Sitting of 4 March 1839

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a first time:—Clerks of the Peace; Controverted Elections.
Petitions presented. By Mr. V. STUART, from Waterford, for Municipal Reform (Ireland).—By the ATTORNEY GENERAL, from the Sugar Refiners of Leith, for the Importation, duty free, of Raw Sugar, the produce of Free Labour; also for a lower duty on Coffee.—By Sir ROBERT INGLIS, from the Clergy of Windsor, against the fourth Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.—By Mr. MORRIS, from Monmouth, for an Equal rate of Postage.—By Sir EDMUND FILMER, from the Arch-Diocese of Canterbury, against the Ecclesiastical Revenues and Duties Bill.— By Colonel GRANT, from New Spinle, for Church Extension in Scotland.—By Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, Sir JOHN YARDS BULLER, and Messrs. E. ELLICE, Jun., F. MAULS, BAINES, LISTER, H. MARSLAND, BANNERMAN, and DENNISTOUN, from a great number of places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Sir J. GRAHAM, Lord ELLIOT, and Messrs. ROUND and HURT, from several places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.

MEXICAN BLOCKADE.
Viscount Ingestriewished to ask a question of the Government, or rather of the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Admiralty,

1163
namely, whether any negotiations were pending, or had taken place, between the Government of this country and the Government of France, relative to the late outrage committed against the British flag? This injury had created a great feeling in the country; and he was anxious to know, also, whether any fresh information had been received from Commodore Douglas?—for if there had not, he gave notice that he would move, on an early day, for the production of the letter of Lieutenant Croke.
Mr. C. Woodreplied, that the Government had received no further communication since the noble Lord first asked the question. In answer to that question, he had, in the first instance, said, that on the receipt of the intelligence, Government had determined to make a representation to the French Government; but before this determination could be executed, a dispatch was received from Commodore Douglas, informing the Admiralty, that as soon as he had arrived at Vera Cruz, he had received a satisfactory explanation, but he did not state what that explanation was; and having reason to expect a fuller dispatch, he thought it was better for Government to wait till they were possessed of full knowledge before they took another step.
Mr. S. O'Brienwished to know, whether any indemnity had been given to the Mexican pilot who was taken from the British vessel?
Viscount Ingestriewould like to be informed, whether there was any objection to produce the letter of the lieutenant?
Mr. C. Woodobjected to its production till the whole transaction was in a more forward state; and he must say, that he thought the mode in which this subject had been treated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, was not a mode becoming the dignity of that House."
Mr. Goulburnsaid, it was a rule that questions were not to be put argumentatively, and he must say that by the same rule answers ought not to be given argumentatively. By so doing, they were giving an unfair advantage to one side of the House.
Captain Pechellhad a question to put, which he thought not beneath the dignity of the House, nor against its rules. It was a question, too, which he did not wish to be mixed up with any negotiations be-
1164
tween the French and English Governments. Did the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of the Admiralty, intend, when he had information not now in his possession, to lay all the information on the Table of the House; and in particular, did he intend to lay on the Table the log-book of the Express packet whilst she lay at Vera Cruz?
Lord John Russellsaid, that a reply to the question must depend on a consideration of the intelligence which might arrive. It was impossible for the Government, not having received all the information, to pledge itself beforehand to produce any particulars; but when the information arrived, the opinion of the Board of Admiralty and of the heads of the other departments would be collected upon it.

FACTORY COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the order of the day for a Committee of Supply.
Lord Ashleywould avail himself of that opportunity to bring under the attention of the House a subject which, as he conceived, affected the privileges of the House and the character of some of its Members. He had no commission to speak of names other than his own. He spoke only on his own behalf; and as his name had been so frequently introduced into the report of the factory commissioners, he could not suffer the report to pass unnoticed. The House would see the painful position in which he was placed. It was impossible for him not to notice this document, and yet, to do it, he must step between hon. Members and the most important business before the House; he would have delayed his motion had it not been certain that he should have been liable to imputations if he postponed it. The House would recollect that last year a committee of that House sat to inquire into 'the combination of workmen in England, Scotland, and Ireland, which committee reported the evidence to the House. Since that time a report had been made, pursuant to an Act of Parliament, by the inspectors of factories, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The report written by Mr. Stuart, the commissioner for Scotland, contained charges against some persons, not only in their character as Members of Parliament, but also on their conduct as Members of committee, commenting upon their speeches, and imputing to them the very worst of motives. Had these imputation been made

1165
in any newspaper, in a speech at any public meeting, or in any correspondence which might have come to his knowledge, he thought, considering the nature of the charges and the source whence they arose he should have treated them with the utmost contempt; but when a Government officer in a report, delivered in the discharge of his duties under an Act of Parliament, put forth serious charges and imputations commenting on the proceedings of that House and bringing in a vast quantity of extraneous matter—when such a report had been received by the Secretary of State for the Home Department—when it had been sanctioned by his authority, and when he had advised the Crown to do what was not required by the Act, to lay it upon the Table of that House, having thereby made the sentiments contained in it his own—and when in addition to all this, he found, that the report was to be printed and circulated at the expense of the public, it assumed a most important aspect, and he felt bound to call upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department either to maintain the charges contained in the report, or to withdraw them. The matter was entirely voluntary on the part of the Secretary of State; the Act required the Commissioners to report to him, but it did not require him to lay the report before the House; and with respect to the Commissioners themselves, the Act bound them down to the points they were to report upon. They were to report the condition of the factories and mills, and the state of the children, and they were to say whether the several factories and mills were conducted according to the provisions of that Act, and of the laws of the realm. When, therefore, the noble Lord saw a report containing extraneous matter having nothing to do with the factories, making charges against Members of that House, and against Committees of that House, instead of presenting it to that House, the noble Lord might have said to the Commissioners, "Your report is not in the terms of the Act, and beyond your jurisdiction, you had better, therefore withdraw it, and send in one more suitable to the occasion;" But the noble Lord took no such course; he had not said so; he had adopted the report; he had adopted the allegations it contained; he had laid it upon the Table of the House, and he had thus lent to it the sanction of his high office, and he had caused it to be printed and circulated at the public expense. In the first place, he
1166
complained of what was contained in p. 53, where it was said,
"The only legitimate object for which the Committee was appointed, was 'to inquire into the constitution and proceedings of any combinations of workmen or employers of workmen,' an object altogether foreign to the inquiry which the Committee was instituted to carry on, which was 'with a view to show the impracticability of the provisions of the Factory Act, and its systematic violation in the cotton spinning factories at Glasgow.'"
The mildest charge, therefore, was, that the Committee had violated the order of reference for purposes exclusively their own. In the same page he found it stated,
"The intention of the Committee to institute such an investigation was in no way made known to the factory owners in Glasgow, or generally in Scotland.'
What these intentions were he did not know, and he called upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if the Committee had such an intention as was suggested, to prove it. This he held to be a very strong point. The report went on—
"The course followed by the Committee in concealing their intention to include in their inquiry the enforcement of the Factory Act is the more liable to animadversion, because one of the Members of the Committee, previous to the examination of the three cotton spinners, had a private meeting with theta, when he specially interrogated them respecting the alleged animadversion of the Act, and its violation in Glasgow."
There the Committee was charged with having designedly and purposely concealed their real objects from the factory owners, and for that proceeding they were liable to severe animadversions. That might be a fair charge for the noble Lord to make in his place; but he asked whether the noble Lord thought it was within the jurisdiction of an inspector of factories thus to comment upon the proceedings of the Committee in a public document, notwithstanding the privileges of the House, and then to circulate that report through the country at the public expense. Now, involved in that sentence, there was also a personal charge:
"It is the more liable to animadversion, because one of the Members of the Committee, previous to the public examination of the three cotton spinners, had a meeting with them."
Would the noble Lord say who that was? [Lord John Russell: I don't know.] There was the difficulty. The noble Lord laid on

1167
the table a document containing a charge against some one he did not know. It was a personal charge against some one Member which the noble Lord sanctioned with his authority, and ordered to be printed; and yet he now said he did not know to whom the charge referred. [Mr. O'Connell: It means me.] No doubt the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was perfectly capable of defending himself against any charge. There was another charge against the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, in which he (Lord Ashley) believed the hon. Member would not acquiesce. The next passage to which he wished to refer was in the 54th page. This was an allegation which affected himself personally, not so much for his conduct in the House as in Committee. It stated that
"Messrs. Houldsworth, Todd, and M'Naught, the three cotton spinners examined by the Committee, were selected by a meeting of the cotton spinners of Glasgow as the fittest persons to appear before the Committee as witnesses; and it may therefore be assumed, that more respectable or better informed individuals could not be found: yet not a single question respecting the operation of the Factory Act was put to Messrs. Houldsworth and M'Naught; and when Mr. Todd, in answer to Lord Ashley's second question to him, said, that he took no children under thirteen, his Lordship did not put another question to him."
He would state to the House how the matter really stood. In answer to the 522d question which was put by Lord Granville Somerset, "Can you state what proportion of labour is displaced by the new machinery, the self-acting mules?" Mr. Todd said, In the self-acting mule the spinner is entirely displaced. The same number of hands are used of little children to keep it in order, but the spinner is totally dismissed." Lord G. Somerset afterwards asked, "How soon do you take your children into your work?" and the answer was, "We do not take any in below the highest ages allowed by the Act, thirteen years old: you can take them in at under age, but there are certain restrictions of working short hours and giving them education." Then it was, that he (Lord Ashley) asked the single question, "Do you take none under thirteen?" and Mr. Todd answered "None," and there it ended. Upon this question thus thrown in, was brought a charge of some unfair dealing, the whole scope of which he could pot quite gather. He perfectly recollected
1168
that when the witness said he took no children under thirteen years of age, he wished to ascertain this point: he had been told, that in many mills in England and Scotland the masters anxious to be quit of the burdensome provisions of the law had determined to employ no children under the age of thirteen, or those restricted to eight hours labour a-day. He, therefore, wished to know whether this was one of the mills. He put this question, and having received the answer he was satisfied. How was it possible, to a charge so indefinite he could give a more definite answer. The noble Lord might smile, but he would say, on his word of honour as a gentleman, that he had no other intention or motive. He had no intention of going into the Factory Act, and he had no view, distinct or indistinct, towards an exhibition of the inoperative parts of the Factory Act. He wished merely to ascertain the simple fact he had stated, and on the answer he had received he rested; and yet on this was grounded an accusation, that (if he was to judge from a morning paper of the day) a person more unfair, more disingenuous than himself, did not figure in the House or out of it. But again, in page 54 of the Report, it was stated, that "the examination of the combined cotton-spinners, and of Mr. Alison, was conducted, so far as related to the Factory Act, in such a way as could not fail to inform the witnesses of the answers most agreeable to their interrogators. Thus, Lord Ashley, interrogating Angus Campbell, asks, 'To your knowledge the Act is set at defiance?' Words which the witness never used, and which imply a very different meaning from those which the witness did use." Now, he must be permitted again to refer to the minutes of evidence, from which it would be seen, that he was not the party who moved the inquiry, but that the culprit was the hon. and learned Member for Dublin who opened it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked, "Is it your opinion that the law is honestly worked out by not taking in children under nine years of age, or do you think there is any fraud?" The answer to that question was, "I must say distinctly, that the operative cotton-spinner is necessitated to overlook the law, and in order to keep his machine moving, to take children below that age." Upon that, he (Lord Ashley) came in with the question, "To your knowledge is the law set aside?" Answer, "Yes." The hon. and learned Attorney and Solicitor General may smile, because the question might not

1169
have been put according to strict legal forms, but he believed it was put in a manner usual in committees of that House. Being surprised with the strength of the witness's language, instead of adopting his expression, "overlook the law," he (Lord Ashley) merely put the question, "To your knowledge is the law set at defiance?" And was not the law put at defiance? Is not a law set at defiance when its main provisions are actually and systematically disobeyed? Could that be doubted when the witness told the committee, "I most distinctly say, that the operative cotton-spinner is necessitated to overlook the law in order to keep his machine moving." And was it right that such a charge as that contained in the report should be grounded upon these two questions—the only two on which the charge was built against him in the report of Mr. Stuart, adopted by the noble Lord? In pages 58 and 59 the report went on with a number of special charges against him, which he thought the noble Lord had better have made in his place in that House, instead of in a public document, and thus sheltering himself under the guise of a report. In pages 55 Mr. Stuart said, "Having now explained enough of the circumstances connected with the proceedings of the committee to prove them to have been entirely of an ex parte description, and very questionable in other respects, I am now to submit to your Lordships, &c." Would the noble Lord say in what it was questionable? Would the noble Lord state that this was proper language to be used by a Government officer in reference to proceedings of that House? If the noble Lord really entertained those sentiments, it would have been more becoming his high station to have made them the grounds of a substantive motion. In the same page the committee was said to have made assertions which the inspector declared to be calumnious, but that charge might be answered by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, from one of whose speeches an extract was given. In page 59 Mr. Stuart had these words:—"If I had adopted what seems to be Lord Ashley's interpretation of the law, that the inspector is bound to prosecute for every offence against the Act, whether wilful or not." And in page 60 was the following passage:—"The very last case noticed in my first report (report of December 31, 1836) appears to me to furnish a good example of the bad consequences likely to result from adherence to the rule which Lord Ashley seems to
1170
consider to be absolute, to treat offenders against the Factory Act with as much rigour as midnight robbers and murderers." He asked the noble Lord opposite to show him anything which he had ever said or done that justified the application of such terms to his conduct. He asked whether these were proper or even decent expressions by a paid Government officer to be put in the shape of a public document and remain on the records of that House? The next point was one upon which he could not refrain from insisting, because he did think it a matter in which the House was bound to interfere, not as referring to his own character, but inasmuch as it affected the character of the House. Was it fair that any person should be permitted to impute such base and unworthy motives the those who had thought it to be their duty to undertake a very onerous task, exposing them, too, to much obloquy; a task, however, which they had taken on themselves solely through a sense of public duty, The following passage was in page 56:—
"The real object of all the advocates of the Ten Hours' Bill is altogether different from the avowed object. They probably deceive themselves into the belief that, by their endeavours to have the present law enforced with strictness, by leaving with the inspectors no discretionary power as to prosecutions, and thus converting the law into a means of oppressing the manufacturers, the are, to some extent at least, forcing the factory occupiers into a compliance with their favourite scheme; but their chief aim, although their prejudices and prepossessions may render them blind to it, is to pave the way for a Ten Hours' Bill, by disparaging and bringing the present law into discredit."
That might be the opinion of the noble Lord opposite, or it might not; but he would ask the House whether they would justify the imputation of these wholesale charges against the motives of hon. Members, and, above all, whether an individual holding an office in the pay of the Government, and appointed to discharge defined duties, should be permitted to travel out of the line of those duties, for the purpose of throwing foul charges and base imputation against hon. Members, whose sole crime had been to give their conscientious support to a measure for limiting the labour of children in factories? Had he (Lord Ashley) ever inveighed against the bill in terms so strong as those which had been employed the other evening by the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary of State? If he had

1171
spoken for a week, he could not have said a tenth of what that hon. Member had said in reprobation of the system, and he held that nothing could more completely than that language justify the course which he had pursued for so many years. This was the sum of the charges and insinuations which had been levelled at the committee, and at those who had acted in accordance with him in this matter. There were also spread throughout the report a great many charges and insinuations against himself personally; buts as they involved no charge against him as a Member of Parliament, he had too much respect for the House to trouble them with a matter which might be considered merely personal. But as to the other charges contained in that report, to which he had already specifically referred, he Would say that the noble Lord opposite was bound to bring them forward in a more tangible shape. He was bound to give him every opportunity of refuting those charges, and explaining all these hints and dark surmises, which could not fail to discredit him somewhat in the general estimation of the country. There was only one point directed against himself personally to which he thought it necessary to advert, inasmuch as it seemed to involve; not a breach, but the misuse, of privilege. He wished the noble Lord to observe that he laid some stress Upon this, because he found in the Morning Chronicle of that day an attack upon him, a very sharp attack in many respects, and which, as it followed the circulation of the papers in question, he certainly believed was dictated by the contents of the report. The article to which he referred was particularly severe upon him with reference to the fact of his having presented a copy of the evidence taken before the committee to Mr. Macnish, of Glasgow. In page 31 of Mr. Stuart's report was the following passage:—
"I found on arriving in Glasgow early Us August, that James Macnish was already in possession of the printed minutes of evidence—that is, of the first report of the committee On combinations, which he stated had been sent to him by Lord Ashley. Not one of the master cotton-spinners was then in possession of those minutes."
If the master-spinners had not provided themselves with copies of that evidence it was their own fault. He had bought the copy in question at the establishment which Mr. Speaker bad instituted, so much to the convenience of the House. He bought it many days after the report had
1172
been put into circulation, and when it was publicly on sale. The noble Lord indicated his acquiescence in what he said. But he trusted that the noble Lord would also see how extremely hard it was, that for no greater an offence than this, for doing that which might have been done by any other individual, he should be held up in a political document of this kind to public view as an individual, having abused his privilege as a Member of Parliament. The whole report was full of things of the same description. He would not at that moment enter into them, because be had already trespassed but too long on the indulgence of the House. He had to express to the House his gratitude for the attention with which they had heard him, but he would not inflict upon them matters of a purely personal character. In short, he held the noble Lord to have received a report which was not warranted by the terms of the Act, which required a mere report upon the state of the factories; whereas the report, in the present instance, was filled with insinuations and personal charges against Members of that House. The noble Lord had taken the report without inquiring into the facts of the case—a report containing serious charges against hon. Members, and one especially made against a party of which the noble Lord admitted that he had no knowledge; and yet the noble Lord laid such a report upon the Table of that House, had it printed and circulated throughout the country at the public expense. He put this question to the noble Lord, as a Secretary of State, and more, us a gentleman—would he withdraw those charges, or did he concur in them, and (if he concurred) would he substantiate them? Let him do one or the other, to him it was indifferent which course the noble Lord took. Would he stand stiffly by the charges, or have the candour to say that they had been rebutted, and were not to be considered as emanating from him?
Lord J. Russellinquired, whether the noble Lord had said all that he intended to say in support of the statement with which he had set out at the commencement of his speech—that in this report the worst motives were attributed to certain Members of that House?
Lord Ashleystated, in reply, that he considered the gravamen of his charge to be fully maintained by the paper which he had already read from page 56 of the report, which charged himself and other hon. Members with having tampered with

1173
the law of the land, with a view to the forwarding certain private speculations of their own.
Lord J. Russellwas glad that he had asked the question, because the answer had drawn his attention to the precise ground of complaint. With respect to the whole matter, he must say, that the charge against the noble Lord—if it were to be called a charge—was, that he had listened to persons who had described horrors not worthy of belief. That was the whole of the charge. But throughout there was no statement of a charge; but the real fact was, that it was a defence on the part of Mr. Stuart against statements made in that House. It was stated publicly in that House, and particularly by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that the Factory Act was not in any way put in force in Glasgow; and it happened that during that debate the noble Lord desired, that in fairness the evidence given before the Committee, but which was not reported, should be stated to the House. The fact, however, was, that it did get abroad, and when the report was printed, it was found that it charged against Mr. Stuart not merely that the Factory Act had not been put into operation at Glasgow, but that he, being a factory inspector, and being bound, if he had the power, to carry it into effect, had reported to the Secretary of State from time to time, in seven or eight reports, that the act was generally carried into effect—the fact being that it was not, and that its provisions were violated every day. He said, then, that there could be no heavier charge made against a man than this. Was he to say to Mr. Stuart, "You are charged with a violation of your duty—you are charged with snaking false representations to the Government—you are charged with a total ignorance or a concealment of facts which passed daily before your eyes; that the charge is made by a Member or Members of the House of Commons, but I tell you that you must submit to it, and you cannot be allowed to have the means or the power of proving the falsehood of those charges." Was he to say that to any man who was employed in an office subordinate to his own? He felt that if he had done so, be should have been treating that individual in a way which was unworthy of him, and in a manner which he was not entitled to do; for if he had said so, he might have said, "The noble Lord may make his charge, but it is not competent to you to say a single word, to utter a single syllable,
1174
to deny the allegations, and to urge that you have acted properly in the discharge of your duty." In fact, the object of the report was the defence of Mr. Stuart. It was, as the noble Lord had said, in pursuance of the provisions of the act to show the manner in which children had been employed under the statute; but in showing that, how could he but show that the allegations that children had been employed in violation of the act were not true, or that the cases which were stated had escaped his attention, or that when they were brought under his attention he had taken due notice of them. That was Mr. Stuart's duty, and he owned that without calling upon him to make any defame, he should have given him some six months longer with these charges hanging over him, without expressing any opinion' upon the subject, but that then, if no explanation were offered, he should have said, "This is most extraordinary conduct on your part; you have permitted it to be said that the act has not been carried into effect within your department in Glasgow, and you have, by your silence, admitted the truth of the charges;" and he, acting under his impression of the circumstances stated, should have thought it his duty to dismiss him from the situation which he held. Then, allowing Mr. Stuart to enter into his defence, was he to make his answer a secret? Was he to say, "It is very true that you have given me reasons which satisfy my mind, but I will not inform the House of Commons?" What had been the course of the noble Lord? He made this charge against the Government for laying the report before Parliament, but he thought that he should be able to show the noble Lord that in doing so he was acting in concurrence with his opinion. The year after he had come into office he desired that there should be more frequent and particular reports made than were before required, and that the inspectors should give him an account of all the mills which they visited, and that superintendents should also give to the inspectors an account of their duties. He did this thinking that this was the course actually in accordance with the wishes of those who were always calling the attention of the House to the Factory Act, and of those who said that the inspection under the act was neglected, and he conceived that its doing so he should be carrying into effect the wishes of those who always told hint, at least, that they desired that the act

1175
should be observed. But it seemed that he was mistaken in the opinion which he entertained, and that the charge was to be allowed to be made after the House had received the report. The noble Lord had brought forward the subject in a very singular shape, and the inferences which he had drawn were still more singular, but it was competent to him to show that all these statements were mistaken, and that what he had originally maintained in that House was correct, and that Mr. Stuart, although naturally eager in his own defence, had not wrongly stated the facts of the case. He did conceive, certainly, that he was responsible for nothing more than allowing the defence of Mr. Stuart to be brought before the House, and he believed that the Factory Act would be best carried into effect by allowing general statements to be made in reference. He imagined that it was one of the principles of justice that men who were charged with the commission of any offence should be allowed to revise what they had done, or to amend their proceedings, or to defend themselves against the charges brought against them. But if they were to be told that men were to make no defence—to submit to charges being preferred in silence—they could not expect that any man who had the least regard for his reputation—who had the least regard for his character—would consent to hold one of those offices of factory inspectors, in which they must suffer such injustice. In the very beginning of his report Mr. Stuart gave what passed in the Committee. He first gave the question of the noble Lord—"To your knowledge the law is set at defiance?" and then the answer was, "It was a matter of necessity: the mills would stand if such were not the practice." The opinion of the person giving the evidence being, therefore, that it was necessary to overlook the law by taking young children in below the age of thirteen for twelve hours work, and below nine years for eight hours work; and, in fact, that the machinery would not be kept moving without it; and the noble Lord who had put the question in this particular form, now said, in explanation of the point, that he did not mean that there was a wilful disobedience of the law. But there was another question in the same page with regard to the master-manufacturers and their conduct to the spinners. The noble Lord asked, "What rule do they lay down to the spinners for the employment of children?" Now any one
1176
would have thought that a person desiring to elicit the truth would have stopped there; but the noble Lord having had pervious information, on which no doubt he fully relied, went on "Do they not tell them that they must have children in at all hazards?" Why, if he had merely asked the rule laid down it would have been sufficient, but by asking the witness whether it was not said that the children must be had in at all hazards, he suggested an answer which the witness gave in saying "Yes, or drop their work." Then in page 30 the noble Lord said, "Has it been one of the objects of your late combination to enforce the observance of the law for regulation the labour of the children in the factories?" and the answer was, "As far as the hours of labour extend, that had been one of the principal objects of our Association, but we have not interfered in any point, such as enforcing the schools. It is my opinion that the hours would be lengthened by many of our employers were it not for our Association. This and several other questions were put by the noble Lord and other Members of the committee, and the answers were given by Angus Campbell, James M'Nish, and John M'caffer. The observations which were made contained a charge against the factory inspectors, and in particular it was pretended to show that the Act had been frequently violated, and Mr. Stuart accordingly entered into a great deal of proof to show that no willful neglect had taken place; that the Act had been observed, and that he had not stated those willful falsehoods in his report to the Secretary of State which it would be believed he had be any one who attended only to the statements made before the committee and before this House. He then came to the passages of which the noble Lord had complained. It was difficult for him to ascertain which of them it was that imputed to him that he or any other Member of the House had been actuated by the worst of motives; and he could only gather from it that there were certain persons in Glasgow and other places, whose object it was, to obtain a ten-hours bill, and who would go great lengths to do that; and that several Members of that House, among whom was the noble Lord, had adopted their views upon the subject; and he conceived that the might be done without derogating from the opinion of any Member of that House, because some entertained different opinions. The part which had been read was this:—

