Commons Sitting of 16 March 1835

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. CAMPBELL, from three Places, in Support of the Church of Scotland.

LOWER CANADA.
Mr. Patrick Stewartrose for the purpose of presenting to the House a Petition which he considered of very great importance, inasmuch as it would give to hon. Members something like a fair knowledge not only of the present unfortunate condition of Lower Canada, but of the real state of parties and opinions in that Colony. This petition was signed by 11,170 English, Irish, and French Canadians, resident at Montreal and its vicinity, and, so far from agreeing in the sentiments contained in the petition presented by the hon. and learned Member for Bath the other night, these petitioners expressed the deepest and most unfeigned regret at the disloyal spirit which a few discontented men had succeeded in engendering in the province in which they resided. They looked with dismay and alarm at the proceedings of a faction, whose only object was to destroy the present Constitution, and place in its stead a destructive democracy; and they severely deplored that their internal affairs were not altogether under the control of an external Legislature. In short, they reiterated the sentiments embodied in that part of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley's) the member for Lancashire's well known despatch, which was rejected by the House of Assembly, and humbly prayed, that the Constitution which had originally been given to Lower Canada should be preserved in its integrity to that Colony. It might perhaps be said, that these were the sentiments of Tories, but this he begged leave to deny. They were the sentiments of the old and constitutional Canadian Whigs, and this would be proved by a reference to the papers published at Montreal. The hon. Gentleman read extracts from some of those papers in which, though the principles of Reform were strongly insisted on, the most unqualified censure was cast upon those "injurious and dangerous advisers" who were endeavouring to create discord and anarchy in that province. He would call the attention of the House, and more particularly of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, to a letter which had some time ago appeared in the Canadian papers and created a strong sensation in that Colony.
1014
It was said that the hon. and learned Member for Bath knew something of that letter; and, if that were not so, the hon. and learned Member would have an opportunity now of denying it. The letter to which he alluded was dated from the place where the hon. and learned Gentleman lived, namely, Gray's-Inn-square. [Mr. Roebuck: My chambers are not in Gray's-Inn-square, but in Raymond-buildings, Gray's Inn.] The consequences which this letter produced were of so painful a nature that he could not pass it over in silence. Although the letter was published without signature it was generally attributed to the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and if he were not the writer of it he would no doubt be rejoiced at having an opportunity like the present to publicly disavow the fact. [The hon. Gentleman read the letter, which stated that Sir H. Vivian was about to be sent out as Governor of Canada, and expressed a hope that the Canadian people would be firm. It charged Mr. Spring Rice with having deceived the Canadian people, and advised them, if that right hon. Gentleman should return to the Colonial Office to render his position as difficult as possible, and not only to grant no supplies, but to harass the Government by every possible means.] This letter it was true had, as he had stated before, no signature attached to it; but still as it was generally supposed to have proceeded from the hon. and learned Member for Bath, he would leave it to that hon. and learned Member to affirm or deny the fact. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to insist upon the services rendered by the Canada Land Company. It might be objected to him that he advocated the Company because he was himself one of those who composed it; but his reply would be, that he belonged to the Company because it was calculated to check great evil in this country and produce great good in the Colonies. That the Company was considered valuable by the Colonists was proved by the circumstance of a petition having been forwarded to his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, praying for such a Company. The alienation of the Crown and Church lands had been recommended by the Committee of 1828, and the Canada Land Company had been established for the purpose of drawing British capital, British industry, and British morality into Lower Canada. The abuses

1015
which existed in the Canadas were never denied by the British Government, and it had been the intention of the late Ministry to apply the earliest and most efficacious remedy.
Mr. Gladstonewould put it to the hon. Gentleman, whether it were wise or discreet to renew this discussion?
Mr. Stewart:the hon. Gentleman reversed Johnson's definition of a fashionable patron, whom Dr. Johnson described as one who encumbers you with help when you have just reached the land; for the bon. Gentleman met him with an interruption when he had nearly arrived at the end of his journey. There was one point to which he would refer, and in doing so he would take the opportunity of saying that he felt satisfied this discussion, so far from doing injury, would on the contrary, be productive of good. The point to which he alluded was the necessity which existed of revising the representation, the evil of which consisted in this, that, whilst in one part (the Upper) of the Canadas the representation was founded on property and population combined, in the Lower the principle of population was alone acted upon. The hon. Gentleman quoted a passage from Burke, to show that if the Colonies conformed as closely as possible to the mother country in their mode of enjoying civil and social rights nothing would ever be likely to separate them. This, he hoped would prove to be the case of the Canadas. There was still, as he hoped whatever Commission was sent out would find, a fund of sound sense amongst the people of Canada, which, on the redress of any just grievance under which they might labour, would still ensure the continuance of the connection between them and the mother country.
Mr. Roebuckwished to vindicate himself from the charge of having endeavoured to excite the people of Canada to take up arms. He insisted that the letter which he had written could not be tortured into such a construction. In that letter he had advised the Canadians to resort to all means except arms. The letter he acknowledged to be his, and to the sentiments it expressed he still adhered. Of the other letter to which allusion had been made, he knew nothing, and he never wrote anything to which he would object to have his name attached. He had told the Canadians that they could gain nothing from this Government but by stand-
1016
ing out, and he told them so in the same spirit in which the Whigs addressed the people of this country previously to the carrying of the Reform Bill. In telling the Canadians to endeavour to improve their institutions by withholding the Supplies, he had only done that which but recently had been done by the Gentlemen on his side of the House, and he had yet to learn that such a doctrine was unconstitutional. The House of Commons in London contemplated doing that which he had advised to be done in Canada. The people of England looked to that House to harass an unpopular Ministry by stopping the Supplies; and all the parties in that House would be taught, as in Canada, that the power which the Representatives of the people possessed to stop the Supplies was not unconstitutional. He contended, that the petition in reality involved the same dispute which existed here between the Liberals and the Tories, and he felt satisfied, that if a good Constitution were not established for the Canadians, they would make one. The only advice he would give to the Canadians would be, that they should state calmly to the Commissioner the grievances of which they complained, and insist upon obtaining a good Government.
Mr. Robinsonobserved, that the advice of the hon. Member for Bath went the length of advising the Canadians to harass every government. As long as he acknowledged the giving such advice the hon. Gentleman showed himself as one throwing in a firebrand to excite and to irritate, and was adopting a course which would only have the effect of preventing all adjustment. Why should the hon. Gentleman assume, that it was not the intent of the British Government to redress any evils which the Colonies could fairly point out? The hon. Gentleman had advised the Canadians to resist the British Government if it did not grant their claims to the fullest extent. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman in this advice, and he felt satisfied, that the Canadians would have reason to regret that their cause was not in the hands of the hon. Member for Taunton, who would be more likely than the hon. Member for Bath to conduct them to a satisfactory issue.
Petition to lie on the Table.

THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND).
On the Question that the

1017
House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he was informed by one of the Commissioners of Public Instruction (Ireland) that in the course of next week a Special Report would be made by certain Local Commissioners, who had examined the parishes in eight dioceses in Ireland. He imagined, therefore, that in the course of the following week the report would be in the possession of the Members of that House. He wished, therefore, to put it to the House whether, as such was the case, it would not be advisable to postpone the Motion, of which he had given notice, respecting the Church of Ireland; because, when he originally gave notice of the Motion, he supposed that the Report of the Commissioners would be laid upon the Table of the House before the day fixed for that Motion. He would now move for the production, without delay, of any Reports which might be received from the Commissioners, and if it should meet with the concurrence of the House, he would afterwards postpone his Motion till the 30th instant, for which day he would move a call of the House. The noble Lord concluded by moving that there be laid upon the Table of the House, copies of all Special Reports, that may be received from the Commissioners of Public Instruction (Ireland).
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he must call upon the noble Lord to give notice of the Motion; it was one which ought not to be made as a matter of course. The question was, whether incomplete Reports should be made from the Commissioners. Up to the present moment, the Government had received no Report from the Commissioners, and it did not appear that Government possessed the same means of ascertaining from the Commissioners the course which would be taken by them as the noble Lord had. Without entering into any discussion now, he begged the House to have the goodness to observe, that the question they had to decide was, whether they would proceed to affirm a general resolution on a partial Report? Whether or not the dioceses referred to by the noble Lord had been examined he could not state; but he must object to the Motion being made without notice.
Lord John Russellhad no objection to comply with the suggestion of the right
1018
hon. Baronet, and give notice of his Motion. At the same time, he must say, that in order to avoid any appearance of surprise, he had communicated to the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, and the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, his intention to submit such a Motion, and if he had heard any objection offered he would not have brought it forward. He would now withdraw the Motion, and give notice for to-morrow.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that the present Government had not interfered in the slightest degree with the Commission, and were entirely ignorant of their proceedings.
Subject dropped.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
The Marquess of Chandosasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was probable that he would announce his plan for the relief of the agricultural interest?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer:In answer to the question proposed by the noble Marquess, must repeat what he had stated to many Gentlemen—namely, that with respect to all matters relating to the remission of taxes and fiscal regulations, it was better, that he should make a full statement of his intentions on the subject at the earliest possible period after the termination of the financial year, when he should know with sufficient accuracy for practical purposes, what would be the amount of the demands for the public service, and what the probable amount of surplus. This statement he expected to make early in the next month, which would allow hon. Members who might object to the views he might then lay before the House sufficient time to adopt what course they might think advisable. The House would recollect that it was only in December that he had assumed his duties, and taking into consideration the manner in which he had since then been occupied, it really was but fair that he should have time to make up his mind upon several important points connected with the finances of the country. He thought that he should best consult the public interest by declining to make any premature disclosures.

