, in reference to the motion of which he had given notice for Thursday, and which had dropped in consequence of there having been no House, said he was anxious to fix it for some day on which it could have precedence. It might stand for the 16th.

said, he was anxious to explain the course he intended to take in regard to the motion of the noble Lord. It would, he thought, be unfortunate that a question of so much importance should turn merely on the production of papers. With respect to the correspondence between Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster, it would be impossible for him to assign any grounds of public inconvenience against their production. Still, if the conduct of the Government and of Lord Ashburton were to be the question for discussion, it would be better that some distinct motion should at once be made, than a proposal for the production of papers. He was perfectly prepared to lay on the Table the papers he had mentioned, but confidential communications—communications of the greatest importance—between the American Secretary of State and the British Minister, it would be quite impossible to produce. If the noble Lord thought it would facilitate his views to have his own correspondence during the time he held office, and up to the latest period, he (Sir Robert Peel) was not aware that there would be any objection to producing it; but he would look into it with greater attention; and if any parts could be produced, so as to bring the correspondence up to the period when the present negotiations commenced, he had no objection.

said, his object undoubtedly was to bring under discussion in that House the negotiation and the treaty. He, of course, had anticipated that the right hon. Baronet could not object to the production of that part of the correspondence for which be had moved, which passed between Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster, because the right hon. Baronet had he remembered, moved for the production of similar papers on similar grounds. He had thought it possible the right hon. Baronet might make some objection to the latter part of the motion, although he (Viscount Palmerston) had so worded his motion, by making use of the word "extracts," as to give the Government the opportunity of selecting such of the papers as might be produced without inconvenience. If the right hon. Baronet thought there would be no objection to laying on the Table the correspondence down to the latest period, it would be convenient to him to have them, but that would be a further ground for urging the production of the correspondence between the Foreign Secretary of State and Lord Ashburton. He thought, however, the notice he had given would answer his purpose—that of bringing the matter under discussion.

thought that the noble Lord, in fairness to himself, would like to have the correspondence brought up to the time he left office. He was not aware that any inference against the noble Lord could be drawn from it. He would have no objection to produce the whole of the correspondence; but to produce the confidential communications between the foreign and the British representatives, was contrary to all precedent. He was willing to produce all that could give the House a clear conception of the proceedings, and enable the noble Lord to found a motion if he thought proper.

, in the absence of the Solicitor-general, and of the hon. and learned Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde), deferred the adjourned debate on the question of Printed Papers until Tuesday next. If upon Monday it should appear that those hon. and learned Gentlemen would be unable to be present in the House on Tuesday, in consequence of their engagements on the circuit, he (Sir R. Peel would then on Monday) state what course he should propose to pursue.

wished to know whether the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies would have any objection to lay on the Table of the House the correspondence that had taken place between the Cape of Good Hope and this country, relative to what had taken place with respect to the boers of Port Natal.

said, that he would endeavour to make a selection of the correspondence, and lay it on the Table of the House. He could not, however, conceive of what use it could be to the hon. Member.

wished to have it in order to know why a civil war was carrying on in that country.

begged to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies upon a subject of considerable importance, and with respect to which there existed a good deal of misapprehension. The noble Lord, a short time since, stated to the House that it was the intention of the Government, in the course of the present Session, to permit the admission of Canadian flour into this country at a nominal duty, provided the legislature of Canada passed measures satisfactory to the Government, with a view to the prevention of fraud. The noble Lord stated, at the same time, that the legislature of Canada had passed a bill, levying a duty of 3s. a quarter upon wheat passing from the United States into Canada. Now, upon this statement, an impression had gone forth to the public that it was the intention of the Government to limit the privilege of admission at a nominal duty to flour, the produce of wheat grown in Canada—that it was the intention of the Government to alter, in that respect, the law which at present existed, and which contained no such restriction. He believed that this was a misapprehension; but as it prevailed amongst many Gentlemen connected with the Canada trade, perhaps the noble Lord would be kind enough to state distinctly what the intentions of the Government were upon the point

had no difficulty in answering the question—the only difficulty was to imagine how the misapprehension to which the right hon. Gentleman had adverted could ever have arisen. The existing law made no distinction between flour manufactured from wheat, the produce of the United States, and flour manufactured from wheat the produce of Canada. As long as the flour was manufactured in Canada, it had always been imported into this country as Canadian produce; and there was no intention on the part of her Majesty's Government to make any alteration in that provision of the law. There was no intention of drawing any distinction not now drawn with regard to flour coming from Canada, whether it were the growth of the United States or of the Canadas.

wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question with respect to the opium which had been surrendered at Canton. It was understood by some parties that the right hon. Gentleman stated, on a former evening, that the only difficulty in the way of the settlement of the claims of the opium merchants existed in the fact, that the ratification of the treaty with China had not yet been received. As there seemed to be some misapprehension upon the subject, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would repeat the statement he had made on the former evening.

said, that what he had stated to the noble Lord the former occasion was precisely this: that until the ratifications of the treaty with China were exchanged, it would not be consistent with usage and practice to deal with the question as settled; that the Government could not act upon the provisions of the treaty until it was signed and ratified by the governments of the two countries; that the information necessary to guide the Government as to the value of the opium had for some time been concluded, and that the Government was in possession of all the facts and circumstances which would enable it to come to a proper and immediate decision. Since then the Government had considered that it would not be necessary to wait for the reception of the ratification of the treaty in this country, but to send out instructions to India for the distribution of the sum to which the opium-traders were held to be justly entitled; because, previously to the arrival of these instructions in India, the probability was, that the ratification of the treaty would be there.

said, I wish to ask House to do that is irregular, but as to say relates to a matter of personal feeling and personal character, I persuade myself that the House, with its usual indulgence, will permit me to offer a very few observations. 1 see the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) in his place. What I am about to state is in the way of explanation connected with circumstances to which that hon. and learned Member adverted at the close of his reply on Wednesday evening. The hon. and learned Member has been made aware of my intention to make this statement. The hon. and learned Member, in his reply the other evening, charged, no doubt, from misapprehension, the late Governor-general of India with having made, in his proclamation dated from Simla, 1st October, 1838, a false statement. That false statement I understood him to say was to be found in the assertion that Shah Soojah had entered the Affghan territories surrounded by his own troops; and the hon. and learned Member rested his denial of the accuracy of that assumed statement upon the ground of a letter which he quoted from Colonel Dennie, written at a much later period, in which the colonel said that the troops under his command, as Shah Soojah's guard, were not Affghans, but troops raised in Hindostan. Now, in the first place, the hon. and learned Member mistook the passage which he quoted from the proclamation dated at Simla, the 1st October, 1838. The passage was not an assertion as to anything that had then happened, but was the declaration of an intention with regard to the future—a statement in anticipation of what would happen. This was the passage:

"His Majesty Shah Soojah-ool-Moolk will enter Affghanistan, surrounded by his own troops, and will be supported against foreign interference and factious opposition by a British army."

It will be seen that the whole of this passage has reference to the future, not to the past; and even if the anticipations thus expressed in the proclamation had not been fulfilled—if,when Shah Soojah entered Affghanistan, nearly six months after the date of the proclamation, the course of events had altered the arrangements connected with his entrance into his kingdom—I am sure the House will see that that would be no impeachment of the veracity of the Governor-general. It would only have shown that an arrangement intended and contemplated in October, 1838, was not executed in May, 1839, in a manner conformable with the Governor-general's previous intentions. Therefore,even upon this assumption, there is no ground whatever for the charge of falsification which was thrown out by the hon. and learned Member the other evening. But it so happened that the facts as they occurred were in no degree inconsistent with the intentions so expressed, but,on the contrary,completely tallied with them. Shah Soojah, before he entered the Affghan territory, raised five regiments of Hindostanees to form his force, and when he came to Shikarpore, he was met by a great number of Affghans residing in and about that neighbourhood, who tendered their services to him. It was quite clear that he was not likely to raise an Affghan force in Hindostan, and that he could not expect any great number of Affghans to enter his service until he came to the country where the Affghans lived. He found a certain number of them about Shikarpore, and as many were engaged in his service as it was convenient to enlist at a moment when provisions were scarce, the means of transport not abundant, and when it was not thought useful or desirable much to increase the number of persons about him. But when Shah Soojah arrived at the Khojak-pass, and when that pass had been forced, a large number of Afghans, who had been in the service of the Ameers of Candahar, came over to Shah Soojah, and enlisted under his banner. Shah Soojah entered Candahar, accompanied by his own troops, consisting partly of the Hindostanee force, which I have mentioned, and partly of Affghans, a day before the British troops entered, accompanied, however, as a mark of respect and as an indication of British protection, by a certain number of British officers. The force with which he entered Candahar was, strictly speaking, his own; consisting, as I have said, partly of Hindoos, partly of Affghans; and the manner of his reception is mentioned in a general order from the officer commanding our troops. Sir John Keane in a general order, dated "Head Quarters, Camp Candahar, 4th May, 1839," says—

"His Excellency shares in the satisfaction, which the troops must feel, at knowing the enthusiasm with which the population of Candahar have received and welcomed the return of their lawful sovereign, Shah Soojah-ool-Moolk to the throne of his ancestors in Affghanistan."

