observed, that he had looked into the Act of Parliament since the House last met, and it appeared to him that the proper course to pursue would be to negative the motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle, and to let the panels attend on the day named, when the general committee might pass by the Ludlow petition, and without nominating any committee for trying that petition, proceed to the nomination of the committees for the trial of the cases lower down in the list. The section of the Act to which he thought that it would be proper to refer, to justify this view of the case was the 30th section, by which it was enacted,

"That in case a Member declined to defend his seat, that thirty days' notice thereof should be given in the London Gazette, and in the meantime that the proceedings should' be suspended."

It then declared,

"That in every case in which the proceedings in any petition, inserted in such list, shall be afterwards suspended, the petition shall be struck out of the list, and shall be again inserted at the bottom of the list at the end of such suspension of proceedings."

In the 52d section, which regulated the proceedings of the general committee in the nomination of the special committee to be appointed to try any election petition it was enacted,

"That the general committee shall not in any case proceed to choose a committee to try any election petition, until they have chosen a committee to try every other election petition standing higher in the list aforesaid, the order for referring which shall not be then discharged, or in which the proceedings shall not be then suspended."

In the present instance they had four election petitions to take into consideration on the 12th and 16th of March. The first was that of Ludlow; the question then arose whether the proceedings were not suspended in this case under the provisions of the Act, and whether it would not be the proper course to pass that by, and to proceed to nominate the committees in the other cases. By the 47th section, it was enacted, that the general committee should give their notice in writing to all the parties petitioning, as well as to the sitting Member, before it proceeded in any case to appoint a special committee to try an election petition. When, however, the proceedings were suspended, the committee was not in a situation to proceed, under the Act, with the Ludlow election case, as the notices required by the Act had not been given. From this, it must be obvious, that the general committee was not in a situation to nominate the special committee in the Ludlow case. They were not in a situation to proceed with the Ludlow case, in consequence of the notices not having been given, and as the time had expired, so as not now to allow the notices to be served before the day appointed for the nomination of the select committee. The section of the Act, which he had just referred to made provision for a case of this kind. He conceived, then, if this view of the case was taken, that there could be no doubt that the proceedings of the Ludlow election petition had been suspended, and, for the reason given, the petitioners were not in a state to proceed. The question, then, was, whether it was necessary to suspend the nomination of all the four petitions, because the first committee was not in a situation to proceed? He had come to the conclusion that such a step was not necessary, but that the Ludlow case, coming within the exception of the 52d section, the proceedings upon it must be suspended till the proper notices had beep given. He did not believe the House was, in a situation to interfere in this case, but that the general committee must, on the day appointed, pass by the nomination of the committee in the Ludlow case, and that the panels must attend in order to appoint the other committees. He saw no reason why the Order of the Day for attendance of the panels should be discharged. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman's motion was discharged, they could, on the 12th, pass by the nomination of the Ludlow committee, and proceed with the others.

said, that it appeared to him, that as the Ludlow petition was presented to the House last Session, it came under the operation of the 93rd clause, which enacted,

"That if at the close of the present Session of Parliament there shall be any election petition or petitions before the House, the order for taking which into consideration shall not have been discharged, and for trying which no committee shall have been appointed, such election petition or petitions shall be tried by a committee, to be chosen under the provisions of this Act, and such petitions shall be referred to the general committee of elections before any petition presented in the next Session, and in the order in which they were presented to the House, and shall be treated as petitions on which the examiner of recognizances has reported, &c."

Under the last section the petition cannot be proceeded with, as the petition is suspended, and, at the same time, the recognizances must be considered as completed. The section, however, distinctly stated, that every petition of last Session must be taken before any petition of this Session. In the Ludlow case there were two petitions, the one against the return, and the other from certain electors, praying to defend the seat of the sitting Member, but this latter petition was not sent to the general committee, therefore the parties did not get the notices required by the Act. The section of the Act which referred to voters admitted to become a party to the defence of the seat of the sitting Member, declares,

"That any person or persons claiming to have had a right to vote at the election to which the petition shall relate, to petition the House of Commons, praying to be admitted as a party or parties to defend such return, or to oppose the prayer of such election petition, and such person or persons shall thereupon be admitted as a party or parties, together with the sitting Member, if he be then a party against such petition, or in the room of such Member, if he be not then a party against the petition, and shall be considered as such to all intents and purposes whatever, and any such petition shall be treated as an election petition."

It was very plain from this, that the petition must be treated as an election petition. If it was so, it was clear that it must be referred to the general committee before any petition of the present Session could be taken into consideration. They must, therefore, take this petition into consideration before they proceeded to the consideration of the Cambridge petition, which had been presented during the present Session. The terms of the Act had not been complied with, and in that part where it was obviously intended to tie up the hands of the House of Commons, and to make them adhere to the strictest rules. The only way in which they could proceed with safety, was to discharge the rules for taking into consideration the four petitions from Totness, Cambridge, Ipswich, and Ludlow, as well as the appointment of the committee and the other proceedings said to be irregular, but he thought that the other course, suggested both by the learned Solicitor-general and the hon. Member for Newcastle were open to objection.

regarded this question as one of considerable importance. He regretted that he could not take the same view of the subject as his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-general, to whose opinion he attached great weight. He agreed with his right hon. Friend who spoke last, in thinking that it was a matter of some doubt as to whether the whole of these proceedings under the Act would not be irregular; at the same time he apprehended that the motion of the chairman of the general committee of electors was right, and that it should be adopted. He would shortly state his views as to the construction of this Act. Election petitions had been presented from Ludlow and Totness during the course of last Session, and from Cambridge and Ipswich, during the course of the present one. Last Session the sitting Member for Ludlow had intimated to the Speaker that it was not his intention to defend his seat, upon which certain of the electors had petitioned to be allowed to defend it. The petition then before the House was presented last Session, and, therefore, came within the operation of the 93rd section of the Act, which made provision for the election petitions remaining at the close of the last Session. The House this Session had referred the petition against the return for Ludlow to the general committee, but had neglected to refer, in the first instance, the petition of the electors to defend the return. When the petitions had been referred to the general committee, they had made out their list in the following order:—Ludlow, Ipswich, Totness, Cambridge; but, in consequence of the petition of the electors not having been referred to the committee, they had given no notice to the petitioners, consequently the provisions of the 47th section had not been complied with, and the proceedings could not regularly go on until such notice had been given. The 47th clause enacted;—

"That the general committee of elections shall, from time to time, determine how many committees shall be chosen in each week for trying the election petitions which then stand referred to them in which the sureties shall have been reported unobjectionable, and the day or days on which they will meet for choosing such committees, which they shall choose in the same order in which the petitions stand in the list aforesaid, having regard to the number of select committees which may then be sitting for trial of election petitions, and to the whole number of such committees then to be appointed; and notice in writing, of the day on which the committee will be chosen to try any election petition shall be given in writing by the general committee to all the parties herein-after mentioned, such time not being sooner than three weeks after the day on which such notice shall be given."