AMBASSADOR TO ST. PETERSBURGH.
Lord John Russell:I beg to ask the right hon. Baronet whether, after what passed in this House on Friday night, it is still the

1019
intention of the Marquess of Londonderry to proceed to St. Petersburgh as his Majesty's Ambassador.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer:I will answer the question of the noble Lord without the slightest reserve. About an hour since a letter was sent to me by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which he had just received from the Marquess of Londonderry. The noble Marquess stated, that after the debate on Friday, he felt that his power of usefulness as his Majesty's representative at St. Petersburgh must be greatly impaired. He had therefore thought it a public duty to relinquish the situation for which he had been chosen. I am bound to add, that that course was adopted by the noble Marquess entirely on his own judgment, unsolicited and unsuggested, either directly or indirectly, by his Majesty's Government.
Lord John Russell:After what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet, I rise to say, that recollecting what passed in this House on Friday night, I think the noble Marquess acted rightly. Since he could no longer proceed as Ambassador to St. Petersburgh with any hope of public usefulness, I admire the manly way in which he has come to that determination; but, at the same time, I do feel bound to remark that this country is placed in a situation of new and great embarrassment by the appointment of an Ambassador by the Ministers of the Crown, which appointment can afterwards be set aside by the judgment of the House of Commons. I think, in the case of which we are now speaking, that the appointment was altogether so ill-advised as to call for the observations made by the hon. Member for Tipperary, and by other Gentlemen. I must say, that in the experiment we are now making, which experiment the right hon. Baronet calls a fair trial, we run a considerable hazard, that all the most useful prerogatives of the Crown will lose the dignity and respect with which they have been usually regarded. I own I come more and more to the opinion that we ought to revert, whenever we can, to that old practice of the Constitution under which the powers of the Crown were administered and exercised by persons in whom this House and the country had confidence—the House not being required to express its separate opinion upon appointments so
1020
much within the province of the Crown as the choice of Ambassadors to Foreign Courts. I feel that, in this case, it was most unfortunate that Ministers selected a person against whom such strong objections could be urged. I feel that it must greatly diminish the respect and consideration with which this Government is viewed by Foreign Courts, when it is found that the notification of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that an Ambassador has been appointed may afterwards be cancelled, not by a direct vote, but by an implied censureof the House of Commons. I could not help giving expression to these feelings, agreeing as I did in the greater part of what was said the other night, especially as to the sentiments of the noble Marquess on the subject of Poland. On that ground alone the appointment was highly objectionable; but at the same time, I wish to say, that the blame did not rest with the Marquess of Londonderry, but with the Ministers who advised the Crown to make the appointment of which the first consequence was to dissatisfy the House and displease the country. I cannot but conceive, that such conduct tends in some measure, to bring into disgrace even the Throne itself.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer:The noble Lord has assumed, that the retirement of the Marquess of Londonderry took place in consequence of the proceedings of the House of Commons. I do not mean to deny that it arose out of the discussion here—I meant nothing so unfair or so uncandid as to deny that the resignation was the consequence of that discussion; but I beg leave to remind the House, that it was only a discussion, and not a vote in the form of an Address to the Crown. When the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Nottingham, asked me, on Friday night, whether it was my intention to advise the Crown to cancel the appointment, or to withhold the completion of it, I did feel myself bound distinctly to state, that I should not consider it consistent with my duty as a public man to tender that advice. Some may suppose that the decision of the Marquess of Londonderry, though not directly suggested by Government, was made in consequence of some indirect communication. I beg leave distinctly to declare, that such was not the case. It was the single unsolicited act of the Marquess of Londonderry. No doubt, that appointment

1021
met with the disapprobation of those who expressed themselves in the course of the debate on the former night; but at the same time, I cannot help reminding the noble Lord, that even if a majority of the House had pronounced itself adverse to it, it would be some consolation to recollect that, I will not say the same majority, but still a majority, pronounced itself adverse to the re-appointment of Viscount Canterbury to the Chair. With respect to the observation of the noble Lord, upon the inconvenience to the public service of Government not being possessed of the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons, I can only say, that whenever the noble Lord, or any other man, thinks himself able to form a Government possessing more of public confidence, I submit that the proper course will be for him to give notice of that direct Motion. It may be some such Motion, probably, as the hon. Member for Middlesex has intimated will be brought forward, and then we shall be enabled to see by the result, whether the House of Commons is prepared to agree to a vote which would be tantamount to a direct Address for removal. Because a man, in the situation I hold, has a perfect right to consider, whatever may be the consequence of a resignation of the trust, that it is not upon slight grounds, nor for a slight disappointment or mortification, that he ought to feel himself warranted in retiring from the King's service. The true way for the House of Commons to displace an Administration is, not by a Motion which those who vote for it state—they hope will not have the effect of removing the Government, but by a Motion that will distinctly imply, that some other Government possesses more of the confidence of the House, with greater ability to preserve it by the discharge of its public duties. No man is more anxious than I am that that question shall be brought to a fair and speedy trial.
Mr. Hume:I agree with the right hon. Baronet in thinking, that he has some reason to complain, that no direct vote of censure has been moved. I hope ere long that his wish for a fair and speedy trial will be gratified. Every man will form his own conclusions—
Lord Stanley:I rise to order. There is no question before the House, and the course now attempted to be pursued is extremely inconvenient. Conversation
1022
may be carried to an indefinite length, and lead to no result.
Mr. Hume:I appeal to the Chair.
The Speaker:The Question is, that the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply be read.
Mr. Hume:There is a Question before the House; and if not, it would be competent in me to conclude with a Motion which would satisfy the noble Lord, and enable him to make any observations in reply without irregularity. Therefore, there is no necessity for the noble Lord's extreme sensitiveness on the point of order, and violent alarm lest we should be guilty of a breach of it. The right hon. Baronet has used one expression, which seems to throw a reflection on the House for rejecting Viscount Canterbury, and electing another Speaker in his stead, as if that were a matter of complaint against the House, as we all know it is a matter of regret with the Ministers. I take it as a matter of reflection upon myself and upon those who acted with me, and I consider that the right hon. Baronet has no right to make it. The right hon. Baronet will judge for himself, according to the dictates of his own feelings, as to what constitutes a declaration of the confidence or the no confidence of the House; but it certainly seems that he is not at all inclined to take a hint, and that no slight indication of no-confidence will convince him. Nothing less will satisfy him than a vote, that he and his colleagues are unworthy to be trusted with the management of public affairs—nothing less will satisfy him, and nothing will satisfy him less. I trust that such a Resolution will be sufficient, and that it will very soon be adopted. But what I rose principally to observe upon, was the peculiar situation in which the country is placed by having an Administration acting as this seems to act. Whatever opinion I might entertain of the Marquess of Londonderry (and I must own that his conduct in this instance has raised him in my estimation), he, at least, has had the discretion which the right hon. Baronet and his colleagues have not. He has shown the good sense, I wish the right hon. Baronet had shown as much, not to run counter to the opinion of this House. On the contrary, the right hon. Baronet, when directly appealed to, said, that he should proceed to complete the appointment. Has he done so? This is one of