1177
"The intention of the committee to institute such investigation was in no way made known to the factory owners in Glasgow, or generally in Scotland; nor, which is more remarkable, to Messrs. Houldsworth, Todd, and M'Naught, the three factory-owners from Glasgow, who were in London at the same period with the three cotton-spinners, and were at the same time examined by the committee on that inquiry, for which alone the committee was appointed. These gentlemen left London on their return to Glasgow, in utter ignorance that the committee had put to the three cotton-spinners a single question respecting the operation of the Factory Act."
Now he (Lord J. Russell) did say, with Mr. Stuart, that until an explanation was afforded, and the noble Lord had not condescended to give any, it must appear to be a remarkable circumstance that these three cotton-spinners should have been examined at such great length as to the operation of the Act, more especially as a statement had been founded on that very examination by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that the Act was not enforced, and as the master-spinners had not been questioned upon the subject, and he did not think that it was a sufficient answer to say, that if the peculiarity of that circumstance was pointed out by any individual, he was guilty of a breach of privilege. On the other hand, however, he must express his opinion that a man might fairly say in his defence to a charge made against him, that witnesses were examined who were prejudiced against a particular course, and that those who were able to give testimony in opposition to their evidence, were not examined. In page 54, this question was given: "Are children taken under the age of nine?— No; I cannot say that there are any under the age of nine." Now, he must say, that this question at least showed that those who asked it were instructed that there were children under the age of nine, in order to bring that fact out if possible. [Lord Ashley: By whom was the question asked?] Mr. Stuart did not give the name of the Member; it was stated by him as part of his defence. The paragraph was in page 56, upon which the noble Lord founded his statement, that a charge was made against him and against other Members of that House, of their being instigated by the worst motives. But what was the statement in the report? The paragraph began thus—"Campbell and M'Caffer, two of the witnesses before the committee, when examined on oath at Glasgow, before the superintendent of factories, and the
1178
overseers of those factories, declared, that they knew of no instance of any child employed contrary to law, in the factories where they are employed; and M'Nish, when examined at Glasgow on oath, declined, although pressed, to specify any one case of violation of the Act, 'because, (as he alleged) he believed, that the children he named would be put out of employment.'" Mr. Stuart then went on to observe on this subject, and to remark upon the omission to specify cases, and then he continued "the answer is, I apprehend, too obvious, that the real object of the advocates of the ten hours law, as well as of those who deprecate legislation on the factory question, and who take a part in such proceedings as those of which I have found it necessary to complain, is altogether different from the avowed object." He certainly read this as being intended to apply to the witnesses, and all those who agreed with them upon this subject, and to all of them Mr. Stuart said, that they were advocates for the ten hours bill, and that in pursuance of their object, they endeavoured to show, that there could be no practicable factory law for children, that they all endeavoured to decry legislation upon that subject, and that they said, that those laws which were already in operation were not observed, and that none which could be framed would be observed. Was that the case which the noble Lord endeavoured to support in the Committee? If the noble Lord said, that it was, and that no act could be carried out with regard to children, and, further, that he was an advocate for a ten hours' bill in the case of adults, he must say, that he should hear such a statement with extreme surprise. He never heard, that such were the principles which he professed; and he should not, therefore, say, that the noble Lord was one of those who were included in the charge made by Mr. Stuart against those who advocated a ten hours' bill. The noble Lord had asked him, did he adopt this report. Why, he did believe, that there were persons concerned in promoting a ten hours' bill who went to very great lengths, and their opinions with respect to the present act, and of carrying it more completely into effect. They thought, that by decrying the factory act, and enlisting the humanity of those who were supporters of the interests of the children, they would get a ten hours' bill. He believed, that that was the case; he did not know whether the noble Lord was an advocate for the same measure also; but

1179
he did not believe, that he or any other Member of the House was included in the denunciation contained in the report. It was a denunciation, that there were those who deprecated the present law; but the case was not brought forward on that point. The blindness the noble Lord showed on the subject, he must say, was somewhat extraordinary: for he took the names of the witnesses who were examined, and he identified himself with them, and then he chose to say, that this was a breach of the privilege of Parliament, and must be intended against the Members of that House. He (Lord John Russell), however must certainly deny that interpretation, for the report did not hear it. That there were persons in Glasgow who had been employed in endeavouring to procure a ten hours' bill, and engaged in a manner far from doing them credit, he would assert; but he must say there were also persons, who, as Mr. Alison said, would take any means to carry their object into effect. But did he say, that they were Members of that House who were engaged in that conspiracy? Certainly not. There were three classes of persons, within one of which the noble Lord might be included. The first consisted of those who were anxious, for the sake of the children, to have the hours of labour limited, and to see, that the provisions of the law were carried into execution. There were others who were engaged in promoting a ten hours' bill; and then there was a third class who came within the description given by Mr. Alison, who said "Their principle is to carry their objects into execution, if they can, by legal means, and, if that will not do, by illegal means; and then, in the last instance, they will come to anything, to fire-raising, or murder, or anything that they choose." That was the account given of them by that gentleman, he being himself an advocate for a ten hours' bill. To say, however, that the noble Lord, because the evidence had been answered, was accused of lying under a charge of the nature he described, was, he apprehended, a complete mistake, for he thought there was a total absence of proof, that he was accused of investigating this subject with any motive but such as was extremely praiseworthy and proper. He was aware, that Mr. Stuart alleged, that many errors had been committed, and he must say, that he thought the noble Lord was so blinded by his zeal on the subject, that he often listened to persons of discreditable character, who were
1180
totally unworthy of belief, while he rejected the testimony of those who were persons of integrity and truth, and on whom he might rely with confidence. He made this charge against the noble Lord—he charged him with excessive credulity of all that was said of the hardships of the factory system, and of an excessive incredulity with regard to all that was said in its defence; but, in the end, as he had already said, he did not think, that the noble Lord was charged in the manner which the noble Lord had described. He in his situation in the Government had laid the report of Mr. Stuart upon the Table of the House, and he thought, that that individual, having been attacked, ought to be allowed to make his defence; and he certainly was of opinion, that the truth would be more likely to be ascertained by allowing a person to make the best defence he could to the accusation made against him than by other means. At the same time, however, he could not but say, that there were some phrases in the report with regard to the Committee which he should recommend to be struck out; but while he expressed this opinion he would never say to a man "You are arraigned in your public situation—you are exposed to the world as a person committing the greatest cruelties—as a man who neglects his duty, and misleads the Government by whom you were appointed; but mind—you are a person who must not venture to say a word in contradiction of the Member of Parliament, or of what is stated against you by a Member of Parliament; and, therefore, by tyranny and injustice, your defence shall not be presented to the world."
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, that he would not occupy the attention of the House many minutes; but be must say, that he did not think that the noble Lord who had just resumed his seat, had put the point very fairly to the House. The question was, did the noble Lord opposite adopt that portion of this report wherein all persons concerned in these proceedings of which the report complained, were charged with entertaining one object when they professed another. With regard to the credulity of his noble Friend (Lord Ashley), the noble Lord might well apply his remark to him (Lord G. Somerset), and to every other Member of the House, if they believed the explanation given by him of these passages of the report. The noble Lord had said, that the observations of Mr. Stuart applied to the persons who

1181
were giving evidence before the Committee; but how did he mean to take away the effect of the expression used in page 56, "that all persons who took a part in the proceedings were those of whom he complained."
Lord John Russell: The whole paragraph must be taken together, as I have already read it.
Lord G. Somersetwas content to do so; and upon the context, he contended that it was the proceedings of the Committee of which Mr. Stuart complained. If, however, the noble Lord withdrew this expression used in the report, and said that something different was intended, he had no doubt that his noble Friend behind him would be sufficiently satisfied with that sacrifice of the English language to him. He begged the noble Lord, however, to turn to page 32 of the report, and there he would find evidence conclusive of the meaning of the observations subsequently used. It was there said,
"The testimony of the three cotton-spinners, and of Mr. Allison, as given in the report of the Committee, would have been contradicted, however, not only by the evidence of the witnesses examined before the Combination Committee, had they all been examined respecting the observance of the Factory Act; but, as I am now to show, even by their own testimony, had they been cross-questioned, or examined by individuals conversant with factory employment, and warped by no prejudice in the proceedings."
Now, was that an expression proper to be used? It did so happen that he had taken part in the proceedings; and he was certainly warped by no prejudices, and he wanted to know what right had an inspector of factories to throw out an accusation against the Members of the Committee of being warped by prejudice, when it was known that they all exercised an independent and impartial judgment? This was what he complained of; not that Mr. Stuart should defend himself, but that he should accuse others. If the committee did not examine the manufacturers, was it their business to go to seek for them? There were friends of the manufacturers on the committee, Members from Scotland—the Lord Advocate, for instance—why did not they inform the manufacturers of the proceedings? The noble Lord opposite and Mr. Stuart, poured out the whole phials of their wrath against his noble Friend, and said, that he really sought one object while he proclaimed
1182
another. But it was extremely difficult to find out from the noble Lord's speech, whether he approved of the sentiments in the report or not, as while in one place he objected to certain phrases, in another he stated that he thought that Mr. Stuart was entitled to his defence. In his opinion, the whole report of forty pages consisted of insinuations against the committee. That committee was appointed at the suggestion of the noble Lord, and the right hon. President of the Board of Trade was one of its members.—[Mr. P. Thomson: I never attended.] He was perfectly aware, that the right hon. Gentleman had been inattentive—and therefore he complained, that those who had done their duty should get blame. If the right hon. Gentleman had attended, he would have got his share of the blame; but, having absented himself, he now shirked the blame. But there were two Members of the Government who attended, and even objected to the mode of examination. He did not know if they ever said anything—but he was quite convinced they then objected to the examination. But the inquiry they were now blamed for, was actually forced on them. What were the facts? The cotton-spinners were accused of combining for illegal purposes; and their answer was, that they were forced into the act by their position. Would it have been just, when persons wished to lay before the country their reasons for combining, that they should be refused a hearing? That might be the doctrine on the other side of the House, but not on that on which he had the honour to sit. With regard to the questions attacked, they were those of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who was quite able to defend himself; but Mr. Stuart further alleged that there was no man on the committee competent to examine a witness; and when it was recollected, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was the cross-examined, he would leave the matter between that hon. Member and Mr. Stuart. But the Lord Advocate was present; and he certainly would not have sat still while injustice was committing. The fact was, that Mr. Stuart's name was mentioned; and, indeed, the motion of his noble Friend behind procured for that gentleman's report, more of his attention than he should otherwise have given it. He was certainly not conversant with the working of the factory

1183
system, but he could not go along with Mr. Stuart in saying, that Manchester and Glasgow would be much worse if it were not for the factories. Further down, Mr. Stuart said—
"Besides taking the children out of harm's way, they have imbued them with regular, orderly, and industrious habits. Their earnings are considerable, and are a considerable assistance to their parents; at the same time, that they make them perform their tasks with a zeal and alacrity that is rarely manifested by apprentices serving without pay, merely that they may learn some art, trade, or mystery. Many factories have also day-schools or Sunday-schools, or both, attached to them, which the children attend. But, independently of this, the training they undergo in factories is of inestimable value, and is not more conducive to their own interests than to those of the public."
Now, he certainly believed, that the factory system, when well conducted, was of course much better than when ill-conducted; but, under any circumstances, he could not believe it fortunate for children of nine years of age, to undergo confinement. He might be warped by prejudice, but, on the whole, he should be sorry to give anything like warm approbation to the factory system.
Mr. O'Connellwas really surprised to see such excellent argumentation and such lofty indignation expended on a very trivial affair. It was, indeed, quite true that no Members could have acted with more impartiality, or with better motives, than the two noble Lords who had just spoken. But he was really surprised that the noble Lord (Ashley) should have considered the vindication necessary, or should even think it imperative on him to enter at all into this discussion. He would defy any one who had read that report, to say that he (Mr. O'Connell) was not the person who was principally attacked in it. He quarrelled with Mr. Stuart for two things. First, because he disparaged his (Mr. O'Connell's) powers of cross-examination, which he thought exceedingly discourteous, because he was an old lawyer, and also a Member of Parliament; and, next, because he said the committee had gone out of their way in the examination, in having had some members of the combination and the Glasgow Cotton-spinners Association, brought before them. He saw two or three of those persons outside the House, and he thought it would be giving fair play to the enemies of the
1184
combinators, to examine them. They had made out a complete case, if it were true; but, if it were false, it was a paramount duty to take care that the House did not act upon it. And he would have been obliged to Mr. Stuart, or any one else, who should show them that they were mistaken. Mr. Stuart reproached the committee, for not having examined the master manufacturers. The noble Lord did put one question to a master manufacturer, and obtained a negative answer, which precluded further inquiry. This was before the evidence of M'Nish—and Mr. Stuart was wrong in blaming the committee for not having put those questions to the master manufacturers, the necessity of which they could not have known until they had heard M'Nish. But the fact was, Mr. Stuart was a little angry when he wrote his report. No doubt he would have done his business better if he had written in a better temper. Still it was natural that he should have felt so, for if the evidence were true, it showed that Mr. Stuart had violated his duty—that he had neglected that for which he had received the public money, and to do which he had taken an oath or made a declaration. The evidence went hard on the master manufacturers, who, if the charges were false, ought to be defended. But he did not think that the noble Lord was at all disparaged by the passages in the report which the noble Lord complained of. It was not for him to counsel the noble Lord—nor did he want to obtrude a compliment upon him, but the fact was, the noble Lord stood too high in the estimation of his friends and the public to be affected by such imputations. There was no man who must not admit that his exertions and his anxiety on the factory question had been influenced by the most honourable motives. He, differing as he did, from the noble Lord in politics—a difference which he had never ventured to disavow—felt it now his duty to state that, in the opinion of all who knew him, the character of the noble Lord was not in the slightest degree tarnished by Mr. Stuart's aspersions. The noble Lord had, he submitted, therefore, quite enough of this affair. He would also, as he had already said, excuse Mr. Stuart for his hasty language, as he had been accused of neglecting duties which involved an obligation of the highest order of humanity—namely, the protection of those children

1185
on whose behalf the Factory Statute had been enacted. He would now sit down, repeating what he had set out with asserting—namely, that no two gentlemen could have acted with more strict impartiality than the two noble Lords who had last addressed the House.
Mr. Goulburnwas glad the matter had been brought forward by the noble Lord, as it would contribute to stop, at the very first outset, a practice which, if allowed to be continued, would very materially affect the privileges of the House; for if it were to be allowed that individuals employed by the Government, and paid with the public money, might come forward and make charges against Members of that House as regarded the manner in which they performed particular portions of their duty, the effect would be very serious on that freedom of examination and discussion which was essential to the due performance of it. Mr. Stuart, too, had directed his attack against the noble Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire: but the charges against Mr. Stuart, out of which had arisen his report, were made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He well remembered what took place on that occasion, and he could not help asking why the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, did not then stand up and defend Mr. Stuart, instead of calling on him to defend himself in a special report. He must also be allowed to say, that he conceived it to be the duty of a Secretary of State, when laying official documents such as the present on the Table of the House, to take care that no matter was allowed to be contained therein for which, had it appeared elsewhere, the writer might have been brought before other legal tribunals. He was glad to hear the noble Lord opposite bear testimony to the purity of his noble Friend's motives. His noble Friend's character stood fairly before the public, for no one who had observed his course with regard to the factory question could doubt, that his motives were most pure, and that he was actuated by the most enlarged benevolence towards the persons employed in factories, who were, indeed, already reaping so much benefit from the measure which had resulted from his exertions.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite asked why the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home
1186
Department had not stood up in his place and rejected, when it was made, the statement that the Factory Act was not observed in Glasgow, he must have totally have forgotten what took place in the debate in question. On that occasion he had answered, and as he believed, conclusively, the accusation. He then quoted certain passages from the evidences of the witnesses, for the purpose of proving, that the charge then made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin and the noble Lord opposite was unsupported by the facts. The charge in question was founded on the evidence of the witnesses M'Nish M'Caffer, and Angus Campbell, the effect of which was, that Mr. Stuart had neglected his duty, and that the mill-owners of Glasgow had been accessory to that neglect. Mr. Stuart, therefore, was bound, not merely on his own account, but in justice also to the mill-owners of Scotland, to give the most effectual refutation to this charge. He did not resort to the written defence until he was actually compelled to do so by the noble Lord's refusal to afford him any other means of refutation. Did not Mr. Stuart call on the noble Lord to name any one instance where there had been a violation of the Act, in order that an investigation of the circumstances might be made? Did not the noble Lord refuse to name any such particular case? And did he not also decline to go and judge for himself personally whether the facts stated were true or false? If the noble Lord was so situated as not to be able or ready to afford Mr. Stuart the opportunity of refuting the charges by personal observation, and if the noble Lord refused to specify any one particular case in which there had been a violation of the law, was not Mr. Stuart justified, compelled, in justice to himself, to take the only course open to him, the course of which the noble Lord had complained? He must say he was surprised at the ready credence given to the evidence of the witnesses in question. All the three had been for a long time members of the Combination Committee, and were prepared to go any lengths to attain the objects of the combination; and Angus Campbell had been committed as an accessory to a murder committed by the combinators, when he remained three weeks in prison. Yet it was on the evidence of such witnesses as these that

1187
charges had been made against Mr. Stuart. That gentleman had, in his opinion, acted quite justifiably in the course which he had taken for the purpose of refuting such charges.
Lord Ashleyhad by no means desired to preclude Mr. Stuart's right to defend himself; on the contrary, he had been anxious to give that gentleman every opportunity so to do. What be objected to was, that in defending himself be should have thought it necessary to cast what he felt to be a foul and unfounded imputation on an individual Member of Parliament. It was quite true, as the hon. Gentleman opposite had just said, that when the charge was made he (Mr. F. Manic) did contradict certain allegations; but he did so in a very different tone and temper from that of this report. As the noble Lord opposite, however, had given up his position, and seemed very frightened at the noise himself had made; he should not pursue the matter further.
The subject dropped.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE—PENSIONS.
Question again put, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Humehad a few observations to make before the House went into Committee; and, as the hon. and gallant Member opposite was not in the House when the order of the day was read, he had no right now to go on. That to which he was anxious to call the attention of the House was a matter which really did belong to the order of the day, for it had direct reference to the public expenditure. For some years past he had seen, with regret, that the expenditure of the country had gone on increasing. It was very natural that gallant Officers on both sides of the House should contend for the extension and improvement of the services to which they belonged; but he was for reducing our expenditure to the lowest possible point. He held in his hand a return recently laid upon the Table of the House, from which some curious results might be deduced. When in 1822, Lord Bexley, being Chancellor of the Exchequer, the dead weight loan was made of 13,000,000 l., there was a half-pay list civil and military of 5,000,000 l., and that loan was then granted on the calculation that the accumulation of officers, who had served during the war, would, in the course of fifteen or twenty years, be so much re-
1188
duced, that the saving of pay then appropriated to them would he sufficient to pay off the loan. Certain rules were then laid down respecting pensions and promotions, which were to be so restricted as only to take place according to the wants of the service; from which great savings undoubtedly would have arisen, but they had never been adhered to. On the contrary, it appeared, that in every department, promotions had taken place to as great an extent as during the war; and now, seventeen years after that loan was raised, they had, within a few pounds, the same amount of dead weight as in 1822. The half-pay, civil and military, now amounted to 5,000,000 l.—equal to the whole expense of the civil list, army, navy, ordnance, and every department of the State in 1792. This showed, clearly, that there must be something wrong in the system; and that unless some extensive and decided remedy were applied, the people never would get that relief which they had a right to expect. They had had peace, but with none of the blessings of peace, and with all the expenses of war. He, therefore, appealed to the house whether that was not a fitting opportunity for taking into consideration the whole question of the general expenditure of the country with a view to its reduction. He lamented that so little attention was paid to financial matters in that House. They were at present utterly ignorant of the fact whether they had a surplus or a deficiency of revenue. They did not know whether they had not a deficiency of from 2,000,000 l. to 3,000,000 l., and how the debt of last year had been paid. The estimates for the navy and army this year was 600,000 l. more than last year, which again was 600,000 l. more than the year preceding; where, then, were they to stop? How could any relief from taxation be expected if this system were persisted in? In 1836 the expenditure was 48,787,000 l,; in 1837 it was 50,819,000 l., and in 1838, 51,319,000 l., showing an increase of expenditure in three years of more than two millions and a half. The revenue of 1836 amounted to 50,498,000 l., in 1837 to 52,895,000 l., and in 1838 to 50,592,000 l., being only 97,000 l. more than in 1836, while the expenditure was more than two and a half millions more than 1837–1838. From an official paper laid on the Table of the House, and made up to April, 1838, it appeared that the net revenue of the country was 46,096,000 l., while the expendi-

1189
ture was 47,596,000 l., showing an excess of expenditure over income of 1,500,000 l., leaving altogether out of view the expenses which had been occasioned in Canada. When the proper accounts were furnished, he had no doubt it would be seen that the excess of expenditure over income last year was upwards of 2,000,000 l. sterling. Under these circumstances, he thought he was justified in calling upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give some account of the state of the revenue up to the present time, and of the mode in which he proposed to make up the deficiency. With an empty Treasury, and a deficiency of two or three millions, they should certainly have no more reckless expenditure; nor should they, like spendthrifts, be unwilling to look at the real state of their accounts. Government ought no longer to allow the public credit to remain in its present doubtful condition; they should be compelled to give the requisite explanations before a single shilling of the estimates was voted. If the deficiency could not be made up by revenue, the next question was whether the House was prepared to sanction a new loan, which must always impose additional taxes on the people? He thought, he had a peculiar claim upon the present Ministers to give the explanations he required, because, when he pointed out similar excesses under previous Governments, they had always joined him in his demand for further reductions. He complained, however, that when they themselves had the power they had not exercised it in making those reductions which the country had a right to expect. The expenditure had gone on increasing for the last three or four years, and yet there was an outcry in certain quarters for larger establishments. He should be glad to hear any reason why the naval and military establishments should be kept up to their present extent. In his opinion, a large portion of those establishments might be dispensed with, which were now merely kept up for useless parade and show; the army especially had one-third of officers more than any other army in the world. As the best way in which he could take the sense of the House upon this subject he should move to substitute the following resolution for the original motion:—
"That it appears, by an account laid on the Table of this House, that the net public income of the United Kingdom of Great Bri-
1190
tain and Ireland, in the year ended the 5th

day of April, 1838, was

46,090,544

And that the Expenditure in the same period was

47,519,076

Showing an Excess of Expenditure of

£1,428,532

over the income of the Country in the year up to that period:
"That the estimates of Army Services for the year 1838–39, were £6,062,216, and £6,199,810 for the year 1839–40, showing an increase of charge in this year of £137,600 more than in the past year:

