Commons Sitting of 7 May 1805

MINUTES.
— On the motion of Mr. Calcraft, a new writ was ordered to be issued for the election of a representative to serve in parliament for the city of Coventry, in the room of Francis William Barlow, esq. deceased.—Mr. Foster gave notice that tomorrow he would move for a committee to consider of the consumption of beer in Ireland, and of making an allowance to the retailers of spirits in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Waterford, and Limerick, for the losses which they may incur in consequence of the new regulations. He should also move for a committee to inquire into the Stamp Duties Act for that part of the United Kingdom.—The Irish Post Road bill was committed, and ordered to be reported tomorrow. —The Irish Promissory Note bill, and the Irish Bank Tokens bill were reported, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.—The Irish Loan bill was read a third time, and passed.—The Paymaster General's Office Regulation bill was read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a committee on Monday next.—Mr. George Ponsonby rose to make the motion, of which he gave notice yesterday, relative to the Country Road act. He said, by the present law, the grand jury at the spring assizes were empowered to make improvements, and the money is to be raised at the summer assizes. But there was no power in any one to retain any sum for particular purposes, so that if a road was made of bad materials, and grew bad, there was no sum at disposal to make it better, but it must remain so till next year. One of the objects he had in view was, that the overseers or road makers should retain such a sum as might he deemed necessary to fill up such chasms as might be made in roads. Another, that in several parts the roads must be made with stones, and they who make the roads have not proper weapons to break them. The jury should, therefore, provide those. He hoped the gentlemen from Ireland would not think him an enemy to the present system; on the con-

617
trary, he wished the grand jury to have more power if necessary. He concluded with moving, "that leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the laws now existing relative to making roads in Ireland, pursuant to presentiments of grand juries." Granted.—A petition of the master, wardens, freemen and commonalty, of the mystery of vintners of the city of London, under their common seal, being offered to be presented to the house; the chancellor of the exchequer, by his majesty's command, acquainted the house, that his majesty, having been informed of the contents of the said petition, recommended it to the consideration of the house. Then the said petition was brought up, and read; taking notice of the bill to alter and amend an act, passed in the 40th year of his present majesty, for making wet docks, basons, cuts, and other works, for the greater accommodation and security of shipping, commerce, and revenue, within the port of London, and for extending the powers and provisions of the said act; and setting forth, that the petitioners apprehend they may suffer loss or damage by reason of the works mentioned in the said act, and submit that they are entitled to compensation in respect thereof; and therefore praying, that provision may be made in the said bill for that purpose Ordered, That the said petition be referred to the consideration of a committee; and that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same, as it shall appear to them, to the house. And a committee was appointed accordingly; and the said committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. —Mr. Calcraft moved for the following papers, which were ordered;—a copy of the grant or charter of her majesty queen Elizabeth, to the corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, dated 11th June, in the 36th year of her reign: a copy of the grant or charter of his late majesty king Charles II. to the corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, dated 24.th June, in the 17th year of his reign: an account of the quantity of all the ballast on the river Thames, which has been shipped from the several wharfs within the jurisdiction of the corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, for the last 30 years, particularizing the quantity shipped in each year, and for which the said corporation received one penny per ton, and distinguishing the kind or quality of the ballast shipped: an account of the quantity of ballast taken from the bottom of the river Thames by the corpora-
618
tion of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, in each year during the last thirty years: for an account of the quantity of ballast taken by the corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, in their lighters, out of vessels which have entered the port of London, in each year, for the last thirty years, whether such vessels were partly laden, or in ballast."—On the motion of the Attorney General, the house went into a committee on the Stipendiary Curates bill, which after being reported, was recommitted for tomorrow.—On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the house went into a committee on the Property Duty bill. Previously to its commitment the chancellor of the exchequer stated, that the clauses he proposed to introduce into this bill were merely of a verbal nature, or such as related. to regulation only, and not such as would produce any alteration in the rates or quantum of the duty. A number of clauses were then severally read, and, after a good deal of conversation, agreed to. The report was ordered to be received on Friday next. —Mr. Alexander brought up the report of the committee on the deficiencies of the civil list, when the resolution granting to his majesty the sum of 10,458 l. 1s. 6¾d. for the purpose herein mentioned, was read and agreed to.—The committee on the Irish Land Partition bill was postponed bill tomorrow.—Mr. Loveden, on Monday, gave notice of a motion to be brought on Thursday the 16th inst. He said he did not apprehend it could occasion much discussion, as it would be similar to what he had formerly proposed; for fresh lists of unpaid or unclaimed dividends at the bank, &c.—but he meant to push the enquiry further than he had before done, and to call for an account of the suitors money locked up by the court of chancery.