1023
his eggs; so that the Member for Middlesex is not the only oviparous animal in the House. The egg the hon. Baronet has laid, and sat upon in vain, is not a hen's egg, but that of a bird of larger growth, and with a longer neck, as the result, had he hatched it, would have shown. On a former night, and in a manner which he thought very facetious, he alluded to my egg: now here is his unfortunate egg, which he never could hope to hatch, because everybody knew beforehand that it was addled. My egg was at all events a wholesome egg, and would have produced a healthy chicken, had it remained in my nest, but it was unproductive because it was removed. The right hon. Baronet, with his cuckoo-note of "a fair trial," is the very reverse of the cuckoo in his habits; for, instead of laying his eggs in other birds' nests, for them to hatch, he pops into other birds' nests himself, and hatching their eggs, takes credit for a most goodly brood of Reform chickens. However, he did lay one unlucky virgin egg, and neither he, nor the noble Duke to boot, could bring it to perfection. It seems that he sets at defiance the majority of the House: and because his Majesty is anxious to favour the right hon. Baronet and his friends, wishing to keep them in office, he is resolved, as he fairly avows, to retain the Seals to the last, and to exhibit the novelty of a Cabinet retaining their places, but deprived of the confidence of the Commons. This I call a strange state of things, which must paralyze everything connected with the internal Government of the country. I should like, as a matter of curiosity, to see and to compare the two dispatches to the Court of Russia, the one announcing the appointment of the Marquess of Londonderry, and the other stating that the House of Commons had prevented it. I should like to see the terms in which the fact was communicated that Ministers had been obliged to cancel the appointment. I mean to make no reflection upon the noble Marquess; when he tendered his resignation, he did what the House and the country expected, but not what Ministers recommended. It appears to me, that so far from taking it as a matter of excuse, it ought to be matter of accusation against Ministers, that they had no communication with the noble Marquess. They ought to have had a communication with him, recollecting that in the discussion of Friday, excepting
1024
the noble Lord (Lord Mahon) who first replied, there was scarcely an individual in the House who did not deprecate the appointment. I am extremely happy at the result, and I congratulate the noble Marquess on his good feeling and sound discretion. Ministers deserve no credit for the result: they would fain have hatched the egg if they could, but they only addled it.
Lord Dudley Stuart:I do not wish to make any ill-natured remarks, after the noble Marquess has taken the only course that was left to him. I wish, however, to congratulate the House and the lovers of liberty and justice that the noble Marquess has found it necessary to relinquish the high office committed to him—that of representing this country at the court of Russia. I rejoice at it for this reason, above all others—because the noble Marquess ventured publicly to malign a gallant people, struggling for their civil liberties and their national independence.
Sir Robert Inglis:Whatever opinions may have been expressed on Friday, there is no one who has heard what has passed to-night, but will cordially concur in the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Middlesex, that the Marquess of Londonderry has raised his character by the step he has just taken. I should not have obtruded myself on the notice of the House even for a few minutes, if I did not feel that the precedent of Friday night, followed up by the conduct of the noble Marquess, is pregnant with great danger to the Constitution. If the expression of the opinion of the House in a formal Address to the Throne had produced this result, I should be the last person to deny that the constitutional exercise of the prerogative of the Crown might have been employed to cancel the appointment. I should have thought such a course unfortunate; but it is still more unfortunate that a mere conversation, expressing the disapprobation of the House of an individual in whom the Crown (whether wisely or not is another question) had reposed confidence, should have produced the same effect. The King is thus deprived of the services of an individual selected as Ambassador to St. Petersburgh, for no reason that appears on the votes and journals of the House. If a mere discussion like that of Friday last can fetter the discretion of the Crown, it is a state of things deeply to be regretted. Although

1025
I took no part in the discussion on Friday, I cannot but recall to the recollection of the House that it was imposing the severest penalties, and visiting with the heaviest inflictions, an individual who received within these walls the highest distinction of a soldier's life. When the noble Marquess, then a General in the King's service, received the thanks of this House, he little expected that one of the returns made to him would be a censure, not deliberately passed upon motion and after notice, but in a conversation for which no person was individually responsible. Under these circumstances, I must express my regret, with all admiration of the high-spirited self-denial of the noble Marquess, that the House has set so pernicious a precedent.
Sir Henry Hardinge:I confess I think that my noble Friend, the Marquess of Londonderry, could have taken no other step, and that he was bound in honour and spirit to adopt it. In my opinion, the charges against him are most unfounded and most unjust, and some circumstances were most ungenerously brought forward. Any one of us acting in public life to-day may be liable to such accusations to-morrow; but I do not rise to find fault with those who took part in the discussion on Friday; and having been for a long series of years connected with the noble Marquess, I should have risen in defence of his honour had I considered it attacked. I wish, however, now to observe, that when the noble Marquess speaks he does not always measure his words very accurately, and that it is hardly fair to quarrel with particular expressions used in the heat of debate. It is more particularly hard upon my noble Friend on the subject of Poland, because I know that his sentiments are diametrically opposite to those imputed to him. If there be one individual more than another who has a high respect for the opinions of his relation the late Marquess of Londonderry, it is my noble Friend,—and the late Marquess in no respect distinguished himself in foreign politics more than in solicitude for the welfare of Poland. I believe that that fact is well ascertained; and it is also known, that the present Marquess has always been anxious to follow the steps of his lamented brother as regards the Poles. Let me add, that I have avoided seeing the noble Marquess; and that his resolution regarding the embassy to St.
1026
Petersburgh is in no way, and in no degree, to be attributed to me. I am, therefore, not able to state whether he acknowledges the expressions imputed to him. I did not rise to provoke discussion, but to say that I knew he was a man of honour and spirit, and that this determination was his, and his alone.
Sir John Hobhouseallowed, that it was inexpedient to establish such a precedent as had been alluded to by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford; but the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer must admit the fault did not rest with the Gentlemen on his side of the House, but arose from what the hon. Member for the University might depend upon it would be the fruitful source of much more evil than had hitherto been seen—he meant from the Ministers of the Crown attempting to govern the country by a minority. If the Ministers of the Crown were in possession of the common confidence of the House—he meant if they were able to wield a majority, not large in itself, but still one available for the purpose of carrying on the Government, no such catastrophe as that which the hon. Member for the University of Oxford had alluded to could possibly occur, because when the Prime Minister made or sanctioned an appointment, he would know that, let Members talk against it as much as they pleased, when it came to the important point—namely, the vote, the majority would be with him. In consequence, however, of the position—he must take the liberty of saying the false position—in which the right hon. Baronet had placed himself, in consequence of his trying the almost unheard of experiment of carrying on the Government of the country whilst in an acknowledged minority in that House, the event which the hon. Member for Oxford deprecated had occurred. Some hon. Gentlemen laughed when he spoke of the right hon. Baronet being in a minority, but he did not see a smile upon the face of the right hon. Baronet and his colleagues; they knew that he was not exaggerating, because it was a matter with respect to which they had had two or three proofs since the meeting of Parliament. He begged leave to say, that he looked upon the course taken by the House, not so much as a vote personally against the Marquess of Londonderry, as another proof that the hon. Gentlemen

1027
opposite were not in possession of the confidence of that House. It was a condemnation, if it were any thing, of their foreign policy—of that policy of which it was supposed the noble Marquess was to be sent to St. Petersburgh as the organ. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman (the Secretary for Ireland) had told the House, that he was aware, from private sources, that the noble Marquess's opinions were not such as had been described. He did not think it necessary again to go over those topics, which had been discussed at large the other night; but he must take the liberty of saying, that if the noble Marquess were friendly to the Poles, it was undoubtedly a most unfortunate circumstance that he should have characterized them by a name condemnatory, not only of their cause, but condemnatory also of them personally. The noble Marquess had thought proper to call the Poles rebels—and not, let him be permitted to add, in the heat of debate, but in an opening speech; and it might, therefore, be assumed that the noble Marquess in thus describing the Poles had only expressed his deliberately-formed opinion. Having said thus much in reply to the hon. Member for Oxford University, he could not sit down without tendering his humble tribute of praise to the noble Marquess for the course he had adopted. The noble Marquess had followed the line pointed out by his own honourable mind. The right hon. Baronet opposite, in telling the House that the Government had not recommended the noble Marquess to take that course, only asserted what every one without such declaration would naturally believe to be the case. In his opinion, the Government could not have abandoned the noble Marquess; and if he had been in the situation of the right hon. Baronet, he would have gone out of office sooner than have abandoned that noble Lord. Still he believed that had nothing occurred to prevent the mission of the noble Marquess to St. Petersburgh, it would have been the duty of the House to have sent an Address to his Majesty on the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbegged to represent to the House, that he was placed in a difficult situation by debates arising out of questions put to Members of the Government. An hon. Member on the opposite side of the House got up and asked a question, which he answered, not expecting a debate; and he was after-
1028
wards precluded from taking any notice of what occurred. He would take advantage of the indulgence of the House to thank the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Hob-house) at least for the fair spirit with which he had judged of the course taken by the Government—a spirit, let him add, worthy of a public man, and very different from that which characterised the remarks of the hon. Member for Middlesex. Supposing that he had said, in answer to the question which the hon. Baronet had put to him the other night, that he was prepared to advise the Marquess of Londonderry to retire, should he not have deprived the noble Lord of the grace and dignity of voluntary retirement? He could not conceive anything more unjust than not to have given to the noble Marquess an opportunity of considering the situation in which he was placed, and to have robbed him of the merit of deferring to what appeared to be the sense of the House of Commons. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Hob-house) had also done justice to the Government in another particular, namely, in inferring that they would not have abandoned the Marquess of Londonderry, after the appointment had been tendered to, and accepted by, that noble lord, at a period of great difficulty, and under the peculiar circumstances in which the Government were involved. The hon. Member for Middlesex had accused him of acting in opposition to the majority of that House. Now, he would ask, did he stand forward and declare the intentions of Government in a hasty and insulting manner to the House of Commons? A question having been put to him, he could not avoid stating the course which Government intended to pursue. If the opinion expressed by the House was meant as a condemnation of the foreign policy of the Government, he must be permitted to say, that that was too important a question to be disposed of, not by votes, but by a discussion springing up on the Motion, that the House resolve into a Committee of Supply. He could not, then, regard what had occurred as intended for a condemnation of the foreign policy of the Government, but only as the expression of the opinion of the House with respect to an individual appointment. What steps the House might have thought proper to take if the Marquess of Londonderry had not acted as he had done, it

