HC Deb 29 April 1817 vol 36 cc51-82
Mr. Tierney

said, he now rose to renew, in point of substance though not of form, a motion which he had made last session of parliament; but in which motion he unfortunately had not succeeded. That motion was, "That an humble address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to represent to his royal highness, that his majesty's faithful Commons, relying upon the gracious disposition of his royal highness to concur in all such measures of economy as may be consistent with the security of the country, humbly pray that his royal highness would be graciously pleased to give directions, that the division of the state offices made in 1794, (by which, in addition to the secretaries of state for the home and foreign departments, a secretary of state was constituted for the war department), be revised, and that the departments of the secretaries of state be, now that peace is happily restored, again placed with all convenient dispatch, upon the footing on which they stood in 1793." He now intended to move for a committee to inquire into that subject. He did not wish the House to suppose that there were any doubts now in his own mind as to the propriety of abolishing the office; but he had resorted to this course because he saw, in questions of this sort, he had not the smallest chance of success in any other way; for when assertion was met by assertion he found a deaf ear was generally presented to that of the one side, while gentlemen in office were more easily believed, it being supposed that they were more likely to be better informed, than their opponents. It was this circumstance that induced him to move for a committee, to inquire how far the office of third secretary of state was necessary, and whether the duties of that office could not be transferred to another, without any detriment to the public service. One great inducement for him to undertake this subject was, that he had the previous sanction of his majesty's ministers; for a committee of their own appointment was named by the lords of the treasury last year, for purposes under the description of which this subject particularly fell. Mr. Ryder, Lord Binning, and Mr. Sturges Bourne were appointed last year to inquire into all offices created since the commencement of the war in 1793, with a view to ascertain what reductions could be made. They were confined in their operations to the offices created since the war, as it was no doubt presumed that all those created anterior to the war were of too sacred a nature to be touched. Now this office of third secretary had been created since 1794; it had been created not only since the war, but expressly on account of the war. And how this office had escaped the notice of those three gen- tlemen, was to him quite unintelligible, except on the supposition that there was an understanding in all such committees as the one in question, never to go before the wishes of the House, but carefully to keep back, till goaded on by the reiterated calls of the House.

He begged the House to consider that all he was now called on to do was to make out a strong enough case for referring the subject to the examination of a committee, and nothing more. It was sufficient for him to establish that the secretary of state for the war and colonial department had been created since 1793, to urge the authority of the treasury itself to induce gentlemen to consent to the inquiry. What had been the inducements to create that office? Whether it had been in consequence of this or that particular arrangement—with all this he had nothing to do—it was enough for him that it had been created since the war, in consequence of circumstances arising out of the war. He should follow therefore the course recommended by the treasury, and propose a committee to do that which the treasury committee ought by their instructions to have done, namely, to inquire whether that office was or was not unnecessary, and whether the business of it might not be transferred without injury to the public service, to other departments. He did not mean to say, that the business of the colonial department was not great, nor that the individual who had the management of it, had not executed all the duties confided to him bona fide, and assiduously, and was well entitled to all the salary which he enjoyed. It did not follow that because the office of third secretary might be abolished, that the country should be deprived of the services of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Goulburn): he and his plantation clerks might be transferred to another office, with great benefit to the public service.

And here he could not help alluding to some notable discoveries which had lately been made—it had been found out that two lords of the admiralty, who had nothing to do, were essential outposts and bulwarks of the constitution; but he did not expect to hear the same thing alleged of the office of third secretary of state. That office, which was called the office for colonies and war was an excrescence growing out of the foreign office. It was considered by Mr. Burke as one which was totally unnecessary at the end of the then war, and the existence of which could only be justified by the exigencies of the war. The office was accordingly abolished, in consequence of an act of parliament, at the termination of the American war. To prove that it was necessary now would be a difficult case; and he should have but little difficulty in proving it unnecessary. The first thing he had to do was to quote the act of parliament by which it was created; for, since the termination of the war, one half of it had been done away. The office was established for war only. In 1802 and 1803, the business of the colonies was taken from the home department, and added to the war department, and called the war and colonial department. Of the two branches of which it was composed, the one was now entirely done away; but, by some unaccountable accident, it had escaped the treasury that one half of the salary ought to have followed. There was now a whole salary for half an office. The total number of clerks acting under sir Henry Bunbury was 19—eleven of them had been taken away, that was considerably more than one-half. They were now to consider, first, whether having got rid of half the duty, they were still to have the whole of their salary; and the next thing to be considered was, how the remaining half was to be got rid of, that remaining half being confined entirely to the colonies. The increase of colonies since 1792, was all that he had to meet; for if there had been no increase in the colonies since 1792, he should have had no difficulty whatever. There had been an increase of nine colonies since that time, without including Heligoland, a place of so little importance that there might be some gentlemen who did not even know where it was situated, and also not including St. Helena. There were in fact, nine additional colonies to be managed, and no more. Suppose these nine colonies had been obtained for this country by any specific treaty of peace, would any man have ventured to get up in the House, and say, that these nine colonies required the appointment of a separate secretary of state? The whole, however, turned on this—the whole turned on nine colonies. How, then, could any man defend the office by saying that the continuance of these nine colonies after the war required a secretary of state? What was the difference between the continuance and the getting possession of the colonies by a specific agreement? Comparing the number of colonies now, with the number in 1792, there were nine more, but comparing it with the number in 1801, there were less. Now, the duke of Portland had executed the duties of the office from 1794 to 1801. During the whole of that time the colonies had been under the guidance of the duke of Portland; and when in answer to a proposition to transfer the colonial department to the home department, it was stated that this would occasion a grievous increase of business to the latter, it might be proper to look back to what the duke of Portland did, and what was now the state of the home department. The duke of Portland had, and that during a time of war—a circumstance which made a material difference —during a most arduous period, the management of all the colonies; he had the management of the internal government of Britain—he had all the Alien office, a labour which not only did not exist now, but which had not existed for many years;—he had the raising of the militia which were then embodied—he had the important business cast on him of corresponding with Ireland while it was not united to this country, while the secretary was not resident here, when there was not an Irish officer here, and when Ireland was in a state of rebellion.