Now, in this case, the petition of the defenders of the seat, which another clause slated was to be regarded to all intents as an election petition, had not been referred to the general committee, and consequently, the notices had not been given, and he apprehended they could not go on with the trial of this case, as the parties had not had the due notices, and could not be before the committee. Then the question arose as to the course which they should take, and whether they would proceed with the Ipswich, Totness, and Cambridge petitions, before they appointed the committee on the Ludlow election petition. On this point they must refer to the 52nd clause of the Act. The list of petitions had been made out by the general committee, and Ludlow was at the top of the list. The 52nd section of the Act provides—

"That the general committee shall not in any case proceed to choose a committee to try any election petition until they shall have chosen a committee to try every other election petition standing higher in the list aforesaid, the order for referring which shall not be then discharged, or in which the proceedings shall not be then suspended under the provisions hereinbefore contained, except in the case of choosing a committee to supply the place of a discharged committee, as hereinafter provided, which substituted committee shall be first chosen on the day on which the general committee shall meet for that purpose."

Under the provision of this clause, then, they could not proceed with the Ipswich, Totness, or Cambridge petitions, before they had appointed the committee in the Ludlow petition. No order for the discharge of this petition had been made. The question, arose, then, whether it might not be considered as suspended. The 30th clause would be found to be the only one that referred to election petitions that were discharged or suspended. In that clause, it was enacted that—

"The general committee of elections shall suspend their proceedings in the matter of any petition referred to by any notice inserted in the Gazette as aforesaid, and shall not do anything therein until thirty days after the day on which such notice shall have been inserted in the Gazette, unless the petition of some person or persons claiming to be admitted as a party or parties in the room of such Member shall be sooner referred to them; and the general committee shall make out a list of all election petitions in which the examiner of recognizance shall have reported to the Speaker that the sureties are unobjectionable, and in which the proceedings are not suspended, in which list the petitions shall be arranged in the order in which they shall have been so reported upon; and in every case in which the proceedings in any petition inserted in such list, shall be afterwards suspended, the petition shall be struck out of the list, and shall be again inserted at the bottom of the list, at the end of such suspension of proceedings."

Suppose a petition referred to the general committee against the sitting Member, and he gave notice that he did not mean to defend his seat, and notice is inserted in the Gazette, and then the general committee suspend it. He thought they would rind no other clause in the act empowering them to do so but the 32nd clause, and that they had no power to take one case before another, except it had been particularly provided for. If it occurred that a petition had been presented this Session, and referred to the general committee, and the sitting Member had said he did not mean to defend his seat, and notice had been given, then the power of suspending it would have applied, but it would apply only to a case of that sort. The general committee had made out the list, and in the cases of the major part of the petitions there was clearly nothing to lead to either the suspension or the discharge of the proceedings. He entirely concurred with his learned Friend, the Solicitor-general, that they could not proceed with the Ludlow petition, because they had not given a notice of thirty days, and it was therefore virtually suspended; but he apprehended the clause applied only to the "cases hereinbefore provided for;" and that, inasmuch as they had not given the right notice to the party in the Ludlow election, it was necessary such person should have such notice before they proceeded; and as the General Committee had appointed days on which they could not proceed to the trial of the petition, and they had the power of appointing other days, they should do so, and take care that they did not take one petition before they had disposed of the other. He certainly thought, that the General Committee had full power to appoint other days for the trial of the Ludlow petition, as well as the Ipswich, Totness, and Cambridge petitions, provided the list of rotation was adhered to. He apprehended, that they could not say, that the parties were not entitled to full notice as described in the act; therefore, as far as his judgment went, they should so far alter the list, by putting down the whole of the cases in their respective order.

was unfortunately not in his place when the former discussion took place, and he had not had an opportunity of looking into the matter at present. He was sorry that he was unable to recommend any course to the House, because they had got into a dead lock. The House had now parted with the authority which had been given to it on this subject by the law. When the bill of the right hon. Member for Tamworth was brought before the House, he had ventured respectfully to state that he thought it would be better to repeal the 9th George 4th entirely, and pass an act by which Parliamentary costs might be enforced, and at the same time the House should have come to certain resolutions as to their proceedings in these matters. Unfortunately, it seemed to him, the House had taken a different course, and erected a statutable tribunal, which must proceed in the course the Act of Parliament had prescribed. This was just as much a statutory tribunal as any court of conscience or borough court, and they must adhere to the rules and regulations laid down for their guidance. It seemed to him that by the 93rd section, they were restricted as to the course they should pursue. The 93rd section directly enacts,—

"That all petitions of last Session shall be referred to the general committee of elections before any petition presented in the next Session, and in the order in which they were presented to the House."

The 20th section admitted voters to defend the seat of the sitting Member, and provided that their petition, praying to be so admitted, should be treated as an election petition. He was afraid, that under; these sections at present no legal committee could be constituted for the trial of the Ludlow election. The petition against the seat and for the defence of the seat should both have been referred to the general committee; and as the latter had not been done, he feared that all the proceedings would be regarded as coram non. He regretted exceedingly, that the House had got into a position of such difficulty, nor could he see his way out of it except by fresh legislation. He entertained the greatest respect for the opinions of his teamed Friend, the Solicitor-general, as well as for those of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Exeter, but he differed from both of them on this subject. The Act of Parliament only gave them the power to refer the petitions to the general committee. They had referred four petitions to that body, and he did not see what power they had to alter the arrangement of them. The House was now exercising a power which was restricted and defined by law; and he did not see how it could suspend its proceedings in this matter. If there was an indictment for perjury of any person who had given evidence before these committees, and the Court of Queen's Bench was called upon to determine whether the Committee was duly constituted or not, the court, by the power confided to it by the law, must proceed to determine in the matter; and could that tribunal say, that the House had exercised its jurisdic- tion as was directed under the 93rd section of the act? They had made one reference to the general committee, and he doubted whether they could make another. He regretted the difficulty they were in, and he only felt the more strongly what he had stated on a former occasion, that that House could never satisfactorily and beneficially exercise its right to determine election petitions, until all the acts on the subject were repealed. All they wanted was the power to award costs, and then their proceedings would be rendered independent of the courts of law.

regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not approve of the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Sir Wm. Rae), which was to consider all the previous proceedings as irregular, to discharge the order, and then to come regularly before the House again. The hon. and learned Gentleman contended that the House had not done what was required by the act of Parliament, and that this could not be undone unless by legislative enactment. He did not agree in this, although he admitted, that the House had done things in connection with these petitions in such an irregular and informal manner, that they had not complied with the provisions of the act of Parliament. It appeared to him, under all the circumstances, that the best thing they could do would be to commence de novo. On the whole, it appeared to him, considering all the difficulties of the case, that the safest course which they could pursue, was that recommended by the right hon. and learned Member for Bute, and he believed that it differed but very little from that which the chairman of the general committee proposed. He should therefore support, in the first place, the motion for the discharge of the order for the panels; and then, that all proceedings under the petition should be declared to be irregular.