"That the gross Estimate for Navy Services in the year 1838–9, was

4,960,911

Whilst the Estimates for the year 1829–40 are

4,459,374

Showing an excess of

£498,463

More in this year than in the past:
"That, with such an apparent increase of £636,063, in the Estimates of the Navy and Army alone, more in this year than in the past, and with so large an excess of expenditure in the year ended the 5th day of April, 1838, it is expedient, before the House vote any part of the Supplies for either of these departments, that an account of the state of the Revenue and Expenditure of the country, made up as near to this period as it can be, should be laid on the Table of this House, with an explanation of the manner in which the excess of charge is to be provided."
Sir E. Codringtonwas one of those who thought the present state of the navy insufficient to maintain the honour and interests of the country. He considered himself as competent a judge as any Lord of the Admiralty upon a question of this sort and his opinion was, and he was sure if the officers now employed could be brought to give their evidence they would coincide with him in the opinion, that the ships sent to sea were not in a condition creditably to do what in cases of difficulty would be expected of them. When he talked of a man-of-war, he meant a ship fully competent to perform all the duties that might be required of her, whether in battle or otherwise; but the complement of ships in the present day was not sufficient to enable them to do their duty to the flag under which they fought. He was prepared with a resolution upon the subject, which he would move to-morrow.
Captain Bolderomaintained that he had a better right to make the motion of which he had given notice than the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who had given no notice whatever. He was glad, how-

1191
ever, that he had given way, for he had been highly amused with his speech. He admired the consistency of the hon. Member, who, the other evening, after speaking against a grant of 2,500,000 l. for railroads in Ireland, when it came came to the division voted in favour of the proposition, and now came forward with a motion to reduce the naval and military establishments of the country, when it was notorious, looking to the state of the world—with a war in India and a war in Spain—they required to be kept up in a much more effective state. With respect to the motion of which he had given notice it would be recollected that he had moved for a copy of an order in Council the other night, the production of which it was said would be an infringement on the prerogative of the Crown. The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty had issued to the Deputy-Adjutant-General an order, dated 12th July, 1837, which stated, that "no marine should be allowed a pension for length of service, except with reference to the length of his service at sea or abroad; that twenty-one years' service should be requisite to entitle him to a pension, that two years' service on shore should only reckon as one afloat, and that no marine should be entitled to a pension who had not in that time served ten years at sea or on foreign service." Was that order correct or was it not? [Mr. C. Wood "Yes"] Then here he took up his position to attack that order. Whoever penned it must have been ignorant of all the details of our sea-service. Such an order could not have emanated from the Lords of the Admiralty or from their Secretary; for those Gentlemen must of course be acquainted with all the details respecting the management of our navy. It must have originated with some of the clerks in the financial department: for no man, who knew any thing of the navy, would have ventured to subscribe his name to such a document. It was a moral impossibility to act upon such an order, either wholly or part. "No marine to be entitled to a pension unless he has served ten years at sea or on foreign service." Why, that would exclude from pension all persons connected with the staff of the marines—all the sergeant-majors, all the drill-majors, all the musicians—all the band. For instance, a sergeant-major might have served eight years afloat, and fourteen years at home, making altogether
1192
twenty-two years of service; but as a sergeant-major was never ordered upon sea service, or upon foreign service, he never would have a chance of earning a pension. The same was the case with the drill-sergeants. Now none of those officers could order themselves to sea. Moreover the band never went to sea. The effect of this order, then, would be, that men would prefer going to sea, to taking the situations either of sergeant-majors or of drill-sergeants, both of which were very necessary and had important services to fulfil. Again the artificers would be placed in the same melancholy condition. They were better engaged on shore than at sea, and yet they could never have pensions; for this order was imperative that "no marine should be entitled to a pension unless he had served ten years at sea, or on foreign service." Even if they were to serve for forty-two years, this order would debar them from all right to a pension. But it was said that the Lords of the Admiralty could interfere and could grant them one. Allowing that to be the case, the pension would only be one of suffrance; and he wanted to have the marines entitled to it as a matter of right. He wished to know whether the Lords of the Admiralty called service in a guard-ship, service at sea? [Mr. C. Wood, "Yes,"] He was delighted that they did so; and yet, harbour duty was not sea duty. There were generally 2,200 men on board guard-ships and on ordinary so that this declaration might work some alleviation of this rigid order in their favour. He wished the House to consider how this order would work in detail. For many years past the navy estimates had exhibited the number of marines under two heads—the marines on shore and the marines afloat. For the last twenty years we had had upon the average 9,000 marines. They were generally half-and-half, that is, half on shore, and half afloat. This year, 5,500 were afloat, and only 3,500 ashore; that is, about two-thirds of them are afloat, and one-third on shore. He contended that, under this system of alternately serving on sea and shore, no marine would be entitled to claim a pension of even 10 d. a-day until he had been at least thirty-five years in the service. Was that either just or politic to so distinguished and pre-eminent a service in as the marines? The garrison duty of marines was equally heavy with that of the soldiers of the line, and the former was

1193
equal to the latter in manœuvring and every other species of service on shore. He regretted, that the pensions of our soldiers had been cut down from 1s. to 6d. a-day; but they were entitled to that pittance after a limited period of service. Why was not the marine, exposed as he was to peril and disease in every quarter of the globe, placed upon the same footing with the soldiers of the line? He called on the House to put the marine on an equality with the soldier or the sailor. He cared not with which, but, above all, not to allow him to remain, as he did at present, between both, without the advantages of either. There was one point connected with this order, to which he particularly wished to call the attention of the House, and of the Secretary of the Admiralty. This order had never appeared in the navy list. How was that? Was it because the Lords of the Admiralty were ashamed of it? He should be glad to hear that it was so; for they ought to be heartily ashamed of having issued an order which he could not help denouncing as a gross deception on the public. There was another grievance under which the marines laboured, and that was their great coats, or, he should rather say their want of great coats. In the army, the soldiers had new great coats every three years, and oftener if the severity of the service rendered it necessary, and that too, without paying for them by stoppages. At that rate a marine, who at sea required warmer clothing than a soldier on shore, ought to have at least ten great coats in thirty years' service. He had, however, no such thing. He received one great coat, and no more. Formerly, he had not even one great coat provided him. When he first joined, a great coat was handed to him; but for that great coat he was placed under stoppages. This made the men discontented, and led to many desertions. To put a stop to these desertions a great coat was given to the marines. But that was all, and he had no means of getting another when it was worn out. These were the two principal grievances of which the marines complained—the order in council and the great coats. There w re some other grievances which galled them, but they were only of a minor grade. He hoped, that the House had gone along with him in the observations he had made, and that it would be prepared to see full justice done to these gallant men, who had served in
1194
all parts of the globe with honour to themselves, and with advantage to their country.
Mr. G. Berkeleywould not detain the House a moment, as there was only one point upon which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had evidently been misinformed. He had the honour of belonging to the line, and he felt himself called upon to state, that the hon. and gallant Officer was much misinformed when he stated, that in the hour of danger the line had ever allowed the marines to take the lead. That was entirely a mistake.
Captain Pechellfelt, that he was obliged to agree in almost every word that had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member; but still he thought the gallant Officer would have been a better advocate had he dismissed from his mind all party feeling upon the question. Those on his side of the House were equally as anxious to serve the poor marine as those on the other side, and the hon. and gallant Member had got the start of them by his superior finesse. He trusted, that when the marines were on service in the guard-ships, that time so served would be allowed to count as sea-service.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, the only object of Ministers in making the regulation complained of was, that marines and seamen should be put as nearly on the same footing as possible. The order in Council had arisen from the evidence of the right hon. and gallant Member for Launceston (Sir H. Hardinge) before the commission on military rewards and punishments, to which the attention of the Admiralty had been called. It was as follows:—"I do think that prospectively we shall have very great danger to this country, resulting from the restriction that limits the British soldier, with a severer duty than the marine soldier, to 6d. a-day prospectively, while it continues to the marine a pension of 1s." On inquiry, the Admiralty had found not only that the marine had an advantage above the soldier, but that he bad an advantage which it was not intended he should have above the seaman. This was not a pension in any case awarded to a person unable to continue in the service; it was given exclusively on the ground of length of service. No soldier had any right to his discharge from lengthened service alone; as a matter of favour, it was true, he was generally discharged after a certain period—twenty-five years in the case of the infantry, and twenty-seven or twenty-eight in that of the ca-

1195
valry. Now, seamen and marines always had a right to their discharge at the expiration of a certain number of years, which was fixed at twenty-one, counting generally from the age of twenty. The seaman was discharged after twenty-one years service with a pension, but it was twenty-one years service at sea. Great part of the marine's service was in barracks on shore, much less hard than the seaman's on board ship, or the soldier's, especially in the colonies; and if the full time of his service on shore were allowed in reckoning his claim to a pension, he would have an advantage over the seaman. There is also this essential difference. The marine, whose service is continuous, is sure of his pension at the expiration of twenty-one years. The seaman cannot ensure continuous service. Intervals of considerable duration may occur between his being paid off in one ship, and being entered in another; and a longer time therefore generally elapses before he can claim his discharge. In making a new arrangement it had been the desire of the Admiralty to preserve equality between the seaman and the marine; and he thought that, by the order its Council, the men of these services were placed as nearly as possible on the same footing. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had considerably overstated the length of service required for a pension. He believed, that, henceforward, the seaman and marine would acquire a right to a pension after about the same period of years.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that as he had been alluded to, he thought it due to the service to which he belonged to make a few observations. It was true, that he had stated, in his evidence before the commission to which the hon. Gentleman opposite had referred, that the soldiers of the line, who were exposed to so many hardships, and much ruin of constitution by service in unhealthy climates, would be extremely dissatisfied if they were only allowed a right to receive 6d. a-day after twenty-one years' service, unless in the case of an extremely good character; while marine soldiers had a right to 1s. a-day after twenty-one years' service, without reference to character or other contingent circumstances. He had said, that great discontent would he excited in the army, unless the arrangement giving so decided a preference to marines were altered. As the question of abolishing flogging was then under consideration, he felt, that they should look to rewards as well as punish-
1196
ment. He appealed to every man who knew what a navy or army was, whether this difference was not calculated to excite very great dissatisfaction. He had seen with great regret the reduction of the military pensions in 1833, and had strongly advised the Secretary-at-War against it. The revised warrant of 1833 reduced the pensions of private soldiers from 1s. to 6d. a-day after twenty-one years' service. He had a strong opinion against the measure at the time, in consequence of the dissatisfaction it would excite in the army, and he had determined to bring the question before the House in 1833, in order that he might do justice to the claims of soldiers, but had desisted from that purpose in consequence of a conversation he had had with the right hon. Gentleman near him, then First Lord of the Admiralty, who had represented the inconvenience which would be produced by such observations coming from a general officer. In 1831 and 1833 he had combatted the principle of the commutation of soldiers' pensions, telling the Secretary-at-War he was about to do that which would ruin a great number of old soldiers. He was called upon now to state his opinion on the subject of the warrant alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member. He understood the pension was still to remain at 1s. a-day, but the period of service had been so much lengthened as would prevent, in many instances, the attainment of the pension. He considered the marine soldier as one of the most valuable supports of the discipline of the ship, distinguished as that corps had always been for good conduct and subordination. In 1798 the army had only 6d. a-day, and shortly after the mutiny at the Nore it was increased to 1s. The warrant of 1806 gave great advantage to the army as regarded pensions, and the marines were then placed on the same footing as soldiers of the line. Up to 1815 the seamen had been very disadvantageously situated in this respect, but shortly after the peace anew scale of pensions for the sea service was adopted. By the present order of the Council a very imprudent step had been taken; the discipline of the fleet would be relaxed if the marines and seamen were placed an a different footing. By the warrant of 1833 great injury had been done to the army, and he felt, that the present order was unjust to the marines. He thought it would not answer to have different warrants for soldiers of

1197
the army, sailors, and marines, Every measure of preceding Governments had had for its object to assimilate the various services,
Viscount Honicksaid, that the statement of the right hon. and gallant Officer was so completely and utterly erroneous, that it was calculated to do, and if it went forth to the country uncontradicted, it must do, great and irreparable injury to the public service. He greatly regretted, that the subject of pensions had been brought forward at all on the present occasion, when he did not expect that it would be gone into, and when he had not, therefore, come down supplied with the documents with which it was his duty to be supplied for the information of the House on such a subject, and which, had he anticipated the discussion, he should have felt it was most desirable to have with him, in order to make his reply to the remarks and assertions of the hon. and gallant Officer as full and satisfactory as possible. However, he felt very confident that the statement which he should have the honour to make would be substantially correct, and that statement he thought it very necessary that he should make, in consequence of the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and in order to explain to the House the real circumstances of the change which had taken place with respect to the pension warrants in the British army. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would bear him out in stating, that in 1829, when the right hen, Gentleman came into the office of Secretary at War, the right hon. Gentleman found that the pension list of the army was yearly increasing; that the non-effective army was rapidly approaching to an equality in point of numbers with the effective army; and that the military budget was adding seriously to the burdens borne by the finances of the country. This the right hon. and gallant Officer saw, and, much to his credit, took effectual steps to check. Previously to the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Officer as Secretary at War, it bad been the practice in the army at once to dismiss the men from the service with pensions, as a matter of course, the moment they completed their twenty-one years of service. The consequence was, that in middle life (or nearly so in most cases), in full health and strength, the soldier was discharged on a pension nearly equal to the amount which he had received as pay on service, and thus he might continue, and did in
1198
numerous cases actually continue, for thirty years a burden on the country; that was to say, if the pay on service was 1s. a-day, on the man's discharge the country was saddled with a pension of 1s., or nearly so, per day for thirty years longer. The right hon. and gallant Officer had most properly refused to continue this system, and it was consequently settled, that no man should be entitled to his discharge until the proper medical officer certified that he was unfit for service. It was true the practice before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's alteration was, that there should be an inspection previous to discharge; but, in fact, and in reality, at the end of twenty-one years the men got their discharge, in full health and strength, and left the army. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, as he had just stated, effected this reform, and required a medical certificate before discharge. But it was found in practice, that, notwithstanding this precaution, great abuses and great evils continued to prevail in the manner in which the men got their discharge. Men came up before the commissioners at Chelsea college for examination for discharge whose health was entirely destroyed by their own misconduct, particularly by the habit of intoxication, which was so unfortunately prevalent in the army. The consequence was, that men of dissolute habits, men who even were certificated as notorious drunkards, were discharged on pensions, and thus the bad soldier had an advantage over the soldier of regular habits, from the facility with which the former obtained his discharge and pension. The first got his pension early in life; the latter was kept on service for long periods, engaged perhaps, all the time, in arduous duties. His noble Friend near him, when Paymaster of the Forces, and in that capacity President of the Chelsea Commissioners, had had his attention forcibly called to this part of the subject; but the fact was, that to men of the worst possible character, even where they were described, in so many words, as notorious drunkards, the Chelsea Commissioners possessed no power to refuse that pension which they were unable to grant to the best soldiers. His noble Friend had very early seen the inconvenience to the service of this state of things, and had endeavoured to find means of cure. But it was curious to see, after the system of medical certificates introduced by the right hon. and gallant Officer opposite came into operation, how many soldiers just after

1199
turning their twenty-one years of service got discharged for chronic rheumatism. It was certainly most curious that the moment after turning twenty-one years chronic rheumatism should begin to prevail, and it became impossible to keep the men in the ranks. It was evident, therefore, from this, that attempts were continually making under the hon. and gallant Officer's system to get out of the army, and that his regulations did not, therefore, meet the evil complained of. It was felt, therefore, by his right hon. Friend, the present President of the Board of Control, when Secretary at War, that it was imperatively necessary to alter the system of the army pension list. That alteration had accordingly been made, and its principle was, that when the soldier at an early period of life was discharged, from mere disability to perform a soldier's duties, a less pension should be assigned him; but that the soldier who by regularity and good conduct had taken care of his health should, on his discharge, be entitled to a larger pension; and that the man who retired totally disabled from earning his livelihood should be entitled to a still larger pension. And now let the House remark the futility of the charges made by the right hon. and gallant Officer. Why even by the pension warrant passed under the administration of his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Control, the pension was 6d. a-day, when it was disability only which incapacitated the soldier from remaining in the service. If the disability was greater, the pension was raised to 9d. a-day, and might be still further raised, provided it did not exceed a maximum fixed. Therefore, it was not true that only 6d. a-day was allowed in pensions, as the right hon. and gallant Officer stated. He would not trouble the House much longer on this topic, but before he left the history of the warrant of 1833, he begged to revert to one observation of the right hon. and gallant Officer. He had said, that previous Governments to that of which be (Viscount Howick) was a member, had thought it necessary to carry all the departments of the Administration with them, when they made alterations of this kind. Now, the same course was followed by his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Control, when Secretary at War. The warrant of 1833 was framed with the greatest attention and care, and with the assistance of his noble Friend near him. It was then submitted
1200
to the Commander-in-Chief; and he could state, that it received the full, entire, and unreserved approbation of the Commander-in-Chief. But more than that: this had been thought to be a change of too great importance to take place without the sanction of the Cabinet. The plan was accordingly brought before the Cabinet of which the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), then First Lord of the Admiralty, was a member; and by that Cabinet the warrant of 1833 was approved. Such was the mode in which that warrant was framed and adopted; but approving it as far as it went, still, at the same time, he must say, that he did think that in that warrant there was a want of some means of rewarding peculiarly good conduct in the soldier. He thought the rate of pensions established by it for ordinary disability was fair to the soldier and just to the people, who had to pay the pensions, but he decidedly thought, that further provision was necessary for remunerating the good conduct of the soldier. Accordingly, he (Viscount Howick) had the honour of submitting a warrant for this object to his late Majesty, which had been approved, in like manner as the others, by the Commander-in-Chief, and by other departments of the Administration to whom he had submitted it. This authorised the issue of good-conduct pay, and, under certain regulations, allowed extra pay to be given for good conduct, as in addition to the pension upon discharge. Now though, as he had said, he had not come down prepared with the documents necessary for going fully into this subject, which was quite unexpected by him, yet he happened to have with him a comparative scale of the pensions under the system of the right hon. and gallant Officer and the existing system; and from this he found, that instead of the soldier being now in a worse situation than he was before, in reality, the good soldier, at some periods of service, was in an equally good, and, in only some few periods of service, in a worse, situation, and that only by a mere fraction, than he was under the system of the hon. and gallant Officer. At fourteen years' service, the warrant was the same in both cases. But the warrant of the hon. and gallant Officer, at nineteen years' service, was for from 6d. to 9d. a-day; it was at present for from 8d. to 10 d. a-day. It was true there was a slight diminution in the pension at twenty one years' service; for the hon.

1201
and gallant Officer gave 1s. a-day pension for that period of service, while now the sum was 11 d. [Sir H. Hardinge: That is, under peculiar circumstances.] He would come to the peculiar circumstances by-and-by. After twenty-three years' service, the change was in favour of the soldier under the present warrant; and from that period the pension varied with circumstances, till they got to periods of long service. But the hon. and gallant Officer said, that it was only under peculiar circumstances, that the good soldier got his pension of 11 d. a-day. He thought that a great advantage in the existing plan. Under the right hon. and gallant Officer's plan, the soldier had his pension awarded without the slightest regard to character; even if he were reported as having been punished for drunkenness, or one or two other crimes—nay, even if he had barely escaped being discharged with infamy, he was entitled to the full pension which was given to the best conducted soldier; and it constantly happened, that men came up to Chelsea with the character of notorious drunkard, in terms, registered against them, and received just the same pension that could be given to the most exemplary, well-conducted, sober, soldier. He was not ashamed of the present system. He said, that every soldier who avoided misconducting himself had a right to a pension at the expiration of a certain period of service; and unless he came to have some specific offence recorded against him, he ought not to lose the right to that pension. This was the present system; and if once the soldier gained his good-conduct pay, he could lose it only by sentence of court-martial: and in a short period, that was to say, in the space of a year, if he manifested good conduct, he could recover that pay again. He was happy to say, that, considering the short time that the plan had been in operation, and that there was little inducement to avail themselves of it, to the soldiers who enlisted before 1833, a very large proportion of soldiers had become entitled to good-conduct pay. He entreated the House and the country not to believe, that the pensions of the soldiers were undergoing a cruel and unnecessary reduction. It was, however, satisfactory to find, that the vote for pensions this year was only something more than 1,300,000 l., being upwards of 2,000 l. less than last year. He would only add, that, under this system, the service, he believed, was
1202
as popular as ever it had been. He believed, that the number of recruits who had joined within the last few months was almost unexampled in time of peace. Hon. Members would, therefore, be careful, he hoped, not to create, by their remarks in that House, dissatisfaction, where at present it did not exist. In fine, he begged to assure the House, that while on the one hand he should ever be ready to do his duty in considering modes of providing for the poor and meritorious soldier, so, on the other hand, he and the House had also duties (let it be remembered) to perform to the people, by whom this heavy tax was paid, and those duties, he, for one, was resolved not to neglect.
Mr. F. H. F. Berkeleywas desirous of offering a few observations on the subject of the navy, in support of the sentiments which had been expressed by the gallant Admiral (Sir E. Codrington), and also with reference to a proceeding adopted by his brother, who was lately connected with the Admiralty; but he felt considerable embarrassment as it was the first time that he had risen to address the House. It was the opinion of his gallant relative—an opinion which had been formed after consultation with many experienced officers of the navy—that the manning of the navy was conducted on false principles. In the most glorious times of our naval warfare it had been a complaint, that the manning of the navy was ineffectively managed. It was found in the despatches of Nelson; and turning over the page of history and biography the same thing would be found a constant theme of complaint. From the battle of the Nile to the battle of Navarino, he thought he might venture to assert, without contradiction, that complaints existed touching the deficiency of the complements of the crews of British ships of war. It would be no argument to say, that the successes which attended the British navy in the glorious day of their triumphs could in any way excuse carelessness on this subject: far from it. As well might it be attempted to apologise for the inhumanity of the master of an excellent horse, who overstrained the animal in attempting some preternatural feat. The success of the horse would be no apology for the brutality of the master who over-taxed its power. So with regard to sailors. The victories which had shed such lustre on the British flag were frequently obtained by vessels that were