He should be told, perhaps, of the trouble occasioned by the state of the interior of the country; but the Habeas Corpus act was suspended then, and it was then stated, and stated truly, if we were to believe them then as well as we now believed his majesty's ministers, that it was impossible there could be a greater rebellion reigning more in the heart of the country than there was at that time. Was he to understand—no he would not understand that lord Sidmouth would profess himself less competent to discharge the duties of his office than the duke of Portland; and yet he did not understand how he could refuse taking upon himself the same business which the duke of Portland discharged, without making such a profession. Now see what the advantages of an inquiry would be. Lord Chichester was appointed to the home department in 1801, and if lord Chichester would say that the colonies were taken from him on application of his own, he would be contented never to open his lips again on the subject except in favour of a third secretary of state. The truth was, that the patronage arising from the colonies made them the fairest flower in the garland of the home department. The colonies were not joined to the war department, because the business of them was too much for the home department to sustain. The business of Ireland, as far as the home department was concerned, lay in a very small compass. The Alien office business was now trifling, according to the confession of ministers themselves, for only two aliens had been sent out of the kingdom for some years. The militia could not be considered as giving now any trouble. The only thing which could be urged was the state of internal disturbance; but this point could easily be got over, by making the transfer conditional, on the restoration of tranquillity, which could not be considered as at any distance. The truth was, that the home department was nothing but an office of police.

He was sure that the result of the investigation would be that there was not the smallest occasion for any additional strength to the home office. He had no objection however to propose, that the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn) should be transferred to that department. He would tender him to lord Sidmouth, and as he was pretty sure that the proposal would not be disagreeable to the hon. gentleman the home office would then have the benefit of three undersecretaries. The saving to the public by the abolition of the office could not be set down at less than 12,000l. a year. Was not that a saving worthy of attention? An extraordinary circumstance had taken place since he had spoken last on this subject; they had had a declaration from the opposite side of the House, with respect to the great advantage to the public, from the existence of high offices of state, not absolutely necessary. The committee of finance, acting in the spirit of this doctrine, had assumed that three secretaries of state were absolutely necessary; and laid it down that each of those secretaries might be entitled to receive a pension of 2,000l. a year at the end of two years services. He would, therefore, put it to the House, whether, taking this pension in to consideration, the saving, in consequence of this abolition, would not be more than all the savings together proposed by the ministerial commissioners? If it should be said that the home department was at present so burdened with work, that it could not take the additional business, why then they must wait till this pressure should be at an end, which would be soon. Take a case in point—The master of the Mint had not, for instance, till last month, been much troubled with business; since that time he had had, no doubt, a deal of business to do, which he had executed much to the satisfaction of the public. But then this business being over, he would soon be enabled to say as before, "I have no particular department: I answer for all the departments." The suggestion which he was making to the House was founded on the conviction that the whole of the old colonies should be transferred to the home department. During the first years of peace the business of the colonies might be attended with more difficulties than at other times, but every year would lessen the difficulties. He had stated that there were nine additional colonies, but of these colonies there were several which it was to be recollected formed no part of the system. Four of them were in the West Indies, two in the Mediterranean, and three in the East Indies. Those in the East Indies were nowise connected with those in the West Indies; and those in the Mediterranean had no connexion either with the West Indies or East Indies. The home department might be allowed to keep the four new West India colonies. The board of control might be put over the three in the East Indies, namely, the Cape, Ceylon, and the Mauritius, and they might add St. Helena, though it could not give much additional trouble, as it might rather be considered a gaol under the care of the police of Europe— With respect to the Mauritius, the management of it might be attended with a little more difficulty; but as to the Cape and Ceylon, as we had happily overturned the king of Candia, they would be as quiet as Gibraltar. These colonies might already, in some sort, be considered as under the board of control, for no material step could be taken with respect to them, without consulting the board of control—As to the remaining colonies,—Malta must be considered as more connected with the foreign secretary. Of the Ionian islands he hardly knew how to speak, whether they were ours or not—all he knew was, that they were placed under our protection, and that sir Thomas Maitland was governor of Malta, and that he exercised a superintendence over these islands. He apprehended, however, that the nature of the connexion with the Ionian islands was not colonial, but purely political;—and that it must be with the foreign department that sir Thomas Maitland carried on nearly his whole correspondence. There remained, therefore, but four new colonies to be given to the home department. On the face of the transaction 12,000l. might therefore be saved, if such a transfer could take place without injury to the public service. The result of an inquiry would be to set these questions at rest. Lord Chichester might be examined, and lord Spencer, and an honourable gentleman in the House who had been under secretary under lord Spencer. An irresistible body of evidence would be brought before such a committee, proving that the office of third secretary of state was unnecessary. Parliament was bound to save every farthing to the country which they possibly could; and 12,000l. a year, and the pensions of 2,000l. a year, and retirements to the higher clerks, formed an object well deserving of their consideration.

He could not conceive how it was possible to make a more effectual appeal to the House than this case amounted to. But he had heard it whispered, that if they pared so very closely, they might reduce too much the influence of the Crown. How stood the case with respect to the influence of the Crown, since 1792? When the board of control was instituted it was to have no influence—it was to be executed by the treasurer of the navy, without any other salary than that of treasurer of the navy. Two young gentlemen, sons of privy counsellors, were to have offices without any salary. They soon found Mr. Dundas, however, taking 2,000l. a year, and the two young gentlemen 1,500l. each. Soon after that again, the president obtained 5,000l; and so fruitful was the soil of the board of control, that at this moment it-furnished a crop of four members to the House, with abundant salaries. It was to be remembered too, that in 1792, and for many years after, it happened that many offices were executed by the same person, and it was made a rule, that when one individual held several offices, he was not to hold several salaries. For instance, lord Grenville held the office of auditor of the treasury and that of secretary for foreign affairs. The salary of one office was 6,000l., and of the other 4,000l., but from both lord Grenville only received 6,000l. per annum. Lord Melville held the offices of treasurer of the navy, of president of the board of control, and of secretary of state. From all these offices he received 8,000l. a year, viz. 2,000l. a year as secretary of state, 2,000l. as president of the board of control, and 4,000l. as treasurer of the navy. Now these offices were executed at an expense of 15,000l. a year. The secretary of state had 6,000l., the treasurer of the navy 4,000l. and the president of the board of control 5,000l.

Under these circumstances, did they ask too much when they desired some inquiry to know whether the great additional expense thrown upon the country could be avoided by some consolidation of offices? He should despair of any substantial good, unless the House itself took up the subject. Of the finance committee they had a specimen from the first report. It was made a great matter of boast that they had abolished all sinecures. Why, as far as the committee had abolished sinecures, they had already been abolished. It was, in fact, nothing but an old report vamped up, to which was added, as an appendix a bill which had been thrown out in the Lords! As to offices which it would have been within the power of the House to have reduced, what had they done? They had said that one of the joint pay-masters of the army might be abolished. This was, indeed, a new discovery, and in contradiction to the arguments which had been urged in the House as to the inexpediency of abolishing the moiety of an old established office. But, on the other hand, the committee discovered that another officer required assistance, viz. the vice-president of the board of trade, and that for his service he should receive precisely this 2,000l. a year in that capacity, which he was to lose in his capacity of joint pay-master. Why was his salary fixed at this sum—was there one examination?—No. Then, on the other hand it was said, that it was advisable that the two joint post-masters should remain, and what was the reason given?—That the sum to be managed was so large. If this had been a good reason, it would also have been a good reason for continuing the two pay-masters, for the sum they had to manage was undoubtedly greater than that managed by the post-masters. Thus an office was to be preserved, and a new one created without any ostensible reason, but solely on the alleged opinion of this committee of finance.

