Commons Sitting of 14 February 1832

MINUTES.
New Writs ordered. For the Flint District of Boroughs, in the room of HENRY GLYNNE, Esq., who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUME, of the several Amounts paid in each of the years 1830, and 1831, under separate heads, for Half-pay and Retired Superannuation Allowances, distinguishing the several Amounts and Departments.
Petitions presented. By Mr. EWART, from the Inhabitants of Birkenhead, Cheshire, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death for Crimes against Property; and from the Freeholders, Merchants, Bankers, &c. of Liverpool, against the General Registration Bill:—By an HON. MEMBER, from Freeholders and Inhabitants of the Isle of Purbeck, for additional Representation.

TITHES—IRELAND
Mr. Lamberthad eight Petitions to present from various parts of the County of Wexford, praying for the Abolition of the Tithe System in Ireland. The language of all these petitions was moderate and temperate: some of them prayed for the adoption of a general principle by which every sect should support its own clergy; others praying that the tithe system should be altogether abolished, at the same time proposing, that a liberal allowance should be provided for the clergy of the Established Church in some way less obnoxious and oppressive. He was inclined to concur in the latter course, because he thought it would be very hard if gentlemen brought up to the Church were to be turned adrift without any provision being made for them. He objected to the present tithe system because it was unjust in principle, and oppressive and tyrannical in its mode of operation. It was a direct tax on the industry of the farmer, and pressed upon the poor man more than upon
310
the rich. The latter could turn his arable into a grazing land and so escape the tax, but the former was compelled to pay tithe upon his small crop of potatoes, which was almost his only food. Again, he thought it unfair that Catholics should be called upon to support the clergy of a Church with which they were not in communion, particularly when they formed the great majority of the inhabitants of the country. This tax was one which did not attach to the landowner but to the cultivator, for if the land was left uncultivated, it paid no tithe. The mode of collection also was oppressive and unjust. The present state of Ireland was a singular one. It was that of a whole people determined not to pay the tithe, but to suffer their property to be distrained without any breach of the law. It might be easy to distrain upon one or a few individuals, but when a parish, a county, indeed a whole kingdom, were combined, it was impossible to enforce that remedy. It became necessary, therefore, that the Legislature should interfere, or the clergy, instead of being the objects of respect and veneration, would be universally held in detestation. The manner of enforcing payment was not fair, for when the tithe-payer was cited to Court, he found that his Judge was a clergyman, who could not be supposed completely free from bias. He knew a case in which a person who was old, deaf, and paralytic, had been summoned to the Ecclesiastical Court for payment of tithe. He employed a professional man (a King's Counsel) to defend him, but the Judge refused to hear him, as he was not a civilian, and when the son offered to speak on behalf of this aged and impotent father, he was threatened with imprisonment for contempt of Court. The real fact was, and it could not be disguised, the people of Ireland would no longer pay tithes. He warned the Government of the consequence of coercion, for when a people took the execution of the law into their own hands, the power must necessarily pass away from those hands to whom it had been delegated. If they attempted to uphold a system which had become universally odious, they might look for stubborn resistance, for any new attempt would revive the recollections of long injustice, the heart-burnings of oppression, and the long-suppressed, but not extinguished thirst for vengeance. He intreated the Government to reflect, that a whole people never rose up unless galled to the

311
effort by the operation of unjust and iniquitous laws.
Mr. Carewsaid, that tithes had at all times excited opposition in Ireland. It was quite impossible that the system could any longer be kept up. He was perfectly prepared to make any private sacrifice towards the settlement of this most important question.
Mr. Walkersaid, he had been requested by the petitioners to support the prayer of those petitions; they pray for an abolition, or else an application of tithes for the support of the poor; for an abolition of Church rates, and a general reduction of the establishment of the Church, and its immense revenues. He concurred in the justice of this prayer, and the policy of granting it; and until a satisfactory settlement of this question took place—and he meant not satisfactory to the clergy, but satisfactory to the laity—tranquillity would never be established in Ireland, nor would she cease to be what she had been for centuries, a source of trouble, of weakness, and expense to England, when under a kinder and a wiser Government she would have been a powerful and wealthy ally. He much regretted the sentiments alleged to have been expressed by two noble Lords belonging to the Government, for if it was true that Earl Grey had threatened to deluge Ireland once more with blood, it was withering to the hopes of every Irishman here who had hitherto supported the present Government, and had already caused much mischief in Ireland; but he would caution this Government, or any other, which should draw the sword in that country, and especially to support a system it had already confessed to be unjust, that though the bayonets might have their victims, the pikes would have victims also, and it would not be the blood of the tithe resisters that would alone be shed. The threat of force was absurd, for whatever the contemplated punishment might be, he defied it to succeed. Supposing a Minister weak or rash enough, or, he would add, wicked enough to attempt it, where were the prisons to confine, or the fleets to carry into exile, or the executioners sufficiently numerous or hardened to put to death 7,000,000 of people? It was untrue to attribute the opposition to tithes to Catholics alone; that tax was, and always had been, opposed by every sect in Ireland, and he firmly believed, if it were pot for the unhappy state of parties now in
312
that country, there would not be a layman in it found to take the part of tithes. It had been proposed by some to give more power to the clergy, to enable them to collect this tax; but it was the extraordinary powers already vested in the Church, and the atrocious manner in which those had been too frequently abused, that had contributed largely to make this tax completely odious; and an increase of power, so far from rendering the payment secure, would make it more obnoxious. To show what power the clergy now had, and how that might be turned into an engine of oppression, he begged to call the attention of the House to the following statement of a circumstance which occurred to his own knowledge, within the district from whence those petitions came:—A farmer, belonging to the parish of Eniscorthy, was cited before the Ecclesiastical Court of Ferns, (the Judge being himself a clergyman) for subtraction of tithe. The farmer appeared, the case was called on, tried, and decided; but, to the farmer's astonishment, though he was the victor, he was condemned, by this religious Judge, to pay the costs of the suit, and was told that his refusal to comply would increase the costs 10 s. for a monition; the farmer, under the threat, did pay his parson the costs and got a receipt. In the following month the farmer received a second citation for the same tithe, and there being then but one proctor belonging to the Court of Ferns, who had been engaged by the clergyman against him, he, at considerable expense, procured the attendance of a proctor from the Court of Kilkenny; when the case was called on, the Judge refused to allow the farmer's proctor to interfere in his favour, unless he consented to become a proctor of the Court of Ferns, and pay the admittance fee to the Registrar. The poor farmer had to comply, and pay the fee for him. The proctor then referred the Judge to the statute, which alone gave him jurisdiction in such tithe cases, and which enacted that no second citation should issue for the same tithe, and claimed that the suit should be dismissed, and costs given in favour of his client. The Judge admitted the statute, and called on the defendant to prove his defence, who then handed to the Judge the receipt he had formerly received from the clergyman. The Judge, without reading it, twisted it up, and threw it with violence in the proctor's face, asking, "How he

313
dared to give the Judge of a Court of Law an unstamped document?" and refused to receive it in proof. The farmer then referred to the clergyman himself, who was sitting near the Judge, "Whether, as a man of honour, he had not received the costs of the former citation?" The clergyman refused to give any answer. The defendant's proctor next said, the Judge had the means of knowledge within himself, and requested him to refer to his order or rule-book which lay before him. This the Judge refused, saying, he would not be accessory to defrauding the Registrar of his fees; but that if the farmer would pay him for making a search, the book should be referred to. It was then proposed that the Registrar should be examined as a witness; but here again the Judge interfered, on the ground that it would deprive the Registrar of his fee, which at length, as a last resource, the farmer paid; and the Judge referred to the rule-book, from whence he read, that the former suit had been called on and dismissed, and costs given against the farmer; but, added the learned and reverend Judge, "it must be a mistake;" and he forthwith ordered the unfortunate farmer to pay the tithe then claimed, and also the costs of his second suit. The farmer astonished, with tears in his eyes, begged for mercy, or, at least, that the former costs should be deducted; but the Judge told him, that if he did not pay what was now ordered, a monition should issue at his cost, and that if he said a word more, he should be sent to gaol for disturbing the Court, and delaying the course of public justice. Several other causes were afterwards tried on that day, for claims by the same clergyman for tithe of tobacco at 10 l. per acre. This new claim was granted to the Clergyman, and the Judge followed his decree, by saying, "That he wished the clergy of the diocese to bring suits before him for the tithes of everything that grew in their parishes, and he would decree in their favour; and if they could prove to him that ink-bottles grew upon trees, he would tithe them." Another parish from whence the petitions had come was Carne; it paid on an average, 10 s. an acre tithe; it had only two Protestant families in it; and one of them, an old gentleman, had been for the last thirty years perpetual Churchwarden—there not being a second male Protestant parishioner; yet the cler-
314
gyman wanted to force the parish to build a new church, on pretence that the old one was too small for his congregation. Another of the petitions came from the union of Duncormuck, where the Rector endeavoured to enforce the payment of tithes of eggs, poultry, and milk, which were unknown in Ireland. Another was from Maglas; the former clergyman of which used to erase the sums charged by his tithe proctors in their valuation books, and insert larger sums in lieu, which he, in some instances, recovered from his parishioners; but the fraud was at length discovered. Those were a few instances of the tyranny of the present system. For centuries had this grievance been complained of; for centuries had the Irish in vain demanded justice; and he should conclude with the sentiment of a learned and respected Prelate, "May their hatred to tithes be as lasting as their love of justice."
Lord Althorpdid not, by any means, think it desirable to interfere in the debates on petitions; and if this petition had only been supported by the speech of the hon. Gentleman who presented it, and the hon. Gentleman who followed him, he certainly should not have been tempted to address the House on the subject. But what had subsequently fallen in the course of the debate, and some of the observations of the hon. member for Wexford, made it imperative on him to trouble the House for a few minutes. The hon. Member had referred to certain observations of a noble friend (Earl Grey) of his elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman represented his noble friend as ready to deluge Ireland with blood, in order to enforce the collection of the tithes in that country. "I was present," continued the noble Lord, "when allusion was made the other evening to what had fallen from my noble friend; but, though very much astonished by the version of his sentiments then quoted, I did not feel myself justified in making any observations either to affirm or contradict what was then said. But I felt extremely surprised that such a version could have been given of the sentiments of my noble friend; for when I recollected the political principles which have guided the public conduct of my noble friend, and which entirely correspond with my own, I was convinced there was a misconception somewhere. I find I was right, and that my noble friend and myself agree in this—