stated, that if all the proceedings in this case were held to be irregular, some inconvenience might result, but he thought that under all the circumstances of the case, it would be sufficient if they adopted the suggestion of the chairman of the general committee. With regard to the assertions of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, relative to the 52nd clause of the act, he did not think that that clause rendered it necessary for them to adopt that course of proceeding, as the hon. and learned Member seemed to think. That clause merely prescribed that the committees should be taken as they stood on the list. But the question was, what was the order in which they then stood, and he believed, that the committees might now be considered to have changed their places. He should have thought that the notice in the Gazette was a sufficient intimation to the general committee, that the sitting Member did not intend to defend his seat, but that this would be done for him by certain electors of Ludlow. The petition had been presented to the House; and the House, in violation of the direction of the act, had neglected to refer the petition of the defenders of the seat to the general committee. If the notices could have been served in time, it would not have been necessary to have any delay, and it would be impossible to allow the parties to suffer from the negligence of the House. He should be sorry to come to the conclusion of his learned Friend the Attorney-general, and he thought that the irregularity might be got over by adopting the course proposed by the hon. chairman of the general committee.

said, that whatever difference of opinion might exist as to the questions raised on the occasion, they would all admit, that it was of the last importance that a correct decision should be arrived at on the case then before the House. If there should be any deviation from the statute, all the proceedings of the committee would be void, and the most injurious and inconvenient consequences would follow. He differed in one point from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general, and that he did not think that the least difficulty could be created by the operation of the 93d section of the act, which referred to the election petitions remaining over from last Session. He thought that the provisions of that section had been strictly as well as substantially complied with, and that therefore the proceedings were not, in any degree, irregular in that regard. That section merely required that petitions pending in the then Session of Parliament should be referred to the House in the order that had been pointed out—that is, before any petitions presented in the present Session. That he believed had been done in the case then under their consideration. He contended that the 93d section had been complied with, because the Ludlow election petition was referred to the committee before the Cambridge; and the section which required the petition of the electors to be referred to the committee, had also been complied with. No difficulty, therefore, arose from the 92d section, as to the legality of the proceedings of the committee. To proceed to appoint the different select committees in the order in which they appeared on the list, would be nugatory and erroneous. The question, therefore was, what could now be done, consistently with the provisions of this statute; and he thought the House must consider, not what it might have been expedient to do at the time the act passed, but what had been prescribed by the terms and provisions of the act; and he held it was clear that the jurisdiction which formerly existed in that House to rescind and alter orders made from time to time, was now, by the operation of the act, transferred exclusively to the general committee appointed under the act. It was not competent for that House to rescind any order which it had made for referring this matter to the general committee. He thought it would be the best course to propose some amendment, under which the House should, in reality, take no course whatever, but leave it to the general committee to adopt that course which they might think fit, and that course, he apprehended, would be to rescind the present order.

did not conceive, that under the act, the order of the petitions could be altered; but he was disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that, under the 47th section of the act, the general committee had power, from time to time, to appoint the weeks, and determine how many committees should sit, and the days on which they should sit, and he imagined that it was within their power to make an alteration as to time. That being the case, the learned Gentleman who had last spoken asked, was it necessary the House should interfere? He did not think it was. But as he viewed the motion of the hon. chairman of the committee, it was not proposed that the House should in any way interfere or direct anything to be done by the general committee, but only to interfere in regard to an order made by themselves. The chairman of the committee having stated in the House that if there were no notice given other than the twenty-four or forty-eight hours directed by the act, the first and second panels might not be in attendance when the committees were chosen. It was therefore desirable that the House should so far interfere as to direct the attendance of the first and second panels on particular days. He thought the House had the most perfect right to make such an order, and it therefore appeared to him that the course proposed by the committee was the right course to take. It was not proposed to interfere with the general powers of the committee under the act. He thought it most desirable that these powers should be left to their own discretion, anxious as they doubtless would be, to conform to the provisions of the act of Parliament.

was confident of this, that if a new act were necessary to do effectual justice, that act would cheerfully be passed. He apprehended that it was clearly the intention of the House that the petition of the electors should have been referred at the time to the general committee. But by some accident that reference had not taken place. He quite agreed with the noble Lord, that it was a point of prudence and policy to interfere as little as possible with the general committee. The hon. and learned Solicitor-general should remember that the House had intended by the act to take away from itself the temptation to such discussions, involving as they did party and political contests. He thought it, in point of law, much more probable that the general committee had the power to give directions in this case, than that the House had it. He was inclined to think that the committee had the power not to alter the order in which the petitions stood, but to postpone the whole proceedings to such a period as would enable the notices to be given in the case of the first. He thought the wisest course for the House to pursue, would be to remove all obstruction to the free action of the general committee; and if the general committee, on further consideration of the subject, should find the intervention of Parliament necessary to remove the difficulty, they might make a special report to the House on the subject. He should support the motion of the hon. Gentleman, which, he thought ought to be complied with in order to give the general committee an opportunity of seeing if they could not provide a remedy for the evil; if they could not do so, they might make a special report, calling for the intervention of Parliament for the purpose of obtaining that which he was convinced was the object they all had in view, substantial justice to all parties.

remarked that there was a great increase during the past year or two in the victualling charges. He found from the returns of the price of flour, for instance, that the quantity which formerly cost 1l. 18s. had, during the year 1839, cost 2l. 4s. 2d., and that a great increase had taken place in the price of provisions generally. He wished, therefore, as this was a most important question, as showing how the Corn-laws pressed upon the finances of the country, that the hon. Secretary would state to the House what was the amount by which the Estimates had been increased in consequence of the rise in the price of provisions. This information would be of great importance in the discussion of the Corn-laws on some future occasion.

said, he understood from the hon. Gentleman that it was not his intention to raise a discussion on the question of the Corn-laws on the present occasion, but that when he was furnished with the information he desired, he would suffer the discussion of the Estimates to proceed. He would, therefore, furnish the hon. Gentleman with the information he desired, which, as he understood, was merely for the rise in the price of corn and flour, and not on other provisions. He would, therefore, state the rise per cent, in the price of some articles during the present year, above the average of three years preceding the year 1839, distinguishing the rate per cent, of the rise at home,—of the rise at home and abroad; and as many of the ships in the Mediterranean fleet were victualled at Malta; he would likewise state the rise per cent, which had taken place in the price of articles of provision in that island. The increase in the price of wheat was 28 per cent, at home, and 22 per cent. at home and abroad in 1840, as compared with the three years preceding 1839. In biscuit, the increase was, at home 20 per cent.; in malt, it was, at home, 36 per cent. At Malta, the rise in flour was 11 per cent.; in wheat, in the island of Malta, 16 per cent. In spirits, the rise in 1840 over 1839, had been three per cent.; and in fresh meat, the rise in the present year over the last had been eight per cent.

wished to make some observations in allusion to the discussions on the condition of our Navy, which had taken place on a former occasion. He believed that our ships should be always sent to sea with their full complement, whether we were at war or in peace, so that the ships might always be ready for any emergency which might arise, It had been said that the efficiency of the officers would be impaired by their want of confidence in the Government. But he could assert that no feeling on the subject of patronage, nor party or political feeling, would influence the officers of the British navy in the discharge of their duty. His anxious wish was, that active and educated seamen should not be suffered to quit the service, but that, on the contrary, they should be encouraged to remain in it, reserving their valuable functions to their own country, without being compelled to transfer them to the service of foreign nations. It was a duty incumbent upon the Admiralty to increase the number of boys over and under seventeen years of age, by disposing of them among the captains of ships on the home stations. After three years' service these boys returned useful persons. The existing number of 2,000 might be very properly increased to four or even to 5,000. However anxious he was for the increase of the naval force of England, yet he did not wish to increase that force for the purpose of amusing the people of England, nor was he in favour of experimental squadrons; but he believed that ships of war so near as Lisbon or Oporto, would be equally efficient—nay, in fact, more efficient, by being stationed at those places, or at places equally contiguous—than if they were stationed in the Downs, the Nore, Plymouth, or any of the British ports.

