Commons Sitting of 20 June 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public,—Reported.—Princess Augusta's Annuity; Chelsea Hospital.
Private.2°Lord Gray's Estate.
Reported—Maryport and Carlisle Railway (No, 3).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Messrs. Forster, Davies, Brotherton, Gieborne, A. Chapman, B. Smith, H. Berkeley, Divett, Gore, Trevor, J. Parker, R. Colborne, Grimsditch, W. 0. Stanley, and P. Howard, Sir C. Lemon, Captain Pechell, Sir J. Easthope, Sir G. Strickland, Lord Duncan, Lord E. Russell, and Captain Rous, from an immense number of Places against, and from two places in favour, of the Factories Bill.—By Captain Rous, from Inhabitants of London, against Dog Stealing.—By the Same, and Sir C. Lemon, from Westminster and Cornwall, in favour of the Scientific Societies Bill.—By Mr. Mackinnon, from St. Dunstan's in the West, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.—By Mr. W. O. Stanley, from Anglesea, in favour of the Coroner's Bill.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Barnsley, for relief to the Political Prisoners in Stafford Gaol; Also from Mr. Griffith, against inclosing Hampstead Heath, and Blackheath.—From Nottingham, against the Irish Arms Bill. —From Guildford, for Rating the Owners of Small Tenements instead of the Occupiers.—From Rathdown Union. for defraying the Expenses of Erecting Workhouses in Ireland from the Consolidated Fund.

THE TOWNSHEND PEERAGE.
Mr. James Stuart Wortley,in moving the second reading of this bill, said, he now proposed that, not on any narrow consideration, but from regard to the principle on which the measure was based. He would set out by admitting that there was no ground for a proceeding of this kind, unless it was shown that the case was an extreme one, and that the common forms of judicature afforded no adequate remedy. Now, he undertook to show that there did at this moment exist a great and pressing private grievance, and an imminent chance, if not a certain prospect, of great future loss and injury to the parties interested. He need not say one word, he was sure, to show the House that in this case there was a gross and scandalous exhibition of a fraudulent attempt. When he said a fraudulent, he meant an improper attempt to substitute in the place of the rightful heir to a seat in one of the branches of the Legislature, one who, by the evidence, appeared to have no title or claim whatever to that distinction. [The hon. and learned Member entered into a history of the case and of the bill, which will be found in our report of the proceedings in the Lords; see vol. lxix. pp. 412, 417, 494, 673]. The hon. and learned Member further said, he must, however, draw the attention of the House to an extraordinary part of this case, which showed that, down to a late period, there was a disposition on the part of the Marquess to come to such an agreement as would almost necessarily have the effect of precluding the proof of illegitimacy. It was a negotiation begun in 1824, and continued down to 1842, after Lord Charles Townshend had disputed the legitimacy, by which, in consideration of a pecuniary sum, Lord Townshend was willing,

147
not only to sell his own right, but, in truth, the right of others. It was certainly clear, that some years ago the Marquess was prepared, in consideration of a pecuniary gain, publicly to acknowledge the very children which, in answer to proceedings under the Chancery suit he had denied to be his. There was, at the very close of the evidence this letter from Lord Townshend to Mr. Dunn Gardner, followed by a proposition made by his Lordship's agent:—
"Dear Sir;—It appears to me that, with a little mutual confidence, some arrangement might be made between us regarding the settlement and estates, advantageous to all parties, and injurious to none. I have explained my sentiments to Mr. Ridgway on this subject, who will communicate the details to your solicitor. When I come to town I shall be glad to have a personal interview with you; we can then talk over family affairs which nearly concern us, and which are better transacted thus without the agency of a third person, at least in the first instance. I am persuaded, Sir, that you now think with me, that in family disagreements mutual exposure is a sad remedy for mutual imprudence, and serving no purpose but to gratify the malevolence of the world.—I have, &c.
"June 10, 1824. TOWNSHEND."
"The proposition of the Marquess Towns-bend, by Mr. James Ridgway (his agent), to William Dunn Gardner, esq., is to pay 40,000 l. to the said William Dunn Gardner for the benefit of the Marchioness Townshend for life, and the remainder to her eldest son in tail male, and to acknowledge the legitimacy of the children; and, in pursuance thereof the said William Dunn Gardner, together with his co-trustees, to release all claim on the Walton estate.
"June 14, 1824." "JAMES RIDGWAY."
He found, also, a letter renewing the proposition after Lord Charles Townshend had raised the question of legitimacy. This evidence was given by the counsel against the bill, and he (Mr. Stuart Wortley) was surprised at it, for it was immediately observed it afforded the greatest proof that Lord Townshend was convinced these were not his children. When he was asked for precedents, he defied any one to produce any case like this. If ever there was proved to have been a case in which the wife's misconduct had been such, in which the children had thus assumed their titles, and in which the father had played such a part, then, but not till then, the argument that there were no precedents for a bill like this might be used. Here there was not only a private injury,
148
but a great public wrong. The integrity of the succession to the House of Lords was endeavoured to be impeached. Some might set more or less value on hereditary rights; but whilst the House of Lords constituted one branch of the Legislature, it was of great importance to see that the seats were properly filled. This was all that was attempted by the hill now before the House. Under these circumstances, he called upon the House to apply a remedy, to redress a wrong, and to pass this bill.
Mr. C. Bullermoved, in conformity with his notice, that this bill be read a second time on this day six months. The facts of the case did not enter into his consideration; they might be thrown over as far as regarded the ground on which he meant to rest his proposition, although he entirely agreed in the remarks which his lion. and learned Friend had made upon them. He did not think that the slightest doubt could be entertained on the evidence adduced; but his objection to the bill was founded solely upon general principles. He felt deep sympathy for the Townshend family; they were suffering under severe hardships; but he also sympathised with other parties, and there never was a case more strongly proving the evils of the present system. Every body entertained the same opinion respecting the scandalous injustice of the law which would not give Lady Townshend a divorce. She was bound for life to a man whom she could not but loathe, and she had made every effort to escape from the marriage, but without success, for the courts would afford her no remedy. It was natural, then, that she should unite herself to a man towards whom she had discharged all the duties of an affectionate wife; but the question was to be discussed on different grounds to those of sympathy. He resisted the further progress of the bill, because it remedied, in an individual case, what was, in fact, a common wrong. The defect of the law which prevented the heirs of the Townshend family from having proper redress, applied to every man who had property in jeopardy from such an imposture as the present. It was a monstrous principle, and one which he apprehended the House would not sanction, that a remedy was to be granted to a Peer, and to a noble family, which would not be conceded to any other of the subjects of the State. The measure under consideration was perfectly unprecedented

149
—for that was claimed which had hitherto been granted to no human being. A Peer in this respect was no better than he was, and ought not to be placed in a better situation. Neither did it appear to him that this bill was necessary even for the purpose in view, because a general measure had been introduced into the House of Lords, founded upon the practice in Scotland, which would afford a remedy in cases of the kind to all the inhabitants of the three kingdoms. He moved that it be read a second time on this day six months.
The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question:—Ayes 153; Noes 49: Majority 104.

List of the AYES.

Ackers, J.

Douglas, Sir H.

A'Court, Capt.

Drummond, H. H.

Adare, Visct.

Duncombe, T.

Aldam, W.

Dundas, Adm.

Antrobus, E.

Dungannon, Visct.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Egerton, W. T.

Egerton, Sir P.

Bailey, J.

Emlyn, Visct.

Baillie, Col.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Baillie, H. J.

Ferguson, Col.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Barrington, Visct.

Flower, Sir J.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Forman, T. S.

Beckett, W.

Fox, S. L.

Beresford, Major

Fuller, A. E.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Gill, T.

Bernard, Visct.

Gladstone, Capt.

Blackburne, J. I.

Gore, W. O.

Borthwick, P.

