Sitting of 23 April 1839

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By a great many MEMBERS, from a number of places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.

ENCLOSURE BILLS.
Mr. Harveyrose to call the attention of the House to the notice he had given last evening, for rescinding the standing order on Enclosure Bills. The House was aware that the object of his notice was, to enforce the standing orders, which provided that in all enclosure bills a suitable spot should be set apart for the recreation of the people; but this laudable object had been laxly looked after, and his purpose, therefore, was to frame such a new regulation as would enable committees on such bills to avail themselves to the full of that beneficial order. He must say, however, that while committees were composed of Gentlemen more or less interested in the matter before them, it was not surprising that there was no one found on such occasions to guard the rights of the labouring classes. The standing order for which his motion was intended as a substitute was, nevertheless, framed for that purpose; although its origin had been neglected, and it had been gradually allowed to subside into a nullity. He would now submit his amended order

471
to the consideration of the House, which was expressed as follows:—"That the second special standing order to be observed on enclosure bills be rescinded, and the following order be substituted:—'That in all bills for enclosing commons or waste lands, provision be made for leaving an open space in the most appropriate situation, sufficient for purposes of exercise and recreation of the neighbouring population; and that the committee on the bill have before them the number of acres proposed to be enclosed, as also of the population in the parishes or places in which the land to be enclosed is situate; and also to see, that provision is made for the efficient fencing of the allotment, for the investment of the same in the overseers of the parish in which such open space is reserved, and for the efficient making and permanent maintenance of the fences by such parish, to be paid out of the poor-rate thereof; and that in any case where the information hereby required is not given, and the required provisions are not made in the bill, the committee on the same be directed specially to report to the House the reasons for not complying with such standing order." He had examined a variety of the "breviates" of enclosure bills passing through the House, and he could only wish that the same attention had been displayed to the observance of the standing orders, with respect to the rights of the poor, as the clergy had evinced in looking after their interests. In one case he observed the clergyman claimed an allotment in lieu of the small tithes of geese, and the piece of ground set apart to him on that claim was worth 4l. a year. He had no objection that the clergyman should have plenty of accommodation for all the geese in his parish; but in that case, the proportion to be set apart for the poor should also be attended to. In one bill before the House, extending to many thousand acres, there were only five acres to be set apart for the poor; but one-fourteenth of the whole was proposed to be set apart for the lord of the manor. In another, no account was given of the quantity to be enclosed; but one-fourteenth was again set apart for the Lord of the Manor, and the allotment so to be set aside was to be enclosed at the expense of the general fund. In the Great Milton Enclosure Bill the quantity was 1,300 acres, while the allotment for the poor was only three acres and "not more." But the Lord of the Manor had one-sixteenth of the whole. In another enclosure bill of 500
472
acres, no allotment whatever was specified to be set apart for the recreation of the poor of the parish or district. In the Congleton Enclosure, county of Cambridge, it was provided that the quantity to be set apart should not exceed six acres for the use of the working classes, and in many others there was no account given of the quantity of acres to be enclosed, nor of the relative proportion, nor population. In the Northumberland Enclosure Bill, which included an extent of 10,000 acres, it is stipulated that the quantity shall not exceed twenty acres, nor be less than ten. And the very dangerous power was given to commissioners to knock down all cottages on the waste which appeared to them to be encroachments, on giving three months notice. In these days of commissionerships, he thought it would not be improper to have a "poor man's commissioner," to see that suitable reservations were made of ground for the recreation of the labouring classes, and to protect their rights and interests. Land might have been occupied on the waste for twenty years by a poor industrious man—the land which he might have brought into culture by his own industry after returning from his daily toil—and yet, because some great man wished to have the place included in his park, nothing was to prevent some one of these commissioners from destroying the poor man's property. It was most important that the House should throw its legislative protection over the poor, for the spirit of the times and symptoms moving around them were too plain to justify the neglect of the rights of the labouring classes. The hon. Member then brought forward his motion.
Lord G. Somersetfully concurred in the purport of the hon. Gentleman's resolution, but begged to call his attention and that of the House to what seemed to him something more than a formal objection to its passing without further consideration. In that part of the resolution which went to afford additional exercise and recreation to the people, he wholly concurred, but when the hon. Gentleman went to ask the House to lay down as a standing order the necessity of paying out of the poor-rates in the case of every enclosure bill the expense of fencing the portion of ground allotted for such purposes, he could not help thinking that in point of form there was very considerable objection to the hon. Gentleman's resolution. A regulation imposing the necessity of taking money out of the public

473
purse ought, in his (Lord G. Somerset's opinion, to be embodied in a regular act of Parliament. Though it might be possible to bring this resolution within the general rules of the House, yet he thought they would be straining those rules very far, and departing from their constitutional spirit, if they were to pass it in the manner proposed. He did not object to its principle; on the contrary, he thought the principle of the resolution was highly deserving of support. Perhaps the Speaker would state whether it would not be a more regular course to have the resolution embodied in an Act of Parliament than to pass it in its present shape; or perhaps the hon. Gentleman would consent to withdraw the objectionable portion of his resolution.
The Speakersaid, that in consequence of what had just fallen from the noble Lord, he felt it his duty to state, that one of his principal duties was to watch the proceedings of that House, and that when a precedent was about to be made which appeared to him a new one, or one which had not been clearly anticipated, to draw to it the attention of the House. This seemed to him to be in some respects a new proceeding. Here was a standing order of the House by which it was proposed, that a tax, large or small, it did not signify as regarded the precedent, but that a certain tax should be imposed. This resolution appeared to him, therefore, to be one which it would not be advisable for the House to adopt without careful consideration. The object which the hon. Gentleman had in view might be a very proper one, and might, perhaps, be met with the insertion of these words, "That provision be made for attaining the same." But he (the Speaker) submitted, that laying down specifically and positively in a resolution of this kind, that in all cases of enclosure a certain tax should be made in a particular form upon the people, was a course which the House ought not to sanction, without very careful consideration. He was not expressing any opinion for or against the resolution, but merely stating, that in its present form, they ought not to adopt it without further consideration.
Mr. Peasesupported the principle of the resolution, but protested against that part of the statement of the hon. Mover which implied, that they represented the feelings of a particular class of the community only, and were disinclined to protect the interests of the poor.
Mr. Harveysaid, that he was so well pleased to hear the observations which had fallen from the noble Lord, and entered so much into their spirit, that he would readily concur in any suggestion likely to give unanimity to that or some such resolution; and after what had been said by the Speaker, respecting the mode of defraying the expenses of fencing in, and keeping so, the different portions of ground allotted for the benefit of the people, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw the words, "To be paid out of the poor-rate thereof."
Mr. Aglionbywould not oppose the resolution, but he thought it would be much more safe if they were to say at once, that they thought it most important for the public at large, and for the interests of the poor in particular, that there should be grounds for their recreation and exercise, and that the expenses of establishing such should be paid out of the public purse, or by the parishes which were to receive the benefit of them.
Mr. Slaneyobserved, that this was a case in which the House gave to property in the neighbourhood of populous towns an additional value, but in doing so said to the owners of it, that there should be a small portion of it allotted for the welfare of the inhabitants. As a matter of justice, that appeared to him to be a very fair exchange between the parties. Property of very little value was rendered of very considerable value through the agency of Parliament, and he thought it a very fair demand to make in return, that a small portion of that property should be set apart for the benefit of the public.
Resolution as altered agreed to.

