The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-17 00:00:00

Melville said, some years ago, that we could
no longer depend on the merchant service, but must
look to ourselves, and keep up a larger proportion of
men in training. The same observation now forcibly
applied, and he called upon the First Lord of the Trea-
sury and the Government to come forward in a liberal
spirit and supply the deficiency of the navy. Though
the cloud to which the Right lion. Baronet a few even-
ings ago adverted was likely to pass away, they should
not forget that last year they were on the very verge of
a rupture with France. There were two other evils to
which he wished to call the attention of the House. The
first was to the men's clothing, and the second their
pay. Men should be paid by twelve months in the year,
and not by thirteen, as was the present way—an absurd
practice, which had nothing but antiquity to recommend
it. Again, the pay of the petty officer should be varied,
so as to give him confidence in his position, and make a
substantial distinction between his position and that of
the common seaman. The first class potty officer ought
to receive 41. a month, and the second 31. As regarded
the present system of clothing, the sooner it was aban-
doned the better. Nobody was benefited by it but the
contractor. The men ought to be clothed at the ports
at which they touched. They ought to be measured
and fitted out in a proper manner, and not on that poor
slop-shop system,which was a disgrace to theßritish navy.
The institution to which he had referred was the Sea-
man's Home in London. That institution had been
founded by Captain Elliott, a commander in the navy, at
his own especial risk, nay, indeed, he had risked his
whole fortune in establishing the institution. It was an
institution of a highly important and valuable character.
Most men would have thought that some mark of dis-
tinction would have been conferred on an officer for
such a sacrifice as this. But no such mark had been con-
ferred. Yet this institution took men out of the hands
of the crimps, provided them a comfortable and re-
spectable home, where they could obtain everything on
moderate terms. He thought some means might have been
adopted by the Board of Admiralty to avoid the ex-
cessive charges to which seamen were subject, for
the system of crimps had become a regular traffic. The
men were laid hold of— they were taken on board ship,
and charged a high price for everything they required.
Their clothing was of the worst description, and all the
articles they obtained were hardly worth one-half of the
money which they gave for them.—(" Hear, hear," from
the Ministerial benches.) Hon." Gentlemen might say
" Hear, hear," but he had been obliged to employ
crimps himself.—(llear.) The men were laid hold of—
they were made half drunk a few shillings
wrapped up in a pound-note were shoved into their
hands, and they were told that they had been paid two
months' wages in advance. He had seen this practised
on three or four hundred men at a time. He stated these
circumstances because he wished to obtain effieient sea-
men for the service. This had occurred not in the time
of the present Government.—(Hear.) lie did not care
a farthing about parties when speaking of the navy. He
bad urged upon the preceding Government, though he
was not at that time a Member of the House, the pro-
priety of making some small grant to the Sailors' home—
something that would enable it to lift its head above
water when it was in great difficulty. And now he
would urge upon the present Government the same
thing. If they would make only a small bounty, it
would enable the institution to reduce the charge of
board to the men from 12s. to Bs. per week. He would
do more than this, for he would venture to press upon
the Government the necessity of establishing Sailors'
Homes at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and all the other
places where ships were paid off. If they did this, the
seamen, instead of falling into the hands of the sharks
when they returned from a voyage, would be able to go
to a place where they would obtain every aiscommoda-
tion at a reasonable rate, .where they could leave their
things, and when they went on a cruise, as they were
sure to do, they could put ss. or 10s. into their pockets,
and the rest would be taken care of, instead of as now
spending the earnings of years in the extravagance of
a week.—(Hear.) There was but another subject to
which he would allude—the prize-money in China. The
ships taken in that country, of which there had been a
great number, instead of being regularly condemned,
had been sent into different ports and afterwards re-
turned into the Chinese at a very reduced rating-. The
seamen had been sent to China, an unhealthy country.
They had honestly earned their prize-money and they
had been always accustomed to receive it ; and yet he
believed that the East India Company at this time was in
possession of 150,000/. from the sale of guns and other
stores, and that more than 80,000/ of Bette money had
never been paid which was duo for the Canton campaign.
He did not think it was fair that the seamen
should be deprived of their prize-money, in order that
the Government might obtain .a sum from the Chinese
towards defraying the expenses of the war. This, he
thought, was a penny-wise and a pound-foolish system.