Gore, hon. R.

Botfield, B.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Broadley, H.

Hallyburton, Ld. J. F.

Broadwood, H.

Hamilton, J. H.

Brotherton, J.

Hamilton, W. J.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Hampden, R.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Busfield, W.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Byng, G.

Heathcote, G. J.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Carew, hon. R. S.

Herbert, hon. S.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Hill, Lord M.

Chapman, A.

Hinde, J. H.

Chelsea, Visct.

Hindley, C.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Hodgson, R.

Childers, J. W.

Hogg, J. W.

Christopher, R. A.

Hope, hon. C.

Chute, W. L. W.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Clive, E. B.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Compton, H. C.

Howard, Lord

Corbally, M. E.

Howard, hon. H.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Hussey, A.

Craig, W. G.

Ingestrie, Visct.

Dalmeny, Lord

Irton, S.

Damer, hon. Col.

Jermyn, Earl

Denison, E. B.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Dickinson, F. H.

Jones, Capt.

Disraeli, B.

Knight, H. G.

150

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Rolleston, Col.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Round, C. G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Rushbrooke, Col.

Lockhart. W.

Russell, Lord J.

Lowther, J. H.

Sandon, Visct.

Mackenzie, T.

Sheppard, T.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Shirley, E. J.

Mahon, Visct.

Smith, A.

Mainwaring, T.

Smollett, A.

Mangles, R. D.

Stanley, E.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Majoribanks, S.

Stanton, W. H.

Masterman, J.

Stewart, P. M.

Meynell, Capt.

Stuart, W. V.

Miles, P. W. S.

Sturt, H. C.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Tennent, J. E.

Morris, D.

Thornhill, G.

Mundy, E. M.

Tollemache, J.

Neville, R.

Tufnell, H.

Paget, Col.

Vernon, G. H.

Pakington, J. S.

Vesey, hon. T.

Palmer, lt.

Vivian, J. E.

Pechell, Capt.

Waddington, H. S.

Peel, J.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Wemyss, Capt.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Whitmore, T. C.

Plumridge, Capt.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Ponsonby, C. F. A.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Price, R.

Pringle, A.

TELLERS.

Pusey, P.

Wortley, J. S.

Roebuck, J. A.

Mackenzie, W. F.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lemon, Sir C.

Arkwright, G.

Mc Taggart Sir J.

Baldwin, B.

Mitchell, T. A.

Barnard, E. G.

Muntz, G. F.

Barneby, J.

Neeld, J.

Bowes, J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bruce, Ld. E.

O'Connell, M. J.

Christie, W. D.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Clayton, R. R.

Parker, J.

Collett, J.

Pulsford, R.

Divett, E.

Redington, T. N.

Duncan, G.

Smith, B.

Ebrington, Visct.

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Escott, B.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fielden, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Ferrand, W. B.

Strickland, Sir G.

Forster, M.

Strutt, E.

Greene, T.

Tancred, H. W.

Hastie, A.

Thornley, T.

Hawes, B.

Trelawney, J. S.

Henley, J. W.

Vivian, hon. Capt.

Hodgson, F.

Wawn, J, T.

Hutt, W.

Wood, C.

James, W.

TELLERS.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H

Buller, C.

Langston, J. H.

Elphinstone, H.

Bill read a second time, and referred to a select committee.

DANISH CLAIMS.
Mr. Hawesmoved pursuant to notice,
"That this House will on Wednesday next,

151
resolve itself into a committee, to consider an Address to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to advance to the claimants for losses sustained by the seizure of British ships and cargoes by the Danish government in 1807, the amount of their respective losses, as ascertained by the commissioners appointed for the investigation of Danish claims, and reported upon the 12th day of May, 1840, and assuring her Majesty, that this House will make good the same."
Mr. H. Hindeseconded the motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that in order to make the case of these claims intelligible, he would briefly state the circumstances out of which they arose. War was declared by this country against Denmark in 1807. It was declared under peculiar, though not unprecedented circumstances. It was necessary to remind the House, that the weakness of the Danish government made it impossible for that power to offer any resistance to any demand to give up its fleet. In consequence of the information which it received, the Government of this country demanded of Denmark, that she should give up her fleet to Great Britain, and on her refusal to do so, this country commenced an attack on the capital and arsenal of Denmark. Thereupon the Danish Government very naturally declared that they were at war with England, and they proceeded to adopt the ordinary measures of war. In addition, the Danish government resorted to extraordinary measures, for the purpose of obtaining the possession of the property of British subjects, and of thus annoying this country. In the first instance, the annoying
government compelled all its subjects, who were indebted to British subjects, to pay the amount of their debts into the Danish treasury, and then confiscated the property for the service of the Danish Government. In the next place, the Danish government seized all the property belonging to British subjects within the limits of their territory, which was equally confiscated for the service of that country. These measures, not of an ordinary character, the Danish government also resorted to the uniform practice in maritime warfare, and issued letters of marque, and captured British ships and merchandise. On the cessation of the war, no provision was made for compensating the parties whose ships and merchandise were thus seized; and for nineteen years after the conclusion of peace, being twenty-seven years after the commencement of the war in which these captures were made, no application was made either
152
to the Government or to Parliament by the parties whose property was so seized and confiscated; it being during all that time considered that such captures made upon British subjects during war, were not matters for which the Government ought to give compensation, but that it was a loss which must be sustained by the individuals themselves. In 1834, however, a distinction was drawn between the several grounds of claim which had been urged upon the Government. It was stated; that these claimants might fairly be divided into two classes—one, those who were the sufferers from the ordinary operation of war, on whose behalf it would not be attempted to make any claim; and the other class, those who suffered from the unusual application of the rigours of war, and whose property, under the ordinary system of warfare, and by the law of nations, would not have been subject to seizure, and, upon that distinction, the Government of that day (1834) acted. Lord Althorp entertained the claims in that limited sense; but so anxious was he to guard himself against being liable for the payment of the sums now claimed, that in the minute prepared by the council it was stated that:—
"My Lords were aware that claims had been and still might be preferred for the losses sustained by the acts of the Danish government, which were in conformity with the ordinary usages of war, and recognized by the law of nations; but, my Lords were not under any circumstances to be considered to admit that any such claims should be entertained."
Lord Althorp,therefore, acquiescing in the two first classes of claims, distinctly declared that he was not prepared to assent to the third class. The present application was for compensation for the ships and cargoes which were captured at sea after the declaration of war by Denmark against this country, and at a time when there was no doubt the two nations were engaged in war; and it was to the payment of these claims which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), like others who had preceded him in the office which he had the honour to fill, was prepared to offer the most determined resistance. He might subject himself to the imputation of being harsh against the individuals who were represented as objects of compassion, yet holding the office which he now held, he considered it to be one of his first duties to protect the public purse against claims which ought not to be preferred. Following the ex,

