moved that the following Members be nominated the Select Committee on the Holyhead Harbour Bill: Viscount Morpeth, Mr. Ward, and Mr. W. O. Stanley. On the question, that Admiral Dundas be one of the said Committee,

proposed that the name of Admiral Dundas should be omitted, and that of Viscount Sandon substituted.

informed the hon. Member that he might move that the name of any Member be omitted from the list; but it was not competent for him to move the insertion of a Member's name without giving previous notice.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he intended to proceed with the Bill without having received the report of the Commission of Inquiry that was recently appointed? [Mr. WARD: Yes.] He regretted to hear it, and thought it would be advisable that the hon. Gentleman should wait till the Commission of Inquiry had made their report. That Commission was appointed to inquire into the expediency of selecting the locality which had been fixed on for the formation of the harbour; and it would surely not be very convenient to proceed with the Bill before the report of that Commission was before the House.

begged to remind the noble Lord, that there was a distinct understanding at the time that the Commission was appointed that the Bill should not pass through the House before the report of the Commission should be received. Mr. Reynell, the engineer, had full instructions to institute an adequate inquiry into the security of the locality selected for the formation of the harbour, and that gentleman had reported favourably, and it was decided that the harbour should be constructed, and a money vote was taken for that purpose. The only question submitted to the Commission was, whether the site of the harbour was open to those objections which had been recently urged against it. Surely there could be no necessity that any delay should be interposed in proceeding with the Bill in the meanwhile. As to the composition of the Select Committee, the Government had no object whatever in appointing any particular set of Members on it. Any gentleman who was desirous to serve, was at perfect liberty to do so; and if the noble Lord was anxious to be on the Committee, he had not the least objection.

thought there was a distinct understanding that no further progress should be made in the construction of the harbour until the report of the Commission should have been obtained.

said, that this was a question of great importance, involving an outlay of the public money to an enormous; extent. He was astonished that the hon. Member the Secretary to the Admiralty should have brought forward this question until the Commission had made their report. It was not only important that the House should be convinced of the security of the foundation on which the harbour was to be constructed, but it was also most important that the amount of money to be expended in carrying out the work should be ascertained. He believed it would appear that upwards of 200 different descriptions of property had been purchased for the formation of the harbour; and some engineers of very eminent standing had pronounced it as their opinion, that instead of the cost of the undertaking being 600,000l., which was the estimated amount, it would be at least 1,500,000l., and that even with that expenditure it never could be made a complete harbour of refuge. Looking at the names proposed to constitute this Select Committee, he must say a more packed Committee he never had seen. He could not discover a single individual the hon. Gentleman had nominated who was not in some way connected by interest with that part of the country—he did not mean that they were individually interested, but through the medium of their constituents; though some of them, he believed, were even directly interested in the establishment of the harbour by being possessed of large property in that part of the country. He trusted, if a Committee were appointed, it would at least be one free from this objection. But the hon. Gentleman ought not to proceed till the Commission had made their report. Was it that the hon. Gentleman anticipated a report unfavourable to the prosecution of this work, and that he wished to have it in his power to bear down any such report by a counter report from a Select Committee of that House? He (Mr. Williams) could just imagine the possibility of such a thing.

observed, that if the hon. Member would read the form of the Motion as it appeared upon the Notice Paper, he would see that it only contained the names of ten Members out of the fifteen that were required to form the Committee. Those ten were those Members who were locally interested in the question; and the appointment of the fire additional Members, who would have no interest to connect them with the formation of the habour, was to be made by the Com- mittee of Selection. This was no new question. Last Session it was discussed; and the hon. Member (Mr. Williams) on that occasion put questions as to the competency of the engineer employed, and as to the expediency of the locality for the formation of the harbour, and the hon. Gentleman then appeared to be perfectly satisfied, and allowed the grant to pass. This Committee was only to inquire into certain points, and not to stir the question of locality.

was quite ready to postpone till to-morrow the appointment of the Committee. The fact was, that it did so happen that he had not seen the names till he saw them on the Votes that morning; and he did not know by whom the Committee had been settled.

wished to ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury a question with respect to the Court of Chancery. He had moved on a former day for any report made by the Commissioners appointed in 1842. He had since found that though they were appointed and agreed in certain suggestions, they had made no absolute report. What he now asked, therefore, was, whether, as there was now a vacancy in the office of a Master in Chancery, Her Majesty's Government were about to make any alterations according to the plan entertained by the Commissioners—namely, by abolishing the office, of Master in Chancery altogether, and by appointing additional Judges in each court? The noble Lord would recollect, that the Act 4 and 5 Victoria gave authority to the Lord Chancellor, and to other officers, to make any changes. That Bill lasted for five years; and, having expired, a new Bill to revive it was passed in 1845; but nothing had been done as yet. He wished to know, therefore, whether the present vacancy would be filled up, or whether, in consequence of such vacancy, such changes would be made in the Court of Chancery as would be beneficial to the suitors.

would state, in answer to the first point to which his hon. Friend had referred, with regard to filling up the office of a Master in Chancery, that the Lord Chancellor, having turned his deliberate attention to the subject, and having considered that when the Equity Exchequer was abolished, an additional Master was appointed, had come to the conclusion that the arrangement of the duties was such that it was not now necessary to appoint a Master in lieu of the one who had recently resigned; and, therefore, it was not intended by Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Master to fill the vacancy which now existed. With regard to the other question, it was impossible to say that the Lord Chancellor or the Government could adopt any recommendations which had never been embodied in any report, or in a formal way; but the subject had engaged the attention of the Lord Chancellor, and he had under his consideration reforms of considerable importance. His hon. Friend referred to the Bill of 1845; but it must be recollected that the present Lord Chancellor had come into office since 1845; and he assured his hon. Friend, that, besides discharging the regular duties of his office, the present Chancellor had considered several changes which would be very beneficial to the suitor's interest.

said, that as the noble Lord had stated that there was no official report of the Commissioners' resolutions, he wished to know whether there would be any objection to allowing a Committee of that House to be appointed to collect this information, and to bring it in a tangible manner before the public?

thought it would be better to allow the Lord Chancellor to consider the general recommendations; and if the House should not be satisfied with what was proposed to be done, it might be advisable to appoint a Committee.

wished to renew a question which had been asked the other evening, as some misapprehension existed as to the noble Lord's reply. The question was, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to remove those disabilities which now prevented persons of the Jewish religion from taking their seats in that House? He understood the noble Lord to state, that no such intention existed; and he had likewise understood the noble Lord to state, that he would not say whether he might not bring in a general measure with reference to the subject of civil disabilities. What he now asked, therefore, was, whether it were the intention of the noble Lord during the present Session to bring in any measure which, though it might not be specifically intended to remove those disabilities, would, in point of fact, involve their removal?

said, the hon. Gentleman was correct in stating that his former answer had not been generally understood, though the hon. Member had collected the sense of what had fallen from him. It was not his intention to bring in any specific measure to alter the law and enable Jews to sit in Parliament; but, if any general measure should be introduced with respect to a change in regard to oaths to be taken, it might form a part of such general measure to take into consideration the words which prevented the Jews from holding certain offices and from sitting in Parliament. He did not at all intend to propose such a measure in the present Session; but he would not give any absolute pledge that he would not afterwards undertake such a measure.

I wish to ask the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government a question, of which I have given him notice, with respect to the Minute of Council of Education, which has been laid on the Table this Session. There are two points on which I think it highly desirable that no doubt should be allowed to remain in the minds of the public, and to which my questions shall refer. The first question I would wish to ask the noble Lord is, whether under that Minute of Council it is intended that, as heretofore, no aid should be given to any school that is not in connexion with one or other of the two societies—the National Society, and the British and Foreign Society? And if the noble Lord should answer that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to carry the aid to be afforded beyond that limit; then the second question to which I would wish to call the attention of the noble Lord relates to a point that I perceive has been recently put forward by a learned divine — a Prelate of the Established Church — who stated that a distinct pledge has been given by the Government to the effect that none but the authorized version of the Scriptures should be used in any school receiving Government aid. I wish to ask the noble Lord whether any limit such as that has been assigned, and also whether the aid is to be confined to schools using the authorized version of the Scriptures only?

I will endeavour to explain to the right hon. Gen- tleman and to the House how the matter stands with respect to which he asks these two questions. I can state, in the first place, that no alteration is made by the Minute of 1846, which has been laid on the Table of the House, with respect to the granting aid to any schools not in connexion with the National Society or with the British and Foreign Society, or with respect to granting aid to schools which do not use the authorized version of the Scriptures. But there have been inquiries made with respect to the intentions of the Committee of Privy Council on these points; and in the answer that has been given, reference has been made to the Minutes of the Committee of Council of 1839 on this subject. Previously to 1839, the rule was, that aid should only be granted to schools that were in connexion with these two societies; and the awards were always made to these societies in the first instance. In 1839, however, it was laid down by the Committee of Council that they would be ready to consider other applications that did not come through either of these societies, but that any such applications must be considered as special cases, and that aid, if given, would be considered as special. It has been lately intimated by the Lord President of the Council (the Marquess of Lansdowne), that he is ready to act on that Minute, and he does not think that the Committee of Council would insist that there should be a special case made out in each instance, but that in any case of application for assistance or aid to be given, he thought the Committee of Council would, in such case, grant aid to schools not in connexion with the schools of these societies. He tilso referred in his answer to another question, namely, the decision of the Committee of Council in 1839, in which it was declared, that in all schools so aided the authorized version of the Scripture must be used. That was the decision made in 1839, and which I believe—though there have been some two or three cases of Roman Catholic schools brought under the consideration of the Committee of Council—has not since 1839 been departed from. But Lord Lansdowne thought it necessary to add, in order to prevent any misconception on the part of those to whom that answer was given, that although the Minute declared that the authorized version of the Scripture must be used in its integrity in any school to which such aid was given, neither he, nor, he believed, the Committee of Council, would feel themselves at all precluded from preparing, or agreeing to other Minutes by which aid might be given to Roman Catholic schools, in cases where they thought fit, from the constitution of such schools, that aid should be granted. Those to whom he gave that information said they understood the present Minutes to confine the aid to schools in which the authorized version should be used, and that when those further Minutes were made known, they would be ready to offer them such opposition as they might think themselves bound to offer. I may say that no such Minutes have yet been agreed to. It is a subject that requires very mature deliberation; and I am not prepared to say that there may not be certain cases of Roman Catholic schools in which it might not be fit to give aid. But the terms of the limits to be set require very deliberate consideration, and these terms of the Minute will be maturely considered, and will be submitted to the House before any aid is asked for educational purposes from this House.

As I understand the noble Lord, the Minute of Council, as it now stands, declares that no aid can be given to any school in which the authorized version of the Scripture is not used?