IRISH ELECTION BILL.
—On the question that the Irish Election bill be read a second time.
Colonel Bagwellsaid, he had no objection to the principles of the bill, and hoped, therefore, it would then be read a second time.
Mr. Leesaid, that although he should accede to the second reading, he did not mean to exclude himself from objecting to some particular parts of it.
Mr. George Ponsonbysaid, that if the principle of the bill was to ascertain accurately those persons who had a right to vote at elections, and to make that right known to those who were candidates, he approved of the

619
bill; but still there were many clauses to which he meant to object in the committee.
Mr. Richard Martinobjected to the bill going into a committee. By one clause in it, any person has a right to enter a traverse against the title of every 40s. freeholder, and it would take fifteen years value of it to pay the expences of defending his right. Besides, the bill vilified the country; for it says that all vice was attributable to the poor and all virtue to the rich; he therefore objected to it, on the ground of unseemliness. He thought the election law of the two countries should be assimilated as nearly as possible, and this subject should not be taken up on such light and flippant grounds as it had been. He thought a committee should be appointed to take the matter into consideration.
Colonel Bagwellsaid there was no duty on freeholders, except on leases, and that was necessary, in order to ascertain the right to the freehold.
Sir John Newportthought he saw several objections as to the traverse and other points, but these might be modified, altered, or done away in the committee.
Earl Templesaid a few words in favour of the bill going to a committee. After which the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday.

PETITION FROM BEDFORD RESPECTING THE 10th NAVAL REPORT.
—A petition of several freeholders of the county of Bedford, was presented to the house and read; setting forth, "that the petitioners unite with their constituents at large in thanking the house for their resolutions of the 8th and 10th of April, founded on the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry: by the first of those resolutions the house vindicated the character of their country, by censuring a minister proved to have been guilty of a gross violation of law, and a flagrant breach of duty; by the second, the house laid before the sovereign the sense of his people, and enabled him, by a ready compliance with their wishes, to endear himself more than ever to their loyal and affectionate hearts; and the petitioners implore the house steadily to persevere in detecting all other abuses which are pointed at, as well in the tenth as in the eleventh report of the said commissioners, attentively to investigate all irregularities which may be brought to light by any of their succeeding reports, impartially, minutely, and resolutely to examine into the public expenditure in all the
620
other branches of administration, and to inflict exemplary punishment on all who shall be found guilty of, or in any wise aiding, abetting, or conniving at similar frauds and depredations; and that the petitioners are thoroughly persuaded that it is needless for them to urge any fresh motive to the house in order to induce them to adopt such measures; they rely upon the knowledge the house have of their duties, and upon their sympathy and fellow feeling with their constituents, who, during a long, a difficult, and trying period of war, in times of severe hardships and scarcity, have chearfully submitted to the heaviest burthens; that what they granted liberally should be applied honestly was the least the petitioners could hope from men whose consciences and bounden duty enjoined a faithful discharge of the great trust reposed in them. Disappointed of this hope, and finding on the contrary that a minister filling many great and lucrative offices, high in the confidence of his sovereign, one of the foremost in his pretended efforts to reform abuses, has been at length himself detected in conniving for a series of years at the foulest peculation; the petitioners now approach the house with their claims to protection and justice; and they trust, therefore, that in prosecuting the inquiries necessary for these ends, the house will proceed in that spirit of firmness and integrity which dictated the resolutions of the 8th and 10th of April; and that they will not trust this great cause out of their own hands, nor again suffer themselves to be deceived by the plausible promises of men who openly violate the laws of the legislature, and hold in defiance and contempt the wholesome guards they enact against the possible malversations of office; and that the petitioners also trust that the example of the past will act upon the house as a warning for the future; that they will see and acknowledge the just value of those principles on which our ancestors established the power and authority of the house of commons; that the house will feel their office to be that of control over the servants of the crown; and that jealousy and vigilance instead of confidence and compliance, are their true and distinguishing characteristics; to this system the petitioners humbly hope that the house will direct their immediate and unvarying attention, as the system, by which the country may best be defended, and as the only one under which the constitution can be safe."

