rose to propose as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time this day six months. Numerous petitions had been presented against this bill, as it passed over a great quantity of land in the vicinity of Norwich, which was exceedingly valuable for building purposes, which by this railway would be much deteriorated, and for which no adequate compensation could be expected from the railway company, in consequence of their want of funds. Besides this, the River Yare—a large river, navigable for vessels of considerable burden—ran exactly parallel to the proposed line of rail way. He believed, that the public would derive no advantage from the constructing of this railway, and he begged leave, therefore, to move that the second reading be postponed till this day six months.

hoped the House would not sanction the amendment of the noble Lord. By this railway the time of transit from Yarmouth to Norwich would be reduced to one hour instead of four hours, as at present. He thought he was not asking too much when he requested the House to allow the bill to be read a second time.

said, that it was proposed to carry the railway through some very valuable marshes, which had lately been drained at considerable expense; and he thought, that as the proprietors of those marshes might be injured by the undertaking, they had reason to complain upon the subject. He admitted, however, that any objections should in his opinion, yield to considerations of public interest, if it could be shown, that there was a probability that the line would be completed between Norwich and London. But as no arrangements had yet been entered into with that view, he thought the House should not for the present proceed with the measure. He would, therefore, vote for the amendment,

supported the second reading, as he thought it better to go into committee than to reject the bill at the present stage.

re quested the indulgence of the House, while he answered a question put to him the other night by the hon. Member for Liskeard. The hon. Member had directed his attention to a statement which had appeared in the public papers, and declared that he had also other sources of information with respect to the matter on which he desired, that certain inquiries should be made. The substance of the hon. Member's statement was to this effect, that in the county of Dorset, the magistrates had expressed a disinclination to a modern practice adopted by the judges, of ordering counsel in every case of prosecution at the public expense, and he said, that according to the information he had received, in order to avoid this proceeding of the judges, the magistrates of that county had, in some instances, adopted a course which he considered improper,—namely, that of committing persons over the assizes to the ensuing quarter sessions, so as to avoid the jurisdiction of the judges. He ventured to state, without any particular knowledge as to the circumstances which happened at the last assizes, that he was quite sure the magistrates of the county never had, and never could, adopt any such course as that which the hon. Gentleman might consider not expedient, at least by any-side wind or indirect means. It was perfectly true as respected the ordering of counsel in every case at the assizes, that the magistrates of the county had remonstrated, and would again remonstrate, if that course was again adopted, because they did consider it an unnecessary expense, not only to the county, but to the public at large, who now bore a share in the expense, and they would request the judges to discriminate between those cases which did require, and those which did not require the assistance of counsel. But he was quite sure they had adopted no such course as that adverted to for the purpose of attaining the object they had in view; and he was glad that the information he had received perfectly bore out what he had stated. It certainly was true, and the hon. Member for Liskeard was so far justified, in point of fact, that some offenders were on the occasion of the late assizes committed over to the ensuing quarter sessions. The circumstances which had occurred in that case were these:ߞThere were five prisoners, but they were all included in one charge,ߞ namely, of swindling the poor, a case apparently of conspiracy, in which the parties were persons who had been going about the country cheating the poor by selling them articles with false samples. The magistrates considered, that this was a very important case, as it affected the interests of the poor, and they were very desirous that it should be brought before the public, and that those persons, if they proved guilty, should be punished. The assizes were then within three or four days. The prosecutors were so very poor, that they stated to the magistrates that, if obliged within a limited time to go into court, they could not collect funds enough to enable them to appear at the assizes and carry on the prosecution. The magistrates did not consider that it would be right on their part, they being committing magistrates, however desirous they might be of aiding the prosecution, to furnish the funds necessary, and make themselves at once judges and prosecutors; and they considered, therefore, that it was right to give those poor persons time to see whether they could not, among their neighbours, collect sufficient money to carry on the prosecution. This was the only ground for the statement that had been made in reference to those circumstances. The hon. Member for Liskeard must be aware, with his practical knowledge, that no inconvenience could happen to the offenders in question, because, under the circumstances, the judges would not hesitate to inquire into the case, and liberate them, if it were found to be just, before they left the town; and such was in point of fact the case. The judges, acting in conformity with their duty, having a commission of gaol delivery, did completely deliver the gaol, and those persons, as no prosecutors appeared, were consequently discharged. This explanation would, he hoped, satisfy the mind of the hon. Gentle man who had brought the question forward. The magistrates had no improper view in acting as they had done, and considered they were only doing their duty. They wished to bring before the public a case which deserved the public attention. No blame on account of this case attached to any magistrate of the county of Dorset. He begged, in conclusion, to read a short extract from the charge delivered to the grand jury at the last assizes by Mr. Justice Erskine, whose eminent qualities as a lawyer and a gentleman required no eulogium from him. He said,—

"When he compared the calendar in that county with that of those counties through which he had then just passed, — namely, Hampshire and Wiltshire, he could not but congratulate the grand jury and the magistrates of the county in which he was then speaking; for whereas in other counties the calendars which had been presented to him were greatly increased; nay, double what they had been on the same occasion last year, in Dorset he had the pleasure of finding the calendar contained only one-half the number of charges it did at the corresponding period last year. He must, therefore, congratulate them on the state of their county and their gaol, and he did hope this happy circumstance would be an encouragement to them all to proceed in a course which appeared so successful in securing the good and sound moral habits of the people."

He trusted this would be sufficient to prevent it going forth to the public, that in acting as they had done, the magistrates were neglectful of their duty, or that they had the meanness to resort to Improper modes of carrying into effect the measures they thought right.

was exceedingly glad to find, from the statement which had been made, that the magistrates of the county of Dorset had been actuated taking, what appeared to him an erroneous course, by the very best motives. He had not made any attack on them; nor did he say the practice of which he complained was peculiar to that part of the country. He must also be allowed to remark that his hon. Friend had omitted all reference to the inconvenience he pointed out the other day, namely, that the practice was destructive of public liberty, by keeping prisoners in gaol for a very long time; while, on the other hand, his own statement had proved in at least one instance, that a set of very great scoundrels had escaped the punishment they deserved.

addressed him as follows: —" John Ashworth, the House has been informed by the report of a select committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the petitions complaining of an undue election and return for the borough of Clitheroe, that you on Friday last interrupted their proceedings, and attempted to influence a witness under examination; have you anything to say in extenuation of your conduct?"

I have nothing to say but that I am very sorry for what has happened.

as a Member of the committee, moved, that he be now discharged.

said, that in his opinion, previous to the discharge of the prisoner, some notice should be taken of his conduct. He thought he (the prisoner) should be discharged after reprimand.

thought, that as the person had already expressed contrition for his offence, it would be better to discharge him forthwith than to take up the valuable time of the public by making any more ado about the matter.

I am but an imperfect judge of the nature of the offence which has been committed, seeing that the first I heard of it were the observations addressed from the chair to the prisoner at the bar. It appears that this person did interrupt a judicial committee of this House so as to warrant his committal to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. I should be the last to press hardly in such a case, but still I think that the individual should not escape without some reprimand. I am always inclined to lean on the side of leniency; but really, if this person has committed an offence which has required his committal to the Sergeant-at-Arms, I think the slightest punishment he can expect is a reprimand from the Speaker.

thought, that this was not a case which could be completely passed over; but as the party had appeared at the Bar, and expressed his deep regret, he (Sir G. Grey) thought that a slight reprimand would be sufficient.

had thought that the expression of his contrition was sufficient to satisfy the usage of the House.

really thought that it was hardly worth while to bring the man to the bar at all, if they now discharged him without a reprimand.

then put an amendment,

" That John Ashworth be called back, and reprimanded by the Speaker."

said, he thought it would be trifling with the House, first to call an offending person to the Bar, and afterwards to dismiss him without some expression of opinion, at the same time he thought that a reprimand was too serious a punishment, and that a simple admonition from the Speaker would be sufficient.

observed, that the circumstance arose during the examination of a very reluctant witness, who was looking round the room in order to take a hint from some parties, when the person at the bar raised his head from the table and said, Don't answer any questions," which caused the greatest confusion in the committee.

the new Member for Clitheroe observed, that being politically opposed by the person who had been placed at the bar, he was the last person in that House who could be expected to and forward as his advocate. At the same time he hoped he might be allowed to recommend him to the commiseration of the House. Being a man without education and dependent upon his own exertions for daily bread, he had already perhaps suffered sufficient for the offence he had committed.

addressed him as follows: —"John Ashworth, any interruption of the proceedings of this House, or of any of the committees of this House, can only be regarded as a contempt of its authority, and your offence is much aggravated by the circumstances under which it took place. By improperly interfering with the testimony of a witness under examination, you did your utmost to obstruct the discovery of truth, and defeat the ends of justice. Such conduct cannot be allowed to pass entirely without censure; but the House, always anxious to act with lenity, and taking into its consideration the contrition you have expressed, and believing that your offence was unpremeditated, has directed me to admonish you as to your future conduct; and I trust that this admonition will be a warning to others that this House will not deal so leniently with an offence of this description, if repeated by any other individual. You are now discharged from further attendance upon this House." On the motion of Sir R. Peel, the admonition was ordered to be entered on the journals of the House.

in rising to bring under the notice of the House, the state of the Navy, must express a hope that it would not be supposed by hon. Members on either side that he had any political or party purpose in view. Least of all was his motion to be construed into any disrespect of the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty; for he believed the right hon. Baronet opposite could have found no civilian whatever who could have acted in the situation that noble Lord had the honour to fill with more propriety, justice, and impartiality. It was to the formation of the board alone that his observations should apply. The board, it was well known, was generally composed of a civilian at its head, four naval officers, and a secretary. He objected to have a civilian at the head of the Admiralty, who might have no naval knowledge, and never, perhaps, saw a ship in his life. It was morally impossible that he could carry on the business of the navy in a proper manner. It was frequently the case that a First Lord finding himself Comparatively ignorant of his duties, resorted to some relative of his own, who might not be exactly the sort of persons to be depended upon. The navy ought to be ruled by a Commander-in-Chief, just as the army was. The First Lord was really at present wholly irresponsible. He did not know that he could better establish this position than by referring to a letter which the Earl of Minto himself quoted lately in the other House, relative to the removal of the Mediterranean fleet to Cyprus, and which was addressed by Sir R. Stopford to Lord Ponsonby. The letter commenced thus:

