Sitting of 28 February 1840

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Vagrant's Removal.

NEW SOUTH WALES—EDUCATION.
Mr. Goulburnwished to ask the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) a question respecting New South Wales. He observed from the newspapers of that colony, that there had been in the legislative council a measure propounded by the Governor for the general education of the youth of that colony. It appeared that by that measure the Roman Catholic youth of the colony were to be educated in one school, in the principles of their own religion, but that all the other youth of the colony were to be educated in one common school, in which, in order to avoid religious dissensions, no religious instruction was to be given, therefore giving to the Roman Catholics the benefit of religious instruction, but withholding it from the children of parents professing other religions. This proposition had, however, not met with the approbation of the Legislative Council. Now, what he wished to ask was, whether this proposition had been made by the governor in consequence of any directions from the Government at home?
Lord John Russell,in the first place, wished to observe, that he had received no despatches on this subject from the governor of that colony; therefore all the information which he had on the subject was probably derived from the same source as that from which the right hon Gentleman had derived his information, namely, from private letters and the colonial newspapers. He, however, gathered from them a somewhat different conclusion to that which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at. He understood that the governor had made a proposition to the legislative council of the colony, on the subject of the education of the youth of the colony. He proposed that there should be one system of general instruction to all classes of Protestants, in conformity with the plan acted upon by the

767
British and Foreign School Society. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that this was a system of which religious instruction did not form a part. Now, the fact was, that a part of the instruction imparted in the British and Foreigh Schools was reading in the Bible. If the right hon. Gentleman adopted the language of another person, who stated that there was no religious instruction in connexion with this society, and that instruction in the Bible did not in itself constitute religious instruction, he could understand his observation. The proposition of the governor was, that all the Protestant children should be taught reading in the holy scriptures according to the system pursued in the schools belonging to the British and Foreign School Society. With respect to the Roman Catholic children, he understood that it was proposed that there should be separate schools for them, and that the religious instruction to be imparted to them should be by their own teachers. Great objections were made to this proposition in the colony, and the governor did not persist in it. He did not find that any instructions had been sent out to the governor of that colony authorising him to make this proposition.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that the question was as to whether or not any religious instruction was to be given in the schools proposed to be established for the Protestant children; but it was whether the children of Roman Catholics were to have provision made for their education in their exclusive schools in the Roman Catholic religion, while the children of the members of the Church of England were to be educated in schools from which religious instruction, in connexion with the Church of England, was to be excluded.
Lord John Russellreplied, that he had received no official information on the subject, but he imagined that it was proposed that the religious instruction to the children of Protestants was to be given in their schools, and that they were to be taught to read the holy scriptures, and of course not excluding them from religious instruction by their respective clergymen. The instruction in the Roman Catholic schools was to be in conformity with the faith the children professed. He, however, could only repeat, that he had received no official information on the subject.

PERTHSHIRE WRIT.
On the motion of Sir G. Clerk, Mr. Wilbraham, the deputy clerk of the Crown, was called to the bar and examined.
He stated that he was deputy clerk of the Crown, and that it was his duty to make out the new writs for the election of Members of that House. The chief-clerk, in his office, received a warrant from the Speaker, on Friday last, for the election of a new Member to serve for the county of Perth. He understood that the warrant for the new writ was received at about ten minutes to seven o'clock. The new writ for the county of Perth was made out immediately on the receipt of the warrant. It was then sent to the Lord Chancellor's office for the purpose of being sealed, it was then finally dispatched to the Post-office. This was at about a quarter past seven. The writ was not made out in exact conformity with the warrant of the Speaker, as the chief clerk made it out in the usual form, that Viscount Stormont was called up to the House of Peers. Shortly afterwards he found that he had not issued it in exact conformity with the Speaker's warrant, and this erroneous writ had been despatched by Friday's evening mail. He immediately prepared another, which he got sealed, and took care to have it sent away by the mail on Saturday morning. He believed that the chief clerk discovered the mistake that he had made shortly afterwards, perhaps within an hour or less of its being sent away. He discovered it before he left the office. He prepared the writ in the usual way in which it was done in similar proceedings. The first writ had been returned to him by the sheriff. He understood, that immediately on the discovery of the case, the chief clerk in his office came to the House, and had an audience of the Speaker, and asked his advice as to the course that he should pursue. The Speaker, however, declined to give any advice. The chief clerk, therefore, took upon himself to make out and issue a fresh writ; and if he had been in the way, he should have given instructions for this purpose, and have taken care that a new writ was immediately issued. The first writ was returned to his office by the sheriff of Perthshire, in conformity with the instructions of the chief clerk. He was not aware of any precedent for ordering a writ to be returned to his office. He believed the chief clerk desired to have the writ re-

769
turned. He knew the sheriff did return it. He had no doubt that copies of the letters which passed were preserved at the office. In explanation of the mistake he had only further to say, that it was the long-established custom of the Crown-office to send off writs, if possible, by the mail, on the night on which the Speaker's warrant was issued. With this view, new writs were prepared on the day on which it was known they would be moved for in the House, and in this way there had been a difference between the writ and the Speaker's warrant.
Clerk of the Crown withdrew.
Sir George Clerksaid, that after the facts which had been stated by the clerk of the Crown, he thought it would be generally felt, that he was fully justified in calling the attention of the House to this subject. It appeared from the evidence given by the clerk of the Crown, that whatever had been done with regard to issuing the writ had not been done by the Clerk of the Crown in person, but by his chief clerk. It appeared to be the practice of the office, as far as he could gather from the answer which had been given, that on receiving information that a new writ would probably be moved for at the meeting of the House, the Clerk of the Crown at once prepared the writ. Perhaps that was attended with general convenience. It appeared on the present occasion that the Clerk of the Crown had exercised his discretion on the subject, and naturally conceived that the writ to be moved for on Friday would be made out in exact accordance with new writs in similar cases. In consequence of the discussion which had taken place in the House, the regular form had been departed from in the warrant, and so the mistake had arisen. It appeared from the evidence of the Clerk of the Crown, that though the writ was not sent to the Lord Chancellor to be sealed until the warrant was received, yet it was despatched without the warrant having been read. There was another point of some importance as being without precedent. It was without precedent that the Clerk of the Crown, and still more his subordinate officer, should take upon himself to write to a sheriff to order him to return a writ which had been issued from the office. The House had always exercised the greatest jealousy in reserving to itself the discretion of issuing, suspending, or
770
superseding new writs. He thought it was a question deserving of the consideration of the House, whether in cases of this kind a special report should not have been made to the House, in order that the error might be corrected, the first writ superseded, and the new writ issued by the authority of the House. No practical inconvenience had arisen in the present case, but there did not appear any sufficient justification for the clerk's negligence in despatching the writ the moment he received the warrant, without taking the ordinary precaution of reading the warrant, in order to make out the writ in conformity. He trusted that hon. Gentlemen would agree that this case, at all events, ought not to be drawn into a precedent. Under these circumstances he did not wish to pursue the question further, but he hoped that greater care would be taken in the issuing of writs in future.
Lord John Russellthought the hon. Gentleman quite right in calling the attention of the House to this subject. It did not appear that there was any error in the warrant of the Speaker, but that it occurred entirely in the office of the Clerk of the Crown. It was quite right that this case, and every other case of a similar nature, should be brought before the notice of the House; and he agreed with, the hon. Gentleman that, attention having been called to it, it was to be hoped that no similar error might arise.
Subject dropped.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—LUDLOW.
Mr. Ord, the Chairman of the General Committee of Elections, moved "That the order of the 19th of February, for the attendence of panels No. 1 and 2 on the 12th and 16th of March be discharged, and that the petition of George Hooper and others be referred to the general committee of elections."
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had called his attention to the difficulty in which the general committee of elections found themselves in reference to this subject, and had consulted him as to the course which ought to be taken. With the permission of the House, he would state what the difficulty was, and what appeared to him to be the remedy. The difficulty had arisen from this circumstance—that the Ludlow Election Petition was an election petition of last ses-

771
sion. By the 93rd section of the bill brought in by the right hon. Baronet opposite, it was enacted that all petitions of a former session should be brought forward before any petitions of the present session. He believed, that petitions, when so brought forward in the present session, would be subject to all the provisions which would apply, supposing the petition had been in fact presented in the present session. It appeared, that in the Ludlow Election Petition, the sitting Member declined the defence of his seat. Certain electors petitioned to be let in to defend in his stead. The clauses which related to such a state of things he had read to the House. The first section which applied to it was the 19th, which provided, that when the sitting Member declined defending his seat, notice thereof should be given in the London Gazette. By section 20 the electors might be let in to defend in his place; and upon their admission, the petition should be treated in all respects as an election petition. Section 30 provided, that all election petitions, and petitions treated as election petitions, should be referred to the general committee; that proceedings, in cases where the sitting Member declined defending his seat, should be suspended for thirty days after the appearance of the required notice in the London Gazette. It provided further, that the general committee should make out a list of petitions, putting them in the order in which they have been reported on by the examiner of recognizances, and not including in the list any petition in which the proceedings had been suspended; that is, petitions in which the sitting Member had declined to defend his seat. In every case in which proceedings should be afterwards suspended, it was provided, that it should be struck out of the list of the general committee and placed at the bottom of the list. This section, therefore, directed, that the list to be prepared should not contain any election petitions in which proceedings had been suspended, and also contemplated cases in which proceedings might be suspended afterwards. By this section he believed the present difficulty would be determined. The 47th section directed the general committee to give three weeks notice of the day appointed for choosing a special committee, and required those special committees to be chosen in the order in which they stood
772
on the list. The 48th section provided that notice of the day should be given to all parties, including the parties let in to defend instead of the sitting Member. These were the questions affecting this case. The Ludlow election petition was referred to the general committee, who, believing it regular, proceeded to appoint the day for nominating the special committee, and to give the proper notices. It was afterwards discovered that, by reason of the omission to refer to the committee, the petition of the electors praying to be let in to defend, there was no provision for giving notice to the parties connected with that petition. The day was now approaching on which the special committees should be nominated in the order in which the petitions stand on the list. The Ludlow petition stood early on the list, and the committee, for the reason he had mentioned, were not in a situation to nominate the committee upon it. The question then was, what were they to do with the remainder of the petitions—whether to propose all, or to postpone the Ludlow committee only, and proceed to nominate the others? It had been proposed to postpone; but he (the Solicitor-general) submitted, that that was not necessary. It would induce an inconvenience by no means necessary, resulting from the act of Parliament. By section 30, the Legislature had provided for cases in which, after petitions were put upon the list, proceedings were suspended, by directing such petitions to be struck out of the list and placed at the bottom. He thought, from the short consideration which he had been able to give the question, that there would be no difficulty in the general committee striking the Ludlow petition out of the list, and placing it at the bottom. They would then be in a situation to proceed with the nomination of the other committees. He might farther observe, that if this particular case was not exactly provided for by the act, it should be borne in mind that those sections in the act which had reference to the point were the director's part; and, therefore, though the House was bound to adhere to them, and, in certain cases, parties might be punished for not doing so, yet if the necessity of the case compelled steps to be taken which the act did not provide for, they would not affect the validity of the proceedings under it.
Mr. Ordsaid, that perhaps it would be

