wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the subject of the petition he had presented previously from Bombay. He wished to ascertain the causes of the delay which had taken place in the payment of the indemnity for the opium surrendered to the Chinese. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that some inquiry was to be made this year as to the value of the opium. He begged to ask whether the inquiry had yet been made, or was now proceeding, or was intended?—at what time it was likely to be terminated, and whether there was any valid objection to the payment of the indemnity?

said, he had already apprised certain parties interested in the payment for the opium, that until the ratification of the treaty with China, it was impossible that Government could act on the stipulations therein contained. The ratification on our part had been sent out from this country; it would probably soon be exchanged with the Chinese government, and then her Majesty's Government would be enabled to take steps in fulfilment of the condition of the treaty. With respect to the payment of indemnity, go anxious was the Government to prevent any delay in the settlement of the just claims of the opium holders, that reference had been made to India and China, and when the inquiry into the claims was completed, reports would be received from both those quarters, on which her Majesty's Government would be able maturely to form their judgment.

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, whether it was the intention of Government to bring forward any measure respecting the examination of masters and mates in our merchant service.

said, that a committee was now employed in investigating this subject. It was not likely that committee would take any great length of time to bring its investigations to a close; upon its report would depend the course which the Government would take.

on the Order of the Day being read for going into a committee of supply on the Navy Estimates, said, that he was anxious to call the attention of the House, and of the Government, to the present state of the revenue and the expenditure as compared with former years, and to the condition of the industry of the country at this time. He had been anxious to state his opinions on that important subject on the late motion of Lord Howick, to consider that part of her Majesty's Speech, which stated,

"That the diminished receipt of the ordinary sources of revenue must in part be attributed to the reduced consumption of many articles caused by the depression of the manufacturing industry of the country, which has so long prevailed, and which her Majesty has so deeply lamented."

But he had not then an opportunity. He must observe, that although the debate had continued for five nights, no hon. Member had adverted to the amount of the diminution of the revenue, or to the causes producing it, which he (Mr. Hume) considered as the best means of bringing the condition of the country fairly before Parliament. He submitted to the House that it ought to be the practice to have estimates of the probable revenue and of the proposed expenditure for the current year laid before them previously to being called upon to vote any part of the estimates for the naval and military services, and he regretted that the Government had not adopted that plan. He would therefore state, that it appeared from the annual finance accounts, that from the years 1831 to 1841, the total gross revenue of the country had been of nearly the same amount in each year, varying from 51,000,000l. to 52,000,000l. sterling, but that, the expenditure in the same period had varied from forty-eight and a-half to fifty-four and a half millions sterling. It was important to a correct view of the state of the finances to look at them for the last ten years past, and to understand clearly that the amount of taxes received from the public had not been diminished to any extent until within the past year, when he should show an alarming decrease; and he would further say, that the deficiency in the Exchequer was produced entirely by war expenditure, which he (Mr. Hume) contended, had all along been unjust and uncalled for.— From the years 1831 to 1835, the expenditure had been reduced from fifty-one and a half to forty-eight and a half millions sterling. But from 1836 to 1842, it had increased from forty-eight and a half to fifty-four and a half millions sterling. During the five years 1832 to 1836, there had been a surplus revenue of 7,487,030l. surplus of revenue, in 1832, 614,758l.; in 1843, 1,513,084l.; in 1834, 1,608,186l.; in 1835, 1,620,940l.; in 1836,2,130,092l.; total surplus in five years of revenue over expenditure, 7,487,030l.; but during the last six years, from 1837 to 1841, the expenditure had exceeded the income by 10,188,659l.; excess of expenditure over revenue in 1837, 655,760l.; in 1838,345,228l.; in 1839, 1,512,792l.; in 1840, 1,593,971l.; in 1841, 2,101,369l.; in 1842, 3,979,539l.; total excess of expenditure in six years over revenue 10,188,659l.; and, by that means the financial difficulties of the country had been brought on. He did not blame the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) for that increase, so much as he did the late Minis try, although he must say, that both sides of the House were culpable in having unnecessarily increased the military establishments of the country. The estimates for the current year 1843℃4, have been re duced by the sum of 832,635l. below those of 1842–3; but, as the expenditure of the year 1842–3, exceeded that of the preceding year 1841–2, by nearly the same amount the expenditure of the current year will be thus brought back only to that of 1841–2. The expenditure, exclusive of the charges of collection, was in 1841–2, 50,185,729l.; and in 1842–3, 50,945,170, or 759,441l.; in 1842–3, more

expressed his decided disapprobation of the immense amount of the estimates prepared for the present year. He considered that the distressed state of the country, the deteriorated condition of the productive classes, the great amount of the expenditure above the revenue during the last seven years, and the great falling off in the trade of the country as shown by a return lately laid upon the table of the House, which proved that upon thirteen of the great articles of our export the falling off in the last year, as compared with the year preceding, amounted to 3,800,000; he considered that these were circumstances which imperatively called upon the House to look at the present position of the country, and to ponder seriously upon the difficulties in which it was involved. In the last six or seven years the calculations of the Finance Minister as to the productiveness of the revenue had been erroneous. In no one of these years had the anticipated amount of revenue been realised. In every one of these years the expenditure had exceeded the income. The gross expenditure of the country from the year 1837 up to the end of 1842, had exceeded the amount of the revenue by no less a sum than 10,000,000l. sterling. He contended that the budget should every year be developed before any votes were taken. In former times the Treasury used to exercise a very stringent control over the several departments; but now, he believed, the Treasury did not charge itself with the examination of the various items in the votes before they were submitted to the House. Professional men settled the navy, army, and ordnance estimates, and every one knew they were naturally inclined to look more to display than to demands of real necessity in their several departments. Until they adopted some system of control very different from what now prevailed, it was vain to expect any economy or retrenchment. Before a single shilling of public money was voted, he would have the estimates referred to a select committee, which should go over every item, and be satisfied of its necessity. He wished the right hon. Baronet would inform the House what reasons induced the Government to keep up so expensive an establishment as was at present maintained. The changes for half-pay and pensions called for particular attention. He found that, in these items, there was a considerable increase in the estimates for the present year, and he wished to know what circumstances had led to this increase? He would direct the attention of the House to the amount of the estimates for the half-pay and superannuation pensions in 1818, when the country had only just been extricated from a long and expensive war; and he was surprised to find that the estimates for the present year exhibited a great increase, under this head, as compared with those of that period. After twenty-six years of peace, he found that the estimates of this year showed an increase under this head of about 114,000l.; on the estimates of 1818. Then with respect to the civil pensions awarded to persons who had been employed in Somerset-house and other Government offices, he found that in 1818 the estimates under this head amounted to 99,661l.; in 1821 they were 105,000l.; in 1822 they were 126,000l.; and for this year they were 168,000l.; showing an increase of 68,500l.; over those of 1818. He thought that, after 1818, great reductions might have been effected in this department' in the way of superannuation; but it appeared that, after 26 or 27 years of profound peace, the amount of estimates under this head had been nearly doubled. He thought this circumstance required some explanation. But, when a more careful analysis of these estimates was instituted, the difference between the amount voted in 1818 and that now required appeared still more extraordinary. In 1818 the estimate under the head of half-pay was 984,000l., and under that of pensions and superannuations 145,000l.; while, in the estimates now before the House, the amount of half-pay was 746,000l., and the amount of pensions and superannuations 497,000l. It appeared, therefore, that on the estimates of 1818, under the head of half-pay, a reduction of 238,000l. had been effected, while in the pensions and superannuation allowances there had been an increase of 352,000l. But there was another circumstance to which he would direct the notice of the House, and with respect to which he thought some explanation ought to be afforded by the Government. In 1818 the estimate for pensions to the widows and children of naval officers was 12,030l. The estimates under this head had since gone on gradually increasing, and now he found that the item had reached the amount of 196,000l. In 1818 the allowances on the compassionate list were 5,000l.; they were for this year, estimated at 15,000l., showing an increase of 10,000l.; There was one item in which he found a very considerable reduction had been effected —the bounty to chaplains. It seemed that the chaplains were not now regarded with much favour; for while in 1819 the estimate under this head was 2,000l.; it was now only 283l.; He thought that the pensions granted to widows of officers were far more considerable than was necessary or politic. It was true that in many cases where valuable services gave a title to them these pensions ought to be granted; but he thought the system at present pursued with reference to these grants was calculated to lead to a great increase in the item. He considered that, as so good a provision was made for their widows, old naval officers might not un frequently become the husbands of hand some young women, and therefore a great encouragement was afforded for increasing this department of the estimates. He must strongly appeal to the Government to make a careful examination of these estimates. The Government ought to have some regard to the condition of the country, and to undertake a revision of the whole system; and he was convinced they must feel that they were not justified in maintaining the present vast establishment, when they found that, at a former period, when this country was placed in circumstances precisely similar to those in which it now stood with relation to foreign countries, the expenditure was so much less for the items to which he had referred. He was aware that, if he brought forward a. motion on the subject, such a course would not enable him to attain his object. He had always felt great reluctance in opposing any vote of public money for the service of the navy; for he considered that the Government of this country was bound, by the strongest obligations, and by regard for the public welfare, to maintain our naval force in a state of efficiency. At the same time, however, he could not but condemn the vast and unnecessary expenditure which was incurred in the items of half-pay and pensions. In fact, the naval half-pay and pensions constituted to all intents and purposes, another pension list. He would now beg the attention of the Government to the effective service and half-pay and pension list of naval officers. There were, in the list before the House, 184 Admirals, and seven who were in the receipt of pensions; but how many were there on the effective list? Only ten admirals commanding, and three holding situations in the dock-yards: so that there were only thirteen in the service, while 191 were on half-pay. There were 613 captains, many were besides on the pension list, and of that class, only sixty-four were on active service. The comparative number of commanders and lieutenants on active service was also very small. He found that the estimates for this year, under the head of "half-pay," exceeded by 30,000l.; the estimates of last year. He was sure that no one would grudge the rewards which had been bestowed upon the gallant officers who had performed such important services in China, and even the poor of the country would gladly contribute towards such rewards; but this was not the class of men on whom pensions and rewards were bestowed. They were awarded to the connections of the aristocracy—to the friends and relatives of Members of this and the other House of Parliament—while hard-fighting and gallant men, who had bled in defence of their country, were too frequently passed over and were left unrewarded. He thought the Government ought to endeavour to make the expenditure of the country agree with the revenue —not try and raise a revenue to meet an extravagant expenditure. He remembered reading some observations of Lafayette, addressed to the Parliament of Paris, in 1788, when additional taxation was proposed, which had made a strong impression on his mind, Lafayette appealed in the strongest terms to the aristocracy, telling them the course they ought to pursue was this:—to reduce the expenditure to meet the revenue, not to raise the revenue to support an extravagant expenditure. If the aristocracy of France had adopted that excellent counsel they might have been saved, but they rejected it; and, in three or four years afterwards, that aristocracy —perhaps the proudest and the richest that ever existed—were swept from the land.