said, he must acknowledge the frank, manly, and, he would add, patriotic manner in which the hon. and gallant Officer had brought under the consideration of the House one of the most important subjects that could come before them; and he was sure it was unnecessary for the gallant Officer to have prefaced his motion with the observation with which he had commenced—that this ought not to be a party question. This was a matter in which the whole nation had the deepest interest; it was far beyond all party considerations; and sitting there as the representatives of a great nation to consider a subject with which their freedom was connected as well as the independence and naval supremacy of the country, it was their bounden duty to listen to any suggestion from any quarter having the weight of naval experience, and without flattery he might add that any recommendation from an authority so respectable as the hon. and gallant Officer opposite was entitled to their serious attention. He would endeavour to deal with the different topics introduced by the hon. and gallant Officer as shortly as possible; but some apology might seem necessary that he should have presented himself on this occasion. If it were imagined that he had any personal interest in some of the questions introduced by the hon. and gallant Officer, or if he were not aware, that having had some experience in the consideration of naval affairs, he had acquired a knowledge of the subjects to which the hon. and gallant Officer had alluded, he should not have dealt with the questions now under discussion; but he was bound, with a due regard to the public interest, to state what his opinion was, and was most anxious that no decision should be taken on a subject of such importance in a manner inconsistent with the large interests that were at stake. The first point to which he would refer was the question of the advantage that would accrue to the public, from the exclusive service at the head of the Board of Admiralty of naval officers. On that point the hon. and gallant Officer drew his analogy from the command of the army; and he must demur to that analogy, for it was defective in one striking particular. The Sovereign of this country delegated to the Admiralty the entire authority and command of the British navy. With respect to the army, the reverse was the fact. The Crown did not surrender to the Commander-in-chief any part of its prerogative in respect to the army. The whole discipline of the army was in the hands of the Sovereign; the report of every military court-martial was submitted to her Majesty; the whole question of the removal of troops was guided by her Majesty, through the Secretary of State; the removal of troops in foreign stations was, at her Majesty's pleasure, expressed through the Secretary for the Colonies; and the removal of troops at home was directed by her Majesty, through the Sectary for the Home Department. With respect to the navy the case was entirely different. The whole authority was absolutely delegated to the Board bf Admiralty; and her Majesty exercised no direct control whatever over that board. The Whole discipline bf the navy was vested in the Admiralty; the whole movements' of ships and other matters connected with the navy were entirely under its control. It Was very remarkable, that when the hon and gallant Officer was so anxious to adopt the analogy of the army with respect to the command of the navy, several hon. Gentlemen sitting on the same benches were most anxious, but as he thought most indiscreetly and unwisely, for ft reverse course, and to adopt, with respect to the army, the analogy of the navy. The hon. arid gallant Officer said that the! responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty Was an imperfect responsibility. He entirely denied that proposition. He contended that both constitutionally and legally, the First Lord of the Admiralty was, in the eyes of Parliament and of the public, mainly, if not exclusively, responsible for the administration of the naval affairs of the country. As a proof of that he Would ask what, in the year 1782, was the conduct of the Board of Admiralty in the great struggle of party just before the great contest on the India Bill. This subject Was then discussed in bath House of Parliament. In that House Mr. Fox made a motion on the subject. He did not move a vote of censure on the Board of Admiralty but he proposed an Address to the Crown in the strongest terms of censure for the removal of the Earl of Sandwich from the head of that board. There was a similar motion in the House of Lords; and what course did the Earl of Sandwich take? Did he shelter himself under the board over which he presided? No, he took a different course. He manfully met the charge; rested the case on its merits; personally took upon himself the responsibility, and most successfully defeated the charge. He also must express his decided opinion, although in the presence of very distinguished naval officers; that as to the distribution of patronage the First Lord of the Admiralty retained that patronage exclusively in his own hands and that, not Only technically, but really and exclusively; was he responsible! for it. And what was the fact? Why, the hon. and gallant officer; that evening had made some severe stricture on the mode in which that patronage had been distributed at a former period. He had talked of the distribution of patronage by the Earl of Minto, the late head of the Admiralty, and by former first Lords; and in passing he let fall some observations which he could not help heating without great regret, notwithstanding the qualified terms in which they were made It was with reference to two young officers, whose personal conduct had met With just commendation, and yet the hon. and gallant Officer seemed to regret their promotion. [Sir C. Napier: Not in the least.] He had heard the hon; and gallant Officer with pain, because when he pronounced the name of Grey, his eye fell on a near relative Of theirs sitting on the Bench opposite to him (Viscount Howick), and those young officers had, he thought, the strongest claims on the naval service. One of them was the son of Lord St. Vincent's flag captain, and the other was the son of one who as Viscount Howick had possessed the strongest claims on the naval service of the country, who had been at the head of Our naval affairs, and whilst there had made great improvements in the naval service. In his old age he had filled the highest post in his country's service, was one of the best statesmen of the day, and, as he knew from intimate acquaintance one of the most honest of men. He would just remark, that the hon. and gallant Officer had held the First Lord of the Admiralty to be responsible for the promotions which he recommended; but what could be more salutary than for the First Lord of the Admiralty, in his place in that House or the other House of Parliament, to be called to account for the mode in which he dispensed the patronage of the Crown? That a knowledge of naval affairs was most materially combined With a knowledge of civil affairs in the Board of Admiralty he was bound to admit, yet when he recollected how Very large a portion of civil business was connected with the office of the First Lord of the Admiralty with the utmost respect for naval officers and admitting their talent and indefatigable zeal in the public service, he must say that a knowledge of civil affairs and civil administration in the First Lord of the Admiralty did not appear to him to be of less paramount importance than a know ledge of naval matters. He would ask them, was it wise in them to restrict the choice of the Crown in selecting, such an important functionary within the narrow limits of the navy? He was quite aware that it would be most unjust to say, that there Were not some naval officers from time to time well fitted to fill the offices of the Admiralty; and some, indeed, who deserved the preference; but were they by a resolution 6f that House to tie up the choice of the Crown—to exclude at all times civil officers from all high offices connected with the navy, and confine them to those members of the naval service who might be competent to discharge the duties of them? But he should not act fairly towards the House if he stopped there; he was bound to state his full opinion on the subject; The hon. and gallant Officer had touched on the subject of promotion. He would admit, that that was a most important part of the duty of the First Lord of the Admiralty; but he must state his belief, that upon the whole the First Lord when a civilian, acting under a sense of that responsibility as to patronage which he Would admit attached to him, Was far more likely to act with strict impartiality towards professional men than a naval officer, upon whom political feeling might exercise as strong an influence as upon a civil First Lord of the Admiralty, besides being open also to the influence of personal attachment to messmates and followers; and he assured the hon. and gallant Officer that his opinion greatly preponderated in favour of the advantage which the service would derive from a civil officer than from having a member of the naval profession at the head of the Board of Admiralty. He" would go further and say, that if the opinion of the profession" were taken, officer by officer, whether upon the Whole they thought it more advantageous to the ser vice that a naval officer should be placed exclusively at the head Of the Admiralty, he believed, and he was not speaking lightly, that their opinion would be against such a choice He did not think it necessary to touch upon the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman point by point; but there were certain point's which he wished just" to notice. The hon. and gallant Officer appeared to reprehend the late First Lord of the Admiralty for having written, upon an important occasion, a private letter to Sir Robert Stopford on the course to be pursued. Technically, that might not be a binding order for a commander-in-chief} but he was speaking in the presence of Gentlemen On both Sides of the House who were conversant with these affairs, and he might Say, that the intercourse between the First Lord of the Admiralty and the commander-in-chief on a foreign station Was conducive to the public service, and according to the usage and practice of the best times of our navy The hon. and gallant Officer thought, that orders Ought always to be conveyed to a naval commander-in-chief on a foreign station by directions from the Board of Admiralty. There could not be a greater error. All great naval operations mast be conducted in quite a different mode. The Board of Admiralty had not been allowed to be cognisant of the great naval operations which from time to time had been necessary. What was the course that was taken with regard to the great naval expedition to Copenhagen? The strictest secrecy was necessary. The Cabinet were aware of the great object of that expedition; but how was that secrecy pre served? Orders were given by the Board of Admiralty to Lord Gambier, that he Was to obey all orders sent to him by the Secretary of State for the War Department; and so on every occasion where secrecy and despatch were requisite, and unity of purpose consequent on mixed operations of the army and navy, it was considered of paramount importance that the Board of Admiralty should no issue the orders, but that they should proceed direct from the Cabinet to the commander of the fleet. The hon. and gallant Officer commented on various topics connected with different naval administrations, and thought that greater success had attended our arms when naval officers Were at the head of the Admiralty than when civilians were there. [Sir C. Napier: I did not say so.] He was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Officer deny it; and for the best of all reasons—because history did not confirm such an assertion. At the time when the action of Trafalgar" Was fought, Lord Barham was certainly at the head of the Admiralty; but all the great preparations for that action were made by his predecessor, Lord Melville, who only quitted office in April,' as the action was fought in October following. The hon. and gallant Officer also talked of Lord Howe's action in 1782. It was true that Lord Keppel was at that time First Lord of the Admiralty, but it was also true that he had only just succeeded the Earl of Sandwich; and in the House of Lords, when Lord Keppel and his colleagues claimed the merit of that great victory, Lord North said,—

"True, you have triumphed, but you fought with Philip's troops; the triumph is Lord Keppel's, but the honour belongs to the Earl of Sandwich."

He would mention a fact to that House; he did not believe it to be possible for any human being to have a warmer feeling towards the naval service than our late revered monarch, William 4th.; all his predilections were strongly in favour of that profession; and when he wore the Crown of England he considered it an honour to be a member of it. He remembered that when he had his first interview with his Majesty on his acceptance of the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, his Majesty addressed him and said it was right that he should bear in mind two great examples in the administration of naval affairs. Did his Majesty select naval officers? No. His Majesty told him that the two great examples in his opinion were the Earl of Sandwich and Earl Spencer—both civilians; and when he thought of the whole naval administration of Earl Spencer—the great exploits that were performed during that administration —the immense difficulties with which he had to contend—his invincible firmness of purpose—his confidence in power of the nation, and the triumph in which that confidence resulted, he considered that administration as one of the brightest in the annals of our naval history. But he regarded Mr. Pitt as no mean authority upon the merits of a naval administration. It was not possible for any Gentleman in that House to speak of the late Lord St. Vincent otherwise than in terms of gratitude; that noble Lord was at the head of the Admiralty, in the plenitude of his naval reputation, with all his experience, his character formed, and his command over the service as great as ever was enjoyed by any man; yet, looking back historically, they must say that his naval administration was not fortunate; and Mr. Pitt, having had experience up to 1804, throughout the early part of the French revolutionary war, was able to contrast the merits of Earl Spencer's administration with that of Lord St, Vincent, one of the greatest naval com- manders of which this country could boast, and he said:—

"Great as is my respect for the Lord St. Vincent, I cannot be guilty of the hypocrisy to say this department of the service has been wisely conducted. I have a greater stake even than the reputation of the noble Lord—no less than the safety, the existence of the country, and the fulfilment of my duty, at this critical conjuncture, as a Member of the British Parliament."

Now, he wished the House to listen to the opinion expressed by Mr. Pitt on the merits of Lord St. Vincent as First Lord of the Admiralty:—

"I admire the uncommon talent of the noble Lord, his vast renown, his glorious achievements; to him we are undoubtedly indebted for having shed extraordinary lustre on the national glory. I did believe"—

And then Mr. Pitt went on to express what had, previously to the experiment, been his opinion on the point—not very much at variance with that of the gallant Commodore:—

"I did believe that when his Lordship took upon himself the direction of our naval affairs, the public service would derive great benefit from his patriotic exertions and his professional skill. I did believe that his name, in whatever naval capacity, was a tower of strength; but I am apt to think that between his Lordship as a commander on the sea, and his Lordship as First Lord of the Admiralty, there is a very wide difference. It cannot surely be a matter of surprise that Lord St. Vincent should be less brilliant and less able in a civil capacity than in a warlike one; and with all my lofty ideas of his character as a brave and successful naval commander, I shall not shrink from my duty in censuring him for his conduct when presiding at the Board of Admiralty if he should deserve it."

Now, in passing, he could not forbear making a few remarks on some of the statements made by the gallant Commodore; and he could not help regretting that the gallant Officer should have made the observations which he had made respecting the recent condition of the navy. For feeling, as he forcibly did, the vast importance of preserving a proper proportion between the size of ships and the manning of them, and rejoicing, as he did, that his colleagues at the Admiralty had taken measures which he deemed judicious for increasing the crews of our men-of-war, he yet regretted that an Officer of the gallant Commodore's high distinction and talent should have pub- lished it to the world, that in his opinion had the Mediterranean fleet been attacked it would have been defeated. The hon. and gallant Officer did injustice to himself. As a Minister of the Crown, he emphatically declared, he had such confidence in the gallant Officer's bravery, his experience, his prompt decision, his firm nerve, and such confidence in the brother officers of the gallant Commodore (for he drew no distinction between him and them, believing them all deserving of equal confidence), that he was firmly persuaded, whatever might have been the advantage of the enemy as to number, their gallantry would gloriously have sustained, in any contest, the honour of the British flag. Alluding, cursorily, to the various topics which had been started by the gallant Commodore,—the gallant Officer had recommended the introduction of the purchase system into the navy. Now, when he had been at the head of the Admiralty, it would have been impossible for this question not to receive his fullest consideration; and indeed it had been peculiarly recommended to his notice by a most able memorandum, drawn up under a former administration: he admitted much might be said in favour of the purchase system, but, in his opinion, after deliberately considering the subject, the argument and the evidence preponderated on the other side. It would be the introduction of an entirely new system into the navy, not consonant with the feelings of the service nor the feelings of the public. Political influence would not by its introduction be superseded, and, superadded to that, there would be the influence of wealth, most injuriously operating to the detriment of unostentatious merit, obscure in poverty. But the hon. and gallant Officer had suggested another course not open to such objections, and he (Sir J. Graham) would frankly tell him, that as to the opening of the retiring list for such aged officers as might be willing, in time of peace, when it would be consistent with honour to acknowledge their infirmities, to retire from active service—he could well conceive of considerable advantage in carrying out such a proposition. Nor had he understood his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government to have ever stated that such a proposition was not worthy of the most serious attention, or even to have unequivocally negatived all consideration of the purchase system. These, however, were great questions which were most safely left in the hands of the Executive; and the passing of peremptory resolutions, on which they could not be calmly and carefully enough considered, would only embarrass the Government, and could not be at all conducive to the real interests of the service. The hon. and gallant officer had alluded to the various measures which had at different periods been adopted in respect to the manning of the navy, and had thrown out a suggestion that when the Poor-law Amendment Bill was under discussion, clauses might be introduced as to the binding of pauper apprentices. Such a measure would not be conducive to the popularity or the efficiency of the navy; and he must tell the gallant Commodore that with regard to boys and landsmen there was not for such a measure the slightest necessity. There was, on the contrary, a quite sufficient resource in the natural disposition among the peasantry on our sea-coast to enter the navy when opportunities were presented to them, and more than were required would always be found, willing, anxious, to enter that honourable service. The gallant officer had sat down with referring to a saying of the late Mr. Tierney, that "had we only a well-manned, well-officered navy, and a full Exchequer, we might defy the world." He cordially reciprocated that sentiment. One portion of it (the gallant Officer admitted) had been already realized, the navy was now well-manned. It would be the effort of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Government (and his colleagues were determined therein perseveringly to support him) to realize the second part of the proposition —that, whatever might be the deficiencies of the revenue, the revenue should be replenished. Nor had they any doubt, but the strongest confidence, founded upon the patriotism and good sense of the people, that the Exchequer would thus be fully replenished. He must, without the slightest disrespect to the gallant Officer (in many of whose propositions he concurred), but from a sense of public duty, move the previous question.