773
better to withdraw his motion if the course pointed out by the Solicitor-general was the proper one to be adopted.
Motion withdrawn.
Sir George Clerkdid not gather from the observations of the learned Solicitor-general, that, in his opinion, the general committee had authority to suspend the proceedings in the Ludlow petition only. No doubt it would be productive of advantage if they had; but it appeared to him that an order should be made for the purpose by the House itself. The provisions of the act showed the greatest jealousy of allowing the general committee to alter any of the arrangements by which the committees were chosen.
The Solicitor Generalthought, that from the provisions of the 30th section, the general committee might exercise the power of striking out the Ludlow petition from the list, and placing it at the bottom.
Sir Thomas Freemantlesaid, that there appeared to him to be great doubt whether the committee could exercise such a power.
Sir E. Sugdenthought it would be desirable that this question should be adjourned till Monday, to give time for consideration. He was disposed to think that the committee had not the power of themselves to place the Ludlow petition at the bottom of the list. The cases in which election petitions could be struck out were specially provided for, and this did not appear to be one of them.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that it appeared to him of the greatest importance that the course which they took should be consistent with justice to the individuals concerned, and should not be such as to establish an inconvenient or dangerous precedent. He thought it desirable that they should have the opportunity of a few hours' consideration. He thought the hon. and learned Solicitor-general observed that he had not had time fully to consider the act. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had time to express a positive opinion, that opinion would be decisive with him (Sir R. Peel). It was, therefore, with perfect respect for his legal opinion, that he suggested it might be advisable to take some time for consideration. There were two questions—one was, whether the general committee had the power of suspension in this case, which he confessed he had some doubt of. It should be recollected, that their inherent and constitutional power
774
was fettered by positive enactment, and if the power of the committee were doubted, another question might arise, whether the House had power to make an order on the subject. He trusted it would be found that the House had that power, because no authority but the House could exercise it satisfactorily. He submitted that there would be no inconvenience in the delay, and if the debate were adjourned till Monday, perhaps the learned Solicitor-general would have the goodness maturely to consider the question.
Lord John Russellhad no objection to the postponement of the debate. He wished to give no opinion upon the point. He was inclined, so far as a bias went, to think, that if the general committee could decide the question, it ought to be decided by them. One of the inconveniences of the former practice was, that so many questions were brought for the decision of the House. Questions of this nature could be decided with much more deliberation, in the committee than by the House at large.
Subject postponed.

SERVICE OF NOTICES.
Sir George Clerkhad called the attention of the House on the previous day to some irregularities in the service of notices, signed by the chairman and the general committee. In order to inquire into those irregularities, he should now move, "That Mr. Rose, the clerk who attended the committee, be called to the bar."
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Rosecalled in and examined: He stated that he was clerk to the general election committee, and he had received the notices from the chairman of the committees for the parties in the Ludlow election petition; these were notices for the petitioners who defended the return, as well as for the petitioners against the return. He stated, from memory only, that he had received two notices, signed by the chairman, more than twenty-one days previous to the 12th of March. He delivered these notices to the messenger of the House, and directed him to deliver them to the parties in the same manner in which they had been delivered in the last session, as well as the previous session. The messenger had not informed him that he had served the notices upon the several parties. He conceived it to be the duty of the messenger, if he had served those

775
notices, to inform him of the circumstance. He had since received an intimation that the notices had not been served upon the petitioners, or their agents. He received that information from one of the agents of the petitioners. He received that notice on Monday last. He then inquired what had become of the notices that he had given the messenger. He then found that by some accident they had not been given to the petitioners against the return; but had been taken as notices to the persons who prayed to defend the return. The names of those to whom the notices were addressed were at the bottom of the notice. He was told, that they had not been duly served on the proper parties. These notices had since been seen in the possession of Mr. Coppock. Mr. Coppock was not the agent of the sitting Member, as at that moment there was no sitting Member. Mr. Coppock did not give him any reason for his coming into possession of the notices. He presumed that the notices were still in the possession of Mr. Coppock: he had seen them in Mr. Coppock's possession on Tuesday last. He did not know if they had been given to Mr. Coppock by the messenger to whom he intrusted them. Mr. Steyne was the messenger to whom he had intrusted them. The reason he gave the notices to Mr. Steyne was, that Steyne had been accustomed to serve notices on former parties. He did not direct the messenger to go to Mr. Coppock's office. He adopted the same course with the other notices that had been pursued with respect to the petition for Ludlow. The notices were directed to Mr. Alcock, and to the parties defending the petition. He was not clerk of the recognizances. By a reference to that office the agents might be discovered.
Mr. Steyne,messenger, called in and examined. He said that he had received notices from Mr. Rose to deliver to the parties in the Ludlow election, and was told to serve them on the different parties. He had not served them. He gave them to Poingdestre, and told him to inquire of Mr. Parkes or Mr. Coppock who were the agents of the parties. Poingdestre told him that he had delivered them to the wrong person. He heard that Poingdestre had given them to Mr. Coppock; but he knew nothing except what he had heard. The whole of the proceedings upon the present occasion were the same
776
as in the former session of Parliament. In former sessions he had served those notices himself; but he was not now so employed, as he was on duty in another part of the House.
Mr. Poingdestreexamined. He had received notices to deliver in the Ludlow election. He had to inquire as to who were the agents in the Ludlow election petition, and he was directed to apply for that information to Mr. Parkes and Mr. Coppock. He met Mr. Coppock in the lobby of the House and asked him for information. Mr. Coppock said, if he gave him the notices all would be right, as he was concerned in the petition. He delivered all the notices that he had in his possession excepting one, which was for Sir Thomas Cochrane, he being a Member of the House. The notices were addressed to the petitioners and to the sitting Members. He had himself been for three years a messenger of the House. He delivered all the notices to Mr. Coppock on the 18th instant. He asked Mr. Coppock for information with regard to the agents in the election petition for Ludlow on both sides. Mr. Coppock requested him to deliver them to him, as he was concerned in them. Mr. Coppock stated to him that the trial would not come on. The practice was to deliver the notices to the agents. Mr. Rose did not inform him who were the agents. He had told Mr. Rose, but he did not know how many days ago, that he had delivered the notices to Mr. Coppock. He considered that he had discharged his duty in the matter. He had served notices on the Totness and Cambridge electors, on Mr. Parkes, and another on a Member of the House, who was known to him.
Witnesses having withdrawn,
Sir G. Clerksaid, that it must now be apparent the very extraordinary and very negligent manner in which notices were served, it being in the power of any party to take those notices from the messengers, and thus defeat the intentions of the House. It appeared that the proceeding with the Ludlow election, which had been appointed for the 12th, must be defeated, independent of other circumstances which had transpired. The House he was sure must feel that the matter could not rest here, and that Mr. Coppock should be ordered to attend to explain why it was that he asked for and obtained from the messengers the notices, and retained them

777
from the 18th instant until the present time.
Mr. Coppockat the bar, and examined. He was agent for the petitioners in defending the return for the Ludlow election. The messenger Poingdestre had delivered to him two notices—one for the sitting Member, and the other for the petitioners. He was agent for the petitioners—for the petitioners who defended the return.
To what parties was the notice addressed?—It was addressed to the parties petitioning against the return, for whom I am not agent. The notice was addressed to the petitioners opposing the return. He had a conversation with Poingdestre, who met him as he was coming up the lobby, and asked him if he knew the agents in the election petitions, as he had some notices to give them. Poingdestre then went up stairs, and brought them down to him. He took those which he conceived related to himself, and gave the messenger back the others. The others related to the Totness and Cambridge election petitions. He did not examine them closely; one was an address to the sitting Member, complaining of an undue return; and upon the other the name was written small, and petitioners in large letters, and he conceived it was for the parties for whom he was interested. He did not discover his mistake until Monday last, when he gave to Mr. Alcock his notice, and then it was that, for the first time, he discovered that he had the notice addressed to the other parties. When he discovered that the notice was not for him, he supposed that the agent on the other side had got that which was intended for him. He thought the notice was good, as it was a mere change of papers. He had the notice at home. He had received a notice which ought not to have been delivered to him, but he had not received a notice which ought to have been delivered to him. Both these would be of a precisely similar description, merely fixing the day of trial. Immediately that he discovered the error he consulted his counsel as to the course he ought to adopt as to waving any objection, and the reply of the counsel was, that he could not wave the objection, as his clients had not received due notice.
Witness ordered to withdraw.
Evidence to be printed.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Viscount Morpeth Viscount Morpeth moved the Order of the Day for going nto Committee on the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.
House in Committee.
On schedule A being put,
Mr. Dunbar Mr. Dunbar moved, that the town of Belfast be struck out of schedule A and placed in schedule B.
Viscount Morpethwould at once declare, that he must adhere to the schedule as at present constituted.
Mr. Littonreminded the Committee, that Belfast had petitioned against being included in schedule A.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonthought, that a different rule ought to be adopted towards those four towns that had petitioned against being included in schedule A, and those who were willing to be included in it.
The Committee divided on the original motion;—Ayes 67; Noes 26: Majority 41.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Morpeth, Viscount

Aglionby, H. A.

Morris, D.

Aglionby, Major

Murray, A.

Archbold, R.

O'Brien, W. S.

Baines, E.

O'Connell, D.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Conor, Don

Bellew, R. M.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Bewes, T.

Pechell, Captain

Blake, M. J.

Pigot, D. R.

Bridgeman, H.

Price, Sir R.

Briscoe, J. I.

Rice, E. R.

Brodie, W. B.

Roche, W.

Brotherton, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Busfield, W.

Smith, B.

Callaghan, D.

Stock, Dr.

Collier, J.

Strutt, E.

Collins, W.

Style, Sir C.

Corbally, M. E.

Thornley, T.

Curry, Mr. Sergeant

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Tufnell, H.

Duke, Sir J.

Turner, E.

Finch, F.

Verney, Sir H.

Fitzpatrick, J. W.

Vernon, G. H.

Greg, R. H.

Vigors, N. A.

Harcourt, G. G.

Warburton, H.

Hawkins, J. H.

Wilde, Mr. Sergeant

Hector, C. J.

Wood, C.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wood, G. W.

Hodges, T. L.

Wood, B.

Howard, P. H.

Wyse, T.

Hume, J.

Yates, J. A.

Humphery, J.

TELLERS.

Hutton, R.

O'Ferrall, M.

Lynch, A. H.

Parker, J.

779

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Captain

Marsland, T.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Blair, J.

Maxwell, hon. S. R.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Perceval, Colonel

Cooper, E. J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Corry, hon. H.

Polhill, F.

Darby, G.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Du Pre, G.

Thornhill, G.

Farnham, E. B.

Trench, Sir F.

Halford, H.

Verner, Colonel

Hodgson, R.

Young, J.

Jackson, Mr. Sergeant

Kemble, H.

TELLERS.

Lucas, E.

Dunbar,—

Mackenzie, T.

Litton, E.