had listened with attention to the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he thought, that many points which they had discussed, would have been much better deferred, till the estimates were under consideration. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williams) had postponed his observations with respect to the civil, the superannuation, and the naval and military pension lists, until the estimates were brought specifically before the House, a much better opportunity would have been given for affording explanations on the points to which he had referred. But the House must not take it for granted, although the hon. Gentleman stated, that he had bestowed much time on his calculations, and was convinced of their entire correctness, that the compliment which the hon. Gentleman had paid himself was entirely deserved. The hon. Gentleman said, "Look at the amount of the estimates for civil superannuations in 1818, and compare them with those of the present year; see what an increase has taken place;" but the hon. Gentlemen should know, that a very great proportion of that increase was caused by the reductions which had been made in the civil establishment. In 1830, the Duke of Wellington's Government made considerable redactions in the civil establishment; and, subsequently, similar reductions were effected by the Governments of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne. But the hon. Gentleman must be aware, that it was impossible to effect such reductions without making provision for the parties who were thereby displaced. The hon. Gentleman must know, that it might be perfectly consistent with sound economy, and with practical permanent reduction, to exhibit an increase in the amount of civil superannuations. The hon. Gentleman said, "I have gone through these estimates; I have compared them with the estimates of former years, and I find an enormous increase in the amount of naval pensions." That was true; but when the hon. Mem- ber compared the estimates for the present year with those of a former year, he should bear in mind, that at the former period, Greenwich Hospital possessed large funds applicable to naval pensions, of which it was now deprived, and that, consequently, that House was called upon to supply the deficiency. The hon. Gentleman said, "Look at the immense amount which is given to the widows and orphans of officers; I cannot conceive what is the reason of this." He begged to inform the hon. Member, that the increase to which he alluded had been made in conformity with the recommendation of a Parliamentary committee; and he would advise the hon. Gentleman not to be too eager in future for the appointment of Parliamentary committees. He would advise the hon. Member to place more confidence in the Executive Government with regard to the effecting of retrenchment, and not to refer matters of this kind to Parliamentary committees; for his (Sir R. Peel's) experience had shown him that the Members of such committees, under the influence of the kindest motives—from a feeling of sympathy towards the friends and relatives of the gallant defenders of their country, were prone to say, "Let us be liberal; compare these services with civil services;" and the result was an increase in the estimates. He would tell the hon. Member what had taken place, within his own experience, with regard to the pensions of the widows and orphans of officers. Formerly, the funds for providing pensions for widows and orphans were mainly supplied by the contributions of naval officers, which produced, he believed, a sum of more than 100,000l. It was, however, considered unjust that naval officers should be taxed to furnish a fund for this purpose; and a Parliamentary committee said:—

"It is not fair to levy contributions for supplying pensions for these widows and orphans upon the officers; we, therefore, recommend Parliament to abolish this system, and to undertake themselves to provide means for the payment."

That recommendation might or might not be a just one; but the circumstance showed that Parliamentary committees were not always favourable to reductions in expenditure, and it accounted for the increase in the estimates under this head, which had so much surprised the hon. Gentleman. A comparison had been made between the change in the year 1791, for naval, military, and ordnance services, with the charge for the present year; but the hon. Gentleman had totally omitted the fact, that in the first case the estimate was only for Great Britain; in the present day it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The hon. Gentleman said that the constitutional practice of the House was not to vote the supplies until the ways and means were before Parliament. He apprehended that the constitutional practice had always been to vote the supplies before they voted the ways and means, and that Parliament never sanctioned the principle that they should impose taxes in the first instance, without knowing what the exigencies of the public service were; but that, on the contrary, they should first determine what amount the public necessities required, and then supply the means. Neither of the hon. Gentlemen had made any motion on this occasion. Of that he did not complain, though no one was less disposed to undervalue the matters to which they had called the attention of the House. The hon. Gentlemen the Members for Montrose and Coventry must both excuse him for saying, without meaning to express any doubt as to the importance of the matters which they had pressed upon the attention of the House, for no one could be less disposed than he was to undervalue the subject which they had spoken on that evening, that finding they had not had an opportunity in the four or five nights last week that the subject of the distress of the country was debated of making their speeches on that question, they had taken that opportunity of delivering them. But he hoped that the effect of the hon. Gentleman's speeches would not be to raise a general discussion, and he would not follow the hon. Gentlemen through the whole of their speeches, because he thought that the House would be unwilling to go fully into the subject on the present occasion; but if he were so to follow the hon. Member for Montrose he thought he could prove to him that his assertion that the consumption of tea had fallen off was not correct; he thought he could prove to him also, that the consumption of tobacco had not fallen off. He thought, moreover, he could prove to him that there was no reduction in the consumption of coffee. The fact was, as the hon. Gentleman would remember, that there had been a reduction of duty on coffee, and consequently a smaller amount of duty paid did not necessarily indicate a falling off in the amount of the article consumed. The hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. W. Williams) also, he thought, had come to some erroneous conclusions on some important points, but the most important matter that the hon. Gentleman insisted on was this, that the House ought first to ascertain what was the amount of the revenue before they proceeded to vote the estimates. It was quite true that a private individual might do something like this with advantage; it might be possible for him to find accurately the state of his yearly income, and reduce his expenditure accordingly by retrenching superfluities; but in a great country like this such a course was wholly impracticable; the amount of expenditure must necessarily depend on a variety of considerations, and the amount of revenue which might be required in any year could not always be made to depend even on considerations of the distress of the country; something must depend on the state of the relations of this country with other powers; something must depend on the likelihood of war,—something must depend on the necessity of supporting the power of maintaining ourselves on a suitable footing with regard to the force kept up by other countries; and the fact was, that if the House, acting on this principle, were to reduce the expenditure so as to admit of a reduction of revenue, they might speedily find themselves in a situation in which they would be led into increased expenditure. In the year 1822 they reduced the expenditure, but that reduction the hon. Gentleman would find led to increased expense. By reducing the military force they had found it was necessary to increase the expense under that head; for it became necessary in consequence to increase the amount of military pensions, and altogether there was a greater expense. Differing, then, from the hon. Gentleman on several points, with many of the principles of the hon. Gentleman he fully agreed. In the present state of the country especially there was every disposition on the part of her Majesty's Government to make efforts to accomplish a reduction of expenditure; but still, looking at all the circumstances of this country, and the situation in which it stood with respect to foreign powers, he said, that supposing the produce of the income-tax should show at the end of next year a material increase of revenue, it would be unjust to calculate upon it as if permanent, intended as it was for present purposes. Under the pressure of taxation which was felt in this country that would be unjust—he said under the pressure of taxation as felt in this country, for he did not agree with the noble Lord that taxation pressed on no country so little as on this. On the contrary, he was confident that the pressure of taxation was the cause which made us unable to undertake many invaluable improvements incapacitated us from making those sudden and prompt exertions which the exigencies of the state might require. But, however this might be, he must say that when the House looked at the estimates of the present year they must have reference, not to the years 1791 or 1822, but to the situation of the country at present; for they could not make reductions in the military and naval establishments with the ease some gentlemen among them did. It was perfectly true that two great wars had been brought to a happy conclusion; but it did not necessarily follow that Parliament could reduce at once the naval and military establishments to what they were before those wars began, or to what they were in 1822 or 1791; they must look not merely to the desireableness of an immediate reduction of the expenditure, but at the very great distance at which those wars had been carried on. Take the case of China. It was quite true that the termination of the war with China would relieve the country from all the expense that was necessary to keep up an active state of hostilities; but although a treaty had been agreed to, the House should remember that it had not yet been ratified by the Emperor of China. In carrying on hostilities with a country so remote and so powerful as that, it might not be consistent with sound policy to loosen too soon the hold we have upon China. We had concluded a peace with China upon our own terms by the exercise of great valour, great perseverance, and also he was confident by the exercise of great forbearance, convincing the public mind of China that we were not the barbarians they described in their public proclamations. He believed that the people of China were surprised by the conduct of our troops. This he inferred from the apathy of the people when they discovered we were not subject to the charge of being that barbarous race which we had been represented to be. But the House must bear in mind that the Emperor of China had objected to sign the treaty until her Majesty Queen Victoria had signed it. Her Majesty had done so, and it had been sent out to the Emperor, but it had not yet been ratified. He therefore thought there would not be much difference as to the policy they should pursue in not evacuating the possessions they had obtained there altogether for a reliance on the forbearance or good faith of the Emperor of China. That he conceived was a competent reason, although the war had been brought to a most successful conclusion, which it must be a satisfaction to be able to maintain with good-will and amicable feeling towards the Emperor of China, why this country should continue to keep a considerable force in the Chinese Seas; He thought the hon. Gentleman would not dispute this. [Mr. Hume : I did not say a word about China. I spoke of Syria.] He was only mentioning the case of China, to show that it did not follow that, because in 1842 the war with China had been brought to a successful issue, therefore in 1843 the expenditure of the country could be reduced to what it was before that war commenced. But he thanked the hon. Gentleman for having mentioned Syria for he (Sir. R. Peel) conceived it was a strong point in favour of the argument which he was then urging. The hon. Member said, that last year we had on the coast of Syria, in the Mediterranean, fifty ships of war, and that we had since reduced them to forty; and the hon. Gentleman asked why this was done? For some reason or other, we had such confidence in the sound sense and good feeling of the French nation generally, that we were not disposed to consider the ravings of the newspapers as the expression of the public sentiments. We knew that the French government and the thinking portion of the nation were desirous to remain on good terms with us. The newspapers, whatever might be their power, were not always the organs of the national will. There was a great commercial community growing up in France, which would ultimately constitute the public of that country, and would have the power of making its opinions and sentiments known and understood independently of the agency of the newspaper press. However important newspapers might be as auxiliaries in supporting and vindicating the honour of their country, yet they were not at all times to be regarded as the exponents of a nation's feelings. But we had confidence in the good sense of the community of France, and, without disputing about whether one country or the other had forty sail or fifty sail in the Mediterranean, we were convinced, so long as a good feeling existed between the two countries, whether one or the other chose to keep up a greater or less force, they might depend upon it would not increase the danger. Nothing was gained by maintaining an undue amount of force without necessity, and he believed that there was that progress of sound opinion in France, that if any party could for a moment create a war, for the mere purpose of indulging a spirit of military bravado or of unjust aggression, there would be raised throughout Europe a feeling of indignant resistance at its injustice, more formidable than had ever before been known. He was now speaking of Syria, and did not wish to introduce any party considerations, but he might say that he hoped by the end of this year, instead of ten line-of-battle ships, and fifty sail, there would only be four line-of-battle ships, and twenty-five sail of our ships altogether in the Mediterranean. That, he apprehended, would be deemed a pretty considerable reduction. He trusted, too, that the French government, attending only to the true interests of the people, would, like us, see that every expenditure on war like preparations which were not necessary to the protection of a country was only, as it were, so much dead loss. The reductions this year upon the naval, military, and ordnance estimates were not less than 832,000l.; the number of men reduced in the navy would be 4,000; but the House would be aware of the necessity of keeping a strong force in China, where its presence might be still necessary. He must observe that any increase of late years had been in conformity with the wishes of the House, and it was at no period consistent with sound policy or real economy to reduce the military, and still less the naval force of the empire, below a certain standard. Not long since, there were threatening appearances, both in the United States and in Europe, which induced Parliament to think that the estimates ought not to be reduced. In the army, the reduction would, he believed, be not less than 5,700 men, but he did not recollect whether that was the precise number. At all events, the estimate was considerably below that of last year. The House might depend upon it that finance committees were not proper judges of the general necessities of a state. Those must be left to the executive government, although he admitted that finance committees might be able to give a sound opinion as to particular diminutions of expense upon isolated points. What ought to be the amount of force for the protection of the interests of the country, must, after all, remain a question for the decision of the executive Government. The Members of the Cabinet must know far better than any finance committee the state of our relations with foreign countries, justifying an increase or a diminution of our establishments. The reduction in the ordnance department, was, he believed, 257,000l.; and in the whole, as he had stated, the saving this year would be 832,000l. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had admitted that the demand in the shape of estimates was less this year than last, and in the natural candour of his mind, he would be compelled to give Ministers credit for a considerable saving of the public money. The hon. Member had unquestionably given a very fabulous and imaginary account of the preparation of estimates. The hon Member had asserted that they were not prepared at the Treasury, but by the different departments. Now, if the case were so, great credit was surely due to the departments for having reduced the estimates by the amount of 832,000l. in their own expenditure. The tendency of departments was naturally the other way, and unless some control was exercised over that natural tendency, they found great difficulty usually in making material reductions. But the fact was, these estimates were subjected to great control. The departments had first made them out; then the Treasury, knowing what was the state of the revenue, subjected them to a severe scrutiny. He believed that that course had been pursued in former years by former Treasuries, and he could assert distinctly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had devoted the greatest attention to the consideration of the estimates. He deeply lamented the state of the revenue; he lamented its inadequacy, and must bear his testimony to the desire of every Member of the Government to reduce the estimates to the lowest possible amount. It was necessary to look at the state of the force in various parts of the world, and not to run any unjustifiable risk by unduly lessening our naval and military force. He thought that matters of detail on these subjects could be better discussed when the estimates were regularly before the House, and every information would then be willingly afforded. Order of the day read. Question put, that the Speaker do leave the Chair.