LIGHTNING CONDUCTORS.
Lord Eliotrose to move the appointment of a committee to examine into the merits of the petition of Mr. S. Harris, F.R.S., relating to his invention for the protection of ships from lightning. The noble Lord said, he did not consider nautical knowledge necessary to understand this subject, or he would not have undertaken to bring it forward. He should attempt to establish three propositions: that ships unprovided with electrical conductors, or provided only with such as were now in use, were in great danger of injury from lightning: that the invention of Mr. Harris was effective to guard against it; and that having been tried, and found so effective, it had nevertheless been discarded. There were 170

475
cases of damage within the last fifteen years, occasioned by vessels having been struck by lightning. These numbers were obtained by Mr. Snow Harris, who had been permitted by the Hydrographer of the Admiralty to inspect the Log-books of the ships, and they formed but a small proportion of the entire number. Of these 170 cases, in 100 instances, the vessels were set on fire, and of the crews, sixty-two were killed, and 111 wounded. In the case of the Repulse seven men were killed; in the case of the Sappho seventy-three were wounded, and forty severely, and in the case of Le Juste, several men were killed. No danger was so appalling to sailors as that of lightning; and within the last two years he believed, that not less than seven of her Majesty's ships had been struck by lightning. Captain Fanshaw, commanding the Rodney, in which two men were killed by lightning, stated, that he had never passed through the Levant, in which dangerous thunder storms were frequently encountered, without wishing for Mr. Harris's conductors, and added, that the Caledonia, the Asia, and other ships, which had been for a considerable period on the station, and which were provided with these conductors, had never received any damage. The second position which he would lay down was, that the invention of Mr. Snow Harris would be effectual for securing vessels from lightning. He was a gentleman well known for his scientific attainments, and no man had of late years made more interesting discoveries in that branch of natural philosophy. The House was probably aware, that the usual conductors were metal chains, which were thrown across the side of the ship, in order to conduct the electric fluid into the sea. Those conductors were usually packed in boxes, and kept in the hold, and the consequence was, that upon an emergency they were hardly ever forthcoming, without considerable delay. The experiments of Mr. Harris had been submitted to the Inspector of the Royal Society, who had appointed a committee to investigate the matter, and the result of these deliberations was a full approval of them. In addition to the testimony to the improvements of Mr. Harris, he might also add, that of Sir David Brewster. The noble Lord read a number of letters approving of Mr. Harris's plan, from officers commanding ships in which his conductors were used. It might be objected, that the expense would be great. That objection, however, was not
476
tenable, as he had a letter from a most respected and distinguished officer, which stated that the expense of fitting out a first-rate line of battle ship would not exceed 300 l.—the value of the ship was 120,000 l., so that the expense of conductors was not a very high rate of insurance. The experiment had been made in the dock-yards, and it was proved, that the strength of the spars was rather increased than diminished by the process. He was aware, that there was a great disinclination on the part of the House to become as it were a Court of Appeal from the decisions of various departments, but he thought this was a subject of the last importance, whether considered in a financial point of view, or as affecting the lives of our seamen. This did appear to him to be a question which required consideration. As he had been informed by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Wood), that the motion would not be opposed, it was unnecessary for him to say anything further, except that he thanked the House for the indulgence it had shown him. The noble Lord moved, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the statements contained in the petition of William Snow Harris, esq., F.R.S., relating to the protection of ships from the effects of lightning.
Sir E. Codringtonseconded the motion. In addition to the instances mentioned by the noble Lord, he would refer to two vessels which had been lost in South America, on which coast the effect of the lightning was most tremendous. So many vessels had been lost from this cause, that if the cost of the experiment was likely to be ten times the sum which it would be, it would be well worth the trial, for where conductors had been applied, no vessel had ever been destroyed by lightning. He could see no objection to the plan whatever.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, he should not oppose the motion. He must, however, say, that the order for discontinuing Mr. Harris's invention, had been given, not by the present Board of Admiralty, but by a former Navy Board, not less then eight years ago. He had seen the experiments of Mr. Harris, and was bound to admit, that they were very satisfactory in appearance. And if it should turn out from the evidence before the Committee, that the invention was efficient—for that was in fact the only question to be investigated, there being no doubt about the two other points—he was sure, that no consideration of expense

477
would prevent its adoption—most important as it was for the preservation of our ships, and of still more valuable lives. The tenour of the reports made by officers to the Admiralty, however, had not been favourable to the invention; indeed, there had been but one supporting it, and that was the one which had been mentioned by the noble Lord. The present Admiralty had not been aware of what was going on respecting the discontinuance of the invention.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, in his opinion it was greatly to be marvelled at, that in this present scientific age a committee should be required on the subject. Surely natural philosophy had made so far way into the Admiralty, that they knew the value of means for preventing the damage done by lightning. As to this there could be no doubt. The only question was, as to the proper means to be adopted for attaining the object. He considered, that it would be superfluous to go into the investigation of a subject that was known to every body. He thought when the noble Lord had got his committee, it would be as well that it should refrain from sitting for some time, in order that the Admiralty might make inquiry into the subject.
Admiral Adamsaid, the real question was, whether suitable conductors could be made so securely as not to be subjected to flaws which would render them rather the cause of danger than safety; that was a question that had not yet been settled to the satisfaction of the Board of Admiralty.
Sir Robert Peelthought, that the House ought not to interfere with the Executive Government, in matters of this sort; the better course would be for the Admiralty to undertake the inquiry, and appoint a commission for that purpose, consisting of four men of science, which would prevent the establishment of a precedent that might be very inconvenient.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, the course proposed by the right hon. Baronet was that adopted in the case of Kyan's patent.
Lord Eliotsaid, his only reason for bringing this subject forward was, that he might have a scientific and satisfactory investigation, and he would willingly agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. With reference to a remark that had been made by the Secretary for the Admiralty, he would observe, that experiments ought to be made under the eye of the inventor.
The motion was then withdrawn.

MANNING THE NAVY.
Sir E. Codringtonwas understood to say, that the question of the mode of Manning her Majesty's ships, which he proposed to submit to the House, had usually been treated as a party question, and had on that ground been brought prominently before the House. He hoped, however, to have the votes of hon. Gentlemen in favour of his motion, though he did not bring it forward as a party question. The motion he had to make was, "That the system of reducing the crews of her Majesty's ships in time of peace below the number required to make them efficient in time of war is injurious to the best interests of the service; and that it is the opinion of this House, that all her Majesty's ships, when actively employed, or about to quit the British channel, should, in future, have but one complement of men, whether in peace or war." In those discussions which had taken place before the House on the navy estimates observations had been made on the necessity of keeping the navy in a condition for all purposes; and one side of the House had attributed to the other great neglect, and that charge had been mutually retaliated. But there was no question but that there had been great deterioration in the navy, whether it were the fault of this side of the House, or the other; but he believed, that the navy had suffered by both parties. A great deal had been said about ships and stores by the right hon. Baronet opposite. The former first Lord of the Admiralty had said, "I launched so many ships: I did this, and I did that." Why, that was one cause of the deterioration. But the question was not about the ships or the stores, but was about the seamen. The noble Lord, now at the head of the Admiralty, did not know what a seaman was. The noble Lord had said a great deal about the ships and stores, he should like to know what this Lord knew about the navy. Every one of the Members of the Admiralty Board seemed to know a great deal about the patronage of the navy, and of the advantages of having the navy appointments in their hands; but none of them seemed to hint to understand the value of seamen, and what were the means best calculated to keep them in the service, and to keep the officers contented, and the whole of the crews in such a state as to be fit for service when required. Seamen could not learn their duties in ships which were not sufficiently manned. There must be an efficient ship's company, in order that the seamen might learn the duties they