Mr. Blakeobjected to the insertion of the town of Galway in this schedule, and stated, that the House of Lords had excluded it from a similar bill last year, upon sufficient grounds being shown before the Committee. He therefore moved, that Galway be expunged from this schedule.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonseconded the amendment.
Mr. Lynchwas satisfied, that it would be more in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants of Galway if that town were placed in schedule B.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that Galway ought to stand in schedule A.
Viscount Morpethregretted, that he could not comply with the request of his hon. Friend; but as in the case of Belfast he had evinced an insensibility to the allurements of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, so in the present instance he must prove equally coy when courted by his hon. Friend. He could not consent to remove Galway from schedule A.
Mr. Dunbarsupported the amendment. He believed the inhabitants of Galway to be unanimous in their wish to have that town placed in schedule B.
The Committee again divided on the original motion:—Ayes 79; Noes 47: Majority 32.
Schedule agreed to.
Mr. Sergeant Jackson Mr. Sergeant Jackson moved the insertion of a clause after clause 4, to enable all persons entitled to vote as freemen or burgesses in the election of Members to serve in Parliament for any borough, to vote likewise in the election of the town councillors and aldermen of such boroughs to be elected under the provisions of this bill. The ground of his motion
780
was this: that the freemen of these corporations had vested interests in the local government of their towns; they were efficiently represented in the town council of Dublin as in other corporations, and he thought it only right and just to continue them in the same position, and to give them a voice in the election of the aldermen and common councillors under this bill. The effect of the bill as it now stood would be to transfer their corporations from the Protestant part of the community into the hands of the Roman Catholics. That certainly would be the case with all the towns in schedule A, except Belfast and Londonderry; and her Majesty's Attorney-general had said, that if that were the effect of the measure, he should be the first to oppose it. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had scouted that idea, but he (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) had taken the liberty of showing to the House the other night, from returns on the table, that there was a large majority of 10 l. householders who were Roman Catholics, except in Belfast and Londonderry. He knew, that in some respects those returns were inaccurate which were furnished by the commissioners of public instruction. He could prove it; but they were the nearest approximation to the truth which he could obtain. He proposed now, therefore, to give the freemen a voice in the election of the aldermen and town council, with a view to counterpoise the influence of Roman Catholics, which this bill must produce.
Viscount Morpeththought the hon. and learned Member could hardly be serious in pressing a proposition so entirely inconsistent with the principle and frame-work of this bill. It was not necessary for him to argue the question. The hon. and learned Sergeant said, that most of the present freemen were Protestants, and that might be so; but, looking at some of their late proceedings in the corporation of Dublin, looking at the vulgar squabbles in which they had been engaged—charges banded about of peculation and corruption—there was at present a dispute, he believed, about the disposal of one Church living, looking, too, at their recent conduct with regard to the learned Recorder, he must say, that a body of men who could treat one of their stoutest defenders as he had been treated, were not exactly the class of persons most fitted to take, the management of local interests. He should

781
oppose the amendment as being at variance with the spirit of the bill.
Mr. W. Rochethought, that nothing could be more destructive of the principle of this bill than an amendment like the present.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that anything equal to the profligacy with which the corporation of Dublin had squandered 200,000 l. could not be conceived. The hon. and learned Sergeant admitted, that he had spoken from inaccurate returns; but he reminded him of the lawyer who replied to an objection, that certain evidence was not legal,—"True it's not legal, but it's good enough for the jury." And so the learned Sergeant said—" It's not accurate, but it's good enough for the House of Commons." The bill would be good for nothing if they let these freemen in. The evil would remain during fifty years. Roman Catholics had been admissible to the freedom; but not a single one had been admitted in that period. The object of this bill was to throw religious distinctions aside, and to substitute, by way of qualification, the resident property of the town. The great cause of the present quarrel between the corporation of Dublin was, that he had defended them from the charge of being an exclusive corporation; but they insisted that they were. They had, no doubt, been exclusive, and this bill was proposed to remedy that evil.
Mr. Bellewsaid, that if the returns referred to by the learned Sergeant were correct, he could only rejoice that the Liberal party were so strong; and the learned Sergeant ought not to be quite so sure that there would not be a Liberal majority even in Belfast and Londonderry. He regarded the discussion upon this measure with great satisfaction, because he looked upon it as the last time on which those questions would be discussed in that House. They seemed now, indeed, to be coming to the whispering of a faction, not strong enough to be heard out of that House, and very little within it.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonhad referred to the only returns which were at his command, and they were the parliamentary returns laid on the table of the House. They at all events gave an approximation to the truth; and if they were not quite accurate, the disproportion was so great, that his argument would not be effected. The proportion between the Roman Catholics and Protestants was as two to one,
782
or as three to two in all the towns in the schedule, except Londonderry and Belfast. This was a Protestant constitution, and the local Government of these towns ought not to be transferred wholesale from the Protestant to the Catholic inhabitants. It had been said, that if the property were in the hands of the Roman Catholics, then they ought to have a voice in the local government on account of that property. But he denied the fact; for though a majority of those who occupied 5l. and 10 l. houses might be Catholics, still the property of the country was in a large proportion in the possession of the Protestants.
Sir R. Inglissaid, the noble Lord had said something about the vulgar squabbles of the corporation of Dublin, but was that the only place where vulgar squabbles occurred. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had charged the corporation with peculation and profligacy to the amount of 200,000 l., but was that House the tribunal to decide such a case? If the case were true, the Courts of Law were the proper tribunals to appeal to. No ground could be more untenable for the destruction of a class of persons holding vested rights than that particular persons had not always spoken and acted with discretion.
Lord J. Russellsaid—The hon. Baronet seems to have taken offence at the words "vulgar squabbles," which were used by my noble Friend; but the hon. Baronet, I think, has heard words not much more civil used on the part of the Orange Association in Dublin.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellwas perfectly satisfied that this clause had not been proposed with a view to carrying it into effect. The learned Sergeant could not carry it into effect; but though he acted according to the letter of the arrangement which had been made, he seemed disposed to violate its spirit. He, however was rejoiced to see that the hon. and learned Sergeant bad by his conduct driven away the leaders of his party in that House. It would be much better to oppose the measure openly and honestly than, professing to support the principle of it, to attempt to introduce clauses calculated to defeat its main objects. As to the corporation of Dublin, they had admitted eighty-three freemen between the years 1832 and 1835, of whom, only one was a Catholic.
Mr. W. Rochesaid, that hundreds of the freemen of Limerick had never seen the place, the drummers and fifers of a particular regiment, he believed, on one occasion, had been made freemen.
Colonel Percevalsaid, there was no ground for charging his hon. and learned Friend with factious opposition to this Bill; he had last Session given notice of the same motion as the present, and had only been prevented by an accident from bringing it forward. He believed that the present unpopularity of the learned Recorder of Dublin, which he hoped was only temporary, had arisen from the part he took in supporting the second reading of this Bill; but that hon. and learned Gentleman had together with himself and his learned Friend near him (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) felt themselves bound in honour so to act in consequence of their acquiescence in the proposition, that if the tithe question were settled on a satisfactory basis, they would not oppose the principle of the Government corporation plan.
Mr. J. Youngcould not see how it would be just to admit a rabble of 700 or 800 men to vote along with the rate-payers. The parties who paid the rates were those who should alone exercise the municipal right, and therefore, although he had assented to all the other propositions of his hon. and learned Friend, he could not support him in his present motion.
The Committee divided on the clause—Ayes 44; Noes 97: Majority 53.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Captain

Halford, H.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Henniker, Lord

Bagge, W.

Hodgson, R.

Bailey, J. jun.

Hope, G. W.

Baring, H. B.

Ingestre, Lord Visct.

Boldero, H. G.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bruges, W. H. L.

James, Sir W. C.

Buck, L. W.

Kelly, F.

Burroughes, H. N.

Litton, E.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Mackenzie, T.

Codrington, C. W.

Maunsell, T. P.

Cole, Lord Viscount

Maxwell, hon. S. R.

Cooper, E. J.

Neeld, J.

Corry, hon. H.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Darby, G.

Plumtre, J. P.

Darlington, Earl of

Polhill, F.

Dunbar, G.

Praed, W.T.

Du Pre, G.

Sandon, Lord Visct.

Fellowes, E.

Scarlet, hon. J. Y.

Greene, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grimsditch, T.

Trench, Sir F.

784

TELLERS.

Verner, Colonel

Colonel Perceval

Waddington, H. S.

Mr. Sergeant Jackson

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Morpeth, Lord Visct.

Aglionby, H. A.

Muntz, G. F.

Aglionby, Major

Murray, A.

Ainsworth, P.

Noel, hon. C. G.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

O'Connell, D.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Connell, J.

Bellew, R. M.

O'Connell, M. J.

Berkeley, hon. H.

O'Connell, M.

Bewes, T.

O'Conor Don

Blake, M. J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Palmerston, Lord Vis.

Bridgeman, H.

Parker, J.

Briscoe, J. I.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Pechell, Captain

Brodie, W. B.

Pigot, D. R.

Busfeild, W.

Price, Sir R.

Clay, W.

Pryme, G.

Collier, J.

Rice, E. R.

Collins, W.

Roche, W.

Corbally, M. E.

Russell, Lord J.

Curry, Mr. Sergeant

Salwey, Colonel

Dalmeny, Lord

Seale, Sir J. H.

Duke, Sir J.

Smith, B.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Smith, R. V.

Ewart, W.

Somerville, Sir W.M.

Finch, F.

Stock, Dr.

Fitzpatrick, J. W.

Strangeways, hon. J.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Strickland, Sir G.

Gisborne, T.

Style, Sir C.

Gordon, R.

Thornely, T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Townley, R. G.

Harcourt, G. G.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hawes, B.

Turner, E.

Hayter, W. G.

Turner, W.

Hector, C. J.

Verney, Sir H.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Vigurs, N. A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vivian, right, hn. Sir

Hodges, T. L.

R. H.

Hollond, R.

Wallace, R.

Horsman, E.

Warburton, H.

Howard, P. H.

Ward, H. G.

Hume, J

White, A.

Humphery, J.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Hutton, R.

Wood, C

James, W.

Wood, B.

Johnson, General

Yates, J. A.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Young, J.

Lushington, C.

TELLERS.

Macauley, rt. hn. T.B.

Stanley, Hon. E. J.

Melgund, Lord Visc.

Tufnel, Mr.

The House resumed, report to be brought up.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply.
Mr. More O'Ferrallproposed, that the sum of 1,142,504 l. be granted to her Majesty to defray the charge of wages to seamen and marines, and to the ordinary and yard craft, which will come in the course

785
of payment during the year ending the 31st of March, 1841.
Sir T. Cochranewished for some explanation from the hon. Secretary, as to some parts of the paper which he held in his hand, which purported to be the naval balance sheet for the last year. He also wished for some explanation as to the addition to the estimates that appeared to have occurred in the course of last year, more especially as regarded the charge for naval stores, for the wages of artificers, and also for the conveyance of troops, &c. Previous to putting this question, he wished to state, that he had intended to have proposed a motion for returns, which would have given the House adequate information respecting the present state of the navy; but when he was told that the motion would be opposed on the ground that furnishing the returns would embarrass the Government, he felt it to be his duty not to press for them. He confessed that he thought it was very questionable policy to adopt a course of concealment as to the state of the navy of this country. He did not think that any disclosure that the Government could make respecting it could do one-half the injury that the system of concealment respecting our naval force was likely to produce. No one who had not been recently abroad could be aware of the extent to which the feeling prevailed, that the naval force of this country had declined, and it was believed, that it was in such a state, that it was utterly impossible for us to enter upon a war with a great naval power. He could not see why the Admiralty could not follow the example of the French government, which annually made a clear and elaborate statement as to the naval force of that power. If there was any deficiency in the navy, he was sure that the country, and the House, would not hesitate to come forward, and supply any defect that might arise, and if it appeared that, notwithstanding the statements that had been made, we had a large naval force, it would cause the country to be respected by any power that had a hostile feeling to it, and it would command the confidence of our friends. He was convinced that the system of concealing the real state of things must prove deeply injurious to the best interests of the country. He now wished to ask the hon. Member for Kildare explanations as to two points which he found in the naval balance sheet. In the first place,
786
he found last year the actual charge for the wages of seamen and marines fell short of the sums voted, by not less than 74,892 l. 12 s. 10 d., and there was also a falling short in the charge for victuals for seamen, &c, to the amount of 46,340 l. 4s., making together the sum of 121,232 l. 16 s. 10 d. Now, this sum was somewhat about equal to the charge for the maintenance and wages of 2,160 seamen for one year. It appeared, also, that there were great additional charges in other departments connected with the Admiralty, and these additional charges had been liquidated out of this falling short of expenditure in comparison with the income. It would appear, then, that the Admiralty was falling back into the system that was pursued some years ago, of transferring the balance of one vote to the deficiency of another. He had always understood, that when the right hon. Member for Pembroke introduced the balance sheet, that the system he had adverted to was never to be pursued again. He knew that the right hon. Baronet strongly condemned the system, and thought it to be so objectionable, that he introduced a clause on the subject into the act, for the regulation of the civil department of the navy. Indeed he had always understood, that the chief reason of the balance-sheet was to show that the money voted for one purpose was not devoted to another. He therefore hoped that the Secretary for the Admiralty would explain how it happened that sums of money which had been voted for the wages of seamen, and for their victualling, had been applied to dock-yard establishments, to the wages of naval artificers, and to the purchase of naval stores.
Mr. More O'Ferrallreplied, that with reference to the motion for returns which had been alluded to by the gallant Officer, he could only repeat what he stated on a former occasion, namely, that the Admiralty felt that they could not be given in consistency with the welfare of the service; but if the gallant Officer, or any other naval officer chose to call at the Admiralty, he should be very happy to furnish him with the information which he required. With respect to the devoting the surplus of one vote to any deficiency in another vote in the year, he could only reply, that it was a practice which had always been followed at the office to which he belonged. He had never heard it com-