rose for the purpose of bringing before the House the case of Mr. Hoskins. He said, that this gentleman had been dismissed from his office, as he thought, in a manner harsh and unjustifiable; and, before he detailed the facts, he would say a word or two on the nature of the tenure of offices in the public service. There were very few who did not hold their offices at the pleasure of the Crown, and the Crown had a perfect right to dismiss any of its officers on due cause; that power he would be the last to dispute, but the pleasure of the Crown was one thing, and mere fancy, or political prejudice and feeling in the heads of departments, was another. The prerogative of dismissal had been placed in the hands of the Crown for the benefit of the public service, and, but for the sake of that service, the Crown was not supposed to exercise it; if a dismissal took place, it must be supposed to have proceeded on some grounds which would justify that course to the public and to the House of Commons. The higher offices of state were parliamentary offices, the retention of which depended upon the change of political parties. These were exceptions to the rule, but in general public servants in the employment of the Government, were not removable upon political grounds. Having said thus much, he would now proceed to a statement of the facts of this particular case. In July, 1831, by the death of a gentleman of the name of Greetham, two situations at Portsmouth became vacant: one of these was the office of agent to the Solicitor to the Admiralty, and to this place, the son of Mr. Greetham was appointed by Mr. Jones, the solicitor of the Admiralty, in whose appointment the situation was; the other situation was that of deputy Judge-advocate. The right hon. Baronet, now at the head of the Home Department, was then First Lord of the Admiralty, and in the whole of the transaction he (Mr. Baring) was now bringing under the notice of the House, he was bound to admit that his right hon. Friend had conducted himself most unexceptionably. The question arose in 1831 how the office of deputy Judge-advocate at Portsmouth was to be filled. Mr. Greetham had been paid partly by a salary, and partly by so much a day for the time he was employed. The right hon. Baronet was of opinion that the office of deputy Judge advocate was not necessary, and he accordingly abolished the office and its salary. Still it was necessary that the business at Portsmouth should be done, and it was determined that a person should officiate as deputy Judge-advocate, and should be appointed for that purpose. The duties of the officiating Judge-advocate were to be precisely the same as those of the deputy Judge-advocate, only he would receive no permanent salary. Sir James Macdonald brought forward the name of Mr. Hoskins, as a fit person to discharge the duties, and he could bear witness to the pains the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) took to ascertain the merits and capabilities of the individual. Mr. Hoskins was perfectly well qualified for the situation. Were not the Speaker in the Chair, he might, he believed, appeal to him confidently upon that point. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had not failed duly to inform himself without reference to political opinions of Mr. Hoskin's capability, His late colleague, Mr. Carter, from his personal knowledge and legal habits, was of all men most capable of forming an accurate estimate, and he had borne ample testimony to the claims and merits of Mr. Hoskins. The evidence of Mr. Carter on the subject was the less exceptionable, because he was personally desirous of promoting the claims of another party. Undoubtedly, Mr. Hoskins was exceedingly anxious, not for the additional salary, but for the rank of the office of deputy Judge-advocate, on two grounds, one of which was, that it had always been looked op to in his profession as a fair object of ambition, He, therefore, made an application for the purpose, but it was refused by the right hon. Baronet. Another reason was, that some of the friends of Mr. Hoskins apprehended that if he, who was at liberal, were appointed deputy Judge-advocate, advantage might at some time be taken of the change in the name of the office, in order to remove him, on a change of Government. In answer to that fear, when stated to the right hon. Baronet, he said, "So long as Mr. Hoskins discharges his duties properly, he need fear no dismissal," Unfortunately, the friends of Mr. Hoskins had prognosticated but too truly, in January, 1843, without the slightest previous notice, that gentleman received a letter from Sir John Barrow, as Secretary to the Admiralty, couched in the following terms:—

"Sir, I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that they have appointed Mr. G. Lambert Greetham to succeed you in officiating as deputy Judge-advocate in trials by court-martial. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

seconded the motion. It was unnecessary for him, after the speech of the right hon. Mover, to address any lengthened observations to the House; he would content himself with expressing his entire concurrence in the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman. He could not sit down, however, without taking this opportunity of bearing his testimony to the high character, perfect integrity, and im- partiality with which, it was admitted on all hands, Mr. Hoskins had performed the duties, both of that office from which he had been dismissed in a manner so unexampled, and the office of mayor, to which he had been elected, under unusual circumstances, by the unanimous vote of his fellow-citizens. He should have supposed that Mr. Hoskins, from his moderation in politics and his popularity even amongst his opponents, would have been the last person to meet with this mark of, at least, implied censure.