I beg again to say, that this regulation is not made by the Minute of Council of 1846, now under consideration, but that it follows from certain Minutes of Council of 1839.

wished to know if the noble Lord intended to persevere with his application in aid of education on Monday. He thought that after what had just fallen from the noble Lord, it would be better for him to postpone the further consideration of this question until the further limits to which he alluded were considered.

There is no need whatever of waiting for the settlement of these further limits, because everything that will be asked for on Monday will be expended under the limits that are already before the House. I may add, indeed, that it appears many parts of the subject which were done years ago are now sought to be undone.

laid on the Table of the House a copy of a despatch which had been received by the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office, communicating the fact that a sum of 1,200l., being the first instalment from British Guiana in aid of the subscriptions for the relief of the distress in Ireland and Scotland, had been voted by that colony. He might take that opportunity of adding, that a grant of 2,000l. had already been transmitted from the Island of Barbadoes to the British Association for the relief of the distress in Ireland.

moved—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances relative to the recovery of Treasure and Public Stores sunk in Her Majesty's late frigate Thetis, off Cape Frio, in 1830."

He begged to premise that he did not want the Treasury to pay away money as a gift, but to render up that which had been unjustly obtained from a body of men who exerted themselves most laudably in saving a vast amount of treasure from the wreck of Her Majesty's frigate Thetis. She was sunk in water from six to thirteen fathoms deep, under a steep shore; and had it not been for the exertions, bravery, and mechanical skill of Captain Dickinson, 164,000l. which she contained would have been lost. Out of this sum, through the exertions of that officer, a sum of 157,000, had been recovered, besides a certain amount of stores. The enterprise was one of a most arduous character, from the position in which the ship was lost—the wreck being sunk in the open sea, in a situation exposed to a heavy swell whenever there was any wind, and also from the absence of any mechanical apparatus suited for operations of that description. Out of the common ship stores Captain Dickinson constructed a diving bell; of the fire engine he made an air pump; and with the hose he fed the diving bell with air. On obtaining permission from the Board of Admiralty in 1831 to undertake this duty, Captain Dickinson was told that the Board would sanction no expense; but it was most unjust to extend this limitation to the maintenance of the crew and the wear and tear of the vessel. In 1834 an adjudication was made by the Court of Admiralty; but the salvors thought the decree unfair, and carried the question before the Privy Council, which awarded them a larger share. The Admiralty, however, got a large sum, and be wished to know what had become of the money paid to the Admiralty. It was said to have been car- ried to the Naval Service account; but he had not succeeded in finding it mentioned in any of the Navy estimates. He did not ask the House by his Motion to sanction any advance of the public money, but merely to order a Committee of Inquiry to ascertain whether money had not been unjustly detained from the salvors, and whether it ought not to be given up to that very worthy body of individuals. The Admiralty made a charge for victualling the men, for stores, and the wear and tear of the vessels employed on the service; but he maintained that they had no right to make any such charge, seeing that the vessel was never off the station, and was always ready for other service when she was wanted. In fact, they were only employed on this duty when they would otherwise have been idle. He trusted that, under the circumstances, the House would sanction his Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee on the subject.

seconded the Motion, and said that of all the cases that had ever presented themselves to his notice, this was, he considered, the most extraordinary. He believed that every discouragement had been given by the Board of Admiralty to the undertaking of the enterprise originally. The hon. and gallant Member read an extract from the petition of Captain Dickinson, to show the very severe labour and hardships which the crew had to undergo, and said that he thought that they had been most unjustly treated by the Admiralty. He was much surprised that Captain Dickinson had not overhauled the bill sent in by the Admiralty, for it exhibited as great an instance of plunder as was ever seen in this or any other country. In that bill the Admiralty charged for the wages of tha seamen of three ships for fourteen months, although one or two of the ships were absent for some months upon other service. He disputed the right to make any charge at all. Yet 2,193l. was charged for the use of the ships. And what would be thought of the conscience of the Board of Admiralty in charging 1,463l. for the use of that horrid ten-gun brig, the Algerine? Why it was 1,400 times more than the vessel was worth. They also charged 2,543l. in excess for the victualling of the seamen employed; and although Captain Dickinson saved stores to the amount of 2,124l., he was charged for wages and victualling during their recovery. Altogether an overcharge of 6,861l. was made by the Admiralty. Now, suppose Captain Dickinson had not been successful, would the Admiralty have ventured to charge him 13,000l.? Certainly not. Yet because; he was successful, they made this charge; and he thought his case would be a lesson in future to all parties in such circumstances to keep their money in their own hands, and not to go into any Admiralty Courts, but pay all the bills themselves. He gave his cordial support to the Motion for a Select Committee.

, on the part of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty, should meet this proposition with a negative. He did not mean to prejudice Captain Dickinson, if he reminded the House how great an interval had elapsed between the period when the transaction occurred, and that at which the noble Lord asked for a Committee. But the House must feel that in Parliament, as well as in other courts, it was necessary to have something like a statute of limitations. This case had, however, been examined and disposed of in the ordinary course by the ordinary tribunals, before whom it had been kept for a period of fourteen or sixteen months. When the hon. and gallant Officer said the Admiralty Bill was an extraordinary one, it should be borne in mind that this was an extraordinary transaction. The service was for the benefit of the consignees of the treasure, and of the underwriters in London; and the remuneration charged was not at all unreasonable for the time and trouble of the vessels employed and their crews. In 1833, the case came before the High Court of Admiralty; and the parties who now objected to the Admiralty's claim of 13,000l. appeared against it. The court awarded 17,000l. to the salvors, 13,000l. to the Admiralty bill, and 12,000l. for incidental expenses. Whether these sums were too much or too little, he was incompetent to say; the parties, however, were dissatisfied with the decision, and they appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That tribunal, by its decision, added 12,000 to the 17,000l. previously awarded to the salvors, but no change whatever was made with reference to the Admiralty charges. [Captain PECHELL said, that question was not argued,] It might have been argued, and he had a right to take it for granted, that if the parties had been so dissatisfied then as they appeared to be now with the Admiralty accounts, they would have submitted the question to the court. Had they at that time urged any objections, no doubt the same views of justice and equity which prompted the Judicial Committee to add 12,000l. to the sum previously awarded to the salvors, would have led to a review of the decision as to the 13,000l. Since that period the whole case had been revived, and several applications made to successive Administrations, none of whom conceived themselves justified in departing from the decisions of the courts of law. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn), came to the same conclusions respecting it as his predecessors. He trusted, therefore, the House would feel the importance of allowing these claims to remain as they had been decided by the proper jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, it was his duty to resist the proposition.

contended, that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Parker) had not given any answer to the case opened by the noble Lord. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the decisions of the Court of Admiralty as conclusive against the Motion, and said there must be a statute of limitations to clauses such as these. But he begged to remind the House, that since the decision Captain Dickinson had constantly been making applications for a reconsideration of his case; and it must be recollected that officers in the Navy did not usually come before the House without some absolute necessity. The noble Lord (Viscount Ingestre) would have brought the case under the notice of the House three years ago; but he was stopped by Sir George Cockburn, who stated the Admiralty were about to satisfy Captain Dickinson. The argument as to lapse of time was worth nothing whatever. It only proved, what was well known before, that no Chancellor of the Exchequer would pay money if he could help it. The Admiralty, he maintained, had no right to charge as they had, and he considered it was a most shabby affair on their part.

The hon. Member or Sheffield (Mr. Parker) had said, that he was discharging a painful duty in resisting the application of the gallant and distinguished Officer for pecuniary compensation, in a case where he had sustained an undue loss. He was bound to say that the decision of which Captain Dickinson complained, was a decision in respect to which he (Sir J. Graham) was officially responsible, and he therefore felt it to be his duty to sustain the view taken by the hon. Secretary of the Treasury. That decision was adopted at the Board of Admiralty in 1832, when he had the honour of presiding there under the Administration of the late Earl Grey. He now observed upon the benches opposite two of his then Colleagues, the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for Ireland, and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucester. He was quite sure their recollections would concur with him in what he was about to state. Their decision was adopted after full and ample consideration; and they had the advantage at that time at the Board of two most eminent naval officers, by no means disposed to view with harshness or severity the claims of their brother officers, but to offer due consideration to such claims, at the same time they were actuated by a love of the public service, which rendered them incapable of concurring in any decision which would be unjust to the officers on the one hand, or a prodigal or needless waste of public money on the other. Those officers were Sir T. Hardy and Admiral Dundas. What was the decision of which complaint was made? That the Board of Admiralty had come to a decision, that, considering all the circumstances of the case, it was just to deduct from the salvage the amount of stores exhausted, or used, belonging to His Majesty in this particular service. The Admiralty, exercising their judgment to the best of their capacity, aided by the high authority of Sir Thomas Hardy and Admiral Dundas, came to the conclusion that 13,000l. or 14,000l. was not an extravagant sum to ask. The matter came under the decision of the Admiralty; then, upon appeal, for a decision of the Privy Council. It also came under review of the Administration of Lord Althorp in 1834, the Board of Admiralty of 1836, the Treasury of 1836, and Sir Robert Peel's Government in 1842. For the adoption of the original decision he was responsible, aided by the authorities he had mentioned; and as to the salvage itself, the question had been decided by two judicial tribunals. The original award was, that the amount of salvage should be 17,000l.; on the further hearing, on appeal, an additional sum of 12,000l. was awarded by the Privy Council; and considering the lapse of time, he thought they had been amply and sufficiently rewarded, and that any augmentation of the salvage would be public money improperly applied.