He would not trouble the House with any further ob-
servations, but he had been anxious to bring the subject
of the navy strongly ender the notice of Government.
Mr WILLIAMS had a very high respect for the
opiniens of the two Gentlemen who had spoken on his side
of the Houie, but he had a very great objection to in-
creasing the navy estimates, and he thought the matter
had better be left in the hands of the Government.
Lord PALMERSTON begged the attention of the
House to a few observations on the slave trade. The
other night he felt it his duty to put a few ques-
tions to the Right Hon Baronet, and he was sorry t ) say
that his replies were anything but satisfactory. He him
self had reason to be dissatisfied with the annual returns
not having been given in the present year at so early a-
period as they had been for some years past, and he must
also say, that they were not of the same useful and ex-
plicit character as formerly. The observations of the
Right Hon. Baronet only went to convey an opinion on
the experience of the last three years, but from the re-
port on the slave-trade it appeared the Government had
been not only undoing all that had been accomplished
by those who went before them, but had also, in some in-
stances, absolutely frustrated what they themselves had
done. He stated this because it bad reference to the rea-
sons which had induced the country to wish to see the
slave-trade suppressed. The treaties with the several
Powers had provided that they should prohibit
themselves not only from engaging in the
slave-trade themselves, but that they should also
submit to a mutual right of search. Their object
was not only to prevsnt the slave-trade from being car-
ried on with those countries into which slaves were im-
ported, but also to hinder their transmission from the
places whence they came. It was not to be expected
that the countries which had carried on this trade could
change their habits all at once. They could not expect
that Spain, Portugal, and Brazil could all at once ac-
cede to the wishes of the other powers, however much
they might desire to do so. What was the state of
things when the last Government came into power
in 1835 ? These were the declarations of the
several Congresses from 1815 to 1822, of the wish to
-abolish this nefarious traffic, but these remained as de-
clarations only. No stipulations had been entered into
to give power to the British cruisers to carry their com-
missions into effect. The late Government had entered
into treaties with no less than twelve Powers for the
suppression of the slave-trade. The United States had
entered into two general treaties, by which they bound
themselves not to engage in the slave-trade, and under
which they gave power to the vessels of other nations to
suppress it in American- bottoms. A treaty had been
entered into with Spain, which gave power to all vessels
south of the equator. A similar treaty had also been
entered into with Sweden. With Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis,
and also Madagascar, treaties had been entered
into for the release of all white Christian
slaves. This was the case when the present Govern-
ment had entered office. What further did the last

; Government do ? They contracted no lessthii;eiiit:en
I treaties with different countries. With France they had
formed peculiar engagements. They had entered into
a special contract with Denmark. They had obtained
an additional clause from Sardinia—from Spain—
, from Sweden—from the Netherlands—from Hanover—
from Chili—from Venezuela—Buenos:Ayres—Ureguay
—Hayti—and also from Muskat. They were also mak-
' ing arrangements with Bolivia, Texas, and Mexico ;
but there was no power in these treaties to enforce their
execution. A stipulation was necessary for that effect.
But this was not the whole of their attention to this
subject. They had entered into arrangements with the
chiefs on the western coast of Africa, to prevent the de-
portation of slaves ; aid there were six treaties completed
' when the present Government came into power in 1841.
They had also entered into arrangements with Cuba to
obtain the release of British subjects who bad been
either kidnapped from Sierra Leone or legally sold in
the market of that island. They had obtained engage-
ments
.from Spain and Brazil to give liberty to the
slaves called Emancipados, who, although they were
said to be set at liberty by the laws, were still retained
in actual slavery. This is what the last Government
had actually effected. They had accomplished the
league with the five great Powers of Europe to sup-
press the slave trade, and had they remained in
office they would also have obtained the ratification
of France. If the present Government had only used
common diligence on their accesion to office, there
would have been no time for those intrigues in the
French Chambers which had occasioned the non-
ratification of that treaty. He had asked the Right
Hon. Baronet, the other night, why he had not obtained
the accession of Hanover, Belgium, and Greece, to that
treaty ; and he would now ask him what reason could
be given why those powers had not given in
their adherence to the principle after the treaty
had been signed by Austria, Prussia, and the
other Powers who had become parties to it ?—(Hear.)
