The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-08 00:00:00

ALGIERS.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he wished
to put a question to the Noble Earl, the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, upon a matter of consider-
able importance. There had appeared in the newspa-
pers of Paris and ,of this country reports of a conver-
sation which had taken place between the French
Ambassador and the Noble Earl relating to the oc-
cupation of Algiers by the French. He was
aware that it was best to refrain from expressing any
opinion or sentiment respecting this transaction, in
order to avoid the possibility of giving offence in any
quarter. No person could be more desirous than
himself that the best possible understanding should
exist between this nation and the French people,
and no person could be more alive to the danger and in-
convenience that would arise to both countries and to
-
Europe in general, from even the slightest tem-
porary estrangement. But as between individuals,
so between Governments, a good understanding
should always be Maintained with respect to the
matter, he thought it was best to ascertain the fact,
because it was a matter of much importance,
and had been made public in the press ; and
he wished to know whether it was true that
her Majesty's Government had permitted this country
to be committed, as had been stated by the papers ?
He had heard two different versions of the conversation.
He would not quote the words attributed to the No-
ble Earl, but it had been reported by the press
of this country,
that the first Minister of
the Crown had stated that there was no
difference in the two expressions. True, the
Right Honourable Baronet at the head of the
Government did say that there was no substantial
difference between the two versions, but from this
opinion he (the Noble Marquis) had the mis-
fortune to differ. He considered there was a
Nt'heerytwwo ersidv o
wide
and
important difference between
.—_(Hear, hear.) The first version
led to the impression that the Noble Earl, in conversa-
tion with the French Ambassador, rather avoided
going into the subject of Algiers, and de-
clined, on the part of his Government, ex-
pressing any feeling or opinion under existing cir-
cumstances ; but the, other version made the
Noble Earl give, on the part of Great Britain, a posi-
tive and direct acquiescence to the permanent occupa-
tion and assumption of sovereignty by France in Al-
giers, and the country overrun by the French. He
(the Noble Marquis) thought it not at all likely
that the Queen's Minister could have so com-
mitted the Government and the country to
such a step without 'first communicating with
Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) The question, there-
fore, which he had to put to the Noble Earl was, whe-
ther, on the part of her Majesty's Government; he
had had any communication with the French Ambas-
sador about the government and sovereignty of Al-
sileneee:pirtewssaesd,togiers, and the territory occupied by the French ?
The Earl of ABERDEEN said the Noble Marquis
had been good enough to give him notice of his inten-
tion, and therefore he (Lord Aberdeen) was now fully
prepared with an answer. The Noble Marquis might
recollect what he (Lord Aberdeen) said at the time
of the expedition against Algiers, for he believed
the Noble Marquis then asked for some expla-
nation of the negotiations that took place o:i
this subject between the French and the British
Governments. In 1833 he (Lord Aberdeen) in
i consequence of what took place elsewhere, was under
the necessity of moving for papers connected with
this subject; and the Noble Earl then at the head of
her Majesty's Government, not only had no objection
to the production of the papers, but said that
he was satisfied with the course he (Lord Aber-
deen) had taken. From that time to the pre-
sent he (Lord Aberdeen) had remained silent on
this subject. When her Majesty called upon him to
take office again he felt that his opinion on this
subject would be regarded with some importance
by the French Government, considering the part he
taken with reference
Governments, that Was,
took when he held office before. He felt he had
but one course to pursue, that whatever he might have
done if he were recalled to office in 18qer3uresliat,ettiohinantcciadolelmunditnaegld,
ti into t ot ne-
cessaryhi
sofficetsou
deviateil nt
subject
e tB4b 1841, after
from aft ert
s precedingbt
eehn,u_
iec;‘3hsh'ueeaGrad.sroces wasbov'
en
fl,
(Lord Aber-
hetment, and he
ferene_e_ of a confiden-
ts oa y
arisingb ny retainingotitheona ulglt theNa boo
fobo
ulpeti opinions ii‘i ot
in.
ca
or
nq
tial and friendly nature. lle _ had no doubt
that M. St. Aulaire was perfectly convinced
dtheaetn,hoe
was glad to have this opportunity of declaring, that
he never had dealt with a more honourable,
high-minded man than the French Ambassa-
dor—(Hear, hear)—and it was a fortunate
remarksmade
to accurate
the
french version
Goofy
thing for both countries that France was so repre-
sented.—(Hear, hear.) But when he (Lord Aber-
deen) saw in the Moniteur the report of this conver-
sation, as given in the Chamber of Deputies by
M. Guizot, he saw that M. St. Aulaire had fallen
involuntarily into an erroneous version of the con-
versation, and therefore he (Lord Aberdeen) hastened
to rectify it, as would be seen by the despatch he
wrote to the British Ambassador in Paris.