PETITION FROM NORFOLK RESPECT- ING THE 10th NAVAL REPORT.
—A petition of the gentlemen, clergy, and freeholders of the county of Norfolk, convened by the high sheriff of the said county, at the castle of Norwich, in the shirehouse there, on Tuesday the 14th day of May 1805, was presented to the house and read, setting forth, "that the petitioners beg leave to express their gratitude to the house for the steps which they have already taken towards the detection and punishment of those servants of the crown who have defied the laws, broken their trust, and applied enormous sums of the public money to their own corrupt purposes of emolument and power; and that in the name of a loyal and suffering people, the petitioners implore the house not to relax in their exertions; they intreat them to consider how patiently the petitioners have seen millions added to millions of the national debt, the rapid advance in every article of consumption, their burthens increasing, and their means of bearing them diminishing, in the just hope that while engaged in extensive wars what they contributed with cheerfulness would be applied with fidelity, and as the law expressly directed; and that faithful to their first duties, the house have recorded, by the resolutions of the 8th and 10th of April, that the people of England have been grossly wronged by lord Melville; and the petitioners humbly represent to the house, the necessity of effectually protecting the nation against future depredations; and therefore praying the house, first, to investigate and sift to the bottom the remaining charges of abuse in the application of the public money, contained in the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry: secondly, to examine minutely into the nature of those irregularities brought to light in the eleventh report of the said commissioners, and likewise whatever may appear culpable or suspicious in any of their future reports: thirdly, to institute immediate and rigorous enquiries into the expenditure of every other department of executive government; and that in performing these acts of necessary and expected justice, the petitioners are persuaded that the house will take no other guides than its own wisdom and resolution;. and that, warned by the example of detected guilt, and awake to the frauds which have been practised upon their own facility, as well as upon the public purse, the house will perceive the necessity of resorting to those principles which prevailed in the better days of our constitution, and of acting upon a sys-
622
tem of vigilance and jealousy in preference to one of blind and implicit confidence in ministers."

PETITION FROM SOUTHAMPTON RESPECTING THE 10th NAVAL REPORT.
—A petition of the inhabitants of the town and county of the town of Southampton was presented to the house and read; setting forth, "that the petitioners would feel themselves criminally indifferent were they not to express their gratitude for the votes of the house on the 8th and 10th days of April last, which declared lord viscount Melville guilty of a gross violation of the law and a high breach of duty, votes which have diffused joy and confidence throughout every part of the united kingdom; and that, among the various irregularities and abuses which have been detected and exposed by the commissioners of naval enquiry, none has created more jealousy and alarm in the breasts of the petitioners than the application of monies, appropriated by the legislature for the uses of the navy, to other purposes, a practice replete with danger to the constitution and to the liberty of this country; and that the detection of such malversations in one department of the state induces apprehensions that others may not be more faithfully and honestly administered; and the petitioners therefore think it their duty to implore the national representatives that their intention, already manifested, of instituting enquiries into every branch of the public expenditure, may be speedily carried into effect, a measure calculated to compose the public mind, to confirm the confidence, and to secure the unanimity and energy of the people."—Ordered to lie upon the table.

PETITION FROM NORTHUMBERLAND RESPECTING THE 10TH NAVAL REPORT.
—A petition of the gentlemen, clergy, and freeholders of the county of Northumberland, held at Morpeth on the 24th of May 1805, was presented to the house, and read; setting forth, "that tile petitioners beg leave to congratulate the house on the result of the discussions that have taken place in the house respecting the gross peculation and misapplication of the public money, in open defiance of the law, that have been detected by the commissioners of naval enquiry; and they pray the house to persevere in that virtuous line of conduct, which on that important occasion diffused such general satisfaction throughout the country; and they intreat the house not only to continue their enquiries into the

623
abuses in the department of the navy, but to extend the same into every branch of the public expenditure, and to adopt a solid and permanent system of economy, well convinced that rigid frugality alone can enable this country to support the present enormous weight of public burthens, and sustain the awful contest in which we are engaged: and the petitioners implore the house to punish guilt, however protected or exalted, and to rescue from peculation and plunder a loyal people, who have ever willingly contributed to the real exigencies of the state, and who never complain but when their generous temper is imposed upon, and thus will the commons of the united kingdom confirm the confidence of the people, and instil into the hearts of all good men a warm and steady attachment to the British constitution."—Ordered to lie upon the table.