regretted that the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had been the only speech on this question which had been heard by the House. He very much wished the House had heard the speeches of the noble Lord (Lord Ingestre), and the hon. and gallant Captain the Member for Brighton (Captain Pechell). Unfortunately, however, the House was but too ready to vote on such a question without hearing it. The right hon. Baronet who had just addressed the House had so clear a method of speaking, that he was always understood, and he spoke, too, so smoothly and so blandly that he always carried the House with him. He had always found those who were Ministers and those who had been Ministers agreeing on these questions. The right hon. Baronet said, the claim had been decided in such a manner when he was in office, and that it was therefore his duty to vindicate his decision. He did not see this at all. The right hon. Gentleman might have found that on this as on some other questions he had been egregiously wrong, and that he had made as gross an error on this as on other occasions. The official answers to claims of this kind might be stereotyped and cast in metal. He had never known an instance in which some such answer as this was not given—"This case was decided in such a year and in such a manner." The possibility of the decision having been unjust, never seemed to occur to those in office. The House was left to infer that Captain Dickinson had merely proceeded to recover the treasure of the Thetis, in execution of the orders given him. But the fact was, the idea of recovering the treasure originated in the fertile and scientific mind of Captain Dickinson, and that it was entirely through him that any portion of the treasure had ever been recovered. Was it not the fact that Admiral Baker thought it a perfectly wild scheme, and that the Admiralty were of the same opinion? Let the House remember that the money was sunk at the depth of from thirty-nine to seventy-five feet below the surface of the ocean; that the spot was thousands of miles from this country; and that Captain Dickinson consequently was deprived of many of the aids and appliances which he could have obtained at home. That with the rude and savage things at his command—so that he was compelled to make a diving-bell out of his fire-engine—on board what had been properly called "a horrible brig" —that he should have recovered 124,000l. out of 164,000l.—the gentleman who was appointed to succeed him making up the amount to 157,000l.—all these things proved that when Captain Dickinson returned home after his extraordinary success, he ought to have been most amply rewarded, and been one of the first naval officers who received promotion. He declared that this claim on the part of the Admiralty was paltry and disgusting; that it was one of the most huxtering, mean, contemptible, and Shylock-looking affairs he ever heard of. Why, what was the nature of the assistance received by Captain Dickinson from the Board of Admiralty? He applied for a hawser; and what was the answer he received? Captain Dickinson commenced his work in January, 1831; in June he made this application for a six-and-a-half inch hawser; and in October he was told that the Board of Admiralty had directed "that no expense should be incurred on the public account in recovering the wreck of the Thetis." The Board of Admiralty, it was notorious, thought the recovery of the treasure hopeless; the right hon. Baronet himself thought so; and they refused him the paltry assistance of a six-and-a-half inch hawser to recover a wreck of 160,000l., because they determined that no public expense should be incurred in such a frantic wildgoose chase. How much better it would be if men in office, when they discovered that a wrong had been done, would make reparation. Captain Dickinson had exhibited infinite scientific skill; his exertions were crowned with success; but he unwisely parted with the money, and paid it into the Bank, upon which another party put in a claim as chief salvor. Litigation commenced, and then, at the eleventh hour, and at the fifty-ninth minute of the twelfth hour, the Administration came in with its nasty bill of costs. How the right hon. Baronet, with his magnanimous mind, and how the naval officers at the Board of Amiralty (he did not, by the way, believe they knew anything about it) could have sanctioned such a claim, he could not for his life understand. No doubt the Board referred to their dirty journals with the view to sustain their unjust decision by precedents; but none such could be found. The Admiralty charged 6,582l. 12s. for the wages and men of this "horrible brig" for fifteen months. There was another charge for victuals, as if the men would have eaten nothing elsewhere, and when, moreover, Captain Dickinson was ordered to keep his vessel ready for service. Other charges were 1,000l. for naval stores, and 2,000l. for wear and tear. The right hon. Baronet wished the House to understand that the question had been argued before competent tribunals; but this claim of the Admiralty had never been argued before a competent tribunal, for it was made where it could not be argued. Under these circumstances was not inquiry to be granted? The year 1833 was that in which the recovery was effected. Now, he wished to know where they would find credit given to the public for this 13,800l.? Unless this could be satisfactorily explained, it was evident that the House would not discharge its duty to the people, if they did not grant the Committee which was now moved for. He was informed that a careful and vigilant examination of public documents had been made, and that no account could be found of the receipt or disposal of this money. He considered, therefore, that the House was bound to grant an inquiry, unless it was prepared to sanction not only a misappropriation of the public funds, but the grossest injustice towards the officers of Her Majesty's Navy. He hoped, indeed, that the Government would see, from what had passed during this discussion, that they would suffer in character if they persisted in opposing the appointment of the Committee moved for by the noble Lord; and he must admit that he would think the House chargeable with gross injustice if they refused to adopt the noble Lord's proposition.

stated, that he was serving on the South American station when the loss of the Thetis took place, and he thought it his duty to bear testimony to the skill and exertion displayed by Captain Dickinson and the officers and men engaged in the recovery of this treasure from the wreck. Certainly no one at Rio Janeiro had the remotest expectation, at the time the Thetis was lost, that any portion of the treasure could be recovered. He observed that a charge was made by the Admiralty for the provisions of the able seamen employed upon the wreck; and he might inform the House that he believed a great proportion of those seamen belonged to the guard-ship or flag-ship lying in the harbour of Rio Janeiro, and which had been lying there doing nothing for eighteen months previously. This was, he believed, the first occasion on which any demand had been made for expenses incurred by Her Majesty's ships when engaged on extraordinary service; and he thought it strange that this case should be selected for enforcing such a claim, for he would venture to say, that the skill, and the enterprise, and perseverance, of the officers and men employed in the operations, had been greater than had ever been displayed on any similar occasion. He felt bound, therefore, to vote for the Motion of the noble Lord.

wished to ask, whether the High Court of Admiralty and the Committee of Privy Council were aware that the amount of salvage awarded was to be liable to a charge on the part of the Admiralty of 13,800l.; because it was possible that, had the courts been aware that such a claim would be made, they might have awarded a much larger sum to the salvors?

observed, that perhaps he might be allowed to answer the question. He was speaking merely from recollection, for he had not refreshed his memory by any recent reference to documents on this subject; but, unless he was much mistaken, when the case was heard in the last resort, before the Committee of Privy Council, this claim of the Admiralty was taken into consideration by the Council before they awarded to the salvors the additional sum of 12,000l.

considered that the charge made on account of the wear and tear of the ships employed in these operations was quite unprecedented. What, he would ask, was the great object of maintaining our military marine in a time of peace, except for the protection of our general commerce? If the claim of the Admiralty in this case was to be sanctioned, as well might it be said that when the property of our merchants in foreign ports was placed in jeopardy, and ships of Her Majesty's Navy were sent for its protection, that those merchants were bound to pay the expense of those ships during the time they were employed on such service. As well, too, might it be said, that a homeward-bound fleet ought to pay for the assistance of the ships of war sent out to the chops of the Channel to furnish them with supplies of water and other necessaries. In cases of this kind, such a claim had never been heard of. His right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) had gallantly undertaken the responsibility in this case; but he must acquit the right, hon. Baronet of a great part of that responsibility, for, although the right hon. Baronet was First Lord of the Admiralty at the time, the claim was made on the part of the board, the circumstances of the case had never been brought before him. It had been said that this question had been over and over again adjudicated upon in the High Court of Admiralty and elsewhere; but this was a total misconception. The amount of the claim made by the Board of Admiralty before the High Court of Admiralty for the wear and tear of the ships employed on this service, was not disputed; and it was clear that, if the Admiralty thought fit to make that claim, the High Court of Admiralty had nothing to do but to admit it, unless the quantum was disputed. The quantum was not disputed; and, therefore, the High Court of Admiralty never did adjudicate upon the claim. He had a very strong impression that, when this matter was mentioned in the High Court of Admiralty, the Judge said, "I have nothing to do with the question; the quantum is not disputed; it is a question for the Board of Admiralty." He ventured to say, therefore, in reply to the statement that this question had already been adjudicated upon, that there had been, in fact, no substantial decision on the subject. Before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the appellant was Captain Dickinson alone, as Admiral Baker and Captain De Ros did not appeal, and the respondents were the underwriters. The question for the Judicial Committee to decide was, what was a fit sum to be paid by the underwriters for the salvage of their property? The Privy Council decided that the amount to be paid was 54,000l.; but they said, "Unfortunately, the Admiralty have made a claim for 13,800l., with which we cannot deal." That, he maintained, was the effect of their decision. They were aware that they had no power to deal with the 13,000l.; but they awarded 54,000l. to be paid by the owners of the property to the parties entitled to the salvage. It was upon the decision of the Board of Admiralty, and not of the High Court of Admiralty or of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that this claim of 13,000l. was founded. He must express his regret that this subject had been brought before the House; and he thought, if the Government would hold out any hope that they would give the matter patient consideration, the better course would be to leave the subject in their hands. If, however, they could not hold out such an expectation, he would vote for the Motion of the noble Lord.

observed, that the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) had stated that his Colleagues in the Board of Admiralty had all concurred in the propriety of the claim made on their behalf upon the salvors of this treasure. The right hon. Gentleman, however, must have made that statement under some misapprehension, for he was authorized to say that Sir Thomas Hardy, who was then at the board, expressed to his Colleagues his dissent from, their decision. He considered that in this case the Board of Admiralty had pursued a huxtering course. They had charged a sum most disproportionate to the actual cost of the ships for their service, and they had claimed payment for the maintenance of the seamen who would otherwise have been wasting their time in idleness and inactivity. It appeared, indeed, as if the Admiralty were desirous that the crews of our ships of war should remain in a state of complete repose, instead of being employed upon services which might encourage a spirit of gallantry and enterprise. He never saw such a bill as that which had been drawn up on the part of the Admiralty, and which was signed by "W. Symonds, Surveyor of the Navy." A sum of 1,527l. was charged for the services of the Lightning corvette, and the wear and tear was calculated as for seven years' service. He must remind the House that the ships were not actively employed in the operations, which were carried on by their boats, while the ships lay snugly at anchor. Yet a most exorbitant demand was made for the services of the Algerine, a 10-gun brig, which soon afterwards foundered at sea, and all her crew were lost. Indeed, out of ten of these 10-gun brigs, nine had been lost. After three of those ships had been lost, he brought the subject before the House. Since that time, the remaining ships, with one exception, had also been lost. He had no doubt that the 13,800l. had been received at the Exchequer, although no trace of it could be found. But the question they were called upon to decide was, whether they would sanction the imposition of a fine of this amount upon men who had rendered good service to their country. He should have thought, that in a case of this kind, a desire to hold out an inducement to other officers to imitate the example of Captain Dickinson and his gallant companions, would have led the Board of Admiralty to pursue a different course; but, if such a line of conduct was persevered in, there could be no doubt it would have the effect of discouraging similar enterprising exertions on the part of those engaged in the public service. He believed that, if the Government would give this matter consideration for twenty-four or forty-eight hours, they would see reason to change their views on the subject. He thought the statements that had been made must have convinced the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that the Admiralty had been wrong in this instance; and he would not ask that noble Lord to be liberal, but he would call upon him to be just.

