Commons Sitting of 12 March 1830

MINUTES.
Petitions were presented praying against the Return of the Member for Rye:—for the reduction of the duties on Malt and Beer:—for an alteration in the Tythe Laws:—against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter:—complaining of Distress; and praying for relief. The Mutiny Bill was read a third time. A bill was ordered
226
to be brought in to enable the officers of the Ordnance to sue by their official names.
Returns were ordered, on the Motion of Sir JOHN NEWPORT, of the names and places of residence of the nominees in the Irish Tontines:—on the motion of Mr. HUME, of number of Midshipmen promoted to be Lieutenants in the Navy between Jan. 1st. 1827, and Jan. 1st. 1830; of the number of Lieutenants promoted to be Commanders during the same period; of the number of Commanders promoted to be Post Captains during the same period: of the whole number of officers in the Royal Navy during the same period, distinguishing those serving afloat; of the number of persons who have received first commissions in the Marines during the same period; of the number of officers on full and half pay, and of the number who have been brought from half pay to full pay, or allowed to dispose of their commissions; of the number of Pursers in the Royal Navy during the same period; and the number of Clerks promoted to be Pursers; of the number of Masters; and of the number of Surgeons, with an account of the Surgeons mates promoted:—of the total number of officers and clerks employed in the Commissariat Establishment since 1822:—and of the number of Distributors of stamps and the rate of per centage allowed them in the United Kingdom;—on the motion of Mr. O. DAWSON, of the quantity of Com, Meat and Flour, exported from Ireland to Great Britain between Jan. 5, l828 and Jan. 5 1830:—on the motion of Mr. Moore of the amount of the Excise duties on leather in Ireland and the convictions for offences against the acts composing those dutiess incc 1821:—of the persons summoned to serve on Grand Juries in Dublin since 1823.
Returns were presented of the sums of money expended for the Relief of the Poor in each county of England and Wales, in 1828–1829.

METROPOLIS TURNPIKE ROADS.
Mr. Byngpresented a Petition from several inhabitants of the hamlets and places adjoining Kensington, complaining of the New Tolls which had been levied on them under the New Act for Consolidating the Turnpike Trusts in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. By the new regulations a toll was levied on vehicles every time they passed; and as the short stages, with many descriptions of coal and market carts went through these gates several times a day, these new regulations had added considerably to the expenses. The toll had also been raised on other coaches, so as to increase very much the sums taken from all coach proprietors, reducing their profits very much. He should, on some future clay, move that the petition be referred to a committee, to inquire into the facts of the case, unless he learnt in the mean time, that the commissioners appointed to carry the Act into execution had given the petitioners relief.
Lord Lowthersaid, that he had very little doubt but that there was some mistake on the subject. It had, however, been settled in a Committee of that House, after hearing much evidence on the subject from many different sorts of persons, that to levy a toll every time a vehicle passed through the gates, would be the

227
best for all parties, and the rate of the tolls was calculated on that principle. The toll on the short stages, of which the petitioners complained, if the stage made eight journies a day, did not amount to one halfpenny a mile, while on other roads, further from town, the rate would be nearly 3d., and would equal that sum were the old system of separate trusts now in existence in the neighbourhood of Kensington. Moreover, the whole charge according to weight, and stopping waggons and carts to weigh them, had been done away, and as in fact, the House had lately investigated this system, and had greatly improved it, he did not think that it would be easily induced again to enter upon such investigations.
Mr. E. Davenportsaid, that the public was, undoubtedly, much indebted to the noble Lord for the trouble he had taken on the subject, but still, he must say, that the noble Lord had given no answer to the complaint made by his hon. friend, that tolls were taken on carts and coal-waggons every time they passed through the gates. A waggon which formerly paid 6d., and was then free for the whole day, would now have to pay 10 s. if it went backwards and forwards ten times. For persons living in the neighbourhood of one of these tolls this was a great grievance, which, he trusted, the noble Lord would find out some means to remedy.
Lord Lowtherdenied that such an increase as that stated by the hon. Member had actually taken place.
Mr. C. Calvertsaid, that many of the regulations adopted by the commissioners, bore hard upon the public; wheels of Clinches paid a double toll, but if they were 65/16 inches, they paid only a single toll.
Mr. Frankland Lewissaid, the evasions were so skilful and numerous, that unless the regulations were very strictly enforced, as well as made with great discrimination, it would be impossible to levy any toll. The law said, that wheels of 6 inches in width should pay one toll, and wheels of 9 inches a less toll, because the narrow wheel does the more injury to the road. To escape the payment of the heavier toll, wheels were so made, that while they were 9 inches in breadth they only brought a surface of 3 or 4 inches into contact with the road, doing it an injury equal to a wheel of that width, and avoiding the friction of the greater surface. This was
228
an evasion of the Act of Parliament. The effect of the regulation proposed by his noble friend was, to levy the tolls in proportion to the real width of the wheels, and to levy them on vehicles every time they passed through a gate.
Petition laid on the Table.

AVON AND GLOUCESTER RAIL-ROAD.
Mr. Charles Dundas Mr. Charles Dundas moved the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. Hart Davisopposed the Motion, on the ground that it had been brought into Parliament by the Kennet and Avon Canal Company, in direct contravention of an agreement which that Company had entered into with the Bristol and Gloucestershire Rail-Road proprietors. He trusted that the House of Commons would not sanction such a violation of a private agreement, that ought to have been binding on both parties. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Dundassupported the Bill, on the ground that the undertaking would be beneficial to the public, and he denied that any such engagement had been entered into as the hon. Member supposed.
Mr. Brightopposed the Bill on the same ground as Mr. H. Davis. He said that it was a breach of a solemn engagement.
Mr. Protheroesupported the Amendment of his hon. friend, the Member for Bristol. The question was one which affected the private business of the House, and the private rights of individuals. If the Bill were to pass, it would give the Avon and Gloucester Rail-Road Company the monopoly of the Coal markets of Bristol, which, instead of being a benefit to the town, would be an injury to all its inhabitants.
Mr. R. Gordonsupported the Bill. The violation of the engagement, he said, which was made the objection to it, was nothing more than a misunderstanding between parties who had different interests. The object contemplated by the Bill was, to supply Bristol with cheap Coals, which, being a public benefit, he should vote for the Bill.
Sir Thomas Lethbridgedenied that the dispute was a mere squabble between Rail-Road Companies. It was, on the contrary, the breach of a most solemn engagement, and thinking that it was his duty, as a Member of that House, to en-

229
force the observance of such an engagement, he should certainly vote against the Bill. He would do so, however, without any feeling of hostility towards the hon. Member who supported it (Mr. C. Dundas) and with whom he had generally great pleasure in co-operating.
Sir William Guisesaid, he had heard enough to be convinced that the two parties had entered into an engagement up stairs, of which the Bill was a violation. To that he thought the House ought not to give its sanction.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that he would be the last man in that House to give his sanction to a violation of a solemn engagement; but from the conversation he had had with the parties, he did not think that the Bill was any such violation. There were statements and counter-statements which a committee might examine, and to examine such conflicting statements was the very business of a committee. It was unheard of to oppose the second reading of a bill on such grounds. He would say, let the parties go before a committee, which would ascertain the justice or injustice of the opposition. The House heard a great deal, almost every day, against monopolies, and as far as he saw, the Bill was not intended to give one company, as was said, a monopoly of the Bristol market for Coals, but to throw open that market, which was now monopolized, to competition. The imputation against the Bill was, that it would enable one Company to under-sell another. He should certainly vote against the Amendment.
Mr. Monckthought, that the engagements between individuals ought not to bind that House. He should vote for the Motion, because a committee was the only place to settle rival claims.
The House then divided—For the second reading 37: Against it 44:—Majority 7.

DISTRESS.
Mr. Liddellpresented a Petition, agreed to unanimously at a public meeting at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, complaining of the Distress of the Agricultural, Commercial, and Shipping Interests. The hon. Member admitted, that the suffering in the north of England was not as great as in the south, owing principally to the determination of the Coal-owners to continue giving employment to the people, though at a greatly diminished rate of profit. Nevertheless, the state-
230
ments of the Petitioners were substantially borne out by facts. In particular, the agricultural part of the population, as well as the persons connected with shipping, and the lead-mines, were in great distress. The evils arising from two bad harvests in succession had been greatly increased by the abolition of Small Notes, and all the mischiefs arising from that measure were not yet apparent. The Act of 1826 was violated in the north of England continually, and notwithstanding the prohibition, the Small Bank Notes of the Scotch Banks circulated freely to the amount of 40,000 l. or 50,000 l.; on the south side of the border, the people there, like Tantalus, were placed between a paper and a gold circulation, but had very little of either. To these observations he should add nothing more, as he understood his hon. friend intended to present a Petition on the subject. He begged the House to remember, that if it expected impossibilities from the people, the people would expect impossibilities from it. If Members were not prepared to give the people the assistance which their necessities required, they ought to be prepared to contract their own expenses, so as to leave no grounds for popular discontent. The state of the currency was supposed to have material influence in producing the present distresses; but he should probably be told that nothing could be done with the currency; that was a settled question in the minds of most hon. Members: he by no means regarded it in that light; to him it was any thing but a settled question. It was stated that the annual supply of gold received in Europe had been gradually decreasing since 1800, it being, between that year and 1810, on an average, equal in value to 4,761,000 dollars, while the average supply, since 1820, had only been equal to 1,200,000 dollars; or about one fourth of the average during the former period. He would not vouch for the statement being correct, but it was worth inquiring into, and if it were correct, it would show the origin of that diminution of money-price which had taken place throughout the world. The necessities of the country would, at no very distant time, compel the legislature to reconsider its decision on the subject of the currency, and then it would be well worth considering if the Scotch banking system might not be advantageously introduced into this country, and whether, if introduced, it

231
might not probably lead to increased confidence, and justify an augmented issue of paper.
Mr. Bellwould not enter into all the causes of the distress, but he could not help observing, that they might thank the principles of free trade, as they were called, for much of their sufferings. He admitted that the distress in Northumberland was not so great as in other counties, still it demanded attention. Government, he thought, was surely bound to introduce some measure calculated to relieve the sufferings of the people.
Petition brought up, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Liddellpresented a Petition from Norham, in the county of Durham, complaining of distress—praying for a reduction of Taxation, and an issue of Notes under the value of 5l.—To be printed.
Mr. Alderman Waithman, in presenting the Petition agreed to at a recent meeting held at the Mansion-house, on the subject of public distress, said, that the petitioners stated most correctly, that the distress had extended itself to all classes of the community. They state, "That, under the present circumstances of the country, your petitioners feel themselves called upon to represent to your honourable House the great depression and consequent distress that now exists in the mercantile, trading, manufacturing, and shipping concerns of this city and the metropolis, and which bears with peculiar severity upon the industrious and labouring classes.
"That they are concerned to state, that the existing distress is not assignable to any temporary cause, or limited to any particular part of the empire, but extends to the agricultural and all the productive classes of the community. That there has been, for some time past, an unprecedented and rapidly increasing depreciation in all articles of manufacture and products of labour, to such a degree, that thousands of hands have been thrown out of employment, while others have only been able to obtain a precarious and insufficient subsistence." It was not alone that manufactures were in a depressed state; that the produce of labour could find no market, but thousands of hands were out of employment; these disastrous results the "petitioners say, they have no hesitation in declaring it as their decided conviction, are principally caused by the
232
heavy pressure of taxation, rendered more oppressive by the alteration in the currency, which has withdrawn from general circulation, and productive employment, a large amount of capital, and concentrated the same in comparatively a few hands, thereby causing the taxes to approximate to the entire profits of the people, and in defect of profits to their capital, deranging the whole system of commercial enterprise, and paralysing the active industry of the country." They also inform the House, "That your petitioners have to state, that another prominent cause of the present distress, by which these evils have been greatly aggravated, are those laws which they were confidently told would improve the trade and manufactures of the country, by establishing a reciprocity of trade with other rations, but which, as other nations have not adopted a similar policy, have operated most injuriously to several branches of industry, and augmented the public distress, by allowing foreign labour to come into competition with British labour in the home markets of this country." The Petition also pressed upon the attention of the House the sufferings of the retail trade in the city of London, and the petitioners say, "That they feel it the more necessary to make their grievances known to your honourable House, as his Majesty's Government seem to be unacquainted with the real state and condition of the country; and while they have admitted, in the Speech from the Throne, 'that distress existed in some places,' they have stated, from fallacious Custom-house valuations, an increase of exports as 'indications of active commerce,' while it is notorious that the actual value of exports has fallen off to the amount of several millions a-year, for several years past, and have often yielded no profitable return.
"That they have seen with no less surprise the retail trader represented as in 'a prosperous state,' while melancholy proofs to the contrary are weekly presented by the long lists of bankruptcies and insolvencies, and still more numerous compositions with creditors." The petitioners add, "That the unparalleled oppression upon the agricultural interests affects all classes of the people, and to the distress of this, the leading interest of the country, a considerable portion of the embarrassment and losses of your petitioners may be attributed.

233
"They submit to your honourable House, that the diminished means of the people cannot sustain the same weight of taxation, pressing as it does upon all the necessaries of life. That the present state of the country demands every possible reduction of the national burthens, and the removal of the most oppressive taxes. That the proposed reductions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are quite inadequate to the alleviation of the present sufferings, and cannot satisfy the just expectations of the public; and it is with the deepest concern they find, after fifteen years of profound peace, enormous civil and military establishments are still to be kept up, a profuse expenditure in places, pensions, and appointments is still to be continued, many of them necessary only for purposes of patronage and parliamentary influence.
"Resolved, That in the opinion of this meeting, the general and overwhelming-distress which now pervades all ranks and classes in this country, who are not annuitants, and who do not live upon the taxes, originated in the long, bloody, and extravagant wars waged and carried on against the liberties of the people of America and of France, during the reign of George the Third, which wars were sanctioned and abetted by a very large majority of a corrupt and self-elected House of Commons.
"The petitioners, therefore, most humbly pray of your honourable House to direct an immediate inquiry into the extent and causes of the general distress that now unhappily prevails throughout the kingdom, in order that your honourable House may be enabled to apply those remedies which in your wisdom may appear best calculated to arrest and remove the evils above respectfully detailed."
The petition spoke his own sentiments so fully that it was not necessary that he should trouble the House on this subject. He could add that amongst all classes of the people there was a demand for relief. He, of course, could not know what would be the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or what he intended to submit to the House for the relief of the people; but he must say, that in order to satisfy the just expectations of the people, the diminution of the public burthens must be very great. The petition, amongst other causes of the public distress, asserted that much of it was attributed to the ruinous
234
wars against America and France, which a corrupt and self-elected Parliament had enabled the Crown to carry on, and he therefore hoped that the time was at length come when the Parliament would seriously think, in obedience to the voice of the people, of reforming itself. He had often heard it said, that the sufferings of the people were owing to a transition from a state of war to a state of peace, and to the effects of machinery upon manufactures. He thought the peace had now lasted for too many years to allow the argument founded upon the transition to have much weight; and as to machinery, that also was too long in use to leave such mischievous consequences as had been attributed to it. Up to the year 1820, trade was suffering to the extent of at least twenty per cent, as compared with its former more prosperous condition. Between that period and the present time, the depreciation could not have amounted to less than thirty-seven per cent; and altogether the manufacturers of this country had, in competing with those of the Continent, to contend against difficulties equal to sixty per cent. He fully concurred with those who thought that many of those evils, he meant the evils out of which the present distress arose, proceeded from the changes in the currency, and he was quite ready to admit that effectual relief could not be obtained by any removal of taxation which was within the power of any minister. It was totally impossible that his Majesty's Government could take off a sufficient amount of taxation to afford the required relief. On that subject he should say no more, nor did he mean to detain the House by any observations on the subject of free trade, or rather what was improperly called free trade, but what was so called was no such thing; it was any thing but free trade. The trade of this country was taxed seventy-five per cent, and yet, when admitting foreign manufactured goods at thirty per cent duty, they were told that that was free trade. For his own part he entertained not the slightest doubt that the accumulated evils under which the country was suffering proceeded from mistaken and pernicious legislation. As to the meeting from which the petition emanated, he could assure the House that he never witnessed a meeting more free from party feeling. The individuals composing it appeared to have been animated with but one spirit; they had no animosity