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his offer to postpone the discussion, if it would be in any measure annoying to the gallant Admiral (Sir George Cockburn); but there was nothing that could be annoying to him. The simplest and best method for him to take, to put the House into possession of the motives of Admiralty, was to state the facts of the case in a short and clear manner. The House was probably aware, that by an act passed in the reign of George 2nd, the proceedings on courts-martial were regulated. By this act, in the absence of the deputy judge-advocate, it was the duty of the court-martial to proceed to elect some person pro hac vice to fill the office. The custom on foreign stations and of late years, had been to select the Admiral's secretary, or if not the secretary, an intelligent purser, or if not a purser, the most intelligent person whose services they could command. Up to the year 1832, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Moses Greetham was deputy judge advocate at Portsmouth. On his death his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department declined to fill up the appointment. Among the many changes which were made at that time, he abolished the office, and wrote to Mr. Hoskins, stating that he would be recommended by the Admiralty to officiate as deputy-judge advocate. Under this arrangement, Mr. Hoskins was elected, by the different courts-martial held at Portsmouth, to officiate in each case, pro hac vice. He was appointed so far as his right hon. Friend had a right to appoint, but the courts'-martial had a perfect right to confirm the appointment or not. At the trial of Captain Toup Nicholas for the loss of her Majesty's ship, Vindictive, Sir Edward Owen, seeing Mr. Hoskins present at the court martial, asked why he was present, and then desired him to retire, when the court-martial proceeded to his election. It had been usual at each court-martial to nominate Mr. Hoskins; but in one instance, the court nominated Mr. Greetham, as they had a perfect right to nominate the deputy judge-advocate. During the course of the last winter, it was thought advisable by the Board of Admiralty to send a deputy judge-advocate to act on a court-martial to a foreign station. On sending for Mr. Jones, the solicitor to the Admiralty, however, the board found that there was no such person as a deputy judge-advocate, or any one they could send. He was able, most fortunately, to depose to what took place at the board, having been present at their conversation. It naturally struck the Admiralty that this want was extremely inconvenient in their proceedings, and that it was not quite right to place the Admiralty in the false position of recommending a person to officiate as deputy judge-advocate who might be refused by the court-martial. They thought it the duty of the Admiralty, therefore, to secure for the public the services of a gentleman who was notoriously and eminently worthy of the office. The last thing he would think of doing would be to discharge Mr. Hoskins. He admitted every word that the right hon. Gentleman had said as to his qualifications and character. He understood that Mr. Hoskins was a person of high standing and reputation; and the more freely he admitted the excellent character of Mr. Hoskins, the less suspicion would there be that he or the board entertained any ill-feeling towards Mr. Hoskins himself. Mr. Hoskins, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, had, on his original appointment, or rather on the receipt of a promise that he should be recommended to courts-martial for their appointment, addressed a memorial to the Board of Admiralty complaining of his not being appointed regularly as deputy judge-advocate, in which he had called the attention of the board very clearly, and as he (Mr. Herbert) thought very convincingly, to the inconvenience of not having a deputy judge-advocate, as he conceived, and asked, on account of the public service, to be put upon the footing of a deputy judge-advocate, stating that he was willing to take the office without receiving any salary; that proposal was not, however, accepted by the Board of Admiralty. Mr. Hoskins, however, in his memorial, stated strong reasons for the appointment of such an officer, in which he agreed. After the conversation at the Board of Admiralty to which he had alluded, it was determined that the office should be re-established. Mr. Jones, the solicitor, was consulted as to who was the most proper person to fill the situation. Mr. Hoskins filled no situation under the Admiralty; indeed, he held no situation except that to which he might be elected by the courts martial. Mr. Hoskins' claim, therefore, would be that for eleven years he had officiated as deputy judge-advocate and had borne a high character, whilst Mr. Greetham's claims would be that many years before Mr. Hoskins officiated he did, in consequence of the age or illness of his father, perform the duties for him. Mr. Greet ham had been appointed by Mr. Jones, the solicitor to the Admiralty, not because of any personal feeling, but in consequence of the confidence he had in him, who, as agent to the solicitor for the Admiralty, had had to solve questions on law points raised before the courts-martial. The right hon. Gentleman had prefaced his speech with some sound constitutional doctrine as to the removal of officers of the Crown, with the view of applying them to this case. He (Mr. S. Herbert) fully coincided in the right hon. Gentleman's views, but the right hon. gentlemen would admit that the Board of Admiralty, who were responsible for disposing of the patronage of the Crown, had the right to appoint such persons as they might think most fit. It was supposed that the appointment was made to assist a political supporter, but the proposal to Mr. Greetham was, whether he would accept the office of deputy judge-advocate without a salary; and his reply was that he would take the office without a salary. [Mr. F. T. Baring: Not without any remuneration, I suppose] He offered to take the office without salary. Of course he would have the same remuneration as the officiating deputy, but there would be no additional expense to the country, or burden on the public. A letter was written to Mr. Greetham on the 22d December, 1842, asking whether he would accept the office of deputy judge advocate, and he had answered that he would. That was the state of the case. It was decided by the Board of Admiralty that for the good of the public service the office should be re-established, it was found to be inconvenient to be without this officer; it was decided that the office should be re-established without salary, it was proposed upon those terms to Mr. Greet- ham, and he accepted it without salary. He thought, therefore, that the appointment of Mr. Greetham would not be objected to. He came now to a part of the case into which he could not enter without feeling much difficulty. On the 22d of December the proposal was made to Mr. Greetham. He was cognizant of the whole proceeding, and he could give his assurance to the House that there was no intention on the part of the Board of Admiralty to act politically, and that no mention was made of politics in any way whatever in that conversation. He was present, and now repeated the conversation: he was speaking in an assembly of gentlemen, and he was speaking on his own authority, when he said that there was no question raised as to politics. This, he believed, that political considerations would not have induced the Government to supersede Mr. Hoskins. A few days after this, on the 31st of December, a letter was written to that gentleman. For that letter he was himself responsible, as secretary to the Admiralty. He thought it better, when an error had been committed, frankly to avow it. He had left town, with the matter as he had just stated it, and then, in perfect ignorance of the nature of the transaction. Sir John Barrow, who evidently thought that Mr. Hoskins was deputy judge-advocate, and was to be superseded, wrote the letter, On his return to London he was informed of the letter written by Mr. Hoskins, requesting an explanation. He thereupon caused a regular warrant to be made out, by which Mr. Greetham was regularly appointed deputy judge-advocate, and the letters written in error were cancelled. The date of the warrant he had not got, but it was subsequent to the correspondence and the letters written in complete ignorance of the facts of the case, and indeed in direct contradiction of the facts of the case, and of the intentions of the Board of Admiralty. It was thought necessary to have a deputy judge-advocate that he might be sent to any place. If Mr. Greetham had resided at Plymouth, instead of Portsmouth, he might doubtless have been appointed without complaint. Mr. Greetham had been represented to the Board as a most qualified person, and he resided at Portsmouth, which, being nearer to London, and with easier communication, was thought to be a preferable place to Plymouth for the residence of such an officer; and he had already the confidence of the Board of Admiralty, acting as agent for the solicitor to the Board. He hoped, therefore, the House would be satisfied, although the letters were written in ignorance of the facts, and written in error; and he regretted, any seeming want of courtesy in conveying to Mr. Hoskins the intention of the Admiralty to make the change—that he had taken the earliest opportunity of correcting the error. So far from having displaced this gentleman from office to substitute another of different political opinions, or that to provide for a supporter they had created the place, the Board of Admiralty had found that public inconvenience had resulted from the want of this officer; they were acting as they thought right, and for the best interests of the service; they re-established the office, and they did not turn any one out of office, because Mr. Hoskins held no office. The gentleman who had been put into the office so re-established had been recommended to the Board of Admiralty as eminently qualified for the duty of the office, and he had claims upon the Admiralty long prior to the time when Mr. Hoskins was permitted to officiate as deputy judge-advocate. He trusted that the House would now be satisfied with the motives of the Admiralty in the course they had pursued; certainly there was great misapprehensions in the three letters which had been referred to, and they were written in error. The whole of the papers which the right hon. Gentleman wished, and the whole of the correspondence in the possession of the Admiralty, showing the history of the case, he was perfectly welcome to, and they should be laid upon the Table of the House.

would not insinuate an opinion as to whether Mr. Hoskins was fitter than Mr. Greetham, or Mr. Greetham fitter than Mr. Hoskins to fill this office. There might, perhaps, be some slight advantage in re-establishing the office of deputy judge-advocate; but for the last eleven years the business had been conducted at Portsmouth, as far as he knew without complaint; it was at this moment conducted at Plymouth by a person officiating as deputy judge-advocate, and his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) had, doubtless, changed the system at Portsmouth, because for many years back the service at Plymouth had been so well conducted. It was always so conducted on foreign stations. Therefore, when his hon. Friend opposite said that it was necessary to re-establish the office, he did not say that there was not some reason for it; but he must observe that the public service had been conducted practically without the slightest difficulty; and when without notice to the individual, or any special ground for condemnation, there was a removal, he must say that towards that individual the transaction was unjust. His hon. Friend in giving them the history of the case, had mentioned a conversation in which there was no mention of politics, and hon. Members on that (the opposition) side of the House cheered. He assured his hon. Friend that all they meant by this cheer was that they never supposed, at the moment of this conversation, that it was openly stated that Mr. Greetham was the brother-in-law of the chairman of Sir George Cockburn's committee, or that Mr. Hoskins had been active on the part of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Baring). His hon. Friend, however, would hardly induce the House to believe that the politics of both gentlemen were not perfectly well known, although they were not mentioned at the board, or that political bias was not effectual on that account. His hon. Friend had said that Sir John Barrow supposed that Mr. Hoskins was to be superseded in the office of deputy judge-advocate. The letter, however, showed the very reverse. The whole statement of his hon. Friend was founded on the supposition that Mr. Hoskins was not a deputy judge-advocate, and therefore could not be turned out. Nothing could be so precise as the letter of Sir John Barrow to Mr. Hoskins on this point: it said that another person was appointed to "succeed him as officiating deputy judge-advocate." If it had been necessary to appoint Mr. Greetham deputy judge-advocate, and he had been so appointed, the communication to Mr. Hoskins would naturally have been a statement that the board had thought such an officer necessary. There was no such statement in the letter of Mr. Hoskins. It did not say that. Mr. Greetham was appointed deputy judge-advocate, but that he was to succeed to Mr. Hoskins in officiating as deputy judge-advocate, and nine or ten days afterwards they found him officiating in that capacity, but not holding an appointment as deputy judge-advocate. From the correspondence, he was inclined to think that the Admiralty finding they had made a mistake, thought they should make a better case if they appointed a deputy judge-advocate. Did it ever occur to the Board of Admiralty to ask Mr. Hoskins whether he would like to accept the office of deputy judge-advocate with the same pay? Would not this have been a fairer way of treating an officer who had satisfactorily discharged his duty for eleven years, and towards a public servant liable to no reproach? It would have been fairer towards Mr. Hoskins, and would not have increased the cost to the service. It was believed in Portsmouth that the change had been made from political motives, and he must say that the facts, as they had been brought before the House, would bear out that belief. It was true in point of form that Mr. Hoskins was appointed pro hac vice. He was perfectly aware that one court-martial could appoint and another not; but this was a technical objection, which he did not think of much value. Did not courts-martial both at home and on foreign stations invariably appoint the officiating deputy judge-advocate recommended by the commander-in-chief. During the last eleven years the commander-in-chief had practically appointed Mr. Hoskins to be officiating deputy judge-advocate at Porstmouth. Upon what terms was he first appointed—or in the confusion of terms, perhaps, he ought to say named? The commander-in-chief at Portsmouth, Sir Thomas Foley, wrote to him, stating that he had received the direction of the Admiralty to employ him as officiating deputy judge-advocate, and adding, "whenever a court-martial is assembled, I shall call upon you." But there were certain duties to be performed before the court-martial assembled. In practice, it was impossible that a court-martial could proceed without some preliminary proceedings by the person who would afterwards be the officiating judge-advocate and by Admiralty order Mr. Hoskins was paid for such services, which were rendered previous to his appointment by each court-martial. However good, therefore, his hon. Friend's objection might be technically, it was practically not worth much. Would his hon. Friend contend that the technical point of Mr. Hoskins being appointed pro hoc vice deprived him of the equitable right of being appointed by the Admiralty? When Mr. Hoskins was named, his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) assured him that no change of Government would deprive him of the equitable right, and that he might consider his appointment permanent. The technical objection did not go one iota towards removing the equitable claim. No ground was shown for depriving Mr. Hoskins of his appointment. It was only for the House to draw its own inference of what the motives for the change might be; he (Mr. C. Wood) had a strong suspicion that they were political motives, and that a wish to provide for a person whose political opinions agreed with the Government had been a ruling motive. There had been no necessity for changing Mr. Hoskins. He (Mr. C. Wood) had filled the same office as his hon. Friend; he had been Secretary of the Admiralty; and he had also held another office, more connected with the political disposition of favours, and he must say, that he hardly knew of an instance in which political bias had interfered with the performance of his duty to a public servant.

