The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-12 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL mcved the Order of the.
Day for the House going into Committee of Supply.
Mr. PALMER begged to ask the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whetht r
any provision had been made for the Established
Church in the colony of South Australiay

Mr. LABOUCH-ERE said if Hon. Members would
do him the favour to give him notice when they
intended to ask him a question with respect to his de-
partment, it would tend to the convenience of the pub-
lic business.—(Hear, hear.) He believed a chaplain
had been sent out in the first instance, and other ar-
rangements were in progress.

In answer to a question from Mr. LEFROY,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he was not aware
of any arrangement having been made as to resuming
the adjourned debate upon the Irish outrages. Until the
firist and second votes bad been taken on the Navy Es-
timates, he could not consent to any other question
being brought forward. . .

Sir R. PEEL understood that immediately on the
first vote being taken, no objection would be thrown in
the way of the debate being resumed.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL knew nothing of any such
arrangement. He objected to three or four hours of an
evening being occupied with a debate, and then adjourn-

ing it.

THEATRICAL ENTERTAINMENTS.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that in rising to make
the motion of which he had given notice, it would be
his duty to call the attention of the House to
the position in which it stood with regard to the vote
the House came to on a former evening, and he should
be able to prove to the satisfaction of Hon. Members,
that that vote had not only been disregarded by her
Majesty's Ministers, but that most unprecedented and
extraordinary measures had been taken to defeat the
manifest object of that vote.—( Hear, hear.) If on that
occasion he had been defeated in the motion he had sub-
mitted to the House, if a majority of the House had de-
clared against him that the City of Westminster
ought to be placed on a different footing than
any other part of the country with regard
to theatrical entertainments, he should have felt
it to be his duty to have bowed to that decision;
but he maintained that that battle had been fairly
fought and fairly won, and those Gentlemen who had
done him the honour to support him on that occa-
sion, had a right to expect there would be some good
results from that victory ; and, moreover, the people of i
Westminster had a right to expect that they should derive
some benefits from it. What, however, had been the
result ?—(Hear, bear.) He had been accused of wish-
ing
to establish the Resolution of that House, as para-
mount to the law of the land, but he was not so ignor-
ant of the law of his country as to attempt to do so.
He would, however, maintain, as great authorities hod
maintained in that House, and particularly on the oppo-
site side, that the Commons House of Parliament
was established, not to be a control on the people
but a controul for the people, and on the exi cutive
Administration of the day—( Hear, hear)—and so, al-
though they might have conic to a vote the other night
which the Lord Chamberlain might be ignorant of,
yet there were individuals in that House who could
not plead ignorance, and those individuals were her
Maj. sty's Ministers. What bad been the conduct of
Ministers in regard to that resolution? If the Lord
Chamberlain, in his own name, had written the letter
which he was about to state he would not have corn-
plained, but the Lord Chamberlain directed his deputy
to write a letter unasked for and unsolicited, to the
Lessee of Drury-lane Theatre, stating that he had be( n .
commanded to inform him that no performance hut Ora,
torios would be sanctioned on Wednesdays and Fridajsi,
He wanted to know what her Majesty's Ministers had
to do with the officers of the Household? The conduct
of Ministers on this occasion hat been most contemn.'
tible, most disrespectful to this House, and it had also
been most unjust and oppressive towards those individuals
who were more immediately interested. He should)
prove that her Majesty's Ministers had nothing to do
with the Lord Chamberlain, and that the power which
he now exercised was placed in his bands by the 10th
George 11. Until that time another individual had
charge of the public amusements ; he was called
the " Abbot of Misrule," and it was thought