153
ample of his predecessors, he opposed the present claims, and he trusted the House would make that opposition effectual. Hon. Members must not consider this as an insulated case. This was only one of many cases which would be brought forward if the present should be successful. The question at issue was not merely the amount of the sum claimed, 225,000 l., though that itself was a point sufficiently serious under the present state of the country; but, whether they should abandon the principle on which, in all wars heretofore, the Government had acted, and make a new rule that all captures which should hereafter be made should be the subject of compensation, and that the parties should be indemnified by the public. Nay, more —the question was, whether in all antecedent wars, those who had suffered losses from captures should be reimbursed the losses they had sustained. For if the present motion and claims were acceded to, all parties who had ever sustained losses in warfare would be equally entitled to compensation with those who were now the claimants on account of the war with Denmark. Every argument which the hon. Gentleman had used in support of the present case would equally well apply to all other similar cases of loss. The hon. Gentleman said the war with Denmark was unjust in itself. But was that to be admitted as an argument peculiar to this case? Might it not be urged in reference to all other wars in which this country might be engaged. The hon. Gentleman had also adverted to the ignorance on the part of the merchants whose property was seized of there being any war with Denmark. But would the hon. Gentleman restrict the discretionary power of the Crown as to the mode of conducting hostilities by requiring every step that it was considered proper to take to be previously announced to the merchants of this country? If the principle of the hon. Gentleman should be adopted, it would vastly increase the expense of all warlike operations. If this rule as to the uncertainty of the occurrence or existence of a war were to be recognized as a ground or compensation, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) knew no war to which it might not be made applicable. The hon. Gentleman urged another topic, and one on which he mainly relied — namely, that the amount of the property which was taken from the Danes, by the seizure of their ships in the British ports, was such
154
as to afford ample funds out of which compensation might be made. But this argument he did not think one whit more tenable than the other arguments of the hon. Gentleman. In every war all amounts of property that were captured became the property of the Crown. In ordinary cases, the Crown assigned such property for the benefit of the captors, but the argument was not altered by a different assignment of the property. It was on these grounds, that he hoped the present House of Commons would support him in the fulfilment of his duty in resisting the claim on the public purse, which he considered was not founded in justice or right, but, if admitted, would lead to a violation of the principle on which the whole maritime wars of Europe had been for ages carried on— which would involve this country in unlimited expense in all future wars.
The question having been put,
Mr. Howessaid, the right hon. Gentle- man had not fairly grappled with the argument which he addressed to the House the other day. He did not bring this forward as a private question. He considered it to involve a great question arising out of the public policy of this country, and calculated seriously to effect great injury to the merchants of this country. Under all the circumstances, those merchants were, in his opinion, entitled to come to the House, and ask for that compensation which the Government had refused to them. Upon what ground did he resist these claims? The right lion. Gentleman said that these seizures were made in time of war. He would ask the Attorney-general to meet him on this ground, and he would refer him to the case of the ship Orion, where Sir W. Scott declared the ship was not a droit of the Crown, in as much as, on the 10th of October, no declaration of war had been made. How could these two things be consistent with each other? Mr. Canning, in 1807, when this subject was discussed, said that the British Government had purposely delayed a declaration of war, in the hope of continuing amicable negotiations with Den- mark, and that the whole character of our transactions with Denmark was one not of war, but to avoid war. This country sent an armament to the shores of Denmark—. for what? To prevent war. Lord Cathcart and Admiral Gambier, who went on that expedition, made a declaration to this effect—" we come here, not for the purpose of making war, but as negotiators." These

155
seizures took place prior to a declaration of war, and after a vast fund—not less than 1,300,000 l.—had been realised by the Government of this country, by the seizure of Danish property in the British ports. He would remind the House that Dr. Lushington and the present Attorney-general had both declared that these claims were just and reasonable. The Solicitor-general, too, had given an opinion to the merchants of London, that these were just and equitable claims, and yet, in his place in Parliament, the hon. and learned Gentleman had sat quietly by, and heard those claims declared to be unjust, and not to be admitted. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the American war; but America made a declaration of war. That was not the case with Denmark. The ground he stood upon was, that this was a most peculiar and special case, and which could not, by possibility, be made to bear a resemblance to any other case. There was no precedent like it; he, therefore, felt that these merchants were equitably entitled to have their claims considered by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that if these claims were granted, it would materially increase the expense of war. Well, to that he had no objection. Let the Ministers be more careful before they went to war; and if the expense of the war was increased by just claims, it ought to be no reason for rejecting those claims. It was a very good check upon war that it should be expensive. He thought that it was a matter of the greatest injustice to the British merchants to refuse assent to such a proposition.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, the hon. Gentleman had been pleased to refer to an opinion which he (the Solicitor-General) was alleged to have given respecting these claims, and in which he declared the justice of them. Now, that opinion, such as it was, depended entirely on the case put before him. Since, however, the real facts of the case were put before him, he had never had the slightest doubt as to the want of foundation for these claims. A few years ago, the matter was brought before the House by his learned Friend, Mr. Justice Cresswell, who had asked him to support them; but on hearing the case in that House, he was not satisfied that they had been made out, and he therefore considered that the Government of that day was right in resisting them. The reason urged by Lord Althorp for opposing these claims, he conceived to be very sound. That noble
156
Lord said, that with respect to the two first classes of claims the seizures had not been made in conformity with the law of nations, and as the Government at the period of the peace had not made a demand for reparation from Denmark, that, therefore, in justice, the amount must be paid by this nation. As for the third class of claims which had reference to the seizure of ships, it was considered that that took place in conformity with the law of nations, and that, therefore, there was no ground for looking to the English Government for compensation. The hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension as to the period when the declaration of war was issued by the Danish Government. That Government made the declaration of war against this country so early as the 16th of August, and all the captures of ships, for which compensation was now demanded, took place subsequently to that declaration. The English Government suspended its declaration of war until December, as it was in hopes of negotiating successfully. There was
an analogous case to the present with regard to the late war between this country and the United States. The American government declared war with England some months before the English Government issued its declaration, which was withheld in the hopes of settling the matters of difference by negociation. All these ships, then, he had no hesitation in saying, were justly seized according to the law and the rights of nations. The hon. Gentleman was also misinformed as to the manner in which the money received from the Danish Government was appropriated. The money received from Denmark was appropriated immediately to public purposes, and the amount received was not more than sufficient to pay the two first classes of claims. If the House agreed to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, it must take 250,000 l. from the public revenue of the country.
Mr. Huttobserved, that the whole question turned upon the period of the declaration of war. He considered, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was altogether mistaken in saying, that the Danish declaration of war was made on the 16th of August. The paper which the hon. and learned Gentleman represented to be a declaration of war, was nothing more than a proclamation of the Danish government informing the people that a British force was on the Coast.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, that the whole ques-

157
tion rested on the interpretation of the paper referred to; and his opinion was founded on the judgment of Sir W. Scott. in the case of the ship Orion, which was taken two months subsequently to the date of the proclamation, or alleged declaration of war, and was ordered by him to be discharged, as it was not regularly served.
The House divided—Ayes 42; Noes 57: —Majority 15.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Masterman, J.

Aldam, W.

Mitcalfe, H.

Attwood, M.

Mitchell, T. A.

Baldwin, B.

Morison, Gen.

Barnard, E. G.

Muntz G. F.

Borthwick, P.

Neeld, J.

Bowes, J.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Bowring, Dr.

Ord, W.

Broadley, H

Polhill, F.

Chapman, A.

Ramsbottom, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Sheppard, T.

Duncan, G.

Sibthorp, Col.

Duncombe, T.

Smith, B.

Dungannon, Visct.

Strickland, Sir G.

Fielden, J,

Vivian, J. E.

Forster, M.

Wawn, J. T.

Gill, T.

Wood, G. W.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Worsley, Lord

Heathcote, J.

Yorke, H. R.

Hodgson, R.

Hutt, W.

TELLERS.

Mackenzie, T.

Hawes, B.

Martin, J.

Hinde, H.

List of the NOES.

Ackers, J.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Adderley, C. B.

Herbert, hon. S.

Baring, bon. W. B.

Hope, hon. C.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Hope, G. W.

Beckett, W.

Ingestrie, Visct.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Jermyn, Earl

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Boldero, H. G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Brotherton, J.

Lockhart, W.

Clerk, Sir G.

M' Taggart, Sir J.

Corry, right hon. H.

Mainwaring, T.

Damer, hon. Col.

Meynell, Capt.

Dickinson, F. H.

Milnes, R. M.

Escott, B.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Fellowes, E.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Flower, Sir J.

Patten, J. W.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Forman, T. S.

Peel, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Pollock, Sir F.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H

Repton, G. W. J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Greene, T.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Smollett, A.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Henley, J. W.

Stanley, Lord

Henniker, Lord

Stanton, W. H,

158

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Young, J.

