitting of that commission was wanted to complete its report. The Duke of Wellington, God be thanked for it, was now sufficiently recovered to attend to business, and he trusted that in the course of next week, he would be able to give up a day to the consideration and approval of that report. If any grants beyond those which he had mentioned were proposed before that report was received, he should meet them with every opposition in his power.

said, that one of the propositions made by the hon. and gallant officer who had spoken last was reasonable enough. It was quite evident that no reasonable objection could be offered to the two next votes, but he could not agree to the hon. and gallant officer's second proposition, that we should take no more votes upon the navy estimates until the report of the Naval and Military Commission was received. He opined that the Committee would be perfectly competent to decide upon all the navy estimates, even before the report in question was submitted to the House.

could not allow the present vote to pass through the Committee without taking notice of a subject closely connected with it. He alluded to the total want of all information respecting the interruption of our commercial intercourse with the Chinese at Canton. Six weeks ago her Majesty, in the most gracious speech which she then delivered from the throne, made this announcement to the two Houses of Parliament:—

"Events have happened in China which have occasioned an interruption of the commercial intercourse of my subjects with that country. I have given, and shall continue to give, the most serious attention to a matter so deeply affecting the interests of my subjects, and the dignity of the Crown."

Since that speech had been delivered, it had become notorious to all the world that preparations had been made for the departure from England of a considerable armament, destined for the accomplishment of a natural object connected with this very untoward event. The merchants of England were knocking daily at the doors of the Treasury in hope of receiving satisfaction for property worth 2,400,000l., which they had sacrificed at Canton in compliance with the demands of the British commissioner. They had received no encouraging answer to their application. The only answer which had been vouchsafed to them left their demands in abeyance. Now, the House of Commons remained up to this day totally uninformed on this most important topic, except so far as it had been informed by the statements in the newspapers. There was an impression abroad, that there had been very considerable mismanagement in the administration of our affairs in that part of the world. The impression was, that there had been vacillation in our policy from day to day, which was not only injurious to private individuals, but was also highly disgraceful to the country. He did not mean to say, that that impression was true; he was only saying, that it was nearly universal. This, however, was fact—not one single word had been said by any of her Majesty's Ministers in the House of Commons to satisfy the House of Commons, or to give it an insight into the grounds on which the House was called to vote for additional expenses on account of our expedition to China. Hon. Members had asked for information in almost every possible shape. The noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs had given promises on this subject to the country in the most affable and agreeable manner: but, unfortunately, nothing like performance had ever waited upon those promises. When some ten days ago he (Mr. Herries) asked the noble Lord whether he would be able to afford the House during the present week the information which it wanted, the noble Lord said, that he thought that the information would be forthcoming in the beginning of the present week, although he refused to bind himself, that it should be so forthcoming. They had now come to the last day in the Parliamentary week, and it was not forthcoming. The real question then was, had not the time arrived when it was incumbent upon Government to present that information to the House? He (Mr. Herries) was well aware, that in the good old times, if these papers had not been presented to the House after the call which had been made for them, there would have been a motion before now for an address to the Crown to compel their production. He hoped that there would be no occasion for a measure of that description at present, but that Government would at once place upon the Table all the information which the country was now hoping with so much anxiety to attain.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not himself been so long in office, all that he had said might appear natural enough to the Committee; but every Gentleman who knew, as well as the right hon. Member knew, the cares of office, must be aware, that when the question was to produce a mass of papers which were more or less voluminous, and when those papers had to be printed, it was almost impossible for any man to say, that he would bring down the report on those papers on such and such a day with as much certainty as if he was bringing on an ordinary motion in that House. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there had been no unnecessary delay or indisposition in the office over which he presided in preparing the papers which the right hon. Gentleman wished to see; on the contrary, they should be produced at the very earliest opportunity. With respect to the menaced address to the Crown for the production of those papers, he had only to say that the production of them was not an act of courtesy on his part; it was an act of obedience to the House of Commons which had called for them. He had entertained hopes that he should be able to present them in the beginning of the present week, but he had been disappointed. He believed, that they would be ready early in the next. Whatever impression might have gone forth as to the mode in which our affairs had been recently conducted, the noble Lord would see from these papers, that that had been no reason for the misapprehension to which he had alluded. Her Majesty's Government, instead of shrinking from full investigation, absolutely courted it; but the fact was, that their opponents could not produce the documents which were necessary to justify it.

never recollected anything like the delay which had occurred in pre- paring documents in the present Session. He knew the attention and diligence of the gentlemen employed in the public offices; and, with that knowledge, he could not imagine any reason for the extraordinary delay which had occurred in the production of this information. He supposed that the papers containing it must be voluminous beyond all former precedent, and yet it was announced in her Majesty's speech that even at the time of its delivery, those papers were in preparation.

replied, that he had received no official information on those subjects.