1203
under-manned; and many of the most brilliant actions previous to the American war afforded instances of inferior overcoming superior force. Before that time there was carelessness on the part of the Admiralty, but when the combined powers of France and Spain had ceased to offer any opposition—then Spain had not a vessel left, and the cruisers of France were sent forth mere fugitives, scarcely capable of resistance, in a demoralised and almost denationalised condition—then the carelessness of the Admiralty became absolute apathy. They forgot, that a young and vigorous republic was rising, which had a navy young, powerful, and vigorous, like itself. The ignorance of the Admiralty at that time was notorious. What greater proof of it could there be than what was furnished in the American war, by their sending cast-iron water tanks to be used by ships sailing on fresh water lakes? The best apology for them was their ignorance. If they knew the force that existed on the other side of the Atlantic, and the disadvantages that our sailors had to encounter, we must accuse them of culpability. The loss of numerous frigates and sloops of war had struck a blow at the spirit of our sailors which they had scarcely recovered at that moment. The loss of the Macedonian, Guerriere, and Java frigates—the Frolic, Reindeer, Epervier, and Penguin sloops of war, and other British ships, which had met vessels of a superior construction, and manned in a superior manner, attested the fault which existed at home. Against these losses they had only to show such victories as those of the Shannon over the Chesapeake, or of the Pelican over the Argus—victories which, by the effect they produced, showed rather the decay than the strength of our naval power. Nothing showed the effect produced in this country so completely as the fact, that when the Duke of Wellington returned to this country after winning so many battles, a tissue of successes unparalleled in the annals of warfare, the noble Duke landed nearly simultaneously with Captain Sir Philip Broke, and when they appeared in public together, the winner of A single frigate action received as much honour as the victor of a hundred fights, Nothing showed so clearly the humiliating state to which the British flag was reduced. Did not such a state of things call for the attention of all seamen, and in particular of seamen having seats at the
1204
Board of Admiralty, and require that they should be watchful? Viewing the rising power of France which was placing its navy on a footing such as, by the admission of naval officers, had never existed before—looking at the great progress which America had made, and looking at the vast power which Russia possessed in the Baltic, and then turning to the state of the British navy, he would undertake to say (and in doing so he spoke the opinion of some of the most distinguished officers) that the navy was in a most disgraceful condition. The peace complements of her Majesty's navy had the direct effect of decreasing the number of the best kind of sailors. Captain Berkeley had received, upon the subject of his pamphlet, letters from individuals holding high positions in the service, from which he (Mr. F. H. Berkeley) would be glad to read a few extracts. With respect to these, he was placed in a peculiar position and must throw himself on the indulgence of the House—which he was sure would be granted, when he stated that it was impossible, under present circumstances, to produce the names of the gallant officers from whom those letters had come. It was quite sufficient for his brother to have raised a nest of hornets against himself by his impeachment of the conduct of the Admiralty, without subjecting any of his brother officers to their stings. He hoped the House would permit him to read ex, tracts from the letters of five most distinguished officers. He would give a list of their names to the hon. and gallant Admiral on his left hand (Sir E. Codrington) who would understand the value of their testimony. [The hon. Member handed a paper to Sir E. Codrington] It was impossible to take any other course. The first letter which he could only describe as from No. 1 ran thus:—
"Many thanks for the perusal of the accompanying papers. I quite agree as to the necessity of carrying it into effect; and if (this was not addressed to Captain Berkeley) Captain Berkeley succeeds in doing so, he will deserve the thanks of the profession. Every hint contained in his papers has struck practical men as being absolutely necessary for some years; and if the naval service of England is to be held up to foreign nations on the footing it was formerly, something effectual must be done and that quickly. It is quite disgraceful to see ships half manned, and that badly, in the company of ships of other nations with full complements and no expense spared to

1205
bring into practice all the new improvements; besides the disgust men have in serving in ships heavily masted and with small complements of men, so that the hands are turned up on all occasions, where, with an efficient complement, the watch would be sufficient. Almost every ship that I have seen arrive from England lately, is manned with a very inferior description of men. The most of them would not have been received into the navy at the end of the war."
The next was from an equally distinguished officer, respecting whom he might also appeal to the gallant Admiral below him; he would describe this letter merely as from No. 2. He said—"I really consider your hints a valuable production, having always advocated a similar measure, and without which we may look in vain for men when we most want them." The third was no less distinguished. He said, "that the ships are most inadequately manned is a truth beyond contradiction." The fourth said, "I am quite of your opinion as to our establishment, and I am very sure there is a great mistake in our peace complements." He now came to the last of the communications, and he thought its peculiarly strong yet homely expressions ought to carry great weight with the House. This gallant Officer said, "I entirely go along with you—and your having so freely promulgated your opinion to your associates in office, is like yourself. It leaves you at full liberty to join in the almost universal cry in regard to the ruinous system of our peace establishments. I found here a squadron of another nation, and we furled sails together. They gave us such a dusting from numerical hands, that I made an excuse to unbend my sails, and put them below till our friends took their departure." He would ask, was it right that this gallant Officer, than whom there was no better in the navy, and these gallant men, should be exposed in this manner? He now came to the matter of his brother's resignation of his seat at the Admiralty. A noble Lord, formerly at the head of the Admiralty, had stated in another place, that although he agreed, with some trifling difference, with all contained in the published letter, yet he condemned the practice of Members or Secretaries of a public Board appealing to the public, instead of making their opinion known to their seniors, or carrying them forward at the Board. Now, from that opinion on the part of his brother, he (Mr.
1206
F. H. Berkeley) was not prepared to dissent. But he would say, that his brother, Captain Berkeley, had brought forward his opinions at the Board. He had laid his opinions before his colleagues in office in the fullest manner, and he (Mr. F. H. Berkeley) would say likewise, that he understood that the complements of the ships were to have been increased according to the way, with some exceptions, which Captain Berkeley had pointed out, and in which his colleagues agreed. While this was in doubt, while discussions were going forward, and while Captain Berkeley was using every exertion in his power (for he found the task by no means an easy one), he met with an unexpected obstacle. At that time, he might truly have exclaimed with Hercules, Ego sum indefessus agendo, but, unfortunately, he might also have added sed nova pestis adest; for he could hardly say any thing else of the letter which appeared as a supplement to the "Life of Lord Anson," and which was calculated to disturb and oppose the measures under the consideration of the Board—measures which it was understood had since been adopted. But when Captain Berkeley saw that the Secretary, who had been privy to all the deliberations which had taken place, had come forward with his own opinions, he thought that he (Captain Berkeley) might fairly put forth his own advocacy of the measures which were about to be adopted by the Board, and express, on behalf of the Admiralty, his dissent from the Secretary. But this effort met with disapprobation on the part of certain Lords of the Board, and finding that it was received with displeasure by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Captain Berkeley resigned his place. Before sitting down, he (Mr. F. H. Berkeley) would make one remark. The present estimates, he was given to understand, would prove, that the views of Captain Berkeley were nearly or to the full adopted. He would ask, then, whether the adoption of these views had taken place before or after the publication of Captain Berkeley's pamphlet? If it was before, then the complaint that he had published a pamphlet at variance with the opinion of the Board, fell to the ground. But if it was subsequent to the publication, then he (Mr. F. H. Berkeley) was sure that he might express the gallant Officer's great satisfaction at seeing that so important a benefit to the service had

1207
been purchased at so small a price as the sacrifice of his place.
Sir E. T. Troubridgesaid, as he had been connected with the department of the marines, and had had it under his charge, he wished to say a few words with respect to the pensions of the marines. The gallant Member (Sir H. Hardinge) was the first person from whom he had heard any complaints. He did not know, that such complaints ever were made, or ever existed. The marines were sent to sea by rotation, so that every man had his turn. He humbly conceived, that no man would say, that unfit persons ought to have these pensions. These pensions were not the only ones to which the marines were entitled. Every man, if he was ill, had a pension, according to the severity of his hurt or his sickness, and the length of time that he had been in the service. Whilst sitting at the board be had often seen very young men, in the full vigour of life, come in for a very large pension, and therefore he had been of opinion, that increasing the number of years' service to entitle the men to pensions was very desirable. He agreed with everything that had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member as to the merits of the marines, and no man could say, that the present Members of the Board of Admiralty had ever doubted or denied that fact. The hon. Member would scarcely have touched on the subject, if he had first heard the statement which the Secretary of the Admiralty was about to make. With regard to the resignation of Captain Berkeley, there were never a people who worked so well together as himself and the other Members of the Board. He believed, that when the facts were fairly known to the public, his Friend Captain Berkeley would deeply regret, that he had left them at all. He, for one, did not agree to having large war complements in time of peace. He had alwyas said so; he had never departed an hour from that opinion. He did agree, that there should be some increase of complements. These complements had been increased, and whether they would be satisfactory to captains or first lieutenants of the navy, he did not know, for he never saw a captain or first lieutenant of the navy that was satisfied. But this he would say, when the country saw the number of ships now put in commission, and of men employed, it would be satisfied. He, therefore, deeply regretted that this state-
1208
ment had been made before his Friend rose, because the hon. and gallant Member would have been convinced on many points that his observations were uncalled for. He must dissent from his gallant Friend on some points. He said, that the complement was dissatisfactory for every vessel. He would tell him that the complement had been revised by a Committee in 1828, and a Committee had again adopted it in 1837. The peace complements had not been altered, for this reason—it was perfectly well known for many years that a system of change of armament in her Majesty's ships was going on, and it was impossible that this could be completed without various experiments, and those experiments had been made under an experienced officer, and were completed last year only; that had enabled the Admiralty to make a change in the armament of the ships; and the proper time to consider the complement was at the time that armament was completed. That had been done. The scale of it was likely to be laid before the House in half an hour, and it was much better to wait till the explanation was laid before the House. It was notorious, that there were some ships not of a large class. But he had thought it right to state this. He did beg the House to believe, that there was none of that ill will to Captain Berkeley which his hon. Friend wished to impress the House with. Since his resignation he had seen Captain Berkeley, and he believed it would be perfectly in order to say, that Capt. Berkeley was convinced, that be had not acted as he would have done, if he had given the matter a little more consideration. He maintained it, that he had a right to state this, because he heard Captain Berkeley say it himself. What he said was, that he ought to have resigned first, and then have written his pamphlet.
Sir G. Clerkentirely agreed with the gallant Member, that they should wait to hear the account of the complements and armaments of the ships. But he must call the attention of the House back to the statement of Captain Boldero, and to the explanation attempted by the gallant Secretary of the Admiralty, or the Lord of the Admiralty, who had last addressed the House. If he understood the Secretary of the Admiralty right, he grounded that alteration entirely on certain evidence given by his hon. Friend, the Member for Launceston (Sir H. Hardinge),

1209
that evidence was expressed with respect to the warrant of 1833, of which he disapproved. But he thought, from what had fallen from the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, that a very great and important modification had been made in that warrant; and that the soldier was now placed on a much better footing than when his gallant Friend first gave that evidence. For, if he understood aright, if a soldier should not disqualify himself by misconduct, he was entitled, after twenty-one years' service, to 10 d. or 11 d. a-day; that was now the rule. But a marine, since 1814, had had a right to demand his discharge after twenty-one years' service; and he looked at this as a much greater act than the pecuniary amount of pension. Looking at the advantage there was for them to continue in the service, and looking at the practice of impressment, which he should extremely regret to see resorted to, he should extremely regret to see any alteration made in the pension; and when they considered that a marine was likely to lose all the advantage he had gained by long service, if he absented himself for three weeks, which was the greatest possible security for his good conduct, he held it unwise that any difference whatever should be made between our marines and seamen. It appeared, that in 1837, an Order in Council was issued, and regulations of the Admiralty founded on it, to the effect that a marine should have served ten years afloat, and that two years on shore should count only as one afloat. This regulation, according to general practice, should have been published in the Quarterly Navy List, but he had searched for it there in vain. No notice whatever seemed to have been taken of it. It appeared, that the service on board a guard ship was counted as equal to one at sea, and that a year of either counted as two on shore. This was unfair to the men who were retained to do duty on shore. What difference, he would ask, was there between the duties of a marine in a guard ship and one in barracks, where he would have one night of duty for every two of sleep! Such a difference in the mode of estimating the two services was injudicious, and calculated to excite discontent amongst the men. The Order in Council, to which he had referred, was full of anomalies, and, in his opinion, had been so ill-considered, that he hoped the Admiralty would lose no time in reconsidering
1210
it, with the view to its being rescinded, and that in future the services of the marine on shore should be estimated the same as those at sea. He thought it hard and ungenerous, that that service to which his late Majesty had been so warmly attached, should almost, from the date of her Majesty's reign, have been made subject to so harsh a regulation.
Admiral Codringtonbore testimony to the high respectability and great professional ability of the gallant officers to whom the hon. Member for Bristol had referred.
Captain C. F. Berkeleysaid, that it was not his intention to delay the House by entering into the general question then before it; but he could not allow the discussion to close without saying a word as to one observation which fell from the hon. and gallant Officer (Captain Troubridge.) That hon. and gallant Officer had said, that his (Captain Berkeley's) hon. relative had told him that he was sorry for having published the late work. In this he was sure the hon. and gallant Officer was altogether mistaken. His hon. and gallant relative could not have told him any such thing, for the fact was, that he was not sorry for it. His gallant relative had had no idea that in writing that book he was writing against the Admiralty. He had intended it only as an answer to some of the statements contained in the supplement to Sir John Barrow's Life of Anson. When, however, he found that the fact of his having published the work did not give satisfaction to the Board of Admiralty, he adopted the only course which was left open to him as a man of honour and independence—that of resigning his seat at the Board.
Mr. Horsmansaid, there was one subject which he hoped would receive the serious consideration of the Admiralty—he meant the question of impressment. That mode of recruiting the navy was one which he thought few, if any, would be found to defend in the present day. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to bring forward any measure on that subject? If they did not, he would take an opportunity of bringing the question under the consideration of the House.
Mr. T. Attwoodsaid, that before the subject was disposed of, he wished to put a question to the Government, or to the hon. Member, the Secretary to the Admiralty. This question related to the pre-

1211
sent position and naval power of Russia. Whatever might be said of the pacific intentions of that power towards us, he had little doubt that she was at the bottom of the recent movements in the east, in Africa, and in America. She had now, as was well known, a large and well appointed fleet in the Baltic. What he wanted to know from the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty was, whether, if the ice should break up in that sea, and that Russia should take it into her head to sail towards our coasts, which she could do in ten days, was the Government prepared with a fleet competent to resist her and defend our coasts from her attacks? He might be told in that or in the other House of Parliament, that Russia was our friend and ally. He cared not whether she was friend or enemy, but as long as she had a fleet within a few days' sail of our coasts which we had not a naval force at hand sufficiently to repel, she to that extent might be said to have dominion over us, and nothing at present but the ice of the Baltic stood between us and an attack from her if she should be disposed to make one. It was possible, that the Government might be able to get over the ensuing summer and autumn without any such attack, but we had no permanent security against the risk unless we had a fleet able to meet that of Russia. Let it be recollected, that the navy of Russia was not now what it had been forty or even twenty years ago. Her ships were now well built and tolerably well manned, while many of our large ships were deficient in their complement of men and guns. No doubt our seamen, if brought into action against any force, would do their duty bravely; but the country did not wish to see a sacrifice of human life by placing one British ship of the line badly manned against two Russian ships of the line well manned. No friend of his country could desire to see ten or twelve sail of the line, badly manned, placed in opposition to twenty-seven, well manned, sail of the Russian line. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. C. Wood) would give an answer which would be satisfactory to the House and the country.
Mr. C. Woodhoped the hon. Member for Birmingham would not consider that he meant any disrespect to him, if he declined, at that moment, going into the question on which he had sought information, and the less so, as he would have to
1212
advert to it in the statement which he should feel it his duty to make on going into the Committee. Had he been allowed to go into the Committee earlier, he should have had the opportunity of entering into explanations on many of the topics already brought forward, and much time would thereby have been saved.
Mr. Brothertontrusted, that Government would not be led away from its course by the suggestions thrown out for the increase of our naval armaments, as if we were now called upon to make preparation for war. If the Crown should declare war, who were to pay for it? Why, a great portion of the expense would come out of the pockets of the manufacturers and labourers of the country. He repeated his hope, that the Government would not be led away by such statements as they had heard, so as to make any unnecessary addition to the armaments of the country.
Mr. Humewould not press the amendment to a division.
Amendment negatived.
The House went into Committee.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
Mr. Charles Wood.*—In former Sessions, Sir, when I have had the honour of moving in Committees of Supply, the estimates for the naval service of the country, I have always abstained from saying more than seemed to me to be necessary for explaining any differences which might have been made since the estimates of the preceding year. I have done so, not from any unwillingness to afford the fullest information on every subject connected with the department to which I belong, but because I have been unwilling to trespass unnecessarily upon the attention of hon. Gentlemen, and because I have always believed that, in saving the time, I was best consulting the wishes of the House. On the present occasion, however, I feel it to be necessary for me to pursue a different course. I need not remind hon. Gentlemen, that for the last six months, unceasing attacks have been made upon the naval administration, and statements in every shape which could teem from the press, have been put forth describing our navy as in a state of the utmost decrepitude. It is not to be supposed that we, whose characters were so
*From a corrected report, published by Ridgeway.

1213
much affected by them, could be indifferent to these proceedings, or that we did not suffer from the circulation of these statements which we had no opportunity of contradicting; because I have always been of opinion, that in this House, and in this House alone, is it right for those who are connected with public departments to defend their conduct. We knew that the opportunity of doing so, must sooner or later be afforded us; and deeply as I feel at this moment, my incompetency to the duty which I have to perform, I have looked forward with no small impatience and anxiety to this moment, when I might endeavour to vindicate our character, and to remove from the mind of the public, those apprehensions to which the Member for East Kent referred the other day, and which have been not unnaturally entertained by a people jealous, and rightly jealous, of any thing that can affect their maritime power.
I am afraid, Sir, that I must draw somewhat largely upon your patience and upon that of hon. Gentlemen around me, but in the situation in which we have been placed, I must throw myself upon the justice of the Committee: and this consolation at least I have, that the statements and arguments which form our vindication, are the self same which will tend to the far more important object, of dissipating any alarm as to the efficiency our navy.
The charges under which we, for the last six months, have suffered, are certainly not those which have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Kilkenny this evening: we have been charged with gross neglect of the navy, with having been afraid to come to this House for the sums necessary for its efficient maintenance; with what some of the Tory papers designated as "the shameful reductions made in our navy by the present Government." My answer to this charge is simple, and short. We have made no reductions. On the contrary, in every head of expenditure, tending to the efficiency of the navy, we have made a large increase. We have been accused of reducing the strength of our navy. In the estimates for 1835, the last before we came into office, there were voted 17,500 men and boys; in 1836, in the first estimates which I had the honour of moving, there were voted 22,500 men and boys, exclusive of the ordinary. On the
1214
1st of January, 1835, there were eleven ships of the line in commission; on the 1st of January, 1837, there were twenty. We have been accused of reducing the work in our dockyards: the vote for wages in 1835 was 300,000 l. in 1838 it was 384,000 l.
We have been charged with creating discontent in the dockyards by our reductions. The yearly earnings of a shipwright in 1335 were 52 l. in 1838 they were 62 l. 8s. Lastly, we have been accused of having reduced the provision for stores. The sum taken for this purpose in 1835, was 383,000 l.; in 1838, it was 593,000 l. And these are the measures which have been called reductions!
It is true that reductions have been made: but they were made by others. The number of men was reduced, but it was by the Government of the right hon. Member for Tamworth in 1835. We have been blamed for the reduction of the Marine Artillery; that corps was reduced in 1832. It is true, that the amount of work in our dockyards has been reduced; but it was reduced first by the government of the Duke of Wellington, and next by the right hon. Member for Pembroke. It is true, that the votes for stores have been reduced; but it was first by the right hon. Member for Pembroke, and still further by the government of the right hon. Member for Tamworth.
I will not stop now to give an opinion upon these reductions. All that I have at present to say, is, that they were not made by us. For many of those made by the right hon. Member for Pembroke, he received great credit at the time, and most justly. The violence of party has now involved them all in one undiscriminating censure, and with signal injustice, has laid that censure upon us. We have increased and not reduced the navy. We have increased the number of men, nearly thirty per cent. We have nearly doubled the number of ships of the line in commission. We have increased the work in the dockyards about thirty per cent.; and the provisions for stores between fifty and sixty per cent. Blame us, then, if you will; say, if you please, with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the increase we have made, is too great, or say that it is too small; but do not commit what is in you an absurdity, and towards us an injustice, of designating as a reduction, what is in fact, so considerable an in-

1215
crease. For what we have done ourselves, I am ready to answer—ready to submit to that censure, which from some quarter or another, is sure to be inflicted, whatever we may do; but, as it would be unworthy in us to seek credit, so it is unjust that we should incur censure, for the acts of others. The documents, Sir, to which I have referred, in proof of my assertions, are public documents. I have had recourse to no source of information not open to the public, and which has not been in the hands of everybody who hears me. I have referred only to the several Parliamentary estimates, which were, or ought to have been, in the hands of those who made the charges against us, at the time when they made them. I complain of no censure or blame for what we have done, but I do complain, not only on our own part, but still more on the part of the country, which has been misled and deceived; that those who profess to instruct and guide the public mind, have, in their eagerness to injure those to whom they are politically opposed, laid out of sight altogether, both dates and facts; and that the statements which have been made, are as wide as is possible from the truth.
So far, then, Sir, as the general charge against the present Government goes, of having reduced the navy, I have given a short, and I trust, a satisfactory answer, resting on documents beyond the possibility of contradiction. In no one respect have we reduced anything that contributes to the efficiency of the navy.
I am, however, fully aware, that not only for our vindication, but still more for the purpose of putting the Committee and the country in full possession of the state of our navy and naval establishments, it is necessary for me to go into the subject in much greater detail; and I think, it will be for the convenience of hon. Gentlemen, that I should do so under the different heads of expenditure, as they stand in the estimates.
First, then, with regard to the strength of the navy.
It will be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen, that late in the last Session of Parliament, the Duke of Wellington called the attention of the House of Lords to the reduced state of the navy. He said, that he considered our naval establishments "to be in too weak a condition to answer the purpose for which they were intended." "The circumstance of which
1216
I complain," said the noble Duke,* "I do not at all attribute to neglect upon the part of the Admiralty, neither do I include, in my censure, the noble Earl who is at the head of the Admiralty; but those whom I do blame, are the individuals who have thought proper to reduce the establishments of the country to such a degree that protection cannot possibly be given in all places where it is required."
The noble Duke, with that fairness which always distinguishes him, did justice to the present Board of Admiralty. He did not impute blame to us. Not so those partisans of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, in after-dinner speeches, pamphlets, letters, and newspaper articles, throughout the autumn, imputed to us, that we had reduced the navy; and, on the supposition that we had done so, held up our conduct to the censure of the country, as contrasted with that of the Tories. Let us see, Sir, how the facts stand. The strength of the navy mainly depends on the number of men voted. From the year 1818 to 1824, the number of men voted averaged about 15,000. In 1824 they were increased, and to 1831, averaged, including the coast blockade, from 20,000 to 21,000 men. The right hon. Member for Pembroke put down the coast blockade. But the highest vote for seamen, since the peace, except our own, was not under a Tory, but under the Whig Government of Lord Grey, namely, that taken in 1831, by the right hon. Member for Pembroke. He subsequently reduced the number to about what they had stood at, since 1834, exclusive of the coast blockade, namely, 18,000, and so they stood till the year 1834.
In 1834, for a most useful purpose, that of introducing a greater number of boys into the navy, he reduced 500 men, and added 1,000 boys, which, upon the usual calculation of two boys to one man, left the force where it was. Then came the government of the right hon. Member for Tamworth; and they, as I have said, reduced the number of men. I confess, I was at a loss to understand what the right hon. Baronet meant just now, when he denied this;† they not only reduced the men, but they boasted of it. What said my noble Friend, the Member
*Debate, Aug. 14, 1838. Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. xliv. p. 1200.
† Sir Robert Peel had done so across the table.

1217
for Dorsetshire, (Lord Ashley) who moved the naval estimates in 1835, and whom I regret not to see in his place, he said, that the House had been accustomed to economy under the preceding Governments, and they would find that they had not lost in that respect by the return of the Conservatives to power; for "with respect to the first great head, namely, the effective service, he had to inform the House that there was a reduction of 2,000 men, on full wages—in 1835 as compared with 1834—but, in consequence of the success which had attended similar experiments in former years, 1,000 boys were to be added; as, however, 1,000 boys were equal only to 500 men, there would be a net reduction of 1,500 men."*
The numbers voted make it still clearer.
The numbers voted were:—

Men.

Boys.