said, that instead of decreasing the vote of last year, he was in favour of a larger vote than that already named, and if a larger sum had been demanded, he would have supported the grant. It could not be satisfactory to the country that the navy of England should be inferior to the naval forces of other countries, and, although it had been stated that there did not exist any apprehension for war, yet neither did there exist any guarantee that a state of peace would continue. If no such guarantee did exist, was the navy of England in a fit state for war? The condition of the navy of England, as stated in a pamphlet written by a flag officer, was inferior to that of France and of other countries. The French had seventeen efficient ships of the line in the Mediterranean, whereas the ships of this country were not above fifteen; two of them also were coming home to be paid off, and our frigates were of an inferior size. Russia had a larger navy than that of England, and the men of war of France, equal in number to those of England, were more effective, and better appointed. The large war steamers of France amounted to twenty-five, while those of England amounted to sixteen. France, too, had a number of ships of the line upon the stocks, amounting to twenty-six, while England had but seventeen. France had thirteen steamers building, while England had but seven. That was an unsatisfactory state of things. With reference to the shores of England, they were absolutely defenceless. It might be objected to him that he was afraid of the coasts of that county which he had the honour to represent. He could remember thirty-two years ago, when the invasion of this country was projected by Napoleon, the anxiety and suspense which pervaded the minds of the people inhabiting the coasts opposite to the French shores, although trained militia bands were on the alert throughout the county. What was the present condition of the coasts? Where was their protection? Where were the wooden walls which were said to guard their coasts when there were the fleets of other nations larger in number and better manned within a few days' sail? The navy was the offspring of trade and commerce, and the neglect of that navy would be the downfal both of trade and commerce.

could not agree with the lamentations which had been uttered by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down with respect to the weak and inefficient state of the navy. As a peace establishment, and it was only in that light he was now to speak of it, the navy was in a very efficient condition. A considerable sum was asked from Parliament; the hon. Member for Kilkenny thought it too large a sum; his belief was, it was not too large, and it would be applied with great judgment and skill, to make the navy what it ought to be. He did not think it fair in time of peace to compare our present establishment with what it might be necessary to keep up in case of war. Then with respect to foreign powers, there could be no test of comparison, except in time of war. If, in time of war, we found our navy defeated, it would be a proof of its inefficiency; but in peace, which he hoped would long continue, there was no means of contrasting the efficiency of navies. If, however, the calamity of war should come upon us, he felt confident our navy would not be found inferior to what it was at any former period. The hon. Member for Kent had talked of the unprotected state of our coasts and harbours: acting upon that hon. Gentleman's suggestion, what would the committee arrive at? France had a considerable fleet in the Mediterranean; it was not thought advisable, that our fleet there should be unequal to protect British interests in that sea. Russia had eighteen or twenty, sometimes even so many as twenty-seven sail of the line in the Baltic, during summer; were we then to have in our harbours, or on our coasts, a fleet equal to what Russia might send out in summer? Such a war establishment, and in time of peace, would be ruinous to the country. It would be a war establishment kept up, not as if we were at war with Russia or France, or any other foreign power alone, but as if we were contending with them all at once, when in fact we were at peace with those powers, and when our negociations were on such a footing that any matters which might be in discussion there was every probability would be brought to an amicable conclusion. He wished to maintain the efficiency of the navy, but without entering into those expences which would be so exceedingly enormous, that very soon the country would say, "Better have war at once, than keep up such armaments and suspicion." With respect to the complement of men in the ships, it was entirely a naval question, on which he would not pretend to give any opinion further than he had collected from those best able to form a correct judgment upon it. The question was not whether they should keep up the same number of ships, and equip them all with the larger number of men, which would enormously increase the estimate, but whether it were better to have twenty ships of the line without the full complement, or seventeen with the full force. In war they might require a full complement; but he thought the present complement sufficient for a time of peace. A full complement, no doubt, was necessary in cases of expected action with the enemy; but even comparing the present complement with what it was at the beginning of the war in 1793, it was very little larger than what was now kept on the peace establishment. A question had been asked the other night with respect to the apparent discrepancy on the face of the estimates as to the number of men which would be required; that was to be explained by stating, that a number of ships would shortly be here, and replaced by smaller vessels. Their respective force would account for the difference.

said, he was happy to have received an explanation so satisfactory; the more so as the noble Lord (Palmerston) had stated, that the state of our negociations in the east was such as would not lead any person to suppose, that any speedy reduction in the amount of our naval force would take place in that quarter. Now, he was glad to be informed, that many ships were about to be brought home and paid off, and were not to be replaced; and he had further understood from the noble Lord, that if those ships Were still found necessary to be kept up, the noble Lord would then feel himself authorised to come down to the House of Commons under such circumstances and require its sanction for an increased vote of the number of men. He could not agree to the eulogy which had been passed by the noble Lord opposite as to the distribution of our naval force. He did not consider—looking at the extent of our interests in North America and the West Indies—that there was a sufficient force kept up in those seas to protect our commerce, and to prevent the recurrence of events similar to those of last year. He thought also that it was essential to maintain a reserve force at home which should be available in any sudden emer- gency which might arise. They had very recently experienced considerable inconvenience from the want of such a reserve, in the case of the differences with China. Although the Government had been made aware of those differences as early as the month of July last, it was only in January the Admiralty were enabled to send out a force to the Chinese seas, whereas had there been a reserve of ships at home immediate assistance might have been sent out. He (Sir G. Clerk) thought it might be very advisable to keep up A number of guard ships, cruising in the channel and around our coasts, the crews of which would be thus kept in constant exercise, and the Government would thus have the means at their disposal of sending immediate assistance wherever it might be required. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had given a most satisfactory answer to his (Sir G. Clerk's) question, with respect to the difference of the number of men, as compared with the number of ships in commission. He should be glad to hear some Member of the Government give an equally satisfactory answer to the question that had been put by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton, with regard to the number of boys employed in the service. The committee would be aware, that it was usual to allow a certain number of boys to every hundred men employed. A proposal had been made some years ago by his right hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, which, by introducing boys, would in a short time bring into the service a number of excellent and most efficient seamen. The proposal was, that 1,000 boys should be constantly kept employed as supernumeraries, that number had since been increased to 2,000, which were provided for in a separate vote. What he (Sir G. Clerk) desired to know was, what number of supernumerary boys was to be kept up, besides those which were necessary as forming a part of the complement of the ships. He was glad to hear from the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton, that there would be no difficulty in obtaining any number of stout active boys that the service might require. He hoped, therefore, that the Admiralty would not lose sight of this most effectual means of providing efficient seamen for our fleet.