necessary to transfer the power and invest it in the
Lord Chamberlain. All the' Act required was, that any
plays that should be performed within the city of West-
minster. should be submitted to the censor forty days
previous to their acting ; and then it --'W'on to say,
that on and after the 24th of June, 1737, it should be
lawful for the Lord Chamberlain, from time to time,
to prohibit the acting, performing, or represention of
interlude, tragedy, &c., that he should think proper.
No days were mentioned : it was a question entirely
in the discretion of the Lord Ccharnberlain, who
had as much right to stop the performances on
Tuesdays and Saturdays as any, other day. He be-
lievrd it was not the Lord Chamberlain who thought
fit to stop these performances ; in short, they had his
letter to prove that it was her Majesty's Ministers.—
(Hear, hear.) It was wrong to place the blame on
the Lord Chamberlain—it was wrong to place it on
the Bishop of London.—(A laugh.) He believed that
if the Lord Chamberlain had been left to his own dis-
cretion he would not have interfered with the rational
•amusements of the people of Westminster. He main-
tained that this interference on the part of Ministers
was unconstitutional. They had no more right to in-
terfere with the Lord Chamberlain than with the Lord
Chancellor or any of his judgments, or the Lord
Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, or the
Archbishop of Canterbury. They bad no tight to inter-
fere unconstitutionally with the aniuseinents of the peo-
ple as they bad attempted to do on the present occasion.
The people had declared it expedient to discontinue this
prohibition, and he should have thought that an Adminis-
tration calling itself Liberal, would have bowed to the de-
cision of those who were generally its supporters.
The battle had been fairly fought and had been fairly
won, and no former resolution of that House had ever
been so treated. Had the Resolution been moved by a
gentleman on the opposite side of this House, it would
have been treated in a very different manner. He knew
that when an humble individual like himself brought for-
ward, and what was more extraordinary, carried a motion,
it was not to be expected that the Ministers would attend
to it. H.d it been proposed and carried by any gentle-
man on the other side, her Majesty's Ministers would
have been the first to succumb.—(Hear, hear.) Two
Sessions ago, the Honourable Baronet opposite—(Sir E.
Wilmott) unexpectedly carried a resolution respecting
slavery ; that motion was carried by 98 to 95,
his (Mr. Mr. D.'s) motion was carried by 94 to 74,
being a majority of 20—a larger majority than her
Majesty's Ministers could command upon any question.
—(Cheers and laughter.) What was the course taken
with respect to that resolution ? Why, 48,hours was not
allowed to elapse before it was taken notice of by the Noble
Lord who asked what steps were intended to be taken
upon it. He (Mr. D.) had fairly offered to leave the
whole matter in the bands of the Government, if he bad
been assured it would meet with their favourable con-
sideration, but he had been treated with utter con-
tempt, and defied to bring on his motion.—( Hear,
hear.) - The question had received the utmost
consideration by a full house. Upwards of 100
Members were present at the discussion who re-
frained from voting ; 50 probably did not like to vote
against the Hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke ;
50 on the other side did not like to vote against the
Noble Lord, so that he might fairly say he hail
their sympathies with him. Upon that occasion he had
shown how Lent was kept by her Majesty's Ministers—
he had shown how it had been kept by the Bishops—and
had he been aware of the circumstance, he could have
shown how Lent had been observed by the Duke of Sussex ;
upon that occasion he found that the Noble Duke had
a large party, and among those assembled he found no
less than 59 Clergymen. Now, he wanted to know
what the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the
Home Department thought of that ?—(Hear, hear.)
Why, he would ask, was the Noble Duke and his
friends to enjoy themselves on that evening—(Hear)
—and the amusements at Drury-lane to be stopped ?
—(Hear.) Far be it from him to wish to see the
Bishops prevented from enjoying any rational amuse-
ment; but when they did so he thought other parties
were equally entitled to be looked upon with a favot;r•
I able eye.—(Hear, hear.) The House must always