In 1834

17,500

1,000

1835

15,500

2,000

The next year we added 5,000 men and boys.
This was the conduct of the Tories. What said the right hon. Member for Pembroke, at the time, who, if I may use the expression, then represented Whig opinions upon naval matters. He expressed his disapprobation of the reduction. He said, that "he must express his regret, that at this juncture any reduction whatever had taken place." He said, referring to the force of other nations, "that he put it to the good sense of Gentlemen present whether it was proper, if foreign powers were in that state to incur the risk of reducing the amount of the naval force of the country to the amount proposed."* The reduction then was made by the Tories, and it was disapproved at the time by the Whigs.
I confess I should have been glad to hear on what ground that reduction was made. When we made the increase in the subsequent year, no insignificant Member of the right hon. Baronet's Government, the Duke of Wellington, took the earliest opportunity of expressing his approbation of the increase. I should be glad to know what change had taken place in the affairs of Europe, that could make this difference. My memory may deceive me, but as far as I can recollect, no change had taken place in the aspect
*Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. xxvi. 996.
† Hansard, vol. xxvi., p. 990.
1218
of political affairs, which could have made a reduction right in 1835, when, in the opinion of the Duke of Wellington, an increase was so necessary in 1836. But, Sir, there is no longer any doubt upon this point. We have had within these few days the advantage of hearing the statement of the noble Earl, who was First Lord of the Admiralty, in the Government of the right hon. Baronet, and what was his account of it? "Great," said he, "was the pressure for economy upon the Government; small was the chance, that the House of Commons would listen to a large vote for the navy; and, therefore, he would be perfectly frank, and at once say, that the number of men was a great deal too small, and short as had been his professional connexion with the service he felt it deeply before he quitted office."*
Now, Sir, after this account of the grounds of the reduced vote taken iu 1835 by Sir Robert Peel's Government. I beg of hon. Gentlemen to call to mind the expressions, that have been so lavishly applied to us: "Base truckling to the hon. Member for Kilkenny; disgraceful parsimony; and a sacrifice of the best interests of the navy, to a shameful courting of low popularity," were the mild terms in which our conduct was spoken of by the Tory press. I appeal to every candid man on this side of the House, or even on your own, whether these terms are more applicable to us who increased, or to you who reduced, the navy, and for such reasons as are stated by yourselves, with a frankness, which, I confess, almost disarms me.
I should have been glad, Sir, if the various publications to which I have alluded had confined themselves to even such violent and unjust attacks as these; but I grieve to see, that many of them are written in a tone and temper which make me blush to think, that they were written by Englishmen.
It used to be almost a reproach to an Englishmen, that he unduly despised everything that was foreign, unduly esteemed everything that was English. This was a pardonable, because it was a patriotic, pride. No such feeling appears in these publications; there, everything abroad is exalted, everything at home depreciated; I might not have complained if they had stopped here; but even beyond
*Times Newspaper, Feb. 23.

1219
this, the writers have made the grossest misstatements, and, in some cases, when evidently from the references in their own publications they had the means of correct information before them, they have yet stated what was untrue. I cannot characterise such a course, however unwilling I am to use a harsh word, but as little less than wilful misrepresentation.
Neither can I be surprised, that when these statements have been made public, apprehensions should have been very generally entertained in this country; or as I am told, that opinions derogatory to the honour and power of Great Britain, should have been expressed by individuals abroad. In one, however, of these fears I have never participated. I mean the fear that any foreign power should have been encouraged by such statements to assume a more hostile attitude, or to use more hostile language towards this country: and for this simple reason, because I am perfectly assured, that with those means of information which, in this free country, are open to everybody, there is no foreign power which has the least curiosity on the subject, which is not in possession of more accurate information than what is contained in these pamphlets—information unknown and neglected only by those who seek to depreciate their own country.
The pamphlets refer to the state of foreign navies and to our own. I will now advert to those of foreign powers, and first to that of the French. The statements as to the French navy are contained in a letter addressed to the Duke of Wellington, and signed (I do not know whether it was written) by "A Flag Officer," and which excited very great attention at the time of its first publication.
The French navy is a powerful and formidable navy, but the exaggerations in the flag officer's letter on the subject are perfectly absurd. He says they have "fifty-seven sail in commission, or ready for it. The name of each ship is given—the number of guns she carries, and the whole statement has an appearance of accuracy which might well deceive those who had no means of better information. Now, of the ships so described; as "in commission, or ready for it," nine have been broken up, condemned, burnt, or lost; three are hulks, one is a school ship, and twenty-two are building, so that
1220
out of the fifty-seven, he is wrong by no less than thirty-five.
The next point to which I will allude, illustrates the different manner in which he deals with things abroad and at home. He attacks me as Secretary to the Admiralty for saying, that we had at a particular time twenty sail of the line "at sea." He is candid enough, however, to confute himself in this point; for though he gives some reasons why he does not consider them as effective ships, a few pages afterwards, he gives the list of the twenty sail of the line at sea. But how does he deal with the French navy? They have, he says, twenty-two sail of the line "actually at sea." It will hardly be believed, that to make up the twenty-two he includes all the ships the French have afloat including those in ordinary. The number actually at sea is ten. There is no excuse for these inaccuracies. He professes to quote an able and elaborate report of Baron Tupinier, which contains the real state of the French navy, and the French annual estimates contain the fullest information. The French carry publicity to a fault. They carry it, as Sir John Barrow has mentioned in his late life of Lord Anson, to their own detriment. There is no disguise about the state of their navy. They have twenty-two ships afloat, and twenty-seven building, making forty-nine, I mean ships of the line; and I beg the Committee to understand, that unless I particularly specify it, I always mean ships of the line, for the task would be endless if I went into the details of smaller vessels. Their active force for 1838 was eight sail of the line, but, including reliefs, they had ten at sea.
The next subject I shall refer to, is the American navy, the ships of which are, as naval officers know, of a very formidable description; but it is an error to suppose that their navy has been much increased of late years. On the contrary, there have been great complaints in America that there was nothing doing in their dockyards. The American naval force is precisely what it was last year and a year or two back. They have seven ships of the line, and four building; eight frigates, and six building. [Sir James Graham intimated across the Table, that Sir John Barrow's letter stated twenty-six ships of the line.] There is a mistake in the statement in the table in Sir John Barrow's book; he has included in the ships build-

1221
ing, those for which frames are collected, or are contracted for. There can be no mistake about the matter; for the paper I am quoting is an extract from the report to Congress of the state of the navy. To satisfy the right hon. Baronet, I will give the statement in detail.
The Americans have two ships of the line in commission, three ready for sea, two in want of repair, four on the stocks, four of which the frames are collected, and eleven, the frames for which are contracted for, to be delivered by the year 1841; and it would be absurd to reckon as ships building, those for which the timber may as yet be growing in an American forest.
To show the want of vessels in the American navy, I will read an extract from the Secretary of the Navy's report.
"The act of congress approved 22nd December, authorized the President of the United States to employ the public vessels in cruising along the Atlantic coast during the winter season, for the purpose of affording relief to merchantmen in distress. Under this law, the sloop of war Erie, the brigs Pioneer and Consort, the schooner Active, and steamship Fulton were occasionally employed with beneficial results: owing to the want of proper vessels at the disposal of this department, after supplying the necessities of foreign stations, the steam-ship Fulton is the only one now available for this service."
And it is not a little curious, that in that country, the mother of steam navigation, this steam-vessel should be the only one belonging to the Government.
I come now to the great bugbear of my hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, the Russian navy; and certainly if I had believed the newspapers in the autumn, I should have thought, that the hon. Gentleman had inoculated half the country with his fears and hatred of Russia. Most exaggerated accounts had been put forth on the subject of the Russian navy; and the Admiralty are accused of being the only persons in the country ignorant and careless on the subject. I cannot expect, that anything that falls from me as an individual should excite the attention of this House; but I may call to the recollection of hon. Gentlemen, that in moving the navy estimates in 1836 I stated the force of the Russian navy, and stated it as one of the grounds on which I asked for an increase of our naval force, and what was the reception I met with? Why, I was taunted by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, for ha-
1222
ving made statements calculated to excite alarm at home, and apprehension of hostilities abroad. In spite of this circumstance we have been accused of ignorance on the subject; when it is notorious, that I made this statement in the House in 1836, and a statement to the same effect was made by the right hon. Member for Pembroke in the year 1835; by myself one year, and by him two years before the publication of Commander Craufurd's pamphlet. Sir, there is no difficulty in ascertaining the truth, if Gentlemen would only take the trouble of inquiring before they begin to write upon the subject.
The Russians have twenty-eight sail of the line in the Baltic fit for service, of which eighteen are seventy-four gun ships; and ten in the Black Sea, of which two are in bad condition; and Russian ships are remarkably subject to decay, so that a ship reported perfectly good one year, is sometimes condemned as unseaworthy the next.
This, then, being the condition of the Russian fleet in the Baltic, and which is, from the nature of the Russian naval service always kept ready for sea; I will admit to the hon. Member for Birmingham, that if, without provocation, without warning, in the middle of profound peace, regardless of the fearful vengeance which this country might exact, Russia chose to make a sudden attack on this country, she might do us considerable mischief; so I will admit, that if France, in time of profound peace, suddenly landed a large force on our shores, it might take some time to collect a force to oppose them; and so, Sir, your life and that of every one of us, is at the mercy of the first man we meet in the street, if, without provocation and without warning he chooses to attempt it. But are these dangers, which even the most prudent man thinks it necessary to guard against? If so, I ask if this country was ever in time of peace prepared against such dangers? If so, I ask if the three guard-ships, half-manned, in each port, about which we have heard so much, were an adequate defence against twenty-eight Russian ships of the line? If we are really to be protected against such an attack, we should have twenty or twenty-five sail of the line in the North Sea every summer. But surely hon. Gentlemen will perceive that this involves a question, which cannot be decided by a department, or even by a Government, it must be de-

1223
cided by Parliament and the country, for it is no less than whether we shall, in time of peace, maintain a war establishment.
Now, Sir, I recommend Gentlemen who advocate such a course, first to sit down and calculate the cost. It is not a question of two or three sail of the line, it is not a question of three or four thousand men, or of four or five hundred thousand pounds; it is a question of millions in every year since the peace up to the present time, and hereafter.
It is possible that all our greatest statesmen may have been wrong, and that a war establishment may be right; but this is a point which it yet remains for those Gentlemen to prove. I hold in my hand a curious paper on this subject, which, with the permission of the committee, I will read to them, as bearing directly upon my argument.
"The Duke of Choiseul on quitting office presented an elaborate and confidential paper to his sovereign, in which he entreats him most earnestly, to adopt a system subversive of the maritime greatness of Great Britain; such is avowed in the paper to have been the object to which the policy of France had long been directed. The aim and end, according to the writer, were just and reasonable, but the means adopted, namely the equipment of large fleets, and the resort to frequent hostilities were defective and injurious. The secret scheme recommended in the paper, and which it is contended therein, would to demonstration waste and destroy, not merely the navy of Great Britain, but the resources and spirit from which her greatness was derived, was according to this remarkable paper to keep her in a constant state of feverish apprehension, to compel her to exhaust her strength on peace establishments, and yet never afford her an opportunity by actual war, of dispelling the bugbears which excited these alarms.
The Duke de Choiseul, no unimportant or uninformed Minister of the power which was then our great rival, may be wrong; Lord Grenville may have been wrong; and almost every person who has taken a part in public affairs since 1815, may have been wrong; and it may be right to maintain a war establishment during peace. I will not now stop to argue this question further; if Parliament and the country decide upon a war establishment, we will do our best to administer the war, as we have to administer the peace establishment of the navy.
If, however, war establishments are not to be maintained, then the amount of the force must depend upon the nearer or
1224
more distant prospect of hostilities, and the state of our relations with foreign powers, of which, after all, the Ministers of the day must, on their responsibility, be the judges. On these grounds the present Administration proposed its vote of men in 1836, and the circumstances remaining the same, they will propose to the committee to vote the same number of men for the present year. On these grounds, too, I should have been willing to give full credit to the hon. Member for Tamworth, in his reduction of men, supposing that he believed the prospect of peace to have been increased by his accession to power, if it had not been for the frank confession of the noble Earl elsewhere, to which I have before alluded. The present Government did not think it for the honour or the interest of this country, that the naval force should be so low as it was when they came into office, and they, therefore, proposed, in their first estimates, an increase of 5,000 men.
Sir, it may be some consolation to my hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, to know that there is no great increase in the Russian fleet from what it was many years ago. The hon. Gentleman has referred this evening to what it was forty years back. I will state what its numbers have been at several periods. In 1787, the Russians had forty-five sail of the line, and several building; in 1801, sixty-one sail of the line; and in 1807, forty-three—precisely the same number as they have at present: I speak of those afloat, exclusive of ships building. Their ships are increased above what they were three, or four years ago, but they have not yet reached their establishment, which is forty-five sail of the line in the two seas.
It will be a further consolation to my hon. Friend, to be assured, that we have for years lived unarmed through dangers as great as that to which we are now ex. posed. The number of our ships in commission, is higher in proportion to the Russians than it has been for some time.
In 1817 we had fifteen sail of the line in commission, and Russia had thirty,—our ships being just one half of hers; in 1823, we had twelve, and the Russians thirty-seven,—our ships being in the proportion of one-third to hers; In 1832, we had eleven, and Russia thirty-six—being also in the proportion of nearly one-third; and now we have twenty, and Russia forty-three,—having raised our ships to nearly

1225
half the number of those of Russia. So far, therefore, we are in a better situation as respects that country, than in any year since 1817. In fact, England has now a larger naval force than she has ever yet maintained during peace. Including the ordinary, which, for this purpose, the men being available for sea service, I have a right to reckon, but excluding those employed in the home packets, the vote for seamen for 1838 was 24,700 men; and the highest vote under a Tory Government, including the coast blockade, namely, in 1828, was 21,000. The increase, therefore, above their highest vote is little short of 4,000 men. I repeat, therefore, that this country has at this moment the largest naval force, the greatest number of seamen, and the greatest number of ships in commission, that she has ever had since the peace.
I am aware, Sir, that several objections have been taken to the composition of our force, to which I will now advert.
It is said, in the first place, that we have only seventy-four gun ships, and that we ought to have more of our larger ships at sea. When Gentlemen are determined to object, there is no saying to what length their objections may not be carried; but if there is any one point on which I thought that we were beyond reproach, not that I take any credit for it to the present board of Admiralty, it was that of wearing out our small two-deckers in time of peace; and reserving our more powerful ships for the exigencies of war. This was the course recommended by the late comptroller of the navy, acted upon by former boards, followed up by us; and, I must say, that I am perfectly convinced that the course is a right one.
Another charge is, that our ships are half armed.
This charge may apply to the flagships at the ports, all of which have not their lower-deck guns in. The Howe at Sheerness has: guns for the others are lying ready at the Ordnance wharf; and I have only to appeal to any naval officer to confirm me in the statement, that no three-decker takes all her guns in at Portsmouth till she gets to Spithead. The Britannia could not he where she is if she had her lower deck guns in.
The next description of ships to which the charge might apply is the ships of the line conveying troops to America. It is perfectly true, that for the convenience of
1226
the troops embarked, these ships did take out their lower-deck guns. It was the practice during the war. In 1811, Sir Joseph Yorke, then a lord of the Admiralty, conveyed troops to Lisbon in no less than six ships of the line which had taken out their lower-deck guns.
The third description of ships to which the objection may apply, and to which I believe it was mainly directed, are the flag ships on foreign stations. The public has been led to suppose, that the present board of Admiralty has sent out ships much less powerful than those usually employed on foreign stations. When the present Government came into office the flag-ships on foreign stations were fourth or fifth rates, that is, frigates of the larger class. It was, however, represented to us, that it would be a great convenience and great benefit to the service if ships of the line without their lower deck guns were substituted on these stations, as by this means greater accommodation would be afforded to the admiral's retinue, and to the numerous supernumaries who are constantly borne in flag-ships abroad. For this reason the Admiralty assented to the proposal, and with the further knowledge, that if any occasion should arise for it, these ships might, by taking in their lower-deck guns, and completing their complements, which there is no difficulty in doing abroad, become at once effectual ships of the line. The best proof of this is, that out of three ships of this description on foreign stations, two have actually taken in their lower-deck guns. The moment it was thought necessary to act on the coast of America the lower-deck guns of the Cornwallis were taken in at Halifax, and her complement filled up. The same thing has since been done with the Wellesley in India.
It is a matter of small importance, and curious only as shewing how totally destitute of truth the charges against the Admiralty have been, that one accusation on this subject, contained in a newspaper sent up to me, as they frequently are when there is any attack upon the Admiralty in them, was, that great hardship had been inflicted upon the flag officers by this course; and still greater injustice, for by a special exception in favour of Lord Minto's brother, he had been allowed to have his lower deck guns mounted. Now, true it is, that Admiral Elliott's ship is a solitary exception, but it is an exception

1227
the other way: for the Melville is the only ship which has not her lower-deck guns.
The last objection is, that the ships are only half manned. It is perfectly true, that in time of peace the ships have only peace complements on board. An hon. and gallant Friend of mine has to-night expressed an opinion, that there should be no such thing as reduced complements in time of peace. Without meaning to defend ourselves for doing wrong, because others have done wrong before us, I have yet a right to say this, that all those distinguished officers who have at any time, during peace, sat at the board of Admiralty, have invariably been of opinion, that in peace a reduced complement was right. I do not feel myself competent to give a strong opinion on naval matters, especially in the presence of so many who are better able to form a proper judgment on such matters than myself; but I must say, that it seems to me to stand to reason, that if in time of war such a complement of men is put into a ship as are able to fight all her guns in a protracted action—to go through all the hard service that is incident to a time of war—and even to furnish prize-crews, a smaller complement may be sufficient when none of' these contingencies are likely to arise. With regard to what the amount of such complements should be, I feel myself still more unable to express an opinion. The peace complement of 1834, which has been complained of, and which, after all, was not framed by us, was very considerably larger than the peace complement which, from the year 1816 to 1826, was established in the navy, and which officers of long experience in naval affairs supposed, up to the latter of those years, to be sufficient. In 1826, the complements were increased. They have subsequently been changed from time to time,—supernumeraries were given to some ships, and taken away from others; but the changes have been made upon no rule whatever. In 1834, the complements were reviewed, and a small reduction made.
I readily admit, that in some classes of ships, especially in those technically called Razées, and in the new classes of ships, the complements fixed in 1834 were too small. The Admiralty were some time ago disposed to increase them; but those who have been connected with the ma-
1228
nagement of public affairs will know what strong objections there are to dealing with particular cases; and, as the Admiralty had, under their consideration, a scheme for the new armament of the navy, which necessarily entailed a revision of the complements, they thought it better to postpone doing anything till the whole could be done on a system.
Experiments have been carried on for some time on board the Gunnery ship, in Portsmouth Harbour, which were brought to a conclusion in the course of last year. A scheme of armament for all classes of ships was then framed, and was taken into consideration by the board as soon as they met after the recess. It is too technical a subject for me to enter upon in this House; but I may state, upon the opinion of most able and competent officers, that the new armament is of a most powerful and formidable description. As soon as the armament was fixed, the complements were revised. The arrangement of the war complements is nearly made; but, as it is not pressing, and requires an Order in Council, it is not yet quite completed. The peace complement, however, has been completed, giving a considerable increase, especially in those ships where the deficiency was most complained of.
A paper was put into my hands, showing the ratio of reduction of former peace complements as compared with the war complement of 1814; and, as it afforded a fair test of comparison, I had that of the new peace complement added to it. The peace complement of 1816 was twenty-four per cent. below the war complement of 1814; that of 1826, seven per cent.; that of 1834, eight per cent.; and the peace establishment, as just fixed, will only be four and a half per cent. below it. And I do believe, that what the hon. Member for Bristol said ought to be done,—what my gallant Friend, Captain Berkeley, was so anxious to see,—a proper and adequate peace complement, has been established, and one which will give satisfaction to the best officers in the service.
Since Parliament has met, I must admit, that we have heard little or nothing of these charges of a general reduction of our navy. It is not the first time, that accusations against the Government, which have been rife enough during the autumn recess, have vanished, as at the touch of Ithuriel's spear, on the meeting of Par-

1229
liament. Since then the charges have dwindled down into an imputation of having neglected the defence of our own shores; and having so far departed from the course pursued by former Governments, that now an American privateer might run unopposed up the Channel, and burn the town of Brighton.* It is somewhat strange, that hon. Gentlemen opposite had not found this out in the year 1835, when the shores of this country were in a much more defenceless position. This, too, I stated in the year 1836, as another of the grounds upon which I then asked the House for an increase of force. It is true, that hon. Gentlemen opposite were not in office in the summer of 1835, but it is notorious, that the estimates by which the amount of force is determined, are settled soon after Parliament meets in each year; and, indeed, the arrangements for the year are made early in the spring, especially when there is a probability, that a Government is going out. A Government coming in afterwards can only deal with the force which it finds. [Cheers from Sir Robert Peel.] If the right hon. Gentleman supposes, that I mean to imply any censure on the appointment of the officers then made, I assure him he is quite mistaken. I only mean, that after completing the frigates which had just been commissioned, we had no disposable force left. [Sir R. Peel: You might have moved a supplementary estimate.] We might have moved a supplementary estimate, says the right hon. Gentleman. I admit, that such a course was possible, but I never heard of its having been adopted; and if the right hon. Gentleman means to reproach me for not having done se, I ask him, how it happened, that they did not come down to amend their own estimate, and ask for an increase to the number of men which they admit to have been too small, and that they were fully aware of it, even in the short time which elapsed after their vote before they quitted office?
The old system, and which we have now again heard so much commended, was to keep three half-manned guard-ships in each port. I believe a worse system for the discipline and habits both of officers and men never was invented. This system was discontinued by the right hon. Member for Pembroke in 1832. He
*See the Flag Officer's Letter.
1230
substituted three inefficient flag-ships; I mean ships which could not go to sea. He established what were called demonstration ships; and the whole of his active force consisted of sea-going ships. So it was when hon. Gentlemen opposite came into power, and if they disapproved of this plan so much, and thought the old system of guard-ships so advantageous, they might have commissioned guard-ships in the spring of 1835. They did no such thing; they did commission frigates; and though for the first of the periods no blame can attach to them, it is singular enough, that the year 1835 is the only year for a long time in which neither on the 1st of January, nor on the 1st of July, was there any sea-going ship of the line in any of our harbours. This was so much felt by the present board, that one of their first acts was to restore efficient flag-ships in our ports. The orders for this purpose were given in June, 1835; and from the time that these ships were completed, there has been an efficient three-decker in each of our ports.
One great argument used in favour of the guard-ships has been the celerity with which troops were conveyed to Lisbon in 1826; and hearing this point so urged, any body ignorant on the subject might suppose, that troops had not been sent out to Canada last year in the same manner, in greater numbers, and in circumstances of greater difficulty, both from this country and the Mediterranean.
The system upon which we have acted, has been to have within reach every summer what we consider to be a sufficient number of efficient ships of the line. We consider, as in this situation, any ships at Lisbon, on the north coast of Spain, or cruising as an experimental squadron. With the more rapid and certain means of communication now afforded by steam vessels, I see no difficulty in collecting ships from this distance in a very short time. It was always considered advisable to send even the guard-ships occasionally to sea for the practice both of officers and men. Even they were not always at home.
Taking, then, the ships so employed in addition to those in our ports, there was within reach, in the month of July, 1835, when I do not consider ourselves responsible for the arrangement, one single ship of the line; in July, 1836, the first year of our arrangements, there were fourteen;