235
against his Majesty's Ministers, or against any body of men who might be called to the councils of the King; they sought but one object, the alleviation of the present distress, and seeking that earnestly, they were indifferent from whose hands they received the boon. He concluded by entreating his Majesty's Ministers to turn their attention seriously to the alarming state of the country, for if prompt and effective measures were not taken, they might look forward to a degree of discontent and clamour with which they might in vain endeavour to contend.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonbore testimony to the good order and decorum which prevailed at the meeting in question, and to the total absence of party spirit which seemed to prevail. He also bore testimony to the distressed condition of the retail dealers of London, and having done that, he wished to proceed no further, until he heard the views of his Majesty's Government on the subject of taxation.
Mr. Alderman Woodwould say nothing about free trade, and as to taxation, he hoped that the country might look for considerable reduction. He begged leave to be allowed to state, in reply to an observation from the hon. Member for Clare, made on a former evening, who had censured the Lord Mayor for not allowing the meeting to be held in Guildhall, that this was appropriated to the meetings of the Livery of London, and it could not be used for any other purpose without the leave of the Corporation. The Lord Mayor had only done his duty, and the hon. Member had cast an unjust reflection on a humane and honourable-minded man, who was anxious to do every thing in his power to promote the liberties of the people.
Mr. Wardsaid, he was unable to attend the meeting, in consequence of having to be present on a committee of that House, but he had every reason to believe, though many persons of much consideration in the city were absent, that, generally speaking, the meeting was very respectably attended; he, therefore, though not concurring fully in the statements of the petition, thought it his duty to recommend the petition to the serious consideration of the House. He could not agree with the petitioners that any portion of the distress was owing to the malconstruction of the House; and he should always be opposed to parliamentary reform.
Mr. Humesaid, he agreed with the petitioners that the House, as at present constituted, was not the actual representation of the public or of its mind; but he should, notwithstanding, be very sorry to let several of their statements go forth to the public as though they were the echo of, or in unison with, the sentiments of that party in the House with whom he generally acted. The burthen of this petition, and the continued burthen of the hon. Alderman's speeches, who, no doubt, had a great hand in the composition of this petition, and a number of others like it, was, that export prices had experienced depreciation sixty or seventy per cent. This was echoed back again from other parts of the kingdom; the hon. Alderman and his supporters all the while forgetting that the raw commodity, out of which these articles were manufactured, had fallen to a third, or even in some instances, to a fourth part of their former prices. The cost of cotton had fallen from 150 to 200 per cent. If only three-fourths, then, of our exports consisted of cotton, the merchant, manufacturer, and exporter, must put the difference between this depreciation and the depreciation of sixty or seventy per cent on the price of the wrought article into their pockets. Thus on one article the total depreciation was accounted for without any loss whatever to the weaver. Taking, however, the average fall of price on all manufactured articles as equal to one half, still the depreciation of price on the raw material was so much greater, that the manufacturer or merchant must always be putting into his pocket a profit on the transactions between this and other countries importing our goods. Besides, when cottons rose, as they did, from 6d. to 8d. to 10 d. to 1s. a yard, did the manufacturers ever come to Parliament and beg to be restrained in their excessive profits by an act of the legislature, cheerfully giving that excess of profit towards the reduction of taxation? But it was really a matter of wonder to him how assertions such as this petition was crammed with should be echoed from Manchester and other places, the abode of intelligent beings. Was it that they treated every thing which came from the hon. Alderman as gospel, because his views were most convenient for them to adopt? The hon. Alderman complained, that the system was not one of reciprocity; but so said he; there was no reciprocity in the hon. Al-

237
derman and the tradesmen's system; for when they were putting enormous profits in their pockets, they contributed no part to the public emergencies. He agreed with the hon. Alderman, that much of the present embarrassment originated in the alterations in the currency, but not to the extent imputed by the hon. Alderman; but he certainly admitted there were limes, and this was a crisis, which strongly reminded every rational mind of the imperative necessity of adopting the most rigid economy and retrenchment. So far he agreed with the petition, but he thought that neither the petitioners nor the hon. Alderman had substantiated their averments against free trade.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that he believed it to be impossible for the present system to go on without such a reduction of taxes as would raise the wages of labour and the profit on capital. He had no doubt the opinion which he had stated would be forced upon the attention of ministers and the legislature. The hon. Member for Montrose had endeavoured to maintain that no actual decrease had taken place in the value of our exports, inasmuch as a greater reduction had taken place as to the cost of the raw materials, which we exported. But he would ask the hon. Member, whether he for one would maintain that the price of exports was a criterion of the real condition of a country, at least, of the profits of the exporter. He could speak from experience, and say it was not; for he had exported commodities which had cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, on which he had not received more than sixty per cent of the value in return. In fact, parties were compelled to export. The manufacturers were compelled to keep their machinery in motion, and producing more than was wanted at home, they were compelled to export. Formerly, the English merchant only exported on order, now he exported on the chance of finding a market.
Mr. Maberlycontended, in opposition to those who condemned free trade, that since its principles had been acted upon, our exports and imports had annually increased; that the commercial interest had been extending their dealings, and, as he took it, their profits. It was now an established maxim, that high duties acted only as a bounty upon smuggling, and so far to the injury of the revenue. The duties now levied were the maximum which
238
could be enforced against the smuggler and any attempt to raise them would only encourage smuggling. The Government had not the power to regulate prices, and either there must be an approximation in prices and duties in this country, to those of other countries, or the whole trade of the country would be carried on by the smuggler. Government had been compelled to resort to what the hon. Alderman called the free trade system. If, therefore, the Government should profit by our imports, and the consumer have them at a reasonable price, and a demand be kept up for our exports, there must be an approximation to free trade duties.
On the question that the Petition be brought up—
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, he felt considerable surprise at the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose, upon the petition he had had the honour to present, especially as in presenting it he had not entered into any arguments upon the matters it contained, but merely stated its allegations and among others, those respecting what was erroneously called free trade; which seemed to have aroused the hon. Member's feelings. Whatever credit he might give to his hon. friend for his public exertions, and however he might yield to him in other matters, he could not on this subject, and he must say, that his hon. friend seemed to understand very little of the principles of trade, and to be bewildered with theories of political economy. Having himself, been connected with trade forty-two years, and having been in the daily intercourse with several of the most intelligent persons in the greatest trading community in the kingdom, it could not be presumption in him in claiming to understand such subjects as well as his hon. friend, indeed it would be highly reproachful to him were it otherwise: with respect to the reiterated assertions, that the prosperity of our foreign trade was to be estimated by the quantity of goods exported and not by the value of those goods, however such assertions might pass in that House, they were so manifestly absurd, as to excite the laughter of every man acquainted with business. According to the wild theories of the political philosophers of the present day, the more of our labour we gave away to foreigners the better it was for the country. He was a friend to free trade, properly so called, he was a friend to trade upon equal terms, but in this manufactur-

239
ing country we had only our labour to give in exchange for the commodities of other countries, and the raw material constituted but a small portion of the value of commodities. There was at present a great depression in the price of labour; that was the great subject of complaint, and labour, in all the articles of consumption, was taxed seventy-five per cent, which was, in fact, a tax on raw material, for the labour, with the tax upon it, must be paid for by the price of the manufactured articles; could that be called free trade, or could there be any reciprocity when we admitted foreign manufactures at a duty of thirty per cent, while our own labour paid seventy-five; when other nations would not admit our manufactures in return, and our own labourers could not find employment. He had stated that there had been a fall of sixty-three per cent in the price of commodities since the peace; the hon. Gentleman said, that traders had had advantages to the same extent during the war, but the hon. Gentleman must know that the rise, during war, was in consequence of continued taxation, during a period of thirty years from which rise they could gain no advantage, and by which alone taxation could be supported. What the petitioners complained of was, that by pernicious legislative measures, there had been a rapid fall in the value of property, while the taxes were undiminished; and that they could not sustain the same burthens out of diminished means. The fall since the change in the currency was forty per cent; against this few men could stand; in numerous instances the whole capital had been annihilated which had been by years of labour and industry accumulating. No less than 1,600 bankruptcies had taken place in the last year; how many partners, how many wives and children, might have been involved in their ruin, making together probably some thousands, he could not say, but adding to those the still greater list of insolvencies, and the numerous compositions with creditors, it was evident what scenes of trying distress must be witnessed in every part of the country. There was another delusion which seemed to have run away with political economists. They were for reducing labour, and sacrificing our internal trade, by far the greatest and most valuable, under a notion that we could increase our foreign trade, and better compete with other countries. Sensible as he was
240
of the advantages of foreign trade, still it formed but a small part compared with the home trade; the whole annual exports were about thirty six millions, if they were all profit the sum would go but a little way in paying our national expenses. He was surprised to hear the observations of the hon. Member for Abingdon, who ought to know better; and if the hon. Gentleman maintained that quantity and not value was to be the criterion of the prosperity of trade, he would ask them where they would stop. The value of exports had declined nine millions a year, or about one-fifth on the average of several years; now if this were advantageous, if it were a mark of prosperity, when the value of our exports fell off one fifth, we should be still more prosperous if they declined one half, or even two thirds and he would again ask, where they would stop. Would any merchant who exported twenty thousand pieces of an article, for 20,000 l. think it more advantageous to export twenty-five thousand pieces and receive only 15,000 l. but that was precisely the proposition those philosophers maintain. The whole assertion was too absurd to be reasoned upon. But he would deny that we could not compete with foreigners. He believed that if our goods were twenty-five per cent higher, we should export an equal, if not greater amount; for we brought the foreign markets down, as well as our own, by the abstraction of gold from the continent by the currency bill, and our impolitic measures respecting trade; and the competition in foreign markets was a competition amongst the sellers of our own goods much oftener than a competition of our goods against those of foreigners. He had read many of the publications upon political economy, but he confessed with little advantage, and scarcely two of them agreed. When Mr. Ricardo stated that the depreciation, by adopting our metallic standard of currency, would be three or four per cent, and when he found the depreciation actually was forty per cent, he threw Mr. Ricardo aside. When some of these political economists maintained, that absenteeism was no evil; that it was the same thing whether the Irish landlord spent 5,000 l. a year in Dublin or in England—that it was the same thing whether persons who were receiving five millions a year out of the taxes at home, expended the money in Paris or in London, he

241
would ask what rational man could attend to them; and were not, he would ask, common sense and common experience, safer guides. It had also been maintained, and gravely stated in that House, that it was of no consequence at all whether France took any goods of us in return for her manufactures, or gold; for we had only to send our manufactures to South America, to obtain the gold, and this was advanced by members of the new school, at a time when it was known that South America had been glutted with our goods, for which we could not obtain any profitable return. The petition he had presented stated that the unexampled distress and embarrasment of the country had been occasioned by the late wars against the liberties of the people of America and France supported and abetted by a corrupt Parliament, and now the very persons who had been enjoying places under this system, and had been supporting those oppressive measures, were turning round and declaiming against all interference with the internal concerns of any other nation. He would take some credit to himself for having opposed the late war against France from its origin, and for having brought forward a petition from the City, which was presented to that House so far back as January, 1795—thirty-five years before the time he was speaking—praying the House to disclaimall intentions of interfering with the internal concerns of France, and to lake such measures for restoring tranquillity as might be consistent with the honour of this country. The prayer was rejected, the war was most unjustly persisted in, and our debts and taxes, with our present distress and calamity, were mainly to be attributed to our unfortunate interference; from beginning as accessaries we became principals, and had interfered with the internal concerns of almost every power upon the continent, where tyranny was to be restored or upheld; but now the very supporters of those ruinous and tyrannical measures, told the people that we must not interfere with the internal concerns of any other country. Every where had we aided and abetted tyranny, but in no one instance had we interfered in aid of the oppressed, or in support of public liberty. And what advantages had we derived, what gratitude had we experienced? We had expended our blood and treasure to restore the Bourbons, and so little grati-
242
tude had they, so little influence did we possess, that although we admitted their produce and manufactures, we could not prevail upon them to take in return a piece of cotton. We had set one monster upon the throne of Spain, and another on that of Portugal, over whom we had not the least influence, and all interference on our part, in behalf of the oppressed people, under those tyrannical governments and foul usurpations was deprecated as unjust and inexpedient. The present depression had been ascribed to a cessation of war, and to the effect of machinery; but whatever might have been their operation, that had long subsided; and it had only been since the alteration of the currency, and of the present system of commerce, that the depression had taken place; the depreciation altogether was full half, which was in effect, double taxation, and the petitioners stated, that out of reduced means they could not sustain the same burthens. There was no means he believed of meeting the evil, but by a proportionate reduction of taxes, or an extension of the currency. How far it was practicable to make an adequate reduction of the taxes, he would not say; if the attempt were made they must begin at the top, and go down to the bottom. Establishments must be greatly reduced, and salaries of every description be cut down; without that, the extension of the currency would become unavoidable. It was not a matter of choice but of necessity; the House must apply a remedy, for the same system could not go on with any safety. The representation of Parliament, too, was wholly unsuitable to the present state and condition of the country; and unless some change was made from within, it would, sooner or later, be made from without. It was impossible to go on with a population of fifteen or twenty millions, and a debt of 900 millions, as we did with a population of five millions and no debt at all; this was impossible, and therefore he would contend that there must be a great alteration in the system of Government.
Mr. Maberlyexplained, that his allusion was not made to the value of the exports and imports, but to their quality and quantity.
Mr. O'Connellthought this an exceedingly proper opportunity to explain, that the worthy Alderman's allusions, strong as they were, could not apply to a re-

243
formed House of Commons. Such a House would have prevented the evils complained of.