1029
was not for him to say; but he had said before, and he now repeated, with all respect towards the House, and with no wish to slight its opinion, that he never would have suggested to the Marquess of Londonderry to take the course which, from a sense of his own honour, and the dictates of his own judgment, that nobleman had adopted; nor would he, until the opinion of the House had been expressed in a regular and formal manner, have tendered his advice to the Crown to revoke the appointment. He felt obliged to the House for having allowed him to trespass so long on its attention, and he would not avail himself of the indulgence further than again to state, that he considered it would be only fair on the part of the hon. Member for Middlesex to give him notice of the day when he intended to bring forward any Motion involving the existence of the Government. It, undoubtedly, was hardly fair in the hon. Member to be threatening the Government with Motions from time to time, asserting that they would be brought forward at an early period, and yet shrinking constantly from naming any particular day. The hon. Member for Middlesex had already threatened the Government with a Motion for limiting the Supplies, and, certainly, he should have been prepared to resign if the House of Commons had voted in favour of such a Motion; for that, undoubtedly, would have been such a demonstration of want of confidence as would have rendered it impossible for any Government afterwards to remain in office. Now, he told the hon. Member for Middlesex, that if he was anxious to bring forward any Motion against the Government, and could not find a day for the purpose, he would facilitate the hon. Member's views. But if the hon. Member would not name a day for any such Motion, it was hardly fair in him to deal out menaces which he was prepared to enforce.
Mr. Hume,as one of the party opposed to the Government, did not think it right to allow the right hon. Baronet to select for them the day of attack. He begged the right hon. Baronet to leave them to choose their own time and day for that purpose. This was the second time that the right hon. Baronet had endeavoured to prevail on them to take his advice.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the reason was because that was the second time that the hon. Member had
1030
threatened to bring forward a Motion against the Government.
Lord John Russellwould, with the permission of the House, reply to one observation which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite. The right hon. Gentleman had called upon the House to express its opinion by some direct vote of want of confidence. Now, he begged the House to recollect that the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman had stood ever since the formation of the Government was, that though the House might not give the Ministry implicit confidence, they were entitled to a fair trial—to be allowed an opportunity of bringing forward their measures. If, then, a direct vote of want of confidence had been brought forward, he put it to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether they would not have said to the Opposition—"You now preclude us from being heard; you want to condemn us without trial; and to reject our reforms, before you are able to judge of them." He (Lord John Russell) for one, would not expose himself to the chance of receiving such an answer, but he was willing to wait for the time and hour when the Gentlemen opposite would bring forward those great measures of Reform which they had promised.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it would then appear from the noble Lord's statement that the course the Ministry was pursuing was the right one, for the noble Lord did not mean to refuse a hearing to the Ministry; the noble Lord was, in fact prepared to give them confidence, he was prepared to wait for their measures. He intended to propose tomorrow a Bill for the relief of persons dissenting from the Church of England in regard to the celebration of marriage; and another Bill in the course of next week, to promote the commutation of tithe in England. In the course of the present week also an attempt would be made to settle a question, the most difficult of all, and requiring; immediate attention—namely, the tithe question of Ireland. Now, he begged to put this question to the noble Lord opposite—if, in consequence of discussions in that House, and of votes, excepting the questionable votes on the Speakership and on the Address, he had thrown up the Government, would not the noble Lord, with his present sentiments, have turned and said to him, "You are guilty of a cowardly abandonment of

1031
office; you never meant to remove grievances; we never brought forward a direct vote of censure—we were prepared to hear your propositions, but you yourself have shrunk from the trial."
Lord John Russelldid not wish that those sentiments should be mistaken for his, because he was entirely in favour of the maxim which the right hon. Baronet was once for—that the men in possession of the Government ought to have the confidence of the House of Commons. Still, if the Opposition had brought forward any direct vote of want of confidence, the right hon. Baronet might have gained the votes of a great number of persons, on the plea of being unfairly treated.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, there could exist no doubt as to the Marquess of Londonderry's want of sympathy for the Poles, and that that circumstance of itself formed a sufficient ground of objection to his appointment as Ambassador to Russia.
The subject was dropped, and the Question again put that the House should resolve itself into a committee of Supply.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
Mr. Humesaid, that from the manner in which the Estimates passed through the House, it precluded the possibility of their being properly examined, or discussed. The Navy Estimates did not show the number of officers required in any particular branch of the marine service. He could not ascertain from them the number of Colonels, Lieutenant-colonels, and other officers employed. Now he thought it right that the House should know the number of officers in the marines, their allowances, with the number upon full-pay, and on half-pay, &c. He would exemplify what he objected to by reference to a Return which he had moved for last Session. By that Return, which was dated the 7th of June, 1834, he found that the number of officers in the naval service at that date was 5,300, of whom only 460 were on full pay, yet during the year it appeared that there was considerable promotion in the navy. Now he thought that the House ought to have the opportunity of knowing why there were so many promotions from day to day, while there were nearly 4,000 pensioners, very many of whom would willingly serve. From the present system the House was precluded from inquiring into this subject. The besetting sin of the navy was, that very many good
1032
men were set aside to make room for persons who had interest. In the army, too, there were as many officers as would officer four times the army which this country kept up, and the consequence was, that during seventeen years of peace, their number was very little reduced. He would therefore, propose, that all the estimates should be referred to a Committee up-stairs. In that manner every branch—army, navy, and ordnance—could be carefully examined. This was the plan pursued in the United States, which was the most economical of all Governments, as well as in Belgium and other countries. Would the right hon. Baronet object to the appointment of a Committee, with the view of ascertaining what reduction could be made in the amount of the estimates? He had understood the right hon. Baronet to object to such a proceeding on a former occasion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the hon. Member had misunderstood him. What he had said was, that he objected generally to the executive Government being relieved from responsibility by the Report of a Committee; and that such Committees ought not to be too frequent.
Mr. Humethought, that Parliament should take into consideration the propriety of changing the present system of taxation, which was framed by persons who were not elected by the people but were nominated Members of the House of Commons, and, of course, that system was of such a nature as was best adapted to promote the interests of those who sent them to Parliament. There was not a single word in the speech relative to the taking off taxes, which could only be done by reducing the expenditure. They had been told, that the amount of the public revenue, in which reductions could be made, was not more than fifteen millions; but he contended that the amount in which reductions could be made was upwards of twenty millions. He was satisfied that reductions to nearly one-half twenty millions could be effected without injury to the public service. There was not more than two millions of the Consolidated Fund, independently of the interest of the National Debt, that could not be touched by that House. The salaries of the Judges, as well as of all other public functionaries, could, and ought to, be reduced; and also large reductions should be made in every branch of the public