1231
in July, 1837, there were eleven; in the month of April, last year, there were nine. Four were dispatched to America with troops; they returned as soon as they had performed that duty; and in the month of August there were again nine ships of the line within reach. So far, then, from our coasts having been left defenceless, I maintain, that we were in a better condition with nine efficient ships within reach, than with nine guard-ships in our ports. My noble Friend (Lord Ingestrie) has moved for returns, shewing the number of the complements of the ships stationed on the coasts of this country on the 1st of December for several years. I find, that the number in December, 1835, was 2539; and in December, 1836, the number was 5467, more than double that of the preceding year.
I come now to the demonstration ships. They were established by the right hon. Member for Pembroke, and we have persevered in the same system. I admit that they are not now in the same state of readiness as that which he recommended; and I will state the reason for this to the Committee. It was found on examining some of them in 1836, that the tanks, and other things which they had on board, tended very much to produce decay; and not only the rigging, but the masts of others had become so rotten that it was necessary to take them out and to put new ones in. For this reason the system was changed, and the stores, masts, &c., are now kept in store-houses, preserved from the risk of decay, but perfectly ready to be at once put into the ships. Certainly some, but a very trifling delay might be caused by this; but it is evident, that the ships from which it was necessary to take out the old masts and rigging could not be so soon ready as under the present system.
Much has been said about the time which has been required to get these demonstration ships ready for sea. It is quite impossible in time of peace to get work so rapidly done, as when every body feels, that there is a real necessity for exertion. Besides, in fitting a ship for a long station many alterations and improvements are made, which would not be necessary in order to send the ship to sea in case of need. The Ganges took a long time in fitting at Portsmouth, but the master shipwright of that yard told my hon. Friend near me (Sir C. Adam) on the
1232
deck of the Ganges, that there was not more of really necessary shipwright's work required for her than could be done in forty-eight hours if she was wanted for an emergency. As to their requiring caulking, or being taken into dock to have their copper examined, it is equally necessary for guard-ships, or indeed for any ships lying in harbour. It is always done at intervals. If a ship happens to be commissioned just after one of these periods, she needs nothing; if just before, there is of course this additional work to be done.
The next and most important point is the manning of the navy.
I do not apprehend that there is more difficulty now in manning the navy than usually has been the case during peace. I do not refer, of course, to the years immediately subsequent to the last war, when so many seamen were suddenly thrown out of employment. In the year 1812 we had a vote for near 150,000 men; in the year 1818 for 14,000. With every allowance for a number of foreigners employed during the war, and for the seamen who might be absorbed in the commercial service, there must have been for some time nearly 100,000 men who could not find employment. The manning is now exceedingly slow, from the selection which officers think it necessary to make. Much depends upon accident; still more upon the character of the officer commanding the ship. There is no place where it has generally been so difficult to man ships as Sheerness; and yet not very long ago, a 74-gun ship was manned there in little more than a fortnight, and with one of the best crews which any ship has lately carried to sea. If, as I believe it does, the selection tends to promote order and discipline on board ship, and to diminish the necessity for corporal punishment, I do not see why, in time of peace, such haste should be made as to risk those advantages. It appears from a statement which was published in the Times newspaper, from a forthcoming work by Captain Marryatt, that exactly the same complaint is made in America; and that their ships of war lie for months in port before they can get manned.
The condition of the British seamen has recently been improved; and it is now superior in every respect to that of the merchant seamen, except in that of pay. Even the pay in the Queen's service is very little lower than that of seamen in

1233
merchant ships for long voyages. Hon. Gentlemen do not seem to take into account the number of petty officers in Queen's ships, who are raised exactly as seamen for the Queen's or merchant service, but who receive higher rates of pay. Our attention, too, has been particularly directed to improving the condition of this most meritorious class of officers; and I had great pleasure in stating the other night, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Boston, that by a recent order they have been put into classes, and their pay increased. The pay of those in all ships of the line has been made equal to that in first-rates. The second class comprises all those in other rated ships; and the third, those in sloops and small vessels. The increase in the amount of pay varies from two and three to six and seven shillings per month.
The question of the pay of seamen is one not very easy to deal with, for it involves that of the amount of pay in the merchant service. It appears, however, from Captain Marryatt's statement, to which I have already referred, that the amount of Queen's pay in this country approaches much more nearly to that of the merchant service, than the State pay does to the merchants pay in America. Captain Marryatt states that the seamen in the American merchant service receive 3l. 10 s. per month; in the service of the Government, 2l. per month; and that in England the merchant seamen's wages vary from 2l. 2s. to 2l. 10 s. per month, whilst our seamen receive 1l. 14 s. Taking then the amount for the year, the American merchant seaman receives 42 l. per annum; the seaman in an American ship of war receives 24 l. per annum, or 26 l., if it is reckoned as in this country, by the lunar month; the difference in one case being 18 l. in the other 16 l. per annum. The English merchant seaman receives 25 l. 4s. or 30 l. per annum, according as we take the lower or the higher rate of pay; the seaman in the Queen's service receives 22 l. 2s. per annum; the difference in one case being 3l. 2s., in the other 7l. 18 s. per annum, and the greatest difference does not amount to half the lowest difference in the American pay.
Speaking then, generally, I do not conceive that, in ordinary circumstances, and maintaining about the same permanent number of men in the Queen's service, there will be any difficulty in manning
1234
our fleet. The question is, however, altered, when we come to make an increase to the number of men. In discussing this question, Gentlemen seem to me to treat it as if the supply and demand of seamen were regulated by different principles from that of other description of persons. It must be evident to hon. Gentlemen that there never can be for any length of time either in this or in any other country, a greater number of seamen, than those for whom, either in the service of the State, or of individuals, there is permanent employment. If, then, there is a demand for men, beyond the usual number, for the Queen's service, they must be drawn from the merchant service; and the immediate effect is to raise the pay in the merchant service. All the distress and stagnation of commerce in the last two years, produced no effect in reducing the wages of merchant seamen; but so small a draft upon them as 5,000 men in 1836, (and, indeed, in that year we did not actually draw more than 3,000), raised the merchant wages considerably, and complaints were made to the Admiralty that several vessels were lying in the Thames unable to go to sea for want of men.
It is therefore very desirable that any increase of the number of men in the Navy should be made slowly and gradually; and I believe that the best mode of doing this is by entering boys and training them up in the service; as by this means they acquire an attachment to the service in which they have been bred up from their youth, and make the very best seamen in the navy.
I will now advert to the resources which we should have at command in this country, in case of need, as compared with foreign countries. With regard to Russia, it is obvious that it is the necessary condition of the maintenance of her navy, that they should keep up in peace whatever they consider requisite for their war establishment. They have no mercantile marine to draw upon, and if they did not maintain their numbers even in peace, they would be without resource for war. The Americans, if Captain Marryatt's statement is to be depended upon, rely entirely on this country for their supply of seamen, and not only much of their State navy, but a large portion of their merchant vessels, are manned by men from this country. The French, like other nations, depend upon their mercantile re-

1235
sources; and their mode of raising men is, as is well known, by the means of what is termed "The Inscription." The book to which I have before referred, Baron Tupinier's Report on the French Navy, contains an account of the Inscription. According to him, there appeared, on the inspection of 1835, to be 90,000 registered seamen in France. Of these, 37,000 were either masters, landsmen or apprentices; of the remainder, 18,000 were either below or above age,—leaving actually available 35,000 men; of these, however, 18,000 were already in the King's service, so that the whole number they could rely upon for an increase of their naval force, was only 17,000. Baron Tupinier certainly questions the accuracy of this, which is however the official account of the inspection of the Inscription in 1835, as given by himself. It is clear, however, that the whole number registered in France is 90,000; and deducting the 18,000 already in their navy, there remains 72,000, of all classes and ages, available as a resource for an increase of their navy.
By the last returns under the Act for the registry of merchant seamen, there were in this country 200,000 registered seamen of all classes, including apprentices. The actual number registered is 202,000; but allowing for deaths or double entries, which, however, cannot go to any great extent, I take it at 200,000.
This number, moreover, does not include all the fishermen, or many other branches of our maritime population. There is no official account of their numbers; but upon the best calculation that can be made, and upon very good data, I cannot calculate the number of seafaring men beyond the 200,000 registered seamen, at less than 150,000. It has been said that there has been a reduction of seamen of late years in England, and especially since the general introduction of steam navigation; so far from this being the case, there has beeen a considerable increase. The returns which I am now about to quote, are not accurate accounts of the actual number of seamen, and I beg the Committee to understand that I use them for the purpose of comparison only. They are prepared in the Custom-house, upon the same data in different years; and I am assured by the very intelligent officer at the head of the office for the registry of merchant seamen,
1236
that as comparative statements in different years, and as such only I use them, they may safely be relied upon. By these returns it appears that the number of registered seamen was—

In 1833

164,000

1834

168,000

1835

171,000

1836

171,600

1837

173,500

Giving an increase in the five years of no less than 9,500. I cannot give any account to a later period, for the returns are only made up in March. It is to be observed, however, that in the year 1836, in consequence of returns made in pursuance of one of the provisions of the Merchant Seamen's Act, several vessels which had been lost were struck off the list; the crews of which amounted, according to the scale of the returns, to 1,800 men. If it were not for this circumstance, the increase would have been greater both in that and the subsequent year. In order, therefore, to take the comparison fairly, 1,800 ought to be deducted from the numbers of the preceding years; which would give an increase in the five years of upwards of 11,000 men. With regard to the effect of steam, it appears from the same returns that it has not operated sensibly in diminishing the increase of our sailing vessels, which are the real nurseries of our seamen. In 1833,there were 24,385 sailing vessels, and in 1837, 26,037; the increase in the five years being no less than 1,652. I cannot state the increase of steam-vessels in the same time from any official documents, but from a statement which appeared a short time ago in a Liverpool paper, it appears that in 1833 there were 415, and in 1836 there were 600, the increase being 185.
The Committee may be interested in knowing the number of merchant steam-vessels at present belonging to this country, and I must say that I do not look upon this as one of the least formidable resources which we possess in the event of a war. By a return which I have before me, it appears that the number of steam-vessels in this country

of 200-horse power and upwards is

65

of 100-horse power to 200 is

136

making together 201 of 100-horse power and upwards.

Of from 50 to 100-horse power

160

Under 50 to

318

making altogether 679 steam-vessels;

1237
and I have reason to believe, that even this statement is under the mark, especially as relates to the larger class of steam-boats, which are increasing daily.
With these enormous resources, then, of our mercantile marine, upon which we have always hitherto securely relied, which have always been considered the real maritime strength of this country, in which not all the nations of the world put together can compete with us, I see no reason for supposing that in any circumstances, or in any emergency that may arise, we are not in a much better condition for manning our fleet, and better prepared, if need be, even for war, than at any former period of our history.
I will state shortly to the Committee what has been done on former occasions when it was necessary to increase the naval force, and when we had not such means at command as now.
In the armament of 1787, there were 14,000 men borne in August; in October, there were 24,000.
In 1790, there were borne in April 17,000 men; they were doubled by the month of June, when the numbers borne were 34,000. In September, the same year, the number was 52,000.
In the armament of 1792 and 1793, the number borne in November, 1792, was 12,000; it was nearly doubled by January 1793, when the number was 23,000; in two months more, in March, the number was 39,000; in May, 50,000; in July, 60,000; and, before the end of the year, the number had been raised to nearly six times its amount, in the month of November, 1792, viz, to 70,000 men.
I have now, on this part of the subject, only to refer to the existing means for immediately sending additional men to our ships; and to the question of putting down the Coast-blockade, which was considered as a great and valuable resource for this object. Great exaggerations have been made use of on this subject on all sides. The right hon. Member for Pembroke put down the Coast-blockade in conformity with the report of several committees of this House; and it must be remembered, also, that this is not exclusively a naval question. The protection of the revenue is intimately concerned in it. He has been much blamed for destroying a great resource for manning our navy. But the resource has been overstated; for the right hon. Gentleman
1238
mentioned in this House, that the number of able seamen in the coast-blockade, at the time when it was put down, amounted to only 800. The right hon. Baronet established the system of the coast-guard, with the view of affording an inducement to men to enter the navy, and as a reward for the best seamen. I do not think that it has quite answered the expectations which he entertained of it in this respect. I am inclined to think that perhaps a system may be devised, which, without interfering with the protection of the revenue, may again render it of more advantage towards manning the navy. This, however, will be inquired into before a commission, of which a Lord of the Admiralty will be a member, which is about to sit, and to investigate the whole subject of the coastguard service, and which would have commenced its labours ere now, but for the severe illness of the Assistant-Secretary of the Treasury.
But, Sir, whatever resource has been taken away by putting down the coast-blockade, we have more than supplied by commissioning the ordinary. Formerly, the persons employed in taking care of our ships in ordinary, were not liable, and many of them not capable, of going to sea. They are now all of them men raised for general service, liable to be sent to sea, and in practice occasionally drafted into sea-going ships.
The number available for this purpose in January last, was 1,449, men and boys. When the complements of the guard-ships of the ordinary are completed, there will be about 2,200; and the number actually drawn from the ordinaries, or lent to sea-going ships in the course of last year, was 589; as large a number as ever were drafted from the coast-blockade in the same time. To show what description of boys were employed in the ordinaries, and trained up in the service, the Committee will, I am sure, hear with pleasure part of a letter from one of the officers of the ordinary, which has been received within this day or two. A number of second class boys had been ordered from the ordinaries into the flag-ships to be sent to foreign stations:—
"About 80 of our second class boys have been discharged to-day into the flagship. Nothing can exceed the trouble which has been taken with the boys by the officers of the ordinary, in the exercise

1239
of the great guns, in reefing and furling sails; and I assure you some of the second class boys now gone into the flag-ship are as expert at the gun exercise as the seamen are, and our first class boys sometimes beat the men."
Such, Sir, then, is the state of our navy, and of our naval resources; and I do not hesitate to say that, whether as regards the active force employed—the force for the defence of our own shores—the number of seamen in the country, or those available for immediate demands—this country never was, in time of peace, in so powerful a condition as she is at this moment.
I turn now to the next great branch of the estimates—the maintenance of the ships of our fleet. It is perfectly true, that the number of our ships of the line has been diminishing since the peace; they, like everything else, have been coming to what was considered to be the peace establishment; but they have not yet reached what was considered the minimum limit. The present Board of Admiralty, however, thinking that limit somewhat too low, knowing also that some of the ships were very old, and thinking that we were deficient in some particular classes of ships, have already commenced the increase. The maintenance of our ships evidently depends upon the amount of work in our dockyards.
Orders for the reduction of the number of men in our dockyards, were given by the Duke of Wellington's Government, in January 1830, although they were not carried into effect till May 1831, by the right hon. Member for Pembroke; and I, perhaps, can hardly give a better proof of the advantage derived from the abolition of the Navy Board, than the fact that orders issued to them by the Admiralty in January 1830, were only very partially executed in May 1831.
I am, however, sorry that the right hon. Baronet did not carry out the intentions of the Board of Admiralty in 1830, in directing this reduction of men; which were, that when reduced in numbers, they should work six days in the week: 7,000 men, or rather upwards, working for five days in the week (and a more absurd system than that of working five days only, never was practised,) are about equal to 6,000 working for six days—and therefore no reduction in the amount of work would thus have been made.
The right hon. Baronet, however, allowed the 6,000 men to work five days only, and he put them on day pay, which further reduced the amount of labour performed. It is not very easy to estimate the reduction made, but it must have been much more considerable than I should think he could have contemplated. The annual consumption of ship-building timber, on the average of seven years, ending in 1830, was 21,600 loads. The annual consumption on the average of four years, ending in 1836, the year before we made the increase, was only 9,600, the difference being no less than 12,000 loads. With every allowance for waste and error under the old system, such a diminution in the consumption of timber cannot but indicate a great reduction of work performed.
The votes for wages were:

In 1829

£.480,000

1833

390,000

1834

300,000

The present Board of Admiralty in their first visit to the dockyards in the autumn of 1835, began to entertain apprehensions of the inadequacy of the work. An additional half day was given for three months in 1836: subsequent additions were made, and including what was taken for the packets, but exclusive of the yard at Holyhead, the votes for wages in 1838, was 384,000 l. The number of persons employed in our dockyards, in April 1835, when we came into office, was 6,265; in October last, the number employed was 7,644; some reduction has been subsequently made, but the number employed in January last was 7,591, being an increase of 1,326 persons.
This increase, together with the employment of all the people for six days in the week, amounts altogether to nearly one-third of the work performed before.
I will now state to the Committee what has been done with these means. The first attention of the Admiralty was directed to the small vessels, for which there was an immediate and pressing demand. There were in commission of sloops and small vessels of all kinds, in 1835, eighty-five; in 1838, 107; the increase being twenty-two. Of steam-vessels, omitting the packets on home stations, there were in all stages in 1835, twenty-four; there are now thirty-six: being an increase of twelve, within three years.
As however the subject of steam-vessels

1241
is one of the greatest interest, I will state in detail what we have done as to increasing their number. In the year 1835 one steam-vessel of 140 horse-power was launched. In the year 1836, also one steam-vessel of 140 horse-power was launched. In the year 1837, when our increase to the dockyards began to take effect, one large war steam-ship of 300 horse-power; one of 140 horse-power, and two small ones for the home packet stations were launched. In the year 1838 there have been completed, though two of them are not yet launched, one war steam-vessel of 220 horse-power, two of 240 horse-power, one of 160 horse-power, and two of 300 horse power, large packets for the Liverpool stations. There are nearly completed, and will be launched in the course of the spring, and completed before midsummer, one large war steamship of 300 horse-power and two of 280 horse-power, and arrangements are made for launching six other steam-vessels of inferior power within the year. The numbers completed in each of the five years, will therefore be as follows:—

In 1835

1

1836

1

1837

4

1838

6

1839

9

We found five war steam-vessels, and we shall have added seven, by next midsummer, and generally speaking of larger power; besides very much improving the description of our packets both abroad and at home.
In large ships we have done but little, for want of means. The increase we have made will enable us to launch one three-decker, and two second-rates this year. Three ships of the line will be laid down in the course of the year; and I trust, what has always been intended but not executed, duplicate frames of them provided.
We have also made arrangements for recurring to a system which was very beneficial for the navy, I mean building teak ships in India. We have taken a small increase in the vote for wages this year; but we think it desirable to have another year's experience of the effect of a system of work we have introduced into the yards, before we can decide what measures it may ultimately be necessary to adopt.
The next head of expenditure is for the stores of the navy. Upon this subject hon. Gentlemen will remember how con-
1242
stant and how loud the attacks upon us have been. I confess I was not much alarmed, for I remembered how similar attacks had been made upon the right hon. Member for Pembroke, and equally without foundation. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, by whom those attacks were made, thought, that the system of the right hon. Baronet was so wrong, how comes it, I would ask, that they did not alter it when they came into office. They did no such thing, they reduced the lowest amount ever taken by the right hon. Member for Pembroke for providing stores, by no less a sum than 82,000 l., and the lowest vote ever taken for stores, was that taken by the Government of the right hon. Member for Tamworth.
Whether we look to the total strength of our navy; to the defence of the coasts of this country, or to the provision for naval stores, the most inadequate means were those provided in the estimates of 1835.
I will deal first with converted stores, because they depend, in great measure, as the ships do, upon the number of workmen in the yards. Nothing, Sir, could be so absurd as the old system of stores: great part of them, invariably rotted in the yards before they could be used. We have heard a great deal said of the advantages of appropriated stores. The system was to appropriate all the stores for a ship, put them away in a separate place, to be ready for the ship when commissioned. In the first inspection of the dock-yards by the right hon. Member for Pembroke, he found such appropriated stores, carefully put away, labelled with the ship's name, not to be touched till she was commissioned, and the only objection to their being used was, that the ship had been broken up for years. No wonder, that under such a system, so faithfully carried out, stores rotted in our yards; and if the right hon. Member for Pembroke had done nothing else, he would have done the greatest service in putting an end to such a system. If I were to find fault with the right hon. Baronet, I should say, that he had not probed the system deep enough, for we found a considerable quantity of stores in this state.
Sir, in the statements I am about to make, I beg most distinctly to say, that I impute blame to nobody: but I do wish to call the attention of the Committee to them, as they shew the great difficulties

1243
we have had to contend with, and the exertions we have made to put our stores into a proper state, beyond the increase which we have made to our force at sea.
One of the most important articles of store are the lower masts of ships, and which take some time to make. En the autumn of 1835, we had reason to think, that the lower masts in store were not in good condition. A survey was ordered in November 1835, and on the completion of that survey no less than 161 lower masts were found defective. Nearly one half of the lower masts for ships of the line were condemned. We have been somewhat impeded in raising the amount of the masts in store by the reduced state of the establishment; but we have now a store in fact, which we then had, only on paper.
The next article is top-masts.
Top-masts are soon made, perish rapidly when made, are easily preserved in spars; it is not, therefore, the practice to keep a large quantity in a converted state. Taking then together, the top-masts and the spars for top-masts, we have of the largest size fit for ships of the line, and assuming as the basis of calculation the consumption of last year with our increased force, a quantity equal to twenty years consumption.
What I have said of lower masts, is equally applicable to rigging and sails; great quantities of those in store were found defective on commissioning the ships in 1836, one-third of the fitted rigging for ships of the line was condemned as unserviceable.
Cables and cordage are above the establishment. With regard to yarn, an alteration was made in 1833 in the mode of making it, with the view of improving its durability. I do not think, that the improved quality has at all made up for the diminished production. Now what have we done as to rope-making? We gave the rope-makers the sixth day per week in 1836, we have since doubled the number a persons employed in rope-making in our yards, besides adding very powerful machinery at Chatham for this purpose.
The quantity of yarn produced in 1836, was double that produced in 1835. In 1837 we doubled again the production of 1836; and in 1838, we have produced six times as much as was made in 1835.
The result is, that there are now the main articles of store complete, requisite
1244
for sending to sea more than thirty sail of the line, besides frigates; those for five or six more are nearly ready. These ships are in addition to those already in commission; so that we have in fact stores for between fifty and sixty sail of the line.
I am perfectly aware, that this statement differs from that made by a noble Earl, who even took the trouble of visiting two of our dock-yards for the purpose of acquiring full information on the subject of our stores. I can only say, that any statements he may have made as to the inadequacy of our stores, are completely contradicted, not only by the ordinary official returns from the yards, but also by more particular communications which we have since had with the super-intendants of the yards. I will take two of the principal statements insisted on by the noble Lord.—He said, that there was no lower mast in store for the Revenge at Portsmouth. I will read an extract from a letter of Rear-Admiral Bouverie, the superintendant of the yard, to whom reference has been made:—
"There were masts in store fit and ready to put on board the Revenge, on the 31st of January last, if it had been requisite to have masted her before those destined for her were completed. Her own masts would have been completed long ere this, if it had not been considered expedient to season the fishes and cheeks as long as was convenient, before fixing them in their places on the exterior of the masts."
The truth therefore was, that though the masts destined for her were not quite completed, there were others ready for her in the yard.
With regard to the statement as affecting another yard, Plymouth, the noble Lord said that there were no topsails in store: of small sails of various sorts there were plenty, but of topsails (the important sails, without which a ship cannot go to sea), there were none. Such, Sir, did not appear to be the case, by the ordinary return of stores; but to prevent the possibility of a mistake, I wrote to the superintendant, Admiral Warren, to ascertain what topsails there were in the yard on the day when the noble Lord was there. I have received his answer; and on the 31st of January last, when the noble Lord said there was not a single topsail in the yard, there were in fact for ships of the line 66; for frigates of the large classes, 70. The noble Earl further stated that there were no complete suits of sails for line-of