479
were required to perform in a ship of war, and what they should do in time of war. It was very easy to undo what had been done, but it was not so easy to put things right again. By injudicious measures the best seamen had been driven from the service, and the only way to bring them back again, in his opinion, was to adopt the resolution which he had moved, that at all times, whether in peace or war, ships should be efficiently manned. He knew well, that owing to the present system the officers of the navy were discontented, and it was important that they should not be so. The private seaman of this country was a person not easy to be obtained; and when they had got him, he was of that sort of value they ought to do anything to retain him in the service. A great deal had been said about the efficiency of the navy, and about the ships and stores, which were of primary but temporary importance. Let them take the worst ships of the navy, and let them be properly manned, and if these ships were placed in competition with the best and most splendid ships, built and manned as they now were, the latter would not be able to cope with the former for one moment. It was of great importance to this country to have the ships properly manned, in order to keep up the credit of the navy with foreign countries. If Commodore Douglas had had a proper force off the coast of Mexico, Admiral Baudin would not have dared to insult the British flag, and run the risk of going to war with England, but his ships were in a miserable condition with his peace establishment when compared to those of Admiral Baudin. These were matters, he thought, which would be considered by the country of pre-eminent importance, and not matters to be laughed at. It might be thought by Gentlemen who brought forward party questions that those only were the things worth consideration: he was not of that opinion; he thought that the welfare of the British navy, and its being able at all times to do its duty, were much more important, and that which party was victorious, was a secondary matter. It did not much concern him who was Minister, or whether one party or the other were in, provided the duty of the country was done; and the duty of the country was not done when the navy was inefficient and neglected. There had been a great deal of talk about "reform;" he thought there
480
was more reform wanted in the management of the navy than in any other part of the public service. They had heard a great deal about "justice to Ireland," but they had heard nothing of justice to the navy, and they had experienced very little of it. He had before brought statements before that House, and had stated that there was no department of the public service in this country that was not doubly rewarded, compared with the navy. The most experienced officers of the navy, having seen double the service, were not half so well rewarded as the officers of other departments of the service. To come more immediately to the question, his object now was to confine himself to the necessity of having ships efficiently manned and fit for service. In looking at the past war, he might mention that they had had two captains rewarded as distinguished officers for their conduct, who in frigate actions with the Americans had been captured. He was not surprised at this; he knew very well the difficulties they had to contend with; their ships were half-manned, and the Americans were double-manned. Nothing could prove the necessity of keeping up a sufficient naval complement so much as the difficulties they had then experienced. Why would not seamen enter into our fine ships? Because they were deficiently manned. They would enter into these fine ships in preference but for that. The seamen knew very well that they could not compete with other ships to gain credit; but more than that, they could not perform the common evolutions of the fleet. Owing to the deficiency of hands, there was net a single manœuvre to be performed, which did not require that the whole of the ship's company should be employed. He had asked for a return of the desertions which had taken place from the squadron of Sir C. Paget, but the Board of Admiralty had declined giving him that return. Sir C. Paget dreaded going into port, because he knew that all his best seamen would run away and leave him. Was that a situation in which a seaman ought to be placed? He did not think there was any condition of life in which a working-man could be better off than in the navy, if he had his duty to do and no more, and proper indulgences given to him. Nothing could be more advantageous than the

481
position of a man-of-war's man in ordinary service, such as was formerly the case. But such was now the labour required, that the private seamen would not go on board these fine ships; they would rather go on board the inferior frigates—the "jackass frigates," as they were called. This feeling broke the hearts of the officers. He would tell hon. Members that there were times when more duty was required from the men than it was thought possible they could do, and when the men, if properly treated, would struggle on without sleep and do more than their duty when they had a pride in the ship. But their labour was ten times increased whenever there was an inefficient crew. Whenever there was an emergency, and it was known, with an efficient crew, there was great alacrity and exertion to save the ship; but what was it now? From the constant call for this exertion the men came upon deck unwillingly, and the officers were obliged to drive them. The officers knew the spirit of the men was gone, and were unwilling to drive them, and that was one of the worst of evils. On board a ship they called a certain class of people "idlers;" but now the idlers had as much work as any other men in the ship. He ventured to say, that by the present system not only the comfort, but the health, of the ships' crews, was destroyed. He did not affirm that the Admiralty cared what number of men they had employed, or what number of ships, but whether they had one or 100, in time of war or in time of peace, they ought to be in the condition to do their duty. If they did not want a thing, let them not have it; but so long as they had it, let them have it in a condition fit for service. On that ground he had brought forward this motion. He admitted, that it was the duty of the Admiralty to attend to the subject of his resolution, and that it ought not to be necessary to be brought before the House of Parliament. The opinion and the practice formerly were during times of peace, that ships going abroad should never have a greater reduction from the war complement than would enable them to have an efficient peace complement—that was, that the war complement should not be reduced more than one-eighth; but the present First Lord of the Admiralty differed from this opinion, and said that the complement of hands was to be reduced one-
482
fifth. Our navy was thus governed by landsmen, who knew nothing at all about the matter. There were times when the crews of the fullest and best-manned ships had been so worked down, that the spirits of the men had been in danger of being broken by too much exertion, and when it had been necessary to take some means to recover their spirit. They might get plenty of men, he knew, to do the present work, and they might call them able seamen if they pleased; but to show what they were, he would mention that the other day, when they had wanted the sails to be furled on board Captain Napier's ship, the officers had been obliged to go on the yards, and show the men how it should be done; the men did not actually know how to furl a sail. If that ship were to go to sea, so manned she very probably would be lost. If the ships were to have full complements of men, they would have prime seamen going onboard the men-of-war in preference to merchant vessels. It was quite ridiculous to talk about the expense. He was perfectly sure that ten ships manned as they ought to be, would be more efficient than twenty ships imperfectly manned. The army was governed in a different way; it had too much influence in the country to submit to be governed by civilians. The navy had not the same influence; if it had it would not be governed as at present, and would have naval men at its head. Upon the whole it was his full conviction, as he was sure it was the full conviction of the navy at large, that no ship of war ought to leave the channel on foreign service without being fully manned with a war complement. Only conceive the inefficiency of a thirty-two pounder, which ought to have fourteen men to serve it, having only nine! Without men there was no use in having ships. He had been induced to bring the matter before the House, because he believed that a proposition which asserted the necessity of her Majesty's ships having but one complement, whether in peace or war, when actively employed, or about to quit the British Channel, would have met with the concurrence of the House. He gathered so much from the sentiments formerly expressed in the. House, and indeed out of it, with reference to the subject. If his proposal did not meet the sanction of the House, he should sincerely lament it, not less on account of hon. Gentlemen themselves, than on account of the interests of the country. But he could

483
not think that hon. Gentlemen would be so false to the sentiments they had expressed again and again in that House and before the country, respecting the necessity of manning our skips of war fully, as to refuse their concurrence and support to the resolution he had moved.
Viscount Ingestrieseconded the motion. He fully agreed with those who held, that the House of Commons was not a fit body, in ordinary circumstances, to conduct the affairs of the Board of Admiralty; but when he found that the Board of Admiralty treated all applications and overtures for amendment of the present system, or any part of it, with contempt and derision, he confessed he saw no course open, but to bring questions of this kind before the House and the public. On the present occasion, therefore, he was delighted to concur with the hon. and gallant Officer opposite, from whom he differed so much on politics in general; and he would say, that as he had had the honour of sailing into action under the command of the gallant Admiral, the gallant Admiral had then led him to victory, and he hoped he would again on the present occasion. The subject had been very much discussed in former debates some time ago; since then there had been what sailors called a lull; but he hoped the hon. and gallant Admiral would blow up the breeze again. In his opinion, the statement of the hon. and gallant Admiral was highly satisfactory. He thought the gallant Admiral's positions were very strong; and he must say he had never heard a word from hon. Gentlemen or from the hon. and gallant Officers of the Admiralty to show why ships of war should not go out to active service with their full complement of men. Every one knew, be was very sorry to say, that the political affairs of the country were not in that state of harmony which one could wish, We were actually at war in Canada. A war with America seemed not so far distant us he could wish. We were at war also in the East Indies; and, therefore, he must say he thought that the Government, in refusing to put the navy on a war complement, threw out of view wholly what was the actual state of our foreign relations. But this was not all. On former occasions he had felt it his duty to allude to the difference in the rates of wages, pay, and allowances in the British and in foreign navies, and the discontent which arose among our seamen in consequence, The discrepancy was most remarkable between the situation
484
of officers in foreign services and ours. In the former the officers, in addition to their pay, had a very considerable allowance granted them for table money. In our service the officers had no allowance for the purchase of libraries and other things; in fact, they were even obliged in some cases to furnish their cabins themselves. Having thrown out these few observations on the condition of the officers, he would now come to that of the men, which was more particularly connected with the subject of the present motion. What was the first thing which the seaman found out upon going aboard an under-manned man-of-war? Why, he found himself put to the greatest inconvenience from having put upon him very much more work than proper. Every one at all conversant with the nature of a man-of-war's man knew, that of all things, he felt it to be one of the very greatest grievances to be called up in the night to go upon duty after a hard day's work. Perhaps hon. Members were not aware that the sailor was actively engaged upon deck nearly one-half of the twenty-four hours, whilst that part of his time which lie passed below he was by no means without any thing to do. Was this all? No, for, in addition to finding her Majesty's ships under-manned, he found himself rated at very inadequate wages as compared with the seamen of other nations; and although as a set off to this, the British seamen had provisions allowed, and a pension and justice, yet still his situation might and ought to be ameliorated. To give some idea of the degree in which our navy was under-manned, as compared with that of other nations, he might mention, that when he was at sea, he met an United States corvette with spars of the same length as those of his own ship, yet she had forty able seamen more than the vessel he commanded. It was said, that a habit had some time ago grown up of sending out seventy-fours with a complement of 400 men, and that it had been clone at the request of Sir Peter Halkin by former Governments as well as by the present. But, however this might be, one of the ships so sent out was the Cornwallis, the flag-ship of Admiral Sir Charles Paget, on the American station. Very shortly after she arrived out, the revolt in Canada broke out; then came the Mexican affair; and in consequence of these events the guns of the ship were obliged to be sent out in a transport. He wished hon. Gentlemen to reflect what might have been the consequence if this