Trench, Sir F. W.

TELLERS.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Fremantle, T.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Pringle, A.

TRIENNIAL PARLIAMENTS.
Mr. S. Crawfordrose to move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the 1st of George 1., stat. 2, cap. 38, for extending the duration of Parliament to seven years. He limited his pro, position to the mere repeal of this act, because he considered that to confine the duration of Parliament even to three years would be a vast improvement on the present system. Looking over the progress of legislation on this subject, it appeared that in the 34th and 36th of Edward 3rd, it was provided that annual Parliaments should be held. In the 16th of Charles 2nd, it was enacted that Parliaments should not be intermitted for a longer period than three years. The 6th of William and Mary, cap. 2, provided that the duration of Parliaments might be for three years. Next came the 1st of George 1st, stat. 2, cap. 38, enacting that Parliament might continue for seven years. In his opinion it was impossible to defend that act, continuing for seven years, as it did, the duration of the then House of Commons. Such an enactment was adverse to the liberty of the people. The effect of repealing it would be to leave the law as it stood under the 6th William and Mary, or to render three years the utmost extent to which a Parliament could continue without a fresh election; and though that was very far short of what he could wish, he was willing to test the feelings of the House on that question. No man, in his opinion, had a right to retain the name of a reformer who was not prepared to agree to this, but in putting forward the proposition he wished to be understood as in no degree abandoning the principle of annual Parliaments. The people called for reform they stated the grievances which they suffered for want of these reforms, and principally for want of being fully represented in the House of Commons. He wished, therefore, to amend the representation of the people so far as the duration of Parliament was concerned. It had been objected that practically the duration of Parliaments was shorter than the legal duration. That might be, but it did not operate to impose responsibility on the representatives of the people; for they were elected on the supposition and in the hope that they might keep their seats for seven years. The truth was, there could not be any due representation or responsibility, except the

159
representative always felt himself subject to the control of his constituents. Being anxious to preserve the constitution of this country, he wished to see the Government and the House adopt his proposition, and accede to the wishes of the people, and he was convinced that in so doing they would render the most effectual support that could be given to the constitution and monarchy of this country. The hon. Member concluded by submitting his motion to the House.
Dr. Bowringwas very happy to second the motion. Any proposition which went to subject the representatives to popular control out of doors should always have his support. He congratulated the hon. mover on the indomitable courage he displayed in bringing on this subject again and again in spite of defeats.
Sir J. Grahamcould not agree with the deductions the hon. Gentleman drew from the facts he stated. The proposition in the reign of Edward 3rd, was not whether Parliaments should continue for three years or seven ears, but whether there should be any Parliament at all. The act of William and Mary merely provided that there should be a Parliament once in three years at least. Then, the act which the hon. Gentleman sought to repeal extended the duration of Parliament to seven years. The hon. Gentleman surpriesed him by saying that seven years was a duration inconsistent with public liberty. The hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that the Septennial Act was passed to secure the liberties of the people, and that it was doubtful whether the succession of the present Royal family could have been perpetuated unless the Septennial Act had passed. On the whole he considered it for the public advantage, that a duration of considerable extent should be given to a public assembly. For the first or second year of a new Parliament there would be manifest, among new Members, a want of experience and knowledge of the habits of the House and forms of business, which could only be acquired by time, and without which they could not render their talents fully available for the public service. If Parliaments really lasted for six or seven years, he should think that much too long, but the hon. Gentleman admitted that the duration practically was much short of seven years. He did not think that for the last twenty years the average duration of Parliaments was more than four years each. The hon. Gentleman, how-
160
ever, contended that the more limited period would have the moral effect of in. creasing the responsibility of the representatives to their constituents; but surely the practical reduction to four years during the last twenty ought to be considered stringent enough as respected the representative. It should be remembered that the whole representative system had undergone a material change at the passing of the Reform Bill, when the franchise was greatly extended and rendered more democratic in its principle. It was not at that time proposed to make any alteration with respect to the duration of Parliament, for though the noble Lord who led that House under the administration of Earl Grey stated that he himself would not be indisposed to lessen the duration still, upon the whole, the Government denied that such a proposition would be expedient, seeing the large extension of the suffrage which the measure proposed. It was but a short time since a most important settlement of the representation took place, and with all respect for the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this question, he having reason to think that the proposition did not carry with it the general feelings of the House, at first doubted whether to reply or allow the motion to go at once to a division.
The House divided—Ayes 23; Noes 46: Majority 23.

List of the AYES.

Barnard, E. G.

Napier, Sir C.

Bowes, J.

Protheroe, E.

Bowring, Dr.

Ramsbottom, J.

Brotherton, J.

Smith, B.

Cobden, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Duncan, G.

Turner, E.

Fielden, J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hastie, A.

Ward, H. G.

Hawes, B.

Wawn, J. T.

Heathcoat, J.

Yorke, H. R.

Langston, J. H.

TELLERS.

Mitcalfe, H.

Aglionby, H. A.

Mitchell, T. A.

Crawford, S.

List of the NOES.

Ackers, J.

Dungannon, Visct.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Eliot, Lord

Attwood, M.

Escott, B.

Baillie, Col.

Flower, Sir J.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Forman, T. S.

Beckett, W.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Boldero, H. G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Borthwick, P.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Boyd, J.

Greene, T.

Chapman, A.

Herbert, hon. S.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Hodgson, R.

Darby, G.

Hope, hon. C.

161

Hope, G. W.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Smollett, A.

Lockhart, W.

Stanley, Lord

Masterman, J.

Stanton, W. H.

Patten, J. W.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Vivian, J. E.

Peel, J.

Wood, C.

Plumptre, J. P.

Worsley, Lord

Pollock, Sir F.

Pringle, A.

TELLERS.

Russell, Lord J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Sheppard, T.

Baring, H

EMPLOYMENT OF TEN-GUN BRIGS.
Captain Berkeleyrose, according to notice, to call the attention of the House to the inexpediency and danger of employing the old class of ten-gun brigs under commanders, and re-establishing them as sloops of war in her Majesty's navy. He would first show the inexpediency, and next the danger, of employing the old class of 10-gun brigs under commanders, and re-establishing them as sloops of war; and he would contrast the authorities which upheld the re-establishment with the authorities who held an opposite opinion. A civilian, however high his attainments, or however great his talents, could not, from the mere fact of his being the First Lord of the Admiralty, know as much of naval matters as those who devoted themselves to that profession, and though the hon. Member for South Wilts, who would probably reply to him, might be able to offer an opinion as to the class of vessels which might be fit to sail around the Isle of Wight, it was not to be supposed that he was acquainted with the nature of the vessels or the burthen they could bear which were compelled to breast the waves of the Atlantic. He would rather take the hon. Gentleman's opinion as to the speed of a racehorse carrying a prescribed weight. It was of importance to ascertain whether the bringing of these vessels into operation with increased complement of men and stores accorded with the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, or was a measure concocted not at the Board but in a private room. It would be desirable to see what was the opinion of the naval Lords, and also what was the opinion of Sir W. Symonds, the surveyor of the navy; but during the time that the Admiralty was respectively presided over by Sir J. Graham, Lord Auckland, and Earl Minto, Sir W. Symonds then being surveyor of the navy, these Ill-gun brigs were considered unfit for such service.
162
He regretted the absence of the I-Tome Secretary from the House on the present occasion, as he hoped to be fortified by his opinion; but he had the opinion of three Admiralty boards to one against the employment of those 10-gun brigs as sloops of war under commanders. He would say nothing as to naval men which might be considered invidious, but there was on one side Sir G. Cockburne, Sir W. Gage, and Sir G. Seymour; on the other side Sir C. Adams, Sir W. Parker, Admiral Dundas, Admiral Elliot, and Sir J. Pechell, and he would ask, upon which side should opinion preponderate? There was one other name to whose opinion great weight should attach—namely, the late Sir T. Hardy, with whom he had served from a midshipman upwards to a place in the Admiralty, and upon whose opinions his own had been formed. There were, then, three Boards of Admiralty, and the same Gentleman who at present held the post of surveyor of the navy, who were adverse to the present plan, and condemned using the ten-gun brigs for the purposes now proposed. In opposing the measure, he was influenced by no political or party feelings, but by a wish to prevent serious calamity. When Sir J. Graham was at the head of the Admiralty board, it was at first deemed necessary to use these ten-gun brigs, but not under commanders. Some were placed under lieutenants after great reductions had been made to render them lighter and more buoyant, but the experiment had not succeeded. Some few, however, had been altered to brigantines, and had answered tolerably well. If he should be told that a point of etiquette was involved in this matter, be would ask, why not give officers employed on the coast of Africa a local rank, and thus get rid of the point of etiquette? There was another thing to be taken into consideration. They were going to send these vessels—the ten-gun brigs, to cope with their great rivals, the Americans, in the suppression of the slave-trade. Did they think that the Americans would send inferior vessels on that service? No; and the result would be that the slaver and the American vessel would run the ten-gun brig out of sight. Nothing but mortification and vexation would be left to the British officers and men and the Americans would reap all the harvest. In a late speech delivered by Mr. Webster, that gentleman expressed a hope