said, that it was extremely disagreeable, when two hon. Gentlemen were pitted against each other, if one had been, and the other was secretary to a department, for they were sure to let the cat out of the bag. He was sorry to find that it had fallen to the lot of his hon. Friend, the Secretary of the Admiralty, to defend the appointment, because his hon. Friend was too honest a man to defend it well, and a worse defence than his, when a notorious job had been done, he had never heard. His hon. Friend said, that Sir Edward Owen, sitting upon a court-martial on the trial of Captain Troup Nicholas, went up and asked Mr. Hoskins what he did there, although he might naturally have expected to see him in his usual place. Now, he would ask whether this was not a sort of a feeler put out by the Admiralty, to let Mr. Hoskins know that he might be turned out one of these fine days, when it might suit the Admiralty to appoint his successor. It was done in a very excellent manner—he had never known anything done better. His hon. Friend (Mr. C. Wood) had said rightly, that the officiating deputy judge-advocate was invariably recommended by the Commander-in-chief; and that, before a court-martial could take place, evidence must be summoned by the person who was to be afterwards appointed officiating deputy judge-advocate. Did they suppose that the members of courts-martial, who were always too happy to do as the admiralty wished, would have objected to Mr. Hoskins, who had been officiating deputy judge-advocate for eleven years before? He believed, that more courts-martial took place abroad than in this country. He had been in the service forty-three years, and he had never seen any difficulty, nor had he heard of any deputy judge-advocate being sent abroad to officiate. He therefore thought that upon that point his hon. Friend's justification must fall to the ground. Then they were told that Mr. Moses Greetham's son had frequently officiated for his father: he might have done so during illness; he had, however, sat on some courts-martial with the gallant Captain, the Member for Aberdeen (Captain Gordon), and he did not recollect one instance in which Mr. Moses Greetham did not act. This was not the first case of the kind which had occurred since the present Government had come into office. It would be fresh in the minds of hon. Gentlemen that in the course of the last Session of Parliament, the hon. Member for Brighton (Captain Pechell) had mentioned the case of a purser at Cork, a Whig, who had been superseded from a situation which he held, upon a suggestion that a naval officer was best fitted for the discharge of its duties, and a lieutenant appointed. At the same time, the Board of Admiralty superseded a captain who held an office at Deal, and put a clerk into his place, not in the navy, but who had served at the admiralty. With regard to the present case, he viewed it as an undoubted job, and he thought that the board of admiralty would have shown more discretion if they had been contented to carry out their views in a more reasonable and decent manner.

observed, that the date of the letter which was written to Mr. Greetham, asking him whether he would accept the office of deputy judge-advocate, was sufficient to prove that the second letter must have been written in error. According to the act of Parliament, the Board of Admiralty had no power to appoint any other individual to officiate at a court-martial except the judge-advocate or his deputy. By a clause in the 22nd George 2nd, it was distinctly stated, that in the absence of the judge-advocate and his deputy, the court-martial should have full power to name any person they might think fit. Finding that inconvenience had arisen from there being no deputy judge-advocate, the admiralty thought it necessary that such an appointment should take place, and considering that Mr. Moses Greetham, the father of this gentleman, had filled the office for thirty-five years, and that this gentleman had officiated during his absence from illness, they thought his claim as strong as that of any other person. It must have been inconvenient for the chief magistrate of such a town as Portsmouth, like Mr. Hoskins, to be ordered to a distance to attend a court-martial.

said, that the ground of this motion was a suggestion that the present Government had been guilty of jobbing. How was it, he begged to ask, that when, some time ago, an officer was sent home from a foreign station, having just escaped a court-martial, because he happened to make a liberal speech at a dinner in favour of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) who was then standing for the county of Hants, he should be immediately appointed to a new command? There was no place in the United Kingdom, he believed, in which more jobbing had taken place than Portsmouth, especially during the last ten years. Every situation in the Customs and Excise had been filled by the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman, who had brought forward this motion. With regard to the present case, he maintained that the situation held by Mr. Hoskins had been in abeyance, and he believed that the appointment of Mr. Greetham had given the highest satisfaction to all the old officers of the navy.

addressed a few words to the House which were inaudible in the gallery.

declared, that a more monstrous job than the dismissal of Mr. Hoskins, and the appointment of Mr. Greetham, had never been perpetrated.

begged to ask a question. He had heard it suggested, that Mr. Greetham had been appointed deputy judge-advocate, because such an officer might be wanted to go abroad. Was this the real cause of Mr. Greetham's appointment?

said, that Mr. Greetham had been appointed, when it was found that there was no such officer as a deputy judge-advocate in existence if he should be required to go abroad.

would venture to say, that in his experience of forty-three years he had never known of an instance of a judge-advocate being sent abroad.

begged most sin- cerely to congratulate the Government that they felt so satisfied at the defence made by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty that no other member of the Government thought it necessary to address any observations to the House. He would describe things as they were, and there never was a clearer case than the present of an officer being dismissed from his situation, and another appointed in his stead, solely for political reasons—of the dismissal of one man, because in political principles he was favourable to the party in opposition—of the appointment of another because he was an active partisan of the party in power. The principle of selection on account of political opinions, was one, he thought, which might fairly and reasonably be adopted in all cases where the officer in reference to whom it was applied could be considered to be in confidential connection with the Government; but in cases of officers who held situations of a judicial or executive character merely, that principle was never acted upon. Cases might be mentioned in the executive departments of the Government, where persons high even in the confidential employment of the Government were not changed upon a change of Administration, clerks who were in situations which necessarily rendered them the depositaries of secrets, and who were entrusted with the daily administration of the Government, were not discharged or retained in their office with reference to what might be their political opinions. Even in the department over which he had had the honour of presiding, namely the diplomatic service, the same rule prevailed, and although the persons who discharged the duties of the more important embassies were usually changed upon a change of Government at home, yet it seldom happened, except in special cases, that even the Ministers Plenipotentiary were changed, and the officers of lower rank were never removed on such grounds. He thought that the same rule ought to prevail in cases like the present, and that no reason of mere political bias ought to prevail, to induce the Government to exercise the power of removal which was unquestionably vested in them. He must say that the defence which had been set up in this case by the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty, was more honourable to his candour, by reason of its failure than it was advantageous to the Go- vernment in relation to the transaction under discussion. First, it was said that it was necessary to have as deputy judge-advocate at Portsmouth, a person who might, if necessary, be sent abroad; and that because Mr. Hoskins happened to be mayor of Portsmouth this year, he could not be employed in any service which would call for his absence from England. He had no doubt that if the option had been put to Mr. Hoskins, and the necessity of the case had been pointed out to him, he would willingly have resigned the temporary honours of his mayoralty for the more permanent advantage of the office which he had hitherto held. But was Mr. Greetham a person who was available for foreign service? Did he hold no other office which tied him down to Portsmouth? He was not mayor undoubtedly, nor was it likely that the choice of his fellow-townsmen would ever impose the duties of that office upon him, but it appeared that he held three offices of considerable importance, namely, those of agent for the Ordnance, of agent for the Customs, and of agent for the Admiralty, the duties of each of which were connected locally with Portsmouth. If these three offices were of such a character as to leave Mr. Greetham available for employment abroad, in the situation to which he had been appointed in suppression of Mr. Hoskins, he thought that the House would agree with him that the Admiralty, and the Customs, and the Ordnance might well be spared the expense of appointing such agents at all. Then it was said that there had been a mistake made by Sir John Barrow. That Gentleman, however, had been long at the Admiralty. There was no man engaged in the public service more generally accurate than he, and he was a man who had a peculiar faculty of making himself fully informed on questions which called for his attention. It was said, that it was originally intended to substitute for this officer elected on each occasion, by each court-martial, a permanent officer appointed by the Crown; and that being the case, it was intended to appoint a person who was thought fitter for it than Mr. Hoskins—not in a professional point of view, because the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty, fully admitted the high professional merits of Mr. Hoskins, and by some process of reasoning, which he could not follow, seemed to have arrived at the conclusion, that the higher the professional character of that gentleman was, the stronger were the reasons for depriving him of his office. But with regard to the appointment held by Mr. Hoskins, it was said, that that was not an appointment of the Government at all, for that the officiating deputy judge-advocate was elected by each court-martial. But taking this to be so, and trying the question by analogy, how, he asked, were the bishops appointed? There was no appointment more universally understood to be in the discretion of the Crown than the appointment of a bishop, but it was made by means of a permission to elect given to the chapter by the Crown, and yet he supposed they would not be told the responsibility of such an appointment did not rest with the Government, merely because, in point of fact it had technically been made by the chapter, who had been authorised by the Crown to make the election. He would take another case—that of a knight of the garter. The knights of the garter were elected by ballot; yes, actually by ballot. The course of election was this: The knights were assembled in chapter, each knight wrote secretly on a piece of paper the name of the individual whom he wished to be elected, and the carefully folding up the paper so written upon, gave it mysteriously to the proper officer of the Order; all the papers being thus collected, and being examined by that officer, it invariably happened that the person designated by the Crown was declared unanimously elected to the vacancy. But any one would be laughed at who said that the Crown had nothing to do with the election. The mere technical fact, therefore, in the present case, that the deputy judge-advocate was elected in each particular case by the court-martial, was no proof whatever that the appointment of officiating deputy judge-advocate was not conferred by, and held at the pleasure of the Admiralty. But referring to the letters of Sir J. Barrow, it was clear from them that the Board of Admiralty deliberately and advisedly intended to remove Mr. Hoskins from some situation from which they conceived they possessed the power to remove him, or in which they believed they could retain him if they had chosen to do so. If this were not so, surely, when Sir John Barrow replied to Mr. Hoskins's remonstrance, he would have explained that the Board of Admi- ralty were not the persons who made the appointment, but that it was made by the election of the courts-martial. Instead of saying as he did that the appointment was held during the pleasure of the board, he must say, that at all events, he thought that the letters which were written were devoid of that courtesy which the circumstances of the case required, and that something should have been done to soothe the wounded feelings of Mr. Hoskins, and to show that his removal did not imply any disadvantageous opinion of the manner in which he had performed his duties. With regard to the denial of the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty, that the political opinions either of Mr. Hoskins or Mr. Greet ham were discussed at the meeting of the Board at which the latter was appointed, he gave the hon. Gentleman full credit for the truth of his statement. Such a discussion would have been wholly supererogatory. As well might the right hon. Baronet opposite have discussed with the First Lord of the Admiralty the political opinions of the hon. Gentleman himself, before he offered him the situation which he now held as a Member of her Majesty's Government. The political opinions of the hon. Gentlemen were too well known to require to be discussed, and those of Mr. Hoskins and Mr. Greetham were just as notorious to the Board of Admiralty. Looking at the facts of the particular case now before the House, he thought that any man who could put two and two together, could come to no other conclusion than that the appointment was the result of preference for a political partizan. The hon. Member for Westminster (Captain Rous) had remarked on the course taken by the late Board of Admiralty in reference to a gallant Officer who had supported him (Viscount Palmerston) in his election for South Hants; and it was said that that Board had in that case indulged in a preference for a political partizan. With regard to that officer, he begged to say that that officer well deserved by his professional merits the promotion he had obtained. He did not mean to say, that the late Board of Admiralty had not shown a proper degree of favour for their friends— it was very natural that they should, all Governments of course do so; what he objected to was the shewing favour to friends, but the wreaking of vengeance on opponents. The expulsion of one officer from a situation which he held, for the sake of promoting another. But with reference to the conduct of the late Board of Admiralty in such matters he would state the fact, that at the same election for South Hants, at which he was a candidate, another naval officer had been most active in opposing him, and was almost the only person at that election the warmth of whose zeal might have justified criticism as to the manner in which he displayed it; but that officer, nevertheless, obtained a ship a few months after the election was over. He had just professional claims to employment, and the First Lord of the Admiralty did not think that his activity at the election ought to be any bar to those claims; and if he (Lord Palmeston) had had any voice in the matter he should have been ashamed of himself if he had interposed any objection. It appeared to him, that in the present case, there was no defence whatever. It would have been better for the Government, instead of raising such a defence, to have said, "We find that the people of Portsmouth, in spite of the influence which the dockyards might be supposed to give us, continue to support the late Chancellor of the Exchequer — we are, therefore, determined to bring all our force to bear on the voters, and we have thought fit to place this office in the hands of a friend, rather than to leave it in those of an opponent." He hoped that the notice which had been taken of the case in that House, and the honourable testimony which had been borne on all sides to the respectability and professional fitness of Mr. Hoskins, would be satisfactory to the feelings of that gentleman and his friends, and that the irregularity which had been committed in this instance would be the less likely to recur, in consequence of what had fallen from hon. Members in the course of this discussion.