remarked, that as to the want of a reserved force, that was not felt in the recent disagreement with China; for it was not owing to any delay in the Admiralty that ships had not gone to China before now. He would say, too, that up to the time he had left the Admiralty the coasts of England had not been better protected for years back than during the last summer; for during the whole of that time they had eight line-of-battle ships within the call of this country. There were two at Lisbon, three at different places in England, and the three flag ships at the ports, on the 1st of July, 1839. The hon. Member for Stamford had questioned the possibility of filling up the crews of the latter from the ordinary. He had inquired into this, and he found that the number of men required to make up their complement was 1,500, and there were 1,700 disposable from the ships in ordinary; leaving upwards of 500 warrant officers and others for the temporary charge of the ordinary. He did not hesitate, therefore, to say, that the flag ships might put to sea in a very short time after receiving orders to that effect. With respect to the pamphlet by "A Flag-officer," which the hon. Member for Kent had quoted, he must say, that any one who relied upon the statements contained in it would find himself grossly deceived. He would only take two of the statements; one of them was, that "over-expenditure elsewhere was made up by unwise reductions in the navy." So far was that from being the case, that he was almost afraid to say in the presence of the hon. Member for Kilkenny how much the expenses in the naval department had been increased. The whole vote for effective naval services this year was 1,500,000l. higher than in 1835, including the addition for the packet service, and, making a liberal allowance for that, it had at any rate been increased 1,250,000l. since the present Government came into office. The "Flag Officer," in giving a list of English steam vessels afloat, omitted no less than seven, which were of 200 horse power and upwards, some of which had been in commission for years; and this might have been ascertained by referring to the quarterly navy list, so that tie error was quite inexcusable. The statements, too, that were made by the same writer with regard to the French force were quite inaccurate. The French navy, he could say, was three line-of-battle ships worse this than it was last year. There were last year afloat and building forty-nine French ships of the line, this year there were but forty-six, as appeared by the list published in the annual French estimates on the 1st of January. With respect to the steam vessels which were afloat of the two countries, there were belonging to England thirty of 100 horse power and upwards, and, to France twenty-six; while as to those above 200 horse power the English had fourteen, and the French three, excluding in England the home packets. Nothing, he considered, was more to be regretted than the habit in that House of constantly contrasting the naval force of our navy with that of foreign powers, and remarks too were often made which were calculated alike to excite jealousy and animosity. He particularly regretted the reference by the noble and gallant Member for Staf-fordshire to an expression which had often been quoted, derogatory to the character of the Russian navy, and this, for the sake of an unmeaning taunt to the Admiralty, but they were now better informed. The expression had not been used by himself, or by any of his late colleagues at the Admiralty. It had never been their opinion; they knew that the Russian fleet was in an efficient state, and that knowledge was only confirmed by what they had heard last summer. Hon. Gentlemen might be assured that the Admiralty was in possession of full information upon these matters, and that the interests of the country and the honour of the navy would be fully attended to by them. A great deal had been said of the difficulty of manning our navy, and the time which was required to fit our ships for sea. The gallant officer (Sir J. Cochrane) had stated, that on the report of Napoleon's landing from Elba a ship of the line had been got ready at Plymouth in ten days. It was not however to be expected that things would ever be done so quickly in time of peace. No orders could supply the place of that energy, which a feeling of the necessity of exertion gave to every person engaged in the service. Times of peace must be compared with other times of peace. A distinguished officer, who fitted out a frigate during the peace of Amiens, told him, that even during that short intermission of war, he had some difficulty in obtaining men. The facilities of obtaining men, comparing it with what it was ten years ago, was most favourable. He could make this statement upon returns which, though not from the Admiralty, were such he assured the House as they might rely upon. They applied both to the obtaining men, and the fitting by the dock-yard; the time referred to was, between the ships being commissioned, and their going out of harbour. In the course of the years 1828, 1829, and 1830, there were five small frigates commissioned at Portsmouth, and the shortest time taken was 104 days, the longest time 133 days. In 1836, there were three line of battleships sent out in thirty days shorter time than the frigates were, though the former were commissioned altogether, and at the same place. The ships commissioned at Plymouth, and at Sheerness the same spring, went out of the harbour sooner than those at Portsmouth. The crews of the whole must have amounted to near 5,000 men; and he did think that this one fact, proved conclusively that there was no such difficulty in obtaining men, as had been represented. He was prepared to show the same result from a comparison of other vessels both large and small, but would not trouble the committee with further details. With respect to the power of manning ships on a sudden, he had already referred to the reserve of men kept in the ordinaries. The hon. Member for Stamford had mentioned the reserve formerly afforded by the system of the coast blockade. He had stated, last year, that a committee was sitting to inquire into the present coastguard; and he could not sufficiently impress on the minds of his hon. Friends at the Admiralty the importance of so organising that force, as to render it more useful to the naval service. A third source of reserve seamen existed in those men who were discharged with pensions after twenty-one years, and who entered the merchant service. He disagreed with those who would allow them to serve in the Queen's navy, during peace with their pensions. It was already provided by law, that they might do so during war; and he thought that, now, they were more usefully employed, as examples to the merchant seamen of the advantages of the Queen's service, and a reserve in case of need. It was a great object to train up as many men as possible in the navy: and for every one of these retained, one new entry must be prevented. He thought this subject of reserves of seamen of the greatest importance, for he had not much faith in any system of registration. As to the French system of inscription which had been recommended, he could say that it had failed, and it was one in which greater hardships were endured, as great, at least, as any which he had heard complained of in the system of impressment in England. The hon. and gallant Member for Surrey called out for a large promotion: and complaints were made elsewhere of the want of employment for officers in the navy. It must be remembered, that promotion had been carried on for some years after the peace at such a rate, that there were in January, 1830, 500 more officers than in January, 1815. The country and the House, not unnaturally complained of this; and a rule was adopted for reducing the numbers, which had been rigidly adhered to of promoting only one in three. The Committee must see, that every addition by promotion added to the other ground of complaint of want of employment. He felt for the gallant officers who were anxious for employment and promotion; and he knew how painful the administration of the department was, when three-fourths of the applications must be refused. The fault however was not of the present or any former Admiralty: it arose from the long state of peace in Europe. The wishes and the interests of this country, and of all humanity, were for the continuance of this peace; and he did not believe, that even those most discontented would wish for the military toast of "a bloody war and quick promotion." Short of that, there was only one means of meeting their wishes, and that was what so many persons for various reasons seem anxious for, "a war establishment." It was not for him to point out what the House and the country might say to the taxes which they must vote and pay for such a course, but he would recommend Gentlemen well to consider that point before they persisted in urging so uncalled for, and so expensive a measure.

said, that the three guard-ships now in England were not fit to go to sea as the ships in ordinary. It had been said, that it was absurd to keep up the British navy in such a state as to compete with those of Russia or France; but there was a wide difference between doing this, and maintaining our fleet on such a system, that it was not efficient for times of peace.

was bound, as a candid man, and as a practical man, to declarthat he never knew a time when the executive department of the Admiralty was better or more ably conducted than under the auspices of the hon. and gallant Officers opposite. With the exception of the better manning of the ships (and this must be done by a call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer), the country was never better situated in respect to her naval force.