There was also a letter addressed by Sir Alexander Burnes to Lord Auckland, which appeared in the papers at the time, expressing in very glowing terms the enthusiastic reception which Shah Soojah had met with from the population and chiefs of Candahar. I stated the other evening that which also appears from the despatch of Sir John Keane, with respect to Shah Soojahs entrance into Cabul. Sir John Keane, writing from Head-Quarters, Camp Cabul, Aug. 8, 1839, says:—

"It appears that a great part of his army," that is, of Dost Mahomed's army,"which was hourly becoming disorganized refused to stand by him in position to receive our attack, and soon became in a state of dissolution. The great bulk immediately came over to Shah Soojah, tendering their allegiance; and I believe his Majesty will take most of them into his pay."

I contend, therefore, that the proclamation, dated Simla, October 1st, 1838, being prospective, and the entrance of Shah Soojah into Afghanistan not having taken place until six months afterwards, namely, in May, 1839, even if there bad been the discrepancy which the hon. and learned Member believed there was between the anticipation and the event, it would afford no ground whatever for the charge which the hon. and learned Member has levelled against Lord Auckland. But I have shown, from the statement I have made, and the extracts I have read, that the event turned out precisely as it had been anticipated; and that Shah Soojah, if he did not pass the frontier of Affghanistan accompanied by an Affghan force, did, in fact, enter Candahar, the first capital of his kingdom, at tended by a large body of Affghan troops, and that he was joined by a still larger body before he entered the second capital of his country, Cabul.

said: It is clear to me, from the defence made by the noble Lord, that he and I entertain very different feelings respecting the obligations of truth upon the governors of mankind. Truth, invincible in its naked simplicity, needs no diplomatic defence; and I shall be able to show the noble Lord himself that if he has kept "the word of promise'' even "to the ear," he cannot have satisfied the understanding of the House nor his own. The noble Lord read but a part of the passage to which I alluded in the proclamation of the 1st October, 1838. I will read the whole. It runs thus:—

"His Majesty Shah Soojah-ool-Moolk will enter Affghanistan surrounded by his own troops, and will be supported against foreign interference and factious opposition by a British army. The Governor-general confidently hopes that the Shah will be speedily replaced on his throne by his own subjects and adherents; and when once he shall be secured in power, and the independence and integrity of Affghanistan established, the British army will be withdrawn."

Now my charge against this state paper was, that it was drawn up for the purpose of delusion; that the Governor-general knew full well that Shah Soojah would enter Affghanistan not surrounded by his own troops, but would depend upon the arms of England for forcing him upon the people of his country. Further, I say he did not enter Affghanistan surrounded by his own troops. Now comes the diplomatic defence. "The proclamation," says the noble Lord, "was dated the 1st of October, 1838; six months afterwards, Soojah arrived at Shikarpore, and it was then that the Affghans surrounded him." Now "Shikarpore, 9th of March, 1839," is the date of a letter written by Colonel Dennie, and addressed to Lieutenant-colonel Macdonald, the military secretary to the Governor-general. This letter, there fore, may be regarded almost as an official communication. I am about to read it. It is as follows:—

"Shikarpore, 9th of March, 1839.—My dear Sir—I have endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to give every effect to the commander-in-chief's instructions. I will not disguise that it has been a painful duty, but I trust not the less conscientiously and zealously performed. I cannot but lament, in common, I have no doubt, with his excellency and the members of his whole force, that two regular and disciplined armies brought together from so great a distance, and at so much difficulty and cost, should, at the very moment of united action, be thus maimed and dismembered, merely for the purpose of keeping together a mass of raw levies, like the Shah's contingent, whose carriage and supplies would suffice for the Bengal or Bombay divisions, and who would again be much better employed if left here for formation and instruction; whereas, in their present state, they must prove worse than worthless in advance. Can this be done in the vain hope of giving plausibility to the fiction of the ' Shah entering his dominions surrounded by his own troops?' when the fact is too notorious to escape detection and exposure, that he has not a single subject or Affghan amongst them! his army being composed of camp followers from the company's military stations."

This is conclusive; but one word more. Writing from Shikarpore, on the 9th of March, 1839, Colonel Dennie says that Shah Soojah has not a single subject or Affghan amongst his contingent. What did I say the other evening? I said that the Governor-general had stated that Shah Soojah was about to enter Affghanistan surrounded by his own troops. [" No, no"]. Did I not say that? Have I not read the Governor-general's words? "Will enter Affghanistan surrounded by his own troops!" Are not those the very words of the proclamation? What, then, is the meaning of the interruption, with which my statement is received. Well, Shikar pore was the place mentioned by the noble Lord as that at which Shah Soojah first met with any of the Affghans. In reply to that statement of the noble Lord's, I quote an official letter from Colonel Dennie, dated Shikarpore, and saying that Shah Soojah had not a single Affghan amongst his troops. I must now be allowed to put a question to the noble Lord. Was not Shah Soojah's army officered by British officers? Was it not paid by the money of the East India Company? And was not that the meaning of the phrase in the proclamation, ' that he was called to the throne by the voice of his country men?" That was the meaning of the phrase, and what I said the other evening; and what I still maintain is, that that is a statement not in accordance with the truth, and therefore that it ought not to have entered the proclamation made by a man who represented the great and honest community of this country. I say it was a false pretence; and I want to have that assertion disproved. I am not accusing Lord Auckland of being in his own private capacity wrong; but I accuse the system of politics—the system of political morality which allows a public man, in a public document of this sort, to put his hand to that which as a private man he would be ashamed to acknowledge. I claim for the public that kind of morality which we all acknowledge and follow in private, and I say that in private the passage from the proclamation to which I have referred will be stamped with the designation which I have given to it—namely, that it was a false declaration, holding out false pretences, and was unworthy the representative of this great people. That was my charge—a charge not in the slightest degree answered by the noble Lord, not in the slightest degree quarrelled with for its truth; and I say that I am justified when I stand up for the observance of that high and pure morality in public affairs which my countrymen are accustomed to adhere to in their own private relations.