485
transport had been captured on its passage out. The gallant Admiral (Sir C. Adam) surely would not think of sending out any more ships without their guns, But supposing, that the gallant Admiral repeated this experiment and sent out other ships without their guns, he asked, where were they to find men to work those guns when they were to go out? There was another matter to which, on a subject of this nature, he found it impossible not to refer—he meant the practice of impressment. For his part, till an adequate substitute was provided, he would never consent to relinquish this power of the Crown. He wished, nevertheless, as much as any man for a remedy for the evils of the system, and like every man of common feeling, he would like to see it mitigated as much as possible. Still it ought to be borne in mind, that however hard impressment might seem, in truth its working was rather less of a hardship than the ballot for the militia; for the distinction between the two plans was, that on the one a tailor, a tinker, or person of any trade or profession, might be taken from his fire side to serve; while the other meddled only with persons who had been accustomed to a water life. Connected with the subject of manning the navy, there was a consideration or two which he could not omit to urge on the House and on hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Admiralty, in his opinion, were bound to look for a supply of men in future to the mercantile navy, which had very much reduced its numbers of seamen, at least in the coast trade, since the general adoption of steam-boats. The sailor, as was well known, to naval men, could not get the same style of nautical education aboard a steam-boat as aboard a coasting vessel. Upon a view of this part of the subject, he should be very glad to see introduced a system of naval apprenticeship for the purpose of supplying able seamen to the navy. The term should be seven years, he thought; and after five were elapsed, the apprentice, if he were fit and willing, should be allowed to enter the navy. The effect of such a system would be to do away with the necessity for impressment, and render the service generally popular. It would be necessary for this purpose, however, to give the men to understand that they would be well fed and well paid, and that the public faith should he kept inviolably with them. He should like to
486
know why they should not have a committee of naval officers to take into consideration the questions of impressment, and of manning the navy in general, the latter being a question which the state of trade at present rendered in the last degree important. With regard to the motion, he hoped the gallant Officer would not only press it to a division, but also carry the point. If a war were to break out, we should have great difficulty in getting men. This might be inferred from the situation in which our ships of war were at present placed when they required to be manned on an emergency. When he was in the Mediterranean he found such miserable men on board the British ships there, as he blushed to see in British men-of-war. The fact was, the complement had been made up on a sudden, by any one that could be got to make it up, and the consequence was, that by the time they got into the Mediterranean the principal part of the crew were on the sick list. While he was on this subject he might mention, that he had been given to understand that the Talavera was a very short time ago, if not at present, no less than 110 men short of her complement. This was a most strange way of having an efficient fleet. Was it fair on the officers, or on the men, if our ships were really manned in this defective manner, to call upon them to meet the enemy, as though they were to fight upon equal terms with him? If this sytera were persisted in, where would the feeling be which once animated every British seaman, that, an English ship was invincible? Where would be the confidence of the seamen if they felt they were condemned to go into battle with an inequality in the numbers of the contending crews? In his opinion it was clear that the ships ought to be fully manned. On these considerations he would urge on the Admiralty, though he would much rather that they should do it themselves than to have it forced on them by the House, that they should inquire into these matters, and he was quite confident that the vast majority of the most competent officers in the service would agree in the observations he had made.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, that after the strong opinion that was expressed on the last occasion when this matter was discussed, against the practice which had grown up of late of introducing into the House of

487
Commons discussions upon questions of naval and military administration, he had hoped that it would have prevented a repetition of that course. He thought that the noble Lord opposite, whose acts and principles were so much at variance, by introducing every possible subject connected or not connected with the motion, had afforded a most convincing proof of the inconvenience of the practice that had been condemned. He protested against the practice; and he did so with the less hesitation, because he could not possibly be suspected of doing so in order to meet an attack upon the present Board of Admiralty. The hon. and gallant Admiral distinctly stated that this was not a party question. The hon. and gallant Admiral did not call upon the House to say, that the present Board of Admiralty only was wrong; he called upon the House of Commons to pronounce an opinion that Lord Howe, in 1783, that Lord St. Vincent, and Sir T. Trowbridge, at the Peace of Amiens, and all the other distinguished officers who had sat at the Board of Admiralty, at any time during peace, had all been wrong, both in practice and in opinion, on this subject. No person could feel more how improper it would be in him to give an opinion upon a professional question of this nature, and he was far from presuming to do anything so indecorous; but when he stated what were the opinions of so many officers not less distinguished than the hon. and gallant Admiral, he hoped the House would not be led away by the opinion of the hon. and gallant Admiral. The hon. and gallant Admiral said, that almost all captains in the navy agreed in opinion with him. Now it was perfectly well known that a spirit animated the captains of the navy which made them anxious to have their ships in the highest order, and to have as many men as they could possibly get; but he must say that the opinions of the many distinguished officers to whom he had referred, who had all commanded ships with great credit, who were not seeking to get men for themselves, and who knew from experience what was necessary to provide for the efficiency of the navy, carried with them the greatest weight and authority. The hon. and gallant Member had referred to the amount of the peace complement. Now he must say that the peace complement was at this moment higher than at any period since the war. The peace complement of a first rate was actually at this moment 220 men higher
488
than was established in 1816. The complement of a second rate was ninety-five men higher than established in 1816; that of a third rate was forty men higher; and that of a fifth rate—for the fourth rates were a new class of vessels, with which it would not be fair to make a comparison—the present peace complement of the fifth rates (and he might instance one of that class of ships to which the hon. and gallant Member had alluded, the Macedonian) was actually higher by nine men than the complement carried by the same class in the war. But the question did not refer to the amount of the peace complement; it went the full length of saying, that in time of profound peace all ships that went to sea should have a war complement. As he had maintained on a former occasion, he thought it was exceedingly absurd in time of peace to maintain our establishments on a war footing. He thought it an useless waste of men and money to maintain in time of peace the same complement as in time of war. If hon. Gentlemen only considered the difference of the service that was required to be performed in time of peace and in time of war, they would see that a great difference might fairly be made in the amount of their respective complements. In time of peace ships were not by any means so much exposed as in time of war, either to the battle or the breeze; they had not to fight their guns, and very seldom had to maintain their cruising ground off a lee shore; they were for the most part lying in the ports of friendly States to protect our commerce, so that the peace complement of men was fully adequate to the performance of all the duties that were required. War did not break out so suddenly as to leave no time for preparation, and he understood from gallant officers on foreign stations that there was seldom any difficulty in filling the complement of a ship on foreign stations, there was frequently a greater difficulty in refusing than in seeking for hands. The hon. and gallant Officer had referred to the battle of Navarin, in which he had so much distinguished himself, which was certainly a contingency unlooked for, but against a recurrence of which he trusted it was not necessary to provide. But it was worthy of remark, that this victory was obtained by our fleet with a peace complement; and at the battle of Algiers, also, there were a considerable number of ships with peace complements. He wished to impress upon the House, that in the light he viewed this