PETITION FROM THE NAVY BOARD RESPECTING MR. TUCKER'S PETITION.
Sir A. S. Hamondpresented a petition from the commissioners of the navy; the object of which was, he said, to obtain from the house permission for the navy board to exculpate themselves from die charges made against them, in a letter of Mr. Tucker, formerly a commissioner, addressed to the board of admiralty, on the 24.th of April: a copy of which letter had been ordered to be laid before the house. The object of the commissioners in this petition was, to have laid before the house two letters, with their inclosures, addressed by them to the admiralty, on the 4th instant, which they deemed indispensable to the vindication of their own honour, from the charges made in the letter first mentioned, and in which they pledge themselves to refute the statement made by Mr. Tucker.—The petition was received, and is as follows: "A petition of the there undersigned principal officer's and commissioners of his majesty's navy was presented to the house, and,read; setting forth that the petitioners have learnt from the votes, that Benj. Tucker, esq. late a commissioner of his majesty's navy, did, on the 25th of April, present a petition to the house, praying that a copy of his letter to the secretary of the admiralty of the 24th of April might be called for, and which letter has been since laid before the house, and printed; and that the petitioners deeming Mr. Tucker's petition and letter of a most libellous and slanderous nature against them, they have felt themselves bound to
624
address the lords commissioners of the admiralty in vindication of their honour and the proceedings of their board; and being anxious to remove any impression which may heave been made in parliament to their disadvantage by Mr. Tucker's letter and petition, they pray that the house will be pleased to give directions that a copy of the petitioners' two letters to the secretary of the admiralty of the 4th instant may be laid before the house."
Sir A.S. Hamondthen moved, that copies of the letters from the commissioners of the navy to the board of admiralty, of the 4th instant, by laid on the table.
Mr. Kinnardrose, not, he said, to oppose the motion, but to call the attention of the house to the time and manner in which it was brought forward by the hon. member. Six weeks had now elapsed since he (Mr. Kinnaird) had given notice of his intention to bring forward a motion of enquiry respecting the conduct of an hon. officer (sir Home Popham) on the ground of which motion he was certainly fortified, and very considerably, by the letter alluded to. During the whole of that time, the navy board, and without any previous notice had moved for the production of letters, written but three days since, which, before their house knew any thing of their contents, were professedly calculated to overturn all imputation upon the navy board, with respect to the hon. officer. How board, with respect to the hon. officer. How was it that the navy board, who seemed so much alive to injurious imputations, had not written those letters of vindication sooner, or why was the production of them deferred to so late a moment, as to render it almost impossible for them to be printed in time for the due consideration of members? He hoped the house would be gratified with some explanation on this ground from the hon. member. He (Mr. K.) had given notice to bring forward his question to-morrow, and by that notice it was his intention strictly the house, that this was the very first intimation received of any document intended to be brought forward in contradiction to those documents already before the house, and upon which solely members were left to form their opinions; he would there-