787
plained of before, and it was hardly possible to avoid doing so in certain respects, in consequence of the system of paying the wages of seamen.
Sir Thomas Cochraneobserved, that he should not feel himself justified in going to the Admiralty, and looking over the papers in question, as he could not afterwards avail himself of any information that he might acquire from them there. What he wished for was, that the House and the country should be put in possession of this information in a tangible form. He confessed that the explanation of the hon. Secretary as to the balance-sheet was not satisfactory. The question was not as to the custom of transferring the surplus of one vote to the deficiency of another, or as to whether it was good or bad; but it was a rule laid down by Lord Grey's government, and, if he was not mistaken, declared in an Act of Parliament, and this was a departure from it. He believed that Lord Grey's government introduced the naval balance sheet, with a view of putting a stop to the system. In the year 1831, the right hon. Baronet, then First Lord of the Admiralty, denounced the system in the strongest terms, and said that it was illegal, and if he was not much mistaken, that he had taken the opinion of counsel as to the propriety of undertaking prosecutions for it.
Mr. C. Woodstated, that he was the person who should, properly speaking, have been hauled over the coals by the gallant officer for this transfer, which appeared in the balance-sheet. The gallant Officer stated, and truly, that the right hon. Member for Pembroke, in 1831, blamed the Admiralty for the transfer of any surplus to other votes. He admitted that, according to the rule then laid down, this was an apparent departure from it, but circumstances had arisen which fully justified it in this instance. In the summer of 1838, when affairs bore a more hostile appearance than they had previously done, it became necessary to make some considerable addition to the naval force, which there was no opportunity of providing for immediately by a vote. Since the year 1836, they had been gradually increasing the naval establishments of the country, and it was attended with great inconvenience and expense to make a large increase at once. The course which was pursued was to
788
make a gradual increase in the votes for wages, for the yards, and for stores. A greater increase, however, became necessary in 1838 than was anticipated, and more particularly in the charge for stores. The chief portion of the additional charge arose from the necessity of purchasing vessels and stores for ships in the lakes of Canada. He trusted that this explanation would satisfy the Committee as to the excess in the three votes which had been alluded to. He would now say a few words with respect to the naval balance sheet. He admitted that the right hon. Member for Pembroke drew up a rule for the limitation of the expenditure of the Admiralty to the estimates of the year. He was sure that the hon. Member for Stamford would confirm him in asserting that there was no branch of the public service where the rule could be applied with so little strictness as the navy. There could be no doubt as to the payments in the yards, but as to wages, victuals, and stores, it was impossible that the charge could completely concur with the vote. This was more particularly the case as regarded the payment of the wages of seamen. At present a portion of their wages went to their families, another portion was allowed them in the shape of pocket money, and the remainder was paid when the ships were paid off, after a service of four years. Now, it was impossible so to equalise the payments of their wages, that they could always make the charge correspond with the estimate. By the bill of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke, it was enacted, that immediately the year was out, the credit for the votes expired at the Exchequer, and this might be at a time when large sums were required for wages. If, therefore, these additions were not paid from the surplus of other votes, they could not be provided for during the year. For several years there had been a most extraordinary equality between the amount of the estimates voted and the charges; but still occasionally circumstances would arise, over which the Admiralty had no control, to occasion these additional charges in the votes which must be provided for. The great advantage, as he understood it, of the balance sheet was, that no transfer of payments could be made without their coming before the House and the country.
Mr. Warburtonwished to be informed

789
whether returns from the medical department of the navy, similar to those made with respect to the army, would be made?
Sir T. Troubridgesaid, that statistical accounts had been in the course of preparation for some time past in the medical department of the navy. They were in a state of great forwardness, and he would take care that they should be brought forward as soon as possible.
Mr. Humesaid, a great inconvenience often arose from the non-payment of seamen's wages until their wages had reached a large amount, and he begged to inquire whether any arrangement was likely to be made by which this evil would be remedied?
Sir Charles Adamanswered, that a regulation, by which seamen received a monthly allowance, had been in existence ever since the time at which the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke, held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty; but it was a system which had been much complained of by the officers, as producing habits of intoxication. He was persuaded, however, that in its ultimate effects it would be found to be a proper and useful measure. With regard to any further allowance being paid—that was a subject which required mature deliberation, and it should receive his anxious attention.
Sir George Clerkwished to correct an error of the hon. and gallant Admiral, who had answered the question of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. The practice to which he alluded had existed for fifteen years.
Sir C. Adam: That was quite true, but the allowance had been increased since its first establishment.
Sir G. Clerkbelieved a seaman was entitled to two months' pay before he left the harbour, which, with bedding, clothes, &c, and (as the case might be) an allotment to his family, together with his 4s. a-month, would leave him without any claim for two years to come. The only doubt on the subject had been, whether, by allowing him thus to become a debtor to the public, they did not rather hold out to him a temptation to leave the service. He did not think it advisable for the Admiralty to call on the House to vote 2,359 men less than would be required to place the ships now employed on their full complements. He considered that course impolitic and inexpedient. If
790
the Admiralty found it necessary to employ so large a number of ships, they ought to ask the House to vote a number of men sufficient to give each ship its proper crew, according to the present standard, without going so far as to complete them to the full war establishment. The House was also asked to vote a sum of only 880,000 l. as wages, instead of 963,000 l., which would be required to pay the men, if the complements were filled up. He did not pretend to offer any opinion as to whether it was necessary to keep up the same number of vessels, but the Secretary for the Admiralty and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had told the House that it was impossible to diminish it with safety. He thought, however, that it was most important to give each of those ships its full strength of men, in order that its commander might not have to fear defeat from an adversary with a more numerous crew, but be ready for any encounter at any time. He could not sit down without adverting to the difficulty which had been experienced of late years in manning the navy. During the last five or six years, ships had frequently found it next to impossible to procure an adequate number of men, and had been obliged in some instances, after a long detention in harbour, to quit the ports with a reduced crew. In the event of hostilities unexpectedly breaking out, it was evident that the most lamentable consequences might be apprehended from such a condition. He would strongly urge the Admiralty to allow those seamen to whom pensions for long service had been granted, to receive their pensions while serving on board her Majesty's ships, a privilege which was now denied to them. It was true, that in the year 1816, when those pensions were first granted, a regulation was made that no man should receive it while serving in the navy, but the Committee must bear in mind how totally different the state of our maritime affairs at that time was. There was then an immense number of unemployed seamen in the ports, and it appeared to the Admiralty of the day, seeing that they could only give employment to a limited number of those men, that it was better to prevent them from drawing both pay and pension at once, in order that the means of subsistence might thereby be found for as many as possible. But circumstances were now entirely changed; great diffi-

791
cully was experienced in getting men when they were wanted, and the effect of the regulation was now, to deprive the country of many of its very best seamen, since it operated as a bar against their continuing in the service. It was perfectly clear, that when they received higher wages in merchant ships, and were besides allowed to draw their pensions, they could not be expected to re-enter the navy, where they would get lower wages and forfeit their pensions. He was, therefore, impressed with the conviction, that the rescinding of the regulation he had mentioned would be an excellent means of facilitating the manning of the ships. Looking to the present critical aspect of our foreign relations with various powers, and to the exertions which rival states were making to increase their navies, and place them on an efficient footing, the House must see that it was of the last consequence to give all classes of our ships full and effective complements, and to take measures for improving, if that were possible, the quality and character of the men. In former days it might have been expedient to send out ships with reduced crews, in order that the Admiralty might be enabled to employ a greater number of officers; but now, when foreign navies had greatly improved, it was too much to expect that undermanned British ships could compete with others of greatly superior crews. It was well known that almost every ship which had sailed for the Mediterranean lately, had gone out short of hands, and the sooner such a practice was put an end to, the better would it be for the country and the navy.
Captain Pechellthought it absolutely indispensable to restore to old and good seamen their pensions during their time of service, as the deprivation of them was now an absolute penalty against re-entering the navy. He thought there should be no such thing as a peace complement, and that no ship of war should leave a British port without having its crew complete to the full war establishment.
Mr. F. H. Berkeleysaid, that the manning of our ships was not so complete as that of other nations. If in the late conflict with the Chinese we had had to fight with Frenchmen or Americans, the consequence would have been disgrace to our flag. It was a vulgar notion that one Englishman could beat three Frenchmen; but though that had long been ex-
792
ploded, it seemed as if it were still entertained at the Admiralty. At present an English 36-gun ship had not more men than were able to contend with a French ship of 28 guns, if well manned and well armed, as the French ships always were.
Sir H. Verneyprotested against the practice which prevailed among naval officers of the present day, of instilling by complaints in that House, an idea into the minds of the men and officers under their command, that they were not equal to the services which they were called upon to perform. He did not believe that our ships were unable to perform the duties which they were required to execute, and he did not believe, although upon this point, as a non-professional man, he spoke with humility, that our ships were under-manned. In all our great naval victories, we had one-third or a quarter less men than the enemies with whom we were engaged.
Lord Ingestriecould not agree with the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, that naval officers in that House were not to express their sentiments on the state of the navy. He should like to know where they were to speak their sentiments, if not in that House. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton in what he had said as to the expediency of fully manning every ship. All that he (Lord Ingestrie) wanted was, that the navy should be in an efficient state, so as to maintain the honour of our flag. He did not think that British officers and men would under any circumstances incur disgrace, but at the same time he did think that our ships should be manned in that proper manner so as to be in a condition to engage with success whenever they were called on to do so. The condition of the mates and midshipmen in the navy was one which he considered imperatively called for amelioration. There were some midshipmen who were actually forty years of age, and one of them forty-four. Now, he thought that twenty-five was quite old enough for a man to be kicked about in the midshipman's berth without any rank or pay whatever. With regard to the mates, many of those gentlemen were put to do the duty of lieutenants, and were obliged to join the officers' mess, and thereby put to increased expenses, although they were not allowed pay. He was of opinion, however, that no further increase was required in the monthly pay