489
question, it was not merely a question of economy. He believed, that it was more advantageous to the service of the country, and a better protection to our flag, to employ a larger number of ships with reduced peace complements, than to crowd all the hands voted by Parliament, into fewer ships. As a school for officers, it was of essential importance to have a certain number of ships in commission, because although we might obtain men from the merchant service, we could not get officers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman and the noble Lord had both complained of the inferior quality of the crews at the present time. Now, from the information which he was in possession of, he believed that these complaints were groundless. He believed that in the time of the war the complements of the ships in the navy consisted on an average of one third able-bodied seamen, one third ordinary seamen, and one third landsmen. Now, in 1834, 1836, and 1838 it appeared by the returns of a very large number of ships that there were sixty-four per cent. of able-bodied seamen, thirty-two per cent. of ordinary seamen, and four per cent. of landsmen. He was aware that it was imputed to some officers that they were often disposed to rate men as able-bodied seamen who were not so, in order to induce them to join the ship. But he would instance the case of the Rodney, commanded by Captain Hyde Parker, whom he was quite sure every Gentleman in the House would acquit of resorting to such an expedient; and in this ship it appeared, in 1835, that of the crew eighty-three per cent. were able seamen, and that there was only one landsman in her. In 1838, her crew consisted of seventy-seven per cent. of able bodied seamen, and twenty-three per cent. of ordinary men, without a single landsman. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had complained of the difficulty of manning the largest ships in the service; but he would refer to the instance of the Vanguard, which was certainly not longer than usual in obtaining her hands. The longest time required by any ship to procure men since he had been in office, was the case of a small 28-gun frigate, a class of ships well manned for their size, which had actually been longer in completing her crew than the largest vessel in the service. The hon. and gallant Admiral had spoken of the great desertion in Sir C. Paget's experimental squadron in 1836, and attributed it to the hard work imposed upon the men by their small
490
numbers. If it arose from this cause, the greatest desertion would probably be in the larger ships, such as the Vanguard, whereas in fact, the greatest number of deserters were from one of the small seventy-fours; and the whole desertion in the year 1836 was less in proportion to the number of men than either in 1835 or 1837, the preceding and the following year. With regard to the want of smartness on the part of our ship's crews at present, which had been lamented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he was of opinion that it did not arise from the want of a proper number of hands on board, but from other circumstances; and he would beg in corroboration of this opinion to read a passage from a letter published in the form of a pamphlet, which was originally published anonymously; but which he believed, had since been acknowledged to be the production of that gallant officer, Captain Napier. The hon. Gentleman then read an extract from the letter of Captain Napier to Lord Melville, which was to the following effect:—
"In the latter years of the war (when the ships had full war complements), all zeal and energy were extinct in the breasts of the greatest part of the officers and men. The emulation that formerly existed was at an end, and the pride that officers felt in seeing their ships excel others in evolutions, had entirely disappeared. The Mediterranean fleet, commanded by a highly distinguished officer, was to look at, the finest, but in evolutions the most lubberly I ever beheld. I served in it for three years, and it was accounted almost tyranny by the old officers to keep a ship in anything like order."
It would be seen from this, that there was one very high authority for the fact, that a want of smartness could be shown by a full, as well as by a reduced, complement of hands; and therefore, upon this ground, he could see no argument for adopting the war complement in time of peace. As this subject had been already so frequently discussed, both here and elsewhere, he should not now enter into further observations; but, for the reasons he had stated, he would oppose the motion of the hon. and gallant Member.
Captain Pechellthought that there could not be a doubt that our ships were inefficiently manned; but, at the same time, he was quite ready to admit, that the fault did not altogether rest with the present Board of Admiralty. He could not, however, congratulate his hon. Friend below him upon the manner in which he had

491
answered the statements of the hon. and gallant Admiral. The object of the promoters of this question was, not to incur additional expense to the country, by increasing the strength of the navy. On the contrary, it was agreed that the House had voted sufficient men already, and all that was now sought for was, that those hands should be more efficiently distributed, so that our ships might be sent to sea in a state fit to compete with any foreign ships they might meet with. At the present day there was no part of the world where our ships were not liable to meet with foreign ships, when they must inevitably find themselves placed in very trying and disadvantageous circumstances, being quite unable to enter into anything like fair competition. It was not fair to refer back to the example of the latter end of the last century in this matter. In the years 1783 and 1784, circumstances were very different from those of the present day There were then no French double-banked ships, and no Russian sail-of-the-line to compete with, and it was notorious, that whilst, since the war, France, Russia, and America had been making long and rapid strides in their naval service, England had made little or no comparative progress. But when the Home Secretary referred to authorities of by-gone time, why did he omit that of Lord Collingwood, who, even in his day, complained that "not only had he inefficient ships, but inefficient officers also; young gentlemen being appointed merely on account of their parliamentary connection and interests?" As an instance of the practical inefficiency of our present service, he would refer to the case of the vessels stationed on the coast of Africa to look after pirates and slavers, and which, on taking a prize, were obliged to accompany it into port because they had not hands enough to spare to man her. He repeated again that he hoped the House would not be led away with the impression that this was a proposition to increase the expenses of the country; he declared again his opinion, that we had already a sufficient number of hands, but that they required to be better distributed. With this conviction, therefore, he should certainly support the motion.
Captain F. H. Berkeleysaid that, as a naval man, he felt called upon to say a few words on the subject of the present motion. He felt bound to say, that, as far as his experience extended, the present system tended to create disgust in the service, and
492
to destroy that esprit de corps which was so essential to it; he very much feared, that in the event of a collision with a foreign power, our flag would be—not disgraced, for that it could never be under British officers—but humiliated. The hon. Secretary talked of protecting the British flag, as if the only object was, to protect merchant vessels from piracy and aggression. If such were the sole object, he thought it would be much better attained by employing smaller ships, which would draw less water and require fewer hands. But if it was intended that we should defend our flag from insult and indignity, it was, in his mind, ridiculous to send out for that purpose ships which could not compete with foreign ships of war. On a former night he had had the honour to call the attention of the House to a letter from the hon. Sir C. Paget. He did not then mention the name; but all necessity for secrecy had now unfortunately ceased, as the gallant Admiral was no more. He would say, that that lamented officer added to all the high qualities inherent in his gallant family the best attributes of a British seaman, That gallant Officer stated in his letter, that he, on one occasion, placed all his sails below rather than expose his inability to compete with the French squadron. The gallant Admiral foretold, that if he ever came into collision with foreign ships we should surely be degraded. He would now quote the practice of a great naval power as to the mode of manning fleets—of that power that taught us such a lesson in the last war. The American frigates that took our ships had been called line-of-battle ships in disguise; but the fact was, that their forty-four-gun frigates were eighty-six tons burthen less than the Pique. They carried fifty-six guns, but they were twenty-four-pounders, while those of the Pique were thirty-two-pounders. If she had gone into action with a peace complement, she would have had eight guns mute for want of hands to work them. The members of government in that House opposed any augmentation in the crews of our ships, but all the members of Government were not of the same opinion. The noble Premier was reported to have said in another place, that he thought our ships ought to be perfect in all things. If the noble Premier was right, the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty must be wrong. The Americans in the late war acted in a different manner. When their commodore, Hull, sailed on his cruise