" CNING Epr'lO .

recollect that the day on which these enter-
tainments took place was Wednesday in Lent.
He hoped that the time was now arrived when the
established religion of England stood upon a firmer
basis than persecuting the poor players of Westminster.
—(lltar, hear.) He knew not who supported bin,
in the motion he was now about to bring forward, but
he had the satisfaction of knowing that he had nsed
every exertion in his power to further the interests of
those whose interests he considered to have been over-
looked.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL would state to the House
what had occurred on the subject, and he would then
leave it to the House to decide as it thought proper.
Tee Hon. Member for Finsbury, in the beginning of the
Session, had asked him whether it was the intention of
the Legislature to take off the restrictions imposed upon
theatres during Lent, pith respect to theatrical enter-
tainments, and his (Lord J. Russell's) answer was that
there was no such intention—that her Majesty's Mini-
sters had not thought proper to advise her Majesty
that the restrictions which had been enforced from
time immemorial during Lent, should now be dispensed
with. On reflection he saw no reason to think that
that advice was improper, on the contrary they were
of opinion that if the customs hitherto ob-
served of imposing restrictions upon these per-
formances should be relaxed by her present
Majesty, many persons would be sincerely shocked at this
decision, and many of those who voted for the Hon.
Gentleman's resolution the other night would say that_
that was a proof that the present Ministers 01
the Crown were determined to advise her Ma-
jesty to pay less respect to those established
observances of Lent than had been paid by former
Sovereigns.—( Hear.) That he was persuaded would,
be the case. He was satisfied that if they had propose('
that innovation it would be considered wholly uncalled
for and unnecessary, and done merely for the purpose of
throwing a slur on what had previously been done. The
Hon. Member had then proposed an address to the
Crown, on which there was a division, 161 against it,
and 72 for it. The Hon. Gentleman then brought
forward the question in another shape, and proposed a
resolution which had been read to the House. On that
occasion there were
.92 for it, and 72 against it. it,
appeared that there were a much greater number or
Members who voted against the proposition than
those who voted in favour of it. If the Mem'
bars that voted on either side were put together, it
would appear that there Were 233 against the proposition,
and 164 for it. Therefore, when that resolution was
carried, he certainly had no reason to presume that
that teas the deliberate opinion of the House of Corn"
mons. The H n. Gentleman referred to a question
brought forward last year, with regard to negro appren-
ticeship in the West Indies. With regard to that
question, in the first instance, there was a division agaiosat
the motion of the Hon. Member for Yorkshire, an
then there was a division in favour of the Hon. Men.
tier for Warwickshire. Now, in that case, the first
decision was not considered decisive of the sense of the
House. He had no objection to inform Hon. Members
what had been done by her Majesty's Ministers on the.
present occasion. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to think
that they had improperly interfered with the Lord Challici
berlain. In former cases it had been usual for the WA
Chamberlain to consult the Secretary of State, and it 1111.°
been done when an application was made by
..„14,f*
Rayner to open a new Theatre in Westminster. The
Lord Chamberlain on that occasion said that he rould
be glad to have the opinion of the Secretary of State 0°
the subject. In fact, from time to time on various
questions ,the Lord Chamberlain had consulted 00,
and upon questions in a certain degree connected With
the police regulations of the metropolis—that praetiie°
was by no means unconstitutional.—(Hear, hear.)
the same way on the present occasion, when a resolution
bad been come to by that House, the Lord Chamberlain
had applied to him for advice and instructions.
(Lord John Russell) had thought it right to consult his
.colleagues, and they were of opinion that the resolution
of the House of Commons, after an adverse decision the
other way, was not decisive, and that the quest°
ought. to be further considered. In one of his letters
Mr. Bunn stated that he had thought proper, on a reso-
lution of the House of Commons, to incur considerable
expense. Now, the House had come to a resolutiont
that negro apprenticeship should cease in 1838, but
what would be thought if parties in Demerara bad acted
upon that resolution, setting aside the preroga:.
tire of the Crown and the laws of the realm
He must say, with all respect for the resolutions of the
House of Commons, that he had as little notion of tb°
resolution of the House of Commons setting aside the
Statute laws, and setting aside the prerogatives of the
Crown, as he had of its setting aside the succession t°,l
the Crown of England.—(Cheers.) Then, with
the lessee of Drury-lane. The lessee of Drury-Isn'
chose to advertise that there would be a performance °°
the Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, owing to a restr
lotion of the House of Commons. The Lord Chamber:,
lain, having the sanction and concurrence of her Maiestl:
Ministers in that respect, informed that lessee, that '-'fe
the direction of her Majesty's Ministers that ,perforrnane,vi
would not be sanctioned by the Lord Chamberlain, an
he (Lord J. Russell) conceived that they were perfeetiyt