He di,l not see the conclusiveness of the argument. Did
the Right Hon. Gereleman say that the influence of
France, in Europe, was paramount to that of Austria,
Russia, Prussia, and England ? He (Lord Palmerston)
thought that such an admission was no compliment to the
three Powers—Belgium Greece, and Hanover—which
had not be addressed, in consequence of that deferenee
to French influence. He thought it was the duty of her
Majesty's Government to have addressed themselves to
every Power, whose assistance they could expect to
obtain. Ile thought they ought to have made the Inv?,
tatiens, and left it to the three Powers to state their
reasons for declining them.—(flesr, hear.) The silent
acquiescence of her Majesty's Government in the re-
fusal of the French Minister to ratify the treaty
which he himselr, as Ambassador, had nep-
tilted, was no encouragement to other rowers to pive
us their co-operation. The French Minister stated
in the Chambers that his refusal had met with no re-
monstrance from her Majesty's Government—(lloan)
He would now emoe to the Ashburton treaty, which set
aside the former treaty of Washington, whereby the
American Government was baind to use the best en-
deavours to suppress the slave trade. Now he would ask,
was it enough to send five ships to watch the whole line
of the vast coast of Africa to prevent the prosecution of
the slave trade under the Amerie:.n flag?—(dear, hear.)
There was another stipulation in the treaty by which
the two parties bound themselves to unite in remon-
strances with countries which allowed the slave-trade to
be carried on. .But what had they done?—what did the
Right Honourable Baronet state to him (Lord Pal-
merston) the other night ? Why, that it had been de.

cided that a joint representation to the two etvere hr
Great -Britain. would look like dictation—(Hear,
and that it had been thought better that the representa-
tion should be made separately lest the feelings of the
Brazilian and Spanish people should be hurt by the ap-
pearance of dictation. But it was not delicacy to Brazil or
Spain that caused the deviation. The feelings of Narvaez
might be hurt. The feelings of General Valdez might
be hurt. But the value of the representation would
have depended upon what the Right Hon. Baronet
called wounded feelings.—(Cheers.) Everybody who
knew anything of diplomacy must know that representa-
tions made by two nations were of far greater force than
separate representations.—(Hear, hear.) The joint re-
presentations would have been disagreeable to those
Spaniards and Brazilians who were interested in carrying
on a felonious trade in defiance of the laws of their
own nations.—(Hear, hear.) Again, what had the Go-
vernment done with respect to the slavery of
British subjects in Cuba and Surinam? The Right Hon.
Gentleman had said that they could not in justice do
any thing for the liberation of those persona, unless it
were shown that they were British subjects born free.
Happily, the actions of the Government had been better
than their theory. In the very papers in which that
slavish doctrine was expressed, fie found that the libera-
tion of British subjects had been demanded and ob-
tained.—(Cheers.) (The Noble Lord then read an ex-
tract from the papers referred to, demanding the libera-
tion of British subjects detained in slavery at Cuba.)
That document expressed the opinion which he had al-
ways maintained when in office. Now, with respect to the
Cemmission which was to have been appointed—
as to the importation of slaves into Cuba and Brazil
contrary to the laws of those countries. He thought
that, if there was any apprehension that retrospective
law would have created confusion, the law might be
made prospective. As to what was going on in the
negotiation between the ,Commissioners appointed by
France and this country, the general impression in the
public mind was that it was intended to return to some
of the measures proposed by the late Government, such
as the destruction of the barracoons and the blockade of
the coast. To both these measures the present Govern-
ment had expressed themselves hostile when out of office.
He was pleased to hope that they had changed their
views, for he believed that if these measures were
adopted they would produce great and important results.
He had heard also that the treaty of 1826, relating to
mixed Commissions and the right of search, were at an
end. He should be glad to hear from the Right Hon.
Baronet opposite, that that was not the case. By that
treaty Brazil had bound itself to allow its own subjects
engaged in this traffic to be dealt with as pirates. He
held that by that treaty we had a right to exact from
Brazil the suppression of the trade. The Government
had proposed to send out to Rio Janeiro, for the pur-
pose of procuring a renewal of the commercial treaty,
and if the object had been to prevent Brazil from
co-operating with us for the suppression of the slave-
trade, a more ingenious course could not be taken. It
was not required as a condition of the treaty that Brazil
should fulfil her engageusetts for the suppression of the
slave trade, but that slavery in Brazil should be modi-
fied—a demand as hopeless and inadmissible as to re-
quire the landed gentry of this country to come
forward of their free-will and abolish the
corn-laws.--(Hear.) Here then we were supporting
a great domestic monopoly, under the pretence that we
could not admit Brazilian sugar unless slavery was modi-
fied in that territory ; and we abstained from a united
remonstrance against the violation of solemn engage-
menu, when we did not hesitate to offend the most
deeply rooted prejudices of the nation. He believed that
attention to other matters had prevented her Majesty's
Government from giving a due attention to this subject.