TREASURER OF THE NAVY.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer[looking at the clock] suggested that it was time to proceed to the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply. The Order of the Day was accordingly read, and on the Motion being put,
Sir James Grahamrose to submit the Motion, concerning the office of Treasurer of the Navy, of which he had given notice. A very painful circumstance, he said, of a domestic nature, had almost compelled him to abstain from bringing forward his Motion, and had it not been that it would have seemed disrespectful to the House to postpone his Motion a second time, he should not have undertaken the task, which he felt he should perform imperfectly. He threw himself, however, on the indulgent favour of the House, on which he thought he might calculate, and even on its sympathy. The object of his Motion was of a painful character, and it might seem even invidious to complain of the appointment of his right hon. friend to an office—he said friend, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, the Treasurer of the Navy, would still allow him to use that name, but when he considered the circumstances and wants of the people, and the professions made by the Government at the opening of the Session—when he considered the calls made by a suffering country, for economy and relief, and the engagements voluntarily entered into by his Majesty's Ministers, that they would make every possible saving which could be effected without detriment to the public service, he was bound to proceed. They had, by filling up the place of Treasurer of the Navy, acted inconsistently with their voluntary engagements. On this point he and his Majesty's Ministers were at issue, and he sought, by his Motion, to obtain the opinion of the House on the subject. He would first disembarrass the question of circumstances which did not belong to it. The right hon. Gentleman would first allow him to assure him that he was not actuated, in bringing forward the question, by any ill-will towards him. In common with every man who knew that right hon. Gentleman, he entertained for him a very great respect; he saw, however, a difference in
244
his conduct which might, perhaps, be accounted for by a change of circumstances. He had resigned office in 1828 with his friends, and he had accepted office in 1829 without his friends; why he had done this it might be impertinent in him to ask, and certainly it was foreign to the object of his Motion. He was bound, however, in the outset, to correct an error into which he had fallen. He had understood, and had so stated on former occasions, that the right hon. Gentleman held a patent office under the Customs, from which he received some emoluments. It was an office which conferred the exclusive privilege to publish a Shipping List, with a statement of what ships cleared outwards, their cargoes, and various other information of this description. He had learned, however, that he was in error, and that the right hon. Gentleman was not in possession of any emoluments from such an office. The reversion, he believed, had been granted to him in 1817, but at present he did not enjoy any emoluments beyond the 2,000 l. a-year belonging to his office as Treasurer of the Navy. Having thus cleared his ground, he would proceed to discuss the question. Not being precisely acquainted with official business, he had found it necessary to seek for information from others. He would first refer to the statement made by Lord Goderich, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1826, and who having filled the office of Treasurer of the Navy, knew all the duties of the office to which the right hon. Gentleman had been appointed. The noble Viscount was contending that it would be improper to annex the office of Treasurer of the Navy with that of President of the Board of Trade. In his argument on the subject, he thus described the duties of that office: "He could assure the Committee that it was very far removed from any thing like a sinecure, and that it would be impossible to transfer its duties to the Board, as had been preposterously supposed, without injury to the public service. The business of the Treasurer was not merely the acceptance of bills drawn upon him by the Commissioners of the Navy. It was also his duty to see that the money was paid to the parties who had a right to receive it. He had also to attend to seamen's wills, which was in itself no inconsiderable source of employment. Until within a

245
few years back, the law was very defective as to seamen's wills, and frauds to a great extent had been committed on individuals, and on the public, by the facility with which money was obtained under fictitious wills. By the regulations which had now been established, the Treasurer of the Navy was personally responsible for any sums of the public money thus paid to individuals to whom they were not legally due. If, then, the duties and responsibility of the Treasurer were thrown upon the Paymaster, who had only 1,000 l. a-year, he did not think that those duties would be efficiently performed." He used the words of Lord Goderich in another place. "Thus, the only difference between the office of Treasurer of the Navy and the Paymaster, was the responsibility, the personal responsibility to which the former was liable, and the latter not." This was the great point insisted on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the description given by him of the office in the year 1826. The right hon. Member for the county of Edinburgh, had, a few nights ago, announced the prospective intention of Government to discontinue the office of Paymaster of the Navy whenever an opportunity for doing so should occur; and the Ministers had thereby distinctly recognized that, of the two offices, the treasurership and paymastership of the navy, one only was necessary. The ground taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the continuance of both those offices, was the sole narrow ground of the responsibility of the Treasurer. The great principle of responsibility, however, as far as respected security to the public from individuals, was proved to be worth nothing when put to the test. The best security for the public was short accounts, simply arranged, which were frequently audited. The responsibility of individuals bound in sums of money was found, on emergency, to be worth little or nothing. What was the test of this responsibility? A few days after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given this description of the duties of Treasurer of the Navy, he had stated that there had been a defaulter in this office—a gentleman by the name, we believe, of Tweedie—and then it came out that what Lord Goderich called responsibility was irresponsibility. He stated, "that on his entering the office, he found several gentlemen in whom he was obliged to repose confi-
246
dence, although he had not appointed them; but he found, one fine morning, that he had become legally liable for a sum of between 30,000 l. and 40,000 l. One gentleman connected with the office went off to America with 25,000 l. of the public money, and another soon after became a defaulter to the amount of 10,000 l. on the discovery of which, that unfortunate person put a period to his existence." From one of those persons 15,000 l. had been recovered; but another person had escaped with some of the public money, and from his securities nothing had been recovered. Again, Lord Goderich stated, "that 30,000 l. had been made away with, but Government having learned the route of the defaulter, were fortunate enough to catch him in America. They could not make him a prisoner in that country, but after some threats, 15,000 l. or 16,000 l. were refunded, and his securities were obliged to pay largely; but, notwithstanding, the public lost by the transaction; about 6,000 l. was the sum the other defaulter made away with, but nearly the entire amount had been recovered from his securities. He (Lord Goderich), however, had fully satisfied the Lords of the Treasury that he was not to blame, and that Right Honourable Board acquitted him accordingly. And, in order to put a stop to similar transactions, a bill was brought into Parliament by which their recurrence was prevented." By that Bill the responsibility which previously existed had been diminished; and it appeared that if the Treasurer of the Navy were able to satisfy the Lords of the Treasury that he had not acted carelessly, they would not call on him to make good any deficiency. The responsibility, therefore, was nothing. If evidence could not be produced that the Treasurer was a particeps criminis, his responsibility was not even the shadow of a shade. The hon. Baronet then expressed his great regret, that the Finance Committee had died out; and his hope, that the Member for Abingdon would, by a Motion, have an inquest held on it. He should be glad to see it revived; for he knew that would be acceptable to the country, and would, he believed, be salutary in its effects. He placed great reliance on the Chairman of that Committee, of whose zeal and diligence the House had already received abundant evidence. The hon. Member also eulogised the Master of the Mint, for

247
the clear statement he had given before that Committee, of the financial state of the country. He had made the public accounts intelligible, which they never were before. He remembered, too, particularly well, the evidence given by two members of the Board of Admiralty. They were to be found in the Fourth Report of that Committee. The hon. Baronet then quoted from that Report the evidence given by the Member for Dumfries (the hon. Keith Douglas), who stated "that the office of the Treasurer of the Navy is a nominal office, without any necessary duties to discharge, and without any fixed responsibility," and by the gallant Vice-admiral (Sir George Cockburn, we believe), who still has a seat in the Admiralty, who said, "I have always thought that the Treasurer of the Navy ought to be an efficient officer in his post, instead of being, as now, one of the officers of state, holding the situation nominally on account of the salary. It is a thing I have always thought wrong." These opinions, he contended, shewed that they did not think the Treasurer had any fixed responsibility, though they regarded his office as one that ought to be effective and useful. He begged it to be understood, that it was no part of his case to propose the abolition of the office. Mr. Burke, in 1782, when he regulated the offices of the country, and the Finance Committee of 1817, had both left that office untouched, and it would be presumptuous in him to call upon the House to affirm that an office ought to be abolished which had been so recommended. His case was this—to ascertain if the Treasurership of the Navy could be preserved consistently with the pledge given by the Government, that the most rigid economy should be observed, or if it could be connected with some other office, and the salary saved. He was disposed to rely a good deal on precedent, and would shortly state to the House the precedents on the subject. He would not, however, go further back than 1782, when Mr. Burke had regulated the offices of the state. By looking through the whole period since that date, it would be found that for about two thirds of the time the office had been held conjointly with some other effective and responsible office, and only held about one third separately. In 1782 it was held by Mr. Henry Dundas, afterwards Lord Melville, and he held it from 1782, except for a short time in 1783,
248
when it was filled by Mr. Townshend, to 1800, or for twenty years, and he held it part of the time conjointly with some other office, and received no salary. For the first ten years he had a salary, but then a salary was attached to his situation as President of the Board of Control, and that was supposed to be sufficient for him while he was also Treasurer of the Navy. In 1791 he was appointed Secretary of State for the Home Department, and still held, conjointly with that office, the situation of Treasurer of the Navy. In 1794 he was appointed Secretary of War, and held the office of Treasurer of the Navy, conjointly with that. In 1800, Mr. Dundas went out of office, and then the situation was held for a time by the Earl of Harrowby and Mr. Bragge Bathurst, both of whom held it separately, as did Mr. Tierney, Mr. Canning, and Mr. Sheridan, in 1806. From 1800 to 1806, therefore, it was held separately; and from 1782 to 1791 it was held separately. In 1807 Mr. G. Rose was appointed Treasurer of the Navy, and he held the office conjointly with the office of Vice-president of the Board of Trade, till 1812, and from that time to 1818, without holding any other office. Since that time the office had been held by Lord Goderich, as Vice-president of the Board of Trade, by Lord Goderich as President of the Board of Trade, and subsequently by the right hon. the Members for Liverpool and Inverness, and Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, who were at the same time Presidents of the Board of Trade. Thus, for twenty-three years, since 1807, it had been conjoined with some other office; and since 1782, when the offices of the state were regulated, it had been held in conjunction with some other effective office about two thirds of the time. In support of the views he entertained on this subject, he would, with the permission of the House, read the opinions of men well calculated to form a judgment on the importance of the office and the extent of its duties. He would read to them, in the first place, the opinions of Mr. Tierney, who had held the office himself, and who is reported to have expressed himself in the following words, on the debate in 1826, on the question of whether it was expedient to unite the office of Treasurer of the Navy with that of President of the Board of Trade:—Mr. Tierney contended, that although the office was one which he should be sorry to see abolished, and "one

249
which required no inconsiderable degree of care and attention, the business to be done might be gone through by one hour's application every day;" and after paying a high compliment to the efficient manner in which the right hon. Gentleman (the Member for Liverpool) had performed the duties of the office, he added—"As to the incompatibility of the two offices, will any hon. Gentleman in this House lay his hand on his heart, and say that he verily believes any inconvenience has resulted to the public service, or to the individuals holding these offices, during the last six years." Having alluded to the name of Mr. Tierney, he hoped the House would pardon him for offering to the memory of that right hon. Gentleman the tribute of respect and affection due to a well-tried friend. Mr. Tierney and Lord Bexley had both held office. One of the first acts of the economy of the present Government, was to confer a pension of 3,000 l. a-year on Lord Bexley, who was already a rich man. Mr. Tierney, on the contrary, was contented to retire to his station in society, and live on his private fortune, the surest means of preserving an honourable and virtuous independence. Of him it might be truly said, Regum œquabat opes animis.—Sometimes alone, sometimes associated with or at the head of a band of well-tried friends, he continued to support or uphold the Government as his principles required him, and it was the honest pride of his friends that he lived without a pension, and the honest boast of his family, that he died without a debt. Sir Robert Walpole, who had contributed more than any man who ever preceded him to the destruction of the integrity of that House, was recorded to have declared that in a time of general corruption and debasement, there was at least one incorruptible man to be found. What Sir Robert Walpole said of Mr. Shippen might, with still greater propriety, be applied to Mr. Tierney. "I will not say who, in my time, have been corrupted within these walls, but I will say, that one man was found incorruptible." To return to his subject, he had listened with attention to the explanations given by the hon. Member (Sir G. Clerk) the other evening; but, he confessed, he was quite at a loss to find out any duties which the Treasurer of the Navy had to perform now beyond those described by Lord Goderich in 1826. It was true that the right hon.
250
Gentleman (Mr. F. Lewis) since his accession to the office, had given notice of his intention to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to the payment of wages of seamen. The result of this, according to ordinary rules, would be, however, to diminish and not to add to the duties of the office, and therefore, no argument of additional labour or responsibility could be brought forward, beyond that which was urged at the time the subject was formerly under consideration. In order, however, to put the House in possession of the nature and extent of the duties required from the Treasurer of the Navy, and of the manner in which they were executed, he would take leave to read to them a few passages from the able work which had been sent forth by the late Chairman of the Finance Committee,—"According to Mr. Abbot's Report on the accounts of the Navy and Navy Pay Offices, it appears that there is a want of clear distinction between the duties of the account branches in the Navy Office, and those of the Treasurer of the Navy—that the operations of one run perpetually into the other, and that great labour is unnecessarily expended in filling up our printed forms, cash-orders to be attached to original bills, and other documents, as warrants for payments by the Treasurer. The present system of tracing accounts is described by Mr. Abbot, as being altogether disjointed, made up of many elaborate branches, but without a trunk to which to unite them. The abstracts, which are formed at the expense of much labour, do not carry with them any criterion for the proving of their correctness, such as would satisfy any professional mercantile accountant. In the Navy Pay Office, where the payments made by the Treasurer now employ three cashiers, and and about thirty clerks, three sub-cashiers, three subordinate clerks would be sufficient. Mr. Abbot says, that in the wages branch of the Navy Office, twelve books, which are now kept to check the Treasurer's payments, might be discontinued. He proposes the consolidation of the wages branch with the ticket and allotment branches; and says, that the advantages to be derived from it would be the simplification of the accounts and the reduction of labour, by keeping one copy of many accounts instead of two. At present, the payment of officers' and seamen's wages is made in the presence of four

251
clerks, in order to have three clerks checking the accuracy of every sum paid by the fourth. As these clerks are selected from different branches, and as each keeps a book, so many books are kept in triplicate that noless than 1580 supernumerary books are annually kept. Mr. Abbot observes, generally, on the present system of Navy Accounts, that there is a great variation of record, without a distinction of purpose; that the whole of the business of the Accountant's department is so entirely devoid of system, that no sound repairs can be made of it; and he adds, the annual payments are at present so limited in number and amount, that there would be no difficulty in writing them all into one cash-book, and transferring every item in detail to the Journal, preparatory to forming the Ledger." Messrs. Brooksbank and Beltz, in their joint Report on the Public Accounts, agree in several of the statements made by Mr. Abbot, on the subject of the Navy Accounts, with respect to the want of arrangement, and the scattered and detailed methods of keeping the books. Now, as the object of the Bill to be introduced by the Treasurer of the Navy, must be, to simplify the accounts, and thereby reduce the labour required in inspecting them, it would follow, as a matter of course, that if one hour a day were formerly sufficient to perform those duties, half an hour a day must henceforward be ample. By a late arrangement, the Treasurer of the Navy had the duty of a Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital added to those which were required from him in the Navy Office. Now, considering that there were already three well paid Commissioners to discharge the duties of the Hospital, he thought the appointment wholly unnecessary, and calculated to add to the apparent duties of the Treasurer, without conferring any real benefit on the public. There were first—the hon. Member for Dumfries, a man of great experience and knowledge of business, a member of that Board. Then there was the noble Auditor (Lord Auckland), a man also of experience; the Secretary (Mr. Locker) well acquainted with the duties of his office; and, last of all, they had the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests Department, as Chairman (Lord Lowther), than whom there could not be found a more efficient, more experienced, or more zealous man of business. He thought, therefore, the ar-
252
rangement which made the Treasurer a joint Commissioner with them, was exceedingly unnecessary, and when it was considered that the Treasurer of the Navy might draw a bill in the one capacity which he might be called on to pay in the other, he thought he might also declare the appointment impolitic. Returning to the question of the late appointment, he thought he might take leave to suppose that when the Mastership of the Mint was offered to the noble Marquis, the member for the county of Bedford (Lord Chandos,) it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to continue the former arrangement. Either the Government, therefore, were of opinion, up to the Meeting of Parliament, that there was not such a press of business in the office of the Treasurer of the Navy as would render it necessary to disunite the two offices, or they contemplated the addition of another placeman to a band already much too numerous for the advantage of the public in that House. One of these courses must have been determined on at the time they offered to the noble Marquis the place of Master of the Mint. In considering to what office the duty of the Treasurership of the Navy might be attached, there were several which presented themselves to him as offering a much better arrangement without any inconvenience to the public service. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster might have had it conferred on him. He knew of no duties that officer had to perform which would prevent his taking on him all the responsibility of the Treasurership of the Navy. There were other offices to which it might be attached, but in his opinion none seemed so eligible for the purpose as the Vice-presidency of the Board of Trade. This would the more easily be effected, as the Ministers had, with all their professions of economy, carved out a new place in that office, only second in importance to that held by the Master of the Mint, as President of the Board. This was the office conferred on Mr. Hume, who, in reality, executed the most important duties of the Board of Trade. This office had a salary of 1,500 l. a year, but although he had watched the public accounts with the utmost attention for the last two years, he had not been able to discover in what manner that salary was paid. Either he had been remiss in his duty, or the money was voted under some other head, for he had not, as