315
that, while we are prepared to enforce the laws when broken, yet we should be departing from the principles which we have acted on through our lives, if we did not contend that, when extraordinary powers are demanded to enforce the law, they ought not to be granted, unless accompanied by an efficient remedy for the grievance which occasions the demand. This is the principle on which my noble friend and myself have invariably acted, and which we are not disposed to depart from on the present occasion. While we feel that it is absolutely necessary that the law should be upheld—that all illegal combinations should be put down—we also feel, that if the resistance to that law and those illegal combinations have their origin in any grievance which it is in the power of the Legislature to remedy, the Legislature is bound to remedy that grievance. This is the principle on which the Government is determined to act with respect to the tithe-system in Ireland; and this is the only principle on which it can consistently act."
Mr. Humesaid, he had heard with great delight the emphatic observations of the noble Lord; and he was sure they would greatly tend to allay the anxiety that had existed since the statements supposed to have been delivered by a noble Earl had become public. The contradiction thus given would cause great satisfaction in the country. The speech of the noble Earl, he was fully convinced, had been misunderstood, for it was impossible to believe that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with that frankness which characterised him, would make such a statement, unless the Government intended to act fully up to it.
Mr. O'Connellexpressed his humble and hearty thanks to the noble Lord for the few observations which the noble Lord had just made, and which he had listened to with unfeigned pleasure; the more so, as those remarks which it was supposed a noble Lord had made elsewhere had filled thousands of the people with consternation and alarm. He believed that, on the principle laid down by the noble Lord, no one would be found who would not uphold the Government; while the principle of enforcing the present laws, without remedying the grievance, would be unendurable.
Lord Althorpbegged leave to add, that his noble friend regretted that he should have so expressed himself as not to be
316
clearly understood as determined to enforce the law on the condition, which he had just stated, of accompanying it with a remedial measure for the grievance which occasioned the necessity for any extraordinary powers.
Mr. Shawcould not hear with patience the unjust accusations which had been made against the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland. Their moderation, in general, was extreme. It was impossible to meet the cases brought forward on the sudden by hon. Gentlemen without previous notice, but he could take upon himself to assert, the tithe they required did not equal one-twelfth of the rental demanded by the landlords. That fact was a full proof of the moderation the clergy exercised in the enforcement of their rights. They were contented with one-twelfth of the amount of the rent, instead of one-tenth of the gross produce of the land. The law of the land, however, was to pay the tithe of the produce, and he who resisted the payment violated the law. A distraint was only employed as the remedy, in case of the refusal to pay the tithe. The fact was, that a combination had for a long time existed against the payment of tithe, by certain persons who derived their own advantages from agitation, and he feared it had been encouraged by some of a higher order. There was no indisposition on the part of the Protestants to pay tithes, and it was only a few years ago that Catholics willingly did the same, such tithes being properly viewed as merely a rent upon the land. The present opposition to the payment of tithes could be easily and satisfactorily traced to the writings and general conduct of the Catholic priesthood. The hon. member for Wexford (Mr. Walker), when he concluded his speech by a quotation from the works of Dr. Doyle, let out the real truth. That rev. gentleman had recently even gone farther, and, in his last pastoral letter, he had called upon his flock to resist the payment of tithes, as a "damning impost," with all their "art and ingenuity." He did not mean to say, that the present system would not admit of some modification; but, as long as the law remained as it now was, it would be the duty of the Government to enforce obedience to it.
Mr. Blakeneysaid, he had heard with satisfaction the sentiments of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon this very important subject; but he

317
regretted that the grievances of Ireland were generally considered as of no importance in that House: much was expected by some gentlemen from the Tithe Committee, but he could tell the House, that in Ireland that Committee was regarded as a mere nonentity, and nothing good was expected from it. Ireland was now labouring under a cholera, which was not like the cholera in England. The cause of the disease in England was unknown, and therefore could not be guarded against; but the causes of the Irish cholera were well known, and the people were determined to abate them. The root of the disease was the tithe system, and persons of all sects were rapidly uniting with the Catholics to make a national resistance to the payment of tithes. [Question.] He should like to see the Gentleman who wished to put him down when he was discharging his duty. The people of Ireland could expect nothing from the Tithe Committee appointed, because persons best acquainted with the subject, and in whom the Catholics placed confidence, had been excluded from it.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, it has been my uniform wish to discourage premature discussion on a subject which it is difficult to discuss without prejudicing that deliberate consideration which the House will be bound to give to it hereafter. I shall not, therefore, be tempted to enter into this discussion, and I once more advise the House to reserve its judgment until the Committee shall have sent in its Report. We shall then have before us at once the conclusion to which it has come, and the evidence upon which it came to this conclusion. But, Sir, I cannot refrain from expressing my deep regret at the declarations made by the organs of his Majesty's Government in the two branches of the Legislature, which, whether they be reconcilable with each other or not, are certainly calculated to make impressions and raise expectations of a very dangerous character throughout the country. The noble Lord's declarations will certainly make the deepest impression. I presume that that speech has originated from some change in the intentions of the Government. Whether that be the case or not, I will not be a party to the delusion which I think that speech is calculated to produce. I therefore feel bound to say, that I have heard no proposition made to the Tithe Committee, with respect to a permanent ar-
318
rangement for a provision for the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland, which is calculated to realise the expectations which, I think, the speech of the noble Lord holds out. Seeing the construction which has been put upon that speech by the Gentlemen from Ireland, and knowing how probable it is, that a still stronger construction will be put on it by the people of Ireland, who did not hear the speech, I feel it to be my duty to disclaim being any party to that misrepresentation. I think that that speech is calculated to preclude the enforcement of the law. It is true, the noble Lord says that the existing law shall be enforced; but he also says, that the grievances shall be redressed. Now, to make that declaration, unless his Majesty's Government is prepared with a specific plan for the effectual removal of the grievance, seems to me to be most unwise, and only calculated to render the enforcement of the law impossible. If the Ministers are prepared to bring forward a plan to provide for the clergy, differing in character from the system of tithes, I hope they will bring it forward without delay; but I entreat them, if their opinions are settled, and the plan is ready, at once to relieve the Committee from all responsibility on this subject, and not to devolve on the members of it that serious consideration into which we must enter, if we are subsequently to recommend a final arrangement of this very difficult question.
Lord Althorpsaid, I have heard with very great surprise the observations of the right hon. Baronet; for I thought that I had before distinctly guarded myself from such remarks, by stating our determination of enforcing the law. But I stated then, and I have no hesitation in now stating again, that I think, that if extraordinary powers are to be called for from Parliament to enforce the law, the resistance to which has arisen out of a grievance, we are equally bound to propose a remedy for that grievance, in conjunction with the application for those additional and extraordinary powers. The right hon. Gentleman says, that what I stated had a direct tendency to prevent the enforcement of the law; I cannot imagine how this can be proved. The right hon. Gentleman also says, that I ought not to have made my statement, unless I was prepared to absolve the Committee in both Houses from their inquiries and release them from

319
the responsibility of making any recommendations. I have not the honour of belonging to the Committee of this House, but I do not apprehend that anything has passed in either of the Committee which can make it improper for me to say, that a remedy for the existing grievance will be proposed at the same time with the application for extraordinary powers. What that remedy may be will depend on after consideration. The right hon. Gentleman says, "hear!" but surely it is not for me now to declare to the House what recommendation the Government will hereafter bring forward. All that I say is, that knowing that the intentions of Government have been misunderstood, and consequently misrepresented, I thought that it was necessary for me to state thus publicly, and thus distinctly, the principles on which we intend to act.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamhad heard with the utmost astonishment the observations which were made by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord seemed to insinuate that some measure was to be carried through the House, right or wrong, to satisfy the expectations of the tithe-payers. He should be sorry if he misrepresented the intentions of Government, but in the sense he understood the remarks made by the noble Lord, they appeared to him most improper, particularly when two Committees were sitting to inquire into the subject.
Lord Miltonconsidered that there was no inconsistency in the statements which had been made in both Houses upon the subject of Irish tithes. Each of the noble Lords had stated, that the law would be enforced while it was the law, but at the same time that some effectual remedy would be devised for the grievance which the tithes occasioned, not so much in its amount as in the mode of its collection. That House knew that the tithe fell upon the land—and not upon the peasantry of Ireland, who would not be benefitted one farthing by what was called its abolition. No, no: if the tithe were abolished tomorrow it would come into the pockets of the rich proprietors. He wished, therefore, that Government should adopt some plan which would relieve the peasantry from the mode of collecting tithes, while the expense of the Church, as at present, should be borne by the landlords.
Mr. James Grattansaid, that no force under the control of the Government at
320
present could collect the tithes in Ireland. Every one was, he believed, fully convinced of that fact. He denied that this was a Catholic conspiracy to refuse payment of tithes, or that the Irish landlords expected to reap any advantage by their abolition of them. The feeling of opposition to the tithe system was general in Ireland. He himself was a Protestant, and he had many Protestant tenants; and he believed that most, if not all of them, were dissatisfied with the present tithe system. As to the remarks made by the right hon. Baronet, that nothing had passed in the Committee to warrant the declaration made by the noble Lord, he apprehended that enough had been proved there to show, that the law could not be enforced. He, therefore, trusted, although the right hon. Baronet might not see his way to a remedy, that he would excuse the noble Lord for announcing that he had made some progress towards the attainment of so desirable an end.
Sir Robert Peelwas no rigid supporter of the present system of tithes in Ireland, and he had never stated that he was. On the contrary, he had diligently sought a remedy for the evils he knew to exist. But although he had applied his best energies to discover such in the Committee, he had hitherto been unsuccessful. He must, therefore, again repeat his opinion that the observations of the noble Lord were ill-timed, and liable to misconstruction. He had protested, and must again protest, against the announcement of the noble Lord, that an effectual remedy should be applied, when no such remedy had been brought under the consideration of the Committee, and against the announcement, that the law is to be at once enforced and amended.
Mr. Stanleyregretted this discussion at the present moment, because it seemed to him a little premature; as the fact was, that the Committee appointed to examine into this subject was about to come to a decision which, if not quite, would be, he believed, at least nearly unanimous. He had not heard the observations of his noble friend near him, nor of the noble Lord in the other House, but he was ready to declare himself, that the Ministers would not have come down to Parliament to ask for a coercive measure unless they felt at the same time that they were able to promise relief. At the same time, as a justification for their asking for the coer-

