for libel, to which they would leave him. As to the costs, when the court were asked to grant them, their lordships said, that if the defendant insisted on having his costs, they must hear the other side; the question of costs, therefore, was not pressed. He said this by way of removing a prejudice which had gone abroad against Mr. Kenrick, as if the court of King'sbench had, in fact, decided against him on the merits of the case. He had now only to observe, that he had known Mr. Kenrick in early life, and afterwards in courts of justice, and had never known him to do any thing that was improper. He had also been employed as an advocate against that gentleman in the court of King's-bench. He did not know what were the exact limits of the duties of a counsel, but his impression was, that it was the duty of a counsel zealously to fulfil the charge consigned to him, without prejudice or partiality, and without regard to consequences, whatever they might be. With such ideas of the duty of a counsel, he had appeared against Mr. Kenrick, discharging from his mind all partial recollections; and now, acting as a member of parliament, and called upon to give his opinion on a grave and serious charge, he felt himself bound to say that he considered it not proved, and that he must therefore give a decided negative to the motion.

Mr. Denman shortly replied. He said, that under all the circumstances of the case, he should not press the House to a division; but he was, at the same time, bound to declare, that his opinions remained unaltered, and that if he had the giving or refusing of judicial offices, he would not confer any situation on Mr. Kenrick. Neither had his hon. and learned friend ventured to declare, that if he had such power he should consider Mr. Kenrick a fit object of judicial nomination. It was easy to anticipate what would be the result of his motion; but he was nevertheless sure that the people of England would not consider themselves well used, if Mr. Kenrick was continued in office. He decidedly differed from the hon. and learned gentleman as to the effect of the evidence in the case; particularly as to the fact of Mr. Kenrick's having kept back the material witness at Franks's trial. He did not believe that that witness could have proved any thing more than had been proved in his absence. If the House had not been already annoyed by the length

of these discussions, he would have pressed this proceeding further. His opinion, he repeated, remained unaltered. He had done what he considered to be his duty, and should leave the case with the House.

The resolution was then put, and negatived.

NAVY ESTIMATES.] The report of the committee of supply was brought up. On the question, that it be read,

Sir F. Ommaney complained of the low rate of remuneration which clerks in the Admiralty received, and also of the difficulty which the widows of assistant-surgeons experienced in procuring pensions. He meant on a future day to move for an account of all widows of assistant-surgeons who had applied for pensions between 1805 and 1809, when the new regulations were carried into effect.

On the first resolution, "That 30,000 men be employed for the sea-service, for the year 1826, including 9,000 Royal marines,"

Mr. Hume said, that he must oppose the naval or any other establishment being formed on so large a scale as ministers seemed inclined to propose at the present moment. They had had an opportunity of examining the whole scale on which it was intended that the military establishment should be kept up, and he was justified in saying, that no such establishment was ever thought of at any former period of peace. He therefore wished to know whether there was any prospect of a return to what might fairly be denominated a real peace establishment? At this awful moment, when distress and difficulty threatened the land in every direction-when no immediate relief appeared in view-and when thousands and tens of thousands were in a state of destitution and want, it would become his majesty's ministers to reflect a little on what they were about. He was quite sure that the estimates, so monstrous did they appear, were agreed on at a time when ministers were not aware of the real state of the country. In former times, this country maintained a very different peace establishment, both with respect to the number of men and the magnitude of the expense; and he was anxious to know what were the circumstances at the present moment which required so disproportionate an establishment, as compared with antecedent pe

of Africa. There was no part of the world in which a British naval force was not looked up to for protection; and they had acquitted themselves wonderfully well wherever they had been employed. Their naval officers, he admitted, were no great diplomatists; but in their intercourse with the newly recognized states they had acted wisely. They had insured peace and quiet wherever they appeared; and they had maintained the honour and repu tation of the British flag. If that House were filled with merchants, he was convinced they would all rise with one accord, and bear testimony to the benefits they had derived from the system pursued by the Admiralty. The money now called for would be most advantageously laid out; since it would enable this country in spite of the wars of other powers, to carry on a flourishing commerce with every part of the world. The hon. member for Aberdeen had advanced one assertion, which he would meet with a direct contradiction. The hon. member had stated, that the claim of no man was listened to at the Admiralty, unless he possessed family interest. He denied the charge altogether. He attended himself at the Admiralty in rotation; and he would say, that no person, from the highest to the lowest, ever asked to see him, whom he did not see, and whose business he did not hear. And he would tell the hon. member in the face of the House and of the country, that he paid less attention to a man who had family interest than to one who was without it. He would say more. He would tell the hon. member-and many officers could bear witness to the fact that when men without interest had stated their cases to him, he had done his utmost to bring them forward. The charge, therefore, of the hon. member was most unjust and unfair. He could assert, without fear of contradiction, that in proportion as the Admiralty brought forward persons of rank, they, with equal readiness, assisted others who had no recommendation of that kind. Length of service, and a knowledge of the profession, were never overlooked, let the situation of the individual be what it might. The services of the father were very frequently considered in the promotion of his sons; and it could not be denied that this was a fair and proper course of proceeding for the Admiralty to observe.