It would be urged, perhaps, that the House would have an opportunity of re- vising the work of the finance committee; but when it was considered that the chancellor of the exchequer, and the secretary of state were members of that committee, he must be a very audacious person who would reject what they suggested. It became the duty therefore of the friends of economy and retrenchment to bestir them-, selves in the House, if they hoped ever to effect any real saving to the country; for it was idle to sit patiently and rely on committees of finance. He now called on them to undertake an inquiry, which would lead to real economy. But while he contended that no efficient saving could be produced until the salaries of offices were proportioned to their efficient duties, he was aware it might be urged, that it would be impossible to form future administrations if the Crown were bereft of this appointment. If we made war first on the lords of the admiralty, and then on the secretary of state, what situation could hope to escape, and what would be left for future administrations; and what administration could do without such appointments? He could only say, that if no administration could hereafter be formed on that principle of economy, he hoped the present administration would be the last. And certain he was, that it was in vain to talk of economy or retrenchment, if we stopped short of any measure that did not go at once to draw some proportion between the appointment of salaries and the duties to be performed for them. Where those duties were real and effectual, the salaries ought to be commensurate with them; and he must protest against that miserable expedient by which it had been attempted to satisfy public clamour with the appearance of a sacrifice, the expedient of reducing 10 per cent, out of the salaries of offices the duties of which were real and important. There could be no doubt that such offices should be liberally paid, and the House should see that the duties of them were efficiently performed; but where the duties performed were important, would it not be much better to leave the gentlemen officiating in the discharge of them in the full enjoyment of the salaries they deserved, than to abridge the wages of real service for the sake of paying those who had nothing to perform? It was a declaration that those offices were overpaid, which he did not believe to be true. The amount of the 10 per cent, contribution from the offices of the cabinet, could not be more than 7,000l. a year. He had now pointed out a way in which 12,000l. a year might be saved, which was 5,000l. more, and was it not a better way of coming at it? It was mean; it was an insult on the country to think it would be pleased with an offering of 10 per cent, from efficient offices, unless, indeed, they permanently resigned that proportion of their salaries, from the conviction that they were overpaid. But while he was willing to see efficient officers well paid, he was also of opinion that no salary should be paid to any officer whose services were not required by strict necessity.

This was the view of the subject which every liberal man, which every friend to real economy would take. He had shown that the duty of the office of colonial secretary did not require a distinct officer to perform it; he had shown that the home secretary was not entitled at present to 6,000l. a year, but he had also shown how he might earn it. He begged the House not to believe, because there was a rise in the stocks, that the country lost sight of the great question of economy. The necessity of the most rigid economy was now striking, when there was a difference between our income and expenditure of 14 millions, at the very lowest calculation, which how it was to be made good, God only knew. Though 12,000l. fell very short of 14 millions, it was a saving not to be disregarded, and it was beginning at the right end. It was easy to disband poor clerks, or to reduce the inferior departments, which had grown out of the war, but what must be the feelings of the individuals who had held them when they beheld the great office of all, which had grown up under the same circumstances, still flourish in high splendour? What would be the feelings of reduced officers, who had barely a pittance to support existence, when they saw that the heads of the departments with which they had been in correspondence during the war were not abolished, but retained all the emolument, although the service was at an end; when they found that, if ever one of these greater functionaries fell from one place, another immediately started up for him. If he saw such a proposition adopted as that which he (Mr. Tierney) now suggested, the reduced officer might acquiesce with patience in the lot that was awarded him; but at present, the inequality between his treatment and that of the higher department could not afford him any very consolatory reflections in effect, it was high time that government should do something to show that they were willing to relinquish a little of their own, and in reality to make some sacrifice to the necessities of the country, the only sacrifice he required was the abolition of offices that were no longer necessary. There was not a person in the country who would not understand the motive of a vote (if such should that night be given) to preclude the inquiry for which he was now contending. If all investigation was to be refused, and this office retained, on the bare assertion of government that it still continued to be necesary, it was impossible that any conviction or satisfaction could be the result of such an assertion. It was not only on the finances, but on the feelings of the country, that this show of economy would have its effects. When he had before talked of the abolition of sinecures, the chancellor of the exchequer had smiled, and well he might. They were very properly to be abolished at the expiration of the existing interests. This was a benefit only in expectancy; but it was their duty to do something like a sacrifice, something which they might themselves feel. If they refused to inquire into this office, no man could misunderstand the reason. During all former investigations, the treasury had made a special exception in favour of this office. It had been excepted by the treasury committee and by the finance committee, from their general inquiries; but was the House, on the mere assertion of this committee, to abstain from interfering? It was his conviction the office was unnecessary, and he declared most solemnly, that he would not vote for the abolition of one office from which he would not also exclude his own friends, if they were ever placed in the way of making such appointments. If they were to consider them necessary, he would not hesitate to assert that they ought not to come into office. On no other terms but those of the most rigid economy should any ministry be allowed to enter, office, or to continue in it. Certainly he had no chance of ever becoming first, second or third secretary of state; but, if it were not so, if he were to be called on to-morrow to form a part of an administration, he would not consent to do so unless this office was abolished, or that it was shown, that the public business could not be carried on without it. He was persuaded much might be done in the way of eco- nomy by the consolidation of offices, if there really existed a treasury disposed to economy, and not one which never resorted to economical measures, except when driven to them by stress of weather. It had been said by the committee of finance, that it would be necessary to pay a salary of 2,000l. a year to the vice president of the board of trade. Why might not the master of the mint perform the duties of that office? There were others who had seats in the cabinet, and nothing else to do—there was the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, and the lord privy seal, to whom no laborious duty whatever was attached. It was not too much to ask that they should do something for their salaries. Whether they continued the names of the president of board of control, or of the third secretary of state, he did not care—it was not to the words, but to the multitude of offices that he objected. If it was necessary that the colonies should be subject to a separate officer, why might they not be placed under the president of the board of control? It had been objected to this arrangement, that the president of the board of control could not take the king's pleasure, which was frivolous enough, and also not true; for it was customary for him to take the king's pleasure on the appointment of a governor-general, and also of the ecclesiastical officers in India. This objection was therefore founded on a gross misstatement. There was in fact no more necessity for a third secretary of state than for a third archbishop. It was not to be got rid of however but by a motion in that House.