321
cive measure in the first instance, he wished to remind hon. Members, and the people of Ireland, that measures bearing upon such important, extensive, and complicated interests, especially if intended to be of permanent and substantial relief, were of a nature more complicated, and would require more time for their preparation than would a measure of coercion that was required solely for the vindication of the law. He, however, again repeated, that the Government would not have undertaken to bring forward a coercive measure, if, at the same time, it had not been able to promise the introduction of a measure of relief.
Mr. Crokerthought it was impossible to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman without much gratification, as it tended to elucidate what he must describe, after hearing the speech of the noble Lord, as the vague intentions of the Government on so difficult and so delicate a subject. If the speech of the noble Lord had explained the intentions and determinations of the Government as set forth by the right hon. Gentleman, his right hon. friend would, perhaps, not have made use of the observations which had fallen from him. The House had witnessed a most extraordinary scene of vicarious explanations. The noble Lord explained for his noble friend in another place (who, poor man, could not explain for himself) but he explained to those who never heard one word of the speech thus explained; and then the noble Lord, the other member for Northamptonshire, explained for the noble Lord. He, however, must take his view of the intentions of the Government from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and if he understood him correctly, he stated, that it was the determination of the Government to enforce the law, and that any measure introduced for a change in the system of tithes was not to proceed pari passu, but to follow the enforcement of the law for the collection of tithes. The right hon. Gentleman properly said, that any coercive measure that might be introduced would be required immediately; as it was necessary, without delay, to uphold the power of the laws and the authority of the Magistrates; while the measure for effecting a change in the present system would require long and anxious deliberation. So understood, there was nothing alarming in the speech of the noble Lord, which had not been satisfac-
322
torily explained by what fell from the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. He now understood, that Ministers would immediately put into execution the existing laws, and that the remedies which they intended to propose were not meant to affect the existence of tithes, but only to remove the difficulty at present attending their collection.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken, if he supposed that it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to recommend the continuance of the tithe system. The attention of Ministers was certainly directed to secure a maintenance for the Protestant clergy; but another object to which their attention was also directed, was the extinction of the present system of tithes.
Mr. Sheilsaid, the last declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, was as satisfactory as it was explicit. The right hon. Gentleman proposed coercion first, and said, at the same time, that he was prepared with a measure of relief. That had been the course pursued by the right hon. Baronet opposite, on an occasion which they could never forget—the occasion when the right hon. Baronet asked that House to put down the Catholic Association, and to pass a bill for the relief of the Catholics; saying at the time, that if the Bill of Relief was not passed, he should abandon the bill for suppressing the Association. Recollecting, as he must always gratefully recollect, that circumstance, he should not now ask what was the measure of coercion, since he found it was to be accompanied with a measure of positive relief. He had no wish whatever that the money taken from the clergyman should be put into the pocket of the landlord. Let a tax be raised, let provision be made, to secure to the clergyman that to which he was justly entitled, deducting only the charge for the receivership; and if, after the death of the present incumbents, that which was deemed, at least by the people, to be public property, was applied to purposes of public utility (one of which purposes was the decorous maintenance of the religion of the State), the people of Ireland would be satisfied; but no measure that merely went to secure in a better manner the present incomes of the clergy would evecontent them.
Mr. Lefroysaid, that if such a measure as that supposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, to be in

323
contemplation, should be adopted, he should cease to attend the future meetings of the Committee, as he felt their proceedings were a mockery. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would disclaim any intention of introducing such a measure, and say distinctly whether the tithes were intended to be appropriated to any other purpose than the maintenance of the Established Church?
Mr. Stanleyanswered, that he was responsible for his own language, bat was not responsible for that of another person. He thought he had stated, as far as was proper or requisite, the views of the Government; and, with respect to the threat of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he should only observe, that much as he might regret the future non-attendance of the hon. and learned Member, the other members of the Committee would recollect that his first attendance at the Committee had been on the day before yesterday.
The Petition was laid on the Table.
Mr. Lambert,on moving, that the Petition be printed, assured the noble Lord, that he had never meant that the amount now paid in tithes should be merely taken from the pocket of the parson to be given to the landlord. He would merely add, that he thought the declaration that had been made by the noble Lord, would have a happy effect towards insuring obedience to the law, and be trusted that no measure of coercion would be necessary.
Mr. Wallaceheartily concurred in that opinion. The impression made by the declaration attributed to another noble Lord, would have caused great mischief in Ireland, unless it had been modified by the explanations the House had just heard. That there were grievances connected with the tithe system had been declared in the Speech from the Throne, which also referred the consideration of them to the House to find a remedy. He trusted, therefore, notwithstanding the remarks made by the right hon. member for Tamworth, that it was from Ministers, and not from the report of a Committee, that the country was to look for a measure of relief.
Sir Robert Inglisthought, that the last observation of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, had only tended to establish a premium for discontent. In future it would be a mere question of the amount of openly expressed discontent required to put down any grievance; and
324
the necessary amount of discontent being found, it would be readily applied for such a purpose, and the grievance would disappear. Did not the Ministers perceive the evil effect of the precedent they were thus establishing? Did they not perceive, that if they gave up one great body in the country, they would never be as well able to defend any other that might be attacked? What was to prevent a similar combination against the payment of rent and taxes. According to the principle they were now called to legislate upon, if an extensive combination of such a nature arose, they would be bound to concede. He was satisfied, if such a course was adopted, it would shake the security of all kinds of property.
The Petition to be printed.

CHOLERA MORBUS.
Lord Althorp brought up certain papers relating to the Cholera Morbus.
Mr. Crokersaid, he had yesterday called the attention of the Government to the necessity of the fullest investigation, with a view to ascertain in what degree the disease ought to be considered contagious or infectious. He had heard that it had now been ascertained that the first case was that of a man following the occupation of a ship-scraper, and that he had been attacked by the disease while at work on a ship which had come direct from Sunderland. He wished to ask the right hon. Vice-President of the Board of Trade whether he had any information to give to the House upon the subject?
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that as far as the information the Government had received went, this was not the first case that had occurred in London, although it was the first that had come regularly under the cognizance of the Medical Board. It seemed to have arisen under the circumstances stated by the right hon. Gentleman. The man had been employed for two days, on Board a vessel from Sunderland; that vessel had performed the usual quarantine of ten days; and he believed that the man referred to had not been in communication with the crew, who, he understood, had been all changed. He would not, however, pledge himself to the accuracy of these details, as the question had come upon him unexpectedly. He could assure the House, that every exertion should be made to procure exact information with regard to all the cases.
Mr. Crokersaid, it was impossible to expect more from the Government. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman was of great importance; and he thought that enough had now taken place to direct the attention of the medical profession, and the public generally, to one most remarkable fact, in the history of this most extraordinary disorder, with a view to enable them to ascertain the cause of the spreading of the disease, and the means to arrest its course.
Mr. Warburtonwished to mention a circumstance of which he had been informed in the course of the day. He understood that the body of one of the persons who had died of this disease had been visited by multitudes of spectators, who went into the room where it was, and there inhaled the atmosphere of the close room in which it lay. He deprecated, in the strongest manner, the gratification of such idle curiosity, and wished to take that opportunity of stating, that it was the duty of the parish officers, and of the police, and undoubtedly they had the power, to prevent the repetition of such conduct.
Colonel Evanswished to have some information respecting the case of a soldier in the Guards who had been attacked by cholera, and who was attended during his illness by a great number of persons none of whom had since been attacked by the disease; a proof, if the fact were as he understood it, that the disease was not of that dangerously contagious nature which had been represented. In Sunderland, it appeared that the disease had spread more to the northward than the Southward, which was another proof of the same fact; for otherwise it would have spread nearly equally all around. He begged to ask, whether there was any objection to lay the papers relating to the case of the soldier of the Guards, before the House?
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, the only papers he knew of relating to that case consisted of a report, in which the medical men distinctly attributed the soldier's illness to other causes besides the Cholera. He did not know of any objection to lay the papers on the Table, except that they did not relate to the subject.
The papers brought up by Lord Althorp ordered to be printed.