793
of the men, and that it was quite sufficient, if indeed they had not too much already. He must again complain of the profligate manner in which the patronage of the navy had been exercised. There was a young gentleman of the name of Wood who had passed his examination for lieutenant with the greatest credit to himself, and who had obtained several more marks than another gentleman who bore the name of Elliot. The last named gentleman, however, was now a commander of the navy, while Mr. Wood had never received any promotion. He had referred the other evening to the removal of Sir J, Gordon from Chatham dockyard, and he must say, that the appointment of that officer, though he was low in the list, would have been much more palatable to the profession than that of Admiral Fleming to Greenwich. He thought that the removal of Sir J. Gordon was a very hard case. These circumstances justified him in saying, that the patronage of the Admiralty had been exercised in a profligate manner.
Sir T. Troubridgewas very reluctant to take up the time of the House, but so much had been said on the subject of undermanning the navy, that, considering the station which he had the honour to hold, and his own connexion with the profession, he felt bound to trouble the House with a few words. He had never shrunk from expressing the opinion which he held of the absurdity of war complements in a time of peace. Such a course must be expensive, and was wholly unnecessary. He admitted that some time ago, in consequence of the alteration made in the complement of guns, it was found necessary to review the complement of men, and the alterations which were proposed had been carried into effect in the new ships, the Pique, the Inconstant, and other ships of that class, and also in some other ships, of a larger size. Now, it would be asked, under what arrangement those additions were made? They were made upon a calculation of the increased amount which became necessary to work the guns of the ship. A gun committee sat in 1828, and the Admiralty had had the opportunity of consulting the very best officers who were connected with the navy, and had particularly studied the subject of gunnery. It was only natural that every officer in command of a ship should wish to have fifty or sixty men more, to make a
794
display with in any port to which he might be ordered. He defied, however, any officer, and indeeed every officer, in the House, to point ont a single case in which our ships, manned as they were at present, had not done their duty. Had our sailors failed in the performance of their duty either on the coast of Africa or on the coast of China? Had they not shown the same skill and the same bravery, and had not their bravery and skill been accompanied by the same success as formerly? Would any man tell him of any disaster they had recently met with? If anything of the kind had happened, he thought that from the situation which he had the honour to fill, he must have heard of it, and yet he had heard of nothing of the sort. There were other charges made against the Admiralty, but they were irrelevant to the vote then before the House, and he would answer them when the items to which they referred came regularly in the progress of the estimates under the consideration of the Committee. He was quite aware of the advantage of taking a vote on this estimate to-night; and he was also equally aware of the impropriety of so humble an individual as himself making a long speech upon it. There were one or two points, however, that he must notice. He had no hesitation in declaring, that in our naval service there were some hard cases, so far as regarded the mates. That was a matter, however, which did not rest with the Admiralty. They could only promote one in three—they had promoted that number, and therefore upon that score no complaint could be made against the Admiralty. The noble Lord had stated that there were a number of hard cases arising from the long service of the mates. No doubt there were; but there were mates upon the list, who, though they had been fourteen and even seventeen years in the service, had not been anything like that time at sea. They had been on board steamboats, they had gone to Australia, they had been in India, and elsewhere, and all for their private emolument. They had not, therefore, the same claim upon the Admiralty as if they had been all the time at sea in the service of the country.
Lord G. Lennoxsuggested that it would be a good plan to have a supplementary estimate to the navy estimates, and to divide in future the expenses of the marines from those of the navy. The charge of

795
58,000 l., which was made for the marines was nothing less than a fraud on that branch of the service. There was a charge of 1,383 l. for the pay of one lieutenant-general of marines. Now, that officer belonged to the navy, and never had been in the marines. There was also a charge of 1,037 l. for a major-general of marines. That officer, too, had never served in the marines. There were other charges of a similar description. Now, the Committee ought to be able to ascertain exactly what the marines, really being marines, cost the country. We ought not, as his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sandwich had justly said, to be keeping unnecessarily a number of marines and idlers. He objected to having officers of the navy paid for being officers of marines, when, in point of fact, they were mere idlers. He found that the pensions granted to flag officers, captains, and marine officers, amounted to 4,350 l. this year. Would any man who read the words of that estimate believe it possible that not a single marine officer had any share in those pensions? He admitted that two pensions of 150 l. a-year had been given last year to two deserving officers in the navy. He was glad of it—he was far from objecting to it; but he should like to see some share in those pensions granted to the marines. He also saw in the estimates one item for eight retired colonels of marines. He wished to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty whether the vacancies occasioned by those eight retirements had been filled up? He believed that two of them were not to be filled up till the report of the Naval and Military Commission which had been so long expected, was made up.
Captain A'Courtrose for the purpose of just saying a word or two on behalf of these unfortunate mates. He believed that if the Admiralty persisted in their present system, they would find it matter of difficulty to get young men to enter the service as mates. He wished that the Admiralty would promote 300 of them. It would not cost the nation more than 15,000 l. a-year. He likewise declared it to be his opinion that no ship ought to leave this country without being fully manned to meet all emergencies.
Captain Jonesconcurred with the last speaker in the expediency of having all our ships fully manned. He was, nevertheless, of opinion, that what constituted
796
the full manning of a ship was not a point for the decision of the House of Commons, but of the responsible officers of the Crown.
Captain Bolderoexpressed his anxiety that this and the next vote should pass through the Committee that evening. The Committee, however, ought not to grant any further votes until it had before it the report of the Naval and Military Commission. They had been told that not more than another sitting of that commission was wanted to complete its report. The Duke of Wellington, God be thanked for it, was now sufficiently recovered to attend to business, and he trusted that in the course of next week, he would be able to give up a day to the consideration and approval of that report. If any grants beyond those which he had mentioned were proposed before that report was received, he should meet them with every opposition in his power.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that one of the propositions made by the hon. and gallant officer who had spoken last was reasonable enough. It was quite evident that no reasonable objection could be offered to the two next votes, but he could not agree to the hon. and gallant officer's second proposition, that we should take no more votes upon the navy estimates until the report of the Naval and Military Commission was received. He opined that the Committee would be perfectly competent to decide upon all the navy estimates, even before the report in question was submitted to the House.
Mr. Herriescould not allow the present vote to pass through the Committee without taking notice of a subject closely connected with it. He alluded to the total want of all information respecting the interruption of our commercial intercourse with the Chinese at Canton. Six weeks ago her Majesty, in the most gracious speech which she then delivered from the throne, made this announcement to the two Houses of Parliament:—
"Events have happened in China which have occasioned an interruption of the commercial intercourse of my subjects with that country. I have given, and shall continue to give, the most serious attention to a matter so deeply affecting the interests of my subjects, and the dignity of the Crown."
Since that speech had been delivered, it had become notorious to all the world that preparations had been made for the

797
departure from England of a considerable armament, destined for the accomplishment of a natural object connected with this very untoward event. The merchants of England were knocking daily at the doors of the Treasury in hope of receiving satisfaction for property worth 2,400,000 l., which they had sacrificed at Canton in compliance with the demands of the British commissioner. They had received no encouraging answer to their application. The only answer which had been vouchsafed to them left their demands in abeyance. Now, the House of Commons remained up to this day totally uninformed on this most important topic, except so far as it had been informed by the statements in the newspapers. There was an impression abroad, that there had been very considerable mismanagement in the administration of our affairs in that part of the world. The impression was, that there had been vacillation in our policy from day to day, which was not only injurious to private individuals, but was also highly disgraceful to the country. He did not mean to say, that that impression was true; he was only saying, that it was nearly universal. This, however, was fact—not one single word had been said by any of her Majesty's Ministers in the House of Commons to satisfy the House of Commons, or to give it an insight into the grounds on which the House was called to vote for additional expenses on account of our expedition to China. Hon. Members had asked for information in almost every possible shape. The noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs had given promises on this subject to the country in the most affable and agreeable manner: but, unfortunately, nothing like performance had ever waited upon those promises. When some ten days ago he (Mr. Herries) asked the noble Lord whether he would be able to afford the House during the present week the information which it wanted, the noble Lord said, that he thought that the information would be forthcoming in the beginning of the present week, although he refused to bind himself, that it should be so forthcoming. They had now come to the last day in the Parliamentary week, and it was not forthcoming. The real question then was, had not the time arrived when it was incumbent upon Government to present that information to the House? He (Mr. Herries) was well
798
aware, that in the good old times, if these papers had not been presented to the House after the call which had been made for them, there would have been a motion before now for an address to the Crown to compel their production. He hoped that there would be no occasion for a measure of that description at present, but that Government would at once place upon the Table all the information which the country was now hoping with so much anxiety to attain.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not himself been so long in office, all that he had said might appear natural enough to the Committee; but every Gentleman who knew, as well as the right hon. Member knew, the cares of office, must be aware, that when the question was to produce a mass of papers which were more or less voluminous, and when those papers had to be printed, it was almost impossible for any man to say, that he would bring down the report on those papers on such and such a day with as much certainty as if he was bringing on an ordinary motion in that House. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there had been no unnecessary delay or indisposition in the office over which he presided in preparing the papers which the right hon. Gentleman wished to see; on the contrary, they should be produced at the very earliest opportunity. With respect to the menaced address to the Crown for the production of those papers, he had only to say that the production of them was not an act of courtesy on his part; it was an act of obedience to the House of Commons which had called for them. He had entertained hopes that he should be able to present them in the beginning of the present week, but he had been disappointed. He believed, that they would be ready early in the next. Whatever impression might have gone forth as to the mode in which our affairs had been recently conducted, the noble Lord would see from these papers, that that had been no reason for the misapprehension to which he had alluded. Her Majesty's Government, instead of shrinking from full investigation, absolutely courted it; but the fact was, that their opponents could not produce the documents which were necessary to justify it.
Mr. Herriesnever recollected anything like the delay which had occurred in pre-

799
paring documents in the present Session. He knew the attention and diligence of the gentlemen employed in the public offices; and, with that knowledge, he could not imagine any reason for the extraordinary delay which had occurred in the production of this information. He supposed that the papers containing it must be voluminous beyond all former precedent, and yet it was announced in her Majesty's speech that even at the time of its delivery, those papers were in preparation.
Vote agreed to.
Lord Palmerstonreplied, that he had received no official information on those subjects.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Sutherland, and several other noble Lords, from a number of places, against the Intrusion of Ministers into Parishes.—By Lord Redesdale, from Upton-upon-Severn, for Church Extension.

COMPTROLLERSHIP OF THE EXCHEQUER.
The Earl of Riponwould take that opportunity of making some observations in reference to some expressions which were reported to have fallen from a noble Lord in another place on the previous night. He alluded to the subject of the appointment of a noble Lord, a Member of that House, to the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer. The noble Lord

745
had made a remark with regard to the conduct of Lord Althorp, in allusion to a proposition made for the appointment of Mr. Ellis to the situation of the comptrollership. It was obvious that that statement was calculated to do great injury to the public and private character of Mr. Ellis, and he begged leave to state, as a matter of fact, that Lord Althorp did not express the opinion attributed to him. In the year 1833, Lord Althorp said to him, that he concurred with a noble Earl, then at the head of the Government, in thinking that Mr. Ellis's public character, and his situation in the Exchequer, gave him a just claim to the appointment to the office of comptroller, and it so happened that at the moment at which he quitted that noble Lord, he (the Earl of Ripon) wrote a letter to Mr. Ellis, informing him of what had passed, and that these two authorities had distinctly admitted the grounds on which he urged his appointment, and he congratulated him upon his having been tested for the office. He had no reason, certainly, to say one word against the appointment which had taken place, but he could not permit the opportunity to pass, without saying thus much as to the character of Mr. Ellis.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that he thought that it was very natural for the noble Earl to say what he had done; and he only rose to state, that in the position which he had held, he was not in the least degree cognizant of what took place.