was surprised, knowing the cause of the present motion, that its advocates should have been soft enough to make the exhibition they had that night. The inference he drew from it was, that the preferment must be very valuable, and the jobs very rich, the loss of which was made so much noise about.

said that, not being a Hampshire man, he felt some apology was due for taking part in the debate after the length to which it had already extended. His hon. Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty was willing to give the papers, and the whole transaction would appear when they were produced, and if there should appear to be any parliamentary ground to call the attention of the House to the matter, the right hon. Gentleman could then do so. He rose, however, for the purpose of observing that he thought that the noble Lord had put something like an unfair interpretation on some part of the transaction. As for the letter of Sir John Barrow to Mr. Hoskins, he admitted that, on the first reading of the letter, it did imply some expression of disapprobation towards Mr. Hoskins; but his hon. Friend had distinctly stated that this was not the case, and had expressed his regret that, in the communication to Mr. Hoskins, there was an apparent harshness which was not intended. He was sure that his hon. Friend would not have written so, and he thought nothing could be more fair than the course taken by his hon. Friend in acting differently, as he did, from Sir John Barrow. The noble Lord had referred to the letters of Sir J. Barrow, written on the 31st of December and on the 3rd of January, which, on the face of them, stated that Mr. Greetham was to succeed to the performance of the duties of deputy judge-advocate at Portsmouth. The noble Lord, however, should recollect the letter of a prior date, which implied that, under the new arrangement, Mr. Greetham had been selected to fill the office of deputy judge-advocate. The communication was dated the 28th of December, and stated that the writer of it had been directed by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to ask whether the acceptance of the office of deputy judge-advocate at Portsmouth, without a salary, would be acceptable to Mr. Greetham? The letter showed that the situation always contemplated was the appointment of a deputy judge-advocate under certain new arrangements. The hon. Member for Halifax had himself admitted that much might be urged in favour of certain new arrangements respecting that office. [Mr. C. Wood had not said a word to justify the removal of Mr. Hoskins.] The hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that advantage might be derived from the re-construction of the duties of this office, but observed that on its re-construction it might have been offered to Mr. Hoskins. Now supposing that this re-construction. took place, the question arose as to whether Mr. Hoskins or Mr. Greetham had the prior claim or right to the appointment. Much no doubt might be urged in favour of Mr. Hoskins, in consequence of the manner in which he had hitherto performed the duties of the office, and it had been admitted on all hands that his conduct had been unexceptionable: Mr. Greetham, however, was not merely known as a political partizan, for Mr. Greetham's father had been deputy judge-advocate at Portsmouth for thirty-five years, and Mr. Greetham, jun., had often acted for his father when he was disqualified by age from taking so active a part as he formerly did. At that time the abilities of Mr. Greetham, jun., were fully admitted, and when a vacancy occurred in the office by the death of his father, he was acting as agent at Portsmouth for Mr. Jones, as solicitor for the Admiralty. Now, in the vacancy that then occurred, and Mr. Greetham having so often officiated for his father, had he not a sort of hereditary claim to the appointment. When it was thought advisable by the Board of Admiralty to reconstruct the office, he was far from saying that Mr. Hoskins had not fair claims on their consideration, but the Board considered that Mr. Greetham also had claims, and they could not forget the services of the father. He concurred in the general principle laid down by the noble Lord as to offices held during pleasure, that good conduct during the holding of the offices gave claims for the continuance in them. This was in conformity with the general practice of the Government; and he believed that no Administration had acted more in stronger conformity to the principle than the present Government. He believed that as few changes in office, held during pleasure, when it was considered that employment gave a claim, had taken place as under any other Government. With regard to the office over which the noble Lord presided, namely, the Foreign Office, the noble Lord must admit that as few changes as possible had taken place. He could not conceive a stronger case—not of deputy judge-advocate—than of the diplomatic service of the country, and there was no department of the state in which there was a better opportunity of securing or obtaining political friends, than in connection with diplomacy, and he would venture to assert that in the diplomatic arrangement of the present Government, they had gone as far to show a regard to the claims of former service as any previous Government. He would not make a comparison with the conduct of the previous or any other Administration. The noble Lord said that the Government was entitled to have confidence in those whom they employed, and, admitting this, he would call upon the noble Lord to show an instance in which, as regarded the diplomatic men of the present Government, the claims of service were not attended to, independently of personal politics.

did not feel disposed to deny that, in the general distribution of the patronage at the disposal of the Government, the present Administration had acted fairly as regarded the diplomatic service; he did not think that it was too much to say, that they had only acted in conformity with the practice of the Government which went before them. He did not think that the charge could be brought against his noble Friend that, in the disposal of the patronage of his office, he had treated with harshness political opponents whom he found employed when he accepted office. He was sure that if the matter was strictly examined, that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not throw out such a charge. He was sure that the House could not have heard the speech of the right hon. Baronet without coming to the conclusion that this change would never have taken place in this office, if he had been consulted. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's qualified defence of the change that had been made, but he should have blushed had it been otherwise. He was surprised to hear the hon. the Secretary of the Admiralty say, that in the letter of Sir John Barrow that officer did not express the opinions of the Board of Admiralty. It was long since that he was a Member of that Board, where he sat as a junior Lord, at the time that it was presided over by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester, and certainly he must say, that that department under the right hon. Baronet's control was admirably managed. Now he knew sufficiently of the constitution of the Board of Admiralty at that time to know, that a Secretary of the Admiralty would rather have cut off his hand than have sent such a letter without the sanction of the head of the Board. He could not conceive a worse defence of the Board of Admiralty, than that a letter should pass which, in tone and temper, was directly opposed to the feelings of the Board. He could not help thinking that the present was a most injurious attempt to cow the electors of Portsmouth. At that place, the Government influence was naturally strong, and therefore political patronage should be exercised with peculiar delicacy.

said, that he would withdraw the motion on the understanding that the papers were to be produced.

said that he had given notice of his intention to call the attention of the Government to the state of the North Boundary question between this country and the United States; but probably it would be more convenient, if he postponed the subject to a future day.

said, that he did not anticipate that the hon. Member wished to do more than ask a question, and he would suggest that he should at once proceed.

said, that he intended to ask a question, but he should feel it necessary to preface it with a few observations. He had heard with very great pleasure the right hon. Baronet, in the early part of the evening, express his confidence that the good sense of the French people would prevent any collision between this country and France. He hoped that a similar assurance might be made with regard to other parts of the world. From the speech of the President of the United States, and from the debates that had recently taken place in the senate of that country, he had some apprehensions, however, that we might be brought into collision with that country. The collision which he alluded to was likely to arise, in consequence of the debates that had taken place in the senate, respecting the north-eastern boundary. In 1818, an agreement took place between the two countries, respecting the boundary of the United States and our possessions in North America, extending from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. In 1827, the arrangement was renewed for an indefinite time; and it was to continue, as to the disposal of this territory, until notice was given by either patty. One of the questions which he wished to put was whether any notice had been given under this arrangement? He found that in the senate of the United States a bill had been introduced, so lately as November last, for the exclusive occupation of this territory, which was termed the Oregon territory. The title of the Bill was,

"A Bill to authorise the adoption of measures for the occupation and settlement of the territory of Oregon, and for extending certain portions of the laws of the United States over the same, and for other purposes."