It was not pleasant to be obliged to bring forward motions which seemed to be directed against individuals. Though he was certain that the noble lord in the department of the third secretary of state could not impute any motives of personal hostility to him, (Mr. T.), yet he felt it exceedingly unpleasant to be thus attacking a particular office year after year, and to offer to throw such a load on lord Sidmouth as might perhaps kill him. At all events he should be consoled by the consciousness of having performed his duty. He hoped however that ministers would, for once, come forward themselves and spare an individual so disagreeable a task. Unless they did this, all temporary expedients were but vain; they might suspend the Habeas Corpus, but they could not suspend the spirit of inquiry and discussion that now pervaded every class of the community; they could not by any other means lessen the burthens or alleviate the distress of the country. They might have recourse to coercive measures; they might for a season, silence the loud expression of public opinion; but by no other means could they tranquillize the spirit of the people, or persuade them that there was any wish to correct the abuses they complained of. If the House refused inquiry, they would forfeit the confidence of the country, and he trusted the people would manifest their sense of this dereliction of duty. He would conclude by moving, "That a committee be appointed to take into consideration the business now remaining to be executed by the secretary of state for the war and colonial department, and to report their opinion, whether the continuance of the same be any longer necessary; and whether the duties performed by the said department may without inconvenience to the public service be transferred to any other offices, and with what diminution of charge."

Mr. Goulburn

was perfectly aware, that every department of the state, might, with propriety, be called on for a statement of the nature of its services; and for himself, he certainly had no personal right to object to the motion of the right hon. gentleman. He had a little to add to what he had stated on this subject on a former occasion; but as he considered the motion of the right hon. gentleman had in reality for its object the abolition of the office of third secretary of state, though it appeared only to demand an inquiry, he must answer that part of the right hon. gentleman's speech, in which he imputed to his majesty's ministers a disinclination to adopt any measures of economy till they were compelled to them by the voice of the House. He was as willing as any gentleman on the opposite side of the House to agree in the reduction of useless places, but he thought it a pernicious parsimony to reduce such as were necessary and efficient. He did not think himself bound to show the inexpediency of appointing a second committee to inquire into the utility and efficiency of this office in particular, when a committee already existing had made the very investigations which the right hon. gentleman recommended. If the proceedings of that committee had not been such as to gratify hon. gentlemen on the other side, that was owing to their own refusal to join in the labours of the committee, and, as he thought, deprived them of any right of complaint. It would have been open to call for evidence to examine into details, and then to have brought forward a motion on the result of such examination.

With respect to the motion now made by the right hon. gentleman for the abolition of the office of third secretary of state, before any one agreed in that motion, he must think, either that no circumstances could justify the existence of such an office; or, secondly, that the business of the office was not sufficient to justify its existence at present; or, thirdly, that the duty could be better performed, by being annexed to other offices. With respect to the first proposition, he did not impute to the right hon. gentleman the extravagance of having seriously advanced it. It was true, he did allude in one part of his speech to an act that had been brought in for the abolition of the office at one period; but the right hon. gentleman could not have so construed that act, as to believe it must prevail at all times and under all circumstances, or irrevocably bind the House for the future. With regard to the business of the office, he felt under some difficulty as to the mode in which he should make a statement of it to the House: if he entered into a detail of the number of letters received and dispatched, it might be deemed fallacious, and be urged that many of these were merely circular; besides the chance he might incur of being laid open to ridicule, as on a former occasion, when the right hon. gentleman had said that it was very easy to come bustling down to the House with large bundles of papers, tied up in red strings, for the very purpose of display. He therefore should not enter into any detail of the nature; but if he could succeed in showing, that at the time when the existence of this office was admitted to be necessary, there was not more business to be performed than at present, he hoped, he should have made out a satisfactory statement to the House.

The period that had elapsed since the first institution of the colonial department in 1768 and 1782, would form a fit subject of comparison with that which had elapsed between 1802 and 1816; and for that comparison he should take the pages of entry in the books of office, because he thought they afforded, on the whole, a fair criterion. In the fourteen years from 1768 to 1782, the number of pages filled in the books of entry for twelve colonies were 3,139, giving an average of about 224 for each year. The same twelve colonies in the second period, from 1802 to 1816, filled a number of pages to the amount of 6,098, forming an average of about 435 for each year; so that in the latter period, the business of those twelve colonies was nearly doubled. But if they took the whole of the business of the North American colonies (including that of a military nature) together with the twelve colonies, for 14 years, from 1768 to 1782, and opposed it, in the same way, to the business transacted in the office from 1802 to 1816, the disparity would be found infinitely greater. The number of pages written from 1768 to 1782 was 6,246—being, on the average, 446 pages per annum; whilst the number written from 1802 to 1816 was 27,968 or 1,994 pages per annum. It might be supposed that the increase in the latter period was occasioned by the war. But the fact was otherwise. The war had only made a difference of about 500 pages per annum; the remainder of the increase was occasioned by the influx of ordinary business.

Having adduced these specific facts to prove that the business had greatly accumulated, he should next offer a few observations on the general principle. In every business had greatly increased; and this must be attributed, in a great degree, to the extension of education in every quarter of the empire. At present, almost every person in the empire could address the different offices of government; and communications from individuals moving in various ranks of society were poured in on them—a circumstance hitherto unknown. No hon. gentleman could, he imagined, be ignorant of this fact, that the increase of education had greatly contributed to the increase of business in all the departments of the state. On this account every department was obliged to enlarge its establishment, and yet was oppressed by the additional weight of business. Since 1803, the business of the colonial office had most materially increased. Gentlemen must be aware, that the correspondence connected with the abolition of the slave trade alone employed an entire office. In the constant anxiety and vigilance that was necessary for the due enforcement of this measure to render availing the best efforts of humanity, and to convince the other powers of Europe that we were in earnest in our attempts at a general abolition, and that we were actuated by no sinister motive in persevering to its accomplishment, there was ample demand for the exercise of great industry and talents, not only from Africa, but from every quarter of the globe where communications were poured in; and though, unfortunately in some instances, these reports had proved incorrect and unsatisfactory, yet the labour of attending to them, and distinguishing between those that might be relied on and those which were unworthy of credit, was by no means trifling. Besides this, there was the care of legislating for each separate colony. To all of them English laws and English principles were to be recommended, yet in such a manner as not to wound the feelings or clash violently with the prejudices of the place. To watch the times and opportunities, to select the proper modes and proper instruments for effecting these improvements and changes, required the vigilant exercise of considerable powers. It was this that had created the necessity for a third secretary of state; this that had increased the public business beyond all former precedent; and this that rendered it impossible to dispense with a separate department devoted to such purposes.