could only say, that it was most gratifying to himself and his hon. colleagues to hear so favourable a testimony to their management of the naval department from such a man as the hon. Gentleman opposite, more especially as he was one who well knew what the maritime service of this country was, and who was go able to judge of the state of the navy. Last summer the activity which prevailed in the mercantile marine prevented the quick manning of our ships; but many fine fellows might be found for the service from the steamboats, crews of landsmen, and others, in the event of a war coming suddenly upon us. It had been boasted on former occasions, that in the year 1829, the squadron which was sent out to bring home our troops from Lisbon had been very rapidly manned; but those ships, be it recollected, were only half manned, and they could not carry their lower deck guns, because had they done so, there would have been no room for the troops. Our guard ships, on the contrary, were much better manned, and they had got their men in ordinary near at hand, who could be received in twenty-four hours after an order being made. It had been made a subject of complaint, that we had not a sufficient force on the Mexican coast; but since then his hon. Friends had taken care to remedy that evil; and it was only from the casualty of their having had a very long passage, that the intelligence of the arrival of the ships had not been received. With respect to the complaint as to ships not being sent out to China, that was not well founded, because, had there been a sufficient force, the ships could not have been of service on account of the obstruction which the monsoons would have offered. As to the charge brought by the noble Lord of profligate promotion in the navy, there was nothing which could support the noble Lord's declaration. He was not speaking of the appointment of Admiral Fleming, which did not belong to the Admiralty; the noble Lord at the head of the Government in another House had taken the responsibility of that appointment. But he said, that no man in the service, from his boyhood upwards, had done more, as opportunity offered, for the service of his country than Admiral Fleming; he had only wanted the opportunity of distinguishing himself against the enemies of his country. He defied the noble Lord to show him any instance of profligate promotion. They might look back to some which had been formerly made, probably not very necessary for the good of the service; but if the noble Lord would bring forward any case of an appointment, which he said was profligate, he would meet it with pleasure; for he would tell the noble Lord, in the strongest language that he was capable of uttering, that there was no profligate promotion in the navy. Young as they might be, or old as they might be, no man had been promoted who had not deserved it, and he did not blame any man for promoting his friend if he deserved it. He thought also, after the promotions which had been made in 1837 and 1838, that it was not very reasonable to talk of want of promotions.

said, the gallant Admiral had accused him of making use of the term "profligate promotions." He had not made use of that word. What he had said was, that the promotions which had been made were by no means creditable to the Admiralty. [Sir C. Adam.—You made use of the term twice over.] He was not aware of having made use of the word. The gallant Admiral had been fortunate, that the force for China had not been required immediately; but it might have so happened, that the ships were wanted at a moment's notice; therefore he contended, that having ships in the neighbourhood of the ports ready for any emergency, and because also of the good effect it had on seamen generally to see fine men-of-war off the coasts, was most desirable. The statement he had made on a former occasion, and which had been called in question by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. C. Wood), relative to the number and strength of French and English steamers was perfectly correct, and was taken from the navy lists. A great deal had been said with respect to the manning of the ships, but he thought the whole face of the matter was changed since the alterations of last year; and he was very glad that the instructions of that House had produced such an effect. There was one point about which he wished to have some information with respect to the, seamen educated on board the Excellent. He should like to know if any steps were taken to retain those men in the service; because, otherwise, it would be very prejudicial to our national interests if we were to educate men, afterwards to bear arms against us in a foreign service. Though this was scarcely the proper vote on which to open the question, he still could not resist the opportunity now afforded him of complaining of the state of the naval architecture of the country. He wanted to know whether the Gorgon had been laid down with the intention of her carrying guns between decks. He never knew an instance where a ship after once laid down with a particular intention was altered, but that such alteration made her a failure. If the principle on which the Gorgon had been built was good, why had it been deviated from in the case of the Cyclops, the very next ship that had been laid down? He had procured last year returns of the experiments made with the Pique and the Inconstant; those returns were now on the table, and showed that the Inconstant had proved herself, not only to be a superior ship, but a very efficient man of war; and yet why was it, that now the country were to have all Piques, and no Inconstants? What he wished to see established in this country was a board of naval instruction, similar to that established in the year 1752 in France, by the then Minister of Marine, and which should be composed of men of science, who could give their opinions on matters to which it was impossible for the Board of Admiralty to give attention. It was not necessary that such a board should be a paid board, for he was sure that the men of science of this country would undertake the duties imposed in that respect in the same way as did the Royal Society. He had to apologize to the committee for thus trespassing on its attention, but no threats of violence of manner on the part of the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir C. Adam), should, deter him from doing his duty as a Mem- ber of Parliament, in calling its attention to circumstances which came to his knowledge.

regretted if his warmth of manner had at all been offensive to the noble and gallant Lord. He meant no disrespect to the noble and gallant Lord, but when charges were brought which were unfounded, the noble and gallant Lord would always find him in the same disposition. In answer to the question as to the Gorgon, he begged to say that she was not intended to carry guns in the way stated when employed as a steamer; but as she had port-holes for ventilation, and as it might be necessary to employ her as a sailing vessel, bolts had been fixed at her port-holes in order that she might, if required, carry guns between decks, and she was now a fine ship of war.

said, he had great pleasure in answering the question which had been put (and not yet answered), by the noble and gallant Lord, with respect to the seamen gunners of the Excellent. That most valuable class now entered for five years, with increased pay; and with a view to keep them in the service, additional pay was given them again to enter for five years more.

was surprised that hon. and gallant Members opposite should complain of the size of the present ships of war, when it could not be denied that they were now much better than they were during the late war.

complained of the grievance under which the inhabitants of Greenwich were labouring, from the circumstance of the Crown lands in that district being exempted from the payment of rates, and begged to know if the Government intended to take any steps for remedying it?

said, he could only repeat the answer given by the hon. Member for Halifax last year to the same question. He admitted the grievance, but it was not in the power of the Government to remove it. It was of course open to the hon. Member for Greenwich to bring forward a measure in reference to it, if he thought proper.

thought it a very proper question for the Government themselves to take up. They admitted the existence of the grievance, and jet they refused to do anything for its removal. It was not merely a local question, bat one of general importance, deserving of the attention of the House, and one upon which he pledged himself, before long, to submit a proposition to the House. He was clearly of opinion that no one district of the country should be taxed for the advantage of the public generally, and to net on a different principle was a course which could not be justified. He wished also to say a few words with respect to the dockyard at Deptford, for the maintenance of which he found a sum specified in the estimates. Why, he would ask, was this dockyard to be kept open when no ships were built there, and when it was not employed for any useful purpose. The inhabitants of Deptford justly complained of the Government for keeping possession of all the most valuable land, when the dockyard was not employed for the service of the country. He was of opinion that the work which was now done at the outports ought to be transferred to Deptford, where its execution would be more under the superintendence of the officers of the Admiralty. If it was contended that Deptford dockyard, though not used at present, would be required in time of war, then he must say, that it would only be fair for the Admiralty to give a portion of its employment to that place at present. They ought either to abolish the dockyard altogether, if it was useless, or, if it was necessary to keep it up, then they ought to give a fair portion of the labour to that establishment. He should not then trouble the House farther, but, on some more convenient opportunity, he should feel it to be his duty to lay the whole facts of the case before the House.

was understood to complain of the inadequate wages paid to shipwrights in the dockyards.