625
fore be guided by the opinion of the house, whether he was bound to abide by his former notice in bringing forward his question to-morrow, if the letters moved for by the hon. member should turn out to be of such a nature as to place his intentions in a view in which they ought not to stand, or involve any new mattes that required farther deliberation, or rendered necessary the production of other documents, in order to the fullest and most mature discussion of a subject so highly important. To vindicate his own conduct, as well in first proposing to bring forward the enquiry, as in persevering to that end, he begged leave to read the following passage from the letter of Mr. Tucker to the board of admiralty, so strong and so clear upon the subject, that he was at some loss to conjecture how the navy board, by any letter of theirs, could refute statements evidently made upon the ground of their own reports and accounts: "having, I trust, fully vindicated every part of my conduct through the whole of this investigation, I think it my duty to their lordships, to the country, and to the house of commons in particular, to call their attention to one of the papers which has been laid by the navy board before the house of commons, dated the 19th February, 1805, (page 301,) purporting to be "an account of the expences of the Romney, from the 25th Nov. 1800, to the 2d June, 1803, as nearly as can be ascertained at the navy office," in order that their lordships may judge,whether that paper could have possibly been drawn up with any other view than to deceive and mislead the judgement of parliament. That account is declared to be framed, so as to bring under one point of view "how much she exceeded the proportion of the vote of parliament allowed for wear and tear, or came within that sum." Sir, in that statement there are omissions of the most extraordinary nature and magnitude; and I must take the liberty to add, in the language of the navy board, that I scarcely think there ever were such extraordinary means resorted to, to produce a particular effect! Will the navy board pretend that they have not examined that account before they signed it, and that their confidence has been a second time misplaced, and upon whom will they charge it? Or, sir, will they continue to vouch for the fairness and truth of that paper? Sir, in that paper they have omitted, by what accident they best know, all her repairs, and the stores supplied to her, be-
626
tween December 1801, and June 1803! They have suppressed all knowledge of the stores purchased in the Red Sea, and of those supplied at Madras, as well as of her repair and refit when she was docked at Bombay, in the months of October and November, 1802; notwithstanding they have, in that very paper, given credit for eight months stores which were brought home in her, and must of necessity have been received at one of these places; and that it appears (page 114), "a frigate could not have come out of dock at Chatham, by two tides, had it not been for the Romney's sea store of copper!" They cannot plead ignorance of these transactions; the purchases in the Red Sea have been reported on by the navy board to their lordships (page 378), and the repairs at Bombay have proved on oath (page 99), by the carpenter of the ship at Chatham, before the junior surveyor of the navy! These facts, sir, speak too plain to require any comment from me, or to be susceptible of satisfactory explanation any where, but at their lordships table, or at the bar of the house of commons.—Having shortly adverted to this passage of Mr. Tucker's letter, he begged leave to ask the hon. member, whether the vindication he proposed to bring forward, applied merely to this part of the letter of Mr. Tucker, or to the whole; and to this question he requested to call the attention of the house, for it was of much importance to know, whether the vindicatory letters were intended to cancel the errors stated in this paragraph, or whether they took a wider scope? If to this only, he should bring forward his motion to-morrow. But if to the whole subject of enquiry, he should think it indecent to press his motion, until the house had full time to consider the subject of those letters, and be prepared for any subject of discussion they were calculated to introduce.
Sir A. S. Hamondanswered, that although the letters in question were certainly directed to the leading subject of the hon. gent.'s motion, yet surely there were other topics to which it was equally necessary to direct refutation. He could assure him, however, the letters were so short as to require no delay for consideration, and might, he hoped, be printed in time, or might lie on the table for the perusal of members; and as to the delay of the navy board in writing to the admiralty to refute the assertions of Mr. Tucker, no avoidable

627
delay had occurred; for when the hon. member was informed that the navy board were unremittingly employed in their avocations from ten in the morning till six in the evening every day, he would perceive they had little leisure to answer the long letter of a gentleman who had nothing to do. He begged to observe, that the navy board were brought into this question in a very extraordinary way. The hon, officer, who was the object of the enquiry, had stated himself to be extremely anxious that it should come forward, but on reading the original report, he stated that there were considerable inaccuracies in it, and referred for revision to the navy board; upon which revision it appeared that there were such inaccuracies. It was then upon this report that the imputations of Mr. Tucker were founded; but he trusted the navy board would not he refused the right of producing correct statements for their own vindication, which he pledged himself would prove those imputations to be unfounded.
Mr. Kinnairdsaid he should persevere in bringing forward his motion; but he begged the hon. member to recollect, that the original report was made six weeks ago, and that no attempt had been made to correct its alleged inaccuracies until after the suggestions of the hon. officer (of whose vindication he should be as proud as any man) and on the very eve of bringing forward the question upon the original report.
Mr. Tierneythought it would be right maturely to consider upon which of the two reports the house was to found its deliberations. He thought to-morrow too soon, however, to bring the question forward, as the documents now proposed to be brought forward might render it necessary to move for others. He could not see that the discussion, as it related to sir Home Popham, was likely to extend to any great length; for such was the nature of the several items for consideration, that it was impossible for any men but naval officers, professionally and technically acquainted with them, to be competent to the discussion. He hoped the hon. member would postpone his motion for a few days, more especially if the letters should turn out to be such as to require farther time for consideration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas inclined to think, the proper mode of proceeding in this case was not that which
628
now seemed to be in contemplation of gentlemen, namely, an open discussion by the whole house; but that it would be much more proper to refer the question, with all the documents thereon, to the investigation of a committee, who should be instructed to report the evidence, with their opinions thereon, to the house, and such he understood to have been the original intention of the hon member who proposed the question. But if it was to be an open discussion, he could see no inconvenience that would arise from the delay, if necessary, of a few day; but however that might be settled, he would take leave to say, it was quite impossible that any understanding on the subject should be arrived at to-day, as to any arrangement that might appear expedient on to-morrow. He hoped the house would not, however, proceed to any decision without a fair hearing, and affording a full opportunity to the gallant officer to bring forward every proof necessary for clearing his own character. It was not merely the character of the hon. officer, it was not merely the character of the navy board, that were at stake; there were other persons, in other quarters, whose characters depended on its result. It was a matter that involved some of the dearest rights of the constitution of this country, and materially concerned the exercise of prerogatives, which involved the safety of every man. A right hon. gent. seemed to think the subject one which could occupy no great length of discussion, but let it not be imagined, that the subject the question involved was to pass sub silentio, for it was one which demanded the fullest investigation.
Mr. Tierneywas as anxious as the right hon. gent to sift the subject to the very bottom; feeling, as he did, that the navy board stood in a situation of such high and important trust with the country, that it ought not to remain a single hour in a dubious light. He was therefore inclined to oppose any delay of the discussion not absolutely necessary; but as to the hon. officer, he could have no sort of objection to allow him every fair opportunity for his vindication.
Mr. Kinnairdsaid, he was far from abandoning the charge he had made, founded as it was upon the reports of the navy board themselves; but it was impossible not to see that the navy board themselves were connected with the charge, for they assumed to themselves that which only was