163
that the American vessels would never meet the English under inferior circumstances. Yet the English Government were going to send out this condemned class of vessels, which were not able to fight, sail, or even to swim, to cope with the American vessels in rivalry of seamanship, He had received several letters from naval officers, expressing their opinion as to the utter inefficiency of the ten-gun brigs. One of the writers observed, that he looked back with horror at the six months in which he had been employed in them. It was known from public report and public documents, that the Americans denied the right of the English to search their vessels. Supposing a ten-gun brig was cruising in company with an American for the suppression of the slave-trade. The slaver would run away, chased by the American, and would soon lose sight of the English vessel. The slaver, then, would hoist the English colours, calculating that the American would respect that right, which in his own case he contended for, and would not dare to board him. The returns which he had moved for did not allow him to speak with confidence on the subject; but he believed that there were five good vessels at Devonport, that might be employed on this service. Why, then, should British officers and men be sent out in the detestable class of vessels of which he was now complaining? So much for the inexpediency of employing the old class of ten-gun brigs; and he would now advert to the danger which was likely to arise to the health of the crews they were going to put in them. According to intelligence he had received front Plymouth, L'Espoir had been commissioned by a commander, with two lieutenants, and a crew of eighty men; and he had since heard that the carpenter's and purser's cabins had been diverted from their original use in order that greater accommodation might be made fur the crew; but would the House believe it possible that eighty men could be accommodated in such a vessel? Supposing the crew only numbered sixty-five—he would go as low as that—in what space did the Board of Admiralty propose to put in vessels of an inferior class, sixty-five individuals, on the coast of Africa, where the thermometer stood at eighty, and sometimes above ninety—where an awning was obliged to be spread over the vessel, preventing the free access of the air into the interior. The whole length of the brig
164
was from forty -eight to fifty feet, and its extreme breadth only twenty-four feet, and in this space allowance must be made for a store-room, a sail-room, and for a place to cook provisions for the ship's company. If a commander of such a vessel got to serve under him a few fine British sailors, such as captains liked to see in their vessels, from five feet ten incites to live feet eleven inches high, how could they live? Why the height from the deck to the beam above their heads was four feet, six inches, and in that space they could neither walk nor stand. In one of these vessels, the space was so small, that the officer took away the tables, and made his men mess on the ground. The objection to the employment of these vessels was still greater on the score of their danger. He held in his hand an official return, showing the number of men-of-war and packets lost between 1816 and the present time. He found that the whole number lost was twenty-two; and exactly one-half of these—namely, eleven, belonged to that class of vessels which he was now endeavouring to induce the House to condemn, five of them having been employed as sloops of war, and six as packets. By the same return, he found that six others of the vessels lost were of an inferior description to these, ten-gun brigs, leaving five only to account for of a class superior to the ten-gun brigs. Of these five, two were wrecked on shore, leaving only three that foundered at sea, while of all the ten-gun brigs that were I lost, not one went on shore, or was lost by coming in contact with rock or shoal, but every one foundered and all hands perished. With this fact before them, would they re-employ these brigs in the service as sloops of war? It might be asked that if these vessels were so extremely dangerous, how was it that men and officers were obtained to serve in them? To such a question he would answer, that wherever an enemy was pointed out, and wherever promotion was shown, there British sailors and officers would go. He also said, that a British officer thirst not —could not—refuse to take the command of anything he might be appointed to; and the character of British sailors was such, that wherever officers went the men would follow. On the score of humanity he thought he had said enough to induce the House to accede to the motion with which be should conclude, and if hon.

165
Members were all members of the naval profession he had no doubt he should carry it. The gallant men they were about to send out in these vessels feared no danger but he begged the House to imagine what would be the feelings of those whom these gallant men left behind them what would be the feelings of their children and families, when the winter blast was howling about their dwellings on shore, and bringing to their minds all the perils which their friends and relatives were exposed to on the wide ocean? The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving the following resolution:—
"That, after the lamentable loss of life which experience proves to have taken place in vessels of the class of old ten-gun brigs, this House views with apprehension the reemployment of such vessels in circumstances of increased danger, arising from the additional complement of officers and men, with the greater weight of provisions and stores thereby rendered necessary, and which it is now proposed to place in them."
Captain Pechellseconded the motion, and said, he was anxious to know on what grounds the Board of Admiralty could refuse its consent to the reasonable and moderate proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend. It was lucky for the Board that the Navy Estimates had been gone through, without this subject and others of equal interest having been pressed upon the attention of the House. It had been shown by his hon. and gallant Friend that to send these ten-gun brigs to rival the American vessels employed on the coast of Africa would he ridiculous, and only tend to disappointment and dissatisfaction in the minds of the officers and men sent out in them. These vessels had already been employed in the suppression of the slave-trade, and a reference to their log-books now lying in Somerset-house, would show that the officers who had commanded them had suffered the deepest mortification, and they had never succeeded in capturing a slave-ship, except by some accident, or by the aid of their boats. He thought he could show by one single instance the distress and mortification suffered by officers in command of these ten-gun brigs. One of them, commanded by an officer whom he would not mention lest it might interfere with his claims, gave chase to a slaver well laden with slaves, and whose sailing was greatly deteriorated by the weight she had on board; still,
166
after a chase of eight or ten hours, the slaver was lost sight of. The next day the ten-gun brig fell in with a vessel built by Sir W. Symonds, and this vessel pursued the slaver, though she had been lost: sight of for twenty-four hours, and after thirty-six hours' chase, captured her. This was a great mortification to the officers and crew of the brig. These facts were well worthy of consideration. What excuse could be offered for sending out these vessels again, he was at a loss to know, especially when there were other vessels both in the Mediterranean and the West Indies, better calculated to do credit to the service of this country in its rivalry with the American flag. Why should the officers and men be so again employed, when it had been shown that the service in them was most disadvantageous. Why send them out in these wretched vessels, which were a laughing-stock to all the slavers? The old ten-gun brigs were as well known on the coast of Africa, as the race horses at Epsom or New market. It had been truly said, that they could neither fight nor run; they had brought great discredit upon those who had constructed them, and they would reflect greater discredit upon those who should persevere in again sending them out to this station. But again, as his hon. and gallant Friend had asked, why not give the officers employed local rank and double pay as France did? But what was done in England? Why, you gave to an engineer of a steam-vessel increased allowances, and then in came the Chancellor of the Exchequer and attacked those increased allowances by levying the Income-tax upon him. This intention of renewing the ten-gun brigs was part and parcel of the system pursued by those who in 1818 and 1819 ruined the most beautiful class of vessels in the British service. His hon. and gallant Friend had spoken of the release of the officers from these ten-gun brigs being regarded as an escape. 'That might be true; but it was au escape to one of the jackass or donkey frigates so much complained of. He had gone through the ordeal of service in both, and if he could believe that the Board of Admiralty, after the speech of his hon. and gallant. Friend—after the well-known feeling of the country upon this subject, should return to this system, he thought, if it were possible to impeach the first Lord of the Admiralty, he would