Mr. Robertson complained, that on so important a vote there was not a minister

of the Crown in his place. The apology for keeping up a large naval force made by the hon. lord of the Admiralty was totally inadequate; namely, the war in India. Now, the war in India no more required an increase of the navy than would a war in the middle of Germany. It was totally impossible that a naval force could act in the Burmese war. Such a reason could only have been offered on the presumption of the utmost ignorance among members of the seat of war in India. There was no warlike navigation among those nations. True it was that in the mouths of rivers there were occasionally forts which were accessible by boats; but the weakest vessel that could swim, if she could only hold out the voyage and the landing of the troops, would be powerful enough for any maritime purposes of that war.

Mr. Croker said, that the hon. member for Grampound attributed to the Admiralty the most perfect ignorance of the geographical situation of India.

Mr. Robertson said, "No :" his expression was, that the Admiralty presumed on the ignorance of the House.

Mr. Croker. Well, then, it was not the Admiralty who were ignorant, they were well enough acquainted with the business; but they came down to impose upon parliament with a falsehood ["No, no," from various quarters]. Well then, a fallacy; which was, that some part of the naval force was to be employed in India. Now, he had one short fact to state, in answer to the representation of the hon. gentleman. That very morning it had fallen to his lot as secretary to the Admiralty, to receive despatches from a commander in India. That officer mentioned, that he had collected a naval force to act on the rivers of Rangoon, which he expected would be of the greatest use; and that it consisted of a greater number of men than the total increase of sailors demanded by the present vote.

Sir C. Cole defended the Admiralty from the charge of an unfair use of favour and affection in promotions. He would mention a proof of the contrary, within his own knowledge. He had taken two deserving youths by the hand, who had done themselves honour in the service; they were the sons of an officer of distinguished merit, but they were for a time over-looked. He no sooner made their case known to the Admiralty than their promotion was secured to them. From

all that he had seen, this was the usual character of their proceedings. As to the necessity of a naval force in India, he had been for many years on that station, and it had astonished him that we could hold so vast á dominion with a naval force so small as was kept there. The House would recollect the limits taken in by that station. It was a full quarter of the earth's surface, reaching, in direct longitude, from the coast of Arabia to the Pacific Ocean. True it was, that there were no powerful fleets in those seas; but, there were many forts upon the mouths of rivers which gave occasion for the employment of vessels of war and boats. But, there were reasons for keeping up a considerable force in other quarters. The Mediterranean station evidently required a considerable force to protect our commerce; especially while a piratical war was raging between the Greeks and Turks. He thought the service could not be properly maintained with a less number of

men.

Mr. Wyvill would vote for the amendment, in order to compel ministers to observe the strictest economy.

Mr. Herries said, that the object of the amendment was not so much to negative the vote for the navy, as to put a stop to the grant of supplies generally; which, of course, the House had the power to do, though it was a power rarely exercised, and not without the statement of more cogent reasons than those urged by the hon. member for Aberdeen. So far from its being true that ministers had no regard for economy, they had evinced, from year to year, the utmost anxiety to promote it; and the time chosen by the hon. gentleman for bringing forward his amendment was not a little extraordinary, recollecting that it was upon bringing up the report of the committee whose reso lutions had been agreed to unanimously. With regard to the absence of ministers, he denied that it was necessary that they should attend to listen to the often repeated recommendations of the hon. member. They had observed the most rigid economy in every department, and had carried reductions to the utmost extent. Year after year, and item by item, the navy estimates had been scrutinized with the utmost patience, and the increase of the present vote above that of 1817 had been frequently justified; so that nothing could be more absurd than to treat it as if the augmentation were en

tirely new, and required arguments in support of it.

Colonel Davies thought, that this was a fit opportunity for the exercise of that great economical check which lay in parliament. No good reason had been given for keeping up so enormous an establishment. Were they, in a time of peace and in a season of universal distress to go on voting away large and unnecessary quantities of the public money? Ought they not rather, as guardians of the public purse, when that distress was likely to be aggravated by the measure now in progress, to restore the currency, to force upon government the most rigid economy? He would vote for the amendment, and when the report of the army estimates should come up, he would oppose the reception of it, unless it was accompanied with some pledge of serious reduction on the part of ministers.

Captain Gordon adverted to the charge, that branches of families of rank and influence were placed in the navy, in order that they might receive pensions out of the pocket of the public. How stood the fact? Any person entering the army must serve six years before he would be entitled to half-pay at all. He knew of several officers of acknowledged gallantry and merit, who, after serving thirty years or more, received a pension of about 1807. Surely these allowances were not burthensome pensions, but limited rewards for services performed to the country.

Mr. Tremayne conceived that the strictest economy was necessary in all the departments of the state, and therefore he should vote for the amendment.

Mr. Hobhouse begged it to be understood that he did not object to the navy estimates generally; but he could not, in the present condition of the country, approve of money being voted without the strictest necessity for it. In thus expressing himself, he trusted he should not be charged with a wish to embarrass ministers. The measures which they had brought forward this session, with the exception of the one last night, had met with his approbation; but, on that occasion, certainly, he thought it to be his duty to vote against them, inasmuch as he conceived they had departed from their own principles. the necessity of a reduction in the expenditure, he was satisfied, that throughout the country there was but one opinion, that such establishments could not be kept

With respect to