justified in pursuing that course ; and be conceived ties
if they had acted otherwise—if they had said that 8 re-
solution of that House was altogether sufficient to se'
aside the leas, that they would. not only have bees'
creating a decision merely on a trifling case of that de.
scriptien, but would have been establishing a Pre"
cedeut that could have been injurious wit''
regard to the proceedings of Parliament—(Hear)--;
and although Mr. Bunn, it appeared, held in conterePd
the prerogatives of the Crown, and gave no respect aUr
no regent to the authority of her Majesty, yet, anothe
person connected with another theatre, Mr. Macre'll'
had paid that respect, and had informed the Lord Chinti
ieherlain that having seen that advertisement, be wisa`t
to submit in every respect to the Lord Chamberlain, has
that he would be glad to be informed what course Vl3
intended to be pursued upon this question.---(14e3 '
hear.) The Lord Chamberlain, by his (Lord J. Rus-
sell's) advice, informed Mr. Macready, that with re-
spect to the present observance of Lent, it was not 'tie
tended to make any alteration whatever,.but that One
whole question as regarded the theatres, would be take
into further consideration before the ensuing eased
He would now state to the House what was the gene le
intention of Ministers on this subject. The Honourab
Gentleman by his resolution, had induced the Housetr,c
declare, that no greater restrictions should be plaeeu °t,
the theatrical entertaiments of the City 'of We,,sot
minster, than were placed on them in 'it'll)
parts of the Metropolis. He (Lord J. RaSSe:
had on the former occasion explained the positl°l•9
in which theatres in other parts of. the Metroll
were placed, and so far as they acted the regular
t,
drama, they were acting without any authority wb,a,
ever ; their performances were altogether irregw°,6
It had been shown in an action in the Court of Ctrlefle,
0
Bench that if an actor attempted to recover his '3.r'o
or if a manager endeavoured to make an actor perfore
his contract, there was no power to enforce it, bee°, 5,j
by the Act of Parliament, managers were prohibiti'et
from having theatrical performances within twenty
of London in Lent on any other days than Mondslij
Thesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays ; and that' so,
theatrical performances within twenty miles of LonrlSo
excepting the two Patent Theatres, were illegal. I.;t
did not think that this was a state of things that oug't
to continue. He did not see why persons in distslis
parts should not have theatrical performances just
much as the inhabitants of the City of London 135
He had always been of opinion that good theatriols,
entertainments were as innocent and as wholesollo
mode of entertainment and recreation as )
could be, and that they ought to be permitted.—(Hest
They were of opinion that it would be proper to intr,i,
duce a clause that those Magistrates who have t'iri
power to give licenses for music and dancing shoe
have the like power as to theatrical entertainments. .1.
did not say that the power would be vested in th'''ll
hands—that was matter of consideration—but he 't(e)
say that in Marylebone and Lambeth they ought re
have the power of having good and respectable the
cal performances, as well as in other parts of the Ille,tbris
polls. Then it would be a question in making 'the
change of the law, whether they should keep trP, 00
restrictions of Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. uPtiee
that he had to say, that it would have been trinsetin's.
wise and indiscreet on the part of her Majesty's I‘:'olge
teas, if they had proposed to begin by making a "3fioo
on this subject ; but when this came to be the VI oh-
n dispute, they must look to what wag the geneti't
servance of Lent in the metropolis—(Hear)—a°.
tainly it must be admitted, whether they I°-
at what took place in London'or in Sussex, they °tee
see that persons most zealous with regard washy
observances of religion, and a great part of the rier
themselves, no longer observed Lent in the same eattnord
as at an early time after the Reformation.---Oeneed
Then he should say that the custom having been 0b,27-dif-
in this respect that the observance being extreniailitere
ferent—that as the clergy had no objection to writ
ip
or balls during that season—it was not esPedirine'
making a change on this subject to keep up the drsepe,
tion with regard to Wednesdays and Fridays.----(.; of
hear.) The Hon. Member had made this a mots they
censure on her Majesty's Ministers for the course pity
had pursued. Now lie might have taken the oprsr"-.the
upon the last resolution of proposing an Address tillove
Crown, and then there would have necessarily
hEr
Ad-
been an answer on the art of the Crown to the t
dress.eeers. He mi
e The Hong. Gent
n.Ghaevne oe
tleman might have
p taken a
a 0.600
'0
re
The°e tsar
the obvious courses, but he had not chosen to taketunitY'
—lie had chosen rather to snap at the ePP°r sing
which would give him the means of PSetey's
rete the
eded practice. upo n that reset
to introduce a Bill to charpig
a vote of censure on the conduct of her itiAlo bis
t
Ministers.—(Hear, hear.) He did not objecta better
moving a vote of censure, but he thought be ha /oast,
reserve it for a graver case than the present.-ese„ries
hear.) This was a question on one side of th?,._7slo
of performers and the amusements of the Public' had
on the ether of the decent observance of Ira
ll'
eh must
hitherto been established ; and opposing, as
do,
th.:.i7:,7;be
proposal
Gsoaui of. to
a vot7
of censure, he thoug lea!
1i..,..,,,
question at some other time.