said, he felt strongly the difficulty of rising after the right hon. Baronet's most able exposition of the subject; but he owed it as a duty to the gallant Commodore and to the naval service, which, of course, was deeply interested in such a discussion, to express briefly his opinions. With regard to the manning of the navy, as he had had the misfortune to differ from those who were lately at the Admiralty, he would say no more than this, that he very much rejoiced at the measures which had been taken by the present Administration, to remedy the evil which formerly existed in this respect. At the same time, though reluctant to speak on a subject by this time set at rest, he must corroborate what had been said by the gallant Commodore as to the danger of the Mediterranean fleet, respecting which he would say, that four sail of the line, under his gallant Friend, had been within a day and a half's sail of eighteen or twenty Egyptian vessels, with whom had they fallen in,—even had the gallant Officer been desirous of avoiding a contest, which was not likely,—he could not have done so; neither could our ships, imperfectly manned, whatever their gallantry, have been able to contend against such a squadron, of which, otherwise, they would certainly have given a good account. He hoped and believed that British ships would never be in such a situation again; thanks to the prompt measures of the present Admiralty, he believed this would never be the case. With regard to the principle of placing civilians at the head of the Admiralty, he did not see why the resolution of the gallant Commodore, in opposition to such a principle, should be resisted, pledging the House to the adoption of the contrary principle; for the agreeing to the resolution would only express the opinion of the House as to the propriety of placing naval authorities at the head of the Admiralty. He must say, that he could not understand why professional knowledge was to be a disqualification for a First Lord of the Admiralty—at least not exactly a disqualification—but the right hon. Baronet said, it was much better that a civilian should be at the head of the Board than a naval man. It was a common practice to contend, that such matters should be left wholly to the Executive; but Lord G. Lennox had been able to carry a motion in favour of the marines against the Executive, and thus only obtained justice for that corps. He remembered, that when his gallant Friend (Sir C. Napier) brought forward a motion relative to bishops going to the colonies, he was told, that he had much better leave the matter to those who had the management of ecclesiastical affairs. On the same ground, he conceived that a naval man knew much more of naval matters than a civilian could possibly do. Besides this, he could assure the House, that when a civilian visited the dockyard, he had not that weight with the naval officers which a naval man would have. It fell to his lot once, some time ago, to be appointed to a squadron, appointed for a particular service. The First Lord of the Admiralty was expected down. Every officer and man strained his utmost exertions that, their several vessels should be turned out in a way fit for a Board of Admiralty to inspect. The First Lord came, he was a civilian—every officer was anxious that his own ship should be examined; and every midshipman and lieutenant was anxious to see the First Lord, and that he should inspect every vessel. The noble Lord visited only one ship, and went away, no doubt, very much tired with the labour of the investigation. He was certain, that if the gallant Admiral opposite, (Sir G. Cockburn) had been at the time First Lord of the Admiralty, he would have made it a point to visit and inspect the different ships, and thus gratify the officers and men. Add to that, that it was upon those minute details, with which no civilian could be thoroughly acquainted, that the efficiency of the navy mainly depended, there was a prevailing feeling throughout the navy— he feared not contradiction when he said so—that they were neglected, and that if they had a naval officer at the head of the service, they would not at least be so much neglected. As he had said upon a former occasion, it was impossible that a civilian could enter into the feelings of officers like a brother-officer. With regard to the number of promotions under the Earl of Minto, and the nature of those promotions, he begged leave to relate a circumstance which had come under his immediate knowledge. At the Coronation, he had recommended a young man of the best character to the Earl of Minto for promotion, confessing to him, however, that he was politically connected with the borough which he had the honour to represent; the reply of the Earl of Minto was, that he would promote a person recommended by him, but it was on condition that he should be entirely unconnected with politics. He did recommend a person of that description, who received an advancement in the service, while the party whom he had originally recommended still remained unpromoted. He mentioned that for the purpose of showing, that the Earl of Minto had not been influenced in the distribution of his patronage by political motives. He had heard nothing which could induce him to think that the navy could not be governed by a naval man, as well as the army was governed by a soldier. Great inconvenience resulted from the adoption of a different system. In the ease, for instance, of an equal division of votes among the Lords of the Admiralty, the subject would be decided by a man who might, however, know nothing of the matter. He also felt, that there was so little patronage to be distributed in the navy, that it would be considered the greatest boon by the officers, that one of their own body should be appointed to preside over the service. He could state, that it was his opinion, that there was more difficulty in finding officers to fill situations, than in finding situations to give to officers. There was no reward for all their toil and trouble, and he trusted, that a retiring list would be made for them. He hoped that, with respect to the dockyards, all good artificers, having served a certain time in the navy, would have the first claim to situations in them. It would be encouraging persons to enter the navy, and contribute to render it popular. He had one word to say with respect to the ages of admirals. Hon. Members of that House, who were more than sixty years of age, were exempted from serving on Election Committees, and yet they sent men at sixty and seventy years of age to contend with the elements and the enemies of the country. Having heard nothing to show that naval officers were incapacitated from being placed at the Board of Admiralty, he should vote for the resolution of the hon. and gallant Officer behind him.

said, there could be no doubt, whatever the opinions entertained as to the policy of bringing the subject forward in this form and at this time— the service owed a debt of gratitude to the gallant Officer for having brought the navy under the consideration of the House. Opportunities were afforded by such discussions for the expression of opinion which might be valuable, and which might not otherwise be known. He should support the resolutions. He further observed, it must be obvious to every one that the circumstances of England, after the long and protracted war which terminated in 1815, must have been such as to increase the navy list to an amount which rendered it quite too full for the exigencies of the country. No doubt, in the event of another war breaking out, means must be devised for calling out into active service s younger class of officers than those who, in the present condition of the navy, must of necessity be intrusted with command, and he conceived, that a time of peace was the most suitable period in which to devise some such arrangement. There was no one who had the least practical acquaintance with naval affairs, and at the same time any information respecting the business of Parliament, but must be ready to acknowledge that both in that and the other House, the cause of the navy was not always very efficiently supported, and therefore he was not prepared to say, that naval officers, having seats in Parliament, were not fully warranted in bringing matters connected with their profession frequently under consideration; but there was a difference between doing that, and wearying the House with repeated and useless discussions. Nevertheless, he should have no objection to support two of the resolutions then before the House, which he felt he could do without qualification; and even to the first resolution he should have no objection, if it were limited to the future constitution of the board.

would support the resolutions of the gallant Commodore respecting the future construction of the board. There could be no second opinion as to the expediency of making a change in the administration of naval affairs; still there were cases which called much more for praise than for censure. When Lord de Grey, for instance, was at the head of the Board of Admiralty, nothing could be more satisfactory than the course which he pursued; he was at all times ready to receive naval officers, to attend to their representations, and to smooth, as far as was in his power, every difficulty which obstructed the full and efficient performance of their duty. In similar terms he was bound to speak of the manner in which the affairs of the admiralty were conducted during the time his late Majesty (then Duke of Clarence) filled the office of Lord High Admiral, his practical acquaintance with naval affairs, his uni- form condescension, his ready reception of the officers, his cordial hospitality. [A laugh.] He begged to say, that the hospitality or the inhospitality of the First Lord of the Admiralty had a great deal to do with the matter, for friendly and social intercourse very much tended to a good understanding among all classes of men. He had more than one objection to the present constitution of the board—it was an irresponsible board—it was, moreover, a secondary board, and he would give an instance of the evil arising from that state of things. Some years ago, he urged upon the Board of Admiralty the necessity of sending a vessel of war for the purpose of protecting our fishermen on the coast of Sussex from the hostilities of the French fishermen. In the first instance, he went to the Admiralty, they referred him to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he was then sent to the Foreign Secretary, and twelve months elapsed before his object was accomplished; in the meanwhile the fishermen missed both the mackerel and the herring season. As to the junior Lords of the Admiralty they did 'nothing but that which they were desired; they never presumed to differ from the First Lord, or even from the secretary. The late Sir Joseph Yorke declared, that when he ventured to differ from the First Lord, he found it necessary to turn his stern and make sail as fast as he could from the Admiralty. Amongst the arguments in favour of appointing a naval First Lord was this, that he could do all that a civilian could, and a great deal more besides. In addition to the evils arising from the present constitution of the board, there was much in the state of the navy which called for attention on the part of the responsible advisers of the Crown. He felt it his duty to protest against vessels of war being under-manned or inefficiently armed. In the course of the present and of preceding discussions much had been said of patronage, and it was observed that promotion in the navy was more frequently conferred for services on the hustings rather than for services on the quarter-deck; now, surely naval men were not more likely to be carried away by political predilections than men in civil life. The late board, were certainly, not open to the attack which had been thrown on them respecting the disposal of their patronage, and in the dis- tribution of their rewards he thought them entitled to much praise, especially as regarded the officers engaged in the suppression of the slave-trade: still considerable changes were required in the administration of naval affairs in the half-pay department as well as in the department of active service. With reference to the petty officers, he thought that the preference ought to be given to those who were brought upto the practice of gunnery. He agreed with the gallant Commodore that the half-pay of the petty officers in the navy ought to be increased, and whether the right hon. Gentleman was of the same opinion or not, he believed that the time was not far distant when that class of officers would obtain increased pay, because there was great difficulty in getting men competent for the discharge of their duties, as the placards on the walls of the Admiralty and of the docks and public advertisements fully proved. The best way to make the school on board the Excellent effective was to retain those valuable men in the service, and they ought not to mind making sacrifices to do so. With respect to boys, he had upon every occasion endeavoured to impress upon the Government the necessity of increasing their numbers in the navy. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to there being no need to compel parish apprentices to enter the service; the supply was already greater than the demand, for the coasts of Kent and Sussex alone could furnish a sufficient complement; at all events, if after three or four years' service they were allowed to enter as men, and not represented at the Admiralty as being supernumeraries, there would be no difficulty in keeping up a regular supply. As to Parliamentary patronage, after all his experience, he must say, that he had yet to learn where the dockyard patronage rested. From the time of Lord Castlereagh down to the present moment, he could find no clue to the disposal of the appointments of clerks in dockyards, except that the First Lord of the Admiralty took care of all appointments down to those in Greenwich Hospital. That being the case it would be most judicious to have a naval man at the head of the Board of Admiralty, and then there would be some prospect of our boatswains and carpenters, and pursers, and old midshipmen, and sons of lieutenants, and officers of marines, being placed in suitable situations in the dockyards, the victualling and store, and other departments, which arrangement, by saving the half-pay of the parties appointed, would be a proportionate saving to the country, while it would also have the effect of removing the impression that such appointments were made in return for Parliamentary or political services. The House had been told by the right hon. Baronet that nothing could be done to injure the navy while there were two naval officers to control the First Lord of the Admiralty, and keep him within his proper sphere. [" No."] Yes, but the right hon. Baronet said it in more Parliamentary and correct phraseology. The right hon. Baronet said, that nothing injurious to the navy could occur, because there were two admirals at the board; nevertheless, he believed that they could not continue to hold their seats at that board, if the First Lord of the Admiralty chose to run counter to them.

I sincerely hope that the House will pause before its adopts the resolutions of the gallant Commodore, because I think it would be a very bad precedent, if the House of Commons, at the instance of any professional man, however eminent he might be in his profession, should think it right to place any restriction upon the power of the Crown with respect to the selection of competent persons to occupy the seats at the Board of Admiralty. It would be extremely bad taste seriously to entertain such a proposition. But if the House should think fit to impose any such restriction, I hope they will do it in an intelligible and definite manner, and not by such a resolution as that which is now proposed, and which is—

"That it is the opinion of this House, that in the future construction of the Board of Admiralty, the advantage of having that Board completely composed of naval officers should be fully considered, as well as the expediency of having a naval officer at the Board of Ordnance."