1245
battle ships at Plymouth. There were in fact complete suits for foreign service; for first-rates, three sets; for second-rates, one; for third-rates, three,—making together seven complete sets for ships of the line, and six for large frigates. Complete suits for foreign service contain more sails than are needed, in order to send ships to sea, or than they carried for Channel service even during the war.
Part of the sails for Plymouth yard are made at Deptford, and a number, to com-plete other sets, arrived at Plymouth from thence on the 2nd of February; but I confine myself to what there was in store, on the day of the noble Earl's visit.
I am indeed aware that the noble Earl says our returns are false—that is a grave and serious charge to make against, the individuals to whom it is applied. I appeal to those who have formerly been connected with the Admiralty, and who are personally acquainted with the individuals, the storekeepers of the different yards, if they are men likely to make false returns. I ask if, with the certainty of detection staring them in the face, they would dare to do so. I ask the Committee, if the hon. and gallant Officers, the superintendents of the yards who transmit the returns, Admiral Bouverie and Admiral Warren, men of as high family and rank as the noble Earl himself, are men likely to make false returns. I ask, if the Storekeeper-general of the Navy, than whom a more honourable man does not exist, is a man likely to make a false return. I am sure that if the noble Earl had considered for a moment, he would have retracted the charge as soon as it was made. I ask then the Committee, whether such information as a hasty visit to the yards could afford, or the returns made by such men as I have described, are most to be relied upon.
I do wish, however, to call the particular attention of the Committee to these statements. A noble Lord, a most honourable man, incapable I am sure of stating what he does not believe to be true, a captain in the navy, and therefore conversant with the subject, goes down to the dockyards for the very purpose of obtaining a knowledge of the state of the stores; communicates with the superintendent; is accompanied at Plymouth round the yard by the master-attendant (an old shipmate of the noble Earl's) with orders to shew him every thing he might wish to see, and
1246
yet with these, the best possible means of obtaining the most accurate information—what is the result? The public, I freely admit, has a right to rely on such testimony. Without such means of official information as we possess, it could not have had better evidence, and yet I have shewn you, on evidence which cannot be disputed, that a statement so erroneous could hardly have been made.
With regard to all these stores, I state on the authority of the Storekeeper-general of the Navy, who was himself a member of the Navy Board, and has been for ten or twelve years in a most responsible situation in Somerset House, and has better means of forming an opinion than any other individual, that never in his memory were the stores of the navy in so efficient a state.
With regard to unconverted stores. The establishment for timber was fixed by the Navy Board in 1826 at two years consumption; we have now timber in store for five years. The store of hemp is above the establishment; that of canvass, including what is due from contractors, is higher than for some years past.
We have taken a considerable increase in the vote for stores this year.
As to timber, there were reasons connected with the state of the contract which prevented our doing so last year; the increased consumption requires an increased supply. We have also entered into engagements for the supply of Italian oak; and for a quantity of larch, which, being a lighter wood, is particularly useful in building steam-vessels.
There will be an increased consumption of hemp; and the price has risen from 30 l. to 45 l. per ton.
The same is true of canvass.
There is an increased sum for steam machinery; and further sums are taken for increasing the supply of anchors and boats.
I will now call the attention of the Committee to the subject of repairs and new works in our yards; and, under this head, I must say that I do not think enough has been done since the peace, especially when we consider the large works and large outlay which the French have made for similar purposes. A plan for improving Woolwich yard was proposed some years ago, and I am sorry to say was then postponed. We have been carrying it on gradually: first, by

1247
erecting a new river wall; last year we provided for the entrances of the docks; this year we shall commence the construction of the docks; and we shall have completed, so as to be in operation before the end of the year, a large establishment for the construction and repair of boilers and steam machinery.
Chatham dockyard had been very much neglected, and a great portion of the sheds and houses have been almost rebuilt within these few years.
At Portsmouth attempts have been made to patch up the sea wall, which have failed; and we are now about to undertake repairing the slips, which are unsafe, and the wall along the harbour, in a solid and effectual manner. In the course of doing this, two new slips will be constructed. It will take about two or three years to complete this work.
At Plymouth in the same manner a building slip, which is not safe, is to be made good; and the sea walls repaired in a substantial manner; and this latter work is to be so executed as to form the commencement of works necessary for the construction of a basin; the want of which at Plymouth has been long felt and complained of.
Two roofs will be constructed at Pembroke.
There is another point for which considerable provision is made in these estimates, and that is, for introducing machinery of different kinds into our yards. I think too little has been hitherto done for this purpose. This probably arose from a desire not to discharge the men; but it is impossible to go through any of the great private establishments in this country, and not to feel ashamed of the state of our dockyards in this respect.
There will in many cases be a great saving made by these means. In one instance, which is included in the present estimates, the introduction of so simple a thing as fan-bellows, the cost of which is not more than 1,200 l. I believe the saving will be near 1,000 l. per annum; by the increased labour of the smiths who are now employed in blowing the bellows.
We have already erected rope machinery at Chatham; we have completed the millwright machinery at Plymouth; and we have purchased the most powerful machinery, (a splendid proof of the genius of Captain Huddart, an officer of the East India Company's service,) for making
1248
rope, and a sum is taken in the present estimates for erecting it at Deptford.
Sir, I have now gone through the different main branches of expenditure on which the strength of our navy depends, and I trust I have shewn that we have not neglected our duty. I have shewn in what state we found our establishments, the exertions we have made, and the state to which we have brought them, a state of efficiency, I do not hesitate to say, unparalleled in time of peace.
After having trespassed so long on the attention of the Committee, I will only say, upon the other heads of estimate, that there is a considerable increase in the victualling estimate, over which we have no control, as it arises entirely from the increased price of provisions; but I must advert shortly to a new item which appears in the scientific vote, for the re-establishment, though on a different footing, of the Royal Naval College. The old Naval College was put down a short time ago, because the Admiralty did not think that any useful end was gained by it, beyond what might be attained by education at private establishments, and enforced by an examination previous to the entry of first class volunteers. There had been great complaints of the College, and soon after Lord Minto came to the Admiralty, there were forty vacancies and only one candidate for admission. As a better means of affording education to young gentlemen in the navy, when we suppressed the College, we introduced a schoolmaster of a superior description, with increased pay, who is now termed, "Naval Instructor." We were somewhat disappointed at first in the expectations we had been led to form of the number of candidates who would come forward. There are now, however, twelve in sea-going ships, and three preparing themselves on board the Excellent; in all fifteen, and I have no doubt that we shall soon have instructors in all our ships.
The system of the revived Naval College is, that a certain number of mates shall, after passing through the system of gunnery in the Excellent, be received at the College, and receive there scientific instruction of various kinds; the prize of a lieutenant's commission being held out to the officer who passes the best, at half-yearly examinations. The whole establishment is to be under the direction of Captain Hastings, who has shewn himself fully

1249
competent for the duty, by the manner in which he has conducted the system on board the Excellent. We trust, that by this means, and by giving the education at a time of life, when the officers are more able to appreciate its value, we shall extend among the officers of the navy a higher degree of scientific attainment, which the improved system of gunnery, and the introduction of steam navigation has rendered indispensable, and without which an officer now can hardly hope to rise in his profession.
Sir, in the course of the observations which I have addressed to the committee, I have necessarily had to speak of former Administrations, and I hope I have done so, in a manner not calculated to give offence to anybody. Such, at any rate, was my intention. With regard to Administrations previous to 1830, I think their system of stores was bad, and that enough was not done for the improvement of the dock-yards. The Administration of the right hon. Member for Pembroke, was the one of great and beneficial reforms in the naval department. The abolition of the subordinate boards was a great improvement. The credit of that measure is indeed due to Lord Grey, who would have executed it in 1806, if he had remained longer at the Admiralty; but I must do the right hon. Baronet full justice for the manner in which he carried it into execution; and the selection which he made of the officers for the heads of the different departments, than whom abler or better public servants could not have been chosen. He extended the system of the Excellent. He made great improvements in the condition of the seamen and in the system of stores for the navy. In one point I do differ from him, and that is, that the establishments of the dock-yards, or perhaps I should say the amount of work in them, was fixed too low.
With regard to the short-lived Administration of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, I had no disposition to blame even the reduction of men which it made: and I expressed no such opinion in moving for the increase of men in 1836, or at any subsequent period; but when we for six months have been suffering under the charge of having made this reduction, it is too much for human patience to bear: and after all, I have only shown how much more the accusations made by the parti-
1250
sans of that Administration apply to them, than to the present Government.
With regard to our own administration of naval affairs, I am not vain enough to suppose, that we have not committed many faults. I am still more sensibly aware how much remains to be done; but of all the accusations to be brought against us, the last which I expected was, that we should be accused of having been deterred by false economy from proposing to this House what we thought necessary for the efficiency of the naval service.
In 1836, in our first estimates, we increased the force of the navy; in 1837 we increased the establishment of our dockyards. In 1838, as in the previous years, we increased the vote for stores; circumstances existed which prevented the increase in that year being as much as it would naturally have been, and the increase under this head has therefore fallen principally on this year, enhanced, I am sorry to say, by an increased price of some of the main articles.
But, Sir, in alluding to the acts of the present Board of Admiralty, I must refer, though only very shortly, to a few other points, for the purpose of shewing, that throughout the service, our administration of naval affairs has been productive of improvement.
Hon. Gentlemen may recollect, that a committee of this House reported against making any general promotion. My noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty felt very soon after his accession to office, how hardly this pressed upon old and meritorious officers; he therefore proposed to the Government a flag promotion. The Government acceded to the proposal, and in January 1837, a large promotion took place. On the coronation of her Majesty a second promotion took place, and the officers of the navy have had the advantage of two general promotions in an unusually short space of time.
With regard to the marines, we carried through a large measure of improvement. Every inefficient officer, on survey, was removed from the corps and placed in retirement, a larger number of retirements were created for the heads of the corps, and the operation of the whole measure was such, that in a twelvemonth a larger proportion of the officers of marines received promotion than, I will venture to say, of any other corps in more than twice the time.
With regard to pursers, and for this measure my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Devonport, deserves the credit of having called our attention to it; the emoluments of pursers in large ships which exceeded those of the captains have been reduced, those of pursers in small vessels increased, and a shilling a-day added to the half-pay of all.
The pay of assistant-surgeons has been increased in small ships; and further measures for the improvement of the situation of some other classes of our officers in the navy were in contemplation, when our course was arrested by a vote of this House, which rendered it necessary to appoint a commission to inquire into the promotion and retirement of naval and military officers.
As that commission has not made any report, I will say no more on that head: I only beg, that it may be understood, that we are preparing to take steps for the benefit of other officers in the navy.
The warrant-officers have been classed, and their situation improved.
The engineers have been classed, and their pay increased.
The petty officers have been classed, and their pay increased.
After what the right hon. Member for Pembroke has done, there remained but little to do for the seamen; they have, nevertheless, been provided by us with a schoolmaster, end a seamen's library in each ship.
We have increased the strength of our fleet, we have increased the number of small vessels, and nearly doubled that of ships of the line in commission. The service of tarrying troops to America was performed with the greatest efficiency; and I can assure the committee, that we have received satisfactory accounts of the effect which was produced there, not only in our own colonies, but in the United States, by the appearance on their coasts, in a very short time, of no less than seven ships of the line.
The flag-ships in the ports have been made effective ships.
The ordinaries have been put into commission.
The armament of the ships in the navy has been revised and very much improved.
The complements have been revised and increased.
The war steamers have been more than
1252
doubled in number, and those which have been added are generally of larger size.
The steam vessels employed as packets abroad, and the home-packets also have been improved.
The greatest attention has been paid to the subject of steam-navigation, and the whole superintendence of every thing connected with it, placed under a most able officer, Sir Edward Parry.
We have added about a third to the work in the dockyards.
We have made arrangements for building in India.
We have increased the stores of every description in our yards, and of the most efficient materials. A further supply of materials is amply provided for in this year's estimates.
We have carried on, and are carrying on, large works at Woolwich, which will render it, in about two years, a most complete establishment for the purposes of steam-vessels and steam machinery.
Deptford has been restored as a store-yard, and Huddart's valuable rope machinery will be erected there.
Large works are undertaken at Portsmouth; and also at Plymouth, including the construction of a basin.
The whole of these works are placed under the super intendance of a most intelligent and zealous officer of engineers, Captain Brandreth; and I anticipate the greatest advantage from his exertions in improving the mode of conducting them.
Sir, I am sensible that I have trespassed too long upon the attention and patience of the committee; but in the situation in which the Board of Admiralty has been placed by the attacks upon it for the last six months, I felt, that I could not do otherwise. I could not but show to the country what we have done, as the best answer to the charges against us. I must say, though perhaps I ought not to say so, that looking back upon the enumeration of our measures, which I have just laid before the Committee, I do not think, that we have any reason to be ashamed of what we have done. Our measures of improvement of the navy have neither been few nor unimportant. We have done much—we have laid the foundation of more.
I am not sorry, that the question has been agitated as it has been. We may have incurred some obloquy: but I am not afraid of the judgement of the country,

1253
when it is put in possession of the truth. Although we may have suffered, I am sure that the country has gained. It has been seen, that the real opinion of the country is not in favour of that pressure for excessive economy, which may perhaps have been too lightly yielded to, when it touches so vital a point as the efficiency of the British navy: and we have the satisfaction of feeling, that in the improvement and increase of our naval establishment, which we have been carrying on for the last three years, we have only been anticipating the wishes of the country.
Sir, it only remains for me to thank hon. Gentlemen, which I do most sincerely, for the kind attention with which they have listened to me, and to place in your hands the vote for men for the service of the ensuing year.
Sir E. Codrington Sir E. Codrington moved the adjournment of the House, but he could not do so without expressing the greatest admiration of the speech which the bon, Secretary for the Admiralty had just made.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, it was of the greatest importance that a vote should be taken. He therefore asked leave to sit again on Wednesday to propose the vote which he bad mentioned.
Sir G. Clerkhad no objection to the postponement. Though he bore his testimony to the able manner in which the bon. Gentleman had gone through so many topics, there was a considerable degree of fallacy in his statement, particularly that part of it in which a contrast was drawn between the present state of the navy, and its condition under former Administrations.
House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Suspension of Ecclesiastical Appointments.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of SHAFIESBURY, from Brentford, against the Beer Act.—By the Bishop of ST. ASAPH, from Llangollen, for Church Extension in North America—By Lord KENYON, from two places in Wales, for Assistance to the Clergy in that part of the country.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, and the Earl of STRADBROKE, from two places, against the Repeal of the Cornlaws.—By Lord REDESDALE, from the Magistracy of Norfolk, for Amending the Beer Act.—By Lord GLENELG, from a place in Invemesshire, for Church Extension and from Inverness, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.

THE NAVY RETURNS—EXPLANATION.
Lord Mintopresented a petition from Chelmsford, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws. The noble Lord said, he should take this opportunity of troubling their Lordships with a word or two on a subject of considerable importance, both in reference to himself and others. Their Lordships might remember that on the late occasion considerable doubt was expressed by a noble Earl, not now in his place, as to the accuracy of certain returns which he had occasion to submit to the House, in reply to some observations of that noble Earl's. Their Lordships would not be surprised to be informed that some of the officers, and officers high in rank, had felt exceedingly hurt by the statements that proceeded from the noble Earl; and he (Lord Minto) was authorized by them, and particularly by Admiral Sir Philip Durham entirely to confirm the accuracy of the returns which he had made, and which he received of them. There were two points chiefly upon which that noble Earl seemed to suggest that there might be some error. The first was as to the fitness of some of the ships for a state of
1144
operation, and which he had represented as favourable. The noble Earl mentioned the Revenge in particular, and stated that the masts of that ship were not in a state of preparation. He had requested the Admiral Superintendent to inform him in what state the masts of that ship were when that noble Lord visited her. The reply was, that there were five sets of third-rates masts ready. Three were unappropriated, and there were other masts fit to be put into her, if her own should not be found quite ready. Another statement was, that there was no sufficient supply of sails for the ships of the line at Plymouth. He had also desired an application to be made to the Admiral Superintendent at Plymouth, and the reply to that application showed that that noble Earl must have been greatly deceived in the information he had received. The reply stated, that so far from there being no topsails for the ships of the line, there were seven complete suits of sails for ships of the line, besides a great number of imperfect suits, amounting to no less than sixty-six topsails for ships of the line. He did not doubt but that the noble Lord believed the information which he had received to have been accurate. But that noble Lord did not visit all the sail-rooms, and he had to trust to others for his information. He thought it was due to the officers concerned, to state what he had stated. He was perfectly satisfied with the accuracy of their reports, and he thought it was of importance that no unnecessary discredit should be thrown upon the returns of public officers.
Subject dropped.

LORD EBRINGTON'S EXPLANATION.
Lord Ebringtonhaving this day taken his seat in the House of Peers under the title of Lord Fortescue, spoke to the following effect:—My Lords, I know not whether, as there is no question at present before your Lordships, I am strictly in order in addressing you; but whether I am or not, I feel I shall not appeal in vain to your Lordships' sense of justice for permission to offer a few observations with regard to what passed in this House, on Thursday last, on matters of grave consequence not only to myself individually, but to those great and important interests in the administration of which I have been called upon to take a share in Ireland. I seek not to deprecate the political hostility of the noble Lord who thought fit to originate this discussion; I complain not of any conduct which his

1145
public duty may have prescribed towards me, but I think it would have been more convenient to your Lordships, I will not say more just, to me, if intending to found an attack upon an uncorrected, and I must say an incorrect, report, of words purporting to have been spoken in the other House of Parliament, he had waited till in my place here, I had had an opportunity of being heard in my defence, or if the zeal of the noble and learned Lord for the Protestant Church in Ireland could not allow him to wait until I should be present, if he had condescended to have informed me beforehand of his intentions, and to have given me an opportunity of stating to some friend the expressions really used by me on the occasion referred to, and thereby have enabled him to offer such explanations as I might, in my necessary absence, have wished to have been given on my behalf. I shall offer those explanations to your Lordships presently, but before I state to the best of my recollection the terms of the speech referred to—before I do this, I would wish to ask that noble and learned Lord, whether, notwithstanding his great eloquence, his varied knowledge, and his acknowledged tact and ability in debate, whether, notwithstanding all these, and his well-grounded confidence in his varied powers—it has never happened to him in the heat of debate to let fall expressions which have been construed and commented upon and reported, in a sense very different from that which in his cooler moments he would have wished to have attributed to them? and does the noble and learned Lord consider that the use of those expressions amounts to a disqualification from holding any office connected with that country to which those expressions related? My Lords, I ask the noble and learned Lord, as a lawyer, whether he thinks it fair, without proof of an offence—for the noble and learned Lord did not profess himself to have heard the words, referred to—whether he thinks it fair to assume the proof, and at once to pass judgment and call for execution without giving the individual charged the opportunity of speaking in his defence? My Lords, "I come to administer the laws, and not to alter them"—were the words of a distinguished statesman, a near relative to the illustrious Duke I am happy to see in his place opposite (the Duke of Wellington), because I know that from that noble Duke, at least, I shall receive nothing but fairness and justice. "I come to administer the laws, and not to
1146
alter them," were the words used by Lord Wellesley, in answer to an address presented to him on his arrival to take the government in Ireland, when reference was made to opinions he had expressed upon Catholic Emancipation—from which it was assumed that his coming to take the Government was an indication of an intended concession upon that question. "I come to administer the laws, and not to alter them," will be my answer to any addresses—should I be honoured with any on my arrival in Ireland—referring to opinions of mine upon any legislative measures in this, or in the other House of Parliament. My Lords, allow me to say, that I have not taken up this view merely at the exigency of the present moment, or the spur of the present occasion—I have been all my life a strenuous advocate for reform—I have, during my political life, advocated considerable changes in many of the laws both of this country and of Ireland, and I am happy to say, that many of those objects of my early hopes I have lived to see brought to a successful consummation; but I defy any man to prove, that on any occasion I have ever advised disobedience to existing laws, however repugnant they might be to my own feelings and opinions; and I am sure, that with respect to Ireland, I can confirm this statement, for with the opinions I entertain as to the Church of Ireland—believing that it ought to be reduced within limits more commensurate to the demands of the Protestant population—with these opinions, which I never shall shrink from declaring—here or elsewhere—I beg leave to say, that there is no one of your Lordships—that there is no man in this country, who has exerted himself more strenuously to procure for the ministers of that Church the payment of their just dues. My Lords, I was in Ireland in the autumn of the year which immediately preceded the passing of the Coercion Bill—when all persons paying tithes were publicly denounced as enemies to their country. At that period I gave directions that the tithes on the whole of the property with which I am connected in that country should be paid to the minister to whom they were due, and I took care to make it known that I had done so; and the result of that was that my life and property were threatened by a placard stuck up upon the chapel of my own village—and such was the intimidation of that time that no individual could be found to remove that paper till I tore it down with my own hands. My

1147
Lords, it is irksome always to speak of one's self; and I owe an apology to your Lordships for mentioning this matter. I can assure you that I take no merit in it, I have done so only for the purpose of showing, that however disposed I may be in my place in Parliament to advocate certain changes in the law, there is no man more determined than I am to maintain obedience to existing laws. Now, my Lords, with respect to the speech which formed the subject of conversation on the late occasion. On referring to the reports of that speech, I must say all of them are rather meagre, and general outlines than anything like correct or accurate reports of the words spoken by me on that occasion; and I can further state, that the words quoted by the noble and learned Lord were those by far the most incorrectly reported, and were the most unlike what I did say in that debate. I will not trouble your Lordships with any part of the speech, except the one passage particularly referred to by the noble Lord: and the words which, to the best of my recollection, I used, were these:—
"But if the struggle against the present tithe system were still to go on, notwithstanding the passing of this bill, the burden of that struggle will be transferred from the shoulders of the poor and ignorant peasant to those of the rich and powerful landlord, whose shoulders would be much better able to bear it, and who, I hope, will carry on the war with effect."
I regret that I used the word "war," because I am quite sensible, that it was liable to be interpreted in a very different sense from that in which I uttered it. My Lords, it may be supposed, that this is an ex post facto explanation—that I attach a different sense to those words now, from what I did at the time I used them—in consequence of the notice that has been taken of them. My Lords, I trust it will be believed by those who know me, that I am incapable of such shuffling and falsehood. What I intended to convey by the expressions I used was, that I hoped measures for the reduction of the Church Establishment in Ireland would be pressed, in the shape of petitions and re-
*"But if the struggle against tithes were still to go on notwithstanding this bill, the burthen would be on the shoulders of those, who were much better able to bear it, and who, he hoped, would carry on the war with effect."—Hansard, Third Series, Vol. xliv., p. 656.
1148
monstrances, addressed by the landlords through the proper constitutional channels, upon this and the other House of Parliament—that that mode of warfare would be substituted—that that legitimate and constitutional warfare would be substituted for the resistance of physical force, which had produced such miseries and horrors in Ireland; and that remonstrances coming, as they would through those channels, they would receive due attention from the Legislature of this country. My Lords, that was the sense in which I used that expression. I am aware, that in the course of the debate a different construction was put upon it, and it had been my intention to have got up at the time to explain it. I spoke at the time to my noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, and I asked him in what sense he had understood me. He said, though others had put a different construction on the words, he had understood them in the way I have just stated; and he added, "I will, if you please, make that explanation on your behalf, and he did in fact afterwards so explain them." My Lords, I gladly acquiesced in that explanation, feeling, as I always do, and as I am afraid you will have plainly perceived this evening; feeling, as I always do, considerable embarrassment in speaking in Parliament, and being on that occasion particularly reluctant after having once spoken, to press any further observations on an impatient House. My Lords, I feel, that I am about to undertake a situation encumbered wirh great difficulties—difficulties, allow me to say, which have not been diminished by the course taken in this House, by the description which some of your Lordships were, in my absence, pleased to give of my political opinions, and by the anticipations you were pleased to form of the character of my administration. I have, however, the satisfaction to know, that I have before my eyes, the example of my predecessor. I shall endeavour to carry into the administration of the laws in Ireland that strict and impartial justice which procured for my noble Friend (the Marquis of Normanby) from one of your Lordships, a pretty strong opponent of his Government, the important admission that at no period had the law been more vigorously exerted for the prevention and punishment of crime, than it had been under the administration of my noble Friend. I shall carry with me into the Government of that country the same sympathy which has been shewn by my