considered that a most improper attempt had been made to conceal the true merits of this case, and he thought it right that the House should be fully informed as to the real circumstances. The facts of the case, as had been observed by an hon. Gentleman opposite, lay in a nutshell. After the recovery of the treasure from the wreck of the Thetis, a claim for salvage was made in the High Court of Admiralty by Captain Dickinson, whose merits he was not in the least inclined to undervalue, and by others. Before the proceedings in that case terminated, a claim was given in, on the part of the Lords of the Admiralty, for certain expenses which had been incurred by the country in consequence of the employment of Her Majesty's ships in the recovery of this treasure. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Nicholl) had said that the Court of Admiralty had no jurisdiction in the matter, because the quantum was admitted. Why, then, was the quantum admitted? They had all the persons before the High Court of Admiralty who could have been parties in the case. They had Captain Dickinson as the claimant of salvage; they had the Lords of the Admiralty claiming certain expenses; and they had a third party, who were watching their own interests—the owners or consignees of the recovered treasure. The result of the proceedings in the Court of Admiralty was, that the Court ordered a sum of 17,000l. to be paid to the salvors; and by the same judgment they awarded to the Lords of the Admiralty 13,000l., this sum of 13,000l. not to be deducted from the 17,000l., but to be a separate payment. But the parties were not content with this decree. Captain Dickinson said, and, as the result showed, quite rightly, "The allowance you have made us, as salvors, is a great deal too small." He (Captain Dickinson) took an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who affirmed the decree of the High Court of Admiralty, giving 13,000l. to the public, or to the Board of Admiralty, and who not only affirmed the decree of the Admiralty Court, in so far as to give 17,000l. to the salvors, but who went a great deal further, and gave an additional sum of 12,000l. to Captain Dickinson, and those engaged with him in the salvage. Captain Dickinson and the salvors drew the sum of 29,000l., and the sum of 13,000l. was paid separately to the Board of Admiralty. The question before the Privy Council was whether the sum of 17,000l. previously awarded by the High Court of Admiralty to the salvors was sufficient or not. Captain Dickinson and the salvors maintained that it was not sufficient; and the Privy Council, taking into consideration all the circumstances—the skill and energy manifested by Captain Dickinson, and the difficulty of recovering the treasure—said, "We sustain this claim at the instance of the public, as a just claim for expenses; but, looking at the exertions of Captain Dickinson and his assistants, we give them an additional sum of 12,000l., making the amount payable to them for salvage 29,000l." This took place in 1833 and 1834. It was now proposed, in 1847, that the whole matter, which came legitimately under the cognizance of that Court, should be reconsidered, and it was asked that the claim of the Admiralty, though the quantum was admitted at the time, should be disallowed, on the ground that the account was absurd and extravagant in its nature. He thought that it was impossible that the House could accede to such an application. If it were acceded to, and the solemn decisions of the constituted tribunals were consequently upset, he did not see how, whenever the Crown or the Treasury were concerned, anything could be definitely and conclusively settled.

observed, that if the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was wrong in the decision to which he had come, then he himself had been three times wrong upon it—for three times had he looked into it, and the conclusion to which he had come was always the same. He thought the Admiralty had acted rightly: and he must say, as to this point, he should be extremely obliged if the hon. Member for Montrose would state upon what authority he declared that Sir Thomas Hardy dissented from that decision. [Mr. HUME: Upon that of Captain Dickinson.] He wished to say nothing harsh of Captain Dickinson; but he must say that he had acted with Sir Thomas Hardy when that decision had been come to, and had heard of nothing in contradiction to that decision from Sir Thomas Hardy; and, therefore, he declared that Captain Dickinson must be mistaken.

had the fact under Captain Dickinson's own hand.

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite omitted to notice one point, and that was the letter of Sir John Barrow, the then Secretary to the Admiralty, who promised unconditionally the use of Her Majesty's ship. Really, Sir, I cannot understand upon what principle of good faith this claim is made after the letter of Sir John Barrow, dated the 11th of August, 1831, and which I now hold in my hand. In that letter there is no mention whatever of a charge to be made for the use of the vessel; on the contrary, Sir, it is distinctly stated in this document, that the public cannot be put to any expense in endeavouring to save the treasure from the wreck of the Thetis, beyond the ship employed in that service, and the use of her crew, when the service admitted. Why, Sir, I think this is a distinct engagement on the part of the Admiralty of that day that there should be a free use of the King's ship. This would of itself be almost conclusive against the claim; but then, if we are to consult precedent or custom, who ever heard of a claim brought against private individuals by the Government for military or naval services? If this is to be the rule of the service, we shall have the Guards, who may be called out on the occasion of a great fire in this city, sending their bill for "work and labour done" against the individual whose property they may have been instrumental in preserving. It seems just as reasonable that the Government should make a demand for services rendered by our troops in the collection of the tithes in Ireland. The Government ought to have sent in their bill of costs against the owners of the tithe, and then we might have been able to make the deduction in the Army estimates. If this sort of thing goes on, we shall have the Government "billing" Her Majesty's Opera for the services of half a company of the Guards who are on duty there whenever the Opera-house is open. The claim is altogether totally unworthy of the British Government—it is a paltry thing—a mean attempt to mulct the salvor of this treasure, who deserves well of his country for his courage and ingenuity. I cordially concur in the Motion of my noble Friend.

thought that, after the clear and distinct statement of the hon. Member for Finsbury, the House would not do its duty unless it granted the Committee moved for, or took care that that able and much neglected officer (Captain Dickinson) had his claim liquidated. He saw no reason why a claim should be set up on the part of the Admiralty for the expenses of the King's ships and crews in the service performed by Captain Dickinson, for whether they had been so employed or not, the Admiralty would still have had to maintain them; and he therefore did not understand why the reward of a gallant officer, who, by the means of his inventive faculties, and the application of ingenious mechanical power, had saved so much treasure from the deep, should be diminished by the deduction of those expenses on the part of the Admiralty. He thought that Captain Dickinson's conduct ought to have earned for him the favour of the Government, and that he ought afterwards to have been employed in some distinguished service; but he supposed that, as Captain Dickinson had succeeded in an undertaking that was thought impossible, he had fallen under the displeasure of those who had given a hasty opinion against the practicability of the enterprise. He was sorry to have heard any allusion to the Statute of Limitations; but he should like to know when the last application on the part of Captain Dickinson was made? He held in his hand the copy of a letter from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, refusing to see Captain Dickinson when he sought a personal interview. Was that the way in which to treat so able a public servant? Captain Dickinson was desired to make his communication in writing. He did so; and what was the answer he received? It was to the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had looked into the affair, and saw no reason whatever for altering the decision which had been come to. That was not an answer which would be satisfactory to any one. He should not have mentioned this matter if a petty allusion to the Statute of Limitations had not been thrown out; and when such was the case, he felt himself justified in holding up public men to public reprobation for treating a gallant public officer in this way. He trusted that that House, which was the last refuge of the unfortunate, would entertain the appeal now made, and either grant the Committee or the money.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, seemed to think that he had exposed the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an unfavourable light, by stating that the right hon. Gentleman desired Captain Dickinson to state his claim and its grounds in writing. Now, he would confess that he saw nothing in that which showed the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be in any way different from what it ought to be. He was of opinion that it was the better course for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to require the statement in writing, as he thus had a perfect opportunity of maturely considering all the circumstances before he gave his decision. He thought that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) had hardly considered this case sufficiently, otherwise he would not have made some of the statements which had fallen from him. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that this matter had not been properly considered by the Government, because the ships must have been employed somewhere, and therefore no claim ought to have been put forward on the part of the Admiralty to this money. But it did not follow that the Admiralty might not have ordered some of these ships home, or despatched some of them to another station. It seemed to him that this was a point which might very well have entered into the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, and that they might have devoted these ships to this particular purpose, and therefore have kept up a force which need not otherwise have been kept up to the same extent. The whole matter, however, had been determined by the Board of Admiralty at the time; and the parties who decided the question were the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester, Sir Thomas Hardy, Admiral Dundas, Sir John Pechell, the hon. Member for Gloucester, and his right hon. Friend the present Secretary for Ireland. He could see no ground, therefore, to disturb a decision of that kind. But then the right hon. Member for Cardiff placed a judgment in the mouths of the Judicial Committee, which, after all, was mere imagination. It did not appear that the question of the 13,800l. ever entered into their consideration; but, on the other hand, it did appear that the parties went first before the Court of Admiralty, and next before the Judicial Committee, where they might have disputed the amount claimed by the Board of Admiralty if they thought it excessive. There was therefore an admission on the part of those who were interested in denying it, that they could not dispute a single item of that sum. If, however, there were any doubt on the subject, and if it were quite clear that this demand of 13,800l. was a paltry and huckstering claim on the part of the Admiralty, the money, if it ought to go anywhere, ought to go to the merchants who lost it, and not in any way to Captain Dickinson. There was, in the first place, a sum of 17,000l. awarded to him for his share; and the Judicial Committee awarded him 12,000l. more, giving the salvors 29,000l. in all; and if this sum of 13,000l. was not to go to the Admiralty, it would go to the merchants. The hon. Member for Finsbury seemed to think that every Government—the "ins and the outs," as he called them—had a great satisfaction in refusing claims of this kind, and in supporting one another in such refusals. The hon. Member, however, was very much mistaken if he thought that Gentlemen who went into office, or those who were out of office, had any particular pleasure in refusing to grant sums of money to individuals. On the contrary, he dared to say that it would have given the right hon. Baronet formerly at the head of the Board of Admiralty, or his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, much pleasure if they could have given this sum of 13,800l. to a gallant and ingenious officer; and what restrained them from doing so was, not the satisfaction they felt in refusing the demand, but a sense of the strict duty which they owed to the country. He might be permitted to say to the House, that he really thought that responsibility weighed much more heavily with four or five persons, or one or two persons in the situation of the Lords of the Admiralty, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who were bound to look after the public money, than with a popular assembly like the House of Commons. There was no doubt something pleasing and popular in granting to an individual a sum of money from the public purse, in regard to which no one individual in the House felt any strict responsibility; but in regard to which a public department did not feel such a responsibility. Now, he begged of the House to resist the temptation of indulging in these very popular and laudable feelings. It might be that a public department would be very glad to get rid of claims of this nature; but he could assure the House that if every case of this kind was to be brought before it, there would be hundreds of cases upon which they would have to determine, if the House once got into the habit of granting sums of money to individuals out of the public purse. No man was more particular than the hon. Member for Montrose in checking the expenditure of money by the Government; but he must say that no man was more disposed than the hon. Member to grant sums of money to private individuals. He hoped the hon. Member would do what he sometimes asked the Government to do, reconsider the subject, and not give his vote for the Motion for a Select Committee.

replied. He observed that the Statute of Limitations did not apply to this, as every year since justice had been refused, an attempt had been made, as yet in vain, to obtain it. No decision had been made by any court on the question which was now before the House. He was astonished that the right hon. Member for Dorchester vindicated the Admiralty for making a charge which ought never to have been made by them. He was also surprised, after what had been stated to-night, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government should refuse an inquiry into the subject. He presented a petition in 1844, with reference to it, and was only deterred from bringing it before the attention of the House on that occasion by the assurance of Sir George Cockburn, that the Government of that day would give it their best consideration, and that his introducing the question then would prevent them from acting as free agents. The case was given up as entirely hopeless, when Captain Dickinson undertook the task of raising the treasure; and it should not be forgotten that this money was private property, lost in a King's ship, consequently it was the duty of Government to have incurred a necessary expenditure in endeavouring to recover the treasure.