I do not doubt the abstract proposition, that it is fit to consider this subject; but I think that the consideration of it ought to be left to the authority at the head of the navy and the army, and that no restriction of this kind should be imposed, implying as it clearly does that the whole Board of Admiralty ought to be constituted of naval men exclusively, and that we should exclude any civilian whatever from it. From that proposition of the gallant Officer I entirely dissent. The experience of long usage, and the practice of all Governments, have been certainly not to exclude altogether laymen or unprofessional men from the Board of Admiralty, and I think the construction of that board would have been defective if nonprofessional men had been altogether excluded from it. For observe what it is that the gallant Commodore means— namely, that the First Lord of the Admiralty should be a naval man; at all events, that is what we must infer to be his meaning from his speech, though it is not expressly stated in his resolution. But that is not all he means; but also that the board should be composed entirely of naval men, for his resolution applies to the junior members of the board as well as to the head of it. So, then, the gallant Commodore would have the whole Board of Admiralty so constructed as that it should consist of naval men only. Now, suppose I had brought forward a motion of this kind when the Earl of Minto was at the head of the Admiralty, what would have been said? Why, "If the House of Commons pass this resolution to change the whole constitution of the Board of Admiralty, the Earl of Minto must resign, because it will imply that it is the opinion of the House that in future the head of the board ought to be a naval man, and it would be improper and inconsistent to leave the administration of the navy even temporarily in the hands of a civilian after the adoption of such a resolution. "It cannot be the intention, I am sure, of the gallant Officer to pass a censure either upon the Earl of Minto or upon my noble Friend, Lord Haddington. Indeed, the gallant Commodore has said that it was utterly impossible to select any man who, during the short period my noble Friend has been in office, could have given more satisfaction to naval men than his noble relation, Lord Haddington. Well, if my noble Friend has so conducted himself as to extract that not reluctant testimony from the gallant Officer, is it not somewhat inconsistent to propose a resolution of this kind, which, if it were passed by the House, would render it impossible for him to continue the performance of those duties in the discharge of which he had hitherto given so much satisfaction? That would be the effect, because by the adop- tion of the resolution the House would imply an opinion that a naval man ought to be at the head of the Admiralty; and though it does not go to the extent of a petition to the Crown to remove my noble Friend, would it not imply that he could not discharge the duties of his office satisfactorily, and that, therefore, he ought not to retain it? I know that this is not intended by the gallant Officer. Again, the only ground of complaint which the gallant Member for Brighton has against Lord Haddington is, that I did not appoint another noble Friend (Lord de Grey) to the office of First Lord of the Admiralty; for the gallant Member says that his knowledge of ship-building, his love of professional pursuits, and his courtesy and affability, gave universal satisfaction to the navy when he formerly held this high office: and all this is granted. Although it would be a most injurious precedent for interference with the prerogatives of the Crown to pass this resolution, yet far be it from me to say that naval officers ought to be excluded; nor does the appointment of non-professional men necessarily imply that naval officers are to be excluded. But I have shown you two instances of two gallant Officers of the navy having spoken of two non-professional First Lords of the Admiralty in terms of approbation; both gallant Officers admitting that it was utterly impossible that any two men could have given greater satisfaction, and therefore the appointment of those men must be satisfactory also. [Sir C. Napier: I said so far as non-professional men were concerned.] Yes, of non-professional men; but they have given satisfaction. Lord de Grey has established peculiar claims upon the gratitude of the gallant Member for Brighton because he protected the Brighton fishermen; and the gallant Officer admits another strong claim upon his gratitude in consequence of his having experienced the noble Lord's hospitality. But that is a virtue which can be practised by a civilian. When I heard the speech of the gallant Officer, I thought at first that the great argument in favour of professional appointments was, that professional men had opportunities of becoming acquainted with the merits of the various officers in actual service; but the gallant Member destroyed that argument by showing that the true way to become acquainted with the merits of naval men was to invite them to the dinner table. Without that kind of intercourse it does not seem possible, according to the gallant Officer, that the Lord of the Admiralty can find out the good qualities of a naval officer. Friendly intercourse is a very good thing to be established, not for the mere purpose of paying compliments to individuals, but to promote confidence and good feeling amongst those who serve under the first Lord of the Admiralty; but the non-professional man has the same opportunities of exercising those virtues as the professional man. Sir, this is not the first time in the history of first Lords of the Admiralty that they have experienced the interference of the House of Commons. The House of Commons worried Lord Keppel out of office. He was succeeded by Lord Howe, and a motion was made in the House of Lords, because Earl Howe omitted two officers from promotion, blaming him for it, which motion was followed by two resolutions in the House of Commons, which were negatived by a majority of only fifteen. In short, the naval men in the House of Commons worried Earl Howe out of office. [Sir C. Napier: He was worn out.] Yes, he was worn out by just such motions as this of the gallant officer. [Sir C.Napier: No, by age.] No, but by the motions which were brought forward, and which had their effect; for you must recollect that his age was not the cause of his retirement. You, your predecessors, worried Earl Howe out of office, for he was First Lord of the Admiralty in 1784, and on the 1st of June, 1794, he was not yet so worn out that he was not fit for action with the enemy, for he achieved a glorious victory. I must take the opportunity, before I conclude, of saying, that I do not see any public advantage of speculating upon the result of hypothetical engagements at sea, between the naval force of this country and that of France, a power with whom we are at peace. Why should we stir up ill-will by one officer asserting that the French would have beaten us, and another as confidently declaring that we should have defeated the French in an imaginary battle. I enter not into such speculations. The misunderstandings which existed between us have ceased to exist; and why should we go back to transactions which ought not now to be discussed? I would, therefore, avoid all such topics; it is quite unnecessary to entertain them. I have confidence in the gallant officers, and in the navy of my country, that they would be equal to any emergency and duty; but 1 do seriously deprecate such speculative discussions about probable results in imaginary actions, which of late we have too frequently heard. I hope the House will consent to no resolution of the kind proposed by the gallant Officer. At the same time, I lay down no rule for the exclusion of naval men. But understand that I will not purchase the abandonment of the motion by making any promise whatever. I will not, as a Minister of the Crown, make any promise as to what I will do in the matter; because, in fact, it must be reserved as the prerogative of the Crown, and I altogether protest against the House of Commons laying any restrictions upon the exercise of the royal prerogatives. If you begin thus with the navy you may next go on with the army; and I say that you who are the advocates of popular government should be the very last to attempt to impose any restriction whatever upon the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown with regard to any branch of the public service. 1 shall, therefore, move the previous question; but I hope the gallant Officer's own good sense will lead him to consider the relation in which he stands, and not he only but the whole of his profession and the House of Commons, in relation with the Crown, and that the House will permit the Crown to consider what steps should be taken with respect to the administration of a great branch of the public service.

trusted, that the situation which he had formerly held at the Admiralty would justify him in offering a few observations to the House, and they should be a very few; in fact, had it not been that his hon. and gallant Friend, who had brought forward the motion, had, in doing so, cast imputations on the character of his noble Friend, the Earl of Minto, formerly at the head of the Admiralty, he would not have troubled the House at all on the question. With regard to the general terms of the motion, he entirely concurred in all that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, and from the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down. He perfectly agreed with them in opinion, that the present constitution of the Board of Admiralty was the one, on the whole, most calculated to be beneficial to the service. Like those right hon. Gentlemen, he had no wish to exclude naval officers from the situation of First Lord of the Admiralty, but he thought it wrong and inexpedient to attempt, by a resolution of that House, to fetter the discretion of the Crown. He also agreed with the right hon. Baronet that it was better not to go back to consider what might have been the result of a collision in the Mediterranean two years since. He thought some consideration was due to the opinion of his hon. and gallant Friends, although, he thought, that, perhaps, they would have acted more wisely had they abstained from giving that opinion. He felt assured, however, that the honour of the British navy could have been placed in no hands more safely than in theirs, and that in their hands the honour of the British flag would never have been tarnished. Perhaps it might be thought, that from the situation which he had held at the Admiralty, under the Earl of Minto, that he could not be an impartial witness. On the contrary, however, he contended that he had been in a situation to form an impartial judgment, for, from the moment he had accepted office, he had laid down a rule for his own conduct, to which he had rigidly adhered, and that was, never to interfere in any manner, or to offer any opinion, upon any question relating to the promotion of officers. He took no credit to himself on that account, as he considered he had only been doing his duty; but to that rule he had ever constantly adhered, therefore, with regard to all such questions, he was merely a looker-on, and he felt bound to declare, as an impartial witness, that if ever there was a First Lord of the Admiralty, who, in the promotion of naval officers, had looked solely to the merits and professional claims of the officers, who had taken infinite pains to acquire a knowledge of those claims, and who had been anxious only to do his duty to the claims of those officers, uninfluenced by personal considerations, that man was the Earl of Minto, and when his gallant Friend had alluded to an officer bearing the same name as his noble Friend, to an officer of the name of Eliot, he thought his gallant Friend must have been aware that that gentleman was no relative or connexion of the noble Earl's. The merits of that gentleman had been admitted on a former occasion, by the right hon. Baronet when discussing the naval estimates, and he could assure his gallant Friend, that if he adduced that Gentleman's promotion as an instance of the exercise of personal patronage on the part of his noble Friend, he did that noble Earl great injustice. That gentleman was totally unconnected with the noble Earl, and had distinguished claims on the country, and whatever might have been the appointment which he had received from the late board, or whatever might be the event of that favourable consideration of his services which he understood had been promised him by the present board, he owed it all solely to his dist inguished services, and not to any personal or political connexion whatever. He thought he should be trespassing on the time of the House if he was to attempt to go over the points of the discussion, which had obtained a desultory character, and which could be productive of but little good. He confessed that he did not agree with what had been stated by many hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, with respect to the naval service, for he believed that all those matters of detail were infinitely better left to the executive department. He would only remind his gallant Friend (Captain Berkeley) when he referred to the success of the noble Lord to whom his gallant Friend had alluded had withdrawn a motion of which he had given notice on his assurance that the subject would come under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, although it was true that on a subsequent occasion a committee was appointed in consequence of that motion, and when that committee came to investigate the marine service, they found that the Board of Admiralty had left them but little to do.

was afraid the House would be tired of hearing naval speakers; but, considering the position which he held in the late Board of Admiralty, he trusted they would indulge him with only a few words. After the best consideration he could give the matter, he did not believe that the present system of constituting the Board of Admiralty could be changed for the better. He had always thought that the First Lord of the Admiralty was the Minister in the Cabinet who had the most responsibility upon his shoulders. Such a situation required talent and ability of the first order. But in saying so, he did not for a moment suppose that he was excluding officers of the navy from holding the situation. If he were to give an opinion as to who ought to fill the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, he would most unhesitatingly name Lord de Grey. From his high rank, and his high order of talent, and from the position he held in the estimation of the country, there was the best guarantee to the profession and the public, that the duties of that high station would be fairly and impartially performed. The next point referred to was the appointment of a naval officer to the Board of Ordnance. Upon that point he would speak, as that part of the duty had devolved upon him when he had the honour of a seat at the Board of Admiralty, and, from his experience, he could say that very great advantage had arisen from the correspondence between the two boards having been carried on through naval officers, which advantage would be lost had that correspondence to be carried on with a person unacquainted with the matters concerned. With respect to the officers of the dockyards, in his opinion their appointment, and all matters connected with them, ought to be left entirely to the Executive; if they went wrong, they might be brought to account for it in a legitimate way. The next point was with respect to the retirement of officers, and he had no hesitation in saying that he should be glad to see officers retiring, if there was a probability of increasing their allowance. But, at the same time, he thought it was not to be lost sight of, that many of the hon. Gentlemen who supported that motion came into that House pledged. He had had the honour of coming into that House, many years ago, pledged to unflinching economy. If there was any money to spare, he did not hesitate in giving his opinion that there was another class of the navy which deserved increased pay, and that was the petty officers. He should say, that the best mode of remedying the inconvenience attendant upon manning the navy, would be to increase the pay of the petty officers; and he should, therefore, rather give any surplus money for that purpose, than to the allowance of retiring officers. This was his opinion, and he gave it with perfect confidence to the House. Now, the next subject to which he would allude was the state of the Mediterranean fleet. He thought a great deal too much had been said on this subject, but he felt called upon to say a few words. The gallant Officer had said that from the men being ashore, and the inefficient state of the fleet, if the Egyptian fleet had come down upon them they would have been overpowered. He would say that when the ships came home, and he would mention the Asia, several Members went down to view her. They told him themselves that they were delighted with the regularity of the discipline, and more particularly the gunnery of that ship. He would also mention the Rodney, which was a brilliant sample of what a man of war ought to be. There was the Princess Charlotte, and he would mention the Thunderer. Well, here were four line of-battle ships, all of which had the highest encomiums passed upon their discipline and gunnery; how then was it possible, with such ships, they could be captured by the Egyptian fleet? With respect to patronage, he was afraid he was on delicate ground, for it had been so in all admiralties and in all Governments, but he ventured to say, that with respect to private patronage he knew nothing of it, nor was he responsible for it; but when they came to the coronation, or general promotion, his friends, Admiral Adams and Admiral Parker, had a great deal of trouble in looking over the lists, in order to do justice to all parties, and they ought not to have been attacked in that House. No set of men could have taken more trouble or have shown more anxiety than those Gentlemen. Once more he begged to state that he thought the constitution of the Board of Admiralty could not be changed with advantage, and he thought that great responsibility was thrown on the Prime Minister of this country in choosing an officer for the head of the Admiralty.

rose to explain. He had never said, that the navy in the Mediterranean was in such a state as to be likely to be defeated. What he had stated was, that if they had been pressed by eight sail of the line, they would have been placed in great jeopardy. He begged also to state, there was not a number of men wandering on shore.

rose to explain. The gallant Officer opposite had defended the appointment of Earl de Grey to the Admiralty on different grounds from those which he had alleged. What he had stated was, that he was fully entitled to the situation from his high station and knowledge of ship-building. He had also alluded to the hospitality of the Lord High Admiral. He could say nothing in that respect of the First Lord of the Admiralty, never having visited him in his life. But with respect to the Lord High Admiral, he would say that there were very few officers but who were acquainted with him, and he was therefore acquainted with the merits of the different officers.

wished, before the House divided on the resolution, to advert to an observation made by the hon. and gallant Commodore that evening, as well as when the naval estimates were before the House. The gallant Officer stated, that there was a great disparity between the proportion of general officers created in the army, and the number of admirals in the navy, on the occasion of the brevet. When that remark was made on a former evening, he had not noticed it, for he felt the union that existed between both services, and, for himself had always been most happy to lend his assistance to his brother officers of the naval service. But when the gallant Officer argued that evening that undue favour was shown to the army, he (Sir H. Hardinge) thought it only right to show that no such motives of partiality influenced the Government of the day in the appointment of colonels in the army to be general officers, or captains in the navy to be admirals. On reference to the respective amount of the services at the end of the war, or for thirty or forty years back, it would be seen that, owing to the much larger proportion of the army, there was a greater number of general officers than of admirals employed. In the year 1814 the number of general officers was 555, the army at that time including the regular and irregular forces, in various parts of the world, amounting to about 500,000 men. At the same time we had 500 men of war afloat, the largest force, he believed, ever known in our history, and the number of admirals was 233. The number of general officers was, as nearly as possible, double. He would now refer to some official documents, from which it appeared that at the brevet in 1830 the number of colonels raised to the rank of major-general was sixty-four, and the number of captains in the navy elevated to admirals was forty-four. At the brevet of 1837, forty-two colonels were appointed major-generals, and thirty-six captains in the navy admirals. Finally, by the brevet of 1841, the colonels in the army constituted major-generals amounted to sixty-one, and the naval captains appointed admirals forty or forty-one. The gallant Commodore said the appointments to the rank of major-general in 1841 were seventy-five in number, but this included the marines and the artillery services, while he (Sir H. Hardinge) was speaking strictly of the army. He would himself be very glad to see officers in the navy promoted, but what he wished to prove was, that considering the much larger size of the military force, no injustice whatever had been exercised in the appointments. There were at present ten or eleven admirals employed in active service, and between thirty and forty general officers. The number of 555 general officers had been diminished by 185 since 1814, while for 233 admirals then existing there were now 213; so that if any partiality at all had been shown—which, however, he did not say was the case—it was rather in favour of the navy than the army. Let the hon. and gallant Officer, too, look at the expense of the brevets. The expense of the army brevet in 1830 was 14,000l., and of that in the navy 23,000/. In 1837 the army brevet produced an expense of 11,375l., and the navy brevet 30,596/. In 1841 the expense of the army brevet was 13,000l. or 14,000l., and of the navy 26,000l. Such was the high admiration and respect he felt for the naval service, that if any partiality was shown, he would gladly see the preference given to the naval service; for, in the insular position of this country, the paramount importance of the navy ought to be felt by every one. And he felt confident that he was speaking the sentiments of the army when he said, that if any distinction or preference was made, it should be in favour of the officers of the navy.