:As the hon. and learned Member has put a question to me, perhaps the House will allow me to answer it. The hon. and learned Member asks whether the native troops, which accompanied Shah Soojah into Affghanistan, were not officered by British officers, and paid by the East India Company? Officered by British officers, undoubtedly they were; else Shah Soojah could not, in so short a space of time, have brought them into a state of discipline. They were paid by Shah Soojah. [Mr. Roebuck. Oh.] I am not going to make a quibble. I say that the money came from Shah Soojah's treasury, and that the troops owed allegiance to him; but I know perfectly well, and do not pretend to conceal it from the House, that the means, the resources, from which Shah Soojah was enabled, at that time, to pay any troops at all, consisted of supplies furnished as a subsidy from the East India Company. The British Government in India avowedly supported Shah Soojah, not only by pecuniary means, but by the aid and protection of a British army, as the Governor-general said, to defend him not merely against foreign interference, but against factious opposition at home. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to misunderstand what I said about Shikarpore. What I said was, that until Shah Soojah arrived at Shikarpore, it was impossible that be could raise any Affghan troops, and that it was not possible for him to raise any great number of such troops until he had got into Affghanistan itself, but that at Shikar pore he was joined by some chiefs and others, who were in the neighbourhood of the place; and, notwithstanding the pas sage which the hon. and learned Gentle man has read from Colonel Dennie's letter, I repeat and affirm that assertion, speaking as I do from information derived from a quarter which I cannot doubt.

begged to bring under the consideration of the House a case of great interest to the army in general, and especially to that gallant part of it the Foot Guards. The case to which he referred was that of General Sir John Woodford, who had always been attached to that part of the service. Sir John Woodford entered the Grenadier Guards in the year 1800. In 1813 he was enabled to purchase his company, giving for it the regulation price, amounting to about 4,800l., which exceeded by about 300l. the regulation price given for a company in the line. When this purchase was made in 1813 it was not allowable to an officer to purchase a higher grade in the Foot Guards. But by a subsequent regulation of the Horse Guards, it was declared and legalized that the superior grades of major and lieutenant-colonel in the Guards might be obtained by purchase. This being the case, Sir John Woodford, being naturally reluctant to see junior officers step over his head, availed himself of the first opportunity to purchase a majority, for which he gave the regulation sum 3,500l. Shortly afterwards he purchased the step of lieutenant-colonel, for which he paid the regulation price, 700l., so that in the whole, Sir John Woodford had expended in the purchase of different grades in the Foot Guards, no less a sum than 9,000l. In 1837, by the brevet which then came out, Sir John Woodford, with other officers of the same rank, became a major-general. Of course, when he became major-general, he could no longer hold his rank as lieutenant-colonel in the regiment. He could not hold the two together. He was accordingly prepared to go out of the service, fully conceiving that he should receive the whole of the money that he had expended in the purchase of the different grades through which he had advanced. Instead of that he was informed that by the regulations of the service, as applied to the Guards, he could only receive 4,500l. on selling out, which was less by 300l. than the sum he had paid for his commission as captain. This was a plain statement of the case. It might be said that Sir John Woodford should have exercised a greater prudence and discretion, and have sold out of the Guards before he took his brevet rank. But if he had done so, he would for ever have deprived himself of the chance of obtaining a staff appointment. The complaint that he (Mr. Bernal) wished to lay before the House was this; here was an officer of forty years standing in the army, who having paid 9,000l. to obtain the rank he held in the service, only received from the war office when he sold out as major-general, the sum of 4,500l.

said, that the case of Sir John Woodford came before his predecessor in office, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay), and the late Lord Hill, then Commander-in-Chief, and both the Commander-in-Chief and Secretary-at-War were of opinion that it was not a case which they could entertain. When he came into office, Sir John Woodford had not sold his commission, and his case was referred to him. Being a personal friend of that gallant officer, having served in the same regiment with him about thirty years ago, he of course took an especial interest in the case, and he looked into it with an inclination, if possible, to come to a decision favourable to Sir John Wood ford; but after fully considering the cir cumstances, he thought it impossible to entertain the complaint. Sir John Wood ford's argument was, that he had a positive and vested right to receive from the public that which he had actually expended in the purchase of his commissions. Now he denied that position altogether. But first of all he must observe that Sir John Woodford had not spent so much money as the hon. Member (Mr. Bernal) conceived he had. In 1832, Sir John purchased a company for 2,000l. being at the old rate. He was afterwards allowed to purchase his majority for 3,500l., and he subsequently paid 700l. for his lieutenant-colonelcy, making altogether 6,200l. In 1837, Sir John was promoted to the rank of a general officer, and five years after he claimed to sell his commission in the army. He was then told, both by the Commander-in-Chief and by the Secretary-at-War, that if he did so he could only receive the regulation price, namely, 4,500l. If Sir John Woodford had sold his commission as lieutenant-colonel previous to his being promoted, he would have been entitled to receive the sum he had paid for his lieutenant colonelcy, or he would have been entitled to exchange into the half pay infantry, and have received the regulation difference, while his rank would have gone on. The regulation of the service had been that a general officer who had sold his commission, whether as an officer of cavalry or of infantry, not having any regimental commission could only sell at one price—namely, 4,500l. The fallacy throughout the case of Sir John Woodford was in conceiving that his commission was a vested right, and that he might sell it for whatever he could acquire. That was not the case. It was not till the year 1814 that general officers were permitted to sell their commissions at all, and subsequently the period during which they could do so was limited to sixty years. Under these circumstances he thought the case which the hon. Member (Mr. Bernal) had brought under the consideration of the House, could not be entertained. Here the matter terminated.

to call the attention of the House to the statement he had made the other evening, anxious as he was to sustain a character for justice, fairness, and impartiality. In making a comparison between the manner in which two Boards of Admiralty had rewarded different officers, he had stated the case of a captain (Maunsell), who, although distinguishing himself in command at an important action, had not been made C. B., while another Board of Admiralty had granted that honour to Captain Grey, who had only served with the army as a volunteer. Upon that occasion the present Secretary of the Admiralty very unwisely contradicted him; and the hon. Member for Halifax very indiscreetly contradicted him also. Both founded their contradiction upon an extract from the despatch of General Schoede. The Secretary of the Admiralty, and the ex-Secretary too, should have known the rules of the service better. [A laugh]. The recommendation of a general officer, in his despatch to the Secretary of State, unless supported by his own commander-in-chief, was absolutely good for nothing. He would show that in the case of Captain Grey the recommendation of General Schoede was not supported by the commander-in-chief in the slightest way whatever. Sir W. Parker, in giving an account of the number of ships he had brought up the river, did not mention the Endymion (which was commanded by Captain Grey) at all; and he went on to state, that so little resistance was expected it was not deemed necessary to land the seaman and marines. That showed pretty clearly that Captain Grey could not have commanded at their disembarkation. The despatch stated that Captain Richards, Admiral Parker's flag-captain, afterwards landed from the flag ship with 200 marines, and a party of seamen. Admiral Parker expressed his admiration of the energy and ability with which the operations were conducted, eulogizing the zeal and gallantry of the officers, and enclosing a list of the ships and officers most conspicuously engaged. The only error he had committed was in stating that the Endymion was not at Chin-chow-foo, when in fact that vessel was there. Admiral Parker, as he had stated, enclosed a list of the officers who were under his command on the 21st of July, 1842, and in that list the name of Captain Grey did not appear. He (Sir C. Napier) was therefore perfectly right in stating that Captain Grey was not a captain-commandant, but a simple volunteer. He thought it was not right that a volunteer should receive the same reward that was accorded to an officer in command. In the case of an army landed by a fleet, if there was not employment for the naval officers in command, they might obtain leave from the admiral to attach themselves as volunteers to the troops, and they would have the same right which Captain Grey possessed to the distinction which had been conferred upon him.

expressed his surprise that the hon. and gallant Member had again adverted to this subject. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman alluded to this matter before, the main ground on which he found fault with the conduct of the Admiralty was, that Captain Grey could only be a volunteer, because his ship was not present. The hon. and gallant Member ought not to make assertions calculated to prejudice the characters and to wound the feelings of public men without due inquiry; and, by a reference to the Gazette he would find that the statement he made was not founded in fact. It was not for him to express an opinion as to whether the honour conferred upon the officer to whom the hon. and gallant Member had alluded was or was not de served; but he was convinced his gallant relative would be unwilling to receive, as matter of favour, any distinction which was conferred upon other officers as a reward for their services. He had risen to set the gallant Member (Sir C. Napier) right upon a matter of fact. The hon. and gallant Member had, when he previously mentioned this subject, misstated the facts; and he believed that the hon. and gallant Officer had misstated them now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had before stated that Captain Grey must be a volunteer because his ship was not present at the scene of operations, but the gallant Member had now found out his mistake, for it appeared by the despatch that Captain Grey's ship was on the spot. The list containing the stations of every vessel in the squadron showed that Captain Grey's ship was at Chin-chow-foo at the time of the attack. The next question was whether Captain Grey superintended the landing of Major-general Schoede's division? He was aware that Captain Grey was not in command of the detach ment of sailors and marines which landed; but as an officer of the British navy he was charged with the duty of superintending the landing. [Sir C. Napier: "No, no."] What, would the gallant Member quibble about the despatch? [Sir C. Napier: I am not quibbling.] Major-general Schoede states,

"I must also beg to express my best thanks to Captain Grey, commanding her Majesty's ship Endymion, who superintended the disembarkation of the brigade, and who volunteered."