What he had urged with respect to the amount of business, showed why this department could not be conveniently transferred to any other office; that which had increased their business had increased the business of every other department; and though it might not become him to vouch for them, yet from the knowledge he had he was convinced that the duties could not be removed to any other quarter with any hope of their being duly performed. But it was not on these grounds alone that he thought it impossible to comply with the right hon. gentleman's motion. It was almost indispensable that there should be a responsible minister through whom the colonies might make known their wants, and who, by devoting himself solely to their service, might be competent to explain and support their respective interests. The right hon. gentleman had said, that he (Mr. Goulburn) was competent to this. He felt flattered by the right hon. gentleman's good opinion, but was convinced that such an arrangement would be impracticable; and there was no other office to which the proposal if feasible at all, was not equally applicable: and yet the right hon. gentleman could hardly contend for its application to the other great offices of state. But the right hon. gentleman would do well to consider the necessity of having a competent minister in this as well as the other great departments; and if he looked to the relief from expense, he should also see whether there were not disadvantages to counterbalance the saving that could be effected. The great excellence of the British system of government, was the freedom of discussion in that House, and the advantage of having a cabinet minister competent to give information on every question, and to render those discussions availing to some end; there was the additional security, too, that no act of the Crown could take place without the consideration of these cabinet ministers; but the proposal of the right hon. gentleman would go to withdraw this security from one great branch of our empire and resources. The colonies, too, had an additional claim to the care of responsible ministers, exclusively devoted to their interests. All other parts of the empire had their own representatives, who could speak to and defend their local interests. It was not so with the colonies, and if they could not be heard by their minister, they must run the hazard of being neglected or sacrificed to the interests of others. The right hon. gentleman had limited the annual saving to be effected to 12,000l.; but the colonies were greater now than at any former period; they were hourly becoming of greater importance, and he could not think so ill of the country as to think it would sacrifice the welfare of the colonies and the happiness of thousands for a saving of 12,000l. a year. We were not to consider these colonies merely as the appurtenances of grandeur, and the gratification of national vanity, but to weigh the rights of the people, and their individual claims to happiness. On these grounds he should oppose the motion before the House. The abolition of the office in question would tend only to the mismanagement of the colonies, and the sum saved to the nation would be lost in the diminution of the happiness of the colonists. To those who thought that the colonies were only an incumbrance on the country, it might be that these reasons would not carry any great weight; but with those who, like himself, considered them one of the great sources of our glory, and one of the great supports of our power affording resources in war, and increasing our commerce in peace, with those who thought them important under every con- sideration, it would not be doubted that they had a right to due attention, and that that attention could only be bestowed on them by a minister exclusively attached to their interests. For these reasons, he should give his decided negative to the motion.

Mr. Marryat

said, he should support the motion, not only on the grounds which had been laid so ably by the right hon. mover, but in the hope that the abolition of the office of colonial secretary would lead to a revision of our whole colonial system. It was when the colonial secretaryship had been first appointed in 1768, that this country departed from the simple and wise course of experience in the government of its colonies, to lose itself in the mazes of experiment. A period of 150 years of previous prosperity bore testimony to the excellence of the system that had been established. The effect of the attempt to introduce direct taxation into our colonies was too well known. A long and expensive war ensued, which ended in the dismemberment of the empire, and the loss of colonies that were our pride and our glory, affording an unbounded opening to commercial enterprise, and a prospect for the future beyond the powers of anticipation to estimate. It might have been hoped that this melancholy result would have operated to deter from a similar experiment; but when in the late war the office of third secretary was revived, the system was soon renewed, and the effects would probably be not less disastrous. Trinidad had been made the farm of experiment, his majesty's ministers, like all other gentlemen farmers, had completely failed; and the colony had been reduced to the most ruinous condition. A despotic system of government had been introduced there—

Mr. Goulburn

rose to order. He was prepared at any time to discuss the question of the treatment of Trinidad, but he could not imagine how it could have any bearing on the question before the House.

The Speaker

called on Mr. Marryat to proceed.

Mr. Marryat

said, he should be able to show that the condition of Trinidad had a distinct bearing upon the question. The erroneous system of policy he complained of, had been adopted, not only towards Trinidad, but all the colonies ceded at the late peace. Instead of pursuing the wise policy of Rome, in extending its own laws and the right of citizenship and suf- frage to all the countries it acquired, we had, in our several colonies, systems entirely different from each other, and we appeared to be consistent only in the determination to exclude all the colonists from participating in those advantages which were enjoyed by the integral part of the empire. In the Mauritius we had French laws—at Demerara and Essequibo we had Dutch laws—at Trinidad we had Spanish laws—we had Greek laws in the Ionian islands—in short, for each of our possessions we had a different system of laws. This was a most extraordinary species of policy. While we governed our new subjects by British laws, we held out to them the strongest inducements to study the English language, and to become acquainted with our manners and habits. But, under the present system, these inducements were lost:—we took no care to familiarize foreigners to our language, manners, and customs. The consequence was, that we made no progress in binding them to our interest—they remained foreigners to all intents and purposes. Was it not, he would ask, a matter of importance to consider the expediency of correcting such an anomaly? The neglect of introducing our laws encouraged the establishment of an arbitrary military government—and thus a taste for arbitrary government was infused into the minds of those who probably at one time or other would be connected with the government at home. An absolute command, quite independent of parliament, was, under this system exercised over the revenues of the colonies. A proclamation had been issued in Demerara, which set forth that the grants under the former government were null and void, — but added, that the Crown, in its grace, would suffer the proprietors to retain their possessions, provided each of them paid a fine of 100l., and submitted to a quit-rent for life. As there were 1,600 of these proprietors, by this mode 160,000l. was raised from the inhabitants of this small island; and if so large a sum could be extracted from it, what treasures, he would ask, might not be raised from other colonies, which were infinitely more rich? What immense resources were thus placed beyond the control or interference of parliament? This however was perfectly unconstitutional. Both Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, on a memorable occasion, agreed, that if the Crown could control the public revenue, independently of parliament, there was an end to the security of popular freedom. Yet parliament appeared to have really nothing to do with the government of our conquered colonies. He did not mean to complain of any individual; but of the general system pursued. As to the proposition before the House, he felt that it was entitled to his support, because the consolidation of business would serve to facilitate colonial transactions, which were at present conducted in a very circuitous manner. For upon any application with respect to our colonies, under the existing establishments, reference was had to so many departments before any answer was obtained, that very inconvenient delays very often took place. Letters were, for instance, addressed to the colonial department, from the West-Indies. They were copied, and subdivided into extracts, which were sent to the various departments with which the business was connected. Reports were drawn up on these extracts; and on these reports the colonial department framed their letters. So that the business was done three times over instead of being completed at once—to the great increase of labour and the augmentation of the public expense. Besides, in consequence of this confused system, mistakes were frequently liable to occur. But this inconvenience was likely to be obviated by reducing the number of departments; for replies upon business connected with the colonies would tints be more directly and promptly obtained, and thus great satisfaction would be given to the colonists. The expediency of such a system of consolidation was indeed confirmed by the authority of the lords of the treasury with respect to the affairs of the commissary in chief's office, which was transferred to the treasury as more convenient to the discharge of public business. The office of the commissary in chief was in consequence abolished, and on the same grounds as that stated by the lords of the treasury, as well as upon other grounds which had been urged, he saw no reason why the business of the secretary of state for the colonial department should not be transferred to the office of the home department. With regard to the objection of the hon. gentleman to the motion before the House, that it should not be countenanced because it involved an innovation, he thought such an objection of no weight; for to resist innovation where a strong case was made out, as in this instance, would be to resist all improvement. From these considerations, particularly the political and constitutional ones, at the same time that he did not mean to undervalue the principles of economy and retrenchment, so ably advocated by the right hon. gentleman who brought forward the motion, he felt it to be his duty to give it his cordial support.