said, he begged to assure the gallant Officer, that he did not complain of undue promotion, he only complained of the number of captains made admirals in proportion to the general officers in the army. He could assure the gallant General that he did not wish to institute any unfair comparison between the army and the navy. He could also assure the hon. Gentleman behind him that he did not intend to throw the slightest reflection upon the hon. Captain Grey. He hoped the hon. Gentleman, their relative, would allow him to say, that he had no intention to speak a word against them. The right hon. Baronet had said, that her Majesty delegated her power, and he was quite aware of that, but her Majesty could as well delegate her power to a Lord of the Admiralty as the Board of Admiralty, and if she did so, she would have a responsible man at the head of the navy. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had not correctly stated what he (Sir Charles Napier) stated with reference to the danger in which the British navy was in the Mediterranean. What he did say was, that if the French had come out before the British fleet in the Mediterranean was better manned nobody could say what would have been the result. It was not right to tell the British navy, manned as it was at present, that they were able to do so much as the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had stated, in such complimentary terms, they were able to effect. Nothing was more dangerous than to inspire false confidence. He was once defeated himself in the West Indies, and he knew what it was, and what the result of a defeat would be again, if our ships were manned as they were then; it was impossible that the navy could be effective if it was regulated as it was at present. He defied the angel Gabriel if he was First Lord of the Admiralty, and if he was deprived of the patronage, to regulate the navy with advantage. As it was now regulated, every person who had no interest must wait until the queen was married, or until the queen had a son, before he was promoted, no matter what his length of service might be. The right hon. Baronet opposite had denied that the naval affairs of the country had been improperly administered; but he might adduce on this subject the opinions of Admirals Collingwood and Nelson. Lord Collingwood stated, that many of the young men who, by interest, obtained appointments in the navy, were unable to manage a ship, and knew nothing of their duty; and Lord Nelson said of the navy in his day, that success covered the faults and iniquities of the officers. The hon. and gallant Commodore was understood to say, that he would not press his first resolution, but that he would take the sense of the House with regard to the other two.

said, that the third resolution was one of very great importance, inasmuch as it related to the petty officers and seamen being employed in our dockyards, and the latter as riggers; and he was of opinion that many hon. Members who might not vote for the two former resolutions would vote for this now before the House. It was not for him to divide the House on this resolution, but he hoped the gallant Commodore would do so, and he should have much satisfaction in following in his wake.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for,ߞ

"Copy of the verdict and depositions taken by the coroner at an inquest held on the 19th day of December, 1841, on the death of James Flanagan, at Clonearl, in the King's County; copies of all communications which have taken place between the Irish government, or the inspector-general of constabulary, and the resident stipendiary magistrate, or the local inspector or sub-inspector of police, relative to the death of the said James Flanagan; and copy of the correspondence which has taken place between Durham Dunlop, Esq., and the Irish government, relative to the death of the said James Flanagan."

The particulars of this case were wrapped in mystery. So far as the facts had transpired, it appeared that a party of gentlemen and officers met at the house of a gentlemen named Magann, near Philipstown, King's County, and made an idiot boy, who rambled about, drunk, and having besmeared his cloatbes with turpentine, set fire to them to make him run for their amusement; but the result was, that the boy died from the injuries which he received. These circum. stances had been published by the editor of the Dublin Monitor, and Mr. Dunlop, the editor of that paper, then wrote to the noble Lord the Irish Secretary, to ask if the Government intended to institute any investigation, to which the noble Lord replied that he did not consider that there appeared at present any ground for further investigation beyond that which had taken place before the coroner; but that if Mr. Dunlop could make out a case for inquiry, the Government would be ready to institute one. Mr. Dunlop contended that on the face of the proceedings there was abundant ground for inquiry, and he particularly pointed the noble Lord's attention to the circumstances that thirteen of the coroner's jury were immediate retainers of Mr. Magann, and had been summoned by his servants; that between the period of the occurrence and that of the inquest, one of Mr. Magann's servants had been removed, so as to be unable to give evidence, and had not since returned; and moreover, that the character of the evidence was inconsistent and unsatisfactory. The inquiry sought for was, however, still denied; and he would now ask the noble Lord to declare his own opinion, whether upon those coroner's notes any man could come to a satisfactory conclusion on the case? The public mind in Ireland would not be satisfied with so unsatisfactory an investigation of an occurrence in which the life of a fellow-citizen had been sacrificed. With regard to the individuals, too, against whom these serious charges had been made, it was cruel on the part of the Government to refuse the investigation. He did not wish to express any opinion upon the circumstances of the case; he confessed that at first he was inclined to say, that the story was incredible; and his only doubts arose from the mystery which had been thrown around the transaction, and the appearance of a desire to conceal something. In this country, by law, such an occurrence must have undergone at once a special investigation; and unless, in Ireland, such cases were investigated in a satisfactory manner, the poor of that country would think that justice was not done to them. Whilst he was on that subject, he must say, that he was surprised at the course which had been recently adopted by the crown officers in Ireland with regard to the challenging of jurors, especially after what had been stated by the noble Lord in that House; for at the very time when the noble Lord was in that House renouncing the principle of challenging jurors on the ground of their religion, a great number of Roman Catholics had been challenged, apparently for no other cause than that they were Roman Catholics. The refusal of the present inquiry must produce an impression in Ireland unfavourable to the Government; and facts had come to his knowledge subsequent to the inquest which, he thought, would satisfy the Government that there was a case for inquiry. He, therefore, still seriously, and without any view to party considerations, called upon the Government to grant a full inquiry with the view of jus- tifying the officers, if they were justifiable, and, at all events, with a view of satisfying the justice of the case.

said, that he was happy to state that he did not feel himself obliged to oppose the motion of the hon. Gentleman. Upon that motion he felt it his duty to offer some observations to the House. He thought, that the hon. Gentleman would have exercised a sound discretion if he had ascertained whether the Government intended to resist his motion for the production of papers, before he had made the statement he had just delivered. But the hon. Gentleman had believed, that the administration of justice in Ireland offered a fair mark for his blows. The first remark referred to the paragraph in the Dublin Monitor. Now, if the hon. Gentleman thought, that it was his (Lord Eliot's) duty to read all the papers that were published in Ireland, he confessed that he was not able to perform it. He had not known until two days after its publication, of the paragraph which he had read. [The noble Lord read the paragraph, which is to the effect, that a party of gentlemen and officers at a gentleman's house in King's County had given opium to their host, and had subsequently used certain violence towards a poor idiot, who, before he left the room, was burnt, and had subsequently died.] On reading it he, like the hon. Gentleman, thought it in credible, but as it had been stated on the authority of a respectable journal, he had thought it his duty to have inquiries instituted. He had addressed a letter to the coroner directing him to forward to the Government his notes upon the inquest, and also to the stipendiary magistrate, giving him instructions to make every possible inquiry. Mr. Leigh Browne, the stipendiary magistrate, had not waited for these instructions, but made a report at once to the Government, "That on hearing of the report of the death of this idiot"—he was not really an idiot, but was a sort of village jester—" he immediately went to the place, and found the coroner holding the inquest, and at the time swearing in the jury." The jury consisted of twenty-one persons. The witnesses had been closely cross-examined by the coroner; and such had been his attention to their evidence, that he was charged with having put leading questions to them. The jury came to an unanimous verdict, that the death of the unfortunate man was attributable entirely to accident. The coroner had gone through an examination, which had been conducted by the Lord-lieutenant himself, and the principal law officers of the Crown, and they were perfectly satisfied, that the verdict of the jury was a proper one. The attack of the lion. Gentleman on the Irish government was therefore entirely unfounded. As to the statement of Mr. Dunlop, the editor of the Monitor newspaper, as he did not object to the production of the papers moved for, hon. Members could themselves see, and could themselves judge it. Mr. Dunlop had put the paragraph into the paper, and then had written to him calling upon the Government to institute a full investigation. To Mr. Dunlop he had written in answer, that the jury, consisting of twenty-one persons, had found an unanimous verdict, attributing the death of the poor man to accident, and that unless he could state some grounds for again opening the subject, the Government thought that they ought not to enter into it. Mr. Dunlop had declined to give any further information which would have justified any such investigation. He said that "he was in possession of information," but his letter amounted to a mere commentary upon the constitution and upon the conduct of the jury. He said, that thirteen of the jury were under the influence of Mr. Magann, the gentleman at whose house this unfortunate transaction had taken place. He did not know whether this was so, or whether it was not so, but he would, for the sake of argument, admit it. Then, if it were so, nine others, according to his own admission, without any such influence, had arrived at the conclusion, that the death had been the result of accident. He would say nothing as to the stipendiary magistrate, or as to the very proper conduct which he had pursued under the circumstances of the case. Mr. Dunlop's letter was a mere commentary upon the character of the jury, and upon the evidence which they gave. He (Mr. Dunlop) did Dot in that letter refer to the evidence of the surgeon, nor to the very important circumstance, that the unfortunate man had survived for six days. It was true, that he had been dancing and amusing the company, running about the room with a loose shirt about him, and also, that he was intoxicated. But the last gentleman who saw him alive said, that he saw him lying upon the floor intoxicated. It appeared, that subsequently a fire burst out, that the man was burnt, but it was most distinctly stated the flames had been put out by Mr. Magann. During those six days in which he survived, he had let drop no remark impugning the conduct of any of the parties present; and, before he had died he said, "If it had not been for Mr. Magann I should have been burnt to death—God bless him." Upon the whole, therefore, he was bound to come to the conclusion, that there was no evidence of foul play, or of an intention to screen any part of this transaction. But there was one circumstance which he thought not unimportant. Mr. Magann, whose conduct had been principally impugned, had thought fit to take the only course open to him—to institute an action for damages against the proprietor and editor of the paper which had published the statement. The action he had instituted was not by criminal information; but it was an action for damages on the ground of libel, and the opposing party would be called upon to plead the truth as a justification. Considering that the jury had decided, that the fatal termination of the unhappy business was accidental death, and that the gentleman principally concerned had instituted an action which would lead to a further and fuller inquiry, he thought that the Government had no grounds, and would not be justified in directing any additional investigation. He hoped, that as the motion for the papers was not opposed, he had now said enough. He always wished for every investigation into cases of this nature, and, therefore, he had not opposed the motion. But he thought, that he had said enough to induce the House to suspend its judgment, if not to persuade them to think, that the Government had acted upon no such principle as that with which they had been charged—of having one law for the rich and another for the poor. There was no ground for the imputations which the hon. Gentleman had thrown out. He had made simply a motion for the production of papers, but in his speech he had directed the attention of the House to a variety of topics, having no possible connection with that motion. He had alluded to certain trials during the last assizes; but first he had referred to the dismissal of certain stipendiary magistrates by the present Government. On this subject he could inform the House, that there were precisely the same number of stipendiary magistrates now as there were at this time last year. Those which had been reduced had been appointed by the late Government in 1841. They had been led to believe, that during the preceding years the country was in a state of great tranquillity, and they only reduced the number to that amount to which it had been reduced in those years, and which was thought necessary for the due preservation of peace. With regard to the trials, not having been upon the spot, and having had no notice of the present motion, he confessed, that he was not in a condition to meet the statements of the hon. Gentleman. In this respect, he thought, that the hon. Gentleman had not acted fairly towards him, in introducing these topics; but if he would bring them forward, he would promise to give him the best information. He did not know whether he had satisfied the House as to the conduct of the Government, but he hoped that, at any rate, he had said enough to induce the House to suspend its judgment on the subject.

did not charge these young Gentlemen with premeditated cruelty; but he was of opinion, that to act as the Government had done, certainly was not the way that a Government ought to act which wished to show the population that protection should be given them, and that their arms were stretched out to defend them against the rich. He hoped the noble Lord would not only give the papers, but have the matter fully investigated; and he was quite certain, that when the noble Lord perused all the papers relative to the matter, he would not come to the same conclusion that the coroner's jury had done.

observed, that the coroner's inquest was by far the most constitutional mode of inquiry, for a person appointed by the Government might be biassed by them; and unless there were very strong grounds indeed shewn for saying that the jury had not done their duty, the verdict ought not to be upset.

said, that if the coroner's jury had not done their duty, the friends or relatives of this unfortunate man might prefer an indictment, notwithstanding the verdict. If the coroner was aware, that thirteen of the jury were tenants of Mr. Magann, it was quite unjustifiable in him to allow them to remain on it. With respect to the conduct of the Irish executive, he was bound to state, that there was nothing on the face of the inquisition or the depositions calculated to show, that the Government ought to go into a further investigation.