The despatch was dated January 28, and
ran thus :—" My Lord, I be4;r.
leave to
direct your attention to a report in the kioniteur
of a speech delivered in the Chamber of Depu-
ties by M. Guizot, on the 20th. On that occa-
sion his Excellency read an account of a con-
versation that had taken place been M.
, St. Aulaire
and myself in relation to the French possessions in
Africa, and which the former transmitted • to.
the French Ministry. In this narrative the
Count de St. Aulaire says,
" I began by
ass !ding the security of our African
possessions as of the last importance, which must not
be allowed to give way to any consideration,

and tord Aberdeen, after listening attentively;
said, ' T ain. ;very glad to be able to explain distinctly
on this point. i wax Minister in 1830. If you go
back to that time ,I„have.much to say; but taking af-
fairs as they are in 1841,,, and the state in which things
have been left by preceding Cabinets, I look
at your possession as a fait :accompli, and
I have no further observation to make.'
This quotation, purporting to be the account of
the Count de St. Aulaire, with the exception of the
last sentence, is correct. I never said that I had no
objection to make to the establishment of the French
in Algiers, but that I had no observations to make on
the subject, and that it was my intention to be
silent." The context showed that such was his
(Lord Aberdeen's) view, and that decision he
had come to after mature, reflection. He (Lord
Aberdeen) felt that after ten years, any objection at
the present moment, would have been misplaced.
The course which it would have been impossible for
him to have adopted then, was now entirely consistent
with propriety. It did not follow, if any objection
was not expressed that it was not entertained. He
had explained to the French Ambassador the misre-
presentation which he had fallen into, and the erroneous
statement which he had made in consequence.
With respect to Lord Cowley, that Noble Lord had
fulfilled his instructions upon the subject, and there
the matter rested. He (Lord Aberdeen) was not
aware that he had any further explanation to give
on the subject. He would then lay the despatch on
the table of their Lordships' House.
THE ADMIRALTY.
Lord MINTO wished to call their Lordships' at-
tention to a matter personal to himself. He was nut
insensible to the great inconvenience of referring the
House to any matter that might have passed in the other
House of Parliament, but there were occasions on which
it would be highly improper to allow unseemly ex-
pressions
.to go forth without some explanation ; and
when he should have read to their Lordships the pas-
sage from a newspaper to which he alluded, he thought
their Lordships would, feel with him that the
present was such an occasion. The passage to
which he was about to refer purported to be a
report of the speech of a Gallant Officer in
the other House of Parliement. The object of that
Gallant Officer at the time was to recommend to the
notice of the House what he (Lord M.) must beg leave
to call a rather fanciful scheme for the Naval
Administration. The Gallant Officer to whom
he alluded, in pointing out, in the course of
his speech, the incompetency of civilians
to fill the situation of First Lord of the Admiralty, made
the following observation " When the late First Lord
of the Admiralty came into power he was in general
extremely ignorant ; but after he had been there a
little time he began to fancy that he was a thorough
sailor." But it was to what followed that he (LordMinto)
wished particularly to call their Lordships' attention.
" After he had been at the Admiralty for some time,
he began to assume a great deal more power than lie
ever ought to have assumed." Now there was a
distinct charge. But the Report proceeded :—" He had
always understood there was a divided responsibility
in the Board of Admiralty ; but the late First Lord
acted against the express desire of every other
Lord. Amongst 'other things a scheme was proposed
to reduce the complement of men by one-eighth; and
that was assented to by every one of the Naval Lords.
The result was communicated to Lord Minto who put the
document into his pocket, and nothing more was
heard about it for some time. But at length it was
returned to the Board, when it turned out that Lord
Minto had taken upon himself to reduce the number of
men not by one-eighth but by one-fifth." Now before he
(Lord Minto) went further, he would endeavour, in
a few words—confining himself to the charge—to
make their Lordships, if possible, understand what
actually. 'did take place on the occasion alluded
to. He wonld not enter into the controversy
as to the peace and war complements.