rose to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the prevalence of Sunday Trading in the Metropolis." There had been, the hon. Member said, a Committee in 1832, which entered into the general question of the observance of the Lord's day; but he wished to confine this Committee to the practical point of Sunday trading. However much he might wish to see the Lord's day properly observed, he did not think that any efforts on the part of that House would tend to promote its observance. He had no notion of making people religious by Act of Parliament; but the case which he had to present to the House was that of certain traders, to whose complaints he wished to call the attention of Parliament. There were various laws in operation to prevent Sunday trad- ing; but these laws were not so strict as to prevent a portion of the tradespeople from opening their shops and carrying on business the same as on another day. He had heard from respectable tradesmen that they had kept their shops closed for many years on Sundays, but that they had been at last compelled to open them in self-defence. He thought this was a very hard case. He did not wish at all to interfere with anything which the House might think ought to be sold on Sundays; but he wished to protect the traders in general from undue competition among themselves. They ought either to make the law effectual so as to put all on an equal footing, or else to say at once that they would not interfere on the subject. It might be objected that he was not the person to bring a question of this kind forward; but the fact was, that the matter was formerly in abler hands than his; for a Bill was brought forward last year by the hon. Member for Lambeth and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper), and his (Mr. Hindley's) name was only added to the back of the Bill as a third; but the two former hon. Gentlemen having both become connected with the Government, did not feel themselves at liberty to proceed with the matter; and, therefore, he had reluctantly consented to bring it forward. In asking for this Committee, it was his particular wish that those Members should be appointed who might feel a prejudice against interfering, as he wished a fair and impartial inquiry. He should not further detain the attention of the House, except to move for the appointment of this Committte.

wished to know whether the hon. Member proposed to prevent men who could not get shaved on a Saturday from being shaved on Sunday? How did he propose to deal with such cases? The House was to do all sorts of things now, it seemed. Hon. Members proposed to make our men chaste and our women virtuous by law; but he must say, speaking from his experience in his younger days in Scotland, as one who was accustomed to see the Sabbath-day properly observed, and delighted to see it decently kept, that he could not believe that any good would result from any alteration of the existing law upon this subject, with respect to which, indeed, the law was rather stringent already. As far as he had observed the persons who urged measures of this kind, pretending to be very sanctimonious, he had not found them better than other peo- ple, or even than himself—an old sinner, who did not profess to be holier than his neighbours. The Government ought not to lend themselves to such a proposal as this, which could only end in disappointment. Men who were paid late on Saturday night must buy what they needed on Sunday morning; it was done in an orderly way, and we ought to "let well alone."

thought the Motion very objectionable. The parks were crowded with carriages every Sunday, and thronged with people who went there for amusement, and not to make an honest livelihood; but the hon. Member passed by them to interfere with the petty tradesman. If the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the present observance of the day, he had better direct his attention to those who got up horse-races here, or who just crossed the Channel to occupy themselves in steeple chases on a Sunday; at least, if he could get the co-operation of the French Government. All the clubs in London were frequented on a Sunday, even during the hours of Divine service, and by persons of station whose example must be influential; but the hon. Member did not and could not touch them, nor could he stop all occupations, and it would be great injustice to pass a law which would in effect single out one class for restraint.

thought it was not desirable to go into a general inquiry. There were certain laws now applicable to Sunday trading; and the object of the Motion was merely to ascertain the bearing of those laws upon Sunday trading as carried on in parts of the metropolis. There might be some hesitation in granting a Committee after the inquiry of 1832, which seemed to include the question now proposed for investigation. But representations had been made from various quarters as to the extent to which the law was violated. Whether the practices complained of had grown up from defects in the law itself, or from defects in its administration, he was not very sanguine that beneficial results could be attained by fresh legislation on the subject. Yet he was not prepared to refuse his assent to the Motion for a Committee, if valuable information could be obtained which might justify the representations made as to the existing system, and the expediency of putting matters on a different footing.

thought no case had been made out to justify the appoint- ment of a Committee. There had been no petitions on the subject, nor had the Members of the metropolis taken up the subject. His own opinion was, that these matters were much better regulated by the general tone of manners in a country than by Acts of Parliament; and certainly Sunday was much better observed in the metropolis now than it was twenty years ago, both amongst the higher and lower classes. He had occasion to be at the east end of the town the other day, when he walked all over the Tower Hamlets; and, with the exception of an occasional cigar or orange shop being open, he must say that the Sunday was observed in a very proper manner. He was therefore opposed to the appointment of a Committee.

said, he had, a short time ago, attended a meeting of between 200 and 300 persons representing every parish in the metropolis, and their representations were certainly of great weight. It was not proposed by this measure to deal with the general question of Sunday observance; nor would it extend the operation of the existing law; still less was it intended to create a case of oppression—if it were, he certainly would have nothing to do with it. But it was proposed to inquire whether or not the existing law was sufficiently effective; and whether there were not certain districts in the metropolis where on the Sunday mornings there were extensive open markets held in the public streets. As far as he knew his own borough, there were many parties who would willingly close their shops if other people would do the same. But in the present state of the law there were many parties who kept open their shops on Sundays, and thus others were compelled, in self-defence, to do the same; so that, for a certain number of hours on the Sunday mornings, the whole of the shopkeepers were kept in a state of bustling activity. That was the object of the measure; and, far from being an injury, it was intended as a benefit to the trading class of this metropolis; because at present even those who desired a day of recreation or of leisure were compelled to forego it, and to open their shops, because of other parties, who cared neither for recreation nor for religion. He hoped, therefore, the House would grant the Committee.

objected to interfering with the subject at all, because every body who looked at the state of the country must have seen that there was a gradual and growing improvement on this subject, and a better appreciation of the value of the Sabbath-day.

thought it would be better to leave the tradesmen of London to manage their own affairs, for he was sure they understood them better than the Members of that House. He was anxious to promote the better observance of the Sabbath; but then it must be by a legislation that would reach all classes, not by measures that would go over the heads of the rich, and strike only at the poor.

thought the speeches which were made against the Motion, only went to show the propriety of granting the Committee, for it seemed that there were differences of opinion as to the facts of the case. The hon. Member for Middlesex said, the shops in London were shut on Sundays; whereas he was informed that in the Old Kent-road, and in the Lambeth-cut, and in various other thoroughfares, shops were open every Sunday morning. Now, a Committee would be the best means of ascertaining these facts. Then, the hon. Member for Montrose, on the contrary, asserted that the laws as they stood were sufficiently efficient; while the parochial authorities of Lambeth and Southwark asserted quite the contrary. He thought it was a grievance that poor-traders should not have a day of leisure, as well as the rich. The shops in Regent-street and Oxford-street were closed on Sundays, and the rich occupiers could spend the day as they pleased; while the poor and small traders, who lived in other streets, were compelled either to open their shops on Sunday, or to lose a considerable portion of their annual profits. The law had settled that the shops should be closed on Sundays, and so long as that law remained upon the Statute-book it ought to be enforced.

felt surprised at the tone assumed on the present occasion. The hon. Member for Ashton had proposed his Motion somewhat in the spirit of the Pharisee. He seemed to say, "Thank God, we of Ashton are not as other men are, we are not like the people of the metropolis." An inquiry into Sabbath trading in the metropolis! That was what the hon. Gentleman proposed; as if there was no Sunday trading in Ashton! And the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department seemed very much of the same opinion with the hon. Gentleman. Was there no Sunday trading in Devonport? Yet the right hon. Gentleman wanted inquiry about the metropolis, and not about Devonport. This was one of those delicate subjects which ought not to be dealt with in detached portions. The right hon. Gentleman knew the state of the metropolis; but the difficulty was to be staved off by proposing a Committee of Inquiry. Was it lessened by accumulating information? Why, the difficulty was increased. In many towns Sunday trading was carried on to a discreditable extent, and Sunday was a day of the greatest importance to the working classes. It was a day of rest; and he wished they had two such days instead of one. He admitted that it was a great evil that men should be obliged to trade on Sunday in self-defence, because an unscrupulous fellow, who happened to be located next door to them, did so; but he did not see how the evil was to be remedied. He certainly saw no use of appointing a Committee. If anything was to be done, in the matter, why could not the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) apply his mind to it? Could not the police authorities supply him with more information in a few days, than could be furnished by a Select Committee sitting a month? Well, when the information they affected to want was thus in their possession, or, if it was not, when there was such easy means of obtaining it, what was the use of appointing a Committee of that House to call before them persons from all parts of the metropolis to give them information? He wished Sunday trading could be put an end to; but he believed the difficulties in the way were insurmountable. He confessed he saw no way of effecting it, except by educating the people and teaching them self-respect. He did not believe that the most stringent laws would do any good. He concluded by expressing a hope that the hon. Member for Ashton would not divide the House on his Motion, but would leave the Government to take up the question; though he feared that direct legislation would be altogether unavailing.

remarked, that there was another way of putting an end to the evil in question, and that was, to enable the people to make as good a living without Sunday trading as with it; though he confessed he did not know how that could be done. For himself, he did not object to legislating on this subject, provided the legislation was made general; but he protested against keeping up the feeling which prevailed too strongly already, that legis- lation was directed against the poor, and not against the rich. The hon. Member for Lambeth had said, that the case of the small traders and that of the members of clubs were not analogous, inasmuch as the members were not obliged to attend the clubs on Sunday, while many of the traders were to keep open their shops. But how was it with respect to the servants of the clubs? Were they not compelled to work on Sunday? Was it not the fact that they had no holiday—no chance of rest or recreation? In order to show the necessity of Government taking up the subject, he begged to refer to the case of the Post Office clerks in country towns, who had no holiday on Sunday, but were obliged to work all day, which he considered to be a case of great hardship.

opposed the Motion. The Committe was unnecessary, for there was no want of any further legislation on the Sabbath.

observed, that there was a general understanding in that House that an alteration should take place in the Smithfield market day; and as he was quite agreed with those who thought it was of no use dealing with the question of Sunday trading by piecemeal, he would suggest that the consideration of the Motion now before the House should be postponed for a few weeks, till the measure relating to Smithfield should be discussed more fully; because there was much said about Sunday trading and Sunday travelling; but if they did not remove the cause, what was the use of touching the effect? The public conveyances were obliged to be kept in motion on Sunday, so long as the cattle market, corn market, fish market, and other markets, were held, as at present, on the following day. He hoped, then, that the hon. Member for Ashton would consent to keep the Motion in abeyance for a week, till the other measure to which he had referred was considered.

suggested to those hon. Members who thought the Sunday well kept in London at present, to visit the Broadway, Westminster, any Sunday morning, and judge for themselves, whether the scene there presented, of shoemakers' shops, stationers' shops, toy shops, and numerous other places of business—all open and busy as on ordinary days—was not a disgrace to a Christian land. For himself, he hoped the time would soon arrive, when, if the present law should be found unable to put down such scenes, some other steps would be taken for that purpose.

doubted whether, in legislating on this subject, they would not be attempting to do that which was wholly impracticable, and thereby creating a greater evil than that which it was their object to cure.