AFRICAN TRADE. THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT.
Viscount Strangfordrose to lay before the House a petition from all the merchants in London engaged in the African trade, complaining of certain injuries to which they were subjected by reason of their treatment on the coast of Africa by the French authorities. He should now merely move, that it should be laid upon the table of their Lordships' House, but should proceed to address some further remarks to their Lordships upon the subject. [Petition laid on the Table]. The noble Viscount then continued to say, that when in the course of the last Session he brought under their Lordships' consideration the various aggressions upon our trade on the western coast of Africa, which had been committed by certain French authorities there, and the amount of loss and dishonour which, in his opinion, we had in
746
consequence sustained, he did hope, as well from the highly proper and spirited tone and language assumed on that occasion by the noble Viscount opposite, as from his assurances that the matter should be taken up—as it behoved this country to take it up—that his remonstrances and representations would have had the effect, if not of obtaining full redress for past injuries and insults, at least of preventing them from being renewed and repeated in a yet more objectionable form. He confessed that he entertained too high an estimate of the importance and respect due to the representations of a British Minister, to believe for one moment that it would have been his lot in the very next Session to lay before their Lordships' House, proof positive, not only that these representations and remonstrances had been ineffectual as regarded the past; but that it had been so entirely disregarded, as to have failed in restraining the French from making fresh attacks—attacks equally presumptuous and dangerous, which had inflicted considerable injury on our commerce. The petition which he had had the honour of laying on their Lordships' table, embodied the proofs of this new aggression. He should presently advert to the terms in which those proofs were given; but he would now merely ask their Lordships what state of things it must be, when the subjects of the Queen of England, hopeless of redress, approached them with such a prayer as that which he should read?
"That however deeply your petitioners may feel the importance of duly protecting and upholding these settlements, as well with a view to commerce as to the extinction of the slave trade, and however anxious they may be to preserve them as openings to British enterprise at a period when new markets for our manufactures are so essential to the mother country, yet the neglect of their own Government, and the losses and insults which they have so long suffered from the French, without any prospect of redress, constrain your petitioners humbly to recommend that a negotiation be opened with the French Government, for selling and transferring those possessions to that power which seems so anxious to possess them: under which negotiation your petitioners may either withdraw their property upon receiving an indemnity, or"—
Or what did their Lordships think?
"or remain under a Government disposed to protect them."
What must be the state of things from which the subjects of the Queen thought

747
there was no mode of escaping except by transferring the settlement, of which these transactions had been the scene, to other and more powerful hands than those in which they were now held? What it was, was best described, and was explained in a manner best suited to the occasion, and best adapted to their Lordships' convenience, in the words of the petition. The noble Viscount read the petition in the following terms:—
"THE PETITION OF THE UNDERSIGNED BRITISH MERCHANTS,
"Humbly showelh—That your petitioners are merchants and traders connected with the British settlements and factories on the northwest coast of Africa.
"That the French have possessions in the same neighbourhood, of which Senegal and Goree are the most important; that Senegal and Goree having been taken from France in the late war, were restored to her at the peace, since when she hag laboured incessantly to increase the number of her possessions in the same quarter, and to augment her influence over that part of Africa.
"That, in the pursuit of these objects, the French authorities have, on various occasions, and under various false pretences, insulted and despoiled the English traders belonging to the neighbouring British settlements, who can no longer pursue their lawful trade with safety or success,
"That these proceedings have been systematically carried on by the French ever since the peace, having commenced so early as the year 1819, when they took possession of Albredar, a station within the mouth of the river Gambia, notwithstanding that that river was reserved exclusively to Great Britain by the peace; that the British Government remonstrated against this outrage at the time, and have done so at intervals ever since without effect, the said factory still continuing in possession of France, to the serious injury and embarrassment of British trade.
"That without adverting to other well-known acts of French aggression in the same quarter, which remain equally without redress, although attended with consequences the most ruinous to individuals, your petitioners have on this occasion humbly to draw your Lordships' attention to a further and more recent outrage committed by the French authorities so late as September last, and which, although the last aggression your petitioners have heard of, will not, they fear, be the last they are destined to endure, unless measures be taken to assert the honour, and uphold the rights of Great Britain in that part of the world.
"That the French, in pursuance of their policy to increase the number of their establishments on the coast, and at the same time destroy the prosperity of those of Great Britain, have recently formed new settlements
748
at the river Cazamanza, a river adjoining the Gambia, the chief British possession, and obviously with a view of intercepting our trade; that having built forts and completed their arrangements, they have commenced a system of annoyance and aggression against British traders, for the purpose of excluding them from the Cazamanza trade, intriguing with the natives to drive the English away, which the natives have refused to do, telling them that the trade is open to all: that having failed in these and other attempts to effect their object, they sent an armed force on board two British vessels, the Charles Grant and the Highlander, belonging to the Gambia, and forcibly removed them from the native town of Sedjiou, where they were pursuing their lawful trade; that one of these vessels, the Highlander, from the want of skill on the part of the French force engaged in the outrage, was run on shore and finally left, and yet remains with her cargo in possession of the aggressors. That by such proceedings the English are dishonoured in the eyes of the natives, and confidence entirely destroyed.
"That these and similar proceedings on the part of the French, have from time to time been strongly represented to her Majesty's Government, not only by the petitioners at home, but by the sufferers in Africa, through the Lieutenant-governor at the Gambia, praying earnestly for protection; and although your petitioners cannot think that her Majesty's Government have been entirely inattentive to their prayers, they regret to say that, up to the present moment, they are ignorant what measures, if any, have been taken for their relief; meanwhile the French are left to pursue their insulting and aggressive policy without hindrance or interruption.
"That in the opinion of your petitioners, the want of naval protection has been the main cause of these evils, the French having never less than two or three ships of war constantly stationed in the neighbourhood, while the English settlements are frequently left for six or eight months together without a single British ship of war coming within sight of them; that at the time these proceedings took place at the Cazamanza, there was no British ship of war within 500 miles of those settlements, although nearly twenty English ships of war are employed on that coast.
"That through the influence of the British possessions at the Gambia, the slave trade has been entirely destroyed in the neighbourhood of that river, formerly one of its greatest marts, which proves the great value of those possessions for the attainment of that important object; but, that your petitioners regret to state, that according to the last advices received from, the Gambia, the French authorities were purchasing slaves for government service at Cayenne, which it was feared would have the effect of reviving the love of that traffic in the breasts of the native chiefs.
"That the British trade with those settle-

749
ments, if duly protected and encouraged, is of great prospective value to this country as an outlet for British manufactures, which are admitted by the natives duty free; that the French evidently perceive this, and hence are using the most unscrupulous means to secure a monopoly of it.
"That in addition to other disadvantages which your petitioners labour under in competing with the French, the unequal and unfair system of intercourse subsisting between the French and English settlements is severely felt by the English trader; the French being allowed privileges at the Gambia, which they refuse to reciprocate at Senegal."
Now all this was but a repetition of those other agressions which had been committed at Portendic six years ago; but however bad and however injurious that case was, there were circumstances attending that now before the House, which he thought gave to it a yet more offensive character. The territories which were invaded no more belonged to France than to us. From the very first day of their discovery they indisputably belonged to Portugal—to our once prized—to our once loved and ancient ally—to which, if any insult in former days had been offered—if her territories had been violated, our indignant remonstrance, and if that failed, our prompt and certain vengeance would surely have been called forth. Why did Portugal suffer this spoliation without resistance and remonstrance? The French never consulted Portugal at all. They wanted its territory, and they at once proceeded vi et armis to secure their object. Portugal was weak and helpless, and according to the logic and moral of mightier states—and he was not speaking with regard to France alone—powers incapable of resistance might be wronged and insulted. What was England, chivalrous England about? And he would beg to remind the noble Viscount opposite, that on his last return to office he said, that his administration was founded on principles of chivalry. What was chivalrous England about, he repeated? The only answer which he got to his question was, perhaps, that the Government knew nothing of the matter. It was the practice of France to do in other cases what they had done here, and it had been carried to a very inconvenient extent. He remembered two or three years ago that he took the liberty, in the case of the usurpation of a portion of the Brazilian territory, of calling the attention of the noble Viscount
750
to the subject, and he then knew, and ventured to predict, what would be the consequence—the infallible consequence of our neglect of that matter. The noble Viscount had laughed at the outlandish and barbarous names, and said that he had taken an exaggerated view of the matter, and that it was of no consequence, commercial, financial, or territorial. He could but think at the time, when he heard the statement, of the story of the young lady who justified her sister's indiscretion, by saying "true it is, that she had a baby, but then it was a very little one." But the complaint was, that the French Government was constantly getting these little children. They had a small child in Minorca, which the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, had taken under his patronage, and for which he seemed willing: to stand godfather. Then there were twins on the coast of Africa; there was another flourishing bantling at Monte Video; and finally, there was one now eleven years old, and just beginning its education in Algiers. The noble Lord did not even say, "Oh, fie," to these indiscretions; and by not doing so, he exposed himself to the charge of indulging in a lax morality. When the settlement was made at Cazamanza, the British merchants applied to the Governor of Gambia. Whether their complaints ever reached her Majesty's Government, or whether they ever condescended to give an answer, he did not know; he had his own suspicions upon that point, but this he did know, because he had an evidence of the fact, that no British ship of war had been sent to assist them—there had been no Government vessel of any sort or kind within 500 miles for many months together—no ship bearing her Majesty's pennant was, during the transaction, sent to the place for the purpose of watching over the British interests, and for protecting British subjects engaged there in lawful commerce. The consequence was, that during two years, the French had had everything their own way, recognising no law but the law of the strongest—trampling on the rights of Portugal—on the rights of England, and of every other nation which had been admitted to the privileges of a free trade with those settlements. If such things as these were to be passed over in silence, would the French know where to stop? If these things were done at a time of profound peace?

751
Therefore it was that this was more injurious to us than a state of war; for, in a state of war, thank God, we knew how to take care of our colonies and of our foreign trade; and we did take care of them in those good old-fashioned days, when hard fighting, and not mere political subserviency, constituted the main feature in a sailor's character, and constituted the claims to distinction. The fleets of France were, in fact, more formidable to us in a time of peace than in a time of war; not only had they brought on us national disgrace, but individuals were stripped of their property, whole families were plunged into all but absolute misery—the most outrageous proceedings had taken place, and then their Lordships were coolly told that they must seek redress through the tedious and dilatory forms of official correspondence, and of a lazy and a loitering diplomacy, suffering the loss of time and the anxiety which were incalculably more aggravating than the original wrong:—
"Full little knowest thou, that hast not tried,
What hell it is in suing long to bide;
To lose good days that might be better spent,
To waste long nights in pensive discontent;
To speed to-day, to be put back to morrow;
To feed on hope, to pine with fear and sorrow;
To have thy prince's grace, yet want her peers;
To have thy asking, yet wait many years;
To fret thy soul with crosses and with cares;
To eat thy heart through comfortless despairs."
It was for the interest of France herself, that she should be warned not to persevere in the present course, for if persevered in, it must teste the noble Viscount, lead to a collision between the two countries, and to the interruption of peace. He said teste the noble Viscount and he said it without apprehending for a moment that the noble Viscount would be guilty of the bad taste of asserting in that House what had been most indecently and most unfoundedly insinuated elsewhere, that in bringing forward matters of this kind, the Tory party, as it was called had no other object in view than that of embroiling the two powers, and of plunging them into a war. He denied that the Tory party wished for war. They had not so entirely lost their senses, they were not so utterly and hopelessly moon-stricken, as to wish for a war under any circumstances He did not wish for a war. He wished
752
for peace, not only with great and gallant France, our ancient and most honourable opponent, but also with every, the meanest and the poorest community. He had a great many reasons for wishing for peace—one of the most exquisite, and one of the most graceful of the relics of antique art that had descended to us, was a celebrated gem bearing as an impress Cupid wielding a thunderbolt. The noble Viscount was too good a scholar to forget the Greek epigram explaining the allusions and stating that the sculptor meant by the design the union of Persuasion and of Power—of the persuasive faculties which distinguished her Majesty's Administration let Mexico, and Buenos Ayres, and Portendic, and our merchants trading with America, and with Africa, speak the value. As to the power of that Administration, he did trust, and so did England trust with him, that he never should see the day when the dignity, the interests, and the safety of this country should be confided to them, or when the administration of its resources should be entrusted to them against the attack of a foreign power. But short of war, and short of anything resembling war, he was convinced, that means could be found to put an end to the outrages of which they had so long reason to complain. Remonstrance alone would not do much. Let the noble Viscount try retaliation—retaliation in no hostile sense at all, but such retaliation as France herself could not find the shadow of a reason to object. Let the noble Viscount merely do this. Let him put the French trading in our Gambia on the same footing as the French put the English trading with their Senegal. Let him give to the French nothing more in Gambia than they gave us in Senegal. How did matters now stand? Every advantage which the most liberal commercial policy could suggest was afforded in Gambia to the French nation. Our port of St. Mary was open to them, but in their port of St. Louis it was not permitted for a British vessel to approach. At Goree the severity was such that goods could not be transhipped from one foreign vessel into another if they happened to be destined for the British possessions in the Gambia. It was the most one-sided reciprocity he had ever heard of. If the noble Viscount would only hint at a species of retaliation, the whole of this complicated question would be easily and quietly settled. There