[Sir C. Napier "Hear,"]—after having, as a matter of duty, superintended the disembarkation of the troops,

"To accompany me throughout the day, for his able assistance and prompt and kind attention to every request I made him regarding the landing of the brigade."

After the brigade was landed, Captain Grey volunteered to accompany Major-general Schoede through all the toils and labours of the day; his services as a volunteer commenced from the time at which the disembarkation of the forces was completed, and throughout the operations of that day he accompanied General Schoede. He contended that these three points were clearly made out, that Captain Grey's ship was present at Chin-chow-foo, that he superintended the landing of Major-general Schoede's brigade, and that having done so he volunteered to accompany General Schoede throughout the operations of the day. The Board of Admiralty were the proper persons to judge whether or not the honour conferred upon Captain Grey was or was not deserved, but the facts which he had stated were borne out by public documents.

had been surprised to hear any dissatisfaction expressed with regard to the honour her Majesty had been pleased to confer upon a gallant officer for services performed against an enemy. For his own part, he thought few persons could be found who would suppose that the honour conferred upon Captain Grey was misplaced. It was, he conceived, unnecessary for him to enter into any explanation of the reasons which had induced the Crown to award this distinction to Captain Grey; but he must say, that, having observed in the despatches of Major-general Schoede, that after superintending the landing of the brigade Captain Grey accompanied the troops — having seen that the general commanding the brigade spoke in the highest terms of the services rendered to him by Captain Grey, he could not imagine on what ground objection was taken to the favour which his Sovereign had seen fit to confer upon that gallant officer.

said, be was surprised that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. C. Wood) had laid so much stress on the mistake lie had committed with regard to Admiral Parker's despatches. He read the despatches, but, on finding that the hon. Member complained of his misrepresenting the facts, he referred to the list of ships, and according to it the Endymion did appear to have been at Chin-chow-foo. The Secretary to the Admiralty and the right hon. Baronet opposite—

The hon. and gallant Member must confine his observations strictly to explanation.

Well, Sir, I will explain then. The rules and customs of the service—["Order, order."] Well, if I am not allowed to mention them, I will again refer to the despatch of a general officer. [Again cries of"Order, order."]

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must confine himself to ex planation.

:Then, Sir, I have no thing further to say.

regretted that this discussion had been revived. The hon. and gallant Member evidently felt, with other hon. Members and with Officers not in that House, that Captain Mansell had not been well treated. He maintained that sufficient and adequate honours were never conferred upon naval officers. [An hon. Member: Honours.] Yes, honours! Did the hon. Member think he was alluding to money? The estimates were, almost immediately, to be brought before the House; and he hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would recollect the agreement which had been made the other night, when hon. Gentlemen on his (the Opposition) side allowed the vote for wages to pass. The persuasive powers of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had on that occasion prevailed with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), but he hoped that, in allowing the vote for wages to pass, they were not precluded from entering into a wide discussion on the estimates. It was agreed on all hands that the steam-power of this country was not justly maintained. Hon. Gentlemen opposite contended that this country did not possess sufficient steam-power, and that in this respect France was our superior. He contended, that the Government of this country had not availed themselves of some valuable suggestions for the improvement of steam-ships which had been offered to them. He was not going to accuse the Government of any reckless activity, or any mischievous meddling; but he did accuse them of mischievous delay, in not taking advantage of suggestions which, it had been proved to them, might have been adopted with great benefit in her Majesty's naval service.

said, that the other night several votes of public money were brought forward after midnight; and, although he objected to some of those votes, yet he, with several of his hon. Friends, abstained from advancing those objections, on the understanding that, in committee, they would be allowed an opportunity of discussing them, although that course might be somewhat irregular. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would keep good faith in this matter.

wished to make a remark with reference to an observation which had fallen from the hon. and gallant officer opposite. The hon. Member had stated, that it was highly desirable, for the interests of the country, that captains and naval officers in command should always be particular in making reports of those under their command who had performed meritorious services. He (Mr. Escott) had himself known instances of great hardship, in which officers had lost their promotion merely from the negligence of their superior officers in not making proper reports.

said, that as alterations were contemplated by the Government in several acts relating to criminal offences, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet opposite to the fact, that a clause in a recent act of Parliament, which was, he believed, inserted in the other House, affixed to the crime of burglary the punishment of trans portation for life. He thought it desirable that some alteration should be made in this enactment, as it left no discretionary power with the judge.

said, the circumstance to which the hon. Gentleman referred had not escaped his attention; but he could not now state the precise course the Government might adopt.

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On a former evening the right hon. Gentleman stated, in reply to a question, that it was his intention to send out to India, by the mail of tomorrow, directions for making certain distributions of the sums payable 10 the parties who had surrendered the opium at Canton. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the documents respecting these claims had been sent from India to England, that applications had been made at the Treasury for payment, and that the applicants were now waiting the answer of the Government? If the right hon. Gentleman adhered to his intention of sending out to India the in structions to which he had referred, great inconvenience and delay would be occasioned.

said, that he did not understand that the state of the case was as it was represented by the hon. Gentleman. The only payment on account of opium that was made was at Canton, upon the production of certain receipts from Captain Elliot. If those receipts were forwarded to this country, as had been stated, he thought that it would be calculated to embarrass the Government with respect to a settlement of those claims. It was very necessary to avoid making double payments of this sort in China and in England; and therefore it was essentially necessary that before questions of this sort could be satisfactorily answered, every consideration should be given to the facts of the case, so as to know precisely in what situation the receipts on behalf of which these payments were to be made, are. After the statements which had been made by the hon. Gentleman, he thought it would be most inconvenient, if not absurd, to send out any final instructions with respect to this subject until he gave full consideration to the facts now brought under his notice. Under these circumstances, nothing could be said upon the matter until time is afforded for ample consideration.

said, that he had received from India several communications upon this subject, principally with reference to the amount it was intended to distribute among those who had suffered losses by the seizure of this opium.

said, that the Government had received the fullest information respecting the value of this opium and the time it was surrendered to the Government. The whole of those papers would be laid before Parliament, which he considered would be a more convenient course than laying them on the Table by piecemeal.

begged to ask whether it was intended by her Majesty's Government to continue in that anomalous course of permitting the further growth of opium in India? He must say, that any government which encouraged the growth of opium was committing a serious crime. He also wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to open the trade of Patna opium, which was at present a monopoly?

said, that her Majesty's Government would be guided in the course they would pursue in respect to this subject by the fullest information that could be procured. The result of this inquiry had not as yet been perfected; but he hoped he should be soon able to lay the fullest and the clearest information with reference to the subject upon the Table of the House.

had only to say, what he had said on a former occasion, namely, that it was necessary to have the opinion of the person who had been sent out to China on this important subject. He thought, that looking to the peculiar character of our relations with China, and the immense importance which attached to the matter to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ewart) had referred, it was essential that what ever was done should be done by the person who had local opportunities to form a judgment. He thought it would be better to postpone the question, as it was connected with our future relations with China.

availed himself of that opportunity to complain of the delay on the part of the Admiralty authorities in taking advantage of the various suggestions and improvements which had been made in our steam navigation. As far back as 1839 a vessel worked by Smith's screw propeller, the Archimedes, was brought under the notice of the Admiralty, and she made a voyage of some 5,000 miles in the most satisfactory manner. Great injustice had been done to those who had been the originators of this invention. In proof of this the gallant Officer referred to the case of the Rattler, at Sheerness. Mr. Smith had been removed, it appeared, and Mr. Brunei was superintending the fitting out of that vessel. But how stood the matter? Why, Mr. Brunei, in a letter stated that he was ready to fit a screw of such dimensions as Mr. Smith should propose as best adapted to carry out his views. He could not understand why the Admiralty, having so long since acknowledged the efficiency of this screw, should now almost throw impediments in the way of its more general adoption. This was no party affair, it was one in which the good sense of the House must ultimately prevail. There was a steam-yacht building for the use of her Majesty and he rejoiced at it. The service were delighted to find that her Majesty was pleased to take voyages. The more her Majesty saw of the navy the better.