493
against our ships, he had a crew of 316 picked men, but, not thinking that enough, he put into the Chesapeake, and increased it to 416. With this crew he took the Guerrier, which ship at the time had only 244 men. When the American frigate, the United States, took our ship, the Macedonia, her crew consisted of 474 men, while that of the Macedonia was only 254. In the action of the Shannon and Chesapeake, Captain Broke had only 306 men, while the Chesapeake numbered 376. The noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty lately said, in another place, that our ships, as far as they were in commission, were perfect; but, manned as they were, how could that be? A noble and gallant Duke had also said, that, with a peace establishment, we were unfit to begin war in any part of the world while the fleets of other nations were on a full war establishment. He thought the noble Duke was right; and, moreover, if war were to break out, it would be impossible to send men abroad to man our ships, which for want of proper crews would be exposed to capture. The hon. Member for Birmingham, the other night, said it was possible that a Russian fleet might sail up the Thames. The Secretary to the Admiralty admitted the possibility, but, said he, "See what revenge we will take." What would the merchants of London, Bristol, Liverpool, and other ports, say to revenge of this sort? When their vessels were destroyed, would they be satisfied with the declaration that revenge should be taken when vessels were built and manned? No; they would say, their best revenge would be the impeachment of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The reign of George the 4th ought to be held up as a beacon to warn all future Admiralties. Had this motion been brought forward during the reign of his late Majesty, the Admiralty would have had the advantage of the opinion of that monarch, for no man complained more of the imbecility of the Admiralty during his brother's reign. Although he hoped the reign of her Majesty would be distinguished for the solid glories of peace and the lasting triumphs of literature, still it should be the care of that House that, if she did draw the sword in a just quarrel, she should be enabled to vindicate the character of the nation over which she presided, and to rival the glories of her great predecessor, Elizabeth. In supporting this motion, he felt he was taking a leading step towards upholding our best and
494
most constitutional bulwark—the gallant navy.
Sir C. Adam: To hear the complaint of the hon. Gentleman who last addressed them, one would suppose that our navy was in the lowest state of degradation. Sir R. Stopford, however, was of a very different opinion, for he considered the ships under his command as well qualified to bear the British flag in triumph as ever our men of war were in former times. Nobody could deny, that foreign powers had lately taken the greatest pains to put their ships in the best order. But it should be borne in mind, that there were very few French men of war afloat, and that all those sent to Mexico were experimental ships. It was true, that the French and the Russians had introduced guns of a larger calibre than those which were formerly used. We were, of course, obliged to follow their example, and to have our guns on a larger scale; but he had the authority of officers in command for saying that our ships were more quickly and efficiently worked than those which belonged to foreign nations. Much had been said of the necessity of keeping up a sufficient number of men. He admitted that, in 1836, such was the demand for seamen, that many of our ships were obliged to remain in port for a considerable time through want of hands. But the men of war which were sent on service were by no means ill manned. When British ships carried on commerce with all the ports of the world, he thought it was obvious we could get men from these ships if we wanted them. The gallant Admiral (Codrington) had asserted that there was a difference of opinion between the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty and the naval Members of the Board as to the proportion which our peace should bear to our war complement. To this statement he gave the most distinct denial.
Mr. Plumptrethought that, through false economy and false patriotism, our present establishment was too low for the honour and safety of the country.
Mr. Humesaid, they were extremely warlike in that House; but, though he had taken considerable pains to ascertain whether there was any ground for the apprehensions which were entertained on this subject by many hon. Members, he could find, out of doors, no foundation for

495
them. They were told, in a late debate, that there was not one ship too many afloat, and it was now proposed to man them according to the war complement. This he thought was a most unnecessary expense, particularly when it was reflected that there were afloat one-third more ships than they had any occasion for. It was, in his opinion, most unfortunate that the naval Members in that House should be perpetually proclaiming that our navy was unfit to compete with foreigners. He must oppose this motion, because if agreed to, it would take away a degree of responsibility from the Admiralty, to which it was most desirable that they should be subjected.
Sir E. Codringtonin reply said, even on the score of economy the hon. Member for Kilkenny ought to vote for his motion, because he did not ask for more men, but that one or two ships should be discharged, and the men drafted to other ships so that they might be rendered efficient. He claimed the vote of the hon. Member, because, by his plan, there would be a saving of stores for the ships which he wanted to be put out of commission. The present Government only continued the old system of the Tory misrule. He had represented the state of the Navy to the noble Lord and to the Premier, and to the Admiralty, but they all said the system was working very well. He would rather go to sea with ten ships well manned than with twenty ships half manned, according to the present system.
The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 90—Majority 63.

List of the AYES.

Archdall, M.

Maclean, D.

Attwood, T.

Maunsell, T. P.

Bentinek, Lord G.

Maxwell, hon. S. R.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Parker, R. T.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Pechell, Captain

Boldero, H. G.

Plumptre, J, P.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Salwey, Colonel

Courtenay, P.

Sibthorp, Col.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Farnham, E. B.

Trench, Sir F.

Godson, R.

Vivian, J. E.

Grimsditch, T.

Williams, W.

Halford, H.

TELLERS.

Hawkes, T.

Codrington Admiral

Jackson, Serjeant

Ingestrie, Viscount

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hn.G.R.

Barnard, E. G.

Adam Admiral

Barry, G. S.

Baring, F. T.

Bernal, R.

496

Bewes, T.

O'Connell, D.

Blake, M. J.

O'Connell, M.

Blake, W. J.

O'Connell, M.

Briscoe, J. I.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Buller, C.

Paget, Lord A.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Parker, J.

Childers, J. W.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Craig, W. G.

Pease, J.

Curry, W.

Pigot, D. R.

Davies, Colonel

Price, Sir R.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Protheroe, E.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Pryme, G.

Evans, W.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Finch, F.

Rickford, W.

Fitzsimon, N.

Roche, Sir D.

Fort, J.

Rolle, Sir R. M.

Gordon, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Grey, right hon. Sir G.

Scholefield, J.

Hawes, B.

Smith, B.

Hayter, W. G.

Spencer, hon. F.

Hodges, T. L.

Stanley, W. O.

Hodgson, R.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hoskins, K.

Steuart, R.

Howard, F. J.

Stock, Dr.

Howard, P. H.

Strickland, Sir G.

Howick, Lord

Tancred, H. W.

Hume, J.

Thornely, T.

Humphrey, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hutton, R.

Turner, E.

Ingham, R.

Turner, W.

Labouchere, right hon.

Verney, Sir H.

H.

Vigors, N. A.

Lister, E. C.

Vivian, right hon. Sir

Lynch, A. H.

R. H.

Macleod, R.

Walker, R.

Marsland, H.

Warburton, H.

Maule, hon. F.

Ward, H. G.

Melgund, Visct.

Wilshere, W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Wood, C.

Morris, D.

Wood, G. W.

Muskett, G. A.

Yates, J. A.

Nagle, Sir R.

Noel, W. M.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Sir D.

Dalmeny, Lord

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Stanley, E. J.

LIGHTING THE HOUSE.
Sir F. Trenchwished to preface his observations by an apology to the Speaker for his observation when he made a complaint on Friday night.
The Speakerassured the hon. Member that no apology was due to him. He should have been most happy to have entertained his complaint, but he did not prefer it in a regular manner.
Sir F. Trenchshould not have felt satisfied without having made the apology. He had often heard the Speaker say, that he was the servant of the House. Now, in his opinion, the Speaker was their master. He regarded him as a schoolmaster, the great majority of whose pupils were as riotous, as untoward, and as undisciplined a body of youths as any pre-

497
ceptor ever controlled without the power of corporal punishment. The complaint he had to make was, that though the extra number of lights ordered had been restored, yet that they were more of an inferior quality, so that 240 candles gave no more light than 180 did before. There never was a more dangerous, a more injudicious, or a more impracticable experiment than that which was about to be made. If he had given comfort or satisfaction even to a small portion of the Members, he should feel amply rewarded for all the trouble he had taken on this subject. He had as hon. Members were aware, taken much trouble to obtain for the House the best possible light, but he should now wash his hands of it, and leave it to the proper authority, the Office of Woods and Forests, which was responsible for it. The hon. and gallant Officer concluded with the following motion:—
"That it is essential to the safety of this House, and to the health and safety of its Members, that a report be obtained from competent scientific authorities, whether the adoption of the oleo-oxygen Bude light, may not expose this House and its Members to the danger of explosion, or to the minor annoyance of a tainted atmosphere, from any trifling accident.
"That there be laid before this House an estimate of the probable expense of the experiment of the oleo-oxygen Bude light now in progress. Also, of the probable expense of the machinery proposed to be employed to produce this light. Also, of the estimated nightly cost of the light to be produced. Also, of the proposed mode of remunerating the patentee, whether by salary, by contract or by gift."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhoped the hon. and gallant Member would withdraw his motion, until the experiments about to be tried were proved to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory; and he thought the House of Commons might be better occupied than in wasting their time with discussions of this sort, which could only make them look ridiculous in the eyes of the public
Motion withdrawn.