753
was another point to which he would advert, and he would do so in the slightest possible degree, because he wished to reserve it for abler and better hands. He alluded to the encouragement which these proceedings gave to the revival on the western coast of Africa of that awful traffic which had been put an end to, under Providence, by those exertions in which England had taken such an eminent part. He certainly could not, at that moment, substantiate the fact, but he had been assured, that the French had authorised a new traffic, and had even purchased slaves for the Government plantation at Cayenne, in South America. But that point he would reserve till the return of the learned Lord (Brougham), who would not be many days in England without laying bare anything that could be substantiated upon this subject. And although the noble Marquess had, the other evening, stated that the noble and learned Lord had vanished into thin air, yet he had received, under the noble Lord's own hands, an assurance that they would soon see him again in his place, in a substantial form. He found that he had omitted to state what was the importance of the trade before the interruption, whilst it remained in our own hands; what it was at the period of the interruption, and what it had been since. A return which he held in his hand was dated April 11th, and gave an account of the Senegal gum imported into this country. In 1833 there were brought by British vessels 15,125 cwts. of Senegal gum imported into this country. In 1834 there were 19,502 cwts. In 1835, when the trade was interrupted, there were 220 tons. In 1836, when the French took possession of Senegal, and the importation of gum into this country took place in foreign bottoms, the quantity was 16,742 cwts., and in 1838 it was 29,274 cwts. This alluded to the quantity of gum alone, and not to the entire imports of all products from Africa. He had now done with the Casamanza case. He handed it over to the noble Viscount for him to consider of it. He believed that was the technical term, in other words, to form a new item in the outstanding account, and it was a long one between the noble Viscount and the merchants of England, and he hoped, that the noble Viscount would be enabled to place it to the credit side of his ledger. But be was wearying their Lordships with
754
the recital of these matters. Yet he could not conclude without saying a few words on the original transgression in Portendic; he had last year mentioned that transaction, and he had laid it in all its bearings before Parliament. It involved no party principle, it was no question between ins or outs, Whigs or Tories, it was an Englishman's question, and as such only did he discuss it. It was also brought twice before the House of Commons during the last Session, by one of the most zealous, and one of the most able supporters of her Majesty's Government, the learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, no mean authority in matters of international law. It was twice brought before the House of Commons by that learned person, and twice was that learned person told by the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that the matter was under discussion between the Governments of England and of France. He wished to know, therefore, from the noble Viscount, whether those discussions were yet concluded? It appeared that six years had elapsed since the date of the transactions which had given rise to these communications, and if the reasoning of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had all that time failed to convince the French Government of the justice of these claims, he could not help thinking that it would have been the noble Lord's duty himself to have come to Parliament for advice and assistance. He was perfectly confident that such would have been the course of Mr. Canning, that such would have been the course of Mr. Canning's lamented successor, and such, he doubted not, would have been the course of his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Aberdeen), or of the illustrious Duke, whose absence they all regretted, and such, he was sure, would have been the conduct of the noble Viscount himself, had it been a question with a more feeble state than France. Had it been Portugal instead of France, their Lordships might be assured that they would have had a bill laid on their table long ago, a bill of coercion and of pains and penalties against Portugal. At all times the claims of their injured fellow subjects were fully entitled to the prompt consideration, and to the most ample support of the servants of the Crown. That was a general principle; but in the present case, he contended that these parties had a peculiar and particular right to

755
have their claims so considered, and to be so supported. And why? Because it was mainly owing to the Government themselves, and to the reliance of these parties on the Government, that they were drawn into the difficulties, and had suffered the losses of which they had to complain. He was but imperfectly aware of the facts last Session; but he could now give proof of what he stated. After the first aggression of the French, the parties were anxious to know whether they might venture to continue so improving a trade, and whether they might risk their capital by sending again to the coast of Africa. They made application to the Colonial-office in the latter part of the year 1833; and at that time the right hon. Gentleman, who was now a noble Lord, and one of the ornaments of that House, presided over the colonial department. They were told to put their statement in writing, and to give the reason for their application. They received a reply in answer, dated Downing-street, 12th November, 1834, in which it was said, that the writer acknowledged the receipt of the merchant's letter of the 1stinst., and that having laid the statement before Mr. Secretary Spring Rice, he was commanded to inform the merchants that the Government were prepared to extend to the British interests in that quarter, every protection, and to secure for the merchants every right which by any treaty or obligation subsisting between Great Britain and France belonged to them. He would ask whether, after a letter of that sort, there was not a sufficient guarantee to the merchants engaged in these transactions against all risk, arising from any other than a slate of war? Some thirty-five years ago, there was published a striking pamphlet which was attributed to Mr. Stephen, entitled, "War in Disguise, or Frauds of Neutral Flags." But the transactions that had taken place since the publication of that pamphlet, had proved that there were other sorts of war in disguise than those which the author of the pamphlet contemplated. He wished to learn from the noble Viscount, what was the present state of the negotiations between England and France on the subject of our Portendic trade, and whether any scheme of a convention had been put forward, and if so, what was the principle on which that scheme was founded? To do ample justice to their claims—the only principle on
756
which a convention ought to be founded—was what was called "consequential damage," for if the French had no legal right to establish the blockade, and for the assertion that they had no such right, he had the authority of Dr. Lushington, of all the Queen's law officers, and of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs himself—if then, as he said, the French had no legal right to establish this blockade, he contended that France was responsible for all and every species of damage and injury which might arise from the blockade. The noble Viscount would doubtless say, that the amount of claims was unreasonable, and again he might be told that the "commission consultative" attached to the foreign department in Paris, had made an assessment, not of the amount of the present claims, but of the insignificant sum of 60,000 francs. He begged the noble Viscount to recollect (and this time he would be careful in the statement of his details, which last time he admitted that he was not) that these transactions referred to distinct epochs, that up to 1834, and the transactions subsequent to that period. It was the first epoch that embraced the transaction in which the two ships were seized, and it was for the seizure of these two ships, that these 60,000 francs were awarded, and not for the losses which had accrued to the merchants subsequently, from the interruption of the trade. He was sorry to have so long troubled their Lordships, but he could not conclude without saying, that if we had any right whatever still remaining under any treaties affecting the western coast of Africa, he could not but believe that the time was come when it would be proper to assert that right by something more than mere remonstrance. If the honour of France, wounded by an offence offered to her consul by the Dey of Algiers, could only be appeased by the expulsion of that chief from his dominions, by the extermination of his subjects, and by the appropriation to French uses, not only of the city, but of the whole regency of Algiers; if France had a legal right to blockade Mexico, to bombard Vera Cruz, to stop the mouth of the river La Plata, and to seize on Monte Video, to avenge injuries, real or fancied, inflicted on her subjects, he did not understand on what principle it was, that that self-same France, whilst vindi-

757
cating her own rights in every quarter of the globe, should delay, and should thus deny justice to the subjects of the Queen of England, and should, as it were, set at nought the majesty of the British Crown. He would move, that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, for copies of all despatches received from, and addressed to, the Governor or Lieutenant-governor of the Gambia, relating to the gum trade, and to the aggressions of the French on the western coast of Africa, since 1832; also, for copies of all despatches to the British Admiral on the African station, or to the commanders of British ships of war cruising on the west coast of Africa, on the same subject, and from the same period; and also, for copies of all communications or applications for redress, made by British subjects to the Foreign or Colonial Office, relating to transactions on the West Coast of Africa, together with the answers thereto, from the year 1832 to the present period.
Viscount Melbournecertainly could not complain of the noble Viscount for bringing these matters under the consideration of their Lordships. He admitted that they were matters of great importance, and well worthy of their Lordships' attention; but he had a right to complain of the angry and irritable tone with which the subject had been introduced; and he would have complained of the pointed sarcasm which had been used in reference to a foreign power, and of the attacks on the general policy which had been made, if it had not been that the latter part of the noble Lord's speech had been wrapped up in so much allegory, with such a mixture of Greek epigrams, and of imagination, so much better adapted for the region of poetry or of fiction than of debate, as to have rendered the tone of his speech innocuous, and not likely to be attended with those irritating effects which it might otherwise have produced. But as it was likely that their Lordships would hear many arguments, many motions, many statements, and many descriptions of matters of this nature and of this character, he would only beg and implore their Lordships to consider them calmly and patiently, but, at the same time, with firmness and with resolution. The noble Lord who had just spoken had said, that when on a former occasion he had addressed the House upon this subject, he had done so in a firm And resolute tone.
758
He trusted that whilst he held his present situation, or whilst he should occupy any other station, he would never be wanting in firmness, or in resolution, on this or on any other subject. But he trusted, also, that all noble Lords would address the House in relation to this subject, with the greatest calmness, and the greatest temper, recollecting the vast importance of this matter, and the serious consequences to which their speeches might probably conduce. It was now about 100 years since this country, in consequence of complaints of injustice, which in modern times had been said to have been entirely without foundation, and which he himself believed to have been greatly exaggerated, and to have been mainly preferred for a party purpose, to injure the Ministers of that day, was hurried into a war which was not productive of any great honour or any great advantages, which had added seriously to the burdens of the country, and was the origin of many of those taxes that were most objectionable in our financial system, and with reference to which war, Burke had afterwards reprobated and condemned those who had been most active in authorising or in instituting it. Whilst, then, he advised the strictest attention and the closest observation to protect the interests of British subjects, he could not be sufficiently strong in his recommendation of a tone in their Lordships' discussions, which should be entirely free from every thing in the slightest degree irritating or offensive. He would not make any particular observation on the petition which the noble Viscount had presented; but he must remark, that at the conclusion, the petition prayed for something equally absurd and extravagant. It prayed, that we should get rid of the settlement altogether. Now, such a prayer might possibly proceed from the influence of the irritation tinder which the petitioners were smarting; or, probably if the matter were investigated it would be found that those who wished for a ground of attack against the present Government liked to convey their bitterness in that form. If he were to judge from the tone of unction with which the noble Viscount read the last sentence of that petition, he should be inclined to believe that the noble Viscount wrote it himself: it was very much in the noble Lord's style, except that it was calmer and simpler, and more to the purpose; and he could not help