on rising to move, pursuant to notice,

" For copies of all letters and communications that have passed between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the chief constable or any magistrate of the county of Norfolk or city of Norwich, from October last to the present time, relative to the conduct of the rural police of that county in the apprehension of a man of the name of Smith, on a charge of vagrancy,"

said, that he should state, as concisely as possible, the circumstances which gave rise to his motion, and the complaints he had to make, and he thought, that when the House had heard these they would agree with him, that conduct more cruel, more illegal, or more unconstitutional, could not be well imagined, and that if it were to be allowed, the liberty of the subject, which in this country we were in the habit of boasting of, might certainly exist in name, but not in reality, in those countries where the rural police was established. The unfortunate individual in question, without shoes or stockings, and, indeed, without a shirt on his back, was found wandering through the streets of Norwich with two pair of handcuffs on, and he was thereupon, naturally enough, taken before a magistrate by the police of the city, in order to account for his handcuffs. His account of himself was, that on the preceding day he had been taken up by one of the rural police as he was going along the road to a farmer's house, where he expected to sell some books or tracts which he had with him. The rural policeman asked him what he had to do with tracts, and also asked where his hawker's license was? He answered, "I have none." It was not very likely that a man should have a hawker's license who had no shoes to his feet, or a shirt to his back. On this the policeman immediately put the handcuffs upon him, and took him to a farmer's house, where he chained him by the wrists to the manger in the stable. It seemed that the policeman had a warrant to execute at Yarmouth, and having thus fastened the man in this way to the manger—which he believed was much more illegal than the act of selling tracts without a license—he went to the constable's wife (as he said), but who turned out to be the wife of a person who had formerly been constable, and told her to go to such a place, where she would find a man chained to the manger in the stable, and to feed him at two o'clock, for that he could not stay then, having to go to Yarmouth, whence he should not be back till night. Some time afterwards the farmer, as it was said, had gone into the stable and wrenched the ring to which the man was chained, and let him go. It appeared, that this was not done by the farmer, but by some other person; but, whoever it was, he would say that he would be justified in doing it. For if men are illegally chained and illegally detained in a private stable at the caprice of an individual, any man or any body of men would be justified in coming to their rescue, even if pulling down the stable was the consequence. The man was afterwards carried before Captain Money, a magistrate of the city of Norwich, who, on hearing the circumstances, reported them to Colonel Okes, the chief constable of the Norfolk rural police. The policeman next came and claimed his victim. He was carried before another magistrate. He was asked, "Were you selling tracts without a license?" "I was," said he. The magistrate then, on his own confession, sentenced him to a month's imprisonment. He admitted, that such selling was an act of vagrancy, and that the magistrate could not help doing as he did. The man, however, was committed for a month; but Captain Money, thinking that some inquiry into the policeman's conduct ought to take place, made a representation to Colonel Okes. Now, he did not mean to say anything against Colonel Okes, who was, as far as he had had an opportunity of knowing him, a benevolent and estimable individual; and during the time he was in the army, he was a most distinguished officer. Therefore, if Colonel Okes had committed any errors in this case, they were errors rather on the right side. It appeared, that his reason for not wishing to investigate the case was, that he had had some difference of opinion with another magistrate with reference to the propriety of appointing this very man. Smith (the superintendent) in the first instance. What did Colonel Okes do? Why, he referred the case in question to that very magistrate, the rev. Mr. Borton, of Blofield. Now Norfolk, it appeared, had the advantage of possessing a great abundance of what are called clerical justices. By a return presented during the last Session of Parliament, or the previous one, it appeared that there were no fewer than 102 of these clerical justices in the county of Norfolk. Well, Colonel Okes had a delicacy about investigating the conduct of this superintendent Smith, (whose name by coincidence was the same as that of the vagrant whom he had apprehended), because he had objected to his appointment when he was first proposed for the command of the rural police of the district. But the rev. Mr. Borton, of Blofield, it appeared, had a predilection for the man Smith, who was his protege. He had, in fact, almost insisted upon Colonel Okes appointing Smith to the police, and Colonel Okes having yielded, the man was appointed. Now, he would not venture to say what had passed in Colonel Okes's mind; but he really should think, that Colonel Okes must almost have felt, when the facts came before him, that the treatment of the individual, who had been manacled and chained to a manger, had been most cruel and illegal, occurring as it did before there had been any investigation into the merits of the case, and before the man had been taken before the magistrate for examination on the charge made against him. Colonel Okes then hands the man over to Smith's patron, the rev. Mr. Borton, of Blofield." The rev. Mr. Borton investigated the case, and in a letter sent by him to Captain Money, through Colonel Okes, he says:—

" I met Mr. Francis as he passed down the street of Norwich, and I asked him to give his assistance in investigating the case."

And to what conclusion did the rector of Blofield, come? To what conclusion did the House suppose he came to, with respect to the case, the circumstances of which he had described? Why, he sanctioned the policeman's conduct—the conduct of the man who had committed an act which the right hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, or any man at all acquainted with the law must at once know and admit to be illegal—the conduct of the man who had taken upon himself to handcuff a man, and chain him to a manger before there had been any investigation before a magistrate. But hear the rev. Mr. Borton's own words.

"On the whole it appears to me, and so it did to Mr, Francis, that there is no ground of complaint whatever against the superintendent."

He should be very anxious to hear what the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department would say on the subject, whether he, too, would think that there was no blame attributable to the man who had acted in this manner. But what happened after this? It appeared, that another magistrate for the city of Norwich, (Mr. Palmer) a barrister, heard of the case, and to his surprise, found that the rev. Mr. Borton was not on the police committee of the county. If Colonel Okes, from the motives before stated did not like to investigate this particular case himself, then it ought to have gone before the police committee of the county, and not to the rev. Mr. Borton, who had nothing whatever to do with it. Upon this, Mr. Palmer wrote to the rev. Mr. Wilson, another of these clerical magistrates, to this effect:—

"I wish you would look into this case, as you are at the head of the police committee of the county."

To this letter Mr. Wilson replied, that the complaint should be laid before the committee on the first day of meeting, but could not say when that would be. The affair then went on to the month of July, at which time occurred the summer assizes for the city of Norwich. Mr. Palmer, being a barrister, was counsel there for two other men, and in the evidence adduced on their trial, some evidence of an important nature was elicited. The man Smith was examined, and to what was then elicited, he begged to call the particular attention of the House, as showing what a dangerous power was possessed by these rural police. The policeman was examined as to conversations he had held with prisoners after their apprehension, and previous to their examination. He maintained, that any conversation that might be held between a policeman and a man handcuffed and chained, as it appears they were accustomed to be, ought not to be admitted as evidence in a court of justice. Mr. Palmer, however, in a letter which he wrote to the right hon. Home Secretary on the subject, said,—

"At the last Session, Smith was a witness in the cases of Dingle and another, and he stated, that it was the practice of the police to handcuff prisoners to mangers, and that on two or three occasions, they had left them so handcuffed for six or seven hours."

Therefore, the case he now complained of was not a solitary case. There was also another case of another policeman. A prisoner, named Tite, had been apprehended for a burglary, and it appeared, that the policeman handcuffed the man to his bed post on the Saturday night, where he was obliged to keep him during the whole of Sunday; but on the Sunday night, it appeared, he took compassion upon him, so far as to allow him to get into the bed; but he then handcuffed him to his arm. This was the system pursued by the police of the county of Norfolk. Was this the system on which the rural police of the country was based? To continue his narrative of the facts, however, it appeared that Mr. Palmer, getting no satisfactory answer from the rural police committee of the county of Norfolk, wrote to the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and he here must observe, that he really thought Mr. Palmer deserved the thanks of the country at large for so doing. The right hon. Baronet, of course, acknowledged the receipt of his letter, and promised an investigation. He very properly fulfilled his promise by instituting an investigation. Not knowing, however, the whole of the circumstances of the case, as far as the magistrates on the spot were concerned, he referred the matter for investigation in such a manner that the chairman of the committee was no other person than the rev. Mr. Borton, the rector of Blofield, whom he had already mentioned as the patron of the policeman Smith. What report that committee made to the Home Secretary, he could not tell; but Mr. Palmer called upon him to state what his opinion of the case was. The right hon. Baronet's answer was, that he had made such a communication as he thought the case required, not saying whether he approved or disapproved of the conduct of the rural police of the county of Norfolk. He contended that that was not a proper answer for the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary to give to Mr. Palmer, a magistrate, under such circumstances, when he had made a complaint upon public grounds, and one which did not rest upon the single instance of the superintendant Smith, but upon what was shown to be the general custom of the rural police of the county of Norfolk. He certainly thought, that the right hon. Baronet, under such circumstances, might have sent to Mr. Palmer a copy of the communications that had taken place upon the subject. Far, however, be it from him to assume that the right hon. Baronet approved the cruel conduct of these policemen; he felt, on the contrary, assured that when they did see the communications that had taken place they would find the right hon. Baronet recording his decided disapproval and censure of such proceedings as these on the part of the rural police—he was sure he should find the right hon. Baronet declaring that the rural police were a rural disgrace and a scandal to the county of Norfolk. He felt that he had already said sufficient to convince the House that the subject which he had now brought forward was one fit for inquiry, and that they ought, as the guardians of the public liberty—as the depositories of the subject's wrongs, and the protectors of his rights— to have the fullest information upon this case, and copies of the documents connected with it. He should, therefore conclude by moving for,—

" Copies of all letters and communications that have passed between the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the chief constable, or any magistrate of the county of Norfolk or city of Norwich, from October last to the present time, relative to the conduct of the rural police of that county in the apprehension of a man of the name of Smith on a charge of vagrancy."

said, he did not know, whether any Member for the county of Norfolk would like to reply to the ex parte statement of the hon. Member for Fins-bury; but his own acquaintance with the facts was very recent, and principally confined to the communication he had received from Mr. Palmer. That statement had appeared to him to present facts requiring investigation and explanation; and, in the discharge of his duty, he did call upon the magistrates for some explanation. That explanation he received, and having received it, he thought it his duty to express an opinion upon the facts of the case. It was quite true, that, not having had any further acquaintance with Mr. Palmer in the matter, than from his being a magistrate and having sent home the information, he did not feel called upon to make known to that gentleman the result of the investigation into the case, but, so far from hesitating to produce the documents required, he thought it necessary, in justice to the parties, that they should be produced. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Finsbury had thought fit to reflect generally upon the character of a large portion of the magistracy of the county of Norfolk, but he appeared to have no other complaint against them, than that they were what he had called "clerical justices." The hon. Member had also expressed his own views of the manner in which the peace was to be kept and the laws maintained, by recommending the wholesale pulling down of buildings in which prisoners might happen to be confined. He must, however, at the same time, admit, that the hon. Gentleman had done full justice to the character of Colonel Okes, than whom a more humane and excellent officer was not to be found in the profession. He had, by his administration, conciliated the good will of the great body of the inhabitants. He must also say, that neither the magistrates of the county of Norfolk, nor the Rural Police Committee had anything to apprehend from the production of the documents, and he felt, that he should best consult the feelings of the magistrates, and also of Colonel Okes, by producing those documents; and when they were on the Table, it would be for the House to decide whether the several parties had discharged their duty.

being a representative of the district, where these circumstances had occurred, had thought it his duty to write to the right hon. the Home Secretary, and to express the desire of the magistrates of the county of Norfolk to have these papers produced. Until those papers were on the Table, he would altogether abstain from the discussion, except to observe, that they would be found, if not entirely to contradict, at all events materially to alter the complexion of the ex parte statement of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

who had given notice of a motion for certain returns relative to unions incorporated under Gilbert's Act, said, he had a petition to present from the guardians of the poor in the city of Chichester, signed by twenty-two of their body, in favour of their local act, and deprecating any interference of the Poor-law Commissioners to abrogate the provisions of that statute. The petitioners stated, that they understood the Government were about to introduce in their New Poor-law Bill, provisions that would interfere with their jurisdiction. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to say, that when on a former evening the subject to which this petition referred, was under discussion, from the silence of the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he was induced now to move for certain returns relative to the unions incorporated under Gilbert's Act, and also under local acts, because undoubtedly the right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government, in his speech on the same evening, did imply, that the unions which still existed under the Gilbert Act would form a topic of discussion. The right hon. Baronet urged, that as those unions were only twelve in number, it was competent to the House to consider whether they should remain or not. The petitioners from the city of Chichester had already taken the alarm as to the intentions of Government, which he imagined were decidedly in favour of repealing the 22nd of George 3rd, relating to the management of the poor. For, no doubt, if the right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government, had had any intelligence of a pleasing description to communicate as to the difference there was between the Poor-law Bill of this Session and the present law, he would have communicated that intention to the public before now, and in the absence of any such statement of the intention of the Government, he was entitled to assume that it was the determination of the Government to repeal those statutes under which the poor of so many parishes had been governed to the satisfaction of the rate-payers, as well as to those who received relief; and he held himself to be entitled to assume, from the same cause, that the right hon. Baronet meant to pursue the same course with regard to local acts generally. If the Gilbert Act was touched, the time would not be very far distant when the local acts would be touched also—they would attack the weak first, beginning with those unfortunate parishes that had not the weight in the House which the parishes governed under local acts had, But the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, very needlessly the other evening had endeavoured to create some amusement by adverting to the management of the poor-rates in the town of Brighton. He had then endeavoured to explain, as far as the time would allow, some of the charges which the right hon. Baronet had made against the guardians of the poor in that town. He had been prevented, by the nature of the discussion, from doing that satisfactorily, and he would take the present opportunity to make a few remarks. In the first place, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that the discussions on this subject should not be allowed to assume a party character, and the right hon. Baronet, in the charges he had made, had not directed his complaints particularly against either Tory or Liberal overseers. It happened, however, that the complaint of the right hon. Baronet applied to Tory over seers, and he was as willing to defend them, as if they had been of the contrary politics. In reply to his observations as to the manner in which the expenses of the management of the poor of Brighton, had been reduced during the last five years, the right hon. Baronet undertook to say, that certain expenses had occurred which would not have been tolerated by the Poor-law Commissioners; and he had instanced certain dinners and luncheons given at Brighton; and he said also, that a charge of 24l. had been made for a parish officer coming to London on the birth of the Princess Royal. The right hon. Baronet, the other evening, in answering the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Northampton, had laid it down that hon. Members should be careful of their facts before making any statement. But the right hon. Baronet had not himself been very careful as regarded his charges with reference to the rose-water and eau de Cologne, and other expenses, which he said had been improperly paid by the overseers. Now, the accounts of 1837 were brought before the vestry, and a committee was appointed to investigate them; therefore, it appeared, that the Poor-law Commissioners were not wanted. The committee investigated the matter, the objectionable items were disallowed, and the Tory gormandizers were thrown upon their own resources. So that instead of what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet being any argument against the management of the parochial system of Brighton, it actually went the other way, and proved the excellence of the system of control. As soon as the abuses were detected, town meetings were held, and vestry meetings, and before there had been two meetings, the accounts were repudiated, and the abuses put an end to. Thus the local acts gave every power, and the Poor-law Commissioners were not required. Now, with regard to the Court dress, it appeared, that in 1840, an address was unanimously voted to her Majesty, not on the birth of the Princess Royal, as the right hon. Baronet had erroneously stated but on the occasion of her escape from the attempt of Oxford upon her life. That address was agreed to at a town meeting, and was expressive of the abhorrence of the meeting of that attempt. It was further ordered:—

"That the high-constable do present the same, and charge his expenses in the accounts."