But he hoped they would give it greater attention, and
thet they would show to other Governments a determi-
nation to use all the means of political influence 2nd of
physical coercion which Great Britain possessed, to put
down the slave trade. He trusted that the papers
would be laid upon the table of the House within a cer-
tain period.
Sir R. PEEL—In respect to the period when the
slave-trade papers for the present 3-ear will be laid upon
the table, I have a confident hope that they will be in
the hands of Members at an earlier date than when they
were prepared under the superintendence of the Noble
Lord. The slave trade papers will be placed upon the
table on an early day. It will then be seen whether the
accusation of lukewarmness and indifference is or is not
well-funded ; and if it be, the Noble Lord will have the
materials before him for criminating the Government.
That I think will be a much better mode of testing the
opinion of the Heim on their conduct, than by making,
as the Noble Lord has frequently done, speeches on the
general question, nut leafing to any practical result.—
(Cheers.) The Noble Lord has touched upon somepoints
upon which he knows I cannot now make any observation.
The time, however, must shortly arrive when
the course pursued by Government may be
made known, but in the mean time my lips must
be sealed. It is pretty evident that the Noble Lord
expects that some arrangement is to be made with
France which will be much more successful for the abo-
lition of the slave trade than any formerly entered into.
The Noble Lord has talked of the blockade of the coast
of Africa, of the destruction of barracoons, and he says
that no doubt we shall be successful in a joint effort with
France. It is quite clear, therefore, that he anticipates
some mo:t beneficial and powerful effect to be produced
on the traffic; but he inquires if it be true that Brazil
has lately publicly notified that she considers at an end
the subsidiary convention for fifteen years, calculating
from the date of the suppression of the slave trade.
The state of the case is this—our original treaty was
with Portugal, Brazil being then a dependency, and
bound by the engagements of the mother country.
The separation of Brazil from Portugal took place about
the year 1825, and in 1826 Brazil, as an independent
state, entered into a treaty with England to the same
effect as that with Portugal as regarded the sup.
pression of the slave trade. Within three years ,af-
ter the ratification of the treaty she was bound to
declare for the suppression of the slave trade—the sup-
pression of it by law, but I am afraid not the actual and
practical suppression. This brings us to 1830, and a
variety of conventions were entered into of very doubtful
import, and it became a question whether Brazil, after
the lapse of fifteen years, had had a right to declare the
subsidiary convention at an end. If she had that right,
the period, I think, arrived on the 13th March last, and
she has made that declaration. As the account was
only received by the last mail, the Noble Lord will not
expect from me the statement of any positive opinion
whether Brazil is or is not entitled to declare the con-
vention at an end; but whether she is or is not, there is
no doubt that she is bound by an engagement of perma-
nent operation. There is a treaty between this country
and Brazil which provides that "it shall not be lawful
for the subjects of the Emperor of Brazil to be concerned
in carrying on the African slave trade under any pretext
or in any manner ; and that carrying on the trade after
the year 1830, by a subject of the Emperor of Brazil,
shall be deemed and treated as piracy."—(Cheers.)
Thai is the engagement at present in force, and I have
the satisfaction of knowing that it cannot be terminated
by any act on the part of Brazil. It has declared that
the carrying on the slave trade by any subject of the
Emperor is an act of piracy; and it is not merely a law of
Brazil making it piracy, but an engagement with Eng-
land that it shall be treated as an act of piracy. The
Noble Lord has referred to the answer I gave on a
former night with respect to the operation of the treaty
signed and ratified by the four great Powers of Europe;
and I have only to re-state now what I stated then—
that France having refused to ratify the treaty, it be-
came a matter of serious consideration whether it was
politic to exercise the right which other Powers pos•
sessed— viz., to invite the four other Powers of Europe,
not being parties to the treaty, to enter into the ratifica-
tion. I will not now enter into the then existing cir-
cumstances: the House will be aware of the political
matters, unconnected with the question of the slave
trade, which induced France to refuse her ratification:
it is notorious that they were connected with transactions
in 1840—with the Syrian campaign, and with the termi-
nation of the friendly alliance which had previously
existed. I forbear to discuss new who was the party
with whom the blame rests; there cannot be a doubt,
however, that political considerations connected with
the treaty of July, 1840, and the Syrian
campaign, were the real cause why France
declined to ratify the treaty. The Noble Lord
would make us responsible for delay in the signature;
we are free from any such imputation. We succeeded
to power in August or September, 1841, and it was
not from any negligence on our part that the signature
of France was not attached to the treaty. Circum-
stances occurred in the Chambers that prevented the
ratification, and if the Noble Lord thought that we
were entitled to resent the non-ratification, why did he
not call the attention of the House to it at the time ?