Mr. Anthony Browne

said, that however disposed to concur with his hon. friend, in all his observations upon the anomaly of governing the newly ceded colonies, now the permanent possessions of the Crown, by any other than British laws, he was still of opinion, that the committee proposed by the motion of the right hon. gentleman, was not the proper place where that part of the subject could be most advantageously discussed; nor was the abolition of the important office of the secretary of state for the colonies the most advantageous mode of remedying the evil of which his hon. friend had justly complained.—The subject referred to by his hon. friend involved a question of grave responsibility on the part of those who advised the Crown to govern any part of its dominions by any other administration of law than that of our own invaluable code; but it was a question that could not be usefully discussed in an incidental way, or before a committee, such as the present motion went to establish. It was a subject deserving of the utmost attention of the House at large; and when his hon. friend might deem it desirable to bring it before the House in a distinct and substantive shape, he would give every support to his view of the case which it might be in his power to afford.

With respect to the motion which was the immediate subject of consideration; connected as he was with the colonies, and having many opportunities of knowing the nature and extent, and importance of colonial concerns, he had no hesitation in expressing his decided conviction, that the business was sufficient to engage the attention of a secretary of state, however enlarged in mind, and however devoted to habits of business; and that the transferring of those important concerns, and mixing them with the business of the home secretary, would involve a risk of great injury to those interests and abate much of that confidence, which, he believed, prevailed in most of the islands, in the manner in which their concerns were attended to, and administered by the noble lord at present at the head of the colonial depart- ment. He did not mean to say, that every attention would not he paid by the noble lord at the head of the home department, to colonial concerns, if the House should be pleased to commit that charge to his hands; but it was fair to suppose, that when his attention came to be divided between distant and immediate objects of his care, that the immediate would be attended to, and the distant ones neglected, if he found his mind, as he was persuaded he would, unequal to the conduct of both. The House was not to look at the mere amount of saving which would accrue from the abolition of the office, but in order to determine whether that amount of saving would be a measure of true economy; they were to look at the nature, the importance of those public interests which were under the superintendance of the office to be abolished, and see what risks these interests would incur by the change that was proposed. In order to form a correct judgment upon this part of the subject, it was not sufficient to look merely at the amount of business in the colonial department, which had been so accurately described by the under secretary of state for the colonies, but it was necessary to look at the nature of the business to be transacted, and its operation upon colonial interests. There was a time when two of the greatest statesmen of their day, however disagreeing in other matters, concurred in this principle, that the only means of retaining distant colonies, with mutual advantage to the parent state, and to the colonies themselves was, to enable them to govern themselves, by giving them a legislature of their own. Now the policy is different,—a new light has flashed upon the rulers of the present day; and without stopping to inquire which of the two is the best, it is sufficient to observe, that according to the present mode all the newly ceded colonies, or most of them at least, are governed by proclamations, directed by the secretary of state here. The business is not, therefore, increased merely, but it is of so important a nature as to make it necessary that the individual who is charged with this duty, should give his best and most anxious consideration to those circumstances of local policy upon which his conduct is to be regulated and his decision governed.—The House should bear in mind, that the security of property and of life too, both unhappily resting upon a very precarious tenure, are dependant upon the law, the consideration, and the sound judgment, and discretion of the colonial secretary; and were these objects to be put to hazard for a saving of 12,000l. per annum,—was this an office to be lightly dealt with, the duties of which were to be transferred from one office to another, as matter of no consequence, by whom they were executed, or whether they were executed at all? It was not a question now whether this was the best mode of governing the colonies, but it is necessary the House should bear in mind, that this is the nature and importance of the office of colonial secretary, before they determine that the office of colonial secretary should be abolished, and these important duties committed to one, whose time is occupied materially with concerns of a different nature, but important of their kind too; but he was not inclined to disturb the present arrangement, because of the general satisfaction which that arrangement gave to the colonies themselves. There was a time when much jealousy prevailed in some of the old islands, at the interference of the mother country in colonial concerns.—It was not necessary to go far back to learn the spirit of hostility which existed in some of the old colonies, to the general objects of the government at home; happily, that feeling is now at an end, and it has been succeeded by a confidence in the judgment and talent of the noble lord at the head of the colonial department, and his anxious attention to all objects of colonial interest. He happened to know, that in one of the old islands with which he was most connected, much objection prevailed, upon the principle of a registry bill; but those objections were removed by the confidence which was placed in the judgment of the noble lord, and by the conciliatory and persuasive tone in which he recommended the general adoption of a registry bill.—On this ground, too, he was unwilling to transfer the duties of the colonial office to that of the home department, at a time too when, more than any other in his recollection, the whole of the colonial system was exposed to mere than usual danger. For these reasons he should cordially vote against the motion.

Mr. Barham

rose, not to impute any blame to the official conduct of the secretary of state for the colonial department, whose conduct indeed had been most meritorious, but to contradict the statement of the last speaker, that the confidence of the colonies in the disposition of the mother country, was likely to be abated by any such arrangement as that which the motion had in view. The present was not a question with regard to the merits of lord Bathurst, or lord Sidmouth, or any other noble lord, but whether the business of the colonial and home departments might not be transacted in one office, and and at a much less expense to the public. Upon this proposition, he confessed that he was quite convinced by the arguments of his right hon. friend who made the motion, and whose arguments had not at all been answered by the details of the hon. gentleman on the other side. These details would indeed, come more appropriately under the consideration of a committee, where the abilities of those who conducted such details would no doubt be duly appreciated; and upon any new arrangement he hoped that such abilities, especially those of the hon. gentleman, would be called into action for the public service. His wish was, that the colonics should not be unnecessarily burthensome to the mother state. Some objects the colonies desired, and others they deprecated; but they had never expressed a desire for the establishment of any particular office. On the whole, feeling that no injury would result from the proposed arrangement, to the colonies, in which he had a deep interest, while a considerable saving would accrue to the country, he would give his cordial support to the motion.