Those expenses were so charged, and the Court dress was one of the items. The accounts were laid before a meeting, pursuant to the act of George 3rd, and it was resolved, that they should be paid. After payment, they went before another vestry, and they were allowed. Thus they were twice considered and agreed to. But the vote of a vestry could not legalize that which was in itself illegal. The right hon. Baronet would concede that this expenditure, if it was an abuse, was at least not an abuse which the inhabitants were unable of themselves to correct if they pleased, and, further, that it was by no means an abuse of so gross a kind as was said to exist in different unions under the new law. It was not, for instance, such an abuse as the flogging at Hoo—it was not such an abuse as was said to exist at Eastbourne or at Sevenoaks; and he must say, that he thought it was going rather to an extreme to call the attention of the House to the matter in such a manner as to imply that, because one such abuse had occurred, therefore the affairs of all the Gilbert and local unions must, necessarily, be mismanaged. But to return to the subject of his motion. The papers he asked for would show the number of the unions existing under the Gilbert Act and the different local acts. The right hon. Baronet had the other night repudiated the accuracy of the figures he had quoted. Now, they had been chiefly taken from a return moved for by the noble Lord the Member for Monmouthshire, which certainly gave an accurate account of the number of persons living in parishes comprised in unions regulated by local acts. He believed that in the twelve Gilbert unions there were 288 parishes, exclusive of five parishes forming unions of themselves. The exact population of all these unions he had not been able to obtain, but he believed that in the two unions which existed in the county of Sussex there were not less than 20,000 in- habitants. The right hon. Baronet should recollect that these 20,000 persons had petitioned for the continuance of the system through their guardians and Parliamentary representatives, and that there had also been a vast number of petitions deprecating interference with the Gilbert unions from Derby, York, and other counties. Let them then see in one short and comprehensive table what was the number of persons with whose existing arrangements an alteration of this satisfactory law would interfere. The right hon. Baronet had charged him with an artifice in mixing up the populations of the local and Gilbert unions, but he should rather say that that was an artifice which sought to conceal the fact that, exclusive of the Gilbert unions, there were no less than 2,500,000 persons not at present under the control of commissioners whose interests the projected alterations would also affect. But, still more than all this, he thought some cause should be shown for annihilating these unions, for condemning them by wholesale without inquiry. He thought the House and the nation ought to be informed why the unions were to be dissolved, and it was for this reason that he should feel it his duty to raise his voice on every possible occasion against the abrogation of the system. It was said that these unions were working on a bad principle, and the right hon. Baronet opposite had said that the number of those which remained was quite insignificant. Now, he would be glad to be informed how many of the Gilbert and local unions had been tricked, as it were, into amalgamation with the general system. He should like to ask how many bargains had been made, how many were promised retrenchment in their expenditure and protection, as it was called, by the commissioners? Some curious tales might doubtless be related on this subject. Let them take the case of some of the Sussex unions. Mr. Hawley, a gentleman for whom he had every respect, came down into Sussex on a sort of marooning expedition among the Gilbert unions, and had held long confabulations with the guardians, in the course of which he had persuaded several to dissolve, and place themselves, as they afterwards found to their cost, under the orders of the commissioners. Mr. Hawley, in his published report, had made a reference to these unions, in which he said that the result of them was to induce a pertinacious adherence to the mistaken principles on which they were founded—an adherence which baffled every attempt to bring about a change, and which induced mistaken comparisons among the inmates of other workhouses. But Mr. Stephens, another commissioner, in speaking of the Sussex Poor-law unions, had said, that there was no grumbling among the inmates, and that they went to their work in a morning as happy as birds. Where, then, let him ask, were the injurious comparisons? If the paupers in the Poor-law unions went to their work as happy as birds, what danger was to be apprehended from the contamination of neighbouring Gilbert unions? What injurious comparisons could there be if all were so happy, and if they warbled away every morning so musically and with so much internal satisfaction? But he could tell the House, that the comparison which was attended with so little bad effect on the one side, was by no means approved on the other. The inmates of the Gilbert unions, had tried the Poor-law diet, and they found the comparison anything but pleasant or advantageous. They had been sick of it in a fortnight, and were glad enough to be relieved from it. But the Poor-law Commissioners had not stickled at slight misrepresentations. They had endeavoured to make the public believe that the guardians of the Gilbert unions had not the power of sending able-bodied men to their workhouses. Now this was an endeavour to excite the public to a comparison invidious to the Gilbert unions. He said such conduct was mischievous, and he would add, that its evil results must lie, not with the Gilbert guardians, but with those parties who, in their anxiety to bring the whole country under their authority, had recourse to such improper manœuvres. But in order to show a cause for bringing these unions under the powers of the Commissioners, they ought distinctly to prove bad management. Now, where had bad management been shown? The right hon. Baronet had said that there was bad management in sending up the dresses from Brighton, but as he said before, that single act did not prove any bad management in the Gilbert unions generally. Then what inducement did they hold out to the guardians to renounce the duties they had undertaken? Did they hold out such management as that of the Eastbourne Union? He held in his hand an able pamphlet emanating from a Sussex gentleman, who had taken an active part against the Poor-law, and who was now a candidate for the represent- tation of Brighton, in which the very improper conduct of the Eastbourne guardians was fully illustrated. There was one case mentioned of a man who had been set to the occupation of grinding bones, and upon whom that description of labour operated so injuriously that the author declared his belief that the man's health would have been ruined had, he staid there any longer. Such narratives with respect to the Eastbourne Union certainly were not calculated to reconcile the people at the other end of the country to the system the right hon. Baronet was so anxious to extend. Surely it would not prove advantageous to persons placed in the Gilbert unions, and other unions governed under local acts, to be placed in the circumstances in which William Smith and his wife were described to have been placed. The poor man's health, it appeared, suffered severely from working in the bone-house, to the extent of even placing his life in jeopardy, and yet the governor of the workhouse threatened that if he did not work in the bone house, he should be strictly watched and closely followed up. Mr. Brooker, in his pamphlet, did not hesitate to charge the guardians with being accessory to moral murder, and added, that if brought to the test, he would impeach them on that ground. It would, he repeated, be no benefit to the inmates of Gilbert unions and others governed by local acts, to be placed under the control of those who rendered themselves liable to the charge of being accessory to moral murder. The statement was made by Mr. Brooker, who was ready to forward his pamphlet to any gentleman who desired it, and if the charge was unfounded, let it be contradicted. He disliked entering into minute details, but when these unions were told that they must give up their system of government for the purpose of uniformity, it was necessary to show the mischief which would follow. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had observed the other night on the absence from that (the Opposition) side of the House of those Members of the late Ministry who advocated the New Poor-law when the question was under consideration. The right hon. Member for Kent was not in the House at the time, though he was happy to see him there now. That right hon. Gentleman had on a former occasion ex pressed his hope that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would not, when the question of the Poor-Jaw came on for revision, think of giving additional power to the Poor-law Commission; but, on the contrary, rather retrench that power, and confer upon the guardians a discretionary power of affording out-door relief. To this, however, the right hon. Member for Tamworth was decidedly opposed, so also was the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, as well as the noble Viscount, the Member for Sunderland. As the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kent, had voted for the postponement of the clause relative to the Assistant-com missioners, it was to be hoped that he would render his assistance now in endeavouring to ameliorate the system by affording out-door relief to able-bodied men, and granting beer to those who were shut up in the workhouses. He hoped there would be no objection to granting the returns for which he had moved, as they were necessary to render the question clear and intelligible. When the subject came before the House again, he presumed they would be told of the necessity which existed for uniformity in the system. There were, however, 137 unions, in which it was not unusual to grant out-door relief to able-bodied paupers. Of these unions he found that, there were several in Sunderland. Was it not a farce, then, to talk of uniformity? A system of uniformity never had been acted upon, and never could be acted upon, and it was, therefore, not right to say, that the existence of the Gilbert and other unions under local acts stood in the way of uniformity. He would advise the right hon. Baronet to let those who petitioned to remain under the government of their own local acts alone. If he interfered with the unions thus governed, he would by no means find himself on a bed of roses. The right hon. Baronet should remember that many of those around him, by whose votes he was supported, had pledged themselves to their constituents on the hustings to try and relax the stringent provisions of the law, and he was bound to say that, with one or two exceptions, these pledges had been redeemed. He did not mean to say that downright pledges had been given, but they had expressed themselves hostile to those severe provisions of the law which separate man and wife, as well as to others almost equally stringent. To him it appeared that very forcible reasons should be adduced, and a good cause made out, before any interference was had with those unions governed under local acts which were now well satisfied with their own systems. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving for returns of each parish and township in England and Wales in which the poor were managed under the provisions of the act 22nd George 3rd, c. 33, commonly called Gilbert's Act, distinguishing whether incorporated in any union or governed separately, and stating the population of each parish and town ship, and of each union respectively, ac cording to the last census. Also returns of each parish and township subject to the provisions of any local act for the management of the poor, with the amount of population according to the last census.

said, that there was no objection to granting the returns, but for the purpose of vindicating their accuracy the returns of 1831 should be added to them.

said, he had seen the pamphlet referred to by the hon. Member for Brighton, and a more gross libel was never published.

considered the writer of the pamphlet to be a highly respectable gentleman, and read it as a document furnished by that person, and not a matter coming within his own knowledge. He would not have used the pamphlet had it not been accompanied by the letter.

said, that before using such a document, the hon. Member for Brighton should have made some inquiries into its truth.

in rising to propose the committees of which he had given notice, said that, at that hour, he should be unwilling to trespass at any unusual length upon the indulgence of the House, were it not that the situation which he had the honour to hold in her Majesty's Government, coupled with the fact of his proposing two committees, rendered it necessary that he should say a few words with reference to the object which he had in view. He would, however, comprise the double object in one address, and in doing so, he would endeavour to be as brief as the important nature of the subject to which he was about to call the attention of the House would permit. Though he would have to advert to several official documents which, as connected with the subject, were of very great importance, he could not hope to add any additional at- tractions by touching upon topics of a local nature in partaking of the excitement of controversial interest. He would compress what he had to say into as short a space as was consistent with the consideration of a subject so highly important to the interests of the empire. Considering how deeply he was interested in the subject, and what anxiety he must have felt when returning to the same situation which he held nine years ago, as to the result of the great experiment in which he took so active a part, the House, he was sure, would grant him some little indulgence. As regarded that result, he was happy to be able to state, that the emancipation of the negro population of the West Indies had, in the benefits which were de. rived from it, exceeded the most sanguine expectations of the most ardent advocates of the measure. In every one of the islands the physical condition and prosperity of the labouring classes had reached to an extent far greater than had been anticipated; and, what was still more gratifying, the improvement in their physical condition was accompanied by a corresponding improvement in their social and moral habits. Religious instruction had produced its anticipated effects, inducing greater purity in domestic life, and creating a stronger desire for education. This he considered to be a result infinitely more important than any improvement in their physical condition. To show that he did not exaggerate the vast improvement which had taken place in the habits and conditions of the West-Indian labourers, he would read to the House an extract from an official document which he had a short time since addressed to a foreign power, in answer to a statement in which the great experiment of emancipation was alluded to as having proved a failure. The words were these:—

"It will be found, that the British emancipation took place without the occurrence of a single instance of tumult or disturbance; that the joy of the negroes on the 1st of August, 1838, was orderly, sober, and religious; that since emancipation, the negroes have been thriving and contented; that they have varied their manner of living, and multiplied their comforts and enjoyments; that their offences against the laws have become more and more light and unfrequent; that their morals have improved; that marriage has become more and more substituted for concubinage; that they are eager for education, rapidly advancing in knowledge, and powerfully influenced by the ministers of religion. Such are amongst the results of emancipation which are plain and indisputable, and these results constitute in the estimation of her Majesty's Government and the people of England the complete success of the British emancipation in so far as relates to the primary and paramount objects of that act.

He would not weary the House with reading many extracts, but he considered that he could more easily bring the subject under the consideration of the House, by adverting to the statements of persons in authority in the islands, than by addressing to it any loose observations of his own. Although there could be no doubt that the several islands varied in the degree of prosperity, which each had acquired by the measure of emancipation, as, for example, the prosperity must be different where the population was thin, and the soil new from that of those islands where the population was more dense, and the soil in longer cultivation, still the advantages were felt more or less in every part of the colony. From this general statement he excluded the Mauritius, confining himself altogether to the West Indies, and principally to Jamaica and Demerara. Of the improvement which had taken place, an extract from Sir C. Metcalfe's despatch of the 30th of March, 1840, spoke as follows:—

"The thriving condition of the peasantry is very striking and gratifying. I do not suppose that any peasantry in the world have so many comforts, or so much independence and enjoyment. Their behaviour is peaceable, and in some respects admirable. They are fond of attending divine service, and are to be seen on the Lord's day thronging to their respective churches and chapels, dressed in good clothes, and many of them riding on horseback. They send their children to school, and pay for their schooling. They subscribe for the erection of churches and chapels; and in the Baptist communities they not only provide the whole of the religious establishment, but by the amount of their contributions afford to their ministers a very respectable support. Marriage is general among the people; their morals are, I understand, much improved, and their sobriety is remarkable. I am very happy to add, that in most respects, they appear to deserve their good fortune: they are, I understand, generally orderly, sober, free from crime, much improved in their moral habits, constant in the attendance at public worship, solicitous for the education of their children, and willing to pay the requisite expense.