The preamble of the Bill commenced by stating,

"Whereas the title of the United States to the territory of Oregon is certain, and will not be abandoned therefore."

In the course of the debate on this Bill a Mr. M'Roberts made a speech, containing a most violent attack on England. In that speech he said,

"That it was quite a matter of surprise, that Great Britain, in the face of evidence so strongly furnished by her own accredited officer, should ever think of preferring any claim to the territory drained by that river. He asserted that Great Britain never had a just claim that she did not enforce; and never put forward an unjust one that she did not endeavour to strengthen by postponement and diplomatic procrastination. If she had the same ground to stand upon in this instance that we have, she would not hesitate a moment to assert it, and to enforce it, if necessary. Why, then, should we weaken our own right, and strengthen her pretensions, by voluntarily deferring the assertion of our claim? Our right was indisputable from the forty-second to the forty-ninth degree of north latitude, and from the Pacific Ocean to our territory east of the Rocky Mountains. This comprised a fertile region, 700 miles wide at one extremity, and 500 at the other—running through seven degrees of latitude, and embracing nearly 200,000,000 acres of land—enough to form four or five new states. It was of vital interest to us to have the control of those Indian tribes which infest our western borders. The provisions of this bill would enable us to keep them in complete check. Hitherto it might have been thought that we had territory enough, and that for some generations we would not have use for more. But the late census, as well as that preceding, shows that we may calculate on our population being doubled every twenty-three or twenty-four years. By this ratio we may expect to have a population of 52,000,000 in 1880, and at the close of the present century, at least 92,000,000. We have to act for those who are to succeed us, and our neglect of their interests, at the critical moment that it is our duty to place them on a permanent foundation, will be wholly inexcusable. That duty is now to assert our right to encourage the occupation of our own territory by our own citizens—to give them temporary protection in their emigration; and in less than ten years our hardy citizens from the Mississippi valley, transplanted to this new section of our union, will be able to defend and protect themselves. They will claim no other protection. If we delay longer to assert our right, Great Britain will assume a new argument in support of her pretensions, grounded on our neglect of our own claims. He wished not only to retain the preamble of the bill but to avoid any question of its propriety. He wanted to see this bill passed in both Houses by a unanimous vote. Let this be done, and England would at once abandon her pretensions. She would see that we are not only in earnest, and determined to maintain our rights, but that in support of them, we forget all party differences, and act with an irresistible unanimity. If this were done, we should never again hear a word of the right of Great Britain to the territory of Oregon."

He (Mr. Blewitt) would ask what ideas would be formed in the United States respecting the House of Commons, if a bill was introduced on such a subject, claiming an absolute right of territory to a country which was subject to the provisions of the two treaties of 1818 and 1827. He thought that the mode in which the matter had been dealt with in the senate of the United States was an insult to this country, and although he was a most strenuous advocate of peace, he never would consent to the sacrifice of the honour of the country; and if the legislature of the United States went beyond a certain point, he conceived that it would be the duty of this country to show the American people that we knew how to vindicate our honour.

hoped, that the hon. Member would not infer the existence of an intention on the part of the American people to adopt a certain course in consequence of a bill having been introduced, and laid on the table of the senate of the United States, and having been followed by a violent speech of an individual Member. He hoped that the hon. Member would not endeavour to identify the whole of that nation with such a proceeding. He hoped also that the hon. Gentleman's speech would not be quoted across the Atlantic as a proof of the feeling of this country; but he would venture to say, that he was satisfied that even that speech would not cause the American funds to fall. The violent speech the hon. Member had quoted, he (Sir Robert Peel) would, with all respect to the American senate, say, would not interfere with the diplomatic relations between the two countries. The Government had had no official information on the subject of any such bill having been introduced into the senate, nor could they deal with the matter. As for the Oregon territory, there had been communications of a friendly nature on the subject between the two governments, and they were now going on; under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think it disrespectful of him if he further declined entering upon the subject.

said that at that late hour he would compress into the shortest space the statement in elucidation of the estimates which had been laid on the Table. Last year he had to claim the indulgence of the committee in undertaking the task of moving the estimates for the first time; on the present occasion he had to ask the same indulgence on a different ground, namely, in consequence of the absence, from indisposition, of a gallant Friend of his, a member of the Board of Admiralty, whose high professional and personal character invested him with the highest authority on naval matters; and procured for his opinions a respect as creditable to those who paid it, as to him to whom they thus deferred. In the course of the preliminary discussion to going into committee of supply, the improved state of the relations of this country with respect to certain foreign nations had been so fully explained that it was not necessary for him to say a word more on the subject. That discussion showed in what manner the Government had been able to make a reduction of 4,000 men in the naval service of the country. This partly had arisen from the termination of the war with China, and partly in consequence of the state of our foreign relations in Europe being such as to enable us to make a reduction in the number of the fleet in the Mediterranean; but the force would be found quite sufficient for the exigencies of the service. The reduction of the number of 4,000 seamen in round numbers, would of course I would be in the recollection of some hon. make a material reduction in the amount of the estimate required for their pay and provisions this year as compared with that of last year. In the next vote, for the purchase of provisions and victualling stores, a saving would be found to be effected in addition to that resulting from the smaller number to be victualled, by the great reduction that had taken place in the price of provisions. In the next vote, namely, that for the Admiralty-office, there was a small increase, arising in two ways. In the first place, after the adoption of the new postage the Admiralty estimated the charge for postage at 6,000l.; and a vote to that amount for the purpose had been taken for the last few years; but the charge for postage had uniformly been found to exceed that sum. Under these circumstances, it was determined to ask for 2,000l. in addition, which would be about the sum required; and, therefore, the sum proposed to be taken for postage this year was 8,000l. The other increase, under the head of Admiralty-office, arose from the circumstance that the clerks for lengthened service were entitled to a small additional pay, and it was therefore necessary to make a small addition to the vote. There was also a charge for the salary of a deputy accountant-general of the navy. By the act for the consolidation of the officers connected with the navy at Somerset-house, it was intended that an efficient check should be established over the navy expenditure, and that the bills, after having been passed by the accountant general, should be countersigned by a Lord of the Admiralty. This plan, however, was not found to afford an efficient check, for large piles of papers were constantly accumulating, which it was impossible to examine, and which were necessarily signed without being verified, so that a signature of the Lord of the Admiralty was not a sufficient check. For the purpose of remedying this evil, is was determined to appoint an efficient and responsible officer under the accountant-general, entitled the deputy accountant-general of the navy, who should devote himself entirely to the naval accounts. The next head of expenditure under which there was an increase was the scientific branch. There was some diminution of charge for printing scientific works, but this was more than counterbalanced by a charge for the establishment of a compass department at Woolwich. It would be in the recollection of some hon. Gentlemen opposite that complaints were made to former Boards of Admiralty respecting defects being found in compasses that were used for the navy. In consequence of this, in 1826, a commission was appointed, at the head of which was Professor Barlow, to institute an inquiry into the subject. This commission was formed of several scientific men and experienced officers, and, by the report which that body prepared it became manifest that great errors were often to be imputed to the compasses, which had often been productive of the most serious consequences; the commission, therefore, recommended the appointment of an efficient officer to superintend the employment of a test for the regulation of compasses. The officer appointed to this department was Captain Johnson, who had been strongly recommended by Captain Beaufort. Under this head he might observe, that at the present time a great number of surveys were being carried on in various parts of the world. For instance, surveys were being made on several places on the coast of England, particularly at the mouth of the Thames; on the coast of Ireland; at the Orkney Islands; in several parts of the Mediterranean; at the Azores, at the Bay of Fundy, in the West Indies; at the Falkland Islands; a surveying expedition, on an enlarged scale, had also been recently despatched to the coast of China. Again, a survey was being made on the coast of Australia; and, in addition to these, there was the Antarctic expedition. With respect to the last, accounts of the most satisfactory nature had recently been received from Captain Ross, who had penetrated ten degrees further than any one before him, and who was now refitting at the Falkland Islands, after having been three years engaged in this service. That gallant officer had sent home a most valuable collection of magnetic observations, which would stamp the character of the expedition as of the utmost importance in a scientific point of view. [Captain Pechell: What was the date of the last accounts from Captain Ross?] September last. The estimate for the home establishments was less than that of the previous year, notwithstanding the establishment of a steam department at Woolwich dockyard. Upon reference, however, to the estimate No. 8, it would be found that in the wages to the artificers, labourers, and others, employed in her Majesty's establishments at home, there was an increase of upwards of 20,000l. This arose in some measure from the additional labour in the engine-factory at Woolwich, amounting to about 10,000l., and an additional expense for the labour of the yards, which arose, not from any increased establishments, for that remained the same, but from the sum taken last year being found insufficient for their payment, not having been varied. In the estimate for the naval stores for the building, repair, and outfit of the fleet, &c, there was a considerable diminution, as compared with the previous year, of about 200,000l., which was owing, in a great measure, to the reduction in the price of materials. There was an increase, however, in the charge for the half-pay amounting to nearly 30,000l., which was accounted for by promotions, the removal of officers from full to half-pay, consequent on the great reductions in the fleet, and the additional allowance to pursers; but when the successful termination of the wars of the past year were considered, and the gallantry with which that war was carried on, and the commercial results likely to accrue from its success, that would scarcely be thought an extravagant expenditure. In the charge for freight, &c, on account of the Home Department, there was an increase of about 4,000l., and also of 2,000l. in the packet service of the post-office department. The latter increase arose in consequence of certain alterations made in the contract for steam-packets, the effect of which was the acceleration of the mails. There was also a considerable increase of expense in the works of the dockyards; in consequence of the construction of machinery for testing machines, engines, saw mills, and other important and necessary works, all of which in their result tend to great economy in the public expenditure. At Woolwich, it is right to state that the basin and dock had been continued beyond the vote of Parliament, it being found necessary for the public service. But the principal work at Portsmouth was the new steam-basin. The House was well aware that steam-power and navigation had made great advances of late years; but the steam factory at Woolwich was the only Government factory of that kind. He believed that, when first the steam factory at Woolwich was commenced the number of Government steam-vessels was fifty-five, comprising 6,443 horse- power; now there were ninety-six vessels, of upwards of 14,301 horse-power. In France, with an inferior steam navy, they had five steam establishments; in England one. By the establishment of this one, a great saving had already been effected; the repairs of steam machinery cost less than 3l. instead of 5l. per horse-power. If an engagement with a hostile force were to be fought in the channel, a disabled steamer could scarcely ever succeed in reaching the Thames. On the whole, the greatest economy had been exercised, but, at the same time that reduction had been made, the efficiency of the service had been most carefully regarded, and he hoped that the House would find that next year the navy would be in a more efficient state than it had been in for some time past. Great attention had been paid to every department connected with the organization of the service; the demonstration-ships had been put in proper serviceable condition, and if an exigency should arise, which God forbid, he felt assured that our means and our preparation were such that there would be no difficulty in instantly coping with any enemy. He wished only further to observe, that the total savings on the year's estimates would amount to 435,000l., and having stated thus much, he left the estimates with confidence to the House assured that there had been no negligence on the part of the Admiralty, but that every effort had been made to put the navy in a secure and effective condition. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, that 39,000 men including 10,500 Royal Marines, and 2,000 boys be employed for the service of the year to March 1844.

