not placed in the same situation as naval officers, for it was quite necessary to put a captain into a ship at the moment of a vacancy; but it was not so with the marines. The principle followed in the navy was, that every third vacancy should be filled by a young person; otherwise there would be no persons in the service who were not of 40 or 50 years standing. With respect to pursers, the regulation which the hon. member quoted was found to be so inconvenient, that the admiralty was obliged to apply to the king in council to have it repealed. For the reasons which he had given, he was confident the House would go along with him in believing, that nothing more than a proper and becoming attention had been paid to the claims of the naval officers of noble and distinguished families, at the same time that the meritorious services of others had not been overlooked [Hear, hear.] He would therefore give the third resolution a direct negative, and meet the rest with the previous question.

Sir Byam Martin defended the principle of promotion adopted in the navy. He asserted it to be unconnected with parliamentary influence, and said, that out of seven promotions which had taken place in one batch, two only, were the friends of persons who supported the present administration.

and our officers had signalized themselves in their extirpation. There was also slavery to be put down on the coast of Africa; and our officers showed their zeal for its extinction, by dashing up rivers, and attacking sometimes five times their own number: and, were not such men deserving of promotion, when covered with glory, and suffering from wounds? Such services had swelled the list of promotion, and swelled it proudly-and the admiralty was glad of it.-The hon. member had alluded to three persons of the name of Johnston Hope. But the fact was, sir W. Johnston Hope had not made one of them. One of them had been made after he had pulled down his flag, and the others had been made in virtue of an old promise given by sir Home Popham. He then adverted to the case of another officer, who had been promoted when a reduced lord of the admiralty was requested by lord Melville, from a sense of his services, to name an officer for promotion; and he did name the officer in question. As to the invalids, the hon. member had thrown out an unjustifiable imputation, by speaking of an invaliding job, to make promotions. Would he have officers who became sick in the African and West-India stations, be cruelly kept there to die? The admirals were only allowed to fill up vacancies occasioned by death or court-martial; they had therefore no interest in having officers invalided. No officer could, in fact, be invalided, until three captains and a surgeon declared it necessary for his health that he should return home; and any captain who connived was liable to be cashiered. When he returned he was examined at the admiralty, by two of the chief medical officers of the board. Could this be a job? The unhealthy climates of Africa and the West Indies caused a great increase of invalids; and, when the hon. member spoke of the small number of deaths, he did not take into account the number of those who died after having been invalided. As to the promotion of captain Gambier, it hap-quiry ought to be instituted. pened by his being in the East Indies when his captain died. The hon. member had objected, that the promotion in the marines was not commensurate with that in Mr. Grey Bennet said, that the only the navy. The reason was, that the pro-grounds of promotion ought to be merit motion in the marines was according to that favourite practice which he wished to introduce into the navy; namely, the rising by seniority. The marines were

Sir Isaac Coffin contended, that the system of promotion at present pursued was much superior to the old one, and adverted to the condition of the fleet that sailed under commodore Byron in the American war, when there were officers on board who had not seen the salt sea for 16 or 17 years. He was convinced, that the happy mixture of different orders which composed the naval service, enabled us single-handed to fight the world.

Mr. F. Palmer thought it right that, in such a case as the present, some attention ought to be paid to public opinion. Whether officers were promoted on parliamentary influence or were not, an in

Captain Gordon vindicated the promotion of midshipmen as being indispensably necessary for the good of the service.

and standing in the service; and on this
ground he was at issue with those who
advocated the existing system.
gallant admiral near him had compared

The

the present times with the American war, and derived great consolation, as to the conduct of the admiralty, from the comparison. Had the question been agitated during the American war, the reference would then have been to the battle of the Hogue. If at the time of the battle of the Hogue, something worse would have alleged, as to the fleet which watched the Spanish Armada. He thought we were but too apt to praise our own times at the expense of those long past.

Mr. Secretary Canning said, he had always thought, that the reverse of the hon. gentleman's proposition was the one which was most generally accepted; namely, that we were disposed to extol past times at the expense of the present. He was of opinion, that the case of the hon. mover had been most triumphantly met by his hon, and gallant friend near him. So ably had his hon. and gallant friend justified the principle of selection adopted by the admiralty, that what had been charged as abuse, had turned out to be merit. He considered the question to be resolved into this-whether promotion should go by seniority altogether, or whether a portion of it should be left open to discretion? He contended that the statement of the hon. member had not at all borne out the case which he had pledged himself to establish. With regard to the present state of the navy, he believed that very little difference of opinion existed. He thought that the present plan of the service was the best which could be devised to preserve the glory of the navy in time of war, and to maintain it in peace; and that it was in perfect analogy with the mixed principles of the British constitution.

served their country to the brink of the grave, and not allow them in their latter years to be trodden down like reptiles. The hon. member concluded by moving, by way of an amendment, an address to his majesty, the substance of which was, that while the House of Commons were fully satisfied that the lords of the admiralty discharged the trust reposed in them with fidelity, integrity, and judgment, they felt it necessary to call upon his majesty to take into consideration the propriety of doing away with the practice of making senior captains rear-admirals, with the view of superannuating them; and further to recommend that senior captains should be allowed to pass on regularly to the rank of flag-officers.

The amendment not being seconded, fell of course to the ground.