(Cheers:) We did all we could to impress upon France
the duty she owed in this respect to the cause of hu-
manity, and the question was, whether we were entitled
to insist on the ratification of the treaty. We certainly
thought not, judging either from past usage or the law
of nations; and, not being entitled to insist, it became a
question in what manner we should direct any remon-
strance against the act of a country to which she was
entitled to resort. As to our passiveness and indiffe-
rence on the refusal of France to ratify the treaty, the
Noble Lord is unquestionably under an erroneous impres-
sion. The question of ratification came before the popular
assembly of France, and, exercising the power
which popular assemblies occasionally do exercise,
the executive government found it expedient to refuse to
ratify the treaty. The grave question then arose whether
it was politic to invite the three other powers contem-
plated by the treaty—viz , Belgium, Hanover, and
Greece, to concur in the engagement. The Noble Lord
himself says that lie always sew that with the bad ex-
ample set by France there would be great difficulty in
procuring their assent. He admitted it in the course of
his speech. I am not prepared to say that Hanover
might not have acquiesced, and the Noble Lord asks
why an appeal was not made to Hanover ? If Hanover
had complied, Belgium might have refused, and the re-
fusal by Belgium would have more than counterbalanced
the compliance of Hanover.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord, however, insists that we have undone what he ef-
fected. It is very easy to make such charges, but diffi-
cult to prove them even now, and it will be still more diffi-
cult when the Noble Lord sees, not merely the papers
that have been, but the papers that will be, presented.
I give the charges a positive denial, and I main-
tain that it will be seen that we have shown no apathy
or indifference. The Noble Lord contends that we bare
not even wined what we might have gained under the
treaty of Ghent. He talks of eighty guns sent to the
coast of Africa by the United States; but let me ask how
many guns did the Noble Lord procure to be sent ?
(Hear, hear.) Did he induce the United States to send
one gun to the coast of Africa ? I therefore assert that
we procured more active co-operation than any the
Noble Lord was able to gain while he had the tenure of
office. But he talks of a stipulation in the treaty of
Washington, which he again pleases himself by calling
a capitulation. Let me inform him, however, that in
America, in reference to that treaty, they are applying
to their own Government the very terms of the Noble

Lorri • tbr",' c
Yery ee pressesee.---,esaigi4tei.) lne) Ch arse wll ii
executive with having entered, not into a treaty, bat into
a capitulation.—(Hear.) They urge that, if certain do-
cuments had been produced, it is impossible that such an
engagement could have been entered into ; and we are
to recollect that it is the very treaty which, having been
negotiated and concluded by my Noble Friend, received
the cordial approbation of this House. I hope, there-
fore, that the character of the treaty will not be judged
by the representations of the Noble Lord, who is evi-
dently more mortified by it than by any other act of his
successors in office.—(Cheers.) My Noble Friend had
great difficulties to contend with, and it is not to be for-
gotten that, had the two States of Maine and Massachus-
sets withheld their assent, it might have been impossible
to have overcome those difficulties. Ido not think that
the majority of this House will lightly estimate the wis-
dom and perseverance of my Noble Friend, in concluding
such formidable differences and preserving our amicable
relations.—(Cheers.) I should like to know what we lost
by that treaty, and whether, while removing the danger
of immediate hostile collision, my Noble Friend, Lord
Ashburton, really sacrificed the honour or the interests of
his country?—(Much cheering.) But there was a power in
the treaty to make joint representations to powers car-
rying on the slave-trade, and directly after the signature
of the treaty negotiations took place between Mr. Eve-
rett and my Noble Friend Lord Aberdeen on the subject;
they thought that the representations ought not to be
made simultaneously and conjointly. The subject was
considered and discussed, whether it was more likely that
a beneficial effect would be produced on Brazil and Spain
by a separate or by a joint representation. The Noble
Lord says that we wished to spare the feelings of Brazil.