approved of the reduction of 4,000 men in the navy, as we were now at peace with all the world. He thought that this reduction would in no way impair the efficiency of the navy. He would, however, recommend that the different captains now on service should have liberty to select from their crews and discharge all men of bad character. If this were done, the navy would be weeded of a thousand inefficient men, and the service much improved. With reference to the manning of the ships, he thought one Government had not allowed sufficient complements, but that the succeeding Government had gone to the other extreme. The present crews were too numerous. If they wanted to make good officers they should have short crews; the real merits of the officers would then appear. There was a point relating to the victualling which he wished to press. It was, of course, of the utmost importance that the men on board ship should be orderly and sober. Twenty-nine out of thirty of the offences that occurred arose from drunkenness. He should recommend, therefore, the American system, which, he believed, had been found to succeed, of giving increased wages to the men who did not drink. It was clearly absurd to bring up your men in a practice which took ten years from their lives. But if the House would not consent to increase the expense, at least the rations of spirits might be taken away from boys of the first and second class. He was happy to hear from the right hon. Baronet, that it was intended to reduce the Mediterranean fleet, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would carry his intentions into effect of having only four sail of the line on that station. Ships that were sometimes lying in Malta harbour eight months in the year; and he once knew a ship lie in the Tagus for three years. These were bad schools both for seamen and young officers. He thought, too, that the system of permitting captains of ships to take their wives and families with them open to serious objection. Another practice to which he objected, was that of selecting men for the highest commands in an inverse ratio to their efficiency, the practice being to appoint those to the most responsible posts who had been longest ashore. An officer who was allowed to remain long ashore generally got married, and that alone took 40 per cent. away from his efficiency

wished to ask a question respecting the mode adopted by the Government for the transport of troops. It appeared that two regiments had recently been ordered to the Cape of Good Hope. The Admiralty had, in the first instance, advertised for ships, but, instead of accepting any tender, they had sent out the troops in two of her Majesty's ships, the Thunderer, and the Rodney, the expense of which proceeding he had heard estimated at 41.000l. Large merchant vessels in every way eligible for the service, might have been hired at the rate of 8l. ahead, which would have made the expense for taking out the troops, which amounted to 1,000 men, only 8,000l. These statements had been made to him on most respectable authority.

was surprised to hear the expense of sending out the reinforcements to the Cape estimated at so large a sum as 41,000l. The hon. and learned Member opposite seemed to have derived his information from persons connected with the shipping interest, whose calculations were made in a very different manner from that in which the estimates to lay before Parliament were prepared. It was in fact no easy matter to make a comparison of the two modes of transport, on account of the difficulty of calculating exactly the wear and tear. There could be no doubt as to the superiority of the Queen's ships in accommodation and celerity, which latter quality had peculiarly recommended their employment in the service alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

wished to call the attention of the committee to two subjects. First of all he wished to know whether the marines were to be furnished with percusssion muskets. Everyone, whether professional or amateur, knew the inefficiency of the old musket, which missed fire five times out of seven. In this age of improvement, when such rapid progress had been made in every branch of art and manufactures, fire-arms used for warfare were in their infancy. The other subject to which he wished to direct attention, was the propriety of employing steam to a greater extent in our navy. It had been said, that a steam fleet could easily be formed in the event of a war out of our commercial steam-vessels. He doubted this, from the circumstance that these vessels had not been built with a view to enable them to withstand the shock of artillery.

had heard that some of the bayonets used in the late Affghan war were of such wretched manufacture as to be found utterly unserviceable in charging the enemy. These, however, he understood, were furnished by contract to the East-India Company. Nothing was more injudicious than parsimony in such matters as these. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was, however, mistaken in supposing that any apathy existed on this subject at the Ordnance office; on the contrary, it occupied much of their attention, and 36,658 percussion muskets had been already furnished to the troops.

differed from the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Captain Rous) as to the manning of our ships, and could see no reasonable objection to their present complements. We did not discover in the late war that our ships were undermanned until we saw them, one after another walking into the American ports. He recommended that the crews should be more frequently at sea and less time in port, where they wasted their time in a series of useless manœuvres. He thought the observations of the hon. Member for Westminster (Captain Rous) respecting the employment of officers who were unfit for service, were well worthy of the attention of the Government, and that it was quite useless to continue such a system. He thought, also, we had not directed sufficient attention to steam-vessels, and that a committee of naval officers and engineers should be appointed to take into their consideration the improvement of this branch of navigation. The French paid much more attention to steam navigation than we did. We had not a single war steamer through the sides of which a shot would not pass, and the men would be positively cooked before they could get from the engine-room to the deck if a shot should strike the boiler. He must also say that he entirely disapproved of employing men of war for carrying troops, since his experience had taught him that it destroyed the efficiency of the crews and disgusted the officers.

, observed that no one had done more for the improvement of arms than Lord Vivian. He had spared no exertion to obtain the best information on the subject, and when the first vote for new arms was submitted to the House, it was admitted by all that anything short of the very best description of musket would be but a false economy. He therefore hoped that every British soldier, whether in the army or navy, would have such put into his hands without delay. He objected to the number of line of battle-ships which it was proposed to keep up, particularly after the testimony of several gallant officers, that they would be kept lying useless in harbour for months. Keeping up twenty-eight sail of the line at a time of perfect peace seemed to him to incur a shameful waste of public money at a time of financial distress, and to inflict a serious injury on the service by lessening the efficiency of the force when it came to be required. The best way, in his opinion, would be to keep up a squadron of frigates, which were notoriously the best class of ships for the discipline of seamen, and for making good officers. He agreed with what had just fallen from the hon. and gallant officer respecting steam-vessels. No country could compete with us in the excellence of our machinery and the cleverness of our engineers; and no expense should be spared in making improvements, and in speedily applying them to the naval service. He hoped the present Government would show some consideration for the assistant-surgeons of the navy, and give them that position which their character and education fairly entitled them to. Higher qualifications were required of them now than heretofore, and he saw no reason why they should not be put upon a footing in every respect with the assistant-surgeons of the army. A reference to the evidence taken before the naval and military commission would show how unjustly they had been treated, and he did hope that the Government would not overlook the question. Against the present extent of our naval force he must protest. It was preposterous to be called on to vote 6,250,000l., when all that was required for the actual and effective service of the navy was 1,065,000l. Unless some new regulations were adopted he should feel it his duty to submit a motion on the subject to the House. We were at perfect peace, France had not one quarter the number of our ships, and taking the whole world together, we had nothing to compete with us. He did not object to the pay of the men, that he considered too low; but he did object to the number of officers, many of whom were promoted, and then laid on the shelf; giving a show of strength, but in reality creating weakness.

would briefly reply to the several points which had been referred to. It had been asked, what course the Government would pursue in reference to the screw of Mr. Smith? He stated the other night that the late Board of Admiralty had taken up the question, and arrived at the decision that Mr. Brunei should co-operate with Mr. Smith for the purpose of ascertaining the particular mode of screw best adapted for ships. In the course of the year Mr. Brunell had been called to Italy, and Mr. Smith, without his co-operation, proceeded with his experiments, and invented a screw called "Smith's screw." Different modifications of this had since been made, which went by the names of those who made them, and it was in that view only he had spoken the other night of Brunell's screw. Experiments were being now made at Portsmouth in order to test their relative merits, and every attention would be paid to the subject by the Admiralty. With regard to the complements of men for different ships, the present complements, not with- standing the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, were generally admitted to be a great improvement upon the old system. As to the complaint of the employment of old officers instead of young officers, that subject was one of great difficulty. If the old officers were passed over, it was complained that they were set aside to make way for young officers, and vice versa. To both courses objections were taken, and the Admiralty, in the exercise of its patronage, were obliged to keep open employments as rewards for meritorious services. As to the allowance of grog to boys, that was a matter upon which medical opinions had been taken, and against those opinions those of non-professional Gentlemen ought not to too lightly pronounced.