1149
noble Friend for the wants of the people of Ireland—the same affection for their open-hearted and manly character—the same anxious desire to extend their comforts and promote their welfare; and happy indeed shall I be, if, at the close of my career, be it long or be it short, I can reap the same harvest of benedictions from millions of Irishmen, which marked the departure of my noble Friend from the shores of that country. My Lords, I am sorry, that on my first appearance among your Lordships, I should have been called upon to express sentiments at variance, I fear, with those of many of your Lordships. I trust, that in doing so, I have not departed from the courtesy generally observed in your Lordships' debates, and which I am always anxious to shew towards political opponents. My Lords, I beg to tender my respectful thanks to noble Lords opposite, as well as to my noble Friends around me, and to the whole House, for the patient and indulgent hearing they have been pleased to give me.
Lord Lyndhurst: My Lords, it is with some reluctance that I rise, but I am called upon to address your Lordships, in consequence of what has fallen from the noble Lord, and I beg leave to state that I am most happy that I brought this case under your Lordships' consideration, since it has had the effect of calling on the noble Lord to state in your presence the opinions which he entertains, and the policy he means to pursue, with respect to the Protestant Church of Ireland. My Lords, I have another reason for being happy that I brought this subject under your Lordships' consideration, inasmuch as I found in two of the leading ministerial prints the very speech to which I referred of the noble Lord, set out in detail, and made the foundation of a compliment to the noble Viscount for having appointed the noble Lord to the situation of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland—thereby stating in the strongest terms that they, the supporters of her Majesty's Government, were of opinion that declared hostility to the Protestant Church of Ireland was the best qualification for the situation of Lord lieutenant of that country. My Lords, allow me to say a few words in my justification, in consequence of what has fallen from the noble Lord. And first, the noble Lord took occasion again to allude to an expression which fell from me on a former occasion with respect to Ireland,
1150
and which at the time was misinterpreted by the noble Marquess opposite, (the Marquess of Lansdowne.) The noble Lord asks me whether I should consider the use of that expression was a disqualification, provided in other respects I were qualified for holding a high situation in that country. My Lords, considering the impression which that expression has created in Ireland—considering the use that has been made of it—considering the odium that has been cast upon me in consequence of it, I say, in answer to the question put by the noble Lord, that I should consider it a decided disqualification for holding that appointment. My Lord, the noble Lord charges me with acting unjustly towards him, for bringing forward this question in his absence. Give me leave, my Lords, to say that I never considered this a question as between the noble Lord and myself. The charge that I made was a charge against her Majesty's Government; it was a charge against the noble Viscount opposite. The noble Viscount and the rest of her Majesty's Government were present for the purpose of entering upon the defence of the noble Lord, and that, my Lords, I consider a sufficient justification for the course I pursued. But the noble Lord again says that I should have postponed my observation. Yes, my Lords, I did consider well whether I could venture to postpone them. At that time I had reason to believe the appointment had not been actually made. I was desirous of interposing before it was too late, and therefore it was, that in the first instance, and upon the very first occasion, I put the question to the noble Viscount with respect to the nature of this appointment. The noble Lord says that it was unjust to bring forward a question of this kind in his absence. I might advert to a circumstance not very dissimilar, viz., a charge brought against a noble Friend of mine—a noble Marquess—(the Marquess of Londonderry)—not preferred in this House, where the noble Marquess would have had an opportunity of meeting the charge, but preferred in the other House of Parliament, and in which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Fortescue) was himself a distinguished performer.—[A Noble Lord: What appointment?] I allude to Lord Londonderry's appointment. My Lords, when I put that question to the noble Viscount, I considered it necessary to be cautious as to the evi-

1151
deuce on which I proceeded. I looked at the different reports of the proceedings. I looked at what was said by the different parties in the House. I consulted some Members of the other House, and I was satisfied, that I was justified in imputing to the noble Lord—I won't say a precise expression—but imputing to the noble Lord those opinions, and those statements which I took the liberty of stating. My Lords, I read in the first instance the report from a volume which is considered to contain the most accurate report of what takes place both in this and the other House of Parliament. I read only part of that report because I thought in putting a question to the noble Viscount opposite on a subject of this kind I ought to be as concise as possible; and in doing so, I was charged by the noble Marquess with not giving the rest of the speech. My noble Friend, the noble Earl who sits near me, the Earl of Roden, read the whole of the speech, and that speech, so far from contradicting the statements I had made, bore them fully out. My Lords, I did not confine myself upon that occasion to the report in the work to which I have alluded, but I looked also at the report to which the noble Lord has referred, and there I found, that the noble Lord has said, that the Church Establishment in Ireland was a stain and a disgrace to the country, and I find, he also said, that it was some satisfaction to him that the burthen was about to be changed from the weak to the strong and expressed a hope, that the war would continue with effect against the Church Establishment of the country. I knew, my Lords, that it was possible those expressions might be misunderstood, and, therefore, I looked to the rest of the debate, and there I found that the noble Lord, the Member for north Lancashire, and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had commented upon the expressions of the noble Lord and expressing their regret, that the noble Lord had thought it necessary to address the House in the spirit that he had done in support of the bill, on the ground, that he thought it would effect the ruin of the Church Establishment in Ireland. The noble Lord upon that occasion did not rise for the purpose of making an explanation, but another noble Lord who leads the Ministerial party in the other House, gave the explanation In giving that explanation, did he state that the noble Lord did not feel that hos-
1152
tility to the Church of Ireland, that had been imputed to him? No such thing. The only explanation, that was given was as to the mode in which the hostility should be carried on. This, my Lords, is the explanation of the course I pursued in the investigation. I thought it was necessary to enter into it, before I put that question to the noble Viscount, and I ask your Lordships whether I was not right under those circumstances, acting upon materials, that justified me in considering that in substance, the question I put to the noble Viscount was put upon a correct representation? Now, what is the explanation given by the noble Baron? Does it not accord with the statements that I have made? What does he say? Why, that the Establishment of the Church in Ireland is a stain and a disgrace to that country. What does the noble Lord further say? Why, that the effect of the bill would transfer the burthen from the weak to the strong, and he hoped, that in consequence of that, the war would be carried on with effect against the Protestant Church of Ireland. The noble Lord says, of course, the mode in which that war is to be carried on was not to be by resisting the law, but by constitutional means. Does that, my Lords, make any difference? The noble Lord is now placed at the head of the Government of that country. The Catholics of Ireland, are assailing the Protestants of that country. The noble Lord, himself, according to his own declarations, is hostile to the Establishment there. The noble Lord pursues his own mode of warfare, and no doubt those with whom he co-operates, will pursue their mode; but can it, my Lords, be said, that the declaration of the noble Lord will not encourage them? Will they not feel, that they are acting under his guidance in the measures they are pursuing? My Lords, allow me to call your Lordships' attention a little to the history of the proceedings with respect to the Church of Ireland, which have taken place, within the last few years. During the Ministry of my Lord Grey, immense reductions were made in the Establishment of the Church of Ireland—half the episcopal bench were removed—the Bishops were reduced from twenty to ten, and a heavy tax was placed upon the parochial clergy of Ireland. That was a great step towards reduction, and it was as far as that noble

1153
Earl had thought it necessary to go. Now, with respect to the proceedings during the last Session. In the last Session, a bill was passed, by which thirty per cent. more was taken from the parochial clergy of Ireland. In what manner was the bill carried through both Houses? In the debate, it was stated it was a compromise, and in consequence much was given up for the sake of the harmony, the peace, and the tranquillity, of Ireland. But one individual said, that he would not be bound by that compromise—that he only considered it as an instalment, and accordingly, soon after the breaking up of Parliament, we find him establishing a society in Ireland, the object of which was the total and entire destruction of the Established Church in Ireland. "Nothing will satisfy us but the destruction of tithes." Now, for a moment, my Lords, look at this—after all his expressed desire to compromise—all his desire to establish tranquillity in Ireland. Now, what is the course taken by her Majesty's Ministers? They place at the head of the Government in that country an individual who has avowed his hostility to the Church of Ireland; and whose appointment, though the noble Lord tells us his hostility will be carried on in a particular form, is, above all others, calculated to renew agitation, to give alarm to the Church of Ireland, and to encourage the Catholic population, which is endeavouring to subvert the Protestant Church there. My Lords, this is an explanation of the course I have pursued, and the motives by which I have been actuated. I am told, indeed, and we were told the other night, and I do not dispute it, that the noble Lord is distinguished for his high constitutional opinions and principles. Undoubtedly he has upon more than one occasion, by his active interposition, rescued the Government from destruction, and they owe him a debt of gratitude on that account. But as far as relates to the constitutional opinions of the noble Lord, if they correspond, as I presume they do, with those of Her Majesty's Ministers—so far, in my opinion, and according to the best of my judgment—so far from being built upon constitutional bases, I think they tend to the destruction as well of the Constitution as of the Monarchy itself. I shall not attempt to describe the political character of the noble Lords opposite—I should be disposed to leave that for the graphic
1154
pencil of my noble and learned Friend opposite; his skill in this description of portrait painting is so well known and so highly appreciated; but I will say, with respect to the present Government—not using my own language, but borrowing from one of their supporters—taking the description of the noble Lords in the present Government from an individual who has for many years been their supporter, and who has declared he would make the greatest sacrifices for them, if necessary—he has described them in a letter, and to that description I subscribe. He says, "the Whigs cannot stand without the assistance of the Radicals; the Ministers must, therefore, be constantly doing something to please them, and thus the rights of the people will be gradually secured;" and in the same letter he describes those rights as being an elective House of Lords and a complete democratic House of Commons. I believe, for my own part, the Ministers will make concessions just so far as are necessary to keep themselves in power, and that they will go on in that way till there cannot be a doubt that both the Constitution and the Monarchy will be in danger. There is no question before the House, but I stand in such a position with reference to the noble Lord who before addressed your Lordships, that I felt myself called upon to address you. I thank your Lordships for the patient hearing I have had, and I presume this will be the last we shall hear of this business.
Viscount Melbourne: As this is to be the last we are to hear of this matter, and as there is no business before the House, it may, perhaps, appear superfluous, and in some degree imprudent and unwise, on my part to address your Lordships at all; but still I shall take the liberty of making a very few observations. Unquestionably, if this is to be the last we are to hear of this—if the matter is to be carried no further, I cannot help thinking the course that has been taken by the noble and learned Lord is in the highest degree unwise and impolitic. What effect can it possibly have, except to stir up grievances that had better be left to subside—except to stir up animosity and prevent the possible completion, the possible well working, of this measure, which is now so unnecessarily, so wantonly, and without any object, brought forward, except that which is unquestionably and perhaps unintentionally

1155
by the noble and learned Lord now avowed. When I was asked a question on this subject by the noble and learned Lord, and quite unexpectedly, I answered what was perfectly true, that I was not aware of the speech of my noble Friend, as the noble and learned Lord has now read it. It was not for me necessarily to know every speech my noble Friend had ever made; but I was acquainted with the general principles and character and opinions of my noble Friend, and my knowledge of that character and of those principles and opinions made me conceive that he was, if not the fittest, among the fittest of those whose services were at the command of her Majesty, for this great and responsible office. I said, that he had always supported the measures we had brought forward, and that was all that was necessary for my noble Friend; and if upon that speech I had pronounced his disqualification, I should, at the same time, have pronounced my own disqualification for the office I hold, but which I am not so ready to do as the noble and learned Lord opposite is. I don't know whether the disqualification acknowledged by the noble and learned Lord is confined to those offices to which it is not very likely he would be selected by any persons who may be called upon to advise her Majesty; or, as there are other offices, I do not know whether he considers himself equally disqualified for them, or whether he reserves his opinion of his qualifications for such offices, as he may have held before, and which he may perhaps naturally indulge his ambition in looking forward to holding again. The noble and learned Lord has made some observations upon leading articles in newspapers, and has indulged in reading articles from what he calls Ministerial prints, and from which he says he is bound and entitled to conclude that those opinions of hostility to the Church of Ireland are the opinions of my noble Friend; opinions which he does not entertain, and never did entertain, towards the Church in that country. There is not a warmer friend to the Church of Ireland than my noble Friend himself. But it is said, that those feelings of hostility are the best qualification of the noble Lord to the office to which he has been chosen and elected. Now, I don't at all acquiesce w those representations of these Ministerial journals. I do not know to which the noble and learned Lord alludes,
1156
but I do not admit the authority—I do not admit they were speaking the opinions of the Government; and I am sure, if I am to judge from many of the articles I have lately read in some which I suppose the noble and learned Lord calls Ministerial papers, I cannot consider that they are of a very friendly nature, or likely to give to Government any very efficient support. My noble Friend has told your Lordships the principle on which he takes charge of the Government in Ireland—that he is proceeding thither to administer the law as he finds it—to carry the law into effect—to give it power and force, and to administer it with impartiality. If know any man who is likely to act up to those principles it is my noble Friend; and I feel perfectly satisfied, that under the circumstances, a better choice could not have been made than has been made in him.
The Duke of Wellingtonconfessed, that he should have been very anxious to have avoided entering into this subject had it not been for some things that had fallen from the noble Viscount, in the course of what he stated in reference to his noble and learned Friend behind him. The noble Viscount had been pleased to cast an imputation on his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) that the course be had taken was likely to prevent the good working of the measure adopted by her Majesty's Government. The noble Viscount seemed to have forgotten entirely what had passed a few nights ago in that House—that the discussion was not brought forward by his noble and learned Friend, but by the noble Lord opposite, and that what the noble Lord opposite had said, rendered this discussion necessary. It was perfectly true, that they stood now in a situation very different to that in which the House was a few nights ago. He (the noble Duke) was not in the House on that occasion; he had been discharging his public duty, at that time, in another part of the country; but from what he had seen and heard of that discussion, his noble Friend then did produce reasons which were considered by their Lordships amply sufficient for the step he took. The explanation of the noble Viscount was totally different from the text which had been read by the noble and learned Lord; and he considered that text as calculated fully to justify his noble and learned Friend in calling on the Go-

1157
vernment to make some representation of the grounds on which they had made the selection of the noble Lord to the high office to which he was appointed. The noble Lord (Baron Fortescue) had stated his determination to carry on the Government in Ireland upon the principles which were stated by a noble relation of his (the noble Duke's) own, upon assuming that same Government some years ago, namely, that he should go there to administer the law, and not to alter it; but then the word war had been used, and was he going to administer the law as it stood, or did he mean to carry on a war for the alteration of the law? Was the noble Lord going to carry on an administration of the law by war, or was he going to adopt the more formidable manner of war by carrying forward those measures, taking them even according to the terms used opposite, constitutionally adopted, as they supposed, and which had for their object the alteration of the law? He should be ashamed of himself, if, knowing what he did of the noble Lord, and after having heard him this night, he could suppose the noble Lord would, in any manner, be a party to those measures which ought, in reality, to be called measures of war—which ought really to be called formidable—that the noble Lords could have approved of them, or, under any circumstances, could he a party to them. He did expect, after what had been stated by the noble Lord, that he would go there to administer the law impartially, and that he would extend the protection of his Government to persons, to property, and to every thing that called for protection in that unfortunate country. He believed, that was what the noble Lord would do, and by such an administration of his power, he would prevent war. The real question here was the Protestant religion and the Protestant Church in Ireland. That was the real question. This had been a principle of the Government and of the policy of this country for hundreds of years. The principle had been re-asserted over and over again at different intervals. He would go no further back than the Acts and Treaties of the Union. Since that time there had been what was called the Catholic Emancipation Act, and in that Act, as well as in an Act which has been subsequently on the table of both Houses of Parliament, the principles of the Protestant Church in
1158
Ireland were again asserted and maintained, and the stability of that Church secured by the oath required to be taken for its maintenance. The noble Lord said, that the Church Establishment was far too extensive for the wants of the Protestant population of Ireland; but, it appeared to him, that it was no more than adequate for the important and onerous duties it had to perform. When he first read the explanation of the noble Lord, and when his attention had been first drawn to it, he thought it was due to her Majesty's Government to institute some inquiry. He wished to see what was their policy, what was their intention, as to the administration of justice in that country, and whether they still intended to maintain the Protestant Establishment in that country? He was very happy to hear the explanation of the noble Lord, and his firm and high intention to administer the laws with impartiality in that country. He would remind that noble Lord, that filling the high office of the representative of her Majesty in that country, he had, as he happened to know, very great power and patronage in respect to that Church, and, really, he thought they should have some security for the performance of those duties beyond the bare declaration the noble Lord had been pleased to make that night, that he would maintain the laws. The House and the public had a right to expect from the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, that he would not only maintain the laws, but that he would carry them into execution in such a manner as to carry into effect the policy of that country, for the maintenance and support of the Established Church. That was the point to which he thought both that and the other House of Parliament had a right to look with great jealousy, having little more than the mere declaration of the noble Lord, that be would maintain the laws. He felt it his duty to offer these observations to their Lordships, and to the noble Lord opposite, for whom he personally entertained the highest respect.
Lord Broughamsaid, my Lords, I rejoice greatly that I gave way to the noble Duke, as it enabled the noble Duke, to deliver his manly and candid statement, which has been marked with the same manliness which has influenced every part of his career. My Lords, I also do not regret that my noble and learned Friend brought forward this question last week,

1159
and I differ with the noble Viscount near me, who has lamented its being brought forward, because, I think, nothing more important could have been achieved than that which has arisen out of my noble Friend mooting the case. I mean the explanation which has been given by my noble Friend, the new Lord-lieutenant for Ireland. He has told you, what I think has been mistaken by my noble and learned Friend—what, I think has been misrepresented somewhat by my noble and learned Friend, doubtless, from his impressions of it, viz.:—that my noble Friend's (Lord Fortescue's) opinions remaining the same to the extent of the Irish Establishment, that he still considering so disproportioned an Ecclesiastical Establishment as a grievance to the people of that country, that he nevertheless is not an enemy or an adversary, or in any manner of way an antagonist, whether peaceably or hostile, of that Establishment, but only of its excess. This is my understanding of my noble Friend's explanation—therefore, it was not correct to misrepresent him as adopting expressions put into his mouth—"that the Irish Church Establishment was a stain and a disgrace to that country." My noble Friend meant its present overgrown dimensions, and no other. He has given the best evidence that he himself, acting in his own capacity, confronting the outrageous clamour that had been raised, has rendered implicit obedience to the laws. Therefore, my Lords, I hold this explanation to be of great importance; for it now appears, from my noble Friend's own declaration, that whoever has represented him as an enemy to the Church, except to its abuses, has grossly and foully misrepresented him—that whoever expects from him overt acts of hostility to that Establishment will be utterly and entirely disappointed—that whoever may dream of seeing him attempting to do that indirectly, which he dares not avowedly do, whoever, as the noble Duke well, and justly, and accurately, observed, shall expect from my noble Friend, the new Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, an indirect and silent countenance of the scheming of some parties against the Church Establishment, or the Constitution of these realms, will find, they have to do with a man who is by far too honest and plain dealing for their sinister purposes—that whoever hopes to find in him a ready tool for their own private ends, will find their hands deprived of the
1160
instrument which they had smilingly opened to grasp—that whoever looks to him for allowing all the measures to be introduced to be made suitable to their partizan views, and all the patronage to flow into their particular channels, will be instantly, and immediately and bitterly disappointed. My noble Friend has told your Lordships, quoting the words of one of his most illustrious predecessors, whom to name is at once to praise—I mean Marquess Wellesley—"That whatever his opinion may be of the form and structure of the law, he goes to administer that law and not to change it"—by which is meant to administer the law, and see that that law is carried into execution—to see that crime is sought out, and criminals found out, and trials had, and convictions found, and sentence executed, in order to deter evil doers in the like behalf from offending in future; and my noble Friend goes to make those laws, if they cannot be amended and improved, so as to be respected, he goes to make them be obeyed. So long as my noble Friend pursues that honest, manly, course of strict duty, he will entitle himself to the confidence of the country—to the forbearance even of his adversaries, and to that which is better than the one or the other, to the approval of his own honest conscience. If he takes another course—if he submit to dictation from any quarter—if he suffers any man to tell him, "I have 6,000,000 of men at my back, choose between their plaudits or their hatred, if he do not honestly make his election, and prefer the hatred of all the lawless and all those against the law—if he depart from what he has to-night laid down as his principle of action—if, instead of an administration of the laws, he makes himself only the executor of the wishes and designs of certain parties—then all that has been done by my noble and learned Friend's notice—all that has been done by the noble Duke's observations, all that has been done, and all that has been temporarily and provisionally accomplished by my noble Friend's explanation and by his avowed and declared intentions will all the more redound to his shame and disgrace and to the discomfiture of those who have appointed him, instead of conducing to his own glory and the lasting benefit and advantage of the country. And then men will say, "you sent over a fireband among combustible materials;" and men will say,

1161
even his good qualities are noxious if used as a firebrand among those materials; and then I shall have the sorrow to know, and the country will have the sorrow to feel, that those great qualities which I have long experienced, that good character to which the other night I bore my feeble testimony—that long experience of public affairs—that descent and lineage, and the name my noble Friend bears, from one of the greatest judges that ever sat on the bench in England, will all vanish, will all go against him, will all be converted into materials of which torches and firebrands are made—his race and name will go for nothing.
"Quamvis Pontica Pinus,
Sylvæ Filia nobilis,
Jactes et genus, et nomen inutile,"
My Lords, I know which of these two parts my noble Friend will choose, and he will act up to the declaration which he has this night made. The enemies of the constitution, who would be the worst enemies of my noble Friend—for in this instance, the praise which has been lavished on his supposed speech, which he turns out never to have made, are only, flatterers.
Pessimum inimicorum
Genus, laudatores.
The enemies of the constitution, who would be the enemies of my noble Friend, will find that those who wish to employ him for evil have mistaken their man. My noble Friend will hold the balance even between the conflicting parties, as his noble predecessors, Marquess Wellesley and the Marquess of Anglesey, have formerly done; and as my noble Friend, who has just returned from Ireland (as far as circumstances allowed him, to hold it even between both parties) has also lately done.
Lord Wharncliffebegged his noble Friend (Lord Fortescue) not to suppose for one moment, that he or his noble Friends found fault with him for the speech which had been alluded to, that speech was not discreditable to him—he had a perfect right to make it as a Member of Parliament, but in their opinion there was something which ought to have prevented the Government from appointing him to the office of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. He found fault with the Government for making the appointment in the particular circumstances—his noble
1162
Friend was then only a Commoner, and it was usual, that the office should be filled by a Peer, and he was raised to the dignity of a seat in that House for the purpose of the office. The Ministers might attempt to disguise it as they liked, but it was impossible that his noble Friend could go to Ireland without filling the Protestants with fear and alarm and raising hopes in the breasts of the Catholics. Were they not justified in taking that view of the conduct of Government, and looking with jealousy at the appointment of his noble Friend? That was not an isolated case. In October last a nobleman, then holding a situation in her Majesty's household, within two months after her Majesty expressed a hope, that the Tithe Bill would work for the benefit of the country, signed a requisition calling a meeting for the total abolition of tithes—he attended that meeting, and supported its object, and yet he belonged to the household still. That alone was sufficient to make them jealous of the conduct of the Government in any appointment connected with Ireland. Such facts gave rise to much jealousy as to the policy and intentions of the Government. The Protestants of Ireland would naturally view the appointment of his noble Friend with much alarm, in consequence of the speech, which there was no doubt he had a perfect right to make.