said, the pay of the shipwrights was not fixed on any arbitrary principle, but on a fair comparison of the wages paid in private yards, taking into consideration the advantages enjoyed in the public yards. In the public yards the shipwrights had constant employment, and they had also medical attendance when in ill health. They besides possessed other advantages which were not enjoyed by the shipwrights in the private yards, so that the 4s. which was paid in the public yards, was not inferior to the 7s. paid in the private yards, where the employment was only casual.

said, that the system of classification was much complained of in the dockyard at Devonport, and the principal cause of that dissatisfaction was, that the highest class was not sufficiently extensive. He trusted that the subject would be fully considered by the Admiralty, and that some means would be adopted to put an end to the dissatisfaction which prevailed.

said, that the system of task-work was employed in all the public dockyards abroad, as well as in the private yards in this country; and he thought that one of the best steps to remove the dissatisfaction which prevailed would be, for the Admiralty to return to the old system of task-work in the dockyards of this country. By that system more work was done for the amount of wages paid than by any other, and he trusted that the Admiralty would consent to reconsider the whole subject.

said, that it was quite clear, that to secure the best labourers for the public dockyards, they must give the highest rate of wages, or at least wages not inferior to those paid in private yards. It was upon that principle and upon that ground, that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented and pledged himself to reconsider the whole subject. He hoped hon. Members would consider the rate of wages paid in private yards and in the public yards, and they would then be able to decide when they saw the difference, whether it was possible to have the ablest workmen for the public service.

said, the only assurance that had been given was, that the superannuation allowances would have been taken away in 1833, should be restored, and that pledges had been fully redeemed; for an order in council had been issued which did restore that allowance and even more, for it was made ex post facto. The average earnings in the private yards were not more than in the dock-yards, and he would ask why should they pay more than was necessary to engage the best class of workmen to employ themselves in the public yards.

said, that the men in the dock-yards did not like the distinction which was made by the classification, and thought that by such a system an injury was inflicted upon them.

was rejoiced to find that the number of artificers employed in the naval yards was at length about to be augmented, and he even thought, when he considered the present condition of die fleet, that a still further augmentation of their number would hereafter be found indispensable. It had been stated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, when he was at the head of the Admiralty, that the force of line-of-battle ships was less than at any period since the Revolution, and he referred to the year 1778, at which period the number of ships in commission and in ordinary was 123—forty-five more than, according to Sir John Barrow's tables, we possessed last year, and he was at a loss to understand why, with an increased and increasing mercantile marine, at once requiring additional protection, and furnishing additional means of affording it, while other nations were sparing no expense to render their fleets more and more formidable, so great a reduction should have been made in the number of line-of-battle ships belonging to this country. This diminution was in a great measure to be ascribed to the abandonment of the system of launching year by year three ships-of-the-line in order to keep up the required number of ships. If that system had been adhered to during the six years which had elapsed since his right hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke had relinquished office eighteen ships-of-the-line would have been launched. But, what was the fact? Only four ships had been launched, and in consequence of this the force of line-of-battle ships was fourteen less at this moment than it would have been if the present Government had followed up the former system. But, notwithstanding that the force of line-of-battle ships was thus reduced, it had been stated by the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty, in another place, as a triumphal answer to those who talked of the want of new ships, that he could, if necessary, send to sea forty sail of the line, in addition to the twenty already in commission. With re- spect to this assertion, he wished to observe, that we should form a very erroneous estimate of the strength of our line-of-battle, if we were to consider it with reference to the number alone of the ships of which it was composed. The force of each ship, compared with that of ships in other navies, ought also to be taken into consideration. The total number of ships-of-the-line in commission and in ordinary (exclusive of the old seventy-two's) was only forty. Twenty, therefore, at least of the sixty ships, which the noble Lord said he had at his disposal, must be seventy-two gun-ships, a class as inferior to the line-of-battle ships of the same rating of the present day, as the old sixty-four's at the beginning of the last war were to lire seventy-four's of that period. He would not suppose any limit to what might be accomplished by British sailors, but he did say that one of these ships would have to contend against fearful odds alongside the smallest line-of-battle ship in the French or American navy. To show the opinion entertained by naval officers on this point, he would, with the permission of the committee, read a short extract from a letter from an officer of high reputation at present serving in the Mediterranean fleet. The date of the letter was December 14, 1839, at which period the English and French fleets were at anchor together off Vourla;—

"There is much talk here about the small ships lately sent to the Mediterranean, and what chance hare such cribs as the seventy-two's, such as Benbow, Belleisle, Edinburgh, Hastings, &c, against the French ships, the smallest mounting eighty-six guns with 750 men—the Hercule, the Jena, &c, 100 guns with 900 men? Should such an event occur as a collision with the French, to say the least of it, they are most fearful odds. Englishmen will do all that may become men; but I trust the eyes of our Government may be opened before we shall have to encounter such a disparity as 100 guns and 900 men against seventy-two guns and 550 men."

He would venture to say this was the universal opinion of naval officers with respect to these inferior ships; and, indeed, it had been admitted even by the Admiralty, that they were not considered effective ships of the line. His hon. Friend the Member for Halifax stated last year, that they were wearing them, out in peace, reserving the more powerful ships for the exigencies of war; and the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty had stated in another place, that if there was the slightest prospect of a rupture with France, the seventy-two's attached to the Mediterranean fleet would instantly be replaced by larger ships from home. But the gallant Admiral the Member for Clackmannan went still further, for he declared that in the event of war the seventy-two's were to supply the want of heavy frigates, a class of ship-of-war in which we were indeed most lamentably deficient. Now, he would say, that if it were the intention of the Admiralty thus to employ these ships, they had no right to consider them as forming a part of the line of battle, and (as twenty of them at least must be deducted) there would then remain no more than forty effective ships of the line at their disposal in the event of any sudden emergency that might arise. But admitting, for argument sake, that they had sixty effective ships of-the-line at their disposal, he asked at what former period of our history, for the last century at least, had sixty ships been considered a sufficient force? It was stated by Sir Byam Martin, in his evidence before the Finance-Committee, that

"In 1793 we had ninety-one sail-of-the-line, and that these were found inadequate to the early and growing wants of the Government in the formation of squadrons for the various and distant objects of protection and enterprise they had in view."

And to such an extent was this inadequacy felt, that in the year 1801, just before the short peace, there were, as he found stated in a paper which was laid before Parliament in 1805, 122 ships ships of the line actually in commission, exclusive of ships doing harbour duty. Sir George Cockburn, also in his evidence before the finance committee, pointed out the necessity of our maintaining a large fleet. He said,

"The great difficulty England has, and her great necessity for having a large navy, is, that that she has colonies in every part of the world, and that we are obliged, in case of war, to send a force to every part of the world where we have commerce, which is every part of the world."

And he added, that in consequence of this necessity,

"The navy of England should be at least double that of any other nation."

But they were told, that admitting our present force to be small for the exi- gencies of war, there was no necessity to maintain a larger number of ships at a time of profound peace, as this was called; and his hon. Friend, the Member for Hallifax stated last year, that

"The number of ships had been diminishing since the peace, that they, like everything else, had been coining to what was considered a peace establishment."