1033
service. With reference to the Navy Estimates, he had protested over and over again against the enormous sums expended on stores during the last sixteen years; and although great reductions had been made, still much greater might be effected. The right hon. Baronet, the late First Lord of the Admiralty, had, by his exertions, been enabled to lessen the expense of the War Department. He (Mr. Hume) gave him every credit for his endeavours to promote public economy; but still much more might be done without lessening the efficiency of the public service. He was of opinion, that every article should be furnished to the navy by contract, and very few articles laid up as stores. If the question were fully gone into, it would appear that nearly thirty millions had been expended in useless stores and ships since the last war. If the right hon. Baronet would consent to refer the matter to a Finance Committee, he would undertake to prove the truth of his assertion. He knew that he had been considered rather a bore, in consequence of his constantly pressing the importance of savings that might be made in the store department; but how much would the public have gained if his warnings had been attended to a few years ago. By judicious economy, the public establishments might be rendered more efficient, and, at the same time, they would press less heavily on the public than they did at present. He had been told by several able naval officers, that those establishments which had been partially reduced by the right hon. Member for Cumberland, so far from being injured, were rendered more efficient. On this account, he thought it was desirable that the whole matter should go to a Committee up-stairs, to see what further reductions could be made. He was surprised at the lukewarmness of hon. Members with respect to the details of the Estimates. They were not at all aware of the great advantages that would result to the public if strenuous attempts were made to lessen the public expenditure. Few hon. Members knew how many ships we had in ordinary, or the number that there were in active service. It was now proposed to grant 500,000 l. for stores, and yet they did not know how this sum was to be expended, or what necessity there was for laying out this large sum. In many respects they were worse off than they were previous to 1792. Before that year
1034
no ship was repaired until an estimate of the probable expense was made by the proper officer, and laid before the heads of the department; it was then ordered, or not, according to circumstances. No such superintendence or control existed now, but ships were ordered to be repaired without proper regard to the probable expense. The noble Lord (Ashley) had truly stated on the subject of repairs, and he (Mr. Hume) was much gratified at hearing the observation, that it was often better to break up ships than enter upon expensive repairs, as they were seldom certain of the expense that would be incurred. This was also the opinion of many of those who were best-informed on naval affairs. Independently of the expense attending keeping too many men and ships, as well as the unnecessary charge for stores, enormous sums of money had constantly been thrown away on public works. He had opposed from the first the erection of the works at Sheerness. In the first instance, it was said only half a million would be required, and already three millions and a half had been expended, and it now appeared that they were almost useless. The late Sir Joseph Yorke, who at one period was a strenuous advocate of these works, said shortly before his death, that, if he had ever contemplated that steam-navigation would have been brought to such perfection, he should have opposed the erection of any works at Sheerness. He had always contended that this would be found to be the case, and his opinion was now being adopted by most of those who formerly were most opposed to his views on this subject. He protested against the wasteful expenditure that had taken place on the works at Weevil, and yet, notwithstanding they were found to be comparatively useless, they were not stopped. Upwards of half a million had been expended on a building constructed to make biscuits for the navy, and he was satisfied that it would be found that not only this sum might have been saved, but that biscuits of equal quality to those made might be purchased at as cheap or a cheaper rate by contract. He had been greatly surprised at hearing the manner described in which rum was served out to the sailors. In consequence of it, habits of intemperance were promoted amongst the seamen. This point, he hoped, would not escape the attention of his hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield, who, in his zeal to estab-

1035
lish Temperance Societies, probably would endeavour to extend them to the navy. The expense for brewing beer for the navy, by the use of which the quantity of rum was to be diminished, had been enormous. If they had proceeded with common prudence they might have supplied the sailors with wine at as cheap a rate as they could furnish them with beer; but, in consequence of the injudicious course they had pursued, they promoted bad habits amongst the men. Again, the expense of the Admiralty Office was 108,000 l.; now, he ventured to assert that, before long, 60,000 l. a-year would be thought to be too large a sum for this establishment. He did not wish to reduce the expense of the scientific branch of it, which he thought to be necessary. He had repeatedly been charged with endeavouring to cut down the establishments to too low a scale; but he denied this, as he had never objected to even liberal grants for useful objects. He was convinced, that there was not a single item of the 2,800,000 l. demanded for the effective service which was not capable of material reduction. The charge for half-pay was enormous, and no diminution was taking place, in consequence of the bad system adopted of promoting young men connected with the families of the aristocracy, and passing over the old officers. At present, there were hardly any half-pay officers of marines; and this was because every half-pay officer in that branch of the service had been called into active employment since the peace. Nobody would deny that the marines were quite as effective as any force; and the different system that existed with reference to the halt-pay was, that it was not a popular branch of the service among the great families. The navy, however, was different, and the greater part of the promotions that had taken place was in consequence of the parties being connected with the leading aristocratic families. This had not only been admitted, but a right hon. and gallant Admiral had more than once justified the principle in the Mouse. The half-pay was now 819,000 l.; but he was sure, if it were properly dealt with, it might be reduced to 500,000 l. Whenever a vacancy occurred, instead of promoting a young officer of great connexion, an officer should be taken from the half-pay; by this means, although there were 6,000 officers on the half-pay of the navy, the number would soon be greatly reduced.
1036
He was satisfied that the navy had been treated worse than any other service; and most meritorious officers had repeatedly been passed over without notice. As opportunities occurred, all officers who were efficient should have an opportunity of entering upon active service. He had repeatedly urged that the naval sinecure appointments should be got rid of; and he expressed his willingness that the amount of their income should he given to the lower grade of officers. He objected to going into Committee of Supply at present, but he wished the Estimates to be sent for examination to a Select Committee up stairs. The last Finance Committee, which was formed when the right hon. Baronet was in office, stated, that it was the duty of the Representatives of the people to take care to cut down the estimates to the lowest degree consistently with the efficiency of the public service. It also stated, that it was difficult for any Committee to determine what should be the number of men in the different services, or the actual amount of the establishments, as that must depend on the political situation of the country; but it was the duty of every Minister to show the necessity of large establishments. In this view he put it to the House, as they had been informed by the Minister that the establishments had been reduced to their minimum, whether it were not proper for the House to inquire, whether further reductions could not be made. The hon. Member concluded with moving, that the Navy estimates be referred to a Select Committee up stairs.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he could not accede to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex. They had made some progress in the Navy Estimates. They came to the first vote without any dissent, and now, in the course of their progress, the hon. Gentleman, without having given the slightest notice of his intention, called on the House to agree to his present proposition. The Estimates were, by the sanction of the House, referred to a Committee of supply, and the hon. Member for Middlesex, without, as he must again remark, the slightest notice, while they were in the course of that reference in fulfilment of the orders of the House, proposed that they should be taken from the cognizance of the House, and referred to a Committee up-stairs. If the

1037
hon. Member were right in his opinion that the estimates ought to be so disposed of, why did he not give a distinct notice to open the whole question? Why did he not do this, instead of interrupting the progress of the estimates by a Motion made in this manner? He would concede to the hon. Gentleman, that there was no constitutional objection, under certain circumstances, to appointing what was called a Finance Committee to examine and report upon the estimates; at the same time, he could not consent to devolve on such a Committee what belonged to a responsible Government. The Government formed a determination, on a full consideration of all the circumstances, which a Committee could not possibly examine, because there were particulars which a Committee had not the opportunity of becoming acquainted with. For this reason, he could not consent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. Its effect would be to relieve, in the worst form, the executive Government, from its responsibility. It was for the executive Government, which was in possession of various information, derived from all quarters of the globe, from its agents diplomatic and executive, to decide what amount of force was required, and it might be that it had to form its judgment on facts which it would not be consistent with its duty to disclose. The Government was bound to ask for the confidence of the House in such matters; he did not mean personal confidence, but confidence of the nature implied by the situation which the Government held, and which he trusted the Government would receive as long as it fulfilled its duties. But for any Committee of the House to take that duty off his hands, and relieve the Government from its responsibility, was to transfer to the House of Commons the responsibility which properly belonged to the executive Government. He had stated that he admitted the power of the House to refer the estimates to a select Committee, but he advised the House not too lightly to adopt such a course—not too lightly to devolve on twenty-one Members of the House the responsibility of Ministers. He knew very well that the proposition was rather a pleasing one; hon. Members would see in it the prospect of saving themselves from the examination of those details which, according to the hon. Member for Middlesex, were very imperfectly under-
1038
stood, and feeling it to be a great relief to them thus to get rid of five or six nights' attendance, might be willing to acquiesce in the suggestion. But he must say, that, in his opinion, hon. Gentlemen never became masters of the details through the examinations or Reports of Select Committees. Then, if the course proposed were good for this year, why should it not be equally good for the next—why should they not constantly act on the precedent proposed? But what said the hon. Gentleman? Did he not express a wish that hon. Members would but read the Reports which Select Committees furnished, observing, that he was sure they would do so if they knew what a mass of valuable matter they contained? The Reports, then, were confessedly not read; yet the hon. Member's proposition was, that there should be furnished a further Report in addition to the voluminous evidence already before the House: and, what security had they that more attention would be henceforth paid, than had been hitherto paid to such documents? He would ask the hon. Gentleman one question; did he not think that if the estimates were allowed to proceed, and they were discussed as they passed, that more light would be thrown on the subject, that more information would be obtained respecting them, than if they adopted the course he recommended in his speech? [Mr. Hume: More information would not be obtained than was gained the last night that the estimates were before the House.] He did not know how the hon. Gentleman had occupied himself on the former night. The Government had performed the duty imposed on it of preparing the estimates and submitting them to the House, and if the hon. Gentleman thought that instead of their being proceeded with, they ought to be referred to a Committee, he should have given notice of his intention, for the question involved many important considerations, which ought not to be decided without notice. He had often before thought, and he retained the opinion, that when a Government was disposed to enforce economy, they could effect it to a greater extent than any Committee. He begged to refer, for example, to what had been done by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland, who had made great reductions, and the present Government