167
deserve it. Was it not melancholy that in 1843, after Sir W. Symonds had cleared out all the nuisances of the Navy Board at Somerset-house, the old system should be restored? He trusted, however, that the rumour had been got up as a hoax, and should so think, until assured of the reverse by the hon. the Secretary to to the Admiralty.
Captain Gordonsaid, he was not himself aware (and he had not learned from his hon. and gallant Friend) that there was anything in the present circumstances of these vessels that they were to be considered less safe now than in the twenty or thirty years during which they had been employed in all parts of the world. Now, for himself, he confessed he entertained no such apprehensions as those expressed by the hon. and gallant Members opposite; and as he found in the Navy List several vessels of this class, he presumed that the opinion of former Boards of Admiralty was not quite so strong against them as his lion. and gall and Friend seemed to think. He would therefore ask, supposing vessels of this description were required for an important and delicate service, whether the Board of Admiralty would be justified, with such vessels at their disposal, to leave them unemployed, and the service un provided for? He confessed he thought the board would not be justified in taking such a course; and it also appeared to him that the tropics, where the weather was calm, light, and moderate, were just the place these vessels were calculated for, and where they could render the greatest service; but his hon. and gallant Friend had talked of the changes made in these vessels. He was aware that some alteration had been made in them at different times; but he could only say, if they were to be employed in an important and difficult service, it was highly desirable, if not absolutely necessary, that they should be both well manned and efficiently officered for a service in which so much discretion was required; and if, therefore, that class was to he employed, it could not he sent to any place where it would do greater service than that station, to which he believed that a single vessel was in commission and about to go. His hon. and gallant Friend had mentioned the many losses there had been of this class of vessels; but he believed the greater part of the losses had taken place when they had been employed as packets, and
168
which, he must also observe, principally arose from the deficiency in the number of men to take in sail or to act in case of emergency. It had been said that the vessels would be very much crowded; but this was not new—these vessels had been employed thirty-years ago, and then they had full as many men as they had at the present moment. He much regretted the absence on the present occasion of his right hon. and gallant Friend the First Naval Lord, whose extensive experience and knowledge upon the subject would, he was sure, have had great weight with the House; he, however, trusted that the House would not be disposed to interfere with or come to a decision as to what description of vessels ought to be employed on the different stations, but would leave it to the Executive, which was responsible for the vessels employed; and, therefore, without entering into details, he should oppose the motion which his hon. and gallant Friend had brought forward.
Captain Plumridgebegged to say a word or two on the present occasion, especially as he had so long filled the duties of inspecting the packet station at Falmouth. He could state that during six or seven years the loss of these gun-brigs had averaged one in each year, and the total number of souls who had been swept into eternity by those losses was 234 during a period of seven-years. With regard to sending out 10-gun brigs against the slavers, it was like sending an elephant to catch a hare. As to the feeling of the public with regard to those packets, it was proverbial that passengers inquired, "is your next packet one of the coffins or one of Symonds's vessels?" His duty had been to examine all, and he could state not only that they were well officered, but had been well managed by officers and men both by day and night. On the whole, the sooner this class of vessels was either sold, or got rid o in some manner, the better.
Mr. S. Herbertsaid, as charges had been advanced against the Board of Admiralty though the hon. and gallant Member who moved had said he did not wish to cast a censure on the Board, and as the hon. and gallant Member who succeeded him had improved the proposition, and had even talked of impeachment, he hoped he might be excused if he made a few observations to show these charges to be utterly and entirely unfounded. He hoped

169
the House would bear in mind, that he, though a civilian, spoke the sentiments of officers in the naval service as high in reputation, (and he spoke not in disparagement) as those quoted by his hon. and gallant Friend. The charge of the lion, and gallant mover amounted to this—that though experience had shown that ten-gun brigs were dangerous, and that they were a bad class of vessels to be employed in this service, and that though certain Boards of Admiralty being so convinced, had gradually declined to use them, and had subsequently almost precluded them from service, or, if they employed them, did so under precautions that rendered them safe, the present Board, having at its disposal a better class of vessels, had wantonly gone back and resuscitated and re-employed them, in direct contradiction to the views and opinions of the Admiralty Boards by whom they had been preceded. This charge was founded, from beginning to end, upon misconception; and if the hon. and gallant Member had waited until the information laid upon the Table last week had been printed, he would have seen that such was not the fact. The hon. and gallant Member had said, that former Boards had wholly condemned the employment of this class of vessels. That might be so; but there were many officers of great distinction who had commanded ten-gun brigs, who said, that although not to be compared to the class substituted for them, still, their great defect was, that they were slow sailers. The only question, then, now at issue was, as to the danger of the employment of this class, and by that employment, the neglect by the Admiralty of the interests of the service. The hon. and gallant Member stated that the late Board refused altogether to employ them. [Captain Berkeley: Not altogether, but to employ them with commanders, and a full complement of men.] He begged pardon; but still he thought he understood the hon. and gallant Member right, for he admitted the late Board had employed them as surveying vessels with commanders on board, but the hon. and gallant Member forgot to mention that one of them so employed went round Cape Horn. It had also been urged that these vessels would be dangerous because of the increased weight on board, arising from the fact of a commander being on board. Now, it so happened, that if the hon. and gallant Member had waited till the returns were printed, he would have seen that with a commander, as proposed, there was proposed only an addition of one man in
170
five over the existing complement where a licutenant was in command, and, in fact, by the diminished number of guns and stowage, the weight on board w ill be one ton less than when the hon. and gallant Member was a Lord of the Admiralty, and not more, as stated by the gallant Officer. The gallant Officer had made a mistake between the old class of ten-gun brigs and the present vessels. Front 1808 to 1832, four of the present class of ten-gull brigs had been lost as men-of-war, and three had foundered as packets. Those which had foundered as packets, were differently rigged, had three masts, and were not safe front carrying a press of sail, with a very insufficient complement. As to the weight carried by these brigs, many gallant Officers of previous Boards had sent these brigs to sea with the same weights. He thought he had shown that the gallant Officer was mistaken in saying, that they had resuscitated the ten-gun brigs. They were, in fact, reduced in number, and not half the number were employed by the present Board that were employed by the Board of which the gallant Officer was himself a Member, and superior vessels were building to supply their place, and he hoped, that they would soon be out of the service altogether, not because they were dangerous, but because they were comparatively slow vessels, and, therefore, comparatively inefficient. It was a pressure on the service which induced the Admiralty to commission three of these vessels though having a less armament and with the same weights. As to the charge of appointing commanders instead of lieutenants to these brigs, it was important that an officer of some standing should be employed in such service, involving intricate questions of international law, looked on as it was with great jealousy, and the cause sometimes of very great irritation. No one could say, that it was not important to put officers of rank in command of these vessels, and to secure their being officers to command the boats, and boarding parties detached from them. He should conclude with moving the previous question.
Sir Charles Napierobserved, that whenever the Admiralty got into any scrape, owing to their own ignorance, impropriety, or obstinacy, they always seemed to expect that the House would not interfere with them, or, as it was said, take the business out of the hands of the executive government. Now he thought that prevention was much bet-