253
yet, in any of the public accounts seen any specific charge made on account of the salary of this officer. This, however, was beside the question before the House. His argument was, that as Ministers had called to their assistance another officer in the Board of Trade, they had afforded a fair opportunity to make a slight addition to the duties of the Vice-President, who must be materially relieved by the appointment. He thought he should on the present occasion, command the votes of some even of the right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches. He did not see the Attorney General in his place, and he regretted that he did not, because the right hon. Gentleman who voted with so much zeal for the union of the office of Treasurer of the Navy with that of the Board of Trade, could scarcely now refuse his consent to add it to that of the Vice-president. That was a suit to which the right hon. Gentleman could not demur. Then he thought the right hon. Gentleman, the Paymaster of the Forces (Mr. Calcraft,) could scarcely refuse him his vote, when he considered how strenuously that right hon. Gentleman had, in 1826, opposed the attempt to increase the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, and make the Treasurership of the Navy a separate office. If the House would permit him, he would read to them a speech, such as they did not often now hear—a speech marked with the features of the good old times, and distinguished by all that fine foaming patriotism which marked the genuine Whig. The language of this speech was in fact so pithy and conveyed so forcibly, and yet so laconically, the arguments which he could have wished to use on this subject, that he thought, if the House would permit him, he could not better convey what he wished to express than by reading a few extracts from it. The right hon. Gentleman commenced by observing in his speech, and in reply to some of the arguments of his opponents, that "The right hon. Gentlemen opposite had a peculiar talent of magnifying the importance of their respective offices. One would be inclined to suppose from the extreme diffidence of those right hon. Gentlemen in speaking of their own exertions, and the manner in which they spoke of the great labours attached to their situations, that they had been forced against their inclinations to accept of their present appointments.
254
They spoke with such feeling of the pain and anxiety belonging to public appointments, that it really seemed strange, taking their own representations, that they were ever able to persuade any men to undertake such a burthen of care and restlessness. "Speaking, then, with a metaphorical language which, from its military character, bore the appearance of prophecy, the right hon. Gentleman went on to observe, "Was it indeed a fact that these distinguished posts were forced upon unwilling individuals,—that honour was thrust upon them; and that instead of large salaries and small duties being greedily caught at by hungry expectants, they were thrown back upon those who offered them with a sneer? He apprehended, however, that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Councils, was ever obliged to beat up for recruits, and to offer a bounty for the acceptance of a place. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer held the two offices of the Treasurer of the Navy and Vice-President of the Board of Trade, it had never been hinted that the duties of the one interfered with the other, and it could not be too often stated that this was not a fit time to add to the pecuniary burthens of the public for the purpose of relieving the official burthens of the servants of the public." "This speech," continued the hon. Baronet, "produced such an effect on you Sir, (addressing the Speaker,) that you did the right hon. Gentleman the honour of appointing him one of the tellers on that occasion, and I hope that he will be my colleague to-night, and that we together shall count a triumphant majority." The hon. Baronet then proceeded to contend that one of the main motives which influenced Government in bringing forward the present question, was to throw additional patronage into their hands, and secure another Member to fill their own ranks. The Treasurer of the Navy might be exalted in consequence of this new measure, and he might be made a Member of that House, along with the rest of the Ministers; but if the House were of his opinion, they would be cautious how they admitted another placeman within the walls of Parliament. This was not the time to add to the pecuniary burthens of the public for the sake of diminishing the official burthens of the servants of the public. It was idle to

255
contend that the two offices could not be managed by the same individual. Ministers, he knew, were besieged with applications for places; and it was the duty of the House to interfere between Ministers and the applicants, and say the offices were neither to be made nor had. If the separation of these offices went to place a political Atlas on the Treasury Bench, and to relieve the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) from a portion of that burthen which even his superior abilities—and superior he had always maintained them to be—could hardly sustain,—there might be some reason for the change; but when it was nothing more than an attempt to increase the number of make-weights which gave the Government a predominant influence in committees above stairs, he confessed he could not look on it with anything but feelings of hostility. There were already seventy placemen in that House. In two committees lately appointed, there were to be found in one, seven Members of the Government and three East India Directors; in the other, there were six Members of the Government, so that there were twelve or thirteen placemen in two committees, one of twenty-one and the other of twenty-five members. He confessed he felt a jealousy of this. He thought the Government was already much too strong in that House. When they looked at the close and steady phalanx of placemen, and the skirmishers under the denomination of Directors, Military and Civil officers, Members of the Household, and all those connected with this or any Administration, he confessed he saw a body capable of carrying any or all measures in that House which the Government required. Many circumstances prevented him from alluding farther or personally to the individuals of that body, but he would remind the Members of the House, that their constituents had their eyes on the proceedings of the evening, which would be remembered at a future day, when they were called on to render an account of their stewardship. A question of the creation of a new placeman was before them; and if they desired to show that there remained any desire to relieve the burthens of the people, and that any control remained in their hands upon the measures of Government, he implored them to prove, contrary to the imputation cast on the House by the hon. Member for Clare, that amongst
256
them there still was some spirit and some independence. Whatever sidelong glances might have been cast towards the Treasury benches, let, he would say, this meretricious toying with place have an end, and let them prove by their conduct that in heart and soul they were bound to the people. The present time presented features which were to any mind alarming. That House was rapidly sinking in the opinions of the people, and it was most important to retrieve their character in the eyes of those who sent them there. If one spark of that fire which animated the bosoms of their forefathers, and which yielded but for an hour to the iron hand of Cromwell himself, yet remained; if they were prepared to demand that pledges lately given should be maintained good; if they were prepared to demand the fulfilment of the promise made by the Government at the commencement of the Session, that the most rigid economy should be observed in all the departments of public service—a promise broken by the present appointment to the Treasurership of the Navy, before the ink in which that promise was written had dried upon the paper—that was the opportunity to fulfil their purpose. Let the House prove to the Duke of Wellington himself that the Commons of England were not to be baulked—that promises, although lightly made, were not to be lightly broken; and that there was still spirit enough in its Members to vindicate its dignity, outraged by such a violation of engagements, and to make the opinions and feelings of the people available through the voice of Parliament. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving a Resolution, as an Amendment, "That it is the opinion of this House, the late vacancy in the office of Treasurer of the Navy afforded an opportunity to save the sum of 3,000 l. a year, without any violation of existing engagements, and without any detriment to the public service."
Sir George Clerksaid, that having already, on the occasion of opening the Navy Estimates to the House, entered into an explanation of the reasons which had induced his Majesty's Ministers to fill up, as they had done, the vacancy that had occurred in the office of Treasurer of the Navy, he should not feel it necessary at present to go at any length into that subject. He should endeavour, however, to follow the hon. Baronet through some of

257
the various arguments which he had addressed to the House in reference to this matter. He did not know whether the hon. Baronet was desirous to have the salary of this office entirely abolished, or whether he wished to have the office attached to some other official government situation. The hon. Baronet had principally grounded his arguments upon the discussion that had taken place in 1826, in reference to the office of Treasurer of the Navy, and he had endeavoured to show, from what had been stated by the different speakers on that occasion, that this office had been generally looked upon as one that was always attached to some other office in the State. But the evidence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day proved that a heavy degree of responsibility was attached to the office. No responsibility, in fact, attached to the Paymaster of the Navy, or the Deputy Treasurer of the Navy, but all the responsibility of the office rested upon the Treasurer of the Navy, and it therefore required an efficient individual in that office who could devote his undivided attention to its duties. He perfectly agreed with the hon. Baronet in thinking, that where so much money was continually passing through an individual's hands, and where consequently, such heavy responsibility attached to him, the private funds or for-tune of the Treasurer of the Navy afforded no security to the public against malversation and the spoliation of the public property; but that very circumstance, he conceived, was quite sufficient to prove, that the only check, the only safeguard for the public, consisted in having this office filled by a person of integrity and honour, and that it was absolutely necessary he should be able to give his undivided attention to its affairs, and not have it drawn off to the business of any other department. The duties of the Treasurer of the Navy had greatly increased since the discussion had taken place in 1826 regarding that office, though the hon. Baronet had relied solely on the opinions given by several hon. Gentlemen on that occasion. He should be satisfied to rest his case upon the opinion then expressed by Mr. Tierney, who had himself once filled the office, and who then stated that the discharge of its duties necessarily occupied a considerable portion of his time every day. But he would defend the maintenance of this
258
office apart from others, upon another ground. It was absolutely necessary that there should exist certain offices, the holders of which might have time to spare from the particular business of their own departments for the general business of the Government; particularly parliamentary business, to which members of the Government had to attend. The House must be aware that the attendance in this House formed a considerable portion of the business of such members of the Government as the Treasurer of the Navy. Now, if that officer had to attend to the business of some other department as well as that of his own, it would be impossible for him to attend to the government business in the House. Individuals holding such situations were required for the carrying on of the government business in Parliament, in order that the other members of the Government might have time to devote to the general business of the country. His right hon. friend (Mr. F. Lewis) had already given notice of a motion for leave to bring in a bill to consolidate and amend the acts relating to the pay of the navy. By means of that bill considerable reductions would be effected, and the consequence would be, an increase of responsibility and of duty to his right hon. friend. A simplification of the accounts would by no means lessen the responsibility or the business which attached to the office of Treasurer of the Navy. The hon. Baronet objected to the additional duty which the Treasurer of the Navy had to perform, as Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital. In the first place, the Treasurer of the Navy was chairman ex officio of the commissioners at Greenwich Hospital, and as he performed the office gratuitously, it could not be considered as incompatible with his office of Treasurer of the Navy. The hon. Baronet argued that this office should be attached to that of the Board of Trade. The hon. Baronet should recollect that it was attached to that office in 1826, when the salary of the President of the Board of Trade was only 3,000 l. a year, and it was raised to 5,000 l. a year by the addition of the office of Treasurer of the Navy. But it was never intended that the one office should always be attached to the other; for the President of the Board of Trade might happen to be a Member of the other House, while it was absolutely necessary that the Trea-

259
surer of the Navy should have a seat in the House of Commons. It should be borne in mind, that according to an existing Act of Parliament, the Paymaster of the Navy acted only by power of attorney, as deputy under the Treasurer of the Navy, being appointed by him; and that whenever the Treasurer went out, the deputy went out along with him. He had already stated to the House upon a former occasion, that it was the intention of Government to abolish the office of Paymaster of the Navy whenever a proper opportunity should occur, and transfer the duties to the Treasurer of the Navy, by which a saving of 1,200 l. a year would be effected. He thought, when the House should see the considerable reductions proposed to be made in other parts of the navy, that it would attach little weight to the charge made by the hon. Baronet against ministers in reference to this office. The various improvements which had been effected in the naval departments by Treasurers of the Navy, had been made by individuals who held that office alone, and not in conjunction with any other office. From 1782 to 1792 the greatest improvements had been effected in that office as to the pay of the navy, and other matters connected with the naval service, and during that period the office was held apart from any other. During the next ten years, it was frequently held in conjunction with other offices. In 1790 Mr. Dundas held it in conjunction with the Presidency of the Board of Control. In 1799 Lord Harrowby succeeded in that office, but rose to the Presidency of the Board of Control. In 1801, Mr. Bathurst held it without any other office. In 1803, Mr. Tierney held it in the same manner. It was subsequently held by Mr. Canning. Mr. Sheridan succeeded him in 1806, and he was followed by Mr. Rose, in 1807, who held it until 1812, in conjunction with the Vice-presidency of the Board of Trade. At the latter period he gave up the onerous office of Vice-president of the Board of Trade, and he continued to hold the other office till his death, in 1818. He believed that no one could deny the great benefit the country had derived from the undivided exertions of that right hon. Gentleman during the six years of that service. Great as had been the right hon. Gentleman's talents, when Vice-president of the Board of Trade he had found it impossible to devote sufficient time to the
260
office of Treasurer of the Navy. Whenever the business of the office of Treasurer of the Navy had been deranged, it was to be ascribed to its not having the benefit of the undivided attention of the individual who held the office. During all the time he had alluded to, from 1790 to 1818, only those individuals who held the office apart from others had been able to effect any considerable improvements. Guided by this experience he expected that the greatest benefits would result to the public service from the occupation of that office, exclusive of every other, by his hon. friend. On all these grounds he should oppose the Motion of the hon. Baronet.
Mr. Calcraftobserved, that the allusion which the hon. Baronet had made to him was rather flattering to his vanity. All that he had to do to secure the approbation of the hon. Baronet was to reconcile the vote which he intended to give that night with the speech which he made in 1822; a task of by no means difficult performance. The proposition in 1822 was to make the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, then held by his risiht hon. friend the Member for Liverpool, an office of importance, giving its holder a seat in the Cabinet, the salary of which was then only 2,000 l. a year, 5,000 l. He concurred with the whole House that there could be no objection to such a proposition. The office was filled by his right hon. friend with great ability; and as a Cabinet office it deserved greater remuneration. The only difficulty was, how the object was to be attained. It was considered, and in that opinion also he perfectly concurred, that by adding the office of Treasurer of the Navy to that of President of the Board of Trade, his right hon. friend would take 5,000 l. a year, without any addition being made to the burthens of the country. That was the proposition of 1822. The present proposition was, to reduce the salary of the Treasurer of the Navy 1,000 l.; to make it an effective and laborious office with a salary of 2,000 l., by which the public would save at once 1,000 l. a year; and prospectively to abolish the office of Paymaster of the Navy, having a salary of 1,200 l. a year; thereby making the ultimate saving 2,200 l. a year. Thus it was proposed that a high office, of considerable public duty, should be competently filled for 2,000 l. a year less than a sinecure office