629
meant to refer to the conduct of an hon. officer.—The motion of sir A. Hamond was put and agreed to; and shortly afterwards the, letters were laid on tie table by Mr. Dickenson, and ordered to be printed.

NAVAL ADMINISTRATION OF EARL ST. VINCENT.
Mr. Jeffery(of Poole), agreeably to the notice of a former day, rose to bring forward his promised motion, for the production of several papers, relating to the naval department, during the administration of earl St. Vincent; and though, he said, they were certainly voluminous, there was not one amongst them, idle, frivolous, or unimportant; but such as would not fail to make a strong, impression upon the mind of the house, and fully to account for the depressed and degraded state to which the British navy was at this moment reduced; and which, had lord St. Vincent continued at the head of our naval affairs to this day, would have sunk to a state still lower, and less competent to meet the formidable enemy with whom we had to contend. He lamented that the task of bringing forward a motion of so much importance should have fallen to the lot of a person so humble and incompetent as himself; but seeing no other gentleman attempt to take it up, he felt it his duty to bring it forward. He was conscious there was no department in the country more important than that of the navy, or that more urgently demanded strict vigilance and minute investigation. He hoped his zeal upon this point had not carried him too far, or led him to endeavour to disclose too much, for secrets there certainly were, which ought not to be exposed to the possible knowledge of an enemy. Having, however, explained to the house the object of the motion he meant to submit, it would be for their wisdom to decide how far it was right to grant his request; but if the documents he should require should be allowed him, he would himself undertake to prove, to the conviction of every man who heard him, the position he had laid down. The hon. member then proceeded to detail to the house a series of eighteen motions for returns of the state of the navy, from the year 1793, to the present time, under the several heads of ships of the line and frigates, built in the king's yards, or those of the merchants, distinguishing the periods when contracted for, and when finished, or likely to be finished; the like of such vessels, broke up, or sold, or lost by capture or accident; the like of such
630
vessels in commission, either home-built, or captured from the enemy; the like of vessels, manned and equipped for general service, and those for harbour service: these with a view of comparing the state of our navy during the administration of earl St. Vincent; and those which preceded his lordship's appointment, and immediately followed his resignation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that as to the first motion of those proposed by the hon. member, he had no great objection; but he was by no means prepared to judge of the propriety of agreeing, at the moment, to so long a string of motions, involving such a variety of subjects, many of which, upon mature deliberation, it might be utterly improper to comply with. He therefore hoped the hon. member would not be inclined to press such a series of motions, without giving some farther time for the house to consider the propriety or impropriety of agreeing to them.
Admiral Markhamassured the house, that nothing could possibly give to the noble lord, whose conduct was the avowed object of the motions just proposed, higher pleasure than the production of every document, and the fullest investigation of every circumstance that in any degree concerned his character or conduct. That noble lord was conscious of nothing in his conduct that he could have the slightest wish to conceal; and, therefore, on behalf of the noble lord, and so far as he was personally concerned, he had not the slightest objection to the production of all the documents just specified, provided the friends of the noble lord were to be at liberty to move afterwards for the production of such other documents as they should think necessary on the other side of the question. But with respect to the motions, generally, he presumed the hon. gentleman was not aware of the extent and tendency they would go; not merely to the conduct of earl St. Vincent, but of the whole British navy, since 1793, to the present time. As to the distinction between ships built in the king's yards, or the merchants' yards, he had very strong objections, because it would disclose a history of the supplies of timber for our navy, and the sources whence furnished, foreign and domestic. And though time enquiry was certainly a must desirable one, there were very strong objections to a public disclosure of the result. The hon. admiral