171
ter than cure, and whenever they saw an improper thing done by the Admiralty, he conceived it to be the duty of every Gentleman to correct the evil, before it could be attended with any very bad results. Why should not the Admiralty be thus reproved? Did they not see the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) found fault with in that House? they not even find the head of her Majesty's Government found fault with? Did they not find the noble Lord at the head of the colonies very often found fault with? and why then, in the name of God,' when the Admiralty went astray by its own folly, was it not to be found fault with? and this, when it so happened, that, from time to time, and year after year, it had been committing errors, at least, he could say to his knowledge, ever since he had the honour of entering into her Majesty's service. The gallant officer, the Lord of the Admiralty, had pointed to the propriety of sending out ten-gun brigs to the coast of Africa, anti why so? Because the gallant Officer said, that there was a fine climate and light winds, and consequently these vessels could not there be unsafe! He asked the gallant Officer, did he ever hear of a tornado on the coast of Africa? Did he not know that these ten-gun brigs were the least calculated of all other vessels to resist its violence? Why, if he were to choose a part of the world which this sort of vessel would be unsafe, that part would be the coast of Africa, the very place where these brigs were about to be sent to. Then, the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty justified the employment of these vessels, because they could get no others. What, then, had the Admiralty been doing for the last seven and twenty years? Was it possible, that now a Secretary of the Admiralty, should stand up in that House, and say, that after a peace of twenty-seven years, they had not vessels to send out to the coast of Africa, but must be obliged to send out vessels which were totally unfit to be employed as packets or as men-of-war—and that those again should be brought forward, because the Admiralty had no other vessels. That, he must say, was the most extraordinary acknowledgement he ever heard. It was true, it might be said, that the present Gentlemen were not in office more than two years; but then, if they found that their predecessors had left the navy in a bad state, why not make some exertion to correct those deficiencies;
172
and why, above all things, send out the very same sort of vessels which had been before objected to, and which had been lost in every part of the world. He had not heard the gallant Captain nor the Secretary of the Admiralty deny, that eleven of those ten-gun brigs had been lost—five of them as packets, and six of them as men-of-war. As packets, their weight had been reduced—they had only four guns, their masts and sails were reduced, their immense fore and aft mainsail was taken away, and yet five of these vessels were lost with all the crew and passengers, and six of them were lost as men-of-war. And yet, after all this, the gallant Officer, and the Secretary of the Admiralty, stated now, that having lost eleven of these vessels, they were about to send out some of the same craft. He thought the men who built them ought to be hanged, and those who employed them almost deserved the same fate. He had no patience when he saw this done, and knew, at the same time, that they had plenty of good vessels, and officers to command them. Instead of employing proper vessels, they were about sending out commanders who were not accustomed to an insignificant crew. It would be found, that this subject bore very strongly upon a question he had put some time since. It was this: if English and American vessels employed on die coast of Africa were to hunt in couples, was an English vessel, whether she sailed worse or sailed better than the American, to be at liberty to board a vessel hoisting American colours? His gallant Friend now said, that ten-gun brigs could not sail with an American brig, and the English vessel, to their great dishonour, must be left behind. lf, then, the American met a slaver, and she hoisted English colours, the American could not, if the treaty were as he understood it—the American could not board the slaver; and if the English afterwards met her, and she hoisted American colours, the English vessel could not board her either. He hoped that the House would not go with the Admiralty on this occasion; but that they would exercise their own judgment. Perhaps some of them would be applying to the Admiralty to have their sons sent to sea, and they might hear that their relations were lost, with all the crew of those vessels. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen would think of these things before they went to the vote that night. The late Board of Admiralty had properly not

173
used these brigs. The present Board however, found fault with their predecessors, and now were about despatching them to the coast of Africa. This was of a piece with the general conduct of the Admiralty. There was, for instance, the Trafalgar, the launch of which was viewed by her Majesty. That vessel might be supposed ready for sea. It was not; but the stern put on by one surveyor was knocked off, and another put on, at the expense of from 5,000 l. to 10,000 l. He went, too, on board a steam-ship, and found that they had at last conic to build a steam-boat on a proper principle, that which all the world knew of before but the Admiralty, and that was, that it should be built with a flat floor. It was, too, as every one but the Admiralty knew, most important to put guns on the fore part of a steamer. The Admiralty, however, fortified the stern; but the English vessels did not present much of their stern to the enemy. It was most important, that the fore part of the steamer should be fortified, and yet, at the present moment, there was only one gun on that part of the steamer which he had seen. It was his opinion, that as long as the Board of Admiralty was constituted as at present, it would he half a century behind the rest of the world. For thirty years it had made no improvement. Considering the importance of the navy to this country, it was to be deplored, that so little attention was paid to it by the House of Commons. In conclusion, he had to remark, in reference to his gallant Friend who had brought forward this motion, that he was the only officer he ever knew who resigned his situation at the Board of Admiralty, when he saw them adopt proceedings of which he disapproved.
Captain Berkeley,in reply, said, that if the hon. Gentleman had, in answer to a question he put some weeks ago, given the explanation given to-night, that these vessels were not to be used as sloops of war, with all the appurtenances, probably the House would not have been troubled with this motion. Throughout the service, the general opinion amongst the officers against these vessels was very strong; but if the Admiralty chose to commission a washing tub, such was the zealous character of the British sailor, he would not refuse to enter the craft. But, because that feeling existed, our seamen ought not to be sent out in unseaworthy vessels. He had done his duty to the service to
174
which he belonged, in bringing this subject before the House, and he hoped hon. Gentlemen would not suffer themselves to be swayed by political feelings upon this occasion, but recollect that the lives of their fellow-creatures were at stake. If he might judge from the appointment made by the present Board of Admiralty of those who were to go to sea in these floating coffins, they were all connected with the other side of the House.
The House divided on the question, that that (Captain Berkeley's resolution) question be put:—Ayes 41; Noes 75:—Majority 34.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Morrison, J.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Plumridge, Capt.

Blake, Sir V.

Protheroe, E.

Brotherton,

Pryse, P.

Childers, J. W.

Ramsbottom,.J.

Cripps, W.

Redington, T. N.

Curteis, H. B.

Scholefield,.J.

Duncan, G.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Dungannon, Visct.

Smith, B.

Evans, W.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Fielden, J

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Gisborne,

Stanton, W. H.

Granger, T.

Tancred, H. W.

Hastie, A.

Tufnell, H.

Heathcoat,.J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hill, Lord M.

Wawn, J. T.

Hindley, C.

Williams, W.

James, W.

Wilshere, W.

Langston, J. H.

TELLERS.

Mitcalfe, H.

Berkeley, Capt.

Morris, D.

Napier, Sir C.

List of the NOES.

Antrobus, E

Flower, Sir J.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Forman, T. S.

Bailey,.J.

Fox, S. L.

Baillie, Col.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E

Baillie, H. J.

Godson, R.

Baird, W.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Graham, rt. n. Sir J,

Beckett, W.

Greenall, P.

Benett,.J.

Greene, T.

Blackburne,.J. I.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Boldero, H. G.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Borthwick, P.

Herbert, hon. S.

Boyd, J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Broadley, H

Hodgson, R.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hogg, J. W.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Hope, G. W.

Chapman, A.

Hughes, W. B.

Christopher, R. A.

Hussey, T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Jermyn, Earl

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Darby, G.

Lockhart, W.

Dickinson, F. H.

Lopes, Sir R.

Drummond, H, H.

Mackenzie, T.

Eliot, Lord

Mackenzie, W. F.

175

Marsham, Visct.

Sheppard,

Masterman, J.

Smith, A.

Meynell, Capt.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

O'Brien, A. S.

Stanley, Lord

Patten, J. W.

Sutton, hon. H, M.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Tollemache, J.

Peel, J.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Turnor, C.

Pollock, Sir F.

Waddington, H. S.

Pringle, A.

Welby, G. E.

Pusey, P.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

TELLERS.

Round, J.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Sanderson, R.