expressed his concurrence in the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, and believed that the Board of Admiralty would find that a vast number of officers entertained the same opinion as that expressed by the hon. and gallant Member. He differed entirely from the hon. Member for Montrose as to the further reduction in the number of men, for he (Mr. C. Wood) thought (and it was due to hon. Gentle men opposite that he should state it) that the reduction for the present year went as far as was prudent. He, however, hoped in a future year, a further reduction would take place.

was rejoiced to find that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had erred when he attributed to Mr. Brunell the merit of the Archimedean screw, invented by Mr. Smith, and he was glad he had elicited that explanation. He wished, however, to know whether Mr. Smith was now superintending the erection of the machinery under his plan on board the Rattler, at Sheerness? It was said that the various improvements suggested had not been at tended to, because the Admiralty had been too much occupied with other matters. That was true, but how had they been occupied? Why, by going back to the old system of the Navy Board, of which the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) had when First Lord of the Admiralty got rid. They had given up the duties of the dock-yards to the civil power, while the right, hon. Baronet had placed those discharging those duties under the operation of martial law. He must complain of the want of ships on foreign stations. At Monte Video there were two American ships, there was a large French frigate, there was a Brazilian vessel, and a Swedish vessel, and our whole force was only one brig. As the case of the assistant-surveyors in the navy had been mentioned, he felt bound to put in a claim on behalf of the masters, and to express a hope that the memorial some time since presented by this most valuable class of officers would be attended to. He could not avoid also pointing out on the present occasion how improperly the Income-tax was brought to bear upon all branches of the service. He held in his hand a circular issued from Somerset-house and forwarded by the Admiralty to all admirals, captains, and pursers, and which in effect appointed them taxing officers, collectors, and almost informers. Now let the committee remember that an admiral commanding-in-chief was allowed for table money at a certain rate per day, amounting in the year to 1,000l.; but from this grant of the public to an officer holding a high station, and having to discharge the duties of that station with hospitality, a reduction of 3 per cent. was to be made in the shape of Income-tax; in short he must reduce his hospitalities or the comforts of his table, because, in fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer either forbade so many guests or whipped off so many dishes from the table.

said, the condition of the assistant-surgeon, which had been mooted by the hon. Member for Montrose, was of considerable importance. The question why these were permitted to mess in the ward-room or gun-room had not yet been answered. He agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose in thinking that such a concession, which would be satisfactory to the medical officers, would be of great advantage to the service.

said, he had listened with great attention to all that had taken place, but would not now enter upon the points touched upon, as they would regularly come before the committee when the votes to which they respectively related were proposed. He would merely say a word on one or two topics which had been urged, and to which no vote applied. As to the assistant-surgeons, he begged to state that the recommendation of the naval and military commission had been carried out with the exception of that as to rank. However, the whole subject of the navy regulations would undergo revision. With reference to the messing of the assistant surgeons, he was afraid it was not quite so simple a matter as some hon. Members seemed to suppose, because there were other officers, such as mates, who had passed for lieutenants, who must rank at least equal with the assistant-surgeons; and if all these were to be placed in the same mess great inconvenience would arise. The subject would, however, be taken into consideration. With regard to the masters in the navy, he begged to assure the hon. and gallant officer opposite (Captain Pechell) that the memorial to which he had referred had been under consideration; and that the Board would fairly consider their claims, and do what might be considered right upon the subject.

, remarked that he observed that a grant was taken out for only twenty-three schoolmasters. How was that?

, replied that many of the chaplains discharged the duties of schoolmaster, having an additional allowance.

complained of the consequences of this arrangement. It seemed that because a chaplain acted as a school master, the captain was to deduct three percent from his additional income. So much for education and church extension people. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer went further than this, he even deducted the three per cent. from the additional pay which was received by engineers of steam-vessels whilst in a tropical climate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had instructed captains of ships to get hold of this pittance, which these poor fellows received for sweating under a tropical climate.

did not wish the men who liked grog to give it up; all he desired was to give a premium to temperance, and this would be his answer to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Aberdeen. He wanted to see old officers properly rewarded, and that they should have something comfortable to look to in their old age. He was quite satisfied, in reference to what had been said about the number of men required in ships, that it was very injurious to have ships not properly complemented.

could not agree in any proposal to take away the men's grog. A dram at sea under some circumstances was of great advantage; he had taken a dram sometimes himself. He wished the old officers to have those advantages which their length of service fairly entitled them to. He hoped, therefore, that the Admiralty would establish it as a rule, that no man in future should be put on the efficient list, except a vacancy by death took place. As a reduction to the extent of 400,000l. had been made in the estimates, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would draw his purse-strings and devote a sum of about 20,000l. to the efficient list.

said, this vote gave him an opportunity to refer to a matter which he had alluded to on a former occasion. It was the new item which appeared in the vote, and which comprehended the creation of a new officer, that of deputy accountant-general. There was a first class clerk to be reduced, so that the expense of this new office would, therefore, only be the difference between the sum to be paid to the new officer and the salary of a first-class clerk; but, though the additional amount would be small, his objection was not so much to the amount as to the principle. He could see no adequate reason for the creation of this new office. It was, in his opinion, the first step to wards a return to that objectionable state of things which existed some years ago. The new officer was to act as deputy to the civil lord of the Admiralty. Upon principle he always objected to the appointment of deputies, except in those cases where they were indispensable. In particular, when bills required to be signed, or money was to be paid away, he thought it was an unsound practice to have these offices discharged by deputy. The only reason for the appointment of a deputy accountant-general that he could see was to relieve the civil lord of the Admiralty from the trouble of writing a certain number of signatures. He was of opinion, that it was advisable that nothing should be so arranged as to free the civil lord of the Admiralty from the necessity of personal daily attendance at Somerset-house. It was important that a civil lord should be at the office to attend to the duties personally; and when the office was first established the civil lord had a house given to him to live in at Somerset-house. When this House was taken away for public uses, the civil lord of the Admiralty was put on the same footing as a lord of the Treasury, without a house; and this led to the difficulty which had been occasionally experienced in procuring the regular attendance of the civil lord at Somerset-house. It was a great check on the office in the personal attendance of the civil lord at Somerset-house; but this great advantage would be lost if a deputy accountant-general was appointed. There was another point why a civil lord of the Admiralty should be at Somerset-house; it was the opportunity he would have of furnishing important intelligence to the Government, not only as more immediately concerned his own office, but as concerned other departments. He was quite aware that a civil Lord of the Admiralty must trust greatly to his clerks; but then it was something for him to feel that the responsibility of the department rested on him, which would make him watchful over them. He repeated that he objected to the appointment because he thought it a recurrence to the old system which had been completely put an end to by the recent changes, and the very life and soul of which were that each lord of the Admiralty should attend to the details of his own peculiar department.

did not see how it could be made out that the responsibility of the Lords of the Admiralty, for any department under their charge, was in any degree lessened by the present clause. In common with the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, he, too, should be peculiarly jealous of any thing which could tend to trench upon the new and beneficial system introduced by his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), or appear any thing like a return to the old system; but, so far from regarding the additional appointment now in question as an approach to a vicious system, he considered that it would operate as a more efficient check to the many payments in this most important branch of the public service, The responsibility on the Board of Admiralty would be in no degree less than before, for the signature of two Lords would still be necessary in all contracts, &c.—the only difference being this advantageous one, that instead of a third Lord of the Admiralty, the accounts would be signed by an officer specially appointed for this purpose, whose duty it would be carefully to examine the details of each bill, and who might naturally be expected to do this with a closer degree of attention and more minute accuracy than any other person. In the course of the year there were no less than 40,000 bills to go through in detail. Before this new officer was appointed a great many errors had been passed over, but since the appointment had taken place, such errors had been detected and Corrected, much to the public advantage. It was to be borne in mind, besides, that neither the Accountant-general nor his deputy had of themselves the power of ordering the payment of a single individual.