, in reply, said, he had been taunted by one side of the House for attempting to do too much, and by the other for attempting to do too little. His object was, to get the House to take the subject fairly into consideration, with the view of doing justice to all parties. He had no wish to do injury to any. If he should prove, as he hoped to be able to do, that there were great abuses practised in reference to Sunday trading; that gross injustice was thereby done to respectable tradesmen: that a remedy was desired by those tradesmen themselves, as well as by the parochial authorities; and if he could show that this remedy could be applied without injury to any other class—then the Committee he now asked for would be of some value. If, on the contrary, he should not succeed in making out such a case, there would only be a few days spent in the inquiry, and they would, at all events, be able to satisfy the parties who now asked their interference, that there was no means of affording them redress.

said, that the more he had heard on this subject, the more he was convinced that the object of those who proposed such legislation was to interfere with the privileges of the poor, not to meddle with those of the rich. If they were to put down Sunday trading, they ought also to shut the club-houses, and prevent carriages and horses from entering the parks on Sunday.

then rose to move for—

"A Copy of the Instructions from the Board of Admiralty to the Committee of Naval Construction, appointed to inquire into the state of Naval Architecture; and Copies of the several Reports which that Committee have made to the Board of Admiralty on the state of the Ships of Her Majesty's Fleet; Also Copies of all Orders issued by the Committee of Construction, or by the Board of Admiralty, in consequence of the Reports of that Committee, respecting the alteration of those ships laid down, or in progress of building, or built, according to the lines or plans of Sir W. Symons, the Surveyor of Her Majesty's Navy, or any other constructor."

He said he had come down to the House prepared to expose the three late Boards of Admiralty; but, as he found that his hon. Friend the present Secretary to the Admiralty was not prepared to enter into the whole of the question which he wished to submit to the House, he would postpone it to another day. That the question was a most important one would at once appear when he stated that it was his intention to prove that a very large portion of the 20,000,000l., which had been voted during the time that the present Surveyor of the Navy had been in office, had literally been wasted. He did not blame the Surveyor for this; he blamed the system which produced such results. With respect to his present Motion, he understood that a part of the returns he wanted would not be refused. He would therefore content himself at present with that portion to which there was no objection, and leave the discussion of the whole question till that day fortnight, when he would charge the Admi- ralty broadly with mismanagement of the public funds, and ask for a Committee of Inquiry, in order to have the facts fairly and properly before them.

, said that nothing could be fairer than the course which his hon. Friend had taken on this occasion; but certainly he was not till now aware of the very large scope which his hon. Friend's Motion embraced. There was a portion of the papers which he could readily agree to produce, namely, a copy of the instructions from the Board of Admiralty to the Committee of Naval Construction appointed to inquire into the state of naval architecture; but he could prove to his hon. Friend, from the very words of his own Motion, that the other portion of papers called for by him could not with any propriety be given. The reports which the Committee from time to time made to the Board of Admiralty were confidential reports, the Committee being considered the confidential advisers of the board. It was admitted that it was expedient to adopt greater precaution than had hitherto been observed, before any plan was finally submitted to the Board of Admiralty for the construction of new ships; and, with that view, the Committee of Reference, or Construction (it had been named both ways), was instituted; to which Committee all plans were to be submitted, corresponding with those submitted by the board to the Surveyor of the Navy, in order to arrive at something like a better and clearer authorization of such plans; and a more satisfactory evidence that they were founded upon sound principles of naval architecture. It might to some extent prove the case of his hon. Friend, which he was anxious to lay before the House, to furnish him with the instructions to the Committee of Naval Construction; and he would, therefore, lay a copy of the instructions before the House to-morrow. When he suggested to his hon. Friend to delay his Motion for the remainder of the papers, it was because he believed his hon. Friend would really require more before he could so arrange the matter as to make it answer the object he was desirous to obtain. He could truly say that not for the smallest part of those delinquencies to which his hon. Friend had alluded, whether they were large or small, were the present Board of Admiralty in any way responsible. He would at once tell his hon. Friend what had been done by the present Board of Admiralty in consequence of the reports of the Committee of Construction. Those reports had reference to ships that were constructed upon the model of the Albion class, about which so much criticism had been expended, and opinion was so much divided. It was not thought safe to proceed to the full extent, of the plans originally laid down without a fuller investigation of the capabilities of that class of vessels; and the board, finding upon inquiry, that there had been expended on two vessels of the Albion class, the Aboukir and the Exmouth, the sum of 40,000l., they considered it expedient that those two ships should be proceeded with. With respect to the Princess Royal, that vessel was to be altered according to a plan which had been sanctioned by the board, after after having received the reports of the Committee of Construction and the Surveyor. With regard to three other vessels, the Board of Admiralty had suspended all proceedings until they should receive a report from the Committe of Construction and from the Surveyor. Each of these ships was to be constructed upon plans devised by three different builders. He hoped that when his hon. Friend should bring forward his Motion, there would be a fuller attendance of hon. Members who had at any time or who now belonged to the Board of Admiralty; and that, by the discussion which might take place, the House itself would be able to arrive at something like a satisfactory opinion upon the whole question.

considered that upon a matter of so much public importance, the reports of the Committee of Construction ought not to be considered confidential. It was well known to the country at large that a vast waste of money took place by mismanagement; and the House ought not therefore to have withheld from it such information as would throw a light upon the subject. He hoped the Secretary for the Admiralty would reconsider the policy on the part of the Board in refusing to produce these reports.

said, that the only part of the Motion which he at present was authorized to assent to was the giving a copy of the instructions to the Committee appointed to inquire into the state of naval architecture. He believed he should be able to give satisfactory reasons why the confidential reports, which entered minutely into the defects of the qualities of the ships, and various other particulars necessary to be made known to the board, should not be laid before the public and the world. But he wished to reserve the whole question for a subsequent discussion.

observed that his hon. Friend had asked for several papers, and only a portion of them was granted, and that the papers which would give practical information were withheld.

explained to his hon. Friend that the first portion of his Motion the Secretary of the Admiralty had no objection to assent to, but that he was not prepared on the present occasion to produce the rest. He (Mr. Hume) was not pressing for the other papers, but had only been telling his hon. Friend (Mr. Ward) the grounds on which he should proceed when he again called for those papers. And he now felt that he should be acting unfairly towards his hon. Friend if he did not inform him that he (Mr. Hume) should not consider it any answer to be told that the papers were regarded as confidential; for he could not consider any papers confidential that involved the expenditure of a great many millions of the public money. His object in obtaining these papers was not only to show what the evils were that had been done in the past, but the way in which some board might be established calculated to prevent similar evils in the future.

moved that this Bill be now read a Third Time.

said, that in persisting in his opposition to this Bill, he was sure that neither the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, nor any Minister thereof, would accuse him of any—he would not say factious, for he disdained to use that term, but of any—disposition to thwart Her Majesty's Government. He had supported them in the principal measures of the Session. He knew the difficulties they had to encounter; and he would appeal to the noble Lord whether, in personal intercourse with him, he had not evinced a disposition rather to smooth than to create difficulties. Having already twice addressed the House at great length on the subject, he should now confine himself to declare generally, that, so far from his opposition to the measure having abated by the discussions which had taken place, it had gained additional strength. Since he last addressed the House, he had received numerous communications from professional men, all of whom concurred in deprecating the limitation of the period of enlistment to 10 years, unless accompanied by some more substantial inducement to men who had served for that period, to re-enlist. He continued to feel that the difficulties which must result to the colonial service would be incalculable, if some fixed period beyond the 10 years were not provided for that especial portion of the service of the British Army. The power given to the commanding officer to prolong the period of service, when the regiment was abroad, was fraught with danger, and was a strong admission of the difficulty of adapting the principle of limited service to the exigencies and contingencies of our colonial and foreign service. A regiment might be in Upper India, or in Australia, when some such sudden emergencies as those which recently happened in both these quarters, might again occur: the power given by the 3rd Clause, to prolong the service, would then be exercised to its limit; but should the emergency continue, and the prolonged time expire, what then? It appeared to him that there was no safety but in so managing, that no regiment should be sent on colonial duty, unless the service of all men belonging to that corps be of such duration, as to embrace the period of its foreign service. It seemed to him, too, that fresh engagement by enlistment should always be made, before the first period expires, to preclude effectually all possibility of misunderstanding, or confusion, or uncertainty. He would adduce a few practical observations to show the inapplicability of limited service, with safety, to the Army of this country. A regiment comes home from India, after a service of many years, a skeleton, rarely more than 200 men. It is, in the year of its return, recruited, say to 800. It remains in England five years, and is then again sent on the ordinary tour of foreign service. Wherever it may be in the eleventh year, the time of service of about three-fourths of the men expires. What will you then do? Send out 600 recruits, or bring the regiment home? If the former, is the regiment fit for service. If the latter, what confusion in the reliefs! Again, the 90th Regiment, after serving 10 years in Ceylon, was embarked for England in 1844, and touched at the Cape on its voyage. Under the emergency which existed there, the officer commanding the forces laid his hand upon it, and sent it up the country; and, he believed, that regiment still served there. The 45th and 73rd Regiments, on their voyage to another destination, put into the Rio de la Plata—they were detained. In his own time, two out of the six regiments he had in the Ionian Islands, were sent off suddenly to Canada, on account of emergency there. These regiments were first on the list to return home; they remained in Canada three or four years. How would service limited to 10 years, provide for such emergencies as these? It was a very perilous thing to run the least risk—to admit even of the possibility of any misunderstanding with soldiers, as to duration or prolongation of service, or even to permit the first period to expire, without a distinct understanding, or a fresh contract. He would remind the House of what occurred many years ago, as a warning of the inconvenience and danger resulting from limited enlistment in such a service as ours. In the year 1783 several regiments were embarked for foreign service; but, in the same year, peace was declared, and the destination of the troops changed. An eminent officer, the late Sir Thomas Dalrymple, then lieutenant-colonel of the 68th regiment, was embarked at Portsmouth, destined for foreign service (the Spanish Main). He received a communication from General Conway that the destination was altered, to what quarter he (Sir H. Douglas) did not recollect, and immediately proceeded to London, to report that the greater part of the regiment under his command were young soldiers, and had been enlisted subsequent to the general regulation of December 1775, by which soldiers were enlisted for seven years, or during the war, and that peace being concluded, they demanded their discharge; but that if a small bounty were offered, he had no doubt that he could prevail upon them all to re-enlist. General Conway desired him to feel their pulse; his reply was, that he was not accustomed to act in that manner with soldiers, but that he would do as he was ordered. On his return to Portsmouth, he went on board the different transports, and addressed the men in each, who all agreed to accompany him and their officers: but he had hardly returned to the headquarter ship, when boats were seen coming off from the other transports, and in each was a soldier with a sheet of paper, on which was written the clause of the general order or regulation which entitled them to their discharge. On his again landing at Portsmouth, he found the 77th regiment (the Athol Highlanders), of which he had for some years been major, and had commanded for a time, in open mutiny in the streets of Portsmouth. The regiment had that morning refused to embark, and upon Lieutenant-Colonel Crosby's remonstrating against such unsoldierlike conduct, they knocked him down, loaded their pieces, and levelling them at their officers, obliged them to retreat. They then marched to the town gates, took possession of them, and obliged the guard to retreat, firing upon a party of the 41st regiment who were assembled to oppose them, killed one man, and wounded several. They then proceeded to the magazine or store-house of the regiment, which they broke open, and furnished themselves with ball cartridge. A mutiny also broke out from the same cause in Jersey, in the 83rd regiment, and in the 104th, which was happily repressed by the vigorous and well-timed exertion of the Royal Irish. The country was in consternation—Sir William Howe was sent to Portsmouth—General Conway to Jersey. The 68th were landed and sent to Winchester; the 77th Athol Highlanders marched from Portsmouth by orders of Lord George Lennox, and disbanded. In the 1st, or Royal Scots, there was some unsteadiness. All this is recorded in the journals of the day (Morning Herald, January 29th, 1783; the London Chronicle, January 28th to January 30th, 1783; the London Chronicle, February 13th to February 15th, 1783; the Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser, Thursday, March 27th, 1783). The practical deduction he made from these facts was, that it is extremely unwise and dangerous to send regiments, on colonial, service, composed of men enlisted for a limited period, unless some provision be made, sufficient to induce soldiers to re-enlist, should prolonged services he required; and he knew of no provision that could be so effectual as that of giving a good bounty. A very moderate bounty would suffice. That course, though recommended by Sir H. Dalrymple, was not followed at that time, and the consequence was, it became necessary to land the 68th and disband the 77th Highland regiment, and others that were also under orders to embark: and he (Sir H. Douglas) might add, that the British Army had never been in such a state of excitement and insubordination, as that brought on by that limited service expedient. He could assure the House that the ten-year enlistment, and the quasi militia duty of twenty-two years afterwards, with the remote prospect of a pension at 50 years of age, is becoming more and more unpopular in the country and in the service—that it is deemed a disadvantageous change, a pitiful, discreditable provision. That it is perfectly absurd to expect that this measure, of itself, will either attract a better description of men to enter the service, or induce good soldiers to continue in it. He would read to the House an extract from an important and influential journal, an organ which expresses and influences public opinion by its ability:^*—