Sir M. W. Ridley

did not feel prepared to enter particularly into the question respecting Trinidad. The interests of the colonies he had always considered as closely connected with those of the mother country; but he conceived that the hon. gentleman's statement on the other side, as to the number of clerks employed or the quantity of business transacted in the colonial office, formed no argument whatever against the motion, because all those clerks and that business might be transferred to another office, without incumbering the country with the salary and emoluments of a third secretary of state. The statement of an increase of business in the colonial office, in consequence of the number of letters from this country, through the diffusion of elementary learning, was really ludicrous; as if the systems of Mr. Lancaster and Dr. Bell, furnished an argument for burthening the country with the maintenance of a third secretary of state. Neither could he see why the consequences of the abolition of the slave trade should render the third secretary of state necessary. The increase of business that might have occurred, must fall on inferior persons in the office. His right hon. friend never meant to cut off communications with the secretary of state's office; yet a saving might be effected of 12,000l. a year. The question for the House to consider was simply this, whether at a period of general distress, and on the restoration of peace, when the business of the office of secretary for war and the colonies must be so materially reduced, it would be right to continue an expensive establishment, rather than press upon the consideration of ministers the practice of that economy for which the country so loudly called, and which those ministers so often professed, but to which they seemed so little disposed.

Mr. Wilberforce

declared, that from all he knew and heard, the office alluded to was overloaded with business, and from what he understood, such was also the case in the home department. The House, then, should duly consider whether the business of the colonies should be exposed to any neglect by acceding to the proposed arrangement. It was a duty which he owed to the colonies, to see that they were well governed; and he was of opinion that it required an individual of great consideration to look after concerns so important to the public interests: a person who should hold a high station in the public eye. He was disposed to take away offices which were without business to transact; but that did not appear to be the present question. Questions of the present description required specific consideration. With respect to the system of policy which prevailed in the government of some of our colonies, that was not at present the question before the House. But as to Trinidad, he had no hesitation in stating, that the Spanish law of that colony, as it applied to the larger portion of its population, was much more mild and humane than that which prevailed in any other colony. The saving of 12,000l. a year which was proposed by the motion was, no doubt, a serious consideration, and the right hon. mover was entitled to thanks for the disposition to economy which such an object manifested. But the question was, whether the saving of 12,000l. a year would not be much too dearly purchased by hazarding the good government of the colonies, and whether all the other public departments being already overcharged with business, the interest of those important settlements would not very materially suffer by agreeing to the proposed tansfer? In his opinion, however, it was essentially necessary, that the superintendence of our colonial concerns should constitute the business of a distinct, efficient, and dignified department, with a view to discharge the duty which was due to those great establishments, and to consult the best interest of the mother country.

Mr. J. H. Smyth

supported the motion, observing, that while the duke of Portland presided at the home department, the business of the colonies was transacted in that department without any inconvenience to the public service, and during that period, namely, from 1794 to 1801, it was notorious that the colonial business was much greater than it could possibly be at present. The creation of the new office was unfortunate, as it was accompanied by the signals of rebellion. It did not appear that two secretaries might not do all the business. Mr. Burke proposed this in 1782, by a consolidation of the departments, declaring in his emphatic language, "that the inutility of a third secretary of state was as glaring as the burning light of day." He admitted that the duties of the office of his hon. friend opposite were very laborious, but yet he thought that a consolidation would diminish them.

Lord Milton

congratulated his hon. friend (Mr. Wilberforce) on having added one to the numerous speeches he had made during the session, in which he commenced with professing economy, but ended with voting for prodigality. He did not attribute the speech and vote of the hon. gentleman to any but the purest motives, although he could not help observing, that they were quite irreconcileable. All who knew his hon. friend must know his sincerity; but he seemed too much caught by the speech of the hon. gentleman opposite respecting the number of letters, and pages of entries. These, however they might affect the clerks, &c. could have little to do with the responsibility of the secretary of state. His hon. friend appeared to make some mistake in his usual discrimination, between governing well and governing much. He seemed to attribute too much importance to the bustle of an office. The third secretary of state had assumed a new character; and it appeared that to many of the colonies he was King, Lords, and Commons, and was to legislate every thing for them. The habits of arbitrary government abroad furnished no very good school for those who were to return and hold office at home. The secretary of state might, perhaps, as well be eased of some of his labours in making proclamations. He wished the House would inquire into the expenses of the colonies. He thought they displayed too much prodigality, and that much might be saved in that quarter to the country. Let it not be imagined that England had no interest in these expenses, because they were borne by the colonies themselves. When they exceeded the means of the colonists, they were to be made up by the mother country, and sometimes to a great amount. He thought that the finance committee had been guilty of a great dereliction of duty in not investigating this particular office. He should certainly vote for the motion of his right hon. friend.

Mr. Protheroe

said, he had opposed a motion similar to the present, when brought forward by the right hon. gentleman last year, and he did not think he should do his duty towards the colonies, if he did not give it his decided negative now. So far from concurring in the opinion, that it was necessary to abolish the office of third secretary of state, in consequence of the peace, he rather rejoiced that the cessation of war would allow the whole and undivided attention of the person filling that office, to be directed to colonial affairs. If the office of the third secretary of state were abolished, he was convinced that instead of proving beneficial to the affairs of the colonies, it would be highly prejudicial, and might ultimately lead to their total loss.

Lord Binning

rose to say a few words in consequence of his understanding that the right hon. mover had imputed blame to the committee appointed last year, of which he (lord B.) was a member, for not having inquired into the necessity of continuing the third secretary of state. But he wished first to be sure whether he was right in understanding that the right hon. gentleman had imputed blame to that committee.

Mr. Tierney

disclaimed having imputed blame to the committee.