JAMAICA—SUSPENSION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The House again heard counsel against the Jamaica Suspension Bill, till nearly midnight and then adjourned.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earls of VERU-
*Mr. Burge's speech was published in a pamphlet, which we mention for the inform-
462
LAM, GREY, CAMPERDOWN, RADNOR, and MINTO, and Lords BROUGHAM and LYNDHURST, from a number of places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By Earl STANHOPE, from a place in Somersetshire, against the Poor law Amendment Act.—By the Marquess of BUTE, from the Synods of Glasgow and Ayr, for the Repeal of the Catholic Emancipation Act; from two places, for Church Extension in Scotland; and from another place, for Church Extension in Canada.—By the Marquess of DOWNSHIRE, from Newbury, against any further Grant to Maynooth College; and against the injurious influence of the Catholic Members upon the Established Church.

MULLINGAR.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that some time ago the noble Marquess opposite had laid on the table certain papers relative to an inquiry respecting proceedings that had taken place at Mullingar. But these not appearing to him to afford sufficient information, he had on a subsequent occasion moved for the production of additional papers. Since that, however, he had heard nothing on the subject. His name had, in the course of the correspondence, been, as he conceived, most improperly introduced by the noble Marquess and Lieutenant Drummond, the noble Marquess's secretary. It was natural for him, under the circumstances, to feel and to express some anxiety as to the time when those additional papers would be laid before the House; and therefore he should the day after to-morrow move that they be produced forthwith.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he had written to the proper officer some time since, to remind him that such papers were called for, and to press for their speedy production. He could assure the noble Marquess that not the least desire existed on his part, or on the part of others, to delay the production of the papers, or to withhold from the noble Marquess all the information he desired. He was not aware that the name of the noble Marquess had been improperly used.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid his name had been used in the abuse of official power. The noble Marquess might now think that this was a trivial matter, but at a future time he might not perhaps consider it of so light a nature as he did at present.

DEANERY OF EXETER.
Viscount Melbournemoved, that the House go into a Committee on the Deanery of Exeter appointment Bill.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, when on the
tion of any persons studying the question, but it is not thought necessary to reprint it in these debates.

463
preceding evening the Deanery of Exeter Bill was under consideration, it would be in the recollection of the House, that the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government was pleased to say on that occasion, that the Chapter of Exeter, as he understood, did not claim the free election of the dean, but that they were recommended to claim free election by their Bishop. As to any recommendation which he had given, he was perfectly ready to explain and justify it. But he had to remind the noble Viscount, that he had appealed to him at the time to which he alluded, as filling a higher character than that even of a Member of their Lordships' House—as a man of veracity and honour—whether he had not perceived in the correspondence that had taken place on this subject, that a claim to free election was put forth by the Chapter? That appeal not having been answered, he then gave notice that he should this day move that certain papers illustrative of the claim of the Chapter of Exeter to free election should be laid before their Lordships. An objection was made to the production of these documents which certainly carried some weight with it—namely, that great inconvenience would arise from laying before the House matters connected with private and confidential opinions, and the correspondence between the noble Viscount and the Chapter of Exeter was, it appeared, considered in that light. That being the case, he did not mean to persist in the motion of which he had given notice; but he should address himself to that part of the speech of the noble Viscount in which the noble Viscount said, that the Chapter of Exeter, as he understood, had not claimed the right of free election, but that the Bishop was desirous to recommend that course. Now, he held in his hand the letter from the Bishop of Exeter to the Chapter, dated the 10th of April, 1839. It was a long letter, but he should read from it all that related to this particular point. The noble Viscount knew that he had no objection to this recommendation of his coming to the hands of the noble Viscount. When he was written to by the noble Viscount for the purpose of inducing him to aid in placing in this situation the person nominated by the Crown, he had answered that he would give no assistance, but that he would state to the Chapter what were his views and feelings on the subject. He
464
should now, with the permission of the House, read the recommendation which he had given on the subject of the right of free election in the Chapter of Exeter. He there said—
"In the outset I must entreat the Chapter to bear in mind the peculiar position in which I may be placed in the further progress of this affair. If, indeed, my own personal feelings only were concerned, I should not think of troubling the Chapter on the subject, but I address them as their Bishop, as, in that character, having not only the right and the duty of judicially confirming their election, but also the solemn obligation of an oath, taken at my enthronization, 'to defend the rights and liberties of this Church.' That oath, with God's blessing, I will faithfully observe and keep; and in keeping it, I cannot doubt that I shall have the full and fair co-operation of the body, whose cause I am bound to maintain. Now, of 'all the rights and liberties of this Church,' the right of free election of its head, the Dean, if it legally belong to the Chapter, must be considered one of the most important. This is not the time when it would become me, even if I were fully informed and resolved (which I am not), to pronounce a decisive judgment. But enough has passed, and is notorious, to justify me in entreating the Chapter to give their close attention to the question respecting the right, to satisfy themselves fully upon this point, and if they shall be satisfied that the right is theirs, to assert and act upon it. This appears to me to be not too much to expect of them, in co-operation with their Bishop, who, I repeat, is bound by his oath to defend that right, if it exist, and is resolved to observe the oath by which he is bound. Having thus stated what I think to be the duty of the Chapter, if they shall, on due consideration, be satisfied that they have the right of free election, let me now as explicitly state what I think ought to be their course, if they shall be satisfied that they have not the right. In that case, I hope that they would not only not resist the claim of the Crown, but that they would afford every due facility in giving effect to it, by suggesting and forwarding any expedient which their knowledge of the statutes and usages of the Church may enable them to propose. But a third case may be put, as one very likely to arise—that, without being fully satisfied, they may have a strong inclination of their judgment. Now, if this should happen, I must not scruple to avow, that in my opinion the Chapter, having undeniably a primá facie right of free election, ought not to surrender it to any less authority than the decision of a court of law, or at least the plainly and distinctly expressed opinion of some great lawyer, as Sir W. Follett eminently is, consulted by themselves, on their own behalf, and thus made responsible for the opinion that they have not by law a right of free election. Without such an