"But we warn the Government that it will be impossible to procure recruits for that time, or to re-enlist them after that time, on the proposed rate of pension. A man who is worth anything, and who therefore has a sentiment of self-respect, will not give himself and his best energies to the State for ten or twelve years on the bare possibility of getting 6d. a day for thirty years hence. The thing is impossible. To suppose it would argue an utter ignorance of human nature. With a hope so bald, and a prospect so blank as this, the Army will be recruited from the riff-raff of society, not from the respectable and well-conducted men, whose presence is so much desired. If you wish to have good men in the ranks, you must hold out good inducements. Treat them well and fairly there; reward them well afterwards. It will be the wisest economy in the end. If you cannot give a pension at the end of ten or twelve years, give one at the end of fifteen years' service. Let it, however moderate, commence directly on the men's discharge; and let it be increased as they grow older. And, more than this, reward by such civil situations as you have at your disposal, the most deserving of the retired soldiers. You will thus, at the same time, confer an honour on the Army, and an obligation on the State. And, in truth, no State owes more to its Army than that which has intrusted to the guardianship of a farce not much larger than that of modern Belgium, possessions vaster and more diffused than owned the sovereignty of Imperial Rome. One word more. The termination of a soldier's service ought, for the sake of uniformity, to be fixed for the last day of the year in which his service expires. Nor will the proposed reformation be complete until some plan is enforced—either by legislative enactment or rule at the Horse Guards—for limiting the colonial duty of regiments to ten or twelve years."

There must be some superior inducement held out to the soldier, than an enlistment for 10 years, and the pitiful, miserable provision of 6d. a day to a man of 50,

^*Times, April 12, 1847.

after 30 years' service as soldier and militiaman. A good pension ought to be given, sufficient to attract and retain good men in the Army: and, if that were done, he for one, would care little what became of the limitation clauses. He wished then to know, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, to accompany this limited service scheme with a revision of the pension list, with a view to restore it to what it was, or to make a still better provision for the soldier in his old age. If the Government would give any assurance to that effect, then he, and those with whom he acted on this occasion, would be willing to hope that such a provision would neutralize the prejudicial effect which the limitation clauses, by themselves, must have: and in that case he would make no difficulty about those clauses: but if no such assurances were given, he would do all in his power to prevent those clauses passing into law. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

seconded the Amendment, on the ground that the House had been called on to pass this measure in the absence of any military information on the subject. They ought to have had the opinions of the Commander-in-Chief, of the heads of the public departments at the Horse Guards, and of military men connected with Her Majesty's Government. The Secretary at War could, if he had liked, have passed the Mutiny Bill with a clause for limiting the service in it; but he had shrunk from that responsibility, which he sought to throw on Parliament by means of this Bill. The subject of the abolition of corporal punishment in the Army had been very differently treated. It was first brought forward, he believed, by Sir F. Burdett. Then Sir S. Romilly, in 1815, moved that a clause be inserted in the Mutiny Bill, limiting the number of lashes to 190; but that Motion was obliged to be withdrawn in consequence of the absence of military information. The question then slept till 1830. Then came the Military Commission. Secondary punishments were tried, and solitary imprisonment adopted by the authorities at the Horse Guards. A total reformation had taken place; and those who, like himself, had advocated the abolition of corporal punishment, had the gratification of finding it restricted to 100 lashes in 1846, and it had become almost the exception instead of the rule. But what induced the House to consent to this change was, the opinion of the military officers who were summoned to state their views before the Military Commission appointed to inquire into the practicability of abolishing corporal punishments. Before pressing this question forward, they ought to have the benefit of the opinions of military men. The House of Commons was not the arena on which to judge of the effect this Bill would have on the order and discipline of the Army. A drummer, of fourteen years of age, was just as competent to give an opinion on a decision of the Lord Chancellor, as the House of Commons on matters relating to the discipline of the Army. After all, this Bill was but an experiment; and upon what was it to be tried? Upon the British Army—an Army spread throughout the globe. The Government were bound to give a good military authority, before they called upon the House to sanction a measure which might endanger the existence of the Army, composed now of a body of men a better than which could not be found, though the earth were searched through. If the Government were determined to press the Bill, at least let it be improved. A large bounty was offered to the soldier; that bounty was deceptive. What was a real bounty? A pension after a certain number of years' service. The bounty went now to furnish the man's kit: it would be far better to give him his kit. The Army, it was said, was recruited from the dregs of society, and by fraud. But was there no deception on the part of the recruits? He knew of many cases of deception—of men with bodily defects who took the enlistment money; and he knew one case of a man who, without bodily defect, had enlisted eight times in seven months, receiving portions of the enlistment money, an then deserting. Who bore the expenses or these frauds? The recruiting parties themselves. If this Bill was to pass, the periods, he thought, were too short. There should be one of twelve, and a second of ten, years; and at the end of twenty-two years the soldiers should have a pension of 10d. or not exceeding 1s. per day, according to character. Another point was, that the comforts of the soldier should be more consulted, as to clothing and appointments, especially in Africa and other hot climates. Then what was proposed to be done with the East India Company's troops? The Company must be bound by the same engagements, and at the expiration of the periods must send the soldiers home. In the absence of all military information, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to press this Bill—a measure affecting so deeply the interests of the Army, and which might work for evil. If the Bill was pressed, he should divide with the hon. and gallant Member.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War whether he had considered the point to which he had directed his attention on a former occasion? He meant the very disadvantageous position in which soldiers at present in the Army would be placed, as compared with soldiers who might hereafter enter the service, if that Bill were passed. They would then have two classes of men in the Army—the limited-service men and the unlimited-service men. By that Bill the limited-service man could command his discharge gratuitously at the end of ten years, while the unlimited-service man could not, at any time, command his discharge; and even if he should obtain the consent of his commanding officer for his discharge, he would have to pay for the purpose 15l. in the cavalry and 10l. in the infantry. But the Government dared not extend to the soldiers at present in the Army the same boon which they proposed to confer on soldiers who might hereafter enlist. It appeared to him that there was only one way in which they could give the soldier now in the Army an equivalent for the comparative disadvantage to which he would be subjected, and that was by increasing the rate of his pension. He earnestly hoped that that subject would undergo further consideration on the part of the proper authorities.

had hoped that, considering the extensive alteration which the Secretary at War proposed to make in this Bill by withdrawing its 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Clauses, the right hon. Gentleman would have made some further statement calculated, if not to remove, at any rate to mitigate the objections to it; and having been unable to be present at the last debate on the subject, and having, although present, been prevented by indisposition from taking part in the previous discussion, he (Lord Hotham) was very anxious to be allowed to state the grounds upon which his vote would be given, should the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool be pressed to a division. The principal object aimed at by this Bill, was said to be the getting a better class of men to enlist. He had never been able to discover the precise meaning of the expression, a better class of men; but if it was supposed that by merely shortening the period of enlistment, persons in easy circumstances would be induced to cuter the Army, he felt a strong conviction that Her Majesty's Government would be disappointed, inasmuch as the restraint necessarily imposed by military discipline upon every soldier, and especially and to a greater degree upon every recruit, would of itself be sufficient to deter those who had other means of employing themselves from being attracted by the slender inducement held out by the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. If the substitution of limited for unlimited service were as great a boon as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to suppose, it would have been well worth his while to consider whether, by dealing liberally with the question of pensions, he might not have been able to induce men to enlist for the Army generally, instead of enlisting, as they now had a right to do, for particular regiments. An arrangement of this nature would have many and great advantages. It would greatly diminish the charge for recruiting. It would save all that, he feared, very large expense which the transport of the necessary relief under the new system would occasion; while, on the other hand, it would enable the authorities so to dispose of the recruits as to cause every one to have his fair share of duty, and thus to add very much to the efficiency of every regiment. In speaking of the expense which this new system would create, his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool had quoted a despatch written by the Duke of Wellington to Lord Liverpool in 1812, on the subject of the very large sum which would be required for the re-enlistment of men whose seven years term of service was about to expire. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had questioned the accuracy of this statement, contending that the bounty could not have exceeded 4l. or 5l. per man, and that thus the sum named by the Duke of Wellington would have provided bounty for a greater number of men than the whole army then in the Peninsula consisted of. Now, if he (Lord Hotham) had not been prevented, as he had already stated, from addressing the House when his hon. Friend was thus contradicted, he could have offered his own personal testimony as to the probable accuracy of his argument. He (Lord Hotham) was serving with the army in the Peninsula at that period, and he well remembered that a large number of men of his own regiment were re-enlisted, and that he was employed by his commanding officer to assist in their attestation and in paying them their bounty, not of four or five pounds, but of sixteen guineas per man. His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool had also called the attention of the House to the case of a regiment returning from India. Such a regiment might, on its return to England, receive six or eight hundred recruits; and, after remaining, perhaps, five years at home, would be ordered for three years to the Mediterranean, and from thence for three years to the West Indies, where, before little more than half its tour of duty was completed, the greater part of the men composing the regiment would be entitled to their discharges; and he would confidently ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this was a state of things which he would find it easy to deal with? Looking, then, to the inducement which men, after serving their period of ten years, would have to re-enlist, he (Lord Hotham) observed with regret that the right hon. Gentleman would give no intimation of the real intentions of the Government with respect to pensions. Many inquiries had been made on the subject by hon. Gentlemen around him; but the right hon. Gentleman always referred to the royal prerogative as his reason for declining to answer them. Now, he (Lord Hotham) hoped he need not say that no one was less disposed to interfere with, or indeed more desirous to maintain, the royal prerogative than he was; but he could not help feeling that when her Majesty's Ministers brought forward a measure, the success of which mainly, if not entirely, depended on the exercise of the royal prerogative, the House had a right to know how it was intended to use it. Again, there was a very serious question, to which the hon. Member for Windsor had referred, namely, what was to be done with all those men of whom the Army now consisted, and who were all enlisted for life; but here also the right hon. Gentleman put forward the royal prerogative. The importance of this question must be obvious to every one; but the consequences of its being improperly dealt with were so serious, that he (Lord Hotham) would not venture to allude more particularly to them. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side might know, privately, the right hon. Gentleman's intentions; but those sitting on his (Lord Ho- tham's) side of the House having no such advantage, the right hon. Gentleman could not complain of their unwillingness, in the absence of all necessary information, to go along with him in support of his Bill. These were some of the objections which pressed strongly on his mind. He (Lord Hotham) did not presume, because he had the honour to hold a commission in the Army, that he must necessarily be wiser than any one else. The subject, however, being that of the profession in which he had been brought up, it was one upon which he could not but have an opinion, and upon which, having an opinion, he felt bound to give it. He (Lord Hotham) did not distrust the intentions of the Secretary at War; but, believing that he as greatly overrated the advantages as he underrated the difficulties which the Bill would occasion, and after giving the subject the host consideration in his power, he arrived at the conclusion that the only vote which he could, with a safe conscience, give, would be in favour of the Amendment.