1039
had proposed still further. He admitted the fact that such reductions having been made did not preclude the House from appointing a Committee, but if a Committee were appointed for the estimates this year, why not appoint Committees to perform the business of the Government on other occasions. The hon. Gentleman said, they wanted some further details respecting the marines, the provisions, and other matters, but why, if information was wanted, was it not called for? if it were, the Papers would be presented to the House. No one was more conversant than the hon. Gentleman with the mode of procuring them, and why did he not move for them at the commencement, when the estimates were first submitted to the House? Under these circumstances he must oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman to refer the estimates to a Select Committee.
Mr. Hume:The right hon. Gentleman asked why, when a Government was disposed to economy, should a Select Committee be appointed to interfere? But one of the grounds of the Motion was the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Ashley), who declared, in moving the estimates, that economy in that department had been brought to its minimum. Then the right hon. Gentleman inquired, why the Motion had not been brought forward at an earlier period? He would be candid in his reply. The fact was he never expected to see the present Government so long in office as for it to bring forward the Navy Estimates. Therefore, he did not consider it necessary to make such a motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas quite aware of that. He had all along seen that the hon. Gentleman had been pursuing the prophetic course of one who expected to be Minister himself. But how was it, though the hon. Gentleman did expect to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he never thought of moving for the appointment of this Committee? Did he reason in this way—"I expect to be Chancellor of the Exchequer myself, and if I am, I may consider the appointment of a Committee inconvenient?'
Sir Samuel Whalleysaid, the right hon. Gentleman had furnished the best argument in support of the present Motion. He said it was not necessary, if they had confidence in the Government. Now, he for one, did not think that the Government
1040
was disposed to carry out the principle of economy. There was another argument used by the right hon. Gentleman, which he thought required very little examination for it to be seen that it ought to fall to the ground. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the House took on itself, or a Committee appointed by the House, to determine what should be the amount of his Majesty's forces, the power of Ministers would be transferred to the House of Commons. Now if this objection were good for anything, was it not a mere mockery to call on hon. Members of that House to vote a number of men? If they were not to be furnished with information as to the number of men required, it was a mockery to call on the House to come to any vote at all on the subject. Admitting that they were right in having agreed, as hon. Members on his side of the House did very reluctantly the other night, to grant 26,500 men to keep up the navy, they next came to the details; and should they not enquire whether the succeeding votes were necessary for the support of such a number of men. The right hon. Baronet affected to despise the labours of Select Committees, and said the House ought not to devolve on a Committee that which they ought to perform themselves; he also said that it was the duty of hon. Gentlemen to make themselves acquainted with the subject. This was impossible. A Committee of the whole House, though it had the privilege of calling evidence before it, seldom exercised it. He could not rely on the Government; and he thought a Select Committee advantageous in this way, it drove the Government on with its economy and enabled it to proceed in its measures of reduction with greater confidence. The right hon. Gentleman complained that no notice of the Motion had been given, and the House therefore was taken by surprise. He must confess that the House had always observed great reluctance to entertain a Motion of which notice had not been given; he trusted therefore that the estimates would be proceeded with as slowly as possible, and the hon. Gentleman would perhaps give notice of a Motion for a Committee, not only for the present year, but for every future year. He was quite sure the result would be the collection of such a mass of evidence as would show the error of that awful—he used the expression advisedly—of that

1041
awful declaration, that they had now arrived at the lowest point of expenditure. He begged to suggest to the hon. Member for Middlesex to withdraw his Motion. [Cries of "No, no."] Well, if the hon. Member for Middlesex persisted in his Motion, he would divide with him, but he much feared that many, on account of there not having been notice given, would vote on the other side.
Captain Berkeleysaid, he had declared that he felt no confidence in the present Administration; but he had also said that he would give no factious vote, and he did think that if he supported the Motion, the object of which was to prevent the Speaker from leaving the Chair, he should be giving a vote that was factious.
Mr. George F. Younysaid, that while he was compelled to withhold his confidence from Ministers, still he was resolved to afford them in every respect fair play. It was not necessary for a notice of a Motion to be given in all cases, still he would say, he thought it to be most in convenient to depart from the usual course. He thought there were great constitutional objections to the giving up of the powers of the Administration to the Committees, but he was also of opinion that such Committees were perfectly justifiable under peculiar circumstances. If it were asked why a Committee was not appointed last year, the obvious answer was, that they were not placed in the same situation last year.
Sir Henry Parnellsupported the Motion. Having had considerable experience in such matters, he undertook to say, that it was impossible for the House generally, and especially for new Members to do justice to their constituents in sifting the multifarious details of the estimates in a Committee of the whole House, while it would greatly contribute to the satisfactory arrangement of the general business, and more particularly with reference to matters of expense, if the rule was laid down and the practice established of referring the estimates to a Committee up stairs. There was no instance of the Representative system of Government being of late years introduced where the principle had not been adopted of sending all details of money transactions to such tribunals before they were brought under the general consideration of the Legislature. This was the true and proper course to be pursued, and which had indeed been fol-
1042
lowed in former times by the English House of Commons. It was the only mode by which the public interests could be duly consulted. With respect to the estimates, he had hoped that they would have been given more in detail. In that respect they ought to imitate the example of neighbouring nations; and he could state positively that the last navy Estimate laid before the French Chamber consisted of three parts and no less than fifteen different chapters, occupying 140 pages, embracing every species of information as to all the different items of charge. He trusted that some step would be taken in order to remedy the inconvenience which was at present felt in relation to this matter.
Sir James Grahamcould not think it consistent with his duty to remain silent on the present occasion. While, on the one hand, he could not but deprecate those preliminary discussions, which the hon. Member for Middlesex had introduced with so much detail, as being extremely inconvenient and inconsistent with due expedition in transacting the general business of the country; yet, on the other, he was as deeply convinced that discussions in Committee of the whole House, of the particular items in the estimates, was the most satisfactory mode which could possibly be adopted, because of the publicity which they thereby necessarily obtained. He was no longer a Member of the executive Government, and therefore, his opinion was quite disinterested; but if he wished the details passed slightly over—if he wished to conceal a job, to exclude the public from all knowledge of the mode in which the estimates were prepared, and the efficiency of the person by whom they were submitted, by far the most likely method of effecting those ends would be to have the estimates referred to a Select Committee upstairs. It was vain to dissemble that over the constitution of Committees of that House, the executive Government, supported by a majority, must practically exercise a commanding influence. And the public being excluded from its inquiries, if there was anything wrong in the details, or any deficiency or delinquency on the part of the responsible officer, whose duty it was to prepare them, the best check would be practically lost in transferring the estimates from the Committee of the whole House to a Committee up-stairs. The