must say that, for his part, he did expect the right hon. Baronet opposite would speak as to a measure, which was a large step towards the entire subversion of the improved system which the right hon. Baronet had introduced into the Admiralty. On a former night he had understood the right hon. Baronet to say across the Table that he had not been consulted on this change before it was actually carried into effect. If so, and if the right hon. Baronet considered, as surely he could not fail to do, that this change would counteract to a very great extent the improvements which he himself had taken so much pains to introduce, he was quite sure that the right hon. Baronet would not hesitate to express his opinion on the subject; and if that opinion were unfavourable to the change, to exert his influence to have that change superseded. As had been pointed out by his hon. Friend, the life and soul of the improved system was, that each Lord of the Admiralty should have under his superintendence one particular department, for the management of which he was responsible to the first Lord. The Accountant-general's department was a most important one. No less than six millions were paid every year in that department: was it consistent with the practice in other public departments that so immense a sum as this should be paid on the signature of subordinate persons, however efficient and respectable? It was argued that the junior Lord of the Admiralty had so much other wise to do that he ought to be relieved from the investigation of these multifarious accounts; but surely the business of the junior Lord was neither so extensive nor so complicated as that of the Accountant-general. It appeared to him to be of the utmost importance that there should be an indispensible obligation on the junior Lord of the Admiralty to attend constantly at Somerset-house. If, when he was at the Admiralty, he had proposed to his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) to throw aside some of his labours and to neglect signing those bills, he could imagine how firm would have been the refusal of his right hon. Friend, and in what strong terms his right hon. Friend Would have commented on his proposal. And what was the reason now assigned for thus excusing the junior Lord from these duties? It was said that the number of bills was doubled in amount; but that did not justify the departure from the principle oh which the present system was founded, and it threw, contrary to that principle, the responsibility on the subordinate officers. He was persuaded that his right hon. Friend could not approve of the alteration. The reason alleged for it rather implied a necessity to relieve the Account-ant-genera l than to relieve the junior Lord, and if he were relieved, the Account-ant-general must be relieved. He admired as much as any man the great zeal of that officer. He had the control of six millions of money, and had under him one hundred and twenty clerks; but with all his zeal and all his assiduity he might require assistance. In that case the check which was implied in his individual responsibility would be lessened or destroyed. He hoped, therefore, that his right hon. Friend if he had sanctioned this plan, would reconsider the subject. It tended, he thought, to disconnect the Admiralty from Somerset, house, and he feared, if the scheme Were persisted in, that it would lead to the revival of the naval board, and to that system of opposition to the First Lord of the Admiralty which was formerly one of the motives of his right hon. Friend for recommending the abolition of the navy board. That was the first step towards the revival of that board. It was opposed to the present system, which had hitherto worked well, and which, if left alone, would, he was satisfied, continue to work well.

defended the appointment. The deputy-accountant being required to enter in to a bond for a considerable sum, really provided a greater security for the public money than under the present system. He Would relieve the junior Lord from some of his work, and allow him to devote his time to more important matters than merely putting his signature to bills. All the security that was now possessed would be continued, and in all cases of doubt the superintending Lord would be referred to as at present. He must now attend as closely as before the appointment of the deputy accountant-general, and he must be daily at Somerset-house. The only difference was, that the junior Lord would be relieved of some unimportant routine duties, and be able to attend to things of more importance.

said, this was the first attempt which had been made to break into the improved system. The appointment of this new officer was to relieve the Civil Lord; it impaired the principle of responsibility which was the foundation of that system, by destroying the responsibility of the junior Lord. The new check which was created by that responsibility would be destroyed, and by and by all responsibility would be done away. Now, instead of one individual at Somerset-house being controlled by a Lord of the Admiralty, two individuals, both at Somerset-house, would have the whole business in their own hands. It would cause great public inconvenience. He had objected to a similar appointment when the Exchequer-office bill was before the House, and then be had predicted that the appointment of a deputy to which he had objected would lead to the principal neglecting his duty. He had then said, that the chief would be absent three days out of four, and it appeared from a return, that out of 455 days the comptroller had been absent 350 days. He censured the appointment because it tended to weaken responsibility and destroy the present system.

admitted that his right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) had a right to call on him to give his opinion on this question, and he would do so. He would first disembarrass the question of some unnecessary details; and must at the outset state that no principle was involved in the appointment. If there were any principle involved in it, and if it went to infringe on the principle he had established, no Member would look on the matter with greater jealousy than he should. It was impossible for any person to state with greater clearness than had been stated by the hon. Member for Halifax the principle of the measure he (Sir J. Graham) had introduced for reforming the Admiralty. It was founded on the principle of dividing and subdividing the different branches of the administration of the navy, and placing every branch under the superintendence of some responsible officer. Over each of the great departments was placed one of the lords of the Admiralty, who was to have the superintendence of that Branch. Through that means he hoped to throw the first Lord into continual communication with all the junior Lords, and enable him to acquire a knowledge of everything that was going on. That was the principle of his measure, to which he attached great importance. If any change had been made in that respect, if that principle had been weakened, if there were any Lord of the Admiralty excused from his duties, if there were any diminution of responsibility, no man would more strongly object to the change than he should. By the new arrangement, anything preliminary to the signing of bills remained unchanged. As he understood, all the ordinary bills drawn, and all the bills presented for payment, must be authorised by the signatures of two Lords, or of the superintending Lord. That invariable rule would not be departed from. Every payment would be brought under the supervision of the board or of the civil Lord. The preparation of all the documents to the final payment of the bill itself remained unaltered. The act which he had passed left a latitude to the board as to the mode of preparing the bills for payment, but they must be either signed or counter signed by the Secretary of the Admiralty, or the Accountant-general. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the act of 1832, and read a clause to show that it was not imperative, according to that clause, that the bills should be signed by the Lords of the Admiralty, but might be signed by a special officer appointed for that purpose. He did not deny that it was most important that one of the Lords should attend daily at Somerset-house; and when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) was in the Admiralty he was constant in his attendance, and set an example which was worthy of imitation; but his practice was still adhered to, and one of the Lords of the Admiralty was now daily in attendance at Somerset' house, and attended regularly to the business of the Accountant-general's office. Thus the principle which he had established was adhered to. He proceeded next to the practice of signing the bills; and the question was, could the civil Lord's signature to the bills be dispensed with? The question did not concern, in the smallest degree, the preparation of the bill, but the counter-signature of the Lord after it was presented for payment. The right hon. Gentleman had made an important admission, which might go a long way to justify the step which had been taken. The right hon. Gentleman said that the business of the Admiralty had increased very much since 1833. He believed that the number of bills was more than double. In 1832 the number was 18,000, in 1842 it was 42,000. Was it necessary that the signature of a Lord of the Admiralty should be affixed to all those bills? He had foreseen the possibility of that not being necessary, and in his act he had reserved the power to make that change. He had foreseen the necessity for dispensing with the signature of a Lord of the Admiralty, and he therefore saw no departure from principle in dispensing with his signature. It was dispensed with in other cases. There was no class of payments in which there was a greater probability of fraud being committed than in those to the out-pensioners of Greenwich, and to them no signature of any Lord was required. It was clear, there fore, that the counter signature of a Lord was not always necessary, and that it might be dispensed with. He was pre pared to contend, under these circum stances, that the opinion of the House ought to be favourable to the transfer of business now proposed. Such a vast increase of bills had taken place that it was no longer practicable for a Lord of the Admiralty to sign them all. If they could not be countersigned by a Lord, by whom were they to be counter signed? It was only by carrying out that principle of subdivision which he had acted on, and which he thought in time must be carried further, to relieve the Lord from signing these bills. He had also foreseen that, in case of war, it would be necessary to make some other subdivisions, and divide the service into several branches. For example, he believed, that an Assistant-secretary, under such circumstances, might be necessary, who should not have a seat in Parliament. The question was one which time must decide. The payments at the Treasury were, he believed, all sanctioned only by the Secretary of the Treasury. He contended, therefore, that this was a question only of detail, and that none of the principles of the great measure he had introduced had been infringed. Every department would still be supervised by a Lord of the Admiralty one of them would be daily at Somerset-house. He certainly should look with great jealousy at any infringement on the principles of his measure, but he saw none in this case, and had no objections to make to the plan proposed.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the subdivision of the labours of the Board as the principle of his bill, and the right hon. Gentle man had admitted that it was for the consideration of Parliament whether the Board was efficient or not. But this alteration had been made without any reference to Parliament. The principle of re sponsibility was violated by the transfer of the superintendence of the civil Lord to two subordinate officers. The right hon. Baronet had made him doubt, by his de fence of the plan, whether it were likely to turn out well. The right hon. Gentle man had admitted that it was important that the bills should be signed by a Lord of the Admiralty, and no ground had been stated why that plan should be given up. The justification was, the increase of bills; but though there might be a considerable increase since 1833, there was no great in crease within a year or two. Did his noble Eriend Lord Dalmeny, find any difficulty in executing the duties of his office? Did he ask for assitance? No; yet the business was then as extensive as at present. At what period, too, was it proposed to make this alteration? He had heard of an increase of duties at the Admiralty in case of war, but what measures were the Administration now taking? Why, at this moment, they were reducing the estimates, and they promised to reduce them more; and just now, at the time when they were reducing the navy, they were creating this new office. A great deal was said about 42,000 bills; but, divided by the number of official days in the year, they would not amount to more than 140 bills a-day, and it would be no great labour to sign them. He thought a Lord of the Admiralty could easily do that and attend to his other duties. He saw no ground, therefore, for the proposed altera- tion, and he thought the committee should look on the change with suspicion, as tending to break in on the system established by the right hon. Gentleman.