759
thinking that, at any rate, the petition had been suggested by a gentleman who had some personal purposes to serve, or some party enmities to gratify. He would begin with where the noble Lord concluded—with those questions which he brought under the consideration of the House in a former Session of Parliament respecting the outrage committed on certain vessels belonging to her Majesty's subjects at Portendic, and to the interruption of our trade on the coast of Africa. He had to say on this subject, that the French Government—the late French Government he meant, though of course he had every reason to believe the engagement he was about to mention would be acted upon by their successors—but the late French Government acceded to the establisment of a mixed commission for the consideration of all these matters, and the sitting of that mixed commission would have commenced, if it had not been from a delay on our part to appoint the persons who were to represent the British Government there. These gentlemen were now selected, and he saw no reason whatever to prevent the commission from forthwith commencing its operations. But at the commencement of the negociations nothing could be more inconvenient than the production of the previous correspondence—correspondence much of which in its nature must necessarily be adverse. In fact, the production would be more likely to impede the progress of the negotiations than to lead to any satisfactory termination. He would now proceed to relate all that the Government knew with respect to the proceedings on the river Casamanza. That river was one which, rising in the interior of Africa, ran into the sea parallel to the Gambia, but south of that river. The noble Lord said, that the nominal property of the river was vested in Portugal. It was a property which they had not been able to make good, but which they merely possessed nominally, in consequence of their having a small settlement at the mouth of the river. Up this river, at a certain distance from the coast, the French had purchased from the natives a piece of land; the French had purchased a factory, near an African village, of the name of Sessue. In August the Grant schooner entered the river, with a view of trading with the inhabitants of Sessue. They were warned by the French not to do so; and it was stated in the affidavits
760
of the parties, that the people at the French factory endeavoured to persuade the natives of Sessue not to permit the English to trade. That vessel completed her cargo, and was going down the river, when they met another vessel, the Highlander, belonging, he believed, to the same firm. For the purpose of transhipping the cargo, the two vessels returned in company to Sessue. The moment a native canoe came off to trade, the two vessels were boarded by the French, the one worked down the river from some distance, and the other run aground. The crew left her, and some lime after made their complaint to the governor of the Gambia. That officer communicated with the French governor of Senegal, who replied that he claimed no exclusive rights in the Casamanza river, but that he did claim the right in Sessue, because the French had purchased a factory there. The governor of Senegal also expressed a hope that the governor of the Gambia would endeavour to prevent British subjects from trading at Sessue. The governor of the Gambia refused to enter into any arrangement. All he said he would do was, to give every protection to British subjects that might repair to Sessue. He sent an officer to Sessue to learn the nature of the transaction between the natives and the French. This gentleman in his report stated that the natives admitted that the factory had been sold to the French, but they denied that they had sold the town of Sessue, and they declared that they did not intend to sell it. It appeared from this statement, therefore, to be an unwarrantable pretension on the part of the French in saying, that no foreign nation should have a right to trade with Sessue. No doubt their exclusive right to trade with the factory must be admitted. This was the real state of the question. He must now observe, that the last dispatch from the governor of the Gambia, giving the account of the officer sent to Sessue, was only received at the Colonial-office on the 10th of February—at the Foreign-office on the 20th. The natural course that the Government had to take, was to refer the question in the first place to the law officer, the Queen's advocate, and upon his opinion, and view, and advice, to make that demand for explanation, or reparation from the government of France, which the circumstances of the case would not only justify, but

761
require. And, considering that the matter was so recent, that it was still pending, he apprehended that their Lordships would consider that this was not the time for them to take even a preliminary step in this matter. He trusted, in respect to this present question, that the noble Lord would not think it necessary to press his motion for further information. With respect to what had been said of persuading the French by depriving them of those commercial privileges which they now enjoyed, but which they did not appear willing to reciprocate, that was not the question now under consideration. The noble Lord, however, had mixed up a great many other matters with this subject. He trusted he should soon be able to give him more satisfactory information. The noble Lord said that our naval force on the coast of Africa was not sufficient; that there was not a ship in the Gambia and Casamanza rivers; and that there were no vessels on the coast. Their Lordships all knew that our vessels on the coast of Africa were engaged in putting down the slave trade, and that they had full enough to do in that service. The same dispatch which brought the account which he had alluded to, also brought the information that a vessel had been dispatched by the officer commanding at Sierra Leone, which he considered a force quite sufficient for the protection of our interests in that river. He trusted that this explanation would satisfy the noble Lord.
Viscount Strangford: I am aware that it is extremely irregular and unusual to make the request which I am about to make to the noble Viscount. I was forced to leave the House by indisposition when the noble Viscount commenced his address, and since I have come in again I have heard that the noble Viscount has been pleased to state something about my having suggested this petition. I call upon the noble Viscount, in that spirit of courtesy which is due from one gentleman to another, to tell me what he did say, in order that I may answer him.
Viscount Melbourne: Nothing is so fallacious as judgments founded on a similarity of styles. I said that the last part of the petition resembled very much the style of the noble Lord, and that perhaps he might have suggested it.
Viscount Strangford: It is, perhaps, my misfortune, but I have been so very
762
little in correspondence with the noble Viscount, that I am at a loss to understand in what he founds his judgment as to the similarity of style. For the present, I merely declare, upon my honour, that not one line of that petition was written or seen by me till it was put into my hands.
The Earl of Minto: He would not have risen to say one word, if it had not been for the declaration of the noble Lord, that all this inconvenience to our trade had been occasioned in consequence of an insufficiency of naval protection on the African coast. The noble Lord alluded to the year 1835, and he stated that it was at the latter end. [Viscount Strangford: But I corrected myself.] But the noble Lord was not incorrect at all as to the date, for representations were made in the latter end of 1835, and in consequence of these representations the Admiralty dispatched a powerful force to the coast of Africa, in order to protect our trade and to assert the right of our merchants there. That protection at the time was successful. Since then, occasional applications had been made for men of war, and in every case the application had been granted. This was fully acknowledged by the parties who made the applications.
The Earl of Aberdeendid not doubt, that his noble Friend had brought this subject under their Lordships' notice with extreme reluctance, and he was sure, that he had not taken such a step without mature consideration. His noble Friend must have been aware of the great inconvenience of discussing questions of this nature in that House, and he must have known, that complaints of this kind directed against a foreign state, and more particularly such a state as France, could not be unattended with the most grave and weighty considerations, from the serious consequences which might result from their discussion. Such were his opinions, and he therefore agreed with the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, that questions of this nature ought to be treated with calmness and deliberation. But while he made that admission, he must at the same time ask the noble Viscount what it was that he expected their Lordships to do? They saw the flag of England despised and outraged in every quarter of the globe. They were every day made aware of the complaints of the mercantile community for want of protection

763
to their trade and commerce, and after vain and fruitless attempts to obtain redress from the Government, they found the merchants of this country addressing that House, and praying for the interference of their Lordships. Under such circumstances what were their Lordships to do? Were they to give to the Government that unmeasured confidence to which they could only be entitled from those who approved of their policy, and who sanctioned the measures which they adopted? It was impossible for noble Lords on his side of the House, holding the opinions which they had ever entertained of the noble Viscount and of his Colleagues in the Government, and of their conduct as a Government, to have that confidence in the energy of the noble Viscount and in the success of his representations and remonstrances with foreign powers, which would justify their Lordships in remaining silent when questions of this kind were brought under their notice. What encouragement, he would ask, had they to place that confidence in the Government of the noble Viscount? The Portendic case was one of the most flagrant outrages that had ever been committed on our flag and on the commerce of the country, and which, notwithstanding, was, after six years of remonstrance and representations, still unredressed; no result having followed the exercise of the authority possessed by the Government. Their representations and remonstrances had been without effect. At the end of those six years, however, it appeared, that a commission had been appointed. Such a step might have been proper in cases of a doubtful character, but here there was not a shadow of excuse for the outrage which had been committed, according to the opinions of those best qualified to decide on subjects of this kind. They had also now a more recent case of outrage, and the noble Viscount urged as a reason for not producing the papers which had been moved for, that such a step, was premature, as the Government had only recently received an account of the affair to which he had alluded. That was, no doubt, a sufficient reason for resisting the motion of his noble Friend; but if in reference to this new case the result was to be six years' of fruitless remonstrances, and then the appointment of a commission, the parties aggrieved would have just right to complain in being thus exposed to all the miseries of delay. It was all
764
very well to be cautious as to urging complaints of this kind upon the House; but the case of the present petitioners was not in any way similar to the cases of Captain Jenkins and others in the last century, for in this case the grievances were real and substantial. Nor were these outrages confined to one particular portion of the globe, for, go where they would, similar grievances met them in every place. He must say, that if this was the result of their much-boasted French alliance, that that alliance bore bitter fruit, as far at least as the commerce and prosperity of the country were concerned. No one could be more anxious than he was to preserve peace, and he should be most unwilling to do or say anything which could endanger it; but let him ask, had they the substantial thing itself, as well as the name of peace? If it was said, that they were actually at peace, why, then, had they so large a naval force in the Mediterranean? Why bad they had of late years a revenue unequal to the expenditure—not from any falling off in the revenue itself, but solely on account of the increased expense caused by the military preparations of the Government. He did not complain of those preparations, for on the contrary he approved of them; but still he must say, that these things could not be considered as amongst the sweets of peace. He hoped, however, as no practical good could result from pressing the motion which had been submitted to their Lordships' consideration, that his noble Friend would consent to withdraw it. At the same lime he must express a wish, that the noble Viscount at the head of the Government would use that firm tone which he had alluded to elsewhere than in that House, in order that his remonstrances might be productive of a beneficial result, and that other nations might see that this country was not so changed as to allow its complaints and its demands for the redress of grievances to pass without effect. Let France be as sincere a friend as she was represented to be, still he believed that she would not be less friendly if this country showed, that it was determined not to pass by such outrages as those to which their Lordships' attention had been directed, without obtaining redress. He trusted, that the efforts of the noble Viscount for the attainment of that object would be attended with greater success than they had hitherto been, and

765
that would procure a settlement of these differences with much less delay.
Viscount Strangfordsaid, that after the assurance which he had given the noble Viscount, that he had had no share in the preparation of the petition which he had presented to their Lordships, he trusted the noble Viscount would see the propriety of withdrawing the charge which he had made against him. He had certainly not imagined, that the noble Viscount would object to the production of the papers for which he had moved, but after what had fallen from his noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen), he should not persist in his motion.
Viscount Melbournewas sure, that if the noble Lord had heard what he had actually stated with reference to the petition, he would hare admitted, that there was no charge whatever made against him. However, he now begged to say, that he had not intended to make any charge against the noble Lord, and if the noble Lord felt offended at the observations he had made, he at once withdrew them.
Lord Hollanddid not think, that there would have been anything improper in the statement, even if his noble Friend had said, that the noble Lord had assisted in the preparation of the petition. There would have been nothing of which the noble Lord could have had cause to be ashamed in offering his advice to the petitioners. He could not see, that there would have been any harm in the noble Lord, who agreed in opinion with the petitioners, suggesting the terms in which the document should be drawn up.
Viscount Strangford: Ay, my Lords, that may be true; but it is a different matter to present a petition to your Lordships under a false disguise, and under false pretences.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, the noble Viscount often made strong charges against noble Lords on his (the Opposition) side of the House, but when similar charges were directed against noble Lords opposite, the noble Viscount treated them with a sort of contempt. He could assure the noble Viscount, that there was no disposition on the Opposition side of the House to show temper, and he trusted, that their debates would always be conducted with calmness. With regard to the charge which had been made against his noble Friend, he must say, that if his noble Friend did write the petition, and
766
then go and obtain the signatures of the merchants which were appended to it, such a charge was one of a grave and serious kind, and he was therefore very glad that the noble Viscount had apologized to his noble Friend.
Motion withdrawn.