He believed it to be a question of circumstances. In
a time of profound peace, he thought that it might
be wise to have a large number of ships afloat with
a smaller complement of men than would be required
in tune of war. But when the state of our foreign
relations was at all menacing, it was necessary
to increase the complement : and he thought that
the present First Lord of the Admiralty was perfectly
right in putting on the full complement of men, in all
ships in foreign stations. lie had said that he beg-
ged leave to call their Lordships' attention to the
charge against himselfpersonally ; which was that a cer-
tain complement was recommended to him by the other
Lords of the Admiralty, and he took upon himself to
adopt a different scale. The full war complement was
determined by the recommendation of a Commission,
and was understood to rest upon that recommendation.
The opinions of this Commission were held to deter-
mine what were the complement of ships. The peace
establishments were sometimes reduced and some-
times increased, and of late years considerable reduc-
tions had been made. He rather thought that under
Sir James Graham and Lord Auckland some reduc-
tions were made in the peace complements. Such was
the state of things when he came to the Admiralty.
There was then a sufficient complement to certain
classes of ships. Many descriptions of ships had been
introduced into the service since that state of comple-
ments had been considered necessary. Since that
time a new and more powerful armament
hltd been considered necessary. All this seemed
to regard a revision of the complement of
the ships, and, accordingly, in the autumn,
persons were employed on the subject, many schemes
were produced, and at length, after they thought suffi-
cient progress had been made, a meeting of the Board
was called, at which the attendance of Sir T. Hastings
and the Surveyor-General was required, and after sitting
sometime a complement was devised which was
thought a full war complement, and to that arrange-
ment, as far as he recollected, he thought that Capt.
Berkeley was a party. And that scale of complements
was the one he left when he retired from the Admiralty.
Then, with respect to the question of peace complements.
Under the old system, the complement had been reduced
one-eighth. A scale was suggested by which it was
proposed to take one-fifth or one-sixth. Mr Wood drew
up a minute on the subject, and brought it to the Board.
It described the principle on which they should proceed
with respect to war complements and peace complements,
and in that statement •he most cordially concurred.
That minute was brought forward and approved of by
all the members of the Board, and yet this was the one
which he was supposed to have put in his pocket, and
changed for an entirely new plan. He said at the time,
that it was a question requiring much investigation, and
that he was bound to see that the professional zeal and
prejudices of naval officers did not run away with them
and induce them to recommend a wanton expenditure.
He did what he thought was his duty, namely, he coil-
suited the two senior Naval Lords, both flag officers, and
tnen in whose opinions he had the fullest confidence.
They went into the question minutely, and he stated to
theM, that it being so entirely a professional question, I
he must be bound entirely by their decision. They
found that the principle of the plan was
totally inapplicable, that to establish any one proportion
between the peace and war complements of every de-
scription of ships would be productive of all sorts of con-
fusion, and, in short, though it might look well upon
paper, yet it was in fact arrant nonsense. After much
discussion a scale of the peace establishment was agreed
on by Sir C. Adams and Sir W. Parker, and he (Lord
Minto) fully concurred with them. It was considerably
less than the scale recommended, but it was made with
their entire concurrence. As to Captain Berkeley not
having been consulted, that was not his fault, as 'that
Gallant Officer was out of town. He trusted that the
statement he bad made was sufficient to acquit him of
having acted on his own authority, and not on the
judgment of the Board. He would proceed to the next
subject of complaint against him; as an evidence of his
undue assumption of authority, it had been stated " he"
(Sir C. Napier) " had read in a Levant paper, that Sir
R. Stopford had received private orders from m Lord
Minto to proceed off Candia; there to wait for further
orders; was it right there should be such an assumption
of authority?" Even supposing the circumstances had
been, as there stated, he should not think that he had in-
curred any reproach. The First Lord of the Admiralty
being in the Cabinet, was, necessarily, in most confiden-
tial communication with the Commanders-in-Chief of
the naval forces. At the time referred to, the commu-
nications with the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediter-
ranean were of the most delicate nature, and he believed
that notwithstanding, in this instance, but in fifty
others, he had intimated to that officer the wish of
the overnment, though not in the shape of an order,
which he had not a right to give, but he had to enlighten
him as to the intentions of the Government, and often sug-
gested to him what would probably be the course of opera-
tion. But he was happy to say that in this particular case,
he had the testlinony of Sir R. Stopford himself. He then
read the following letter :—" Greenwich Hospital, March
6. My Lord,—l have received your Lordship's letter
in reference to the observations of Sir C. Napier, in the
House of Commons, as to having received a private letter
from your Lordship, directing me to proceed to Candia.