explained that the alteration was proposed by Mr. Briggs, the Accountant-general, to whose zeal and assiduity the right hon. Gentleman had borne his testimony. That Gentleman was, perhaps, one of the first accountants of the country, and his exertions, he thought, could not be surpassed. Now, Mr. Briggs had written a letter to the Admiralty, dated July 29, 1842, in which he stated that the business of his office weighed heavily on the persons employed. In particular he complained of the number of bills to be examined and signed, which was much greater than before. In this letter it was also remarked, that the documents were becoming so numerous, in consequence of the extension of public business, that a great portion of the time of the superintendent at Somerset-house must be engaged in the mere signature of them; and there was no additional security afforded by it, as the mass of papers to be submitted was so voluminous that it was impossible for him to satisfy himself as to their accuracy, or make himself acquainted with their contents, even in the most superficial manner. It was on this document that the change mainly rested, and, for himself, he must say, that he attached the greatest importance to the authority of Mr. Briggs.

observed, that the House was in a very awkward predicament. Here was an ex-junior lord of the Admiralty, and an ex-secretary of the Admiralty, objecting to an alteration that had recently been made as injurious to the public service, while on the other side, there was the Secretary of the Admiralty, and junior Lord of the Admiralty, with with the ex-first Lord of the Admiralty, maintaining that the change so far from being injurious was calculated to be of benefit to the public service. This be said, left the House in a very awkward predicament, and he did not know how they were to get out of it. But then the junior Lord who had not sufficient time to sign letters, was engaged in looking after the ships and docks. In the name of God! what had the Civil Lord who 'ought to be looking after the accounts, to do with the ships and docks of the navy? Ha believed that was a part of the duty that belonged to the Civil Engineer's department, and ought to be under the direction of the senior rather than of the junior Lord. But, then it was said, that the hon. Member for Taunton, when he was a junior Lord, was told be should live at Somerset-house. Why did not the junior Lord live there now? He supposed he did not, as he was allowed 200l. a-year for a house. The junior Lord ought to be there and at his work. It was no great hardship for a gentleman who received 1,200l. a-year to have to sign two hundred letters a-day. It was his opinion that all the Lords ought to reside at Somerset-house; but then the ladies objected to it, as there was not as good quarters there as there were at the Admiralty. Why, when a gentleman came out of his room in the morning, after his breakfast, he sat himself down to his business. Well, then he sat himself down at his desk, and his business was at hand—he had all his letters, and it must disturb him considerably to be obliged to leave one office to go to another. But it had been said that the bills had increased from 18,000 to 42,000. If there were a war that number must be doubled, and then he supposed that they should have another deputy accountant-general. As to the letter of Mr. Briggs, he must remark that it was dated in July, 1842; but then they had had a decrease in the navy estimates of 400,000l. It was his opinion that if another Lord of the Admiralty were proposed, no objection would be made to it, and, in his opinion, it would be impossible to do without it.

,in reply, remarked that the clause referred to by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), showed that it was the intention that the bills should be signed by a Lord of the Admiralty. In order to have an expression of the opinion of the House, be intended to move that the estimates be reduced by 100l. The committee divided on the question that the sum granted be 125,359l.:— Ayes 45; Noes 124: Majority 79.

remarked upon the inefficiency of the office. The system did not seem to have worked well; there were not above half of our merchant seamen registered in the office.

said, that although the establishment was one opposed by merchants and shipowners, yet that it was calculated to be of essential service to the navy. On the whole its effects had approximated towards success. It was of course capable of many improvements, and he knew that the gallant Commodore opposite had interested himself in their successful execution. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would direct his attention practically to the point he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he would not be wanting to second his endeavours; and he hoped that, for the sake of making a slight reduction in the estimates, the House would not throw any impediment in the way of the progress of an object of such national importance.

begged to ask the hon. gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any effectual steps had been taken with a view towards improveing the state of the registry, an derasing fictitious and double entries? for unless something of this sort could be done, the value of the registry would be extremely small. A number of persons who had been entered upon the registry were dead, and their names, he understood, had not been erased.

said, that before the question of his hon. Friend was answered, he wished to state, that he had paid muc attention to the subject before the committee. He believed that the register would not be complete until the Registrar-general furnished every seaman, upon enrollment, with a ticket of registration. If the registration system were rigidly carried out to the length to which he would be inclined to urge it, it would supersede the necessity of the existence of the odious practice of impressment. He would like it to be made obligatory upon every boy who went to sea as an apprentice for a term of years, to serve, after the expiration of that term, for a certain period on board of a man-of-war, before he should become entitled to be a registered seaman. It would be well to adopt some such system, in order to get rid of the manifold evils and hardships of impressment.

objected to the great expense of the ships kept in ordinary; at the same time he said that much praise was due to the right hon. Baronet near him for having so readily adopted the new system of building. He ridiculed the idea of converting the Penelope into a steam frigate. The experiment he felt convinced would never succeed. With reference to the construction of steamers he could not help expressing his surprise that the engines of Mr. Napier, or those of Messrs. Maudaley and Field, were not patronized in preference to those of Messrs. Seward, because the former never failed, while the great friction of the latter was much complained of. After what had been said to-night he hoped the troops of her Majesty would always be conveyed abroad in ships of war.

disapproved of converting thirty six-gun frigates into steamers, but thought the Admiralty of late years entitled to great credit for the improvements introduced in the building of ships of war. The superior class of ships now employed had contributed more than anything else to the suppression of the slave-trade on the coast of Africa.

admitted the great expense of keeping ships in ordinary; but that expense was necessary in order to have a sufficient number of vessels ready for commission at a moment's notice upon any emergency.

considered it impolitic to build many large vessels. In his opinion they ought only to have such a number of ships as could be manned with facility. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to try the Albion before proceeding to build other vessels of similar construction?

was understood to say that the intention of the Admiralty was, before adopting any improvements in shipbuilding, to test their efficiency.

thought much unnecessary expense was incurred in the building of large ships, which were of no service but were allowed to rot in harbour. He thought the remarks of the hon. and gallant Officer who had alluded to this subject were well deserving the attention of the Government. The hon. and gallant Member opposite had alluded to the state of the transports, and had said that they were frequently commanded by officers who were not competent to discharge their duties. He thought that some proof of the truth of this statement was afforded by the experience of the last few years, but he yet believed that the number of ships of war lost exceeded that of the transports. As a large sum of money was voted annually for defraying the expense of transports it was, he conceived, the duty of the Government to ascertain that the ships employed in this service were safe and efficient.