That was not our object. We considered only the best
mode of efilicting the end in view, and when the papers
are produced, the Noble Lord will see that we did not
spare the feelings either of Brazil or Spain. I believe,
too, that the United States were not influenced by any
desire to consult the delicate feelings of Brazil; but what
I said on a former day was, that this country feared that
if representations were made jointly, they would be less
effectual than if each country acted by itself. If the
Noble Lord will refer to the language used by our Mi-
nister at Rio Janeiro in denouncing the continuance of
this infamous traffic, and the connivance at it by subor-
dinate authorities in Brazil, he will not find that the
feelings of that State were consulted, but that the
strongest language was employed to force upon Brazil
the moral and poitical duty of strict adherence to her
treaties. These were the considerations which induced
my Noble Friend at the head of ForeigrfAffairs, and the
Minister of the United States, to abstain from joint re-
monstrances. I have gone over, I believe, the principal
observations of the Noble Lord. I give the Noble
Lord all credit for an earnest desire, mani-
fested throughout, to abolish the slave trade,
but I do not believe that the end would be
accomplished by an assumption of power by this country
which she has no means to enforce. I allow that we
ought to make every effort consistent with actual en-
gagements and the law of rations to compel other coun-
tries to put an end to this traffic. I would use every
persuasion, and urge every motive for concurrence with
US in this undertaking ; but I doubt whether our diffi-
culties, instead of being diminished, would not be in-
creased, if we were to place ourselves decidedly in the
wrong, even in enforcing the admitted rights of humanity.
If it could be substantiated, if it could be shown that we
are indifferent to the suppression of this monstrous evil,
so degrading to civilised nations, I should deeply regret
that Ministers had laid themselves open to just censure ;
and in such a case no condemnation could hardly be too
severe for the Government of a country which had made
such sacrifices for the suppression not only of the slave
trade, but for the abolition of slavery.—(Cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON said that he never meant to
argue that the' Government should violate the law of
nations. What he meant to say was, that there were
treaties, if properly carried into eflect, which would put
an end to the slave trade altogether.
Mr. P. HOWARD deprecated any difference being
made between any Foreign States. He hoped in the
next sea-ion some measurres would be adopted by which
the impolitic course that had hitherto been pursued
would he avoided.
The House then went into Committee, and upon
The vote of 129,0921. for the salaries of Admiralty
officers,
Mr. lIAWES objected to the vote. He had the au-
thority of Colonel Maberly in stating that noff.ing could
be more incorrect than the Post-office return which was
laid on the table of the House. The return was as yet
unexplained by the Government.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the Honourable Gentleman called for an explana-
tion of the account with respectto the Post-office revenue.
He could, however, satisfy the House that the return
was not opsu to the objections of the Hon. Gentleman.
When it was first presented to Parliament, and when he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) sat on the ether side
of the House, he stated that the real revenue was very
small, if they deducte:l the whole expense of collecting
that revenue. After making that statement, he moved
fur a return not merely of what the Post-office produced,
but also what were the charges necessarily incurred,
in producing the revenue, which included the expense
of the packets and the delivery. The greater part of
the Post-office revenues was borne in the naval account.
It was thought better after that to conduct the packages
in the King's ships, and consequently the charge which
had been made against the revenues of the Post-office,
became charged in the naval estimates, while the receipts
remained in the Post-office. It was necessary to put
on one side all that was paid for the conveyance, and on
the other all that had-been received by the Post-office.
Mr. HAWES said a few words in explanation, and
alluded to a deputation, which was received by Sir R.
Peel, two years ago, when the Right Hon. Gentleman
suited that the Post-office revenue did not amount to
500,000/. or 600,000/., but only to 110,000/., for the
purpose of creating an unfavourable impressidh of the
penny postage.
Sir R. PEEL said that he was entirely misunder-
stood, and that nothing was further from his mind than
to show that the arrangement was a had one, for he
wished most cordially for its success. In answer to the
deputation, he said that the net produce of the Post-
office did not amount to five or six hundred thousand
pounds, for the purpose of removing an erroneous im-
pression which they laboured under, not for the purpose
of making unfavourable contrasts.