I find, on reference to my papers, that that order pro-
ceeded from the Board of Admiralty, dated Oct. 22, 1840,
transmitting instructions from Lord Palmerston, dated Oct.
19. In consequence, I believe, of not being able to obtain
the necessary force of Turkish troops, I did not proceed
to Gaudio, and I am quite, sure that I never received
any private order from. your Lordship." His Lordship
then read an extract from a note from Admiral Stopford
to Lord Ponsonby, asking for instructions, and proving
that the Admiral did not consider himself bound to act

,rn such a private communication, as he would have been
by an order. He evidently did not consider it as im-
posing any obligation upon him. He felt tempted to
refer to one or two other subjects that had been touched
on, bi.t he would carefully abstain from so doing.
Lord COLCHESTER said that the Noble Lord had
quoted from a newspaper which must have given an in-
correct account, because it was inconistent with their
Lordship orders that such an order should have taken
place. There were two circumstances to which he
alluded. One related to certain circumstances which
took place, when the Noble Lord was at the head of the
Board of Admiraly in 1839. He the Noble Lord stated
that he was charged by a Gallant Officer in the other
House, with disregarding the opinions of high naval
officers. The Noble Lord was of course quite right in
giving the best explanation of the circumstances in his
power. But when four officers, and the Secretary, con-
sulted as to the best mode of manning the ships, the
Noble Lord differed from them for certain reasons.—
(" No, no," from Lord Minto.) Such was the impres-
sion which he received from what had fallen from the
Noble Lord. The other ease was, that certain orders were
given to the officer commandino• in the Mediterranean on
the authority of the Noble himself ; but this he denied, and
read a letter from Admiral Stopford on the subject.
But from the extract which appeared in- the paper, it
would seem that such an order was given. The Noble
Lord then read an extract from the paper, by which it
appeared that an order, dated November, 1833, was sent
from the Noble Lord, directing the Admiral in the Le-
vant to proceed with. his fleet to Cyprus, and he (Lord
Colchester) understood that he went to Cyprus In con-
sequence of that order. It appeared to him that any
person reading the extract he had just read, must come
to the conclusion that the Commander-in-Chief was to
obey the First Lord of the Admiralty. The Hon. and
Gallant Officer in the other House might have been mis-
! taken, but it appeared to him that he could not,
after' the extract he had read, be accused of making any
wilful misstatements. He received that extract from the
Gallant Officer to whom allusion had been made ; and
having read it in the public papers, he conceived the
Commander-in-Chief was bound to obey it, and that if
he did not do so, he would have incurred heavy responsi-
bilities. He would not go any further into discussion,
but he might be permitted to say, as an officer of her Ma-
jesty's Navy, that the Government had acted with great
prudence in increasing the establishment to which allu-
sion had been made, for it would be a means of prevent-
ing such occurrences as took place in 1812 and 1813.
The Duke of RICHMOND said the present was an
instance of the inconvenience that always arose from
Noble Lords making observations on what appeared
in the public papers.—(Hear.) Stich a mode of proceed-
ing was contrary to the orders of their Lordships' House.
His Noble Friend complained of what had been said by
Sir Charles Napier and Captain Berkeley. Now it was
a great charge against a gentleman that what he had
said was not true—(Hear)—and those gentlemen would
defend themselves in the other House, when, of course,
his Noble Friend would reply, and they should go on
speaking at each other in both Houses: His Noble
Friend read a letter which appeared in that newspaper,
but which was not the letter written by Capt. Berkeley,
and read by Sir Charles Napier.—(Hear, hear.) The
letter really written was in these terms :—" Let there
be no mistake as to my quitting the Admiralty. After
mature consideration, a reduct:on of one-eighth was
• agreed to by the naval Lords, and was approved of by
Lord Dalmeny. This I assented to, and it was consi-
dered as a great boon. The Minute was shown to Lord
Minto, and he put the paper in his pocket. It was never
brought before the Board of Admiralty again,
and I heard no more of it until I received
a letter from Mr. Wood, informing me that the
reduction was to be one-fifth. This was done without
consulting the other Lords." Now his (the Duke of
Richmond's) Noble Friend (Lord Minto) adraitted that
he did not consult the other Lords, and that he only
.sent the order to two of them, to put their initials to it.