:EVENING ED/T.ION .

nter-
Ait.
the
ruler
11101
but
..sed
,ts of

Lord
:Nlr. LEADER thought the answer of ate Noble I
was as unfair as it was pumsi'ole.—(oll, oh.) He f
Would proVe it in a moment.—( Laughter.) The cote-
fillet of the Noble Lord %yes as unfair to his Hon. 4
Ptietd the- Member for Finsbury as it was to those
Peri Cons engaged in the theatrical prefessien in West- t
Minster. He had - treated the question as if it, ti:
kilted to theatres generally—as if it aeplied ant. 1!
only to the theatre§ in the Whole of the metropolis, but
to the theatres throughout the country. Now every :I
one knew that the question was confined to the t.heatres 4,
ill Westminster. The Noble Lord said the feelings or
the people weuld be shocked by the theatres being kept I
open on Wednesdevs and Fridays—hut if suer, was the
(rose those persons rims:: have very India-rubber con-
seienees who were shoekiel at performauceA in West-
transter while they were not at the seroc things in Lam-
bctli or Marylebone.—(Hear bear.) }le thought that
. ,
th.e conduct of his Honourable Frieze' was perfcctly jus-
tifi ~ble, l,caue eee Mieisters had teeeted a resolution
"'' shat House with utter contempt, and ordered their.
21 amberlain to treat it as nothing. It might be a tie-
°lt, g matter to the Noble Lord and to the House, but it
1\1..' a very different affair to the many blind-a-els of fa-
n .'l` ,
s Who ‘tet-. robbed by the absurd regale' tion of one-
, '
ili 'l'l et their weekly earnings. Tee conduct of the
('l, e Lord W,s .certainiy not very cc oeistent—(Cheere I
atli hurphter)__lotit he was very .elruft t'ilat. the Noblelee i bait come round to a better wr.q of thint.ing.
-Mr. 11/:.‘'iIIBURTON could runt agree with much
the` had fallen from the Noble ',teed, tout as; in the let-
'" Part of his speech 1:e had shoern so much conelliation
-e-,l.ou•lchl:ers)—he thought tl Ae motion of the Honour-
aele Nlen.ber for Fiesbery, if pre:•.sed would show a
;leer y had- seirit. The e hole ariair was a very small mat-
r ' a"d could only be raised into importance by oppo-
'it" lr'• Now that it haul got into the stream of opinion, ..
:.'1:!iell was likely to waft it—(Laueliter)—to a favour-
°-'- seal; he thought it would be inierndent to press
motion.
te-..Str He INGLIS trusted that the -House would not
t.iii- k it right to censure her Majesty's Government for
course they had theught proper te ptir:ue. The peo-
ple el E i• e
(k uguanu were entitled to haye the question fully
eues td, of that there could he no doubt, but he would be
4...
• ° Prirty in favour of that which he believed was not
Just,
, It had been stated that this was a relict
le barbarous age. He begged leave to deny that
:P"ition• Ti.,..re could be to doubt that
ge propertion of the people of England did not
rlt ider the prevention of performances on Wednes-
' 3:4 awl Fridays as the remnant of a barbarous age
'CONN
I 'am 4r• O s s" e Ll, could not consider that the
lame of tl.e public was tlarown away in discussing the
eeeTvit. question.- Ile was as inti.cli.es any
.man lot. the.
N's.:- anee of Lent, but lie thou ht if the views of the
i :1-4,! btronet were to he coal 'd
into effect, instead of
i ittioa• liirwelt, he was desirous thet all connected with
e ' wo theatres should fast.—(Hear, hear). He thought
folyns ludicrous that two theatres should be prevented
0, 41 having peeformances on the nights in question, and
eat other theatres in London should not.
weAlr. PLUMPTRE thought if any vote of censure
i gi:i lnissed upon Ministers, it ought to be for having
14' way oe this subject.—( Hear, hear.)
'..: r' PUNCOMBE said that if it was understood
::: " alteration was intended to be made in the next
gigs'"ll un on this subject,he should have no objectiontto
°n
motion, but he wished to have a direct
or .from the Noble Lord as to whether such was
'r a 55. not his intention.
sht::::(1 S'OHN RUSSELL observed that he had
esa,t_ed generally the views that the Government had
'tined upon the subject, and, having done so, he
his motion.
object to the Honourable Member withdrawing
s
pi Tile SPEAKER.—Does the Hon. Member for
nsG•tirs indend to divide the House ?
tiokr. T. DUNCOMBE had no wish to put the
keouse to ithat alternative, but he was desirous of
the wing whether the Noble Lord had the sanction of
it ', Bishop of London to the Bill, which he had stated
th‘_l.is the int-Rntion of-the Government to introduce in
lienecesxntsv,Seerssion.—(Hear, hear.) Unless he bad a dis-
upon that subject from the Noble Lord,
(illiveTuld divide the House, even if he stood alone—
ight' r' hear)—because he considered that be had a
that to ask whether the Bishop of London, after what
eon__ 'gilt Rev. Prelate had stated, had given his
4;essioni to the measure of the Noble Lord.
the SPEAKER.—Well, then, do you divide?
e_ !Mr- T. DUNCOMBE.—Certainly, Sir, unless I
411 get a satisfactory answer from the• Noble Lord.
fewStranears were then ordered to withdraw, but, after a
observations from Mr. CHARLES BULLER,
the motion was withdrawn.
SUPPLY.
NleT.lfTelleetouese then went into a Committee of Supply,
pi° • 1 A in the: Chair.—That 34,165 men be em-
t. )e, for the Sea Service for thirteen lunar months, to
she :31st of March, 1840, including 9,000 Royal Ma-
"es, and 2,000 boys.
w_nlion the question that a sum of 34,0001. and up-
"s should be voted for the support. of semen,
Srl He PEEL rose.—lt was not his intention to
fake any opposition to the vote that had just been
or,e-rsed• Peer Majesty's Government had, upon their