465
authority, if they surrender, they will, I fear, lay themselves open to the just reproach of sacrificing the rights and liberties of the body, which it is their and my common duty to defend, and, as far as in us lies, to perpetuate."
Such (continued the right rev. Prelate) was the advice which he had tendered to the Chapter. The noble Viscount had now heard what he had written to the Chapter. He, acting in the performance of his sworn duty as Bishop, required of the Chapter to assert their rights, if such rights they had; but if the right of free election was not in the Chapter, then he counselled them not to resist the claim of the Crown, but to afford every facility for carrying it into effect. He had thus guarded himself against the supposition, that he meant to recommend resistance; though some persons had declared, and most erroneously considered, that he had recommended that course. The last person who ought to have made such a suggestion as the noble Viscount had last night made was the noble Viscount himself, and if the noble Viscount recollected what he had written on the subject, he would feel that this was the fact. He alluded to a letter addressed by the noble Viscount to another noble Viscount, a Roman Catholic Peer, connected with Ireland, who, however, had not been chosen a Representative Peer for that part of the United Kingdom. That letter was written in reply to an application made to the head of the Government, recommending a clergyman whom that Roman Catholic Peer thought to be a fit and proper person to receive the appointment to the Deanery of Exeter. The noble Viscount, the first Minister of the Crown, couched his reply in those terms of courtesy which he always used whenever he took pen in hand, for then he was deliberate and calm. The letter contained expressions of regret at being unable to comply with the request preferred to him, adding that the Deanery of Exeter was not in the gift of the Crown. If the noble Viscount never had written any such letter, he begged that he might be then interrupted, and if wrong, set right. [Lord Melbourne said, it was very likely that he had written some such letter.] The occurrence was not only likely, but had actually taken place. He was ready to mention names and dates. The clergyman who had been so recommended lived in the capital town of the county in which the noble Viscount from whom the application proceeded resided, and so delighted was that rev. person with being made the subject of correspondence
466
between the first Minister of the Crown and the noble Lord in his neighbourhood, that he went about the streets of the town, showing the letter of the noble Viscount on the Treasury Bench, in which there was an excuse offered for refusal on the ground that the appointment was not in the Crown. An account of this correspondence reached him (the Bishop of Exeter) a day or two before the meeting of the Chapter, and he lost no time in making them acquainted with the facts. His communication on this subject reached the Chapter at the same time with the letters patent from her Majesty, recommending the appointment of Lord Wriothesley Russell. Was it after that to be supposed, that the Chapter would take it as a matter of course, that they were bound to appoint the individual whom the Crown recommended? The correspondence which ensued, clearly showed that the Chapter had never given up its right of free election. He would now, with the permission of the House, read an extract from a statement made on this subject by the precentor; it was dated March 27, 1839:—
"The law officers of the Crown and Sir William Follet have given their joint opinion, that 'according to the usage and the charter, the Dean must necessarily be elected from the body of prebendaries.' We consider this opinion communicated to us by Sir William Follett, to be decisive, both in its letter and spirit, that the Deanery of Exeter is not in the appointment of the Crown, but in the election of the Chapter. My letter of the 23d informed your Lordship of the intention of the Chapter to elect."
On the 4th of April the Chapter had a meeting, at which they agreed to this minute,—
"That the Chapter are advised, that under the charter of erection, and the usage that has prevailed, the appointment to the Deanery of Exeter is not, and never was, legally vested in the Crown; that it is an elective office to which the Chapter must elect one of their own body; that for nearly 300 years the usage has been to elect one of the prebendaries who had previously been elected a canon residentiary; that the Chapter has been in the habit, in the election of their Deans, of receiving the letters patent as conveying no more than the recommendation of the Crown, but whilst they do not admit that they are bound by that recommendation, the present body have no wish to depart from that usage, provided the person recommended be duly qualified according to the custom of their Church."
On the Saturday following, one of the prebendaries was sent to London under the authority of the great Chapter, a body

467
which, when full, consisted of twenty-four members. Dr. Bull, who came to London on this mission, addressed on the 20th of this month a letter to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, which he would then, with their Lordships' permission, read to the House:—
"On the 10th of April, the great Chapter met on a special summons to take the whole case of the vacant Deanery, with the opinions of the law officers of the Crown and Sir William Follett, into their consideration. It was then found, that the prebendaries present were adverse to any legislative interferences. They desired to abide by the law as it stood, thinking it unfair that the restrictions which the Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension Act imposed on all parties should be partially removed."
In fact, my Lord, all parties were influenced by one motive, and one only—to pay as much respect as possible to the wishes of the Crown consistently with the due maintenance of those rights which they believed to belong to the several members of their cathedral in their respective stations—the greater Chapter, the lesser Chapter, and the visitor—rights which they had all and each most solemnly sworn to defend. I have now only to add, that sinless the great Chapter should recede from the opinion contained in the enclosed minute, and give up their objection to any partial legislative interference, the lesser Chapter of residentiaries would, I apprehend, feel very considerable difficulty in proceeding to elect Mr. Grylls into their body in the face of that minute, and without the certainty that he would finally become Dean. It was plain from this, that the great Chapter claimed the right of free election. Having thus put the House in possession of the facts connected with these proceedings, and laid before them the views of the parties concerned from the documents to which he had referred, he should not trouble their Lordships further, and should not oppose the motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that he was glad that the right rev. Prelate had given up his intention of moving for documents, the production of which would unquestionably be liable to objection. He conceived that the statement made by the right rev. Prelate very little altered or varied the case. What he had stated was, that the Chapter of Exeter had never claimed the right to free election. He did not mean to say, that they had not
468
reserved any right which they might have, but that they had given up the claim to free election, for, admitting that for three hundred years the appointment had always been made on the recommendation of the Crown, throughout the whole course of the correspondence the Chapter represented to him over and over again that it was not their intention to depart from the usual course and practice. Though they reserved the right they had, yet there was not, in any part, an assertion in fact or reality of the power of free election. He thought that the right rev. Prelate had strongly recommended the Chapter to insist upon the right to free election. He had taken that upon the representations of those to whom the right rev. Prelate wrote the letter. He thought that the right rev. Prelate had instigated them; but he did not wish to press upon that point. The right rev. Prelate said, "Respect your oaths. You are bound to maintain the rights of the Church—recollect you are bound to support what you have and possess against any encroachments; and if the right be yours you are bound to assert it." The right rev. Prelate had taunted him (Viscount Melbourne) with want of faith, and he said that when he took pen in hand he was a little more calm. The same observation might apply to the right rev. Prelate himelf. With respect to the letter which the right rev. Prelate had referred to, he (Viscount Melbourne) had some recollection of having written it. He, however, had no precise recollection as to whom it was addressed. The right rev. Prelate had praised his (Viscount Melbourne's) courtesy. That only showed him the folly of too great courtesy in replying to the letters he received. He seized upon it, perhaps, too eagerly, and he undoubtedly had written the letter without ground or foundation. It was the mistake of the persons who had given him the information. From all the communication he had had with the Chapter of Exeter, he believed that they were anxious to carry into effect the recommendation of the Crown, and to act in unison with the House; and he had no doubt, if their Lordships would permit them to remove the obstacle by passing this bill, the matter would be settled to the satisfaction of all parties.
House went into Committee.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that in his opinion the object of this Amendment Act was, that the Crown on the one side, and

469
the Chapter of Exeter on the other, should be placed precisely in the same situation with relation to each other in which they stood previous to the pasing of the 7th Wm. 4th., the Act of last session, and that was the principle on which he had voted last night for the second reading, and now for going into Committee; but he thought that this bill went further than was necessary for that object. The bill which was now presented to their Lordships, as amended by the noble Lord opposite, went further than the clause sent up by the House of Commons; and he now wished that it might be brought back to the state in which it had been sent up by the House of Commons.
The Bishop of Exetersaid that, in conformity with the noble Duke's suggestion, he would move the omission of the clause in question, and the substitution of words to the effect, that "nothing in the recited Acts shall prevent the collation or appointment of a canon residentiary to any canonry or prebend which shall have become vacant by any of the causes which shall have caused or may hereafter cause the vacancy of a deanery, when it has been the practice that the dean should be elected or appointed from the canons residentiary or prebends." He had great gratification in thinking that he was proposing a measure which must receive unanimous consent. The noble Duke opposite had just approved of it. The noble Viscount must consent to it, because it was a clause which he must have assented to in the Cabinet, and it was one which had been adopted by the unanimously-declared opinion of the other House, who, without a division, had sent up the amendment alluded to by the noble Duke.
Lord Broughamthought that the object of all parties might be simply attained by omitting the four words "nominated by the Crown," which gave rise to the objection of the rev. Prelate. That course would leave the question of right, which he understood to be sub judice, entirely open; and the whole matter would be left as the noble Duke had suggested.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that there were other objectionable words, viz., these—"for the purpose of qualifying to be appointed by the Crown."
Lord Broughamthought they might be left out too.
The Bishop of Exeterwould be satisfied if both passages were left out.
The Lord Chancellorsaid that the omis-
470
sion of the latter words would entirely alter the character of the bill.
Lord Lyndhurstthought that if the four former words were left out the object of the right rev. Prelate would be answered.
The Bishop of Exeter—No; he could assure the noble and learned Lord it would not. He acknowledged his object was to have the amendment of the House of Commons.
Viscount Melbournesaid he would consent to the proposition of the noble and learned Lord (Brougham), but not to the omission of both passages.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he had thought that the clause of the House of Commons provided sufficiently for the object in view; but if the noble and learned Lords thought the omission of the four words mentioned would equally accomplish it, and the noble Viscount would consent to that, he thought the right rev. Prelate had better withdraw his amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Bill passed through Committee and was supported.