261
was formerly held. Now, certainly, those were two very different propositions; and he could not have the smallest difficulty in maintaining the consistency of his conduct in supporting the one and rejecting the other. The hon. Baronet had been pleased to dwell at some length on the circumstance that he had united himself to his Majesty's present Ministers. Now he would defy any hon. Member to show that he had proposed, or said, or done any thing since he came into the office which he had now the honour to hold, that involved the slightest departure or dereliction of any principle which he had ever maintained. Would any man say that his acceptance of office had any thing improper in it? He had never solicited office; but he owned that he held it the highest honour of his life that he had been asked by the Duke of Wellington to accept an office in his government. He had felt highly flattered by the request. He had, however, not acceded to it in haste. He had acceded to it on mature deliberation. And, having acceded to it, he defied any man to say that in his conduct he had exhibited any dereliction of his former principles. He was proud of having joined the administration of the Duke of Wellington and his right hon. friend near him; and every moment that had elapsed since his connexion with his right hon. friend, every opportunity which he had had of cultivating his right hon. friend's acquaintance, and he hoped he might add of acquiring his confidence, had convinced him that he could not have taken a better or a more judicious step. The hon. Baronet had charged him with having formerly been a great advocate for the reduction of offices. Now, he would ask, by what Administration had so much patronage, in the shape of offices, been given up, as by the Administration in which he held a subordinate station? There was no instance of similar disinterestedness. Let the House look at his right hon. friend's reform of the law; and not at his reform of the law merely, but at the curtailment of ministerial patronage by which that reform was accompanied. If the hon. Baronet wished to bring forward any charge against him, he wished he would do so in a manner that would admit of a more definite answer. The hon. Baronet talked of what he was pleased to call "make-weights" in committees of that House. If the hon. Baro-
262
net disliked the construction of the committees to which he had alluded, why did he not complain of it when they were formed? Of one of those committees he had now the honour to be chairman; and he was very sorry that the hon. Baronet was not a member of that committee (he would propose him if he had no objection), that he might see with what fairness and impartiality the business before it was conducted. For himself he begged to say, that he would never be the tool or the make-weight of any Administration. He disliked talking so much of himself, but the observations of the hon. Baronet had left him no alternative. The proposition on which the House were now called upon to decide was, whether or not they would have effective servants in important offices of the Crown. If the Treasurer of the Navy was to be an effective officer, was two thousand pounds a year too much for his salary? If the House thought so, they would reduce it; but for himself he did not think so. Not conceiving that the allusion of the hon. Baronet to himself had been an ill-tempered one, he was heartily glad of the opportunity which it had afforded him of explaining his own conduct, and of expressing the great gratification which he had experienced from his connexion with his right hon. friend.
Lord Howickobserved, that any doubt which he might have entertained of the expediency of his hon. friend's Motion would have been entirely removed by what had fallen from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Clerk). To the question—why not make the Paymaster of the Navy perform the duties of the Treasurer? the answer of the hon. Baronet was, that there were technical difficulties in the way; but surely those might easily be removed by an Act of Parliament. The hon. Baronet said, that it was necessary to have a person of experience in the office of Treasurer of the Navy; the fact being that the hon. Gentleman who had been appointed to that office could not possibly know any thing of its duties. It would have been a much better course, to have made an effective deputy the principal, and have saved the salary of the latter. It was not merely to the expense, however, to which he objected. There was another important point. His hon. friend near him (Sir H. Parnell), in the able work which he had recently published,

263
stated, that if the late Committee of Finance had sat a little longer, it would have proposed to consolidate all the various offices for the payment of the public money. At present there was a Paymaster of the Navy, Paymaster of the Marines, Paymaster of the Forces, and he did not know how many other Paymasters. It was contended, on the opposite side, that the individuals who possessed these situations could not be dispossessed of them until some opportunity offered of giving them equivalent situations. The principle that was thus established and acted upon was, that if once a man was quartered upon the public, he must continue to be so. So that if any consolidation, such as that he had mentioned, were considered desirable, it could not take place until the means presented themselves of providing in some other manner for the parties in question! There was one more point in the speech of the hon. Baronet on which he wished to say a word. The hon. Baronet had adverted to an opinion of a right hon. Gentleman, that it was important to have a class of public servants who could devote their attention to the general affairs of the country. Really the opponents of his hon. friend's proposition must be at a great loss when they were driven to such an argument as that—2,000 l. a year for devoting their attention to the general affairs of the country! When he (Lord Howick) heard what those affairs were, he might then, perhaps, be induced to refuse to vote with his hon. friend. The admission, however, of the hon. Baronet, that the two offices of Treasurer and Paymaster were not necessary, was quite sufficient for him. From that it appeared, that a saving might be effected, and on that ground alone, if there was no other, he would vote for the Motion of his hon. friend.
Mr. Crokercalled the attention of the House to the very extraordinary difference between the reasoning of the hon. Member for Cumberland and that of the noble Lord who had just sat down, and the still more extraordinary roads by which, though they differed most diametrically in their premises, they had both jumped to the same conclusion. The hon. Member for Cumberland asserted that the office of Treasurer of the Navy was not a sinecure, and that it ought not to be abolished, and he argued that it ought to be annexed to
264
some other office. The noble Lord asserted that it was a sinecure, and that it ought to be abolished, and denied the propriety of annexing it to any office; and yet, after denying all the three points on which the hon. Baronet rested his Motion, he said—strange as it appeared to all who heard him—"I fully agree with my hon. friend the Member for Cumberland, as to the vote to which we ought this night to come." Now he must inform the House, that the two hon. Members had contrived to be at variance with each other without at all approaching either the truth or the justice of the case. He must, therefore, extraordinary as the House might deem such conduct, proceed to argue in the first instance against the assertions of the hon. Member for Cumberland; and, in the next place, against the contradictory assertions of the noble Lord; and the only apology which he had to offer to the House for doing so was, that both the hon. Members were equally distant from the truth. The hon. Member for Cumberland admitted that the Treasurership of the Navy was an ancient office, which it was necessary to maintain as an office of dignity, but which ought to be annexed to another. He argued, that as the Paymaster was doing all the real duties of that office, the Treasurership of the Navy ought to be attached to it. Now, if there was any thing to be deprecated in public economy, it was this mysterious cloaking of the real duties of one office under the pretended duties of another. What were the consequences of such a mode of transacting the business of the public? He was sorry to say that they were such that no one could defend them, much less the noble Lord on the opposite benches, who ought to have some hereditary knowledge of these two offices; for he recollected that whilst the noble Lord's illustrious father filled the office of First Lord of the Admiralty with no less honour to himself than advantage to the public, he appointed a gentleman to the office of Treasurer of the Navy at a salary of 4,000 l. a-year, and made the appointment separate from any other substantive office. In his humble opinion, the noble Lord's father acted rightly, for it had been a source of abuse, that the public had sufficient grounds for lamenting that offices of this kind had been too often amalgamated and hidden under one another. Nobody denied the importance of the duties which the Treasurer

265
of the Navy had to perform. It had been said, in the course of these discussions, that though the duties were important, yet they only occupied the time of Mr. Tierney for one hour a day. When that assertion was made in the presence of Mr. Tierney, Mr. Tierney had absolutely laughed at it.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that he could not agree with the Secretary of the Admiralty that Mr. Tierney had treated the assertion in question with derision. He had understood him to admit, that the service was little more than a sinecure.
Mr. Crokeradmitted that Mr. Tierney had said that this office did not take up much of his time when he held it. That was undoubtedly true; but the hon. Member for Cumberland should have read Mr. Tierney's speech onwards. "I admit," said Mr. Tierney, "that a short portion of my time every day sufficed for the duties of that office; but," he added, "since my time, other important duties have been added to the office."
Sir J. Grahamagain intimated doubts.
Mr. Croker.—Well, then, to convince the hon. Baronet, he would read the words attributed to Mr. Tierney—"When he held the office the business was not so great as to occupy the whole of his time, though he did attend for some time every day, but since then, the business, he understood, was considerably increased."* The right hon. Secretary then proceeded to point out the manner in which the business had been increased, and to show that the work now performed by the Treasurer of the Navy was not the work performed by that officer under the old system; but, on the contrary, combined the work of the old Treasurer and Paymaster of the Navy. In the discussions to which he had been just alluding, Lord Goderich, then Mr. Robinson, took what appeared to him to be a very fair distinction. He told the House that it had been guilty of a fault in allowing the Treasurer of the Navy to appoint a deputy; for, with a deputy, the office of Treasurer of the Navy was made a sinecure. Now, of that fault the present Administration was not guilty, for it had taken from his right hon. friend recently appointed to the office, the power of appointing a deputy. Some hon. Gentleman had asked, "Why not make the deputy a principal?" If such were the question which he had to answer, he
* See Hansard's Parl. Deb. vol. xv. p. 113.
266
would say at once that the real question which was put to the House by this Motion was—"Why not appoint a Treasurer of the Navy with a salary of only 1,200 l. a-year?" [loud cheers from the Opposition benches]. He would give them the "why not?" immediately. Every man felt that it was necessary to have in that House a person of the rank and consideration which the Treasurer of the Navy generally enjoyed in the country, to manage those great concerns which at present devolved as matters of course upon that officer. He wished to know by which of the two principles which had been avowed in this discussion, the hon. Member for Cumberland and the noble Lord meant to stand upon this occasion? Did they mean to abolish the office of Treasurer of the Navy, and join it to that of Paymaster? or did they simply mean to retain it at a salary of 1,200 l. a-year, because it was an ancient office of great dignity? If they meant to stand by the latter proposition, let them move it where it would be more proper, on the grant for the Treasurer of the Navy, in the Navy Estimates. The propriety of that grant was not then under consideration. If the hon. Baronet disapproved of it, let him, on the proper occasion, move that the salary of the Treasurer of the Navy is too large, and ought to be reduced. But then, if the office of Treasurer was to be abolished and joined to that of Paymaster of the Navy, let the hon. Baronet explain to the House why the deputy should be charged with greater responsibility whilst he only held the same salary which he held at present. At present the deputy incurred no responsibility. He acted by attorney under his principal, and might be turned off at his will without a moment's notice. If they placed the deputy under great responsibility, would he consent to accept that responsibility at the same rate of salary? He could not tell. He would say, however, considering the great control which the Treasurer had over large sums of public money, that it was only right that he should be a person of rank and dignity, whose station in. the House and in society would be some pledge for the respectability of his conduct. He had another observation to make, which he considered to be of some importance. Every one who had looked into the affairs of the Navy with much less attention than that which it was his duty to bestow upon them, must be aware

267
that of late years, immense improvements had been made as to the mode of paying the prize-money, the pay and the pensions of those employed in it, all of which it was only right to state had emanated from the Treasurer of the Navy. They emanated, he would not say universally, but for the most part, from such Treasurers of the Navy as had held that office undivided and undisturbed by the cares of an other office. He thought that still more important than this, was another fact which he had to communicate to the House. The House had heard that great defalcations had taken place in that office; that several cashiers had lost their accounts; and that several clerks had run away much in his debt. Now it was unfortunate for the argument of hon. Members on the other side, that every defalcation in public money which had taken place since 1782, had taken place when Treasurers were holding other offices at the same time, and consequently their attention had been called away by the claims of those offices from what he would venture to call their more natural duties. He called upon the House to reflect maturely on the consequences which had arisen from two distinct offices being cloaked under one and the same name. The noble Lord said, "make the Paymaster of the Navy a substantive officer, with a salary of 1,200 l. a-year, and consolidate his office with that of Treasurer of the Navy." Now he would take the liberty of reminding the noble Lord of the amount of salary now received by the Paymaster, and of the mode in which it had reached that sum. The Paymaster of the Navy, when exercising his proper functions of deputy to the Treasurer, had in the year 1800, a salary of 500 l. a-year. When the plan of uniting the office of the Treasurer of the Navy with some other great office had withdrawn the Treasurer from his natural functions, a new importance was given to the office of Paymaster of the Navy. What was the consequence? In 1801, the salary of the Paymaster was increased to 800 l. a-year. This practice went on for some years, and during all that time the Treasurer of the Navy had his 4,000 l. a-year. In 1819, the duties of the Paymaster were found to be increasing; and instead of being shared with his principal, were thrown entirely upon his shoulders. In 1819, the salary was still 800 l. a-year. In 1826, 200 l. a-year was added to it; thus making it 1,000 l. a-year,
268
Now it was raised to 1,200 l. a-year. So that, in twenty-five years, the salary was raised from 500 l. to 1,200 l. a-year, because the Paymaster was doing the duties of the Treasurer, who had another office to attend to. So much for the principle of allowing the ancient and honourable office to be held by an individual holding, at the same time, some other high official situation. In the course of the debate they had been told a great deal about the recommendations of former committees, and about the reluctance of the Government to carry their recommendations into effect. Now the Committee of Finance of 1817 was the only committee which had said any thing about the Treasurership of the Navy. What, then, was its recommendation? To reduce the salary of the Treasurer, which it considered too large, to place the office on a level, in respect of emolument, with the Paymaster of the Forces, and to fix its emoluments at 3,000 l. a-year. That was the only recommendation of the Finance Committee, and Ministers had adhered to it most rigidly. They first reduced the salary to 3,000 l., and now they had reduced it to 2,000 l. a-year, thereby creating a saving of 2,000 l. a-year to the public. But they had been asked, why not abolish the office of Paymaster of the Navy at once? It was not right, he would answer, that the gallant officer, who had served his country as faithfully in that office as he had before done in his own distinguished profession, should be turned out of his office at a moment's notice without remuneration. He had already stated the manner in which the Government had acted with regard to the only Report which any Finance Committee had presented respecting this office: he had already shown that Government had fulfilled every syllable of the recommendation contained in that Report—ay, even to the very letter; and he would proceed to show, that Government had not only done that, but had also gone much further, it had deferred, as it always did when they were reasonable, to the suggestions of the hon. Member for Mont-rose—for that which the Government had recently done was exactly that which the hon. Member for Montrose had recommended it to do on a former occasion. He hoped, therefore, that he should have the happiness of the hon. Member's support that evening, because, as the Go-

269
vernment had followed his advice implicitly, it would be very hard if he abandoned it for doing so. "Mr. Hume said"—and as it was now matter of history, and had occurred in another Parliament, he had a right to read the passage—"Mr. Hume said, he saw no reason why the Treasurer of the Navy might not perform all the duties of his office for 2,000 l. a-year;" and he therefore moved, among other resolutions, that the salary of that officer should be so reduced. The Government had acceded to the hon. Member's resolution. But the hon. Member had prefaced it by another resolution. He had said, "that it was expedient that an inquiry should be instituted to ascertain if any, and what alteration could be made in the office and salary of the Treasurer of the Navy." (ibid. p. 128). Well, that inquiry had been made—
Mr. Hume, interrupting the right hon. Gentleman said, 'but not by the House.'
Mr. Crokerreplied, the inquiry had been made by Government. He did not know what inquiry the Finance Committee might have made into it, because it so happened that he was placed in rather an odd situation as to the proceedings of that Committee. The House had received from that Committee, which was appointed to inquire into, and to state its opinions on, certain matters referred to it, one Report. The world had been told, however, by an hon. Baronet (in a pamphlet) that there was, somewhere, probably in the archives of the House, a body of evidence which he might pick out, to which he might give a tongue, and which he might afterwards call the opinions of the Finance Committee. To such an opinion, however, he would distinctly and explicitly say "No." He denied the right of any hon. Member to assume any thing as the opinion of the Finance Committee but what was contained in its Report; and he would just furnish the House with a proof how necessary it was, that they should attend to the Report of the Finance Committee, and not to the gloss which the hon. Member placed on the evidence taken before it. The hon. Member had quoted the evidence of a gallant officer behind him, as having been given against the office. Now the evidence of his gallant friend was decidedly in favour of the appointment which had been recently made; and he would even go so far as to say, that it was in consequence of that evidence
270
that the course which had been taken was originally adopted. And yet the evidence of his gallant friend had been quoted as adverse to this appointment.
Sir J. Grahamdid not say that it was the opinion of the Finance Committee, he only said that the matter came before the Finance Committee. He carefully avoided the line of argument which the right hon. Secretary attributed to him.
Mr. Crokersaid, that he was not charging this misrepresentation on the hon. Baronet, but on the hon. Member for Montrose, and his opinion as to the Paymaster of the Navy.
Sir G. Warrenderhere rose to Order. The question before the House was not a question as to the abolition of the Paymaster of the Navy—[the cries of "Order" which followed this interruption, prevented the hon. Baronet from completing his sentence, and compelled him to resume his seat.]
Mr. Crokersaid, that dining the twenty years in which he had enjoyed the honour of a seat in Parliament, he had never before witnessed so admirable a specimen of a disorderly call to Order. He thought that his right hon. friend and himself had sat together in Parliament for nearly the same time; and he would appeal to his right hon. friend's calmer judgment, to say whether he deserved the interruption which he had just received. He had paid every attention to the course which this debate had taken, and he was at a loss to conceive why he was to be prevented from speaking of the office of Paymaster of the Navy, in reply to the proposition of the hon. Member for Cumberland, who wished to annex it to that of Treasurer.
[Sir G. Warrendar again said, he wished to explain, but he was not heard.]
Mr. Crokerwas now sure that his right hon. friend's feeling of the force of his argument had got the better of his personal regard, otherwise he was quite confident that his right hon. friend would not have interrupted him. To return, however, to his argument. He had shown, first of all, that it had never been recommended by any Finance Committee to abolish this office; and secondly, that if it was abolished, it would be a tedious and a difficult task to consign the duties of it to a subordinate officer, who was at present unacquainted with them. He did not, however, lay any weight upon that point, except as an answer to what had been called