The last report from Sir C. Metcalfe was dated November 1, 1841, a despatch which he had received with great regret because it contained the resignation of that Government which that officer had so ably and zealously filled, and with the greater pain because that resignation was unavoidable in consequence of impaired health. This was the last testimony he bore to the character of the negro population of Jamaica:—

"With respect to the labouring population, formerly slaves, but now perfectly free, and more independent than the same class in other free countries, I venture to say, that in no country in the world can the labouring population be more abundantly provided with the necessaries and comforts of life, more at their ease, or more secure from oppression than in Jamaica."

There was another report, from a stipendiary magistrate, dated the 30th of June, 1841:—

"It would appear wonderful to those whose knowledge of the physical power of the negro is only confined to his unremunerated specimens of labour during slavery and apprentice ship, how so much could have been accomplished on the small lot of land in building, planting, digging ponds, and making fences, as has been done without entailing an entire cessation of labour on the plantations of the larger proprietors. Certainly this has not been the result, and why? I humbly submit for consideration the reason: it is because his emancipation from bondage, his new hopes, his new desires, his new responsibilities, in short, his newly-born ambition stimulates him to exertions, of which those who formerly knew the 'Negro character' believed him incapable. His bodily powers, by the application of a money power, are multiplied beyond calculation. He can now labour on his own plantation, and spare time to labour on the plantation of others."

To this was attached a most singular document, which showed the number in one parish, not of those who had landed possessions, but of those who had entered their names as owners of possessions liable to taxation, and stating their willingness as free men to bear their proportion of the public burdens: —

"I annex an official memorandum of the increase of tax-payers from 1836, to March 1841. Imperfect as the return is to show the actual number having landed possessions, it is valuable to prove the numbers who have willingly pointed out their possessions for taxation, and who are ready to bear their proportion of the public burdens and public duties;—Number of tax-payers in the parish of Manchester in the year 1836, 387; 1837, 393; 1838, 438; in the year (no taxes), 1839, not given in; 1840,1,321; 1841,1,866."

The number of freeholders becoming so by the accumulations of their own industry, assessed in Jamaica, as given by Sir C. Metcalfe, were, 1838, 2,014; 1840, 7,848. He felt confident he was not wearying the House even at that late hour while stating facts so important and gratifying as these. He knew that the House of Commons, by whose liberality, by whose generous sacrifice, these effects had been brought about—a sacrifice never before paralleled in any mercantile country, nor ever made to any extent for an object so purely disinterested and of more entire benevolence—he knew the House of Commons would not think he was unduly presuming on their attention, when he stated with regard to the negro population of Jamaica and the other colonies what had been the results of their great and generous sacrifice. There was only one other colony he would instance, and that was Demerara. Here was a statement, in the first place, of the wages at present earned by the able-bodied labourer in that colony—

"The following may he taken as an average of the money value which the labourer enjoys upon the plantations in this colony, independent of absent days from sickness or indisposition to work—it appears pretty clear from a variety of information that the net amount of wages earned in a twelvemonth cannot be less than 23l., to which add the free use of a house valued at 100l., 10l.; the free use of provision grounds, 15l.; medicine and medical attendance, 3l.—51l. sterling. To which must likewise be added the advantage of churches and schools free of any parochial rates or other charges whatsoever. As regards the tenure upon which the labourers in general hold their houses, there are but a few solitary instances in which anything in the shape of rent has been charged; in these the agreement is, that if a labourer, not pleading sickness, which is always admissible, openly acknowledges absence from work without any excusable reason, and continues in the occupation of his house and grounds, then he is charged two bitts (or less than 9d.) per diem during such absence and occupancy."

There was another statement as to the resources of the colony. In a letter ad dressed by Governor Light to Mr. Ouseley, relative to the captured Africans being sent from Rio to Jamaica, he said,

"The resources of this colony are so great if hands can be obtained for their development, that I ventured to express my earliest wishes to you, that you would use your influence in favour of this, the nearest and most fertile of her Majesty's colonial possessions, where wages are high, where an able-bodied man may earn a dollar per day in seven or eight hours, where houses, provision grounds, and medical attendance are afforded in addition to wages, where schools, chapels, churches, and ministers of every denomination of Christians, are within reach of the mass, and where the mass are more strictly protected in their rights than perhaps in any country in the world."

What had been the consequence of this state of prosperity on the negro mind and negro habits? Had it led them, as some persons feared it would, into habits of vagrancy or idleness? Had it led them to abandon the pursuits of industry, and give up the cultivation of the soil? No such thing. He was sure he should be permitted to state one or two most satisfactory instances by which they might judge in general as to the motives which influenced the negro population. The following was an extract from a despatch, dated 18th November, 1839: —

"It may not be misplaced to mention here the enterprise of the lately emancipated class, six of whom have bought an abandoned sugar estate, named Northbrook, on the east coast, Demerara, for which they paid 30,000 guilders, upwards of 2,000l., two-thirds of which were in hard dollars, the remainder by a note of hand at three weeks; they are about to replant it with sugar; it is a convincing evidence of confidence in the industry of their brethren, and speaks volumes against the determined idleness of the negro, which a party here would assert; it is also a proof that a preference is shown to the cultivated parts of the colony, rather than retreat to the distant parts, where the same money would have procured three times the number of acres from the Crown."

Again,—?

"I had the honour of mentioning the purchase of Northbrook by certain labourers, and congratulated myself at the purchase, as a proof that here at least the blessings of emancipation had early shown themselves. I stated that I was proud to find myself upheld in my objections to the schemes of the philanthropists for locating the labourers independently. I am still prouder at being able to stale to your Lordship much more important purchases by the labourers. Orange Nassau, a plantain and cotton estate, lying in the neighbourhood of Annandale and Lusignan estates, on the east coast, Demerara, has been bought by 140 or 150 of the labourers of those estates for 50,000 dollars, or nearly 11,00l. sterling. 20,000 dollars, or upwards of 4,000l., have been offered by some labourers, the number I have not yet learnt, for Betterforwachtyn, on the same coast, the bargain not yet concluded from some doubts as to the validity of the title. The same difficulty has arisen in Berbice, where an offer of 20,000 dollars has been made by some labourers for an estate on the west coast. When it is considered that the greatest part of the money has been earned since emancipation, it may be concluded that the labourers have been fairly treated. The sums offered are in ready money, and at the market price of the estates. I have the honour to report that another estate, Plantation Friendship, has been purchased by certain labourers on the east coast, county Demerara, belonging to, or rather working on, Plantations Enterprise, Bladen Hall, Annandale, Lusignan, Enmore, for the sum of 80,000 dollars, or 16,000l. sterling, of which 35,000 dollars were paid down, 5,000 more to be paid in one month, the rest to be on mortgage until the whole number of shareholders should have paid their quota. 100 or 110 out of the 200 have already paid their amount of contribution, each 400 dollars, and one man, a head man of one of the estates, who appears, from keeping his horse and gig, to have been richer than any of the others, has contributed 2,000 dollars. Plantation Friendship was originally a cotton and plantation estate, was purchased not many years ago for 5,000l. or 6,000l. sterling; three years ago it was sold for 10,000l.; it now has been sold for 16,000l. sterling to emancipated slaves. There can be little doubt that the desire for independence will be succeeded by the desire for wealth, and the same spirit which has limited hitherto the labourers to the purchase of property whose productions are for local wants alone, will lead them to the purchase of estates on which the staple commodities for export are grown and cultivated.—I have, &c,

said, the speech of the noble Lord gave him great satisfaction; but he could wish the east as well as the west coast of Africa to be included in the inquiry. This was a part well entitled to the consideration of the Government; and, considering that the blacks preponderated over the whites in the West-India colonies, he was anxious to have their interests properly protected. He trusted also, that the noble Lord would allow the committee to extend its inquiries into the failure of the late Niger expedition.

expressed his gratification at the very able statement which had been made by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, seeing that his name was identified with the working of that great experiment which had proved so successful. At the same time, he (Mr. V. Smith) could not help feeling the great difficulties which the committee would have to encounter in the course of their inquiry. The noble Lord proposed, through this committee, to inquire into the state of the different West India colonies, in reference to the existing relations between employers and labourers, the rate of wages, the supply of labour, the system and expense of cultivation, and the general state of their rural and agricultural economy. From the statement made by the noble Lord of the prosperity of the labouring population in these colonies, it appeared, that they were not only prosperous, but were making purchases for themselves. Now, the task which would devolve upon the committee was of a very delicate character, and they must take great care not to interrupt, by any suggestions they might make, that good feeling and harmony which now existed as between the labourers and the employers. And, indeed, the difficulty of this question was increased by the union of such various subjects for the consideration of a committee. He would suggest to the noble Lord whether it would not be advisable to give a power of conference between the two committees as to the introduction of fret labourers. But the most interesting inquiry would be, whether they would be able to produce anything upon which the House could legislate or not, though no doubt the mass of evidence they would collect would be very valuable. Perhaps it would be right, that the noble Lord should mention the course of inquiry to be taken by the committees, particularly those on the west coast of Africa. He hoped the noble Lord would not consent to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that one committee should extend its inquiries into the causes of. the failure of the Niger expedition. The House was probably aware, that a very I valuable report on the state of the British settlements in Western Africa had lately been made by Dr. Madden, a gentleman whose name was associated with the abolition of slavery, and who had been sent out to inquire into the present condition of those territories. He was aware the re port was of a very confidential nature, but perhaps he was not asking too much in suggesting that the noble Lord might lay such parts of it as he deemed advisable before the committee. He begged leave to thank the noble Lord for instituting this inquiry, which would have, he trusted, important results.

wished to know if the noble Lord would have any objection to insert the words "means of affording effectual protection, and of insuring the rights of free agency."

thought the terms of his motion extensive enough to cover the points to which the hon. Gentleman wished to include.

expected to gel no information from the committee relative to the western coast of Africa, as he thought they were already in possession of all the information that could be got. With respect to the second committee, for inquiry into the West Indies, he could not see the object which the noble Lord proposed to himself, and his speech threw no light upon it. The noble Lord's speech exhibited such a happy state of things among the negro population, that it was most undesirable any interference should take place. Yet it seemed there was to be a committee to inquire into the matters mentioned in the motion. He was apprehensive, that this interference was not one of favour to the emancipated labourers. Twenty millions had already been paid to the proprietors of the soil in the West Indies, as a compensation for their loss by the emancipation of the negroes. The noble Lord showed that the negroes themselves were undergoing the change and improvement which he had anticipated in his able address on the subject in 1833. But what could they expect from this movement? Many persons would be apprehensive that these labourers, in their improved condition would be completely swamped by the tide of emigration from Africa to the West-Indies. He was apprehensive that the free labourers would be reduced to a state of privation and distress, by the competition of the immigrants who would work for less wages. Analogous results had taken place in England, only from the change from the South to the North of England. He feared, that every obstacle would be thrown in the way of emigrants returning to Africa if they wished it. He was really apprehensive that in this matter a pressure had been put on the noble Lord by the planters; he hoped, however, he would rather look to the condition of the emancipated negroes, than to the interests of the planters who had already been paid twenty millions.

said, his hon. Friend had here, he thought, been led away by his popular feelings. He approved of the proposal of the noble Lord, and could state this, that the labourers in the West-Indian colonies were many of them considerable owners of land.—Motion agreed to.

then moved for a "select committee to inquire into the state of the British possessions on the west coast of Africa, more especially with reference to their present relations with the neighbouring native tribes."—Motion agreed to.

said, Sir, I should fix the Corn Importation Bill for to-morrow, but the forms of the House would not allow me to send it to the Lords before the recess, if I proceeded with it, as the report could not be brought up until the following day, and I, therefore, believe that it will suit the general convenience of the House, as nothing of importance stands for Thursday, if I should move the adjournment of the House to-morrow I could not be enabled to send the Corn Bill to the Lords before the recess, even if it went through committee to-morrow.

said, he presumed the right hon. Gentleman meant to bring on the Income-tax adjourned debate to-morrow?

Certainly.

begged to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the expediency of postponing the debate till after Easter; no real progress could be made on Wednesday.

wished the House to bear in mind, that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, had given notice of some counter-resolutions on the report, land it was very desirable that the House should as soon as possible, decide on the relative merits of the two propositions; but this could not be done until the resolutions had been carried in committee. Now, the Income-tax resolution was the basis of the whole financial scheme; and thus he had the strongest reason for desiring that no unnecessary delay should take place.

was sensible that the right hon. Baronet did what he felt his duty; but there were those who felt it to be theirs to oppose the measure, as inferior to others which might be adopted. He really thought no progress would be made on Wednesday.

What obstructions may be given I know not. It is not for me to anticipate an obstruction which I know cannot be offered with reason or with justice. When it is offered—should it be offered—it will be my duty to meet it; but I will not assume it, nor do I wish to interpose any needless delay to the proposition of that rival plan which the noble Lord the Member for London is going to bring forward on the report.

remarked, the opinion of the House would be so compromised by its decision on the resolutions in committee as to prejudice the ulterior discussions.

replied, that this was to assume, that the resolutions once carried in committee all further opposition was useless—he was glad to hear it. The effect of passing the Corn Bill, would be to reduce the existing duties to one-half, and he was sorry that the necessity for deliberation would preclude the country from enjoying the advantage of the reduction.