observed, that he was quite ready to admit that some economy was shown in the estimates now laid before the House, but that he was not at all satisfied that further reductions might not have been made, or that those now proposed were judiciously apportioned. He thought it was decidedly irregular to take the vote for the payment of the ships' companies now expected home from China, as it appeared that it was purposed to take it. When he was in office, he was told that if a vote was required for a particular service, it ought to be taken in a distinct form; but it now appeared, that the Government had one set of rules for proceedings when out of office, and another set for use when they attained power. For his part he saw no reason whatever for departing from the established regulations. With regard to the appointment of a new officer at Somerset-house, he really could not discover on what grounds such an office was proposed to be created. The only object it could serve would be the removal of some responsibility from the Admiralty, and if they were to go on in this way, creating deputy accountant-generals, why should they not have deputies in every other branch of the civil departments of the service? Such a proposition seemed to him to be virtually a re-establishment of the old Navy Board, with all its abuses, and of any such arrangement he certainly could not express any approbation. With respect to the scientific departments, the increase in the estimates appeared to be some what strange, when it was recollected that the votes for these objects had been already doubled within the last ten years. He should not however, object to this increase, nor to that addition to the votes which was intended to apply to the formation of steam machinery; indeed, he was glad to see that the Government was in these respects following up the principles of its predecessors, and that where they had in their last estimates departed from these principles, they now found it advisable to retrace their steps. Respecting the stores, he thought a due regard to liberality was always the best economy in the end, and instead of making a reduction in this part of the estimates, he should have been glad to have found that the miscellaneous items were reduced. Under the last head, indeed, he could not but particularly remark the vote proposed for extra payment to clerks. Surely, when the business was decreasing it was odd, to say the least of it, that more clerks should be required? But perhaps the Government anticipated a little agreeable additional patronage from this source; and, indeed, this consideration appeared to be a very ruling motive with them in framing the estimates generally, for he could not but observe that whenever he found a small excess it was always under some head where the Administration might employ some small additional patronage. These observations, however, were not of a sufficiently important nature to justify him in longer detaining the House, and he should not, indeed, have made any remarks on the subject at all had not the hon. Gentleman taken credit to himself for such a strict regard to economy. In all the votes in which the efficacy of the service was concerned, the Government might count upon his support; but on other points he must certainly, for the present, reserve his opinion.

previous to the question being put, desired some information as to the cause of the increase of the pensioners in the civil department. He also wished to know what were the duties of a Major-general of Marines? There was a gallant Admiral, at present one of the Lords of the Admiralty, who filled one of these seemingly anomalous situations at the same time that he was receiving his admiral's half-pay and his salary as a naval lord.

replied that the appointment to be General of Marines was an honorary distinction bestowed for distinguished naval services. It had been approved by the commission for inquiring into the army and navy.

called attention to the number of yachts, and the expense they cost.

referred to her Majesty's late trip to Scotland, when she was obliged to hire a steam vessel. He was sure, that in the present state of steam navigation when steam-vessels were so much superior to sailing vessels, that the House could but desire that her Majesty should have a steam yacht for her own use, whenever her Majesty might require one. They must all be glad that her Majesty should be capable of using one, and all must be glad that her Majesty should visit every part of her dominions. It was only proper that if the Queen of England chose to do that, she should have a steam yacht of her own, and not be obliged to hire one of a steam company. The expense for fitting such a vessel for her Majesty's use had not exceeded by 2,000l. the sum required for building similar vessels in the customary and ordinary manner. Her Majesty had expressed a wish that the vessel should be so constructed as to be adapted to the exigencies of the public service, and not be appropriated exclusively to her use. The expense, therefore, would only be a small sum greater than was required to build such a vessel in the ordinary manner of 400 horse power, or 30,000l.

had not one word to say against building the vessel, but he was glad to hear the explanation, because an impression had gone abroad that the ship was to cost a sum far beyond the ordinary expense of a steam man-of-war.

thought it was extremely proper in discussing these estimates that Gentlemen should cast their eyes abroad and be careful not to reduce our establishments so as to render them inefficient to meet any increase in the establishment of foreign powers. At present it was incumbent on us to extend our steam navigation, and make our steam vessels as efficient and complete as possible. It was not necessary for him to allude to the places where great exertions were making abroad, it was only necessary to mention the subject, and point out the caution it indicated. The hon. Member for Kildare had objected to the appointment of a deputy-accountant, but he thought the services of some such officer was necessary. The more the responsibility was increased, the greater would be the efficiency of the public service. At the present time the Admiralty had quite as much work to do as they could get through, and in time of war it would not be possible for the Lords of the Admiralty to execute all that was required of them. The hon. Member had objected to the Navy Board; but that board, or some equivalent officers, were able to bestow minute attention on details which could not be bestowed by the Lords of the Admiralty, and which was at the same time very useful. Far from objecting to our establishments, he wished to see preparations for building steam vessels at all our ports, and he thought that it was indispensable that the Government should have an establishment of its own for making steam machinery, instead of being dependent on private manufacturers. At present we had only one establishment to repair steam machinery. He hoped, too, that the Hydrographic Department would receive the attention of the Government. It should be remembered that this department had lately trained a number of officers, who had been of great use in China. That department, in fact, was now of greater service than ever it had been before. It should be remembered that steam vessels, from the rapidity of their motion, could not rely so much on the lead, or keep so good a look out as other vessels; and, therefore, it became more than ever necessary to supply our vessels with good charts. At present the Hydrographic Department was overloaded with materials; the chambers of the hydrographic were crowded, and there was no room to work. He hoped that this subject would be taken into consideration, and that both our steam and hydro-graphic establishments, would be extended.

thought, the Government were the best judges of the propriety of retaining or reducing our establishments, knowing, as they must, the position of our relations with foreign powers far better than could Members generally; but he could not help expressing a doubt whether the reductions in the number of seamen might not be found too great; as in times of public exigency the manning of our ships of war, not the fitting them out was the main difficulty experienced; and it had often occurred to him, that one very advisable way of meeting the difficulty would be that of displacing the marines in times of peace by seamen—the result of which regulation would be, that by dividing the crew of each of our guardships, and filling up the complement with boys, landsmen, &c, two ships of the line could be, at a few days' notice, fully manned and at no additional expense, instead of having to wait, as in some recent instances had been the case, for months. The great burthen of the naval charges consisted in the expenses of keeping up the necessary crews. Then, again, as to the way in which the business was managed at the Admiralty, he could not but think that a change might be beneficially effected. He had found that the business was really, though quite conventionally, and therefore irresponsibly, divided among the different members of the board, so that it was extremely difficult—civil as they were now a-days, and very different in this respect from what they used to be—it was very difficult for officers to find out to which member of the board they were, as to any particular department of the service, to apply. He had no hope now of seeing a naval man at the head of the Admiralty, but he thought the administration would be highly improved by rendering one individual responsible for each department. There should be one head of the dock yards, one of the victualling department, one of the finances, and so of others. And these arrangements should be independent of changes of Government. As things at present were managed, the Admiralty work could not be well got through. It was quite enough to kill the first naval lord. The illness of the hon. Admiral who filled that station now had been brought on entirely through the great exertions entailed upon him by the duties he had to fulfil; which had been found too much for all those who had within living memories occupied the same onerous post, and which had proved positively the destruction of some of the ablest and most valued among them, as Sir Thomas Hardy. One evil of the present system now was, that when the first naval lord was incapacitated by illness, the first lord was at a loss where to find an efficient substitute in whom he could confide. He would observe, too, how differently officers were rewarded in consequence of the views taken by different Boards of Admiralty. As an instance of it, he would refer to the case of Captain Mansell, an officer who had distinguished himself at Sidon and afterwards at Acre. For his services at Sidon he was made Post Captain, but had not been reported. When at Acre, he took a large ship of the enemy, with a small brig. All the other officers, of the same rank, engaged at Acre, were made Companions of the Bath; but Captain Mansell, because he had not been reported, lost that honour. As a contrast to that, there was the case of a Captain Gray, a volunteer, in China, who went ashore with Sir W. Parker, and, although he had no command, received for his services the honour of the Order of the Bath. As to promotion, it seemed that the present Board of Admiralty, when they wished to make any promotions, not only promoted one for every three vacancies, but made special vacancies, and promoted three for every one. With respect to steamers of war, a good deal of attention had been paid to the subject, but we had not made really much advance. We had not really one efficient war steamer. Neither the boilers nor machinery were secure, and they did not carry enough of fuel. He hoped the Government would see to the correction of these defects.

wished for some explanation of the appointment of deputy accountant-general. He asked for it upon higher considerations than those of mere economy.

stated, that by the alteration that had been made, they had the signature of a person who really examined the accounts, whereas formerly there was the signature of an individual who did not inspect them.

expressed his satisfaction at the reductions made in the estimates.

thought, considering the state of the country, the reductions might have been still further carried out. Vote agreed to as was also the vote of 1,259,697l. for wages to seamen and marines for the year 1843, 1844.