271
the breathless haste of Government in making this appointment. The absence of his right hon. friend from his place in Parliament, together with the acknowledged cause of that absence, spoke volumes as to the nature of the duties attached to this office; for he asserted, that a great portion of the afflicting illness of his right hon. friend arose out of the agitation occasioned him by this very office. He knew of his own personal knowledge, that his right hon. friend could not, during the last summer, take the relaxation which was so necessary to relieve the fatigue occasioned by long-continued official duties, in consequence of his considering his presence necessary in this office. He therefore said of his right hon. friend, "dum tacet clamat," considering his absence as one of the main ingredients in his argument that the office was not a sinecure, and ought not, therefore, to be abolished. To show that the measure recently adopted by Government had been a matter long under its consideration, he could state that in the year 1827 his right hon. friend, who had given as much attention to the Naval as he had to the Civil departments of his high situations, went down to Somerset-house, and there made various inquiries as to the mode in which this branch of the public service was administered. He then went to the Premier, and informed him that the duties of the office of Treasurer of the Navy had grown to a magnitude which rendered it necessary that it should be made a distinct and separate office. When, therefore, it appeared expedient to the Government to annex the office of Master of the Mint, and not that of Treasurer of the Navy, to the office of the President of the Board of Trade, it was deemed a fitting opportunity to follow the advice which the Finance Committee had given in 1817, and which the hon. Member for Montrose had calledon them to adopt in one of his resolutions in the year 1819. He felt that he had trespassed already much too long upon the attention of the House; but feeling as he did upon this question, he could not reconcile it to himself to give only a silent vote against the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.
Lord Howickstated, in explanation, that he had never proposed to abolish the office of Treasurer of the Navy; he had only proposed to consolidate it with that of the Paymaster, and to make that saving immediately which the Government pro-
272
posed prospectively to make. He would rather appoint an efficient man, with a salary of 2,000 l. a year, than an ignorant one with 1,200 l. a year.
Mr. Crokerwas glad to hear the noble Lord put his argument upon that footing; but he certainly had not so understood it before.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, that either of the plans proposed would be injudicious. The Treasurership of the Navy was such an important office, that it required the undivided attention of one person, and it had so much responsibility, that its duties could not be performed by the Paymaster. He should oppose the Motion, which could not be carried into effect without detriment to the public service.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he felt called upon to make a few observations on this subject, the more especially as he was the only Member of the House now present, who had held, for any considerable time, the office of Treasurer of the Navy jointly with that of President of the Board of Trade. He owned that he should have been glad to have been spared this discussion, for he did not feel much taste for any question in which the discussion of a public matter was mixed up with considerations of a private nature. The present was a discussion of that mixed description; but if it had been purely a question of a personal kind, he should have been the first to do justice to the ability, zeal, and industry, of the present Treasurer of the Navy; he should have been anxious to acknowledge that that right honourable Gentleman was not only competent to perform the duties of the office, but that he was also fully competent to the performance of duties of a much higher kind. But the House could not look at this question with reference to individual claims or individual merits—it was a public question, and only as a public question should he treat it. His Majesty's Ministers had unfortunately placed the House under the necessity of deciding on it as a public question, and he regretted that it was so, considering it to be imprudent in the Government to compel the House to come to any decision on the subject. The Members of that House had no alternative. If they wished to protect them-selves in public opinion—if they did not wish that the resolution they had adopted, and that Government themselves had recommended for their adoption, should be

273
considered as nothing but a mere delusion, they had no means of protecting themselves against an imputation of having lent themselves to such a delusion, other than that of adopting the resolution now proposed. Why did he state this to be his view of the case? First, because the resolution declaratory of the necessity of retrenchment had immediately preceded the appointment to this office; secondly, because, in contradiction to what the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Edinburgh, had stated, he would say, that Parliament, in the year 1826, did recognise and lay down the principle, that this office ought to be annexed to that of the Board of Trade. The question then was, whether a substantive office should or should not be annexed to this office; and for the information of the House he would read the conclusion of the proceedings on that occasion. The House divided on the question proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether a substantive and independent salary should go with the office of President of the Board distinct from that of Treasurer of the Navy, and on the division the ayes were 87, the noes were 76, leaving a majority of only 11. (ibid. p. 148,). Upon that majority having been announced, Mr. Canning, who was then the organ of the Government in that House, expressed himself to the following effect:—" He regretted that the smallness of the majority would prevent him from persevering in the course which, as a matter of principle, he had conscientiously supported; but which, as a matter of expediency, he now felt himself bound, under all the circumstances of the case, to abandon. The expression of opinion had, undoubtedly been very strong; and his Majesty's Government would not further press the measure. As it seemed to be the wish of the House they would consent to the union of the ancient office of Treasurer of the Navy with that of President of the Board of Trade." He was of opinion that that declaration, followed immediately on the part of the Government by a performance of the promise it contained, did announce on its part a resolution to abide by the rule which the opinion of the House had then laid down. It was not on the judgment of individuals, but on that of the House, that the union of these two offices had taken place. Since they had been administered together, no evil effects appeared to have arisen from their union;
274
and on that point the silence of Ministers confirmed the judgment of the House. The gallant Admiral who, in 1827, was the official adviser of the Government on matters relating to the Navy, had indeed said, that the office of Treasurer of the Navy was a special and substantive office; but there had been three appointments since that lime, and the gallant Admiral's opinions had not been acted on. The Government must have felt that the sense of Parliament, thus expressed, was imperative with respect to these offices; but he would go further, and assert, without the fear of contradiction, that but for that resolution, the two offices would have been continued in the same state as that in which they before existed. When he heard, for the first time, that the offices were not to be separated, he said he considered that resolution as preparatory to the suppression of the Treasurership of the Navy. But it was supposed that circumstances had arisen since 1826, which induced the Government to override the then declared judgment of Parliament, and to depart from the rule which Parliament had then laid down. He had certainly heard the statement of the hon. Baronet, the Lord of the Admiralty, that new and important duties had been annexed to the office of Treasurer of the Navy, by the act of last Session, which regulated the affairs of Greenwich Hospital. He had carefully looked through that act, and he did not find anything added to the specific duties of Treasurer of the Navy, except one;—he meant at least, that nothing had been added which could not be performed by any other Member of the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, except in one instance. One of the clauses of that act stated, that the payment of no sums of money, standing in the names of the said Commissioners, that had been paid, nor the receipt of any dividends or funds standing in their names, should be authorised, unless the First Commissioner of the Woods and Forests, or the Treasurer of the Navy, should be present at the signature of the order by which the said sum was paid or received. He would ask any gentleman who knew anything of business, whether, if there were five persons named as Commissioners, three of whom were specially appointed to perform certain duties, and the other two were Commissioners ex officio—he would ask if the particular duty he had mentioned

275
could be considered as such an augmentation of labour as would justify the House in acceding to the proposition to separate two offices which had been united, by the resolution of Parliament, in 1826, and to give them two distinct salaries? It had been said, too, that the office was to be re-modelled, and that the Treasurer of the Navy was to perform part of the duties of the Paymaster of the Navy. He would assert, from his knowledge of the office, and he challenged any one to contradict him, that it was not possible for the Treasurer of the Navy to do the duties of Paymaster of the Navy. The latter office was one of the most laborious kind, one that required the most continued and assiduous attention to business, more so, he would say, than any office, the holder of which was intrusted with the management of a large part of the public funds. And when it was said that a Member of that House, and a man of eminence, was to conduct these duties, he would ask who in that House would take it? or, if it were taken, how any hon. Gentleman could discharge it better than a plain practical man? Was it to be expected that his right hon. friend should remain chained to the desk six hours every day, giving checks, and seeing to all the details of cashiers and accountants, paying and receiving several millions a-year, and subjected to the regulations of office and powers of acts of Parliament? He should like to ask how long the Paymaster of the Navy was able to be absent from town, as his office was of that nature that, unless the Treasurer was actually present, the Paymaster could not be absent for a moment. Bills and accounts were to be written off, and balances struck every night, and the Paymaster must be present every day—not one day in the House of Commons and the other at his office. The Paymaster of the Navy was also obliged to instruct each Treasurer of the Navy in the duties he would be called on to perform; and when the House reflected that within the last three years there had been four appointments of Treasurer of the Navy, he thought he could ask them, with confidence, whether it was not a strong case upon the question of the security of public property, that among so many and such frequently-occurring changes of the Treasurers, there should still be one efficient officer conversant with his duties, and able to instruct others in theirs, who
276
should not be changed every six months. His right hon. friend had said that it was a remarkable fact, that during a long period the several defalcations that had taken place had all occurred when the Treasurer of the Navy had other duties to perform. If his right hon. friend had said, that all the discussions upon this subject took place at the time of the full moon, he would have spoken just as much to the purpose. If there were any merit in that argument, no doubt it could be applied with equal force to other officers of equal responsibility. Within a short time a fraud upon the Mint had been discovered; but unfortunately for his right hon. friend's argument, the office of Master of the Mint was not then united to that of the President of the Board of Trade. Yet if the argument were good for anything, it must be as good in one case as another—or at least one must be allowed as a set-off to the other. He would ask any gentleman whether, if, as a private man, he was engaged in concerns in which millions passed through his hands, he should think his business likely to be better conducted, or his concerns better attended to, if he changed his cashier every six months? They might abolish the name and designation of Paymaster of the Navy, but he would predict that the Treasurer of the Navy never would do the duty of its Paymaster. The latter was a deputy that performed those duties which the principal could never perform in person. Let them call the officer by what name they pleased, they would deceive themselves if they thought they could get rid of the office itself. In that way, at least, he was convinced they could not save 2,200 l. a-year. They might save the 1,000 l. a-year by the proposed reduction of the salary of the Treasurer, but not by the abolition of the office of Paymaster. He knew he might be told that the office was one which existed merely during the pleasure of the Treasurer of the Navy. It was so, but he would ask whether there would not be greater difficulties attending the frequent change of the Paymaster than of the Treasurer of the Navy, since the business was performed by the former? If they were to make a new arrangement of the offices, the Treasurer of the Navy must be as it was said the Paymaster of the Navy had been, chained to his desk, and compelled to perform all those duties which were now discharged by the Paymaster of the Navy.

277
His right hon. friend had adverted to the authority of Mr. Tierney, who, he stated, had said, that at one time the duties had been discharged by an attendance of one hour a day, but that they had been much increased since his time. He would read the summing-up of the speech of that right hon. Gentleman, who said that "he thought the duties of the two offices (President of the Board of Trade and Treasurer of the Navy) could be efficiently performed by the right hon. Gentleman who then held them." (ibid. p. 1141). So that if the duties had increased, Mr. Tierney still was of opinion that a person so incompetent as he (Mr. Huskisson) was able to perform the duties of both; and so thought, and so decided, the House, and the Ministers felt themselves bound by the decision. So much for the authority of Mr. Tierney. If his own opinion was to be quoted upon the present occasion, he (Mr. Huskisson) was i neither the promoter nor the suggester of the arrangement with respect to the Board of Trade—it was an arrangement that came from Gentlemen on the other side of the House—from Gentlemen who were not connected with the Government. He would, however, state that he should have been glad to be relieved from the office of Treasurer of the Navy, from his dislike to the pecuniary responsibility attached to it; but when he was in office in the Board of Trade, whatever might have been his faults, whatever the character of the measures he recommended, whether good or evil, he trusted he might claim this merit at least, that his was not a department of idleness. At the same time that he bold that office, he was in the situation of one of the confidential servants of his Majesty—he was not only engaged at the office of Treasurer of the Navy, and as a member of the Board of Trade, but as President of that Board he had important duties to perform. He had to manage affairs with foreign states of a commercial kind, affecting their maritime rights, relating to the slave trade, and to the intercourse between the United States and the West-India Islands. He hoped, too, he might claim the merit of having been ready on every occasion to take his full share in the performance of those general and desultory duties which did not belong specifically to his department, but which must be performed by some Member of the Government. He might also say, without
278
presumption, that, in the general business of that House, both as a Member of Parliament and as a member of the Government, he had always taken his share, and he had frequently been employed upon the most important committees which had sat during the thirty-one years in which he had had a seat in Parliament. He did not state these things with any vain or improper feeling; but he had once possessed the favourable opinion of that House, which he trusted he had done nothing entirely to forfeit; and he would take that opportunity of saying, that he had always deeply felt that the manner in which the discussion he had referred to had been conducted with regard to himself was one of the greatest rewards he could have had, and one of the highest gratifications he had received during the course of his whole public life. If at that time, when a proposition similar to that now submitted to the House was under discussion, the Government had found it necessary to defer to Parliament, was it not under the same necessity now? He would ask the Members of the House of Commons, whether they would not even assert their former decision, and vindicate their former judgment, and whether they would not compel the Government to carry into effect the resolution they themselves had proposed in making this office one that should be annexed to some other efficient department? It was impossible to deny that the comparatively minor duties of the Vice-president of the Board of Trade might be annexed to those of the Treasurer of the Navy. That was the whole question before the House. The office of President of that Board was now annexed to the office of Master of the Mint, and it was for the House to say, whether the same course might not be adopted with regard to the Treasurership of the Navy, and the office of Vice-president of the Board of Trade. They had been told of days in which these were substantive and distinct offices; but for the last twenty-| three years (which were of more value in such a calculation than all the antecedent periods) the present appointment was the first in which the office of Treasurer of the Navy was severed from another and more efficient office. In the year 1807. Mr. Rose was appointed Treasurer of the Navy, and at the same time he held the office of President of the Board of Trade. Lord Goderich was appointed Vice-presi-