OFFICE OF HIGH SHERIFF.
Mr. Fyshe Palmermoved for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the Office of High Sheriff.
326
He was aware that this was a subject which did not excite much interest within the walls of that House; but if he could judge from the quantity of letters he had received from the gentry of the country, it had excited a very great interest among them. They all complained of the great expense attending the office of Sheriff, and the heavy responsibility attached to it, and the report of a Committee above stairs fully justified those complaints. Notwithstanding that the office of Sheriff was one of great importance and respectability, and conferred the highest rank in the county, yet it was undoubtedly true, that the country gentlemen were most anxious to avoid accepting it by every means in their power. If any hon. Member doubted his statement, he need only attend the Exchequer Chamber on the morrow of All Saints, and he would be convinced of its correctness, by witnessing the exposure of family secrets, and the number of excuses, on the score of poverty and encumbrances, made by those who wished to avoid serving as Sheriffs. This was an evil which called for some alteration in the existing law. By the Bill which he proposed to bring in, he intended to make that which was now avoided by country gentlemen an object of ambition. If the dislike to the office arose from the careless nomination of Sheriffs, in the admission of persons not properly qualified, then the evil should be corrected by better regulations: if, from the heavy expense attending the execution of the office, the collection of rents, the quit-rents, and rolls of 200 years past, then the useless ceremonies should be abolished, and the expense diminished; if, from the tedious delay and expense in obtaining the release from office, then some means by which the accounts might be more easily and expeditiously settled, &c, ought to be proposed. These objects he had endeavoured to effect by his Bill; and, as his only purpose was to remove from the minds of country gentlemen any disinclination to serve the office of Sheriff, he should be anxious, after the first and second reading of the Bill, to refer it to a Committee up stairs, where it might, be made efficient and useful. He, therefore, moved for leave to bring in a Bill "to regulate the office of High Sheriff, to reduce the expenses attending it, and to facilitate the passing of their accounts."
Mr. Pagetseconded the Motion. He thought that there was no part of the law

327
of England in a more disgraceful state than the law relating to the office of Sheriff. It was loaded with every description of vexatious expense, and he hoped the House would rescue from degradation an office which formerly was considered of the highest importance. Now, however, this officer had degenerated into a mere lackey for the Judges, he was divested of all his important duties, but nevertheless he was subjected to much expense for show, and much hazard from losses. He was surprised that the Gentlemen of England had suffered the office to fall into such an idle piece of pageantry, and had so long submitted to this wasteful expense.
Mr. Godsonhoped that the Bill would not be confined to the mere expensiveness of the office, for, he believed, that that was the least grievous part of the system. The office of Under Sheriff was so profitable that there was scarcely any Attorney of respectability who would not indemnify the Sheriff against the expense. It would be proper for the House to institute an inquiry into the duties and responsibilities of Sheriffs.
Mr. George Bankesdenied that Under Sheriffs would indemnify the Sheriffs against the expenses of their office. He thought the hon. Member had done himself much credit by the pains he had taken in bringing forward this measure—and the country was much indebted to him for it.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST.
Mr. Baringrose to ask leave to bring in a Bill to restrain the privilege of Members of Parliament, in so far as regards freedom from arrest in the case of judgment debts. The subject was one which required the attentive consideration of the House. In bringing it under their notice, he should not go into any antiquarian research as to the origin of their privileges as to exemption from arrest, but should at once proceed to the question, whether the privileges were not such as in the existing state of society were unfit to be continued. The condition of society had so much altered, that whatever might have been the necessity for them in former times, he thought that necessity had ceased in the present day. All would agree with him, that those privileges which were not calculated to add to the independence and the dignity of that House, or to secure in the fullest manner the attend-
328
ance of its Members, were unnecessary, and they were the less fit to be continued, if, at the same time, they tended to the degradation of that House, and to the production of an unequal state of the law between man and man. When such was the case, the sooner such privileges were got rid of the better. The privileges of exemption were of two descriptions—first, the exemption from arrest, as respected criminal proceedings; and, secondly, the privilege of exemption from arrest for personal debts. Hon. Members were of course aware, that the first privilege did not extend to treason, felony, or breaches of the peace; but only tended to prevent the interference of Government officers, to deter a Member from the exercise of his duty. That privilege had usually been dealt with in the way of resolutions; whereas an arrest for debt had always been considered a direct breach of their privileges, and had been dealt with accordingly. In former times these privileges extended much further than at present. At one period no action could be brought against a Member of Parliament on any account. The law in this respect subsequently became involved in some doubt, and in the reign of James I., a Declaratory Bill was introduced, which allowed persons to bring actions against individuals who had been Members of Parliament, but were not Members for the time being. At a later period the absurdity and injustice of the law relative to the privilege of Parliament, again attracted the attention of the legislature, and in the 12th and 13th of William III. an act was passed which was entitled "an Act to prevent inconveniences that may happen by the privilege of Parliament," and by its provisions, Members of Parliament might be sued in the intervals between the. Sessions and during that time only. As the country advanced in civilization, a further change in the law was found necessary, and the 3rd Geo. II. was passed to enable creditors to sue their debtors, being Members of the House of Commons, not only during recesses, but during the sitting of Parliament, still preserving to them the privilege from personal arrest. The next statute on the subject was the 10th Geo. III., which gave a creditor the power to proceed against a Member of Parliament by distress and the seizure of his goods. Thus it appeared, that Parliament had gradually dealt with this question, as

329
the state of the law had been shown to be imperfect. No person who examined the subject could fail to perceive that this privilege of freedom from arrest had its origin in jealousy of improper attempts on the part of the Grown. In proportion as the law became better administered, and the power of the Crown placed within proper bounds, the privilege of Members had been found inconvenient and prejudicial to the general interests of society. Originally the power of the Crown had been very great, but, as that declined, the House had step by step receded from its peculiar privileges. Another remarkable change in the law respecting privilege was effected by the statute of the 52nd of Geo. 3rd, which enacted, that if a Member became a bankrupt, and did not pay his debts within a limited time, he must vacate his seat. The preamble to that Bill was to the following effect:—"Whereas it is highly necessary for the dignity and independence of Parliament, that Members of the House of Commons becoming bankrupts, and being unable to pay their debts, should not retain their seats." It was now necessary for him to state the change which he proposed to effect in the law as it at present stood. The effect of the Bill which he should move for leave to introduce, would be to deprive Members of the privilege of freedom from arrest, in the event of judgment being given against them. He did not mean to touch the right of exemption from confinement in certain criminal proceedings, nor to destroy the privilege of freedom from arrest on mesne process; his intention by the Bill was, to deprive a Member of Parliament of his privileges in the event of actual judgment against him, supposing that within three months (or any other limit, the House might think proper) after judgment, he did not pay the debt. The question was whether, to use the words of the preamble to the Act which he had just referred to, it was not "necessary, for the dignity and independence of Parliament," that Members of the House of Commons should not set their creditors at defiance. Merchants, whose business it was to embark in speculations, might become bankrupts without any impeachment of their honour or character; but the case was far different with persons who contracted debts with their tradesmen without having the means of paying them. Why then, he would ask,
330
should an individual who incurred debts without the means of discharging them be protected, while another who was only unfortunate, lost that protection. It was evident there was much moral turpitude in the one instance, and almost only a want of prudence in the other, and yet the man who was guilty of the offence retained his seat, and the unfortunate man lost his. He could assure the House that the present system was productive of great hardship to creditors, and was attended with much discredit to the House. Facts had come to his knowledge which really almost surpassed belief. He would abstain from mentioning any recent instance of the abuse of the privilege of Members, but would refer to one which occurred in 1820. In that year Richard Christie Burton was a prisoner in the Fleet, for debts to the amount of 7,600 l. partly judgment debts. He contrived to get returned for the borough of Beverley, and thereupon claimed his privilege of freedom from arrest. His claim was referred to a Committee, who could not do otherwise than report that he was entitled to his privilege. Mr. Burton, therefore, came into the House; but he believed that he did not enter it a second time, for he left the country. By these means he not only escaped from his creditors himself, but relieved his bail. Under these circumstances, he was justified in saying, that the privilege in question was not only productive of serious practical inconvenience, but operated unjustly towards such of His Majesty's subjects as had not the advantage of the privilege, and was most degrading to the character of Parliament. It was on these grounds he called on the House to interfere. He wished to introduce his Bill and have it printed, when it could be thoroughly examined by the House; and he trusted, therefore, hon. Members would postpone any discussion upon its merits at present, and allow him to have it brought in without opposition. He would, therefore, conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for limiting the privilege of Members of the House of Commons as to exemption from personal arrest—for vacating the seats of insolvent Members in custody, and for preventing the election of persons avowedly insolvent, to serve as Members of the House of Commons.
Mr. Huntrose with much pleasure to second the Motion. It would be heard with