If any Minister of the Crown resigned his office, he ob-
tained the leave of the Sovereign to explain in his place
in Parliament the reasons of his resignation, and he
could not see why, if a Cabinet Minister could do that,
a member of an inferior Board, such as the Admiralty,
should not be at liberty to explain in a letter to a friend
his. reasons for resigning office.—(Hear, hear.) His
Noble Friend admitted that the full complement should
be kept up, when the political horizon was clouded.
Well, was not the political horizon clouded at the time
of that reduction ? and had not his Noble Friend to
send out reinforcements to the Mediterranean ? But he
(the Duke of Richmond) thought it was not right to
send out our seamen in ships which had not a sufficient
complement of men. If a war broke out, they might be en-
countered by a superior force ; and under such circum-
stances, the first six weeks might determine the issue
against us. For his own part he would rather have two
ships belonging to England properly manned than a dozen
without the full complement of men. He would only
refer to one point further, and that was merely to state
to the House that he was aware that Sir Thomas Hardy
was on a Commission, but his friend must be aware that
it was never carried into effect. It was notorious that
that Gallant Officer had told Captain Berkeley that lie
was one of the old school, and was not for ships going to
sea not fully manned. He thought that the First Lord
of the Admiralty had done rightly, and he only hoped
they would never alter the manning of ships. He would
at any time rather see too many men than too few in the
Navy.
The Earl of MINTO explained. He had made no
charge against any Gallant Officer, although it appeared
to be supposed he had done so. He had no charge to
make against Sir Charles Napier, but that he greatly
misunderstood the relations between a Commander-in-

__ ...
Chief and a Government; so intimate was this that when
- -

a change in the Government took place, they did not
appoint a new Commander-in-Chiefin the Mediterranean.
The Duke of RICHMOND explained and said, the
charge against the Noble Earl still remained unshaken.
Lord FITZGERALD condemned the conversation
as irregular beyond example, and showing how un-
wise it was to take up debates that took place in the
other House. The anxiety of the Noble Earl was quite
natural, and it was only to be regretted that the Noble
Earl had not taken such measures as the House pre-
scribed, by moving for papers and records instead of
making the speech which they had just heard from
him, in reply to statements made. by Gallant Officers in
the other House, when no question was before their
Lordships, and in the irregular manner in which he had
done. He (Lord Fitzgerald) had felt himself called
on to correct this, and he hoped the few remarks that
had fallen from him would act so as to prevent such oc-
currences taking place again.
Earl MINTO said the only observation he was de-
sirous of making in reply was, that he hoped the Noble
Lord would give him credit for having abstained gene-
rally from replying to what passed in other places. His
whole object had been attained, if he had succeeded in
vindicating himself.
Lord FITZGERALD said that he was quite prepared
to admit that the anxiety of the Noble Earl was quite
natural, but he could not retract what he had said rela-
tive to what appeared to him to be an irregular pro-
ceeding in that House.

Earl MINTO briefly explained, and after a few words
from the Duke of RICHMOND, the matter dropped.
LUNACY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave notice that he
should to-morrow lay on their Lordships' table a Bill to
alter and amend the law respecting proceedings in lunacy.
The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
their Lordships adjourned shortly before Seven o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
Mr. MARTIN took the oaths and his seat for the
county of Galway.
Returns were presented from the Poor-law Com-
missioners, and ordered to be laid on the table.
Mr. PACKE presented a petition against the Mid-
land Counties Railway Bill.
The Rochester Roads Bill was brought in and read
a first time.
The Dundee and Arbroath Railway Bill was read
a first time.
On the motion of Mr. B. WOOD, the Equitable
Gas Company Bill was brought in and read a first
time.

The Southwark Improvement Bill (No. 1) was read
a second time and ordered to be committed.