279
dent of the Board of Trade, whilst he was a junior Lord of the Treasury. Afterwards he held the office of Vice-president conjointly with that of Paymaster of the Forces, and after that, jointly with the office of Treasurer of the Navy, and so the two offices had gone on ever since. No appointment to the latter office had taken place which was not connected with other duties. If any credit were to be given to the persons who had held this employment, he would say to every Gentleman that was to give a vote this evening, "Dismiss from your minds any apprehension that if the offices were to be filled by the same person, any detriment would accrue to the public service." Some little embarrassment might be occasioned to the head of the Government who filled up the appointments, but this would not be of a very serious nature. He would only have to choose between two persons equally efficient. Such an embarrassment would remind him of the often quoted words of an old song,
"How happy could I be with either,
Were t'other dear charmer away."
Such would be the substance of all the difficulties which would attend the success of the hon. Baronet's Motion this evening. He could not but express his regret and surprise, that when the ink was scarcely dry of that resolution, by which the House pledged itself to do every thing to reduce the expenditure without detriment to the public service, it did not occur to the members of the King's Government to ask themselves how they could reconcile this appointment to that resolution or the decision of Parliament in 1826. Was there no sage Nestor in the Council who could have given a hint of this matter? Could not the President of the Council have said 'Beware how you dissever these offices; for from 1807 to 1812 Lord Bathurst, being Master of the Mint, was President of the Board of Trade, and Mr. Rose, being Treasurer of the Navy, was Vice-president.' What was the period from 1807 to 1812? Was it a period of ease and peace in which the Commissioners had nothing to do but to follow their own pleasures? On the contrary, it was a period in which all the commerce of the country was under the direction of the Board of Trade, and the business was greater than at any other period. The expenditure of the Navy, instead of being five millions and a half; was nineteen mil-
280
lions, and the clerks were in number fourfold what they are now. There was but one more observation which he would wish to make, and with that he would not trouble the House long. He was glad of the reductions which Ministers had made in several branches of the public service, and he hoped they would continue those reductions whenever they could be undertaken without palpable injury to the public service. But when the Paymaster General of the Forces asserted that more numerous and greater reductions had been made by the Duke of Wellington than by all his predecessors, he could not hesitate to assert, that the observation had no foundation whatever in truth. The right hon. Gentleman was sufficiently versed in the history of economical reform to know, that the reforms which had been made by Mr. Pitt, that the offices he had abolished between the years 1783 and 1786, were fifty-fold what had been abolished by the Duke of Wellington. Mr. Pitt reduced offices of very great emolument, and of influence, both within and out of that House, and he had reduced them without making a merit of his exertions, or boasting of them in Parliament, because he knew that he was only fulfilling his duty. With all his desire to give credit to Ministers for a wish to be economical, he could not compare their reductions with those of Mr. Pitt. The reductions, also, which had been made in consequence of the motions of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes) greatly exceeded in amount and importance those made by the present First Lord of the Treasury. Upon a recent occasion, hon. Members were talking of reductions in the Dead Weight; but they had now the means of saving 3,000 l. a-year, in conformity with their own recent Resolution, as well as the Resolutions of 1826, and he must despair of any improvement if such a reasonable measure were not carried. If it were not, he would recommend Members not to propose measures of reform, which would be, it was plain, useless, but leave the country to judge of the reasons which had been assigned that night for the continuance of this office. Let the country, he said, judge between the pretences assigned for separating these offices, and the reasons upon which he thought, whether upon the score of precedent, upon the score of

281
authority, or upon that of principle, the office ought to have been annexed to that of Vice-president of the Board of Trade. He would, however, warn the House not to expect the promised reduction of the Paymastership, for the office of Treasurer of the Navy could not be filled without a Paymaster, or some other functionary, unless the office was to be merely a ministerial one, and the individual was to be stationary in Somerset-house which would not add either to the character of the individual, or that of the ancient office of Treasurer of the Navy.
Sir George Cockburnsaid, that attaching the office of President of the Navy with that of the Board of Trade had always, in his opinion, been improper, and he was now confirmed in that opinion by all that had fallen from his right hon. friend who had just sat down. His right honourable friend's talents were universally acknowledged, and it was equally well known that he was accustomed to business; and, therefore, it might be reasonably supposed that he was likely to have looked into details, and to have made himself well acquainted with the office of which he had just been speaking; but, so far from this, the right hon. Gentleman had clearly shown that he knew nothing whatever of the subject. Hon. Members might laugh if they pleased; but he would prove that his right hon. friend was totally unacquainted with the details and the duties of the office upon which he had been making an attempt to enlighten the House. When his hon. friend said, that he was the only person then in that House who had ever filled the office of Treasurer of the Navy, the House would learn greatly to its surprise, that his right hon. friend knew nothing of the subject. First his right honourable friend had told the House, that the Paymaster of the Navy was obliged to attend constantly at his office; that he was a responsible person, and that he had the checks to sign for many millions that passed through his hands. Would the House believe it possible, that the Paymaster of the Navy never had been allowed to draw one single check? The Paymaster could not draw one single shilling out of the Bank of England in virtue of his office.
Mr. Huskissonhere interrupted the gallant officer. He stated, that the gallant officer was either totally mistaken, or
282
he was condescending to take advantage of a play upon a word. The duty of the Paymaster was to sign checks, which, in the language of the office, were called "Writes-off." These Writes-off were orders to transfer, out of the money standing in the Bank of England in the name of the Treasurer of the Navy, large sums to the different sub-cashiers, [hear]
Sir George Cockburn.—The Paymaster never drew a single shilling—he found no security—he was no public accountant. He had no command of the public money, except the power of making these Writes-off, to pay perhaps 20,000 l. to this cashier, and 20,000 l. to another, [hear, hear] Gentlemen might say "hear, hear!" but he would maintain that he had made a complete answer to his hon. friend, [a groan] Gentlemen might groan if they pleased, but it was true. The duties of the Paymaster of the Navy might be done with a very small degree of labour. He might write off in one evening the several balances, and even that duty was only a very late arrangement. He examined balances and made returns to the Navy Office; this was all that the Paymaster of the Navy did, and this was done with much ease. The present right hon. Gentleman recently appointed Treasurer of the Navy, might, without the slightest difficulty, perform this duty; but they could not turn off the gallant officer who now filled the office of Paymaster until an opportunity occurred of otherwise providing for him. The debate of 1826 had turned, not upon these points, but upon a question of economy; and he verily believed the House would have agreed to a separation of the Presidency of the Board of Trade from the Treasurership of the Navy, had the motion then under discussion been one of money. The late Greenwich Hospital bill, and the Out-pension bill, put great and important duties on the Treasurer of the Navy, and as long as the Treasurer was attached to any other office, his services never could be commanded in the Navy Office. Since the right hon. Gentleman held the office, the superintendance also of all prize concerns had been added to its labours, and the person who henceforward fills the office, will not be a useful public servant if he be not able to give his whole time and attention to its duties. On the whole, he would maintain that, by the present arrangement, a sum of 2,200 l. would be saved to the public, whilst the

283
country would obtain an efficient person to fill the office.
Mr. Huskissonhoped, that he might be allowed to offer himself in explanation to the House, after such very great ignorance had been imputed to him by the gallant officer. He might at least be allowed to show, that he really did know the ABC of the office he had filled. He had been charged with talking of checks, when, in point of fact, the Paymaster had not the power to draw checks. The balance in the Bank of England stood in the names of the Treasurer and Paymaster of the Navy. The Paymaster, under the power of attorney from the Treasurer, was authorized to draw out all that balance, and which, in fact, he did. These drafts were not in the common form of a banker's check, but they were drawn in the following words:—" From the balance standing in the name of the Treasurer of his Majesty's Navy, write off (so many thousand pounds) to the Cashier of the Allotments, to the Cashier of the Pay Branch, or to the Cashier of the Victualling Branch," and so on. This "Write-off" was as much an imperative command to pay the money as if it were a common banker's check, only he had not before made the distinction between them, because he had no wish to trouble the House with a technical explanation. But it had been said, that the Paymaster might go away from his office for a week.
Sir George Cockburn.—I never said any such a thing.
Mr. Huskisson.—Well, the gallant officer, at least, said for two or three days. Documents came every day for the Paymaster to examine and sign. To-day there might be an account of 100,000 l. Navy Bills due, and 70,000 l. to-morrow. Suppose the Paymaster to write-off the 170,000 l. at once, and to go out of town. In the present course of business, and at the present value of money, these bills, or many of them, were not presented for several days; and the Paymaster ought not, therefore, to write off these large sums all at once, but to do so as the sums became due. The gallant Admiral had been pleased to admit that the Paymaster's duty compelled him to balance all the books of the different heads of service; and he would appeal to the House whether this admission did not amount to what he had stated, that the gentleman who filled the office of Treasurer of the Navy, if he
284
also performed the duties of Paymaster, must be chained to his desk.
Mr. Humesaid, that Gentlemen who were not present at the commencement of the debate might be led away from the right question, so much had it been departed from in the course of the discussion. Government, on the 12th of February, had voluntarily submitted to the House the following Resolution, "that it is the opinion of this House, that, in all the establishments of the country, every saving ought to be made which can be made without violation of existing engagements, or injury to the public service." Three days afterwards the present Treasurer of the Navy vacated his seat in that House, having then been appointed to that situation. The hon. Baronet had brought forward this Motion in consequence of that appointment, for it was an open violation of the resolution which the Ministers had proposed, and to which they had made the House pledge its faith to the country. Had the Finance Committee come to any resolution upon the Pay Office, it would have been impossible, from the evidence before it, that it could have done otherwise than recommend the consolidation of all the Pay Offices; to affect ignorance of what would have been the Resolution of that Committee, when the whole of the evidence was on the Table of the House, was either hypocrisy, or it was sneering at the House. The question, however, before the House was, had Ministers, in this appointment, acted with due attention to the economy which they acknowledged to be essential, and which they had pledged themselves, and made the King pledge himself, to observe? The country had now to pay a charge of 2,920 l. to the Paymaster of Marines, 32,033 l. for the Pay-office of the Navy; and Ministers acknowledged, that when they could get rid of or provide for the present Paymaster of the Navy, they would make the Treasurer of the Navy do the duty of his office. What was this but an admission of a violation of their pledges of economy? In his opinion, it was the office of Treasurer that was unnecessary, and he hoped the House would be of the same opinion by supporting his hon. friend's Motion. The Secretary of the Admiralty had shown, that in 1800 the salary of the Paymaster of the Navy was only 500 l. per annum.—200 l. more were soon added, and then 200 l. more, until at last the salary was

285
made to amount to 1,200 l. per annum. These additions were made, he said, because the Paymaster did the whole duties of the Treasurer, who had always other duties to perform. This was an additional fact, that the office of Treasurer was unnecessary. It was said, too, that he had some of the floating duties of the Government to perform; but if he executed all the duties now conjured up for his office, they were totally incompatible with his services as a Member of Parliament. The Treasurer, for instance, might be chosen a member of the Wexford Committee, which might sit for two months, and then what became of the duties of the Treasurer? [From the Treasury Bench: "He may swear off."] Mr. Hume continued: This would be improper—a neglect of duty; and it only proved what he had stated, that the duties were so incompatible, that when they clashed the Member was obliged to swear off from one of them. The only way was, to send the Treasurer out of Parliament, and he should be happy, and very happy, to remove from Parliament that solid band of placemen and pensioners out of which the majorities voting away the public money, and voting it into their own pockets, had that session chiefly been formed. The House had had examples of such removals; and every man knew that the Duke of Wellington was of so decided a temper, that he always got rid of those who, in that House, disputed any of his measures. The Paymaster of the Forces had spoken of his conscientious and independent votes; but if his votes out of office had not been the reverse of his votes in office, he could not say much for them. The Secretary of the Admiralty had totally misquoted and misapplied what he had said upon the Navy Department in 1822. The right hon. Gentleman had said, and he was astonished to hear it, that the salary of 1,200/. to the Paymaster was given according to the advice of Mr. Plume. But he had, in 1822, as he perfectly well recollected, recommended the consolidation of all the Paymasterships; and he contended then, that a single individual was capable of doing all the Paymasters' duties, with a salary of 1,200 l. And he asserted that all the duties of the Navy-pay department might be performed at an expense of 7,000 l. or 8,000 l., if the business was properly arranged. It was true that the Paymaster of the Navy had
286
not a shilling in his hands, and could not dispose of a single shilling, but every department of the State was overloaded with double and treble checks, as if a gentleman giving an order upon his banker found it necessary to pass it also through the hands of two or three clerks. The Government, which professed to reduce and economise, had strangled the Finance Committee in its progress; and taking the merit of abolishing a few miserable commissionerships, and dismissing some paltry clerks, kept up this great appointment in the face of the Resolution of the House. The hon. Baronet had brought the case forward as a matter of principle; for if this expense were allowed, there was no degree of extravagance to which Ministers would not be ready to go. He hoped that hon. Members would, by their votes this night, support the consistency of the House, and show their sense of the manner in which the present Government had violated its pledge of economy, and had shown an utter disregard of the expenditure of the public money.
Mr. Peelsaid, before the House disposed of the proposition now submitted to its consideration, it would not be immaterial distinctly to recall to its recollection the character and principle of that proposition. It was not a Motion to reduce an excessive estimate, nor to diminish an extravagant vote, but to visit those who had made this appointment with condemnation and censure. Thus a question of justice was inseparably interwoven with a matter of policy. The House was called upon to pronounce a verdict; it was sitting, not merely in its political, but in its judicial character; and, however highly excited party feelings might be, he was certain there were few Members who would consent to pronounce that verdict without listening to the evidence, and paying due regard to the intentions of the accused. The animus was always a very main ingredient in the estimate of criminality. Never had he been more satisfied of anything in his life, than that if the House adopted the proposition of the hon. Baronet, it would be doing an act of the most flagrant injustice. Standing in the situation he (Mr. Peel) occupied, appearing as the advocate of the accused, and addressing the House as the Judges to decide the question of guilt or innocence, he felt that it would be an insult to require its forbearance and indulgence. In the