331
satisfaction throughout the country that such a Bill had been brought in; and not the less so because it was proposed by one of the richest men in the kingdom, and seconded by one of the humblest. He assured the House that he had risen to second the motion without the consent or knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, who had never consulted him. He himself recollected a case in addition to that of Mr. Burton's, namely, that of Mf. O'Rourke, who about thirty years ago was confined in the King's Bench Prison for debt. He got himself returned for a borough, but never came to the House. He had his horses ready at the door of the prison, from whence he started for the continent, and from thence he never returned. Thus his creditors were robbed of all he had, and got nothing whatever. He hoped the House would receive this Bill unanimously, and he also hoped that it was but the commencement of abolishing other unjust privileges, enjoyed by Members, such as franking, which was grossly abused and often converted into lucrative purposes by merchants, bankers, and persons connected with large establishments.
Mr. Alderman Waithmangave his most cordial consent to the Motion. He had the misfortune to know something of the case alluded to by the hon. Member who had brought it forward. Burton was living in the rules of the Bench, in one of the best houses in the Blackfriars-road, and, upon the occasion of his wife's death, his sisters had come to him (Mr. Alderman Waithman) to purchase mourning, for which he had never since been paid. He knew another instance which he believed was even worse than that. It was the case of a man who was heir to a peerage, but, who was indebted several hundred pounds to a poor widow with a large family. This person, on being pressed for payment, said that if he did not in a short time obtain his peerage, he would get himself elected into that House, and set all his creditors at defiance.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the origin of this privilege was rather as a protection against the Crown than against private individuals. For his own part, he concurred in the principle laid down in the Bill, which only further curtailed privileges that of late years had been considerably diminished. His hon. friend had, he thought, wisely continued the privilege in cases of mesne process, as nothing was more com-
332
mon than to arrest persons upon the mere affidavit of fictitious creditors; and, therefore, he thought it necessary that Members should be protected from such debts. In curtailing the privileges of Members, the House ought to take care that Members should not be put in a worse condition than private individuals.
Mr. Crokeragreed in the justness of the principle laid down by his hon. friend (Mr. Baring), but he felt at the same time that very great difficulties would be experienced in managing the details of the contemplated Bill. While it was desirable that Members of Parliament should have property to an amount that should render them moderately independent, it was also not less desirable that the law should protect their persons from vexatious arrest. A bankrupt or insolvent must necessarily have lost his qualification so that it required no Act to deprive a person so situated of his seat. For himself he would gladly devote every attention to the Bill when it came before the House.
Mr. Lambertthought great inconvenience would accrue to landed proprietors from the penalties imposed by the Bill, and such Members as had constituents, must find the exercise of their duties no such sinecure as to induce them to give up any of the privileges they possessed. Besides, the state of landed property was now such, that there were many landed proprietors who owed judgment debts, but who, at the same time, possessed estates to ten times the amount in fee-simple property, and such persons at the pleasure of a creditor, or of an enemy, who might purchase up such debts, might be deprived of his seat. In fact, if this Bill passed into a law, not one in twenty country Gentlemen could hold his seat for forty-eight hours. Some years ago many banking houses stopped payment, most of whom with time paid their creditors in full; but, if such persons with all their facilities for raising money failed, how should the unfortunate landholder pay his debts at once, when all his obligations had been doubled in value, and his means of meeting them reduced in the same proportion? He protested against the privileges of Members being curtailed. He begged to ask the hon. Member how long could either Mr. Pitt or Mr. Fox have sat in that House under the operation of such a Bill.
Mr. Baringsaid, when banking houses

333
failed, the proprietors, if Members of Parliament, lost their seats. Further, he begged to say, that the Bill would not enable any person to make use of a bond judgment, given as a security with a mortgage, in the way supposed by the hon. Gentleman; if it did, the objection would be great. His only desire was, to place Members in the same position as they would be in if they had not a seat, with regard to judgment debts.
Leave given.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Colonel Trenchrose, pursuant to notice, to move for a Committee to consider what Improvements it was expedient to make in the House of Commons, and the buildings attached to it, for the purpose of rendering it more commodious, and facilitating the discharge of public business. Every one was aware, that for some time past, whenever there was a full attendance of Members, there was not sufficient accommodation for them. This large attendance, he believed, was not likely to be diminished. It was of great importance, therefore, that the building in which they met should be more commodious. At the present moment, when the capital was visited by a pestilential disease which had scourged so many parts of Europe, it might be worth while for hon. Members to consider whether their close attendance in that House might not render them more susceptible to disease. The House was aware that the subject had been already referred to a Select Committee, of which, amongst others, the hon. member for Middlesex, (Mr. Hume), now unfortunately absent, was a Member. The hon. member for Middlesex, though so great a friend to economy, was of opinion that, instead of attempting any alterations in the present House of Commons, it would be better to erect a new and magnificent House of Commons, to which the present building might be attached, as a library or lobby. The expense of such an erection had not been accurately defined; but it was only fair to the hon. member for Middlesex to state that a great proportion of the Committee concurred in his view of the subject, and accordingly agreed to three resolutions, which were subsequently reported to the House. The Committee had in their first resolution declared, that the House did not afford suffici-
334
ent accommodation to all the Members. He would not then enter into the details on which they founded that opinion, but at once observe, that the same Committee, in their second resolution, after hearing all the evidence on the subject, declared also that no alteration of the House which had been suggested, could, in their opinion, afford such additional accommodation as the health and convenience of the Members, or the despatch of public business required, and that as there appeared to them no alternative between building a new House of Commons, or allowing the House to remain in its present state, they thought they were not justified in going into any further inquiries without again recurring to the opinions and pleasure of the House. Notwithstanding this report, he (Colonel Trench) was of opinion that the House might be greatly improved by taking in the lobby. The present house was wholly unfit for its purpose, from its want of capacity, the prevalence of hot currents of air, and the narrowness of the seats: the results which would follow from his plan being adopted, would afford accommodation for an additional hundred Members. He begged therefore to move for a Select Committee to be appointed to consider the state of the buildings comprising the House of Commons and the offices connected with it, with a view to the better accommodation of the Members, and to facilitate the transaction of public business.
Mr. Warburtonexpressed his surprise that the gallant Member should have supposed that the member for Middlesex intended to favour the erection of a magnificent House of Commons. He had not been on the Committee, but he had conversed with his hon. friend on the subject, and he knew that magnificence formed no part of his plan. His plan was merely to build a larger and more commodious House, if the Members agreed that the present one was not sufficient. He (Mr. Warburton), however, objected to the proposal of the hon. member for Cambridge (Colonel Trench), which went to make an inconvenient oblong room still more inconvenient. If they wanted a plan with all the advantages of hearing and seeing, let them take one of the theatres of the London University, where every person was placed at the same distance from the President, so that by seeing every person present he had the means of preserving

335
order in the whole assembly. Every one acquainted with that House knew that, from its shape, it was impossible for the Speaker to preserve, on crowded nights, the order that was desirable. With this feeling, he, for one, would prefer the erection of a new House to the adoption of the plan of the hon. Member, which, he was confident, would be found nearly as expensive, without giving any of the requisite conveniences. With regard to the Committee, he would only say, that as the hon. Member had tried his plan before one Committee, he did not see why he was to have another for precisely the same purpose. He thought it would be infinitely better for the Members to come at once to the conclusion of whether it was fitting to have a new House or not; and if they thought that a new one should be erected, to refer the matter at once either to the Board of Works, or to an architect chosen for the purpose.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, the simple question for the House to determine was, whether it would have a new building or not, as he believed every one who knew anything of architectural matters was satisfied that the alteration proposed by the hon. Member would not give satisfaction, and at the same time prove nearly as expensive as a new building. With respect to the hon. Member's Motion for a new Committee, he, for one, was inclined to object to it, as it would be, he conceived, a waste of time as well as a great expense, for they could not expect that professional men would attend as witnesses unless they were paid for it. Instead, therefore, of granting another Committee, he would recommend the House to pause, and take time to consider whether they would be content with the present building, or erect a new one.
Lord Althorpconfessed he laboured under some difficulty with respect to the question. He had consented to the appointment of the original Committee, but he had not held out any hopes of being able to concur in the report, if they recommended any very extensive alterations, and still less if they proposed building a new House of Commons. His opinions having undergone no change on this subject, he could not say he approved of the motion for a new Committee; but yet, as he knew that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Trench) had taken great pains, and was very sanguine on the sub-
336
ject, and as further inquiry might be useful, he did not like to reject his motion altogether. He was not sure that, even if the Committee reported in favour of the hon. Gentleman's plan, that report would influence the House. At the same time, he did not wish to give any opinion, and begged to be considered as leaving the matter to the House, and not interfering in one way or the other.
Sir Robert Peelwished the question had been distinctly put, whether Members would submit to the inconveniences which at present existed, or resolve that a new House of Commons should be erected. Had that question been brought before the House, he did not hesitate to declare that he should vote against the proposal for building a new House. As to the minor proposal—the plan for improving the House, as stated by the hon. and gallant Gentlemen—as it had not been recommended by the last Committee to which it was submitted, he could see no advantage in submitting it to another Committee. With respect to the objection of the hon. Member to the oblong shape of the room, he was happy to hear that so much harmony prevailed in the more circular buildings of the University; but, with all the imperfections of the oblong, the real business of the country could always be transacted between the two sides; and there was, he conceived, ample space, except on one or two occasions of a Session, for all who took part in the debates. The erection of an enormous building, in which not more than half the Members would be assembled five nights out of the six, would be found a great practical inconvenience. He confessed, too, that he was attached, in some degree, to the present building, from the associations with which it was connected. It was with a feeling of pride that he sat in the same House where Chatham, and Pitt, and Fox, and Wyndham, had made their greatest and most splendid orations, and he could never consent to make that House the mere avenue, or lobby to another. The expense of building a new House would not be confined to that alone. Offices, Committee-rooms, and all other conveniences, must be built as a matter of course.
Colonel Trenchfelt, that, after the expression of opinion which the House had heard on this subject, he should not be justified in pressing his Motion. He had

337
all due reverence for the walls within which he spoke, but it could not be denied that the House was both inconvenient and unwholesome. He was still not without hopes that these evils would be remedied. The right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had, on a former occasion, beneficially exercised his judgment and discretion in some improvements which had been effected at comparatively inconsiderable cost, and he hoped that, by the same means, some alterations might be effected which would be found advantageous.
Motion withdrawn.