The West Stirlingshire Roads Bill (No. 1) was read
a second time and ordered to be committed:
MANCHESTER and SHEFFIELD RAILWAY.
Mr. W. PATTEN presented a petition, signed by
1,700 manufacturers, and other residing on the line of
the proposed Manchester and Sheffield Railway, to which
on some future occasion it was his intention to draw
the attention of the House. The petitioners stated
that in consequence of the depressed state of the
times, there was great danger of the undertaking
falling to the ground, and praying that Parliament
would be pleased to devise some remedy to get them
out of their difficulties.
On the motion of Sir GEORGE LARPENT, the
Nottingham Gas Bill (No. 1) was read a second time
and ordered to be committed.
On the motion of Mr. STUART WORTLEY,
the Hinckley Road Bill was read a second time.
The Ormesby Inclosure Bill was read a second
time and ordered to be committed.
_ _

CORN-LAWg.
Mr. WALKER presented three petitions from
Sheffield, and its neighbourhood, against the Corn-laws.
Mr. REDINGTON presented petitions from the
millers of Dundalk, Louth, and Monaghan, against
the contemplated alteration of the flour duties.
Mr. CHRISTMAS presented a petition from
Cavan to the same effect.
three petitions from Mr. READ presented
Rn-
kenny to the same effect.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition, signed
by upwards of 500 inhabitants of Hall Fold, parish
of Rochdale, in which the petitioners expressed their

CORN-LAWS.
Sir V. BLAKE presented a petition, praying for
increased protection to Irish grain, to that given by
the proposed Government scale of duties.
Lord NEWRY presented a petition, with the
same prayer, with the addition of a request that the
Government plan should not come into operation for
six months. ..•
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from a
body of residents in the metropolis, complaining of
the manner in which the provisions of the law were
carried into effect, with respect to the burial of
paupers, under the Poor-law Act; also a petitio:n,
complaining of the abstraction of papers from the
Irish Court of Chancery.
Mr. WYNNE ELLIS presented a petition from
Leicester, against the Corn-laws.
An HON. MEMBER presented a petition from
Cupar and other places ip Fifeshire, praying for the
total repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. MARK PHILIPS presented a petitia n,
praying for the pardon of Frost, Williams, and JonE .3.
An IIoN. MEMBER, on the Ministerial Bench( s,
presented a petition from the Corn-Itispectors of
Reading and another place, praying either to be con-
tinued in their situations, or that dlr.; Hon. Housv
would be pleased to give them some ofbmpensation.
Mr. VILLIERS presented: petitions from Gala-
shells, and from places in Montgomeryshire and
Durham, praying for a repeal of-the Corn-laws.
Mr. J. WORTLEY presented a petition from
Manchester, praying for the release of Frost,
Williams, and Jones ; also a petition from the millers
of Huddersfield, praying for further protection to the
English miller. The petitioners felt assured that the
new proposal of the Government would prove pre-
judicial to their interests.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Sir lIUME CAMPBELL gave notice that on the
4th inst. he would move for a Select Committee to
consider the constitution and principles of the Church
of Scotland, and into the circumstances of the bite
collision between the Supreme Courts of that Church
and the Civil Courts, and to report their observetions
thereon ; the Committee to have power to send for
persons, papers, and records.
CONVICTED MANUFACTIIItERS.
Mr. FERRAND gave notice that on Tuesday, the
16th of March, he would move for a copy of all cony k-
tions that took place in the counties of York a rid
Lancaster, before magistrates in petty sessions, of
persons for illegally paying wages to work
people in goods, instead of the current coin of the
realm, since the Ist of January, 1835, contrary to
the Act 1 and 2 William the Fourth, chap. 32.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN moved for copies of the Coroner's
notes on the inquest of Mr. M`Cardle.—Ordered.
Mr. MASTERMAii wished to ask the Right
Hon. Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, with respect to the period at which the new
Corn Bill would come into operation. Some of the
newspapers had given different interpretations to the
answer of the Righy'Hon.Gentleman the other evening,
and what he wished to know was, whether the
averages would be taken upon the new system -the
week after the Bill received the Royal assent.
Sir R. PEEL said it was intended that five weeks'
averages should be taken under the old system, and
the sixth week under the new one.