teje resPonsibility, proposed the vote, and by that
of n's had determined the general 'amount of number
eensseiadmen. that should be engaged. No one who at all
clieeeur.ed the question could entertain any doubt of the
to hi tl with which it was surrounded. It appeared
the tt,h, that the main consideration of the House was
she strength in this country ; and, secondly, the
41 net of political affairs, from which, and from which
beci.e; the House could judge of the strength likely to
otrel'iPuir°d• Now, looking at political aspects through-
the "Ni'le world, be felt bowel to say that the increase of
Nese', avY proposed was not extravagant. It was im-
tioesi'le for the House to exclude from its considera-
le ° the
preparations that had been made by other
- °ears ......_
the ej • when they
:looked to what had been done in
lee United States and in Russia—(Hear, hear)—the
:seer must not only look at the strength of other
the s, but they must also look to see on what Powers
that e°lllel rely for co-operation. It was all very well
stet n 0 course should be taken that would produce a
the; °l' feverish activity, but he trusted that
Plee' Wouldl not adopt that course which would
°ballet there under the imputation of bringing
to ,4 t" evil of raising disturbances. He was bound
exert? that the time had now arrived, looking at the
lithstriilla,nsttrhyaottliigad been made by other Powers, when
ht: to interfere, and upon that ground
liaer
th"ed that her Majesty's Government would con-
hoe. e,e. Proposal that . had been made by his Right
the b-co ',lend, and make such additions to the strength of
thttt eivards as might be required.' He trusted that
the_ tradition would be made in corresponding ratio to
heell'e:fn other Powers. He (Sir R. Peel) would. have
eeeer lsotent to have discussed the present question on
the A Principles if it had not been for the speech of
st.their°l°. Gentleman opposite (the Secretary for the
Act, el!' ty), who, finding himself pressed upon the sub-
othiehTiought it right to reflect on the Government of
The a (Sir R. Peel) was a Member.—( Hear, hear.)
stag °o• Gentleman had talked about Conservative
ti s and Conservative condemnation.—(Hear, hear.)
ow h (Sir.
e e R. Peel) must be allowed to say that that
_tattle_
tees, ritmation had not come from, Conservative quer-
le out from an anonymous writer.—(Hear, hear.)
4 w
toes as surprised to find the Government so sore on
bed 1. attacks, because he found that those who
steed' en loudest in attacking the Government, in-
\f 1, of being denounced, had been rewarded liberally.
eer\!lear, hear.) As a proof of that lie could only re-
oorni.° what had been done for Admiral Napier and
e r9ander Craufurd. Those gallant officers, instead
reetiel"g denounced, had been hid up to public esti-
kiia °.!"--(llear, hear.) It, therefore, could not be
41ehtel:ahtatta,
hadc,,tlltiea ttac.k had come from the Conservatives.
come from the friends of the Govern-
te,CZtilica, hear.) He must, therefore, deny that
tipon his G"ad a right to make any attack upon him, or
ernanent.—(Hear, hear.) In the first
place he should proceed to consider whether the attack
that had been made upon
tea, •
it
~lheosutlTieu,l,or riot ; end hal:lit-7g.! orrepoenllehats that attack,
e,es . tit proceed to inquire, whether the course
rt':. tied by the Admiralty was altogether without blame.
aelPeered that the tide was now set against economy
e4ilk (Lau,. he (Sir R. Peel) was charged, be-
tie,.'i he advocated economy on a former occasion, with
G,7 e,ting the interests of the naval service. The Hon.
th-'`• . 'aid that be had been the caused all the reductions
tre.,s",l taken place ; that the present Government had in-
P,,e`i-,:\" t,he navy in 1835 and 1836, whereas his (Sir R.
IQ lq..kiovernment. had prepared inadequate estimates
vote r'• He ht,2ged to remind the House it they chose to
1 4,000 _ •
et., e or 35,000 men in 1839. Or any other num-
le3l'iat was no conclusive proof that the estimates of
into inwer inadequate. Fie (Sir R. Peel) had comeG
v°ree,Q en.,. in, 1834, 'S'ad he found that in 1818 the o-d
toariees L. haft teen content with 20,000 seamenan
1 Th, 13,1 a"-d.in 1823 with 25,000 seamen and marines.t
tele 2p_upesition he mede to the House in 1835 was
.o
t INte •')".4l° men ; and' it was no proof because the esti-
'tits ;,,H1 1818 was only 20,000, that his (Sir R. Peel's)
4ow ;11a1):°,1),er or exaggerated. Nor, because. _
the Vrate
esti:eat:
i_°l,soo, was that to be a commendation of the
'tee% he had proposed. What wore the eircum-
tehte, m which be was placed ? He had landed in
(Ace:3'u ten the 9th of December, and bad accepted
Mite, II the 10th. The Board of Admiralty was con-
that "t`'ldle°o the Ist of January, and Parliament required
estimates should be laid on the table within
a lortoi4,
e411,e,.
~,iat after its meeting. The House would re-
c; T,.1. 'lt ill August, 1834, his late Majesty made a
100 n l ore the, Throne, in which he stated that pro-
ea4so peace reigned throughout Europe, and that all
4,teeee:rhanixie,ty was at. an end. Under these eireurn-
aible to e bad determined to adhere as nearly as thepos-
three.eo estimates. As his Noble Friend had said,
(Litiovs utrths of the estimates were taken as the foun-
fe4rot
o_)f tlaOee which th.y brought ferwa'd. He
Peace
tv "ere was nothing to warrant a suspicion that
riot be "Id be disturbed, and considered that it would
Ile Wise to provoke the jealousy• of other Powers.
eeeieuKed to the provision which his predecessors had
IL r-lie looked le thee seeec'e of his Meir,stv, and to