CHOLERA MORBUS—PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES.
Lord Althorpsaid, he wished to have had an opportunity, at an earlier period of the evening, to explain the objects of the Bill of which he had given notice. He hoped the House would permit it to pass rapidly through all its stages. And, as it was probable that the Bill would not be ready to be placed in the hands of Gentlemen before it was passed, he felt it desirable to state more in detail than would otherwise be necessary the provisions which it was intended to comprise. He believed the House was aware that, although orders in Council might be issued, yet there was no power, as the law at present stood, to carry those orders into effect, and, therefore, the necessary regulations for the purpose of preventing contagion, and of providing accommodation for persons labouring under contagious disorders, could not be efficiently made in the present state of the law. Undoubtedly, in the proposition which he was about to submit to the House, he was giving great and extraordinary powers to the Privy Council, but he meant to limit those powers as to time. He would propose that this Bill should expire at the end of the present year, or of the then next Session of Parliament. The power, while it lasted, would be a very extensive one, but he was sure every one would feel it was desirable and necessary that such a power should be given. Of course, any orders, issued by the Privy Council, in execution of the power to be intrusted to it, would be submitted as quickly as possible to Parliament; but he thought that, in the first instance, the execution of those orders ought not to be lightly delayed. The first provision which he meant to introduce in the Bill empowered any three Members of the Privy
338
Council, of whom the President of the Council, or one of the Secretaries of State was always to be one, to make orders for the prevention of contagion, for the relief of the sick, and for the burying of the dead. Every person would admit the propriety of using exertions to stop, as far as could be practicable, the progress of contagion. No one could deny that the greatest and most serious evils must arise from any delay in affording relief to those attacked, and as to the last, it was found that all precautions would be ineffectual unless measures were adopted for the immediate interment of the dead. The next provision of the Bill declared, that every person violating the orders of the Council for the preservation of the public health, should be held to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and fined any sum which might be considered expedient, from one pound to five pounds. Certainly this provision gave to the Privy Council very arbitrary powers, and nothing could justify such a proposition except the exigency of the case; but he thought that the necessity was such as to justify it in the eyes of all rational men. Then came the next point, namely, the expense of carrying these orders into execution, and on this account the Bill, as he at present proposed to frame it, would not be applied immediately to Scotland and Ireland, because there were no means in those parts of the empire of providing for the expense in the way proposed in this Bill. But he must observe, that another Bill would be introduced, as soon as arrangements could be made, for the purpose of accomplishing the same objects in Scotland and Ireland. The mode in which the expenses were to be provided for was, first, from the Poor-rates in the parishes, and ultimately the county treasurer would pay them out of the county purse; for it would not be just or fair to impose expenses which were incurred for the benefit of a large district upon an individual parish. The expenses sustained by a parish might be for the safety of its immediate neighbourhood even more than that for the parish itself where the malady existed, and therefore it was but fair that the expenses should be borne, not by the parish alone, but by the county generally, where the disorder prevailed. These were the principal provisions of the Bill, with the limitation as to duration which he had made, namely, the end of this year, or of the next Ses-

339
sion of Parliament. He hoped the explanations which he had given were such as to induce the House to permit him to introduce the Bill, and pass it rapidly through its stages. He moved for leave to bring in a Bill for giving further powers to the Privy Council for preventing the spread of the Cholera.
Mr. Warburtonbegged leave to ask whether it was intended by this Bill so to augment the power of vestries as to enable them to raise such rates; because he knew there were parishes where the vestry would be willing to raise the rates, but it would be in the power of any parishioner to object to the rates as illegal? He almost wished that one day's delay might be allowed for the purpose of consulting with the parish authorities on this point, and of considering whether all the clauses had been introduced in the Bill, which would be necessary to carry its intentions fully into effect.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he was quite satisfied of the necessity of some legislative enactment to ensure the observance of precautions calculated to prevent the spreading of the Cholera. Under the existing circumstances, when the danger was so imminent and indefinite, and when it was so difficult to see the precise course which it would be expedient to follow, to attempt to define the proper measures at present would be to defeat the object in view. He suspected no abuse of the powers which it was proposed to confer, and therefore thought it better to give a discretionary power to the Privy Council than for Parliament to attempt to define the precise nature of the measures to be adopted. To the substance of the Bill he had no objection. The Cholera was not a parochial disorder. It had begun at Sunderland, had travelled to Edinburgh, and was now in London. Why, therefore, should the expenses incurred for necessary precautions be made a parochial charge? The whole country had the deepest interest in the subject. The disease would probably rage with the greatest violence, and be felt with the greatest severity, in the poorest parishes, and the expense would be in proportion. As to the county paying the expense, that would be an arbitrary distinction, for Rutland was of one size, and Yorkshire another. We were all as much interested in preventing the spread of contagion in Bethnal-green as in Cumberland and West-
340
moreland. If a different bill were to be introduced for Scotland and Ireland, because there were no Poor-rates in those countries, he thought the arrangement would be most confused and complicated. The Cholera, if it got into Ireland, would, no doubt, be felt most severely there, and he did not see why the expenses should not be paid from the general fund.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the 58th and 59th George 3rd had been passed for the purpose of preventing the spread of typhus fever in Ireland, and of providing for the necessary expenses. What was now necessary was, to extend the provisions of that Bill to the case of Cholera.
Sir Robert Peelsaid that, whatever was the case with regard to typhus fever, he should advise the Government to simplify their operations in the present instance—to consider Cholera as a peculiar case, and to give such powers to the Privy Council as would enable it to defray the expenses out of the public purse. In Ireland and Scotland to make it incumbent upon the local authorities to furnish the supplies would be very hard. They ought to have one authority—a metropolitan one—consisting of three members of the Privy Council, if the House thought fit, who should have the power to take whatever precautions were judged necessary with respect to places which were infected, and those which were not; but let them pay the charges out of the public money, as a matter of general concern.
Lord Miltoncould not help entreating his noble friend to accede to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. He was sure this was a national, and, as the right hon. Baronet had said, not a parochial or a county concern. It interested the nation, and whatever concerned the nation ought to be paid by the nation.
Mr. Huntasked how it would be possible to collect the rates in Bethnal-green, for instance, when the parish was already so much indebted to the tradesmen, who supplied it with necessaries, that they were daily threatening to stop the food necessary for the support of the poor creatures in the workhouse? They would defeat their own proposition if they required the parishes to pay all the necessary rates. He would call the attention of the House to a circumstance which he had seen stated in the newspapers. It seemed the Lord Mayor had been kind enough to offer to appropriate his house for an hos-

341
pital, forsooth, for the sick. The house was in Abchurch-lane, in the very heart of the city. Now, he said, that was the very way to propagate the disease instead of checking it. He hoped, therefore, that the matter would be speedily taken up by other hands.
Sir George Clerksaid, that, although the Cholera had not made any progress in Edinburgh, it was in the immediate vicinity of that city. He, therefore, thought it was necessary, that whatever precautions were to be taken to prevent the spread of the disease should be applied in the neighbourhood of that city without delay. He believed, if the noble Lord would consult the learned Lord Advocate, he would find it very difficult to carry into effect a bill imposing any expenses upon the local authorities. They had hitherto been defrayed by the zealous benevolence of the neighbourhood; but if the disorder were to make any greater progress, it would be impossible to raise the necessary funds by voluntary contributions. The Magistrates in that part of the country were very anxious to enforce the measures recommended by the Privy Council; but they found that they had not the power. He hoped his Majesty's Government would make the Bill applicable to Scotland and Ireland on one principle—that of paying the expense out of the public purse.
Lord Althorpsaid, the ground upon which he formed his proposal was this: if the expenses were to be defrayed out of the public funds, there would be no check, and it would lead to great extravagance. That certainly would be a false economy which would not afford sufficient funds; and yet he did think that there might be objections to giving such a power over the funds of the country for this purpose. It might, as he had said, lead to extravagant expense; and the house would not be pleased with such a step, without a necessity. Certainly no expense that was requisite ought to be spared; but, at the same time, it was better not to run the risk of any unnecessary expense if it could be avoided. He thought the mode proposed by the Bill would be found effectual, although he admitted that it would be improper to make the expense ultimately a parochial charge.
Mr. Warburtonbegged to ask, whether, in parishes voluntarily taxing themselves, the regulations made by the vestry for that purpose would be binding?
Lord Althorpsaid, that the Bill did not give that power. It enabled the Privy Council to order the expenses, and it made the orders of the Privy Council legal.
Mr. Goulburnthought, that what the noble Lord had just said was an answer to the noble Lord's own objection to the proposition of his right hon. friend. It seemed the Privy Council were to have the power to make orders, and, under those orders, the expenses were to be paid. Then the Privy Council would have an effectual control, and the payment of the money out of the public funds could not lead to extravagant expense. If the authority were given to the parishes, the result would be that, where expense was most necessary, an improper desire of saving their own money would restrain them, while, in other cases, personal fears would occasion unnecessary expense. He joined with his right hon. friend in hoping that the public funds would be applied to defray the expense.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, the Bill ought to prevent unnecessary expense, but, at the same time, care ought to be taken, that every expense which was necessary should be incurred. He thought the fine of 5l. was not a sufficient penalty. It might, in many cases, be the interest of parties to break through the orders, and to bear the fine of 5l., or even twice the amount. He should recommend to the Government to increase the fine, or to give additional powers to the Privy Council. He agreed with the noble Lord, that all the powers which were necessary ought to be given; they had all one interest on this subject; all party considerations ought to he thrown aside. He was convinced the Executive Government, whoever might compose it, would do what was most necessary for the health and welfare of the country.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the Bill gave a power to the Privy Council to punish any violation of the orders as a misdemeanour, or by fine or imprisonment.
Colonel Trenchbegged to know whether there was any provision proposed for burying the dead. Every one knew the melancholy state of the receptacles in the City. There could be nothing more odious or disgusting. It was therefore positively necessary that some receptacle outside the town should be provided for the bodies of persons who died of this disease.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that ar-