Mr. WILLIAMS said that the net amount, up to the
sth of April, was 699,0001, and the charges for packets
amounted to 544,0001., leaving a net revenue of
155,000/.
Mr. WARBURTON did not think that the Post- office
should be charged with the whole of the cost of con-
structing the packets, seeing that they had been built in
a very expensive manner, in order that, upon an emer-
gency, they might be turned into war steamers.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the return which he had made was not a compara-
tive one.
Sir C. NAPIER believed that so long as the Board of
Admiralty was constituted as it now was, a great deal
of money would be uselessly expended. He had always
been opposed to a civilian ruling the navy. The sur-
veyor of the navy and the storekeeper were responsible
for their department, and yet they had a Lord of the
Admiral!), appointed over each of them.

Dr. BO WRING did not think that the public accounts
could be satisfactorily kept unless the departments of
receipt and expenditure were separated.
CaptainPECHELL said he would wish to bring before
the House the case of the pursers of the navy, who were
a class of very meritorious and deserving officers; and
in doing so he only regretted that they had not entrusted
their case to an Hon. Member calculated to do it justice.
He held in his hand a memorial forwarded to the
Admiralty by a meeting of the pursers on the 2d April,
1841, in which they stated their grievances, some of which
were that many of these officers were from 31 to 36 years
in the service, and were none of them under 60 years of
age. He then read extracts from the report of the
Admiralty Commissioners that had been appointed to in
quire into the case of the pursers, by which it appeared
that all the recommendations of the commission in favour
of those officers were negatived or reduced by the
Board of Admiralty. By those reductions and deduc-
tions it appeared that there was a sum equal to the
amount of 4,800!. in the hands of the Admiralty to the
credit of those officers, and he hoped the Board of Ad-
miralty would be prepared to divide this sum equally
amongst the pursers.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. COCKBURN said these pensioners were first
put upon half-pay in 1814, and in 1842 he believed there
were about 972 of them; 100 of them received 51., 200
45., and 672, 3s. In 1834, the third-class petitioned the
Board of Admiralty to reduce the first-class from 9ths to
10ths, and in 1834, by the consent of the first-class, this
arrangement was carried into effect ; and the third-class
had au addition made to their pay. Shortly afterwards the
Naval and Military Commission recommended that 50 of
them should be allowed a retirement pension of ss.
The Treasury acceded to the proposition of the Naval
Commission, that there should be 70 at 75., 100 at 65.,
and the rest, 350, at 55., thus proposing an increase of
Is. 6d. a-day. The number now on the list was 1,000.
Captain PECHELL hoped that the case of the pur-
sers who had had 9,000!. taken from their profits last
year, and from whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer
received 4,884!. annually, would be reconsidered by the
Government.
After a few words from Admiral DUNDAS,
Sir C. NAPIER said, much anxiety was expressed en
the subject, and he was anxious to know when the decision
of the Government would be made known.
Sir G. COCKBURN said, he could not say, as they
had not yet come to a decision.
The vote was then agreed to.
A vote of 11,608/. was then proposed to the Seaman's
Register-office.
Sir C. NAPIER objected to the payment of the bounty
of 101. to seamen nrwly enlisted. cieamen were in the
habit of receiving 104-, but, in the event of a proclama-
tion of war, the bounty was doubled. Now, no war
might take place, yet they were bound to pay this
gratuity, whiot entailed great expense on the coun-
try, and veifich, he thought, might be dispensed with
without injury to the servtee.
Mr. COLLETT was not satisfied with the explanation
of the Honourable Gent'eman. The charge was a very
Large one.

Mr. CORRY said the expense was owing to the fact,
that it was the first year the Bill for Registering Sea-
men had comr, into operation,
Captain PECHELL said that the purs-rs who for-
' meHy received an eighth now received only a tenth, by
which the Treasury had effected a saving of 4,000/.
Should not this sum be refunded to the pursers, and their
salary be increased ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that it, was one of the most
unenviable duties of his office to be obliged to resist the
claims of particular classes of persons in the army, the
navy, and the ordnance. He could not agree with the
Hon. and Gallant Officer, and must oppose his views, as
if realised they would form a most dangerous precedent.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the Ex-
CHEQUER and Captain Pk?CHELL in reply, the vote was
agreed to.