Sir C. NAPIER wished to ask the Chancellor of
the Exchequer whether it was the intention of the
Government to propose increased allowances to the
old captains.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
understood to say that tjie question had not at present
been taken into consideration by the Government.
FRENCH OCCUPATION OF ALGERIA.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought it might he con-
venient in relation to the motion for which the Hon.
and Learned Member for Dungarvon had. given
notice for Thursday next, for the production of the
despatch of his Noble Friend, the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, on the subject of the conversation
which had taken place between the French _Am-
bassador and his Noble Friend to state at once his
(Sir Robert Peel's) intention on the subject. (He ar.)
It was his (Sir Robert Peel's) intention to lay that
despatch on the table of the House.—(Cheers.) l i e
did so because in the first place he thought it vei y
desirable to avoid what he must consider a
most inconvenient practice, namely, the raising
a debate in that House in reference to a debate which
had taken place in the Chamber of Deputies in Pa cis;
and, in the second place, because in any answer which
he (Sir R. Peel) might have to make to any observalion
of the Honourable and Learned Member he <Sir
R. Peel) would have to make frequent reference to
the despatch in question, and therefore he thought it
best that the House should have the whole despite) r.
to refer to. It would be for the Hon. Member, if lie
should think proper afterwards, to found a motic ,n
upon that despatch. While on this subject, he fe It 7,
it to be his (Sir R. Peel's) duty entirely to exonertzte
the French Ambassador, Comte St. Aulaire, from
all blame on the subject. It was his duty entirely to
acquit the Comte St. Aulaire—(Hear, hear)—of airs
intentional misapprehension. He (Sir R. Peel) fel t
assured that all who had the happiness to know Comt 3
St. Aulaire, must feel assured that any misappre -
hension must be entirely unintentional on hi s
(Comte St. Aulaire's) part (Hear, hear) -
and although the Hon. Gentleman might think i t
necessary to correct any misapprehension, yet he (Si r
R. Peel) was sure that every one would acquit th a
Comte St. Aulaire of everything like intentional error
The Right Hon. Baronet then laid a copy of th
despatch on the table.

BANK ISSUES.
Mr. C. WOOD said, before the House went int o
a Committee of Supply, he wished to put a questio
to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, in order t o
ascertain what were the intentions of the Governmen t
on a subject of great importance, and which ha, /
excited great interest in the country. Th e
House was aware, that during the last Sessio
of Parliament, a Committee was sitting, of which
had the honour of being Chairman, for the purp ese,
of inquiring into the circulation of the banks of sue.
In the middle of the session, those e' rents
occurred which brought it to an earlier concl- asion
than was expected, and interrupted that inc
The House had barely time, at the dc e e of
the Session, to pass an Act providing for a. m
accurate and general publication of the YU count
of bank-notes put in circulation, but it was imp
assrbie
for the Committee to come to any conclusion,
or ake
any Report to the House. Since Parlian'
Sent had
met, many inquiries had been made of him, and
many communirAtions from
he had received a great
owing to his h
different parts of the country,
n
avi
'
been Chairman of that Committee. g
,
to ascertain what were the intent requesting him
ment with respect to the questi, 'ins of the Govern-
m. Some time since
he had mentioned the circumV
Baronet, in order that he mi Ance to the Right Hon.
ght have time to consider
the matter, and to confer with his colleagues as to
the course the Government might think ad-
visable to adopt. Ile wars quite aware that
there would be considerable difficulty in re-
appointing the Committee, fmm the circumstance that
many of the efficient and 'active Members had not
seats in the present House of Commons. He, there"
fore, wished to ask what course the Government
tended to pursue, on a subject that had excited gueat
interest in many parts of the kingdom.
Sir R. PEEL said he had given his best considera-
tion to this important subject, to which the Hon. Gen-
tleman had drawn his attention, and he was sorry that
last year, after having applied so much time to a conti-
nuous inquiry into the matter, and with the recollec-
tion of great attention paid to it by the Hon. Gentle-
manuid himself, and the ability he displard, they should
have separated without coming to lulY proposal.
It It appeared to him that a new Committee
For three
years rf-Je'
ther inquiry was altoethiFtonfrell
years there was an inquiry _ 2.nt
which subject, as far-as investigation t
was entirely exhausted. by th,
if three years would not exhaw
,Svastockcoßncaenrksne,d,
Committee ;