observed, that so far from finding fault with the noble Lord for the unequivocal manner in which he had expressed his views, he willingly admitted that, from his experience of military life, in war and peace, there was no man better entitled than the noble Lord to form an opinion, and to utter it fearlessly, on the subject of military service. This he did not hesitate to admit; but he was bound to say that he, notwithstanding, differed totally from the noble Lord with respect to his opinions on the principle involved in the present measure. The Bill did not now come before the House in the same form which it presented when first introduced. He had divided it. And the reason he had done so was to simplify the great principle contained in it. His object was to procure the decision of the House on the naked simple principle of adopting for the future the system of limited enlistments. Being anxious to obtain a decision on this point, he had disencumbered the question of all foreign considerations whatsoever, and took out all allusion to Acts of Parliament having reference to pensioners and to the soldier's privileges. He did so with the view of bringing those questions into a separate Bill. For the present he only wanted to introduce a short Bill for the express purpose of limiting the period of enlistment. He did not at all concur in the opinion that this was a question on which that House was not competent to decide. On the contrary, he thought it was one on which they might be very fairly called upon to pronounce. It should be borne in mind, however, that the present measure could not pass into law without an ample opportunity being afforded to the highest military authority in the empire to declare his opinion upon it. The Royal Assent could not be given to it before it had passed through the other House of Legislature, of which the Commander-in-chief was so distinguished a Member. A discussion would take place there, in which, no doubt, that illustrious Personage would take part. But even though the Commander-in-chief had not a seat in the House of Lords, he could not on that account accede to the proposition that the House of Commons was not a competent tribunal to pronounce on the question. He did not wish to underrate the value of the opinions of military officers on military questions—far from it; but he would take leave to remind the House of this undoubted fact, that changes had been introduced by that House, which were now universally admitted to be great improvements in the British Army, but which, nevertheless, on their first introduction, had had to encounter an unequivocal opposition on the part of the older officers in the service. He was not sure, that however distinguished by rank and service those officers might be, their minds were not liable to be warped by an undue prejudice in favour of regulations and institutions to which from ancient habit they were already attached. With respect to the prospective effect of limited enlistment on those who were already enlisted for an indefinite period, he could only say that all due care and precaution should be taken to prevent the spread of any spirit of discontent amongst the soldiers thus circumstanced. He would not further trespass on the attention of the House, but would conclude with the expression of a hope that they would sanction the third reading of the Bill.

objected that the Government had not been sufficiently explicit in describing the data on which they went, and the object which they had in view in introducing this measure. On these points accurate information should have been furnished, before the House was called upon to interfere in a question which might have been decided by the exercise of the royal prerogative without any reference whatever to them. One would suppose that the natural object the right hon. Gentleman had in view was to improve the efficiency of the Army; but if they were to regard it in that light, how did it occur that the period he selected for giving the soldier leave to take his free discharge was just the period of his service when he was capable of rendering the most efficient service to his country? It was the period when the human frame had attained its maturity, when the irregularities of youth had been got over, and when the soldier was somewhat hardened in the service. It was also to be remembered, that if wages were high at the time the soldier was entitled to his discharge, he would be naturally inclined to accept higher wages than he obtained in the Army, and leave the service. It was likewise to be observed, that this measure was differently framed from the regulation of 1806. That regulation tended to keep the hardy soldier in the service; but the tendency, he conceived, of this Bill was to disband the Army. For reasons he had stated, he should vote with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Liverpool against the third reading of this Bill.

observed, that the soldier who was now serving had enlisted under specified warrants, and by those warrants he was bound up, and was entitled to a certain amount of pension which he (Colonel Lindsay) hoped would be altered; and he must express his opinion that, so far as the word injustice was used, there was no injustice in keeping the soldier now serving to the engagement into which he had entered. But he hoped that if the supply of men were greater, as it was expected to be, the Government would relieve those soldiers sooner from their engagements than they were bound to do by the Act now in force. With respect to the question of limited service, he differed from the opinions expressed by some of his hon. and gallant Friends. He held the principle of limited service to be a good one; but, while he held that opinion, he thought that fourteen years would be better than ten. He also held that this Bill was defective, without some assurance or notification being given of an increase of pensions. He would vote for the Bill if he thought that there would be an increase of pension when the soldier had completed his second period of service; but he would vote against the Bill because no announcement had been made by the financial authorities with reference to pensions. With respect to the assertion that a better class of recruits would be obtained if this measure were passed, his (Colonel Lindsay's) idea was this—he believed, if limited service became the law, there would be a greater supply of men, and consequently a greater power of selection. He repeated that, on the ground of pensions alone, if the hon. and gallant Member for Liverpool pressed the Motion to a division, he would go into the same lobby with him.

I have to say a few words as to the ground on which the Government has brought forward this measure, before the Bill is, as I hope it will be, finally passed. The hon. and gallant General who objected to this Bill is, no doubt, a very high military authority; and it must be admitted that he has pointed out in former debates, and during this debate, several inconveniences that may arise, especially in the colonial service, by carrying limited service into effect. But I own, considering the state of this country, and the state of the Army, that I think the time is come when there must be a very great change with regard to the mode of enlistment, and the period for which the enlistment shall take place. I think, in the first place, it is most desirable that you should have a larger class of persons from whom you may procure recruits for the Army; and I think it is quite clear, even without having any particular data or calculation on the subject, that the circumstance of a man seeing there is a limited period at the end of which he will obtain relief from military service, and he able to devote himself to other pursuits while health and strength are still left to him to go on with those other pursuits, it a continuance in the Army is disagreeable to him, would obviously be a reason for a man enlisting in the Army on sober and steady calculation, instead of taking up the decision in a moment of haste and despair, and afterwards becoming discontented. It likewise appears to me to be obvious that if men enlist with a more sober calculation of the state to which they are about to belong, they will be, I think, more contented with their position than they now are. This is one of many measures by which we hope to make the condition of the soldier more satisfactory to the men themselves that are serving, and more in conformity with the general improvement in the state of the country. It is not an answer to us to say that there was a good Army thirty or forty years ago, in the Peninsula or at Waterloo, for we must make all the different institutions of the country conform to the general spirit of the times and the advancement of the day. It does appear to me that we shall altogether by this measure introduce a spirit into the service that will make the soldier more contented, than he would be if we retained the old mode of government in the Army in an unaltered state. These are the general reasons why I think some change is necessary and should be made. I admit fully the inconvenience the hon. and gallant General has pointed out; but I think this general argument is sufficient to overhear all that inconvenience. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last that the question with regard to pensions shall be considered. The Warrant of 1836 was very well considered; it had the consent of Lord Hill and the military authorities of the time, and put an end to much confusion that prevailed. But at the same time I admit, in the altered circumstances of the Army, when the men shall only he enlisted for ten years—and wishing that those men who are good soldiers should be enlisted for a further time; that the amount of the pension ought to be fully considered; and that the suggestions which have been made in this House—one suggestion was made by a right hon. Gentleman not now present (the late Secretary at War)—should be fully considered by the Government before the Act is passed which will regulate the pensions; I shall—differing as I do from the hon. Gentlemen who have opposed this measure—give with great satisfaction my assistance, as a Member of the Government, to carry this Bill.

then moved the omission of Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, which was agreed to; and also the addition of some new clauses, which were read first, second, and third times, and added to the Bill.

moved as an Amendment that in Clause 2, line 1, the following words should be struck out:—

"After completing the term of limited service for which he shall have first engaged, and being approved by his commanding officer or other competent military authority, as a fit person to continue in Her Majesty's service as a soldier."

As this was a matter of regulation, he considered it would be better to omit these words.

would not consent to strike out the words, for the effect would exactly be that if they rendered a soldier liable to be enlisted during the period he first engaged to serve, he would be open to the solicitations and coaxings of commanding officers.

Really the right hon. Gentleman has made a most unwarrantable imputation upon the commanding officers of Her Majesty's service.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had introduced a Bill containing only eight clauses, but out of which he now proposed to strike no less than five. That was a nice Bill for a right hon. Gentleman, a Member of the Government and the Secretary at War, to bring before the Legislative Assembly. Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman himself had set the example of mutilating the Bill, and proposed to strike out five out of eight clauses, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend below him (Colonel Wood) was quite justified in his request to have a portion of; the 2nd Clause struck out. If the House agreed to that, he would propose to strike out the 1st Clause, and then the Government might perhaps be induced to withdraw the remainder altogether. If this was to be taken as a specimen of the legislation of the present Government, he might fairly be warranted in exclaiming, "Good Lord, defend us from such legislation for the future!"

defended the commanding officers of Her Majesty's service against the imputation of attempting to bully or induce by undue means the men under them to re-enlist. Such conduct would be unworthy of British officers, and those practising it ought to be removed from the command of a regiment. The right hon. Gentleman could know very little of the character of commanding officers if he could impute such practices to them.