Mr. Hume said, he should not delay the House with many observations, as he had, in reality, little to answer. What he contended for had been admitted by the gallant admiral (sir G. Cockburn), and declared by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) to be a most triumphant answer to the charges made; namely, that promotion in the navy was given to branches of noble families and to parliamentary interest; "that it was to that class the country must look for its safety and the House its defence." He refused his assent to that principle, as a new and dangerous one, and contended that merit and length of service were the principles on which promotion in the navy had, in better times, been made, and had raised the navy to its late pre-eminence; and it was on officers so promoted that the country could best rely in the hour of danger. Were not lords St. Vincent, Exmouth, Sir F. Ommanney arose amidst loud cries Duncan, Nelson, &c. examples? If every of " question!" mixed with symptoms of man of family who chose to enter the navy disapprobation. We understood him to were, agreeably to the gallant officer's suggest to the lords of the admiralty the declaration, to be intitled to promotion, propriety of advancing officers in the navy on his simply passing the number of according to seniority. He particularly years required by the service, he trembled recommended to their lordships' conside- for the British navy at no distant period, ration that valuable class of officers, who and he protested against such proceedacted as masters and masters mates. He ings. It had been asserted confidently, wished to know from the gallant admiral that a large portion of the promotions near him, how many masters had been had been given to merit, and part only to promoted since the war? He felt parliamentary and family interest: in one deeply upon this question, as his own instance, six to one. But whilst he father had been greatly ill-used, and ex- agreed in the propriety of joining those posed to the most galling and heart-break- claims, he contended, that the examinaing neglect. He trusted that the govern- tion of the navy list would show, that ment of the country would afford protec-merit and length of service had got but a tion to those brave officers who had very small share of the employment or

JURORS QUALIFICATION BILL.] Mr. Western said, that he rose to submit to the House a motion which involved, in its consequences, matters of very great importance. The object of it, as his notice indicated, went to an alteration in the Constitution of Juries, in so far at least as related to the qualification (by possession of property) of those who may be called upon to perform the important functions of a juror.

of Elizabeth enacts, that every juror shall have an estate of freehold to the annual value of 41. at least. But the value of money decreasing, this qualification was raised, by the 16th and 17th of Charles 2nd to 20%. per annum. This was a temporary act, and suffered to expire. The 4th and 5th of William and Mary fixed it at 101. per annum in England, and 6l. in Wales, of freehold or copyhold lands; which is the first time copyholders, as such, were admitted to serve on juries in any of the king's courts of Westminster; and then by the 3rd Geo. 2nd any leaseholder of 500 years absolute, or on life or lives of the clear yearly value of 20%. above the rent reserved, is qualified to serve on juries.

This attention shown by the legislature to the qualification of a juror, is a proof of the importance which has been felt at all times to their possession of some property, and it was as distant as possible from his (Mr. W's.) intention, to derogate in the least degree from the wisdom of our ancestors; on this point, he contended, on the contrary, that in calling out jurors from the extensive class now excluded, we should more effectually accomplish the real object

The hon. member said, he hoped the House would not be alarmed at the idea of touching the frame and constitution of juries. He was fully of opinion, that the measure he contemplated demanded their most deliberate attention; but still it was such as, he felt confident they would sanction; and which he thought, indeed, had only failed of adoption ere then from pure inadvertence to the great alteration of circumstances which time had induced. His object was, in fact, simply to render persons possessed of personal property to a given amount, as well as real, eligible, that was to say, qualified, and liable to serve as jurors. And when he reflected upon the vast amount and proportion of personal property in this kingdom which had grown-that of having responsible and intelliup in latter times, and the character and situations in life of the multitude possessing that species of property, and that alone, he thought the House would feel with him that it was surprising that they had not yet been called out to the service of their country as jurors. From the earliest period of history, it would be found that a juror was required to possess a certain amount of property as proof of some respectability and station in life and a consequent security to the party to be tried. The accused person had accordingly a right to challenge a juror, if he did not so possess an adequate amount. It was, indeed, one if not the chief ground of direct challenge; Blackstone, after reciting the four principal grounds of challenge to the jury given by Sir Edward Coke, propter honoris respectum, defectum, affectum, and delictum, says," but the principal is, deficiency of estate sufficient to qualify him to be a juror." A variety of statutes consequently at various periods of our history are to be found, under which the requisite qualifications have been described. By the 13th of Edward the 1st, jurors must be persons that can dispend 20s. by the year at the least; which was increased to 40s. by the 21st of Edward the 1st, and 2nd of Henry the 5th. The 27th

gent persons to serve the office. Neither was it any impeachment of the expediency of formerly confining the qualifications to the possession of real property. In former times, every body who had any rank above the lowest class, was an owner of land of some amount, and the possession of land was therefore an indispensable voucher for his responsibility. The case was wonderously different now, in this country, where the possessors of public securities had an income collectively amounting nearly to the landed rental of the kingdom, exclusive of joint-stock companies, stocks in trade &c. to an amount beyond all calculation: To continue these persons under the interdict of antient laws however wise at the time, was now as unwise as could well be conceived. The practical effect was in counties such as might be expected. Not one third of the persons who were, for all real objects, adequately qualified, were ever summoned to the execution of these most important duties. He would not say that the jurors who were summoned were inefficient or incompetent persons; but he would assert, that, in the possessors of personal property, there were three times as many not summoned as those who were, that are quite as competent in every respect, and often much more so.