631
was ready to admit, our navy was not altogether in quite so good a state as could be wished; where the blame rested, he did not wish to say, but certainly it was not with the noble lord, upon the whole of whose of conduct, so far was he from deprecating enquiry, that he anxiously desired and courted it.
Mr. Greyagreed perfectly with the hon. admiral; and as the friend of the noble earl, and on his behalf, declared, that he courted enquiry. But he would put it to the discretion of the hon. member, whether the advanced period of the session, and the many important topics still pending discussion, were circumstances which rendered it advisable for him to introduce, or probable that the house could possibly entertain so voluminous a string of resolutions, the most numerous he believed ever proposed at any one time in that house by an individual member. The production of the papers required, might render it necessary to move for others quite as voluminous; both must be printed, and what time could then remain of the sessions to read, to consider, and to discuss them? Much better would it be for the hon. member, if he had any charge to make against earl St. Vincent, to bring it at once. Let it be referred, with all the documents, to a Committee, and let them report their decision; and if there appeared parliamentary ground for accusation against the noble earl, let it be followed up in a parliamentary way. The hon. member had talked of the disgraceful and degraded state of the British navy, during the administration of the noble earl. Upon what circumstance in the affairs of the navy, during that period, the hon. member had founded his assertion, he (Mr. Grey) was yet to learn; but he begged to ask the hon. member in what period of our naval history was the British flag more signally decorated with laurels in every quarter of the globe, then during the period of the noble earl's administration? If the hon. member had any charge to make against the noble earl, let him bring it forward. It was an enquiry desirable to the house, and to the country, and to none more so than to the noble lord. On behalf of the noble earl, therefore, he challenged the enquiry, and hoped it would not be relinquished.
Mr. Jefferyreplied by saying, he did not bring forward these motions lightly. It was no light charge for him to state that the degraded state of our navy was
632
entirely owing at this moment to the negligence of the noble lord. He wished, however, to bring no charge until the papers were before the house, out of which that charge was to arise. He wished to see his way before he made his charge; but if it was not founded in the documents for which be moved, he should most readily acknowledge his error, and be ready to apologize to the house and to the public officers for giving them unnecessary trouble.—With respect to the laurels acquired by the British navy under the noble lord's administration, they were attributable not to his direction, but to the eminent state of perfection in which he found that navy on his succession to its direction. It was then a navy fit for Britain to possess, and competent to meet and vanquish her enemies in every quarter of the globe; but was that the boasted superiority and perfection it maintained under the auspices of the noble earl, who never contracted for more than the building of two ships of the line? Was this the way to keep up the superiority of our navy, or was it not the certain road to that degradation to which it had since fallen? He disclaimed vindictive motives; he had voted with the glorious majority for the degradation of lord Melville, and he acted in this instance from motives equally just. He was cheered without doors by many men of character for his intentions upon this head, and he knew many independent members who, though they did not think fit themselves to bring forward this business, yet were glad to see the enquiry come forward. He had no objection however to postpone his motions to a more distant day, if the house wished.
Mr. Greyreplied, that the hon, member had made out no charge against his noble friend, save by his own assertions: such a charge must rest upon other proofs.
Mr. Jefferyanswered, the proofs must rise out of the papers.
Mr. Tierneywished the hon. gentleman to fix what day he would bring forward his charge.
Mr. Jefferyanswered Thursday; and till then he had no objection to withdraw his motions.—Withdrawn with leave of the house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, as many of the motions contained papers, the revealing of which might be detrimental to the public service, he hoped the hon. gentleman would give him a copy of the whole,

633
that he might be able, in the mean time, to consider how far it might be proper to grant them; to which Mr. Jeffery agreed.—Adjourned.