Dyer•

,ouse

then
open.
If the
Of
upon
nter-
that

vlini-
jesty
Iron!

:used
that

were

ob-
per:

;Sept

t this
Hon•
that.

Ma-
ished

un3er
vould
posed
-alled
03C °I.

The
o the

ISt it,
ought
sea A
3 that
It

)e r of
than
Nletn'
ler, it

I Was
that
Corn'
estion

)pro-
, that
artir,st
and

I ITO'
ober:,
jestY 5
hat hi
mane,
n, 89"
rfectl,
!d
t 8 re;
to Se'

-bee°

sal ar),
erfor°
,cause,
wiles
adaYs:
all
ist

is•adequate
b,
prepiratious' U.:at p;reh-e.u- sions' of

foreign war existed. What force lied tine in December,
1834, at Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Sheerness ? They
had not one first-rate—not one second-rate—not sine
third-rate—net one fourth-rate—not one fiith or sixth
—sent one sloop, and not one steers vessel 1. They had
ettitionary ships, hut net one sheele vessel
.in the ports
or harbours of Great Britain. —(Hear, beer, hear.)
--Did he say they were wrong on that account ? No,
but it proved that they felt confident that there was no
danger, dud that peace was not likely to be invaded.
In the preceding year the number employed fell short of
the estimate by 1,200 or 1,800 men, three larger. ves-els,
the Caledonia, Trafalgar, and another, having emue
home; and he proposed to take the number of men ac—
tually employed, making the estimate less than the pre-
ceding year by 1,500 men. Believing that then- ap-
pointment did not endanger the peace of Europe—
feeling no apprehension of that sort, he had followed in
the steps of his predecessors. After the experience of
four or five months it would have been open to
them, if they found, as no doubt they. should
have found, that the estimates were inade-
quate, to have stated their case to the
House of Commons, and the House with mere readi-
ness would have given them increased means from seeing
that they were determined riot to act upon vague appre-
hensions of danger. With all their economy. the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny and his friends had kept the
estimates for ;t beg period berore the Heuse, and he
(Sir Robert Peel) hed been obliged to ask the Honour-
able Gentleman to waive his ohjeetion, and obtain a vote
in order to issue the usual notice for the pay of the sea-
men and marines. If Honourable Geetlernen on the
other side thought that his estimates were miserably
inadequate, and that he was undermining the naval
strength of the country, why bad they not the
manliness to come forward and propose at. increase ?
(Loud cries of " Hear.") When - his (Sir R. Peel's)
Government had put in a claim for economy, they had
been taunted on the other side by saying hat it did not
belong to them, and when they had dimioished the
estimates by 4,0001. or 5,300/., every attempt was
made to lessen the credit of tura reduction. What
was the amount of the enormous reduction they had
made ? On the Ist of December, 1834, the Esta-
blishment left by their predecessors consisted of eleven
sail of ts e line and, altogether, one hundred and sixty
pennants. These iresdequte estim ,tes enabled Hon.
Gentlemen opposite, in 1835, to have 167 ships em-
ployed in her Majesty's naval service. It was quite
true that an increase teas proposed in the following year,
and-he (Sir R. Peel) supported it.. 1836 a demand
was made for 3,000 more men, arid he hail assented
to it with perfect readiness, because the rule of 1835
was no criterion for the vote that ought to be taken in
1836 ; and although the Hon. Gentleman in his speech
the other night had said that the estimate of 1835
should have been equal to that of 1836, yet the Noble
Lord did not think so. In 1836 he said he was
ready to admite that when the estimates were laid be-
fore the House last year, there seemed no necessity for
a higher estimate than what was then proposed, but he
was satisfied that if an increase had been shown to be
necessary it would have been assented to. That was a
distinct admission by the Noble Lord, that the estimates
proposed by him (Sir Robert Peel) were sufficient. If
his estimates had been inadequate, was it not in the
power of the Hon. Gentleman to have come down in
the mouth of June, and submit a supplementary esti-
mate to the House ?. If the necessity was established,
Parliament would at once have granted it. Ho hoped,
however, that with all due regard for economy, her
Majesty's Government would well consider the cir-
cumstances in which they were placed. He was not
anxious to alarm the country unnecessarily, but looking
at the state of affairs abroad—looking at the north
western frontier of India, and the war in which they
were likely to be involved in that vast empire—looking
at the state of Canada—looking at the unsettled boun-
dary question in the United States, and the act of de-
monstration which was making in the other hemisphere,
he did hope that the Government . would consider
whether there might not be justifiable demands for an
increase of the naval establishments of that country be.
yond their present_force. He did think that the force
they had was not sufficient to give that protection to
the commercial interests of the country which the exi-
gencies of the case required. He could not reconcile
the present disposition of their naval force with the de-
mands made on them for the protection of British
commerce ; and he would state his grounds. In 1836,
when the Hon. Gentleman moved for an increase of
their naval establishments, he stated that there was no
British naval station in the world from which there
were not pressing demands for an increased force—in
the Pacific, where the English trade was increasing,
from Valparaiso and the whole of the western
coast of Mexico. When be looked at the
large force now at • the disposal of the Go-
vernment—when he called to mind that they
had 21 sail of the line and 34,500 men, he was induced
to inquire whether they had given that protection to
British commerce in South America which it required ?
He would instance one case—in Mexico there were eight
or nine establishments of British capitalists engaged in
striving speculations. There was a very considerable
amount due by Mexico' to the inhabitants of that coun-
try who had advanced money ; and in Vera Cruz,
Campaoca, and every other large town of Mexico
there were large British commercial establishments.
He thought the amount of British capital and enterprise
at work in that country was sufficiently great to demand
protection.—( Hear, hear.) The Government had early
notice that France had made urgent demands upon
Mexico. They were aware that even on the 21st of
March, 1830, France was about to enforce those de-
mands. He could not stop to consider whether or not
the claims of France were unjustifiable or not, or
whether or not the representations she had made were
neglected by Mexico—but he would repeat thit her
Majesty's Government had had early notice that France
intended to demand reparation from Mexico, and was
making preparations to do so.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
They must be aware that soon after March, 1838,
France, in requiring reparation from the Government
of Mexico, not only demanded the dismissal of certain
Judges and officers, who had, as was alleged, improperly
' and unjustly treated French subjects resident in Mexico,
' but that France had also made another demand, which,
as a sine qua non, as an indispensable condition for the
prevention of hostilities, it must be admitted, we a novel
' demand from one independent Statq. another ; that
'IA French inhabitants ' France had also demanded
re-
siding in Mexico sllnid be entitled to carry on retail
trade on tl. same principles and with the same adven-
tee;es as the native citizens of Mexico.—(Herr.)
That certainly was a very strange demand.—( Hear.)
Not only did France de:nand reparation for whatever
injury the persons and property of her subjects had
suffered at the hands of Mexico—not only did she de-
mand the dismissal of those authorities who had impro-