287
year 1828, when a schism, to the circumstances of which he could never refer without regret, occurred between the members of the Government, his right hon. friend Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald had been appointed President of the Board of Trade and Treasurer of the Navy. Lord Melville and his hon. friend behind him (Sir G. Cockburn) protested against that joint nomination, and they had nothing in view but the efficiency of the service, which they apprehended would then be injured: they contended that the two places should not be united in the same person; and the question was considered at the time with reference to what had passed in the year 1826, when the House had overruled the proposal of Government that these offices should be disunited. Ministers, in 1828, thought it right to defer to the sense of Parliament, and Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald was therefore called upon to discharge the duties of both situations. So matters continued, until the health of Mr. Fitzgerald broke down under the weight of his united duties and anxieties, and it then was required of Ministers to consider what arrangements could be made to provide a substitute. To the abilities and aptitude for business of Mr. Fitzgerald he had borne testimony on a former occasion, and it was not necessary to repeat it now; but during the whole summer his health had suffered from his laborious attendance on Parliament, and on the duties of his office, till at length it entirely failed, and when he retired Ministers did certainly think that the time had arrived when they might safely depart from what appeared to have been the intention of the House—provided, at the same time, a saving of the public money could be effected. If they had wished to make out a specious case, and not to trust to the good sense and feeling of Parliament in judging of their intentions, they might have filled up the office of Master of the Mint, with a salary of 3,000 l. a year—have appointed a Treasurer of the Navy, as the office still existed, and have united the situations of President of the Board of Trade and Treasurer of the Navy, with the emoluments which previously belonged to those united offices. Had that course been pursued, not a word of objection would have been uttered; and were not Ministers at liberty to save the public 2,200 l. a-year if they could, although they did not, in other respects,
288
adhere closely to the wishes of Parliament? The argument of his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) had been, that the wishes of Parliament had been expressed, in 1826, contrary to the views of Government, and that Ministers, on the recent occasion, ought to have deferred to the Resolution of the House. No doubt, in a matter of indifference, such should have been the course; but if it were found that the health of a valuable and able public servant had yielded to the pressure of the duties of both offices, and if, by departing from that course, 1,000 l. a-year in the first instance, and ultimately, 2,200 l. a-year could be saved to the public, with a relinquishment, besides, of patronage, was it consistent with the principles of common justice to visit Government with a vote of censure and condemnation? Ministers had thought that they might review the circumstances of the appointment, and they had decided that the best arrangement was not to make the deputy principal, but to secure to a great national establishment the services of a public man of ability, while, at the same time, his salary was reduced. The hon. Member for Montrose had asked how the Treasurer of the Navy could discharge his official duties, be present in his place in Parliament, and attend also as a Member of the Wexford Committee? He (Mr. Peel) wished to know how the same man could be Treasurer of the Navy, President of the Board of Trade, be present in his place in Parliament, and attend also on the Wexford Committee? Surely, if three were incompatible, à fortiori, four must be incompatible also, according to the very shewing of the hon. Gentleman. But before the House became parties to this vote of condemnation, he implored it to attend to the opinion it had expressed by its Committee. From the year 1788 to the present time, various inquiries had been instituted into the office of Treasurer of the Navy, and no Committee had yet ever suggested the fitness of abolishing. the office. Several had complained that the duties were performed by deputy; and hence, an opinion was implied that, for the sake of the public service, it ought to be made a substantive and efficient appointment. Upon this point, he would not go farther back than the Finance Committee of 1817, of which the President of the Royal Society (Mr. D. Gilbert) had consented to act as Chairman. What was

289
the Report of that Committee? Before Ministers filled up the post, they had referred to all the Reports; and if they had erred, they had erred with authorities in their favour, which, in mere justice, would prevent Parliament from joining in a vote of censure and condemnation. The Report of the Finance Committee of 1817 was, that the salary of the Treasurer of the Navy was much too large. A reduction was therefore recommended, and it was proposed that the office and its salary should be placed upon the same footing as that of the Paymaster of the Forces. At that date, the salary was 4,000 l. a-year; and the Committee added, that it was not for them to determine whether it should be lowered to 3,000 l. a-year, or to any other sum. Thus it was evident, that Ministers had not acted in precise concurrence with the suggestion of the Committee, because they had gone beyond it, and had lowered the emolument of the office of Treasurer of the Navy below 3,000 l. a-year. They had reduced it to 2,000 l. a-year, and had put it precisely on the footing of the Paymaster of the Forces. If, after this recommendation, and this conduct founded upon it, Parliament were to turn round at once, and pass a vote of censure upon Ministers, he must say, that reports of Committees, instead of being beacons to guide, would be converted into false lights to delude. The value of Reports would be at an end—"Bring me no more Reports—let them fly all"—since it would be far safer for Ministers to act on their own responsibility and discretion than on the recommendations of committees. In filling up the recent vacancy they had adopted the very advice of their political opponents, and they felt satisfied that it was utterly impossible for men on any side of the House to object to the arrangement. And here, he must say, although he had had some reason to be prepared for opposition from his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson), he was, nevertheless, utterly astonished by his speech. He had referred to the Nestor of the Cabinet (Lord Bathurst), and to the example of Mr. Rose in 1807, observing, that he himself was the only man in the House who had held the united offices of President of the Board of Trade and Treasurer of the Navy: he therefore hoped that the House would confide in his authority. At present, his right hon. friend held neither office, and he might say with Macheath—
290
"How happy could I be with either—"
But in 1826, when doubly burthened, he added, like the same gallant captain, another line to his song—
"Were t'other dear charmer away;"
for, although he now argued that another appointment ought to be added to that of Treasurer of the Navy, in his speech on the 7th April 1826 he contended that the duties were more important than they were generally supposed, and that they could not be properly executed by an individual who was also President of the Board of Trade. Mr. Huskisson then said,*
"He also was relieved from the necessity of saying any thing relative to what some Gentlemen called an useless office,—the Treasurership of the Navy. After what had been stated by his right hon. friend near him, and by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it was scarcely necessary to add, that the business of that department had very considerably increased, as well as the importance of the duties connected with it, since the transfer to it of the management of seamen's wills. It was quite erroneous to suppose that the business of that office was a mere matter of paying money. So far from that, the Treasurer of the Navy was called on to to exercise his discretion in the instance of every demand made on him for money. He was obliged to sift the grounds of each claim, and to decide on the merits of the applicant. With so many branches of public duty to be performed, the Bank could not be expected to execute them, or to exercise any discretion on the different cases submitted to the consideration of whoever might be placed in the superintendence of that department. Whether from his not having that capacity of mind which the discharge of such duties undoubtedly required, or from whatever other cause, he confessed he did feel considerable hardship arising out of the union of the two offices of President of the Board of Trade and Treasurer of the Navy. He felt not only the difficulty attendant upon a due discharge of the duties of both, but the anxiety which proceeded from the great pecuniary responsibility which attached to one of those offices; the weight of which was, in no inconsiderable degree, augmented by the duties arising from the frequent complaints from the Navy-office, the Victualling-office, and other departments of the public service
* See Hansard's Parl. Debates, vol. xv. p. 115, &c.

291
connected with it. He declared that, united as those offices were in him, he could not satisfy his mind that the duties of the Treasurership of the Navy were, so far as he was concerned, duly and adequately performed." "In answer to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to whether or not he had time enough to discharge the duties of both employments, he certainly could not reply that he had not time enough; but he could most truly declare, that to whatever cause it might be owing, he was not able to do the duties of both offices with that satisfaction to his own feelings with which he thought every public duty ought to be performed. Beyond question, the country was fully entitled to his best services, and to all his services; but so long as he remained unable to divest himself of the feelings to which he had adverted, he was convinced that it was any thing rather than a public service to continue in possession of both offices without being able adequately to discharge the duties attached to them." "The right hon. Gentleman opposite had told the Committee, that when he held that office he contrived to do other duties of a public nature. Doubtless, a man of his powers and diligence was capable of holding such an employment with advantage to the public, and also to discharge other duties of importance; but this could not be accepted as a proof that the burthen some duties at the Board of Trade were compatible with those at the Navy-office. The further consideration of this question' he would now leave in the hands of the House, so far as he was personally concerned." This opinion, which his right hon. friend then gave, of the duties of the two offices, was, in his view of the matter, a correct one, and it had been confirmed by the failure of the health of Mr. Fitzgerald; and Ministers were, therefore, led to believe that the plan they had recently adopted was advisable, not only on the score of public economy, but because the duties of the office could not otherwise be efficiently discharged, The Presidency of the Board of Trade had been united with the Mastership of the Mint, because the right hon. Gentleman who occupied those two places was, at least, not new to either of them. It ought not to be forgotten that the proposal of 1826 was to add 2,000 l. a-year to the public burthens, while the plan Ministers had
292
pursued saved more than that sum to the public. He did not know that he could say more on this subject, for he would not enter into the details, resting confidently upon the justice and equity of the case to produce their due impression upon the House, without any bias from party feelings or personal resentments. He would put it to all who heard him, whether the general conduct of the present Government—that of the Duke of Wellington—was such as to justify a vote of censure. He was sure that the House, sitting as judges, would not only consider the wishes of the hon. mover, but the intentions and the acts of the Government. The great advocate for economy (the hon. Member for Montrose), to whose motives posterity would do justice, however annoying and persevering his opposition, had repeatedly acknowledged, that, comparing the present Cabinet with any that had preceded it, he thought that it had evinced a more sincere desire than any other to spare the public purse. It did not, indeed, go as far as the hon. Member wished; but still he had felt bound, in justice, to admit, that it had gone a great way. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had urged that it was necessary to reduce this office, in order to lessen the number of that band of pensioners who were called upon, on every occasion, to overwhelm the sense of the independent portion of the House. The hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse) were at issue, in some sort, upon this point, as the latter had said, in a recent debate, that he preferred a bad strong Government to a good weak one. It became important, therefore, to consider the present amount of Government influence, compared with the better periods of our history, to which the hon. Baronet had referred with such apparent satisfaction. Some time since returns were called for and laid on the Table showing the number of Members of Parliament who held office, place, or pension in the first Parliament of George 1st; a similar return was made for the first Parliament of George 2nd; and a third return of the Members of Parliament who held offices at the pleasure of the Crown, or other places, in the first Parliament of George 4th. In the first Parliament of George 1st, instead of the fifty or sixty placemen now in the House, they had 271 Members of Parliament holding situations at the pleasure of the Crown. In

293
the first Parliament of George 2nd, there were 257 Members also holding offices at the pleasure of the Crown. This was a much greater number than at present. Perhaps it would be said that those offices were so skilfully divided, that a few situations were spread over a numerous body of placemen. What, however, was the fact? So for from a few offices being made to serve a great number of holders, the skill was exercised in accumulating upon the heads of individuals a number of offices, which, by persons less adroit and able than were the dispensers of Crown patronage in those days, would have been considered utterly incompatible. At the time that there were 271 servants of the Crown, holding their situations during pleasure, sitting in that House, Mr. Craggs was, by the singular dexterity of that period, enabled to hold the offices of Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, Lord Warden of the Stannaries, Comptroller of the Household and Governor of St. Paul's. Another Member of the Parliament was Secretary of State, Secretary at War, Clerk of Deliveries to the Ordnance, and a Lord of Trade. A third Member was a Secretary of State, Comptroller of the Household, a Lord of the Treasury, and Ambassador to Spain. The present number of Members in that House was 658; the number at the time of which he was speaking, was 558—there then existed an Irish Parliament—and it was pretty generally acknowledged that that body possessed an adequate supply of parliamentary offices. It was quite clear, therefore, in comparing the influence of the Crown at present with those days of whig constitutional purity, that the balance was greatly in favour of the present time. The hon. Baronet by whom the Motion was made contended for the reduction of the influence of the Crown by the reduction of the office against which his speech was directed; but he thought it had been made pretty well manifest that the influence of the Crown was undergoing a most rapid reduction. Without dwelling further upon those topics, he should call upon the House to review the general conduct of the Duke of Wellington's Government. His hon. friend near him, the Secretary to the Treasury, stated not long since, that during the summer the noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Government had been occupied in effecting every possible reduction con-
294
sistent with the interests of the public service; and the effect of his having so long and so assiduously directed his attention to that subject was, that from that time to the present it had not been in his power to bestow any office of sufficient value to be worth the acceptance of any person holding the rank of a gentleman. The fact was, that so limited was the number of offices now in the gift of Government, that the patronage of the Crown might be considered as mortgaged for several years to come. He would ask, had the Duke of Wellington supported his government by a prostituted or lavish expenditure? On the contrary, it might, with perfect truth, be said, that, with very few exceptions indeed, he had not conferred any civil distinction since he came into office. Other Governments preceding his, might have found it necessary to avail themselves of the prerogative of the Crown, even to an extent that might have been called a lavish expenditure of public honours. The Duke of Wellington had in no instance availed himself of that branch of the royal prerogative, of the exercise of which former Administrations had been so lavish. Upon inquiry it would be found, that in no one case had he conferred any civil honours since his accession to office. In the days of Mr. Pitt, perhaps, a different course might have been found necessary. But he was mistaken in saying "in no one instance;" there were some few exceptions—one or two perhaps—but they were not cases in which any influence could be exercised over that House. His noble friend had, with these exceptions, never felt it necessary to recommend the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown in that respect; not that he undervalued that patronage, but that he had not found it necessary for the purposes of Government as it was in former Administrations. The present Administration looked for support to public opinion, and they felt that, relying upon that, and steadily pursuing that course which they considered most likely to deserve it, the influence of such patronage might be dispensed with. Greatly indeed should he be disappointed if the vote of that evening should convince him that they were mistaken in such reliance, and that they required such influence. The House would no doubt exercise its own discretion as to the Motion before it, and if, after what the Ministers had already

295
done, it should think proper to adopt the proposition of the hon. Baronet, they would bow with submission, but they would still have the satisfaction of thinking that they had not deserved the censure. He must observe, however, that if the House passed a censure on the Ministers who had done most in the way of economy and retrenchment, it would hold out to their successors the folly of relying on public opinion, in lieu of that patronage which other administrations had so profusely exercised.
Sir George Warrendersaid, that he would support the Motion, because he considered it acting up to the resolution lately adopted by the House.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that after having heard the whole case, he could not support a motion which implied a censure upon Ministers who, he admitted, had done much in the way of reduction; at the same time he admitted that a more economical course might be adopted. They were going on in extravagance which ought to be checked, and he would state his opinions on the subject when they came to discuss the Navy Estimates.
The House then divided, when there appeared;—For the Resolution 90; against it 188.—Majority 98.

List of the Minority.

Astley, Sir J.

Ebrington, Lord

Baring, Sir T.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Bernal, R.

Fane, J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Fyler, T. B.

Birch, J.

Gordon, R.

Brownlow, C.

Grant, R.

Burdett, Sir F.

Harvey, D. W.

Bright, H.

Heron, Sir R.

Buxton, J. J.

Heneage, G. F.

Burrell, Sir C.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Buck, L. W.

Hume, J.

Cave, R. O.

Huskisson, rt. hon. W.

Cavendish, W.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Colborne, R.

Keck, G.

Clifton, Lord

Kemp, T. R.

Carew, R.

King, hon. General

Carter, J.

Lamb, hon. G.

Calvert, C.

Leonard, T. B.

Cavendish, H.

Lester, B.

Davenport, E. D.

Littleton, E.

Dawson, A.

Lygon, hon. Colonel

Dawson, E. J.

Maberly, J.

Dundas, hon. T.

Martin, J.

Dundas, hon. G.

Marshall, W.

Dundas, Sir R. A.

Morpeth, Lord

Duncombe, hon. W.

M'Donald, Sir J. Bart.

Dick, H.

Marryat, J.

Euston, Lord

Malcolm, N.

Encombe, Lord

Macqueen, T.

296

O'Connell, D.

Wall, C. B.

Ord, W.

Warburton, H.

Palmerston, Lord

Warrender, Sir G.

Parnell, Sir H.

Webb, Colonel E.

Phillips, G. R.

Wilson, Sir R.

Phillips, Sir G.

Wilbraham, G.

Power, R.

Westenra, hon. H.

Rice, T. S.

Wood, Ald.

Robarts, A. W.

Wood, C.

Robinson, Sir G.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Rumbold, C. E.

Whitbread, W.

Russell, Lord J.

TELLERS.

Rowley, Sir W. Bart.

Graham, Sir J.

Rickford, W.

Howick, Lord

Sefton, Lord

PAIRED OFF.

Stanley, E. G.

Sykes, D.

Scott, hon. W. H.

Denison, W. J.

Thomson, C. P.

Slaney, R.

Townshend, Lord C.

Liddell, hon. H.

Trant, W.H.

Du Cane, P.

Uxbridge, Lord

Winnington, Sir T.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Lambert, Colonel

LONDON AND EDINBURGH ROADS.
On the Motion of Lord Viscount Morpeth, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the state of the Roads between London and Edinburgh, and London and Portpatrick.