Baring, H.

Motion withdrawn.

ASSESSED TAXES.
Captain Pechellmoved,
"That the return of the several cases of assessed taxes for the years 1841 and 1842, determined on appeal be printed."
He stated, that these decisions were, generally speaking, most vexatious, that they arose out of unjust surcharges, that the proceedings were conducted in private, no reports of them being permitted to appear in the newspapers, and that the public had great reason to complain of them. Some of the cases were most appalling. The judges even were generally obliged to reverse the decisions of the commissioners. As for the surveyors, they had an interest in every surcharge they made, and the more they laid on the more they recommended themselves to their employers.
Sir G. Clerksaid, the papers now required to be printed were formerly regularly published, and so little anxiety had been shown by the public to possess them, that the last year of their publication only four copies had been sold. This year the Board of Stamps and Taxes had found it necessary to print these documents for their own use. 300 copies had been sent down to the House. Two bad been taken by the hon. Member for Brighton, and the remaining 298 were wholly at his service, as not another copy had been asked for. Under these circumstances, he would put it to the House, whether they would incur the outlay necessary for this publication.
Captain Pechellthought it highly probable, that Gentlemen opposite did not want such papers, but Members on his side would, no doubt, be very glad to be possessed of any authentic publication. The fact was, however, that the return published by the board was very imperfect, no less than twenty-five cases having been suppressed.
The House divided on the question
176
that the returns be printed:—Ayes 16; Noes 79:—Majority 63.

List of the AYES.

Blake, Sir V.

Pryse, P.

Collett, J.

Redington, T. N.

Curteis, H. B.

Scholefield, J.

Fielder, J.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Hollond, R.

Tancred, H. W.

James, W.

Williams, W.

Morris, D.

Muntz, G. F.

TELLERS.

Napier, Sir C.

Pechell, Capt.

Plumridge, Capt.

Wawn, J. T.

List of the NOES.

Bailey, J., jun.

Hodgson, R.

Baird, W.

Hogg, J. W.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Hope, G. W.

Barrington, Visct.

Hughes, W. B.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Hussey, T.

Blackburne, J. I.

Jermyn, Earl

Bodkin, W. H.

Joliffe, Sir W. G.

Boldero, H. G.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Borthwick, P.

Leslie, C. P.

Broadley, H.

Lockhart, W.

Brotherton, J.

Lowther, J. H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Buller, E.

Marsham, Visct.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Masterman, J.

Charteris, hon. F.

Meynell, Capt.

Christopher, It. A.

Mitcalfe, H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Mundy, E. M.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Norreys, Lord

Cripps, W.

Packe, C. W.

Darby, G.

Patten, J. W.

Dickinson, F. H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Duncan, G.

Peel, J.

Dungannon, Visct.

Plumptre, J. P.

Eliot, Lord

Pringle, A.

Evans, W.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Flower, Sir J.

Ross, D. R.

Forman, T. S.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Fuller, A. E.

Sheppard, T.

Gisborne, T.

Smith, A.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Godson, R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Stanley, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Greene, T.

Trollope, Sir J.

Grimsditch, T.

Tufnell, H.

Hale, R. B.

Waddington, H. S.

Hayes, Sir E.

TELLERS.

Henley, J. W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Hervey, Lord A,

Clerk, Sir G.

IRISH YEOMANRY Coups.
Lord Clementsmoved for a,
"Copy of the orders issued by his Majesty's Government in 1831, and following years, for disbanding the yeomanry corps in Ireland; together with all the correspondence between the Government of that day and officers of yeomanry, relative to the disbanding of the above corps; together with all correspondence between her Majesty's Government and the

177
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, respecting the reduction of the yeomanry force in Ireland and the delivery of their arms,"
The noble Lord stated, that in 1831, in consequence of the atrocious outrages committed by the yeomanry corps, vast numbers of petitions were presented to the House from different parts of Ireland, praying Parliament to disband these corps. A correspondence took place between Government and the Irish authorities, for the purpose of inquiring into their views with respect to a disbandment. Their correspondence was of a public, not a private nature; and it was followed by the withdrawal of the sums previously allowed for the expenditure of the yeomanry corps. In 1833 and in 1834 additional correspondence took place upon the subject, between Lord Melbourne and the Irish authorities and a circular was issued, having for its object, the complete dissolution of these corps. It was a copy of these orders which he was anxious to obtain, as well as a copy of the correspondence with the officers of the yeomanry corps on the subject of the disbanding. He wished to show what yeomanry corps had objected to give up their arms. He could not see upon what ground the Government could refuse to accede to his motion, and should it be opposed he should know what to think of the sincerity of those declarations which had been made respecting the Arms bill. The correspondence was of the utmost importance in order' to show the disposition of those to whom arms had been, and he was afraid would be again intrusted. He was quite convinced, that at present, the yeomanry arms were not in proper hands. He could have no difficulty in establishing that point. No later than last winter there had been a search for arms in the county of Leitrim. The Lord Lieutenant sent down his warrant upon which the magistrates acted honestly and impartially, and took all the arms they could find that were unregistered, without any regard to party. Orders were sent from Dublin; and those belonging to one party were returned —he need scarcely say, that that party was the Orange party. This had given much dissatisfaction to the people, as they considered it not only very partial, but also very improper conduct upon the part of those intrusted with the executive. He knew, that such partiality could not have been sanctioned by the noble Lord opposite; but still it was done by the officials employed by Government. If it were the
178
wish of the Government to disarm all persons who ought not to have arms, it was absolutely necessary, that some understanding should be come to in respect of the proper custody of the yeomanry arms; because, see what a position they had placed those persons in, who, in Leitrim, had again got possession of those arms Why, every one of them was liable to a penalty of 200 l. for having possession of arms with the Tower mark. When he saw the the Government pouring more arms into Ireland, he was induced to ask for what party they were intended; were they to be given to the Repealers, the Whigs, or the Orangemen? He would tell the noble Lord that they did not want any arms. All the people of Ireland wanted, was that their wrongs should be redressed. They wanted measures of justice and amelioration not of coercion; they wanted to know whether the yeomanry arms were to remain in improper hands or not; and if yeomanry arms marked with the Tower upon them were to descend as heirlooms from father to son? In conclusion, for he would not at that late hour detain the House longer than to say, that in respect to the statements made by the noble Lord, of the arms that had been taken in the county of Leitrim the noble Lord had been misinformed, and consequently his statements were incorrect. The noble Lord ended by moving as above.
Lord Eliotthought he had some right to complain of the noble Lord's allusions to the disarming of the yeomanry in Leitrim, of which he had no notice, and on the discussion of which he was not, of course, prepared to enter. With reference to the motion, he could only repeat the assurance which be had given on a former evening, that it was very far from his intention to withhold any information that was necessary to the purpose of the noble Lord, and that he was quite prepared to give copies of all orders for disarming the yeomanry. He did not, however, think it expedient that communications between one department of the Government and the other, in which particular opinions were expressed, should be published. For the first time a restriction was now imposed as to the yeomanry, and their arms were subjected to the same distinctive mark as it was proposed to make applicable to arms of every description. He should move, as an amendment to the noble Lord's motion, that there be laid before the House

179
"Copies of any order or orders for the disbanding of the yeomanry in Ireland: of any order or orders in respect to the discontinuance of pay to the staff and non-commissioned officers of yeomanry in Ireland of any order or orders for delivering into store the arms of the yeomanry in Ireland."
Mr. Redington;Considering that the noble Lord opposite had shown every disposition to give all the information in his power, he hoped his noble Friend would not press his motion for so voluminous a correspondence.
Viscount Clementssaid, he should be content with the returns to which the noble Lord consented for the present, but of course he should use his discretion as to moving for a further return.
Returns as moved for by Lord Eliot ordered.
House adjourned at half-past eleven o'clock.