343
rangements had been made for the appropriation of a large spot of ground, at some distance from the city, for the purpose of burying those who should die of the disease. The purchase had been completed that day. He thought that the details of the chief measures must rest with the parochial authorities, under the sanction of the Privy Council. He could assure the House that, since the breaking out of the disease, and the establishment of Boards of Health, Government had received applications from all quarters to be supplied from the public funds, stating the impossibility of raising the necessary supplies otherwise. They had recommended the individuals who made these applications to make subscriptions for whatever expenses were necessary, and in no one instance, hitherto, had there been a deficiency of preparation from the want of funds. Individual benevolence and private charity had supplied what was required. If the country were to pay the expenses, no doubt one of the grounds for private charity would be done away with; but he thought it better to leave the expense to be provided for by the parishes than to draw it from the public purse, for, in that case, it would be indefinite.
Mr. Crokerwas desirous of suggesting one consideration to the noble Lord. Suppose, by great exertion and at a great expense on the part of the inhabitants of the county of Kent, the disease should be confined to that county, and, through those exertions and that expense the county of Sussex should escape its ravages, would it not, he asked, be very hard that the county of Kent, in addition to the infliction of the disease, should be liable to all that expense by which the county of Sussex escaped? In such a case he thought that at least the neighbouring county should be liable to a portion of the expense. There was another point which he thought worthy of consideration. During the continuance of the pestilence it was impossible to doubt but that the trade and manufacture of the country, and consequently the subsistence of the poor artizans and labourers would be rendered very precarious; moreover, in consequence of the disease originating on the banks of the Thames, it was extremely probable that the commerce of that river would be placed in a state of quarantine by foreign powers. The effect would be, that the several parishes on the borders of the river would be called upon
344
to supply food for an immense number of persons which the suspension of commerce would render destitute. By this means these parishes, which, it was to be recollected, were at all times very poor, would suffer most from the effects of the calamity, while the parishes which were best able to meet an increased assessment, would escape any burthen whatsoever. For these reasons, he was in favour of defraying all the expense from the Consolidated Fund, and he should be prepared to agree in the next Estimate of Civil Contingencies to any vote called for for such a purpose.
Sir R. Inglissaid, he was apprehensive that the visit of Cholera was not likely to be very transitory. For fourteen years its effects had been visible in India, and he much feared that England would henceforth have reason to look upon it as one of the complaints indigenous to the soil. Such being his opinion, he thought some permanent enactment should be agreed upon, giving, however, power to the Privy Council, or some other body, to watch over, and, as far as possible, prevent the disastrous effects likely to ensue upon its propagation. He thought the expense should not be defrayed by any fund other than that of the country at large.
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, that in the part of the country with which he was connected, the hand of private charity had been extended beyond any former precedent, and yet it had been hardly sufficient to meet the expenses, and to give adequate relief in the suffering districts. What had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was perfectly true: the existence of the disease would place an additional onus upon the Poor-rates, and it was more than could be expected that a rate sufficient to meet it could be raised in any particular part of the country. The affliction had happily ceased in the northern part of the country to which he referred. They did not ask to be reimbursed the expenses they had been obliged to incur; but he was sure that he spoke the sense of the counties of Cumberland and Durham when he said that it would be impossible to meet the expenses necessary to check the disease without drawing upon the public funds. He saw no reason, however, for delaying the Bill, and, if it were deemed advisable to introduce any measure of the nature urged by the hon. Gentleman opposite, a clause might be added in the

345
Committee without obstructing the progress of the measure. It was a fact which might be easily ascertained that the Cholera was a disorder not entirely new in this country. If it should please Providence to perpetuate it amongst us, we must meet the evil; but he wished to impress upon the House and upon the country, that they should not give way to any unnecessary timidity or alarm. He spoke from experience when he said, that the disease fell on those chiefly who were most apprehensive, while those who boldly and courageously made efforts to relieve their fellow-sufferers were generally rewarded by getting out of the difficulty. There were but few instances at Newcastle, or its neighbourhood, of persons who were engaged in assisting their fellow-sufferers sinking under the disorder. He would also state another fact from his own knowledge—namely, that cases of Cholera appeared generally amongst the lowest classes, and selected its victims chiefly from those who were most intemperate and dissolute in their habits.
Mr. Robert Adam Dundassaid, that no time ought to be lost by the House in making such legislative arrangements as should impose on the various parishes in the metropolis the necessity of providing proper houses immediately for the reception of Cholera patients, and enforce all other precautions—such as cleanliness and ventilation—to arrest the progress of the disease.
Mr. Hodgessaid, that he feared the assessments for the poor were scarcely able to hold out much longer in maintaining them, so great was the pressure on them: how much less able, therefore, would they not be to support any additional demand for the relief of persons suffering under this disease? To these it could not be hoped they would be able to hold out any prospect of relief whatever; and the only mode, in his opinion, of being able to meet the increased demands would be, by appropriating some portion of the public money for that purpose.
Mr. Stanleywas disposed to agree in that view of this formidable disease, which represented it to be not so much local as general; and he was of opinion that no exertions which could be made to arrest its progress or avert its calamitous career could be too great. The question before the House bore no relation whatever to the mode in which the expense attendant on
346
these exertions was to be defrayed or supported, but it was simply whether they would or would not use the best means which were suggested to avert and arrest the disease; and whether they would give certain individuals such a firm control over the public measures, and also over the funds which should be raised to execute those measures, as to enable them to render them most effectual, as well as to economise the expenditure of the public funds, and see that they were applied directly towards the purposes for which they were raised. Now, if the Legislature were at once to decide that the expenses to be incurred were to be defrayed, by order of the Privy Council, out of the public purse, it would be utterly impossible for any man to say where the claims on the public purse would stop. What fell from the hon. Baronet (Sir M.W. Ridley) in support of this suggestion, seemed to him to bear more against than for it. "Wherever this scourge had hitherto fallen, the calamities attendant on it had been mitigated by the instantaneous assistance which was afforded by the charity of the wealthy." But, if all demands were to be met by the public purse, the springs of private charity would be instantly dried up. He was of opinion, that in the first, instance, the various parishes and counties ought to be left to manage their own expenditure, and if, after the ravages of the disease had ceased, it should be found necessary to afford any of them relief, he did not think Parliament would hesitate in reimbursing those parishes and counties where the disease had been most fatal in all the extra expenditure to which they had thus been unfortunately subjected. He should, therefore, in reply to what had been urged in favour of a grant of public money for this purpose, rather advocate the course of leaving the respective parishes to the economical distribution of their own funds in the first instance, leaving it to the consideration of Parliament, to reimburse those who might suffer most severely.
Lord Sandonthought it would be advisable to have some check, besides the Privy Council, upon the funds raised in parishes for the purpose of meeting the disease. He begged to call the attention of his Majesty's Government to the difficulties which had arisen in populous places from the want of sufficient power in the Magistracy to remove nuisances.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the powers of the Privy Council were so large and so extensive, that it would not be necessary to increase them further than was proposed by the Bill, or to extend them to any other functionaries.
Mr. Keith Douglasstated, that in Scotland there was no power of raising parish rates for the purposes for which it was the object of the present Bill to provide. The county rates were not available in towns for such purposes. Any enactment relating to Scotland, therefore, must state some particular manner in which the necessary funds were to be raised, unless they were to be paid out of the public purse.
The Lord Advocateadmitted that there would be considerable difficulty in making any local assessments in Scotland s owing to the varied and diversified manner in which rates were enforced in that country, at the same time that he confessed he was not at the present moment prepared with any proposition on the subject.
Sir Robert Pricewas much disposed to question if any effective control could be established over the money derived from the public purse for preventing the spread of contagion. It was his opinion that the merchants and landowners assembled in this great metropolis ought to contribute largely for the purpose which it was the object of the Bill to effect. He greatly feared that if it were once understood that the nation at large was to defray the expense of arresting the fearful calamity which then occupied their attention, the consequence would be a wasteful expenditure. He also feared that the declaration made by a right hon. Gentleman near him (the chief Secretary for Ireland) might in too many instances, be received as a distinct pledge that in all cases which might arise complete remuneration would be made. In his apprehension there should be no remuneration unless a case of necessity were very clearly made out by the local authorities.
Sir Thomas Freemantleagreed fully with those hon. Members who thought that there would be great difficulty in obtaining assistance of an efficient character from the parish, or even the county rates. It was notorious that there were great difficulties in collecting the amount necessary for the present demands upon them.
Mr. Baringsaid, that cases might occur which would be beyond the means of the parish rates; and, on the other hand, if
348
people in general, and especially parish authorities, thought they could call indefinitely upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they would make such a power a pretext for burthening the nation at large with the expense of maintaining their own poor. The arrangement which he thought afforded the best chance of success was, that the immediate expense should be borne in those quarters where by law it ought properly to rest, and where the means of the district proved indisputably insufficient; then, but not till then, should the Privy Council interpose and grant aid.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that though there had not been any previous communication between him and his hon. friend on the subject, yet there was not much difference in their sentiments. They need not go on arguing extreme cases, it was enough that in principle, there was no important difference between them. A clause might be introduced into the Bill, which would render it necessary that before any sums were issued under the sanction of the Privy Council, there should be a properly authenticated certificate, setting forth that the charges sought to be defrayed were incurred for the prevention or cure of Cholera, and were in their nature extraordinary, and had nothing to do with the usual maintenance of the poor of the district from which the application proceeded. To take an example, there was the parish of St. Paul's, Deptford; that was a parish which the inhabitants of the county of Kent would naturally enough regard rather in the nature of a metropolitan than of a county parish, and he thought it evidently one of those cases which ought to be provided for out of the national funds. For his part, he did not at all see how it could be rendered imperative upon vestries to make the necessary provision, and he thought that precautions should be taken to avoid anything like complex machinery. He was favourable to the Bill being read a second time that night, and before the following day some improvements might be devised and moved in the Committee.
Lord Althorpwas ready to acknowledge that many of the suggestions which had been thrown out in the course of the present conversation were worthy to be considered. He hoped that, under the urgent circumstances of the case, the House would allow the Bill to be read a first and second lime that night, and be committed on the following day. He did not anticipate that

349
it would be necessary to introduce any additional clauses.
Mr. Goulburnwished that, with as little delay as possible, some arrangements should be made for making advances to the several parishes requiring aid, for the necessity was too urgent to be trifled with.
Leave given, Bill brought in accordingly, and read a first and second time.