Mr. Ponsonby

said, that some arguments had been urged against the motion of a nature so extraordinary that he could not refrain from noticing them. One hon. gentleman had stated an argument, not indeed for the abolition of the third secretary of state, but an excellent argument for the appointment of a fourth secretary of state; for he had said that the affairs of the colonies required the undivided attention of one secretary of state. He would be glad to know, if this were the fact, what became of the affairs of the colonies while the war was carried on—when the attention of the secretary of state was divided between the war and the colonies? Another reason for opposing the motion given by another hon. member was, that the secretary for the colonies had taken upon himself to act as legislator for the colonies. This was rather an odd reason; certainly it was a novel one. Another reason was, that the noble lord who now held the office in question, did last year write a most conciliatory letter to the House of Assembly of one of the colonies. That was certainly a most extraordinary act of condescension in a legislator, and exhibited great moderation of temper, great humility of mind, and great benevolence of nature. But, for his own part, he was inclined to think that the conciliatory effects alluded to proceeded not from the letter of the noble lord, but from the good sense of that House when it had under its consideration the disturbances in Barbadoes. It was not, however, to the character of any individual that the colonies should look; it was not from any individual they expected conciliation, but from the good sense of that House; it was not from the pleasure of a secretary they would receive laws, but from the wisdom of parliament; it was not to proclamations, and other documents of that nature, they were to attend, but to their own assemblies. Another hon. member seemed to imagine that the House ought to agree in permitting the office to remain, because he had a firm conviction in his mind that it was necessary to have a separate and distinct office for our colonies. No doubt that hon member's conviction was sincere; but it would have been more satisfactory if the reasons upon which that conviction was founded had been stated. But neither cause nor reason was assigned by the hon. gentleman for opposing the motion of his right hon. friend, whom, nevertheless, he had so highly complimented for bringing forward the question, whom he loaded with thanks, and to whom, in short he would give any thing but his vote. And then, at the same time, that hon. gentleman dealt rather hardly with some of the members on the other side of the House. He said the person to whom our colonial affairs were entrusted should be an individual of the highest consideration. No doubt. And to whom did his right hon. friend propose that the duties of the third secretary should be transferred, in the event of its abolition? To the secretary of state for the home department, to the president of the board of control, or to the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. It was not for him to dictate to the hon. member the course he should pursue; but he thought he ought to have said, when speaking of the necessity of having a person of the highest consideration, that he meant nothing derogatory to the nature or abilities of those individuals; that he did not mean to insinuate, they were unfit to direct our colonial affairs. What would the noble secretary of state for the home department, the president of the board of control, or the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, think of this opinion of their merits? He was sure, for their consolation, that notwithstanding the opinion of the hon. gentleman, the colonists would consider them sufficiently qualified to transact the business of that department.—There was only one solid reason that could be urged against the present motion, and that was, that the departments among which the business of the colonies was proposed to be divided, were already overworked with their own separate concerns. But none of these persons themselves stepped forward to make such a declaration, because they knew full well, that the truth of the case would not bear them out in the assertion. The absence of this declaration was the strongest reason why they should vote for the present motion. What was the motion? Did it invite the House at once to abolish the office? All his right hon. friend wanted was, that they should go into an inquiry, to see if 12,000l. a year could not be saved to the country. This was only met by a general assertion, that the inquiry was unnecessary, because the office was a fit one to be continued. Then, let the fact of its fitness be decided in the committee. If it should there appear to be an office that ought to be abolished, the House would perform its duty to the country, by ordering it to be abolished; if, on the contrary, the office were really a proper one, then they would acquit themselves of all imputations by ascertaining that fact by a fair inquiry.

Mr. Bathurst

said, that the question for the House to decide upon was, whether the administration of the affairs of the colonies could be combined with such important objects as those which engaged the attention and occupied the whole time of the other secretaries of state. When the duties of each of the offices to which the business of the colonial department was proposed to be referred were considered, it would be allowed, that such a combination was impracticable. The fact was, that the duties of the office in question, could be executed only by a single individual; an individual of address and attention; who should take a particular interest in that province, and attend to its duties with undivided assiduity. All expressed themselves satisfied with the manner in which the present secretary discharged the duties of his office. This was gratifying to him; but the question was, whether it could be administered together with any other office. He put it to the serious consideration of gentlemen, whether the duties of such an office could be well performed in conjunction with any other office. His majesty's ministers were animated with the strongest desire to alleviate the distresses of the country. He would challenge any gentleman to point out one instance in which they had not attended to retrenchment, and promoted economy to the utmost of their power. Gentlemen who had had opportunities of thoroughly knowing the nature of the duties to be performed in the department in question, did not think the existence of it unnecessary. The occupation of mind it called for at present rendered it of the greatest importance. In a different state of the country it might perhaps be dispensed with. When all the effects and consequences of the war were at an end, it might perhaps be abolished without injury to the public service; but while the country was in its present state it was indispensable. A noble lord complained that the inquiry proposed by the motion now before the House had not been made by the committee of finance, but the truth was, that this office was not within the scope of that committee. The information which that committee would have required could be given by none but the secretary of state himself; and therefore the inquiry was wholly beyond that which the committee was directed to make.

The House divided:

For the motion 87
Against it 190
Majority 103

List of the Minority.
Anson, sir George Ossulston, lord
Atherley, Arthur Pierse, Henry
Aubrey, sir John Power, Richard
Bankes, Henry Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.
Bastard, E. P. Powlett, hon. W.
Burroughs, sir W. Prittie, hon. F. A.
Barham, Jos. Proby, hon. capt.
Baring, sir Thos. Phillimore, Dr.
Barnett, James Pym, F.
Bennet, hon. H. G. Ramsden, J. C.
Birch, Jos. Russell, lord G. W.
Brand, hon. T. Scudamore, R.
Brougham, Henry Sefton, lord
Campbell, gen. D. Sharp, R.
Calvert, Charles Shelley, sir J.
Carter, John Savile, Albany
Coke, T. W. Smith, J.
Carew, R. S. Smith, S.
Duncannon, visc. Smith, A.
Ebrington, visc. Smith, Wm.
Elliot, rt. hon. W. Smyth, J. H.
Fazakerly, N. Spencer, lord R.
Fergusson, sir R. C. Tavistock, marq. of
Fitzgerald, lord W. Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Fitzroy, lord John Teed, John
Grattan, rt. hon. H. Walpole, gen.
Grenfell, Pascoe Waldegrave, hon. W.
Grant, J. P. Warre, J. A.
Gordon, R. Wilder, gen.
Hamilton, lord A. Wilkins, Walter
Harcourt, John Wynn, C. W.
Heron, sir R. Williams, Owen
Howorth, H. TELLERS.
Knox, Thos. Calcraft, John
Lamb, hon. W. Ridley, sir M. W.
Lambton, John G. PAIRED OFF.
Latouche, R. jun. Barnard, visc.
Lewis, T. F. Cavendish, lord G.
Lyttelton, hon. W. Cavendish, hon. H.
Marryat, J. Cavendish, hon. C.
Macdonald, J. Curwen, J. C.
Mackintosh, sir J. Douglas, F. S.
Martin, John Foley, hon. A.
Mathew, gen. Foley, Thos.
Milton, visc. Folkestone, visc.
Monck, sir C. Guise, sir W.
Moore, Peter Hill, lord A.
Mosely, sir O. Lefevre, C. Shaw
Norland, S. B. Lloyd, J. M.
Newman, R. W. Molyneux, H.
Neville, hon. R. Parnell, sir H.
Newport, sir John Philips, George
North, Dudley Ponsonby, hon. T. C.
Nugent, lord Russell, R. G.
Ord, Wm. Western, C. C.
Osborne, lord F.