1043
subjects which had been adverted to by the hon. Member for Middlesex, such as the substitution of beer for rum, &c., were not by any means fit subjects for the investigations of a Select Committee; and if questions of this nature could not be safely left to the discretion of the executive Government, all official power had better be assumed, at once, by managing Committees of the House of Commons. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Parnell) had eulogized the extent to which explanatory details were carried in the French estimates; he did not, however, altogether agree with the right hon. Baronet in thinking that great length always insured perspicuity; and if there could be a clear, intelligible, and yet short estimate, it would, in his opinion, be greatly preferable. He very well recollected, that when he had introduced considerable change into the mode of framing the estimates, he was complimented by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dundee (Sir Henry Parnell), and what was infinitely more rare, he received on that occasion some passing expressions of slight satisfaction even from the hon. Member for Middlesex himself. The right hon. Baronet then referred to some of the details alluded to by the hon. Member for Middlesex, and stated that the line-of-battle ships at present were fewer now than in 1792, the favourite period of that hon. Member's reference. He hoped care would be taken to prevent Britain from being involved in a war, but when involved, it was necessary that there should be a sufficient force, ready at all times, duly to maintain the honour and independence of the country; and no view of stinted economy should be entertained, which might produce so great a disaster as must necessarily flow from an insufficient supply of ships, or an inadequate force of men for such an emergency. If the hon. Member for Middlesex succeeded in displacing the present Government, and installing himself on the Treasury Bench, in the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, if a proposal were made for referring the navy estimates to a Committee up-stairs—in that case, he (Sir James Graham) having no confidence in such an Administration, and, certainly, he must be excused for saying, no confidence in such a Chancellor of the Exchequer, would, nevertheless, stoutly and consistently resist that Motion. He could not but take
1044
that opportunity of stating, that he felt the greatest satisfaction in finding that the great change which he had, under very heavy responsibility, introduced in this department of the public service, had received the approval of those in the present Ministry, who had the greatest official experience. By some of those Gentlemen that measure had been opposed; but it would be most unjust in him, if he did not state that, when first he accepted office, he received from Lord Melville, his predecessor for many years, the most minute and valuable information, both with respect to the defects which existed in the department, and the remedies which it was most advisable should be applied. He was bound also to say, that he had availed himself of that experience, and acted on that advice; and though party feeling then ran high, the measure having been opposed in another place, the noble individual in question, greatly to his honour, strenuously supported it. If there was any merit whatever in having effected the change, he was, therefore, bound to say, that Lord Melville was entitled to a fair share in it. On the other hand, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the county of Edinburgh, (Sir George Clerk), who had, undoubtedly, great experience in that particular department, opposed it, as likely to produce great confusion, by the abolition of the minor Boards; but he was glad to see that so far from being impracticable, it was found to work smoothly and easily, and was now admitted, on the whole, to be conducive to the public good. He did not state this invidiously, but it did so happen that, both with respect to the change itself, and the reductions he had effected, a noble Duke, in another place, made a remark which he was obliged to allude to on the present occasion. He had reduced, for one thing, the supply of timber and materials, for the Dock-yards, by the sum of 400,000 l., and he well recollected the Duke of Wellington's opinion upon that reduction, which would be found in Hansard's Debates, for the latter part of the Session, 1832, (vol. 14, page 1366), and which he would take the liberty of reading to the House:—"Another item of reduction, was in the purchase of timber for the navy, which amounted to the very considerable sum of 400,000 l. It was evident that the magazines of this country must be kept up, and all that was really done by this apparent saving, was to throw

1045
the burthen to this extent upon future years. With a view to secure an adequate supply, and to the proper seasoning of stores, and with a view to the probability that it might become necessary for his Majesty's service, to make some great exertion, it was impossible that less than double the amount of the estimate of this year would suffice. He thought, therefore, that the reductions were not only temporary, but effected at the sacrifice of an important part of his Majesty's service." It was, however, now a consolation to him to know, that within three months from the time of the Duke of Wellington and his colleagues coming into office, they had found not only that the sum proposed by him for the supply of the Dock-yards was sufficient—not only that those dock-yards would not require double the sum he had provided, but that on this very head of expense, and within three months of coming into office, they had thought it consistent with the public service, to recommend the reduction of a further sum of 60,000 l. He did not state this invidiously; but the statement of the fact was due to the vindication not only of his own character, but of the Colleagues with whom he had had the honour of serving; since if the suspicions of the noble Duke had been well-founded, Lord Grey's Administration, and he (Sir J. Graham) in particular, would have merited the severest censure; whereas the fact was now established, that, in three years, they had saved a million of annual expenditure in the Naval Department alone; and had left the arsenals fully supplied, and every branch of the service as efficient, as when a more lavish expenditure had been sanctioned by the Administration of the noble Duke.
Dr. Bowringsaid, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, had done less in the way of estimates than in that of accounts, and he hoped, the hon. Baronet would allow him to say spero meliora. It was impossible that these estimates would be properly dealt with in a Committee of the whole House. It appeared by these estimates, that 22,000 sailors cost 670,000 l.; whereas, in the estimates of a neighbouring country, 27,000 sailors appeared to have cost only 455,000 l., that was fifty per cent less. He did not say that there might not be reasons for the greater charge made in England, but they could only be investigated in a Select Committee. Again,
1046
for victualling the men—the charge here was 16 l. 5s. 6d. per man, whilst in the French service it was only 11 l., and in that of the Netherlands only 7l. The causes of this difference could only be detected in a Committee up-stairs. The same might be said of the cost of our central Administration, which was three per cent of our whole expenditure, whereas that of France was seven-eighths per cent, and was most excellent in all its details. Indeed, the Administration of the military department, in its present form was the best legacy Napoleon left to France, its expenditure not exceeding three-and-a-half per cent on the outlay. God forbid& that he should speak factiously, but he said, that in the present state of pressure upon the country, it was their duty to practise the greatest economy, and he trusted the right hon. Baronet would not reject such suggestions as might enable him to attain it, without a sacrifice of any great national interest.
The house divided, on the original Motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, Ayes 146:—Noes 66; Majority 80.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

Lister E. C.

Attwood, T.

Marsland, H.

Bellew, R. M.

M'Cance, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Murray J.

Brady, D. C.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Brotherton, J.

Oswald, R. A.

Bodkin, J. J.

O'Brien, C.

Buller, C.

O'Connell, M. J.

Butler, Colonel

Parrott, J.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Parker, J.

Baines, E.

Perrin, L.

Bridgeman, H.

Parnell, Sir H.

Bowring, Dr.

Power, P.

Bulwer, H. L.

Potter, R.

Blake, M.

Ruthven, E. S.

Crawford, S.

Ruthven, E.

Clay W.

Rundle, J.

Crawley, S.

Scale, J.H.

Chapman, M. L.

Stuart, Lord J.

Chalmers, P.

Spiers, A. G.

Dennistoun, A.

Strickland, Sir G.

Dobbin, L.

Tancred, H. W.

Elphinstone, H.

Talbot, J. H.

Evans, G.

Thornley, T.

Ewart, W.

Tulk, C. A.

Fielden, J.

Villiers, C. P.

Finn, W. F.

Wakley, T.

Gillon, W. D.

Wallace, R.

Grote, G.

Walker, C. A.

Gully, J.

Warburton, H.

Heathcote, J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Hindley, C.

Williams, Sir J.

Leader, J. T.

Williams, W.

1047

TELLERS.

PAIRED OFF.

Duncombe, T. S.

Mullins, F. W.

Hume, J.

O'Conor, Don

O'Dwyer, C. A.

The House went into a Committee of Supply.

ROYAL YACHTS.
On the Motion that there be granted for the wages to Seamen and Marines to the Ordinary and Yard craft the sum of 933,054 l.
Mr. Humewished to know how many men were employed in the Royal yachts.
Lord Ashleysaid, there were employed in the yachts, fifteen, sixteen, and fourteen, besides the master and some other officer whose designation did not reach us.
Mr. Humewished to know how many yachts there were.
Sir James Grahamsaid, there were formerly five yachts, but now, as we understood him, there were only three employed.
Mr. George F. Youngstated that, though the yachts might be lying without men or officers, yet they cost a considerable sum in keeping in a state of efficiency which the House knew nothing of, and they were always liable to expense.
Lord Ashleysaid, that there were two boats' crews and two captains, who were partly paid as superintendants in the dock-yards.
Mr. George F. Younggave notice that he should move for a return of the expense of keeping up the two yachts for the last three years; and then, on the bringing up of the Report, he should take the sense of the House on the question of the propriety of reducing the estimate by the amount of that expense.
Admiral Adamsaid, that desirous as he was of enforcing every practicable economy, he should be sorry to see the state and dignity of the King, in a maritime country like this, deprived of its necessary appendages,
Mr. Aaron Chapmanthought it would be a disgrace to the House of Commons to entertain the idea of effecting a reduction in so paltry an establishment as that of the Royal Yachts.
Sir E. Codringtonthought, the attempt most discreditable. He would prefer seeing the office of Lord Chamberlain, and other offices of that description, abolished, to dispensing with those yachts, which were necessary for the maintenance of the Royal dignity. He could not help designating any proposition
1048
which went to effect that object, as despicable economy.
Mr. Gillonprotested against the use of the phrase, "despicable economy," as it was applied by hon. Members, who had taken a part in that discussion. He conceived that it was much more disgraceful, that hon. Members should sanction any resolution which would take a pound unnecessarily out of the pockets of the people, than they should give their support to the view which the hon. Member for Middlesex took of this matter.
Mr. Charles Bullerobserved, that under the guise of what was termed keeping up the Royal dignity, a great deal of jobbing was frequently concealed; and he had no hesitation in expressing it as his opinion that the resolution then before the House had all the characteristics of a job.
Captain Berkeleysaid, that the captains who commanded those yachts were competent to serve on courts martial, and they were frequently selected as Judges in that tribunal, when it might be very inconvenient to bring officers from a distance to the stations where these officers were placed as commanders of his Majesty's yachts.
The resolution was agreed to.