CIVIL DEPARTMENTS OF THE NAVY.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that, in bringing under the consideration of the House a proposition such as he had that night undertaken to bring forward, he felt he was incurring a great responsibility. He felt that in proposing any interference with so important a branch of the public service as the navy, he was doing that which ought to be well considered. If the responsibility of making such a proposition was great, he felt that the responsibility would not be less if he hesitated to lay before the House any plan which he conscientiously believed would be for the good of the service. He was sure the House would agree with him, that the navy of Great Britain did not present an object on which a spurious economy ought to be exercised. He felt that nothing would be a greater departure from the principles which ought to govern the advisers of the Crown, than any proposition which would endanger the efficiency, diminish the strength, or risk the superiority, of that branch of the public service. The House were aware that the civil service of the navy was conducted by three Boards—the Board of Admiralty, the Navy Board, and the Victualling Board. These three Boards derived their existence from patents under the Crown; thus they must be considered as deriving their command, authority, and jurisdiction, from the same source; but there was this difference between them in practice; the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral went out with the Administration under which they were appointed; but the other Boards never did. Doubtless the King could revoke the patents of either of them, whenever the Crown was so advised, but it was unusual. These two Boards appeared to hold their existence by a similar tenure, though different from that of the Board of Admiralty, and they had been at all times held to be subordinate to that Board; yet, nevertheless, those subordinate Boards had at all times
350
continued to divide the power and thwart the views of that Board presumed to be set in authority over them. This was inconsistent with the good management of public affairs. The authority of the subordinate Boards was uncertain; and, in the eye of Parliament, the entire responsibility for the conduct of naval affairs rested in the Board of Admiralty, because they were nominally invested with supreme control. This state of things had long since been found detrimental to the public interests; and the Committee which sat upon naval affairs afforded pregnant evidence of the mismanagement of the subordinate Boards, and of their successful opposition to the Board of Admiralty. He would not weary the House by going into details of the early history of the navy, because there was ample evidence of the mal-administration of naval affairs of a much later date. He would beg to refer the House to Mr. Pepy's Memoirs, in which book it was stated, that James the 2nd, then Duke of York, on Ins appointment to the office of Lord High Admiral, found himself compelled to dismiss these subordinate Boards, and, with the assistance of four Commissioners, united the whole control of the civil administration of the navy in his own hands. The effects of this alteration were almost immediately visible, it was the first dawning of that brighter era which was followed by the splendor which had since encompassed the navy of Great Britain, and had at length raised it to that pinnacle of glory where it had since remained, the envy and wonder of surrounding nations. It was a singular fact, that during the temporary absence of James 2nd from this country, the power of the subordinate Boards was restored, and it was subsequently found necessary, with a view to the improvement of the navy, to pursue the same course once more, and to abolish the subordinate Boards. The modern examples he should quote on the subject would, he hoped, have the effect of inducing the House to concur in his view of the necessity of the proposed alteration. He must here express, once more, his regret at the untimely suppression of the Finance Committee, which went into a full investigation of the civil affairs of the navy, and which, had it not been for the abrupt termination of its labours, would doubtless have afforded the most valuable information. With respect to the Board of Ordnance, that Committee did present

351
a valuable report, from which very important information might be derived with respect to the subject under discussion. The House would permit him, perhaps, to read an extract from what was said by the Chairman of that Committee. The Chairman stated, on the part of his (Sir James Graham's) noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was unable to attend, that 'His impressions perfectly coincide with mine; and I am opinion that the feeling of Parliament with regard to the opposition of the Navy Board, and with regard to the reduction of expense, was fully borne out by the evidence given before that Committee.' With respect to the reductions to be made in the Navy Board, he says:—'I am of opinion that some such step is necessary, upon a full consideration of the evidence.' It was unnecessary to quote the opinions of other Members of that Committee who had, in the most precise language, confirmed the opinion expressed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Parnell), he would read a short extract from the evidence of a gentleman called before that Committee, who had been a Lord of the Admiralty, and had, therefore, some experience on this subject. That gentleman said, 'I am certainly of opinion that, if they will but carry the course they are proposing into effect, the most efficient reform possible in the navy would be at once effected.' He would read another passage, which appeared to him to contain as strong evidence of the existing abuses as any that could be adduced. It was a most unexceptionable statement, made by a gentleman many years connected with the Admiralty, and well acquainted with its practice. The hon. Baronet (Sir George Clerk) took an active part, last year, in a discussion relating to the appropriation of the votes of Parliament, and the practice which prevailed of making up the deficiency which occurred under different heads, in consequence of the sums voted for one purpose having been applied to another. The hon. Baronet on that occasion defended the practice, assigning as his reason for so doing what appeared the strongest evidence which could be adduced of the necessity of a change in the civil departments of the navy. The hon. Baronet said:—'The individual who brings forward the estimates is, I am well aware, responsible for their correctness; yet, when they have been once voted, the
352
Admiralty has no control over the expenditure of those sums; they are issued by the Treasury on the requisition of the Navy and Victualling Boards; and it was not until very lately that the Admiralty had an opportunity of knowing how the money was expended; for even the books of the Navy Office would not show under what heads the money was laid out.' Certainly, the hon. Baronet did not by any means overstate the case in making that assertion, and in support of it he would state four or five instances of the mismanagement of the affairs of the navy since the year 1826. The statement he was about to make was founded on official documents, and he was perfectly satisfied of their accuracy. The Government thought it necessary to erect some works in the year 1826; the works were commenced, before an application was made to Parliament, at an estimated expense of 44,000 l. and upwards. The estimate laid on the Table in 1827 amounted to 30,000 l., and the sum voted by Parliament was 8,000 l. The next case was that of the Melville Hospital. No estimate was laid on the Table of the House till 1827. The estimate given by the Victualling Board to the Admiralty, was 35,027 l., the estimate laid on the Table of the House by the Admiralty was, 25,000 l., the sum expended was 61,655 l., and the whole of the sum voted by Parliament on account of that establishment was 7,000 l. The next case related to the considerable outlay at Cremil Point. No estimate was presented to the House in this case. The estimate originally given in by the Victualling Board to the Admiralty amounted to 291,512 l. The expenditure began in 1824; that was one year before an estimate was presented. The total expenditure until 1830 was 249,441 l., and the whole of the sum voted by Parliament between 1825, and 1826, and 1830, that is, from the commencement of the work until the period of his coming into office, was 74,000 l. There was no general plan or estimate submitted to the Admiralty, or laid before Parliament. A sketch was made, but it was not drawn up in the regular form of a plan or estimate. No general vote was passed by the House—not one shilling more than he had stated was voted. Yet the work was all but completed, and an additional sum of 155,334 l. had actually been paid. With regard to Weovil, there was an estimate submitted to the

353
House, but with regard to the works at Woolwich, which was the last case, there was no general plan or estimate submitted either to the Admiralty, or laid upon the Table of the House. Equal disparity was to be observed in this case between the sums voted by Parliament and the actual expenditure on the works. Including the bakehouse at Deptford, the sum expended from 1825 to 1830 for these works amounted to 835,400 l.; while all that Parliament had voted was 270,000 l., leaving 565,400 l. to be provided for from other sources. This surplus, it appeared, might be applied to any other purpose than that for which it had been voted, without the intervention of Parliament—a proceeding which was highly objectionable. The House would naturally imagine that all this could not have taken place without the authority of the Admiralty, that Board being responsible for the arrangements connected with the public services. When his present Majesty, then Duke of Clarence, presided at the Admiralty, he referred to a very salutary order made by Lord Sandwich in the year 1776, which made it imperative that not less than two years' consumption of timber in reserve should be provided for ship-building at the different naval establishments. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) wrote to the Navy Board to make an inquiry upon this subject; and he held in his hand the answer to that inquiry. It was signed by the gallant Officer (Sir Byam Martin), and two other Commissioners of the Navy. That letter contained this passage. 'We beg to acquaint you, for the information of his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence, that when the Comptroller of the Navy submitted the draft estimates to the Admiralty, the sum required was stated at 180,000 l. We also beg to inform you, that the excess of expenditure in 1826 and 1827, beyond the grants of Parliament, would make it indispensably necessary to refrain, as much as possible, from the purchase of stores, chiefly timber, so as, under a limited grant, to obtain a sufficient surplus to last up to the meeting of Parliament in 1829.' Having stated to the House the excess of outlay under the head of building, from the year 1826 to the year 1830, beyond the votes of Parliament, he would state to the House how that outlay was met during those four years. In the year 1827, the sum voted by Parliament for the purchase of timber and stores
354
was 1,060,000 l., the sum expended was 876,000 l., leaving a balance of 184,000 l. unaccounted for. In the year 1828, the sum expended less than that voted was 42,000 l.; in 1829, it was 230,000 l.; in 1830, 195,000 l. Under the head of timber and of materials, there was expended in four years 1,029,000 l. less than Parliament had voted. Out of that surplus the expense of the buildings was provided for He would next offer a few illustrations of the disobedience on the part of the subordinate boards to the directions of the Admiralty. Two regulations which, had they been strictly followed up, would have been found extremely useful, were introduced by the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Cockburn) when he was in the Admiralty. The first of those regulations had reference to the establishment of a check on the issue and receipt of public stores in the dock-yards; and it was supposed that, by keeping a ledger at each of the outports, and a counter-ledger at the Navy Board, no fraud could be committed as long as the two books corresponded in their items. A more judicious regulation, if carried into effect, could not have been devised; but it unfortunately happened, that, up to the present moment, it was impossible to obtain any information whatever from the ledger kept at the Navy Office. It was so much in arrear, that to attempt to complete it must be abandoned as hopeless. The other regulation had reference to the reduction of the number of labourers in the different dock-yards. It