perly treated French subjects—but France also de- harried with it great weight. He confessed that when he
mended that her subjects should be permitted to carry saw a statement in the papers that his Right Hon. Friend
on retail trade with the same privileges as the citizens had taken occasion to observe that in his opinion there
of Mexico. These demands were made in March, was a great difference between the naval Admieistration
1838. And the French Charge d'Affaires in under Lord Melbourne, and that under Lord Grey ho had
making these demands, stated in his ultimatum that felt some degree of alarm, not being acquaint, d with the
particulars of the case. He thought, therefore, it ass
" should the answer be in the negative to only one of
those demands, or should it be . even doubtful, on the not fairt Gtooversotamteent that gifer.ravemeehsatrgesbadaganiontst the
pmraeds t
one hand, or be delayed beyond the 15th of April on
and that, too, by jgen3t'lemen of high
the other, then the undersigned should place the con- authority on the Opposition Benches ; and his Hon.
tinuation of the affair in the hands of Mons. Baudin, Friend was perfectly justified in meeting and resisting them
the Commander of his Majesty's Naval Forces (a in the manner he did. The Right Hon. Baronet had
division of which was then on the coast), stated that he had every reason to believe it bad been the
who had already received orders to put those intention of Lord Auckland to have proposed a reduced
demands into execution. This was conclusive. A French estimate for the number of men in 1835. He could posi.
naval force appeared before Mexico in March, 1838. Now tively state that nothing was further from the thoughts of
without entering into any consideration of the justifiable- Lord Auckland than to have reduced the number of men ;
ness of the French demands—assuming them to be per- and if that Board of Admiralty had continued, the same num-
fcctly just and reasonable—he would affirm that the Bri- berof men would have been demanded as had been demanded
tish subjects resident or engaged at Vera Cruz and Mexico in the preceding year.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard
had a right to protection from our Government—( Hear, with pleasure that part of the speech of the Right Hon.
hear)—not to oppose the French, but to give confidence Baronet, in which he stated what he believed to be the
to the British.--( Hear, hear.) In July it was resolved true policy of the country in regard to naval preparations.
by the French Government that an expedition should sail He agreed with him that nothing could be more impolitic
to enforce reparation from Mexico. It left Brest on the than to yield to any unreasonable cry. The true policy
13th of September. .It arrived off Vera Cruz on the was, to reduce the Naval establishment to as
25th of October. Those dates were important. The low a degree as could be done consistently with the safety
bombardment of' San Juan d'Ulloa ; and yet after all the and reputation of the country, and- to take care that the
warning there was no British Minister at the place then— naval docks and arsenals were in such a state that on any
he would admit there was a subordinate there, but occasion of danger arising, it might be in their power to
surely the Minister himself, who did not arrive at call into action those great commercial and financial re-
Vera Cruz until the 22d of December, should sources of the country, on which, after all, our naval supree
have -been there at the time of the attack—San macy rested.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that was the
Juan d'Ulloa was attacked on the 22d of November, and true policy of the country, and he confessed that he had
Vera Cruz was captured on the 4th or sth of December, heard in the statements of his Hon. Friend the Under Se-
But after the ample notices we had received, weat force cretary of the Admiralty, what appeared to him to be plain
was there off the Mexican coast for the protection of' proof that that had been the policy pursued by the present
British life and properly ? Was there a single ship of war Board of Admiralty, and which, in his opinion. was the
belonging to this country off Vera Cruz at the time of the wisest and most judicious course.—( Hear, hear.)
attack ?—( Hear, hear.) He found in the Globe, a Minis. Sir ROBERT PEEL and Lord ASHLEY, said a few
terial Paper, of the Bth of February, a letter from a Cor- words in explanation,
re-le:indent at Vera Cruz, which e stated the situation of the Capt. A'COU R,T hoped the House would excuse him
British inhabitants may be conceived ellen it is recollected while he M).fl.a
that there was not a single British man-of-war before the thee' a few observations. He would express his
place during the attack.. The Satellite, -..es to Captain Craufurd and
had been there a short time before. b te,
ut , a I the Flag Officer who had
called the attention of the country to the neglected state
of December." This was during on the Ist of its naval force. H. thought the Gallant Admiral oppo-
of the treaty, when the flee— ~re crisis of the pending site (Admiral Adam) might have been a little more coar-
eeinmander of the Satellite must • teous in his language towards that Flag Officer. H, (Cap.
know the loss are! danger to which British interests were 'tain A'Court) had the pleasure of knowing him, and had
expoeede—"But, stippo..ing that the Satellite did 'remain, in early life served under his command, and a more intela-
lee would ask whether, with our force of twenty-one sail, gent, active, gallant, and zealous officer did not exist in her
of the line, and 34,000, men one sixteen gun brig would be Majesty's service.—( Hear, hear). What he wished to call
sufficient for the protection of British life and property? the attention of the Committee to was the utterly defence-
( Hear, bear. )—lndeed, the Express pocket succeeded the less state of our coasts and barbours, of the truth of which
Satellite, and the account stated that on the first mevernent any gentleman might convince himself by visiting any of
of the attack, about 30 persons took refuge in the packet, our seaports. Our three principal ports ought not to be
which left on the 15th December, the day after the Made- without three well-manned line of-battle ships, which
gascer arrived. The Morning Chronicle confirmed the ought to cruise in the Channel for the exercise and
statement of the Globe. If Government said that a naval practice of the men. If this plan were adopted we
force was not then necessary before Vera Cruz or on the should be prepared for any sudden emergency. It had
coast of Mexico, because the French were authorised by been said the Russian Baltic fleet was a mere pasteboard
the law of nations to blockade, he would ask the Govern- one. There could not be a greater danger than killing
teent why had we a naval force in the neighbeurhood of other posers too cheap. The Russian fleet was a moat
Mexico now ? Why had we taken our squadron from formidable sue, and it was worse than folly to underrate it.
the North American States and placed then, in the Gulf of If other powers bad large ships we ought to have the same.
Mexico?—( Hear, hear ) Of course this force teas not to Hear,
hear.) But then he was met with an objection as
attack the French fleet, nor in apprehension of hostilities to the expense. When he foundincurred on the coast of
from it. but in the event of any outrage being committed by ' Spain. without either honour, glory, or profit to the country,
ran-uthorisee persons Breiih lit, Or operty. to afford an expense more than equal to cover the expenee of keep-
b• tier Means of e;ed,i,t, and pr,:tectiou than could be lug the Navy in an efficient state, he could not consider that
given by the Express packet. How then, did it happen, a valid objection. It was for the country and the Admi-
that after the ample notice her Majesty's Government had I rally to take care that the British Navy was not matched.
received they, having been granted a force of twenty-one I Mr. SOMERSET MAXWELL begged to give his
sail of the line, and 34.000 men, should have been so re- I testimony of the private character of Capt. Craufurd.
'.44".reee of Brelah ica-reStS in the: (leerier. Now, he Adu ADAM said, that in referring to what les Hon.
',hat ort,, vans i-hero ire the :•1,5,11 Frir•wi beside hint (Mr. Wood) lied said, he had ceftsteily
''"e now in the Mediterranean? True, it had been said , stated that he had convicted the writer of that pamphlet of