SUPPLY—CAPTAIN SYMONDS.
On the Motion, that a sum not exceeding 108,844 l. be granted to his Majesty for the salaries and other expenses of the Admiralty-office, for the year ending the 31st of March 1836.
Dr. Bowringcompared the number of employés in the civil department of the English Admiralty with the number in the civil department of the French army. Although the former was 197, and the latter 385, yet the expense of the English Admiralty was much greater than that of the French.
Mr. Laboucherethought, that the establishments at Somerset-house ought to be increased rather than diminished.
Mr. George F. Youngcomplained of the appointment of Captain Symonds as Surveyor of the Navy. He had made a similar complaint in the last two Sessions, and he repeated it now, because experience had shown that that appointment had been most prejudicial to the interests of the public. Captain Symonds was supposed to be the inventor of a particular plan for the construction of ships of

1049
war; but the fact was, the invention was not his, for it was known fifty years ago. He did not mean to detract from the merits of Captain Symonds—no doubt he was a clever man; but what he complained of, and what he thought the public had reason to complain of, was that the country was put to the expense of altering vessels which had been laid down on former plans, so as to have them remodelled on Captain Symonds's plan. There was, for instance, the Boscawen, which had been laid down on the plan of the Courageux, the St. Domingo, and other ships, which had been greatly approved of, but which was now being taken to pieces after having been laid down for some years, and her timbers well seasoned, in order to be remodelled on this, which was called Captain Symonds's plan; and this alteration, would be made at an expense of 10,000 l. to the country. These were caprices which ought not to be permitted, when they involved the country in such expense. He would ask the noble Lord (Lord Ashley), whether he had seen the reports of many experienced naval men, and among others of Sir George Cockburn, who must be allowed to be a good judge on this subject? The system of building new ships wholly on Captain Symonds's plan was in his judgment much to be deprecated. The remodelling the Navy on that individual's principle—a principle which, if he died to-morrow, would cease to be used—was most unwise and impolitic.
Captain Pechelldid not rise for the purpose of defending the expenses incident upon the adoption of Captain Symonds's plan, or to justify the appointment of that gentleman to the office of surveyor of the navy. He, however, thought that the professional knowledge and practical experience of Captain Symonds had been of the greatest possible utility to the service, and the late Board of Admiralty were deserving of the best thanks of the country for employing him. Captain Symonds had been of the greatest service to the country, by his construction of many of our new ships of war; and although he (Captain Pechell) differed from him in some points, he must say, that the ships to which he alluded were, in point of equipment, speed, and capacity, fit to go to any part of the world and were a credit to England.
Lord Ashleysaid, that he had inquired into the subject, and found that the ships which had been constructed on Captain Symonds's plan were generally and highly approved of. One of those ships, although larger by a considerable number of tons than another on the old construction, yet cost less by 14,500 l.
Sir James Grahamheld himself responsible for the appointment of Captain Symonds, and from that responsibility he would not shrink. That gallant officer had built several vessels of a small class, but the largest vessel constructed upon his plan was a frigate of the fourth-rate. It was true that there were now building two seventy-fours and one first-rate. The excellence of the ships had, however, been demonstrated to the satisfaction of every individual competent to form a judgment, and he (Sir James Graham) was quite content to leave the question of the propriety of the appointment of Captain Symonds, and the benefit thereby conferred upon the naval service of this country, to the judgment of the gallant Admiral (Sir George Cockburn) who had commanded the Vernon, and who was about to join the Board of Admiralty. He was, also, persuaded that Captain Symonds had incurred no needless expense in trying experiments; on the contrary, the former surveyor (Sir R. Seppings had been in the habit of asking from the House a vote in the estimates of about 800,000 l. for materials; while all that was at present asked by Captain Symonds was 358,000 l., so that in point of economy the difference was 100 per cent, while at the same time the naval arsenals never abounded with better materials than at present. As he had before said, he was quite willing to leave the matter to the knowledge and experience of the gallant Admiral to whom he had alluded.
Sir Edward Codringtonbore testimony to the excellence of Captain Symonds's principles of naval architecture, and could say, that the experiments which he had witnessed, had induced him to recommend Captain Symonds to the attention of the late Government.
Mr. Humesaid, that if the statements of the hon. Member for Tynemouth were correct, and fifty ships had been laid down upon the new principle, it was high time they had the report of some scientific and practical men upon the subject.

1051
From the appointment of Captain Symonds was to be dated the overthrow of the school of naval architecture, which he could not but regret, as England had long been notoriously behind the rest of the world in the science of ship-building. No man ought to have been appointed surveyor of the navy who had not a scientific knowledge of naval architecture. It seemed from the course that had been pursued, as if it was determined no vessel should be built to come in competition with those of Captain Symonds; for last year, when six packets were to be laid down, they were all built upon that gentleman's principle, instead of upon different principles, by which the new one might be put to the test of competition. What they ought to do was, to appoint a Committee of that House to receive reports of the performances of the ships produced by Captain Symonds by those who had witnessed them.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the ships were not laid down upon Captain Symonds's principle without good advice and knowledge of its effect. Before taking any decisive step, he had taken the opinion and advice of Sir Thomas Hardy, Sir William Parker, Sir J. Rowley, and the House had heard the sentiments of the gallant Admiral, the Member for Devonport. As to a Committee of this House trying a technical question, the idea was preposterous; but he was willing to leave the decision of the question to Sir George Cockburn, who was about to come to the Admiralty, and who would certainly be an impartial judge of Captain Symonds's merits. He would have abundant materials whereon to found his judgment, for there was hardly a station in any part of the world in which there was not now a ship built by Captain Symonds; and the largest frigate he had built was now in the Mediterranean, where it would sail in competition, not only with the whole of the English squadron, but probably with many foreign ships. By the end of the year, therefore, reports whereon to found a sound opinion would be received at the Admiralty from every quarter of the globe.
The vote was agreed to.

SUPPLY.—PROFESSOR AIRY.
On the question that 24,590 l. be granted to defray the salaries of the officers and contingent expenses of the several Scientific Departments of the Navy,
Mr. Spring Riceinquired of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his Majesty's Government had granted any pension to Professor Airy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he had not the honour of a personal acquaintance with Professor Airy; but was induced by his reputation to write to him to say, that he should have great gratification if he would allow him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to recommend him to his Majesty as a pensioner on the Civil List, in order to encourage those who devoted their lives to science, to pursue studies so honourable to the country, whilst it was quite clear that the devotion of the same talents to lucrative pursuits would lead to wealth. He added that he did not consider the pension as conferring any personal or political obligation whatever, and in the result he had the permission of the reverend Professor to advise his Majesty to bestow on him a pension of 300 l. per annum.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that every one, both in and out of the House, would hear with satisfaction the answer of the right hon. Baronet. The pursuits of science, however conducive to the public benefit, were any thing but profitable to the individual engaged in them; and if a man like Professor Airy did not meet with reward in some such way as had so much to his credit been adopted by the right hon. Baronet, it would be a matter of regret to all who valued the honour of their country. The predecessors of the right hon. Baronet might be allowed to envy him the opportunity he had had of bestowing such a mark of the Sovereign's approval upon Professor Airy; and he must, in justice to his noble Friend, who was lately at the head of the Treasury, say that he also had had his attention turned to the merits of that distinguished man, and he held in his hand a copy of a letter addressed to him at the desire of Lord Melbourne. It was to this effect—
"Downing-street, August 25, 1834.
"MY DEAR SIR.—It is highly probable that a vacancy may take place very shortly in the office of Astronomer Royal. If this event occur, it will be of course the duty and the object of the Government to make such a selection as shall be most conducive to the interest of science, and as shall secure to our national astronomical establishment and its observations, the greatest respect and authority throughout Europe.
"On these principles it is more than

1053
natural that the Government should be desirous of knowing whether the appointment is one which you would accept; as it would be most gratifying to us all to have an opportunity of marking the admiration which we feel for your eminent attainments, and the respect which is justly due to your character as an individual. As a Cambridge man, I am fully aware that to our University the loss of one of its greatest ornaments cannot but be felt as irreparable; but we ought not to be selfish, we should think of England as well as of Cambridge; and I trust there is not one of our scientific friends who will not feel that in selecting a new Astronomer Royal, it is towards you that the earliest attention of his Majesty's Government should be directed, less in justice to science, than to the credit and character of the country.
"Pray let me hear from you at your earliest convenience, and believe me, &c.
T. SPRING RICE,
"To rev. Professor Airy, Cambridge."
The vote was agreed to.
The House resumed, Committee to sit again.