Now, he must say, that he thought the system of making any considerable reduction of the number of ships in ordinary during peace was very mistaken policy. One of its unavoidable consequences must be, that onr commerce, our colonies, and even our own shores, would be left without sufficient protection for a year at least at the commencement of a war, and he thought it could hardly be argued, that the proper time to think of building ships was when you wanted to send them to sea with the utmsot expedition. He thought this view of the question went far to prove, that the system of reducing the number of ships in ordinary to a peace establishment was not a wise one; and he had the strongest grounds for saying, that it was also at variance with former practice. Sir Byam Martin, whose authority no one could question, had stated, in his evidence before the finance committee,

"That at all former periods of peace the efforts of England were unremitting in bringing the navy into a formidable state, particularly between 1783 and 1793."

He had endeavoured to ascertain to what extent the efforts of England had then been carried, and he was informed by a paper which was laid before Parliament in 1805, that in this interval of peace of ten years' duration, from the conclusion of the American, till the beginning of the last war, forty-two sail of the line and forty-five frigates were launched. He had not been able to ascertain what number of ships of the line had been launched during the twelve years of peace, which preceded the American war, but he thought the fact that the force of line of battle ships, belonging to England at the commencement of that war was 123 (upwards of forty-five more than we had now) was conclusive evidence that the system of reducing the number of ships in ordinary to a peace establishment was not then the practice. The evidence that this system was inconsistent even with economy was equally conclusive. Its inevitable result must be the necessity of having recourse to merchant builders in the event of war—a necessity from which during the last war the finances of this country had suffered most severely. Sir B. Martin, in his evidence before the finance committee, traced to this source the alarming decay of ships during the war, from the use of unseasoned timber, and the consequent waste of millions of money. He traced also to the use of unseasoned timber a great increase of sickness among the crews—a consideration, he presumed, it would be admitted, of some importance. Sir Byam Martin went on to say—

"I may therefore say, with propriety, that the period of peace is the proper time to provide such an ample stock of line-of-battle ships as may prevent the risk of again falling into the hands of merchant builders."

The evidence of Sir John Barrow also, before the same committee, was to the same effect. He said, that

"In the year 1805, when there was no hopes of sending a sufficient fleet to sea, the late Lord Melville ordered a contract to be made with the merchant builders for forty 74 gun ships. These ships were contracted for by the Navy Board, at 34l. a ton, the common price then being about 24l., but in consequence of the necessity of the state, the contractors, as usual, took the advantage, and the Admiralty could not get them for less."

This statement was verified by a paper which was laid before Parliament in 1805, being an estimate of the comparative cost of building a 74-gun ship in Deptford yard and in a merchant's yard—the estimate in the King's yard was 43,359l. in the merchant's yard 62,430l.—the difference being for each ship 19,071l. The result of this had been, that there occurred in the navy estimates for one year, the year 1807, the following item:—For building ships in merchant's yards, and other extra expenses, 2,134,903l. He thought it impossible to have stronger evidence than this to prove that the system of reducing too low the number of our ships would eventually prove inconsistent even with economy, and if there were any so dead to every nobler feeling, and so regardless of every higher consideration, as to consider this a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, they might depend upon it that we could commit no one act more calculated to involve us in hostilities than that of allowing our naval strength to be reduced so low as to inspire other nations with the belief that we were no longer in a condition to vindicate our naval supremacy, and he need not add, that if such should be the result of our parsimony, a War of even one year's duration would cost us more than the expense of maintaining the fleet in a state of efficiency to the end of the present century. He had stated, that in his humble opinion we had been too remiss in building ships of the line; but he thought we had been still more so in respect of frigates. We had still, indeed, a long list of this description of ships of war; but on examination it would be found to be chiefly composed of comparatively small vessels, and that in building frigates of the larger classes we were by no means keeping pace with the progress of other nations. He found it stated in Sir John Barrow's tables, which were published last year, that of frigates of the 1st and 2nd classes, mounting 50 guns and upwards, actually built, America had fifteen, France twenty-five, England only nineteen; America was building eighteen, France seventeen, England two. In short, France and America had forty frigates, mounting 50 guns and upwards; England had nineteen. They were building thirty-five; England two. And if we continued thus indifferent to what was passing around us till these preparations should be completed, France and America would have seventy-five of these heavy frigates, while England would have but twenty-one to oppose (in the unfortunate event of a war with these countries) to this overwhelming force. The gallant Admiral opposite had, indeed, told them that this service was to be allotted to the 72's; but not to mention other objections to this expedient (of which he thought there were many), the 72's were all old ships nearly worn out, whose services would not therefore much longer be available, and therefore he thought there was an urgent necessity for increasing the number of frigates of the larger classes. No one could be more averse than he was from an inconsiderate and wasteful expenditure of public money, and he did not now ask for naval establishments on a scale of unnecessary or extraordinary magnitude, but he did think that it was nothing short of madness that we, whose strength and security was our fleet, should tamper with its efficiency from motives of misplaced economy, and he earnestly trusted that they who were responsible for the condition of the navy were about to adopt the advice which was given them last year by his right lion. Friend, the Member for Tam worth, and to take such measures as would enable the naval force of this country to advance in a manner corresponding with that of other nations.

complained that we had as much to pay now for pensions as in 1822. The amount was perfectly enormous. It was little short of 4,000,000l. per annum. For his part he thought it would be better to do away with pensions altogether. He complained that there was no limit to the naval establishment, and that the Admiralty had the power of creating any amount of pensions which they pleased. He also complained that the marine was treated differently (torn the navy. He would call for a return of all pensions, civil and military, with which the people of England were burdened, and the amount would surprise the country, and thus make it feel the necessity of reduction. He did not blame the Government, who were holding back; but he did blame hon. Gentlemen; on the opposite side, who were calling for new line-of-battle ships. He even found amongst the supporters of an increased naval armament the hon. Member for East Kent. Even he was sounding the trumpet; even he was a man of war.

begged to remark, that there were circumstances in which a country might be unavoidably compelled to make warlike preparations.

of the treatment of mates and midshipmen (not in active service) who, while they got nothing whatever from the Government, were prohibited from making a voyage an board a merchant ship, there being an order from the Admiralty compelling them to appear every year.

thought that this arrangement was far the advantage of the parties concerned, as it tended to retain them in the service, and prevented them from forfeiting their chance of future promotion. Mates and midshipmen, under these circumstances, had not much difficulty in getting a ship. It was quite true that midshipmen's half-pay was "nothing per day, and find yourself;" but this was one of the long-established inconveniences of the service.

said, that he did not see in his place the right hon. Gentleman who had given notice of a motion to refer the Inland Warehousing Bill to a select committee, and in his absence he would only say, that he was willing the subject should be taken into consideration by a committee up stairs. He hoped, however, that no time would be lost in moving for, and naming the committee, as it was desirable that the subject should be brought under the consideration of the House as speedily as possible. He trusted, therefore, that he had left it in charge with some hon.. Member to move for the select committee at once.

said, that his right hon. Friend had asked him to give notice of a motion to that effect.

said, that if there was no objection to the course, he would himself move that the Committee be appointed, as he was very anxious that no delay should take place. He was quite sure that the right bon. Gentleman did not mean to interpose the Committee for the purpose of delay, and if he imagined that the subject would be more thoroughly investigated by a Committee tip stairs than in a Committee of the whole Houser he (Mr. Labouchere) had no objection to-the inquiry. He hoped, therefore, that he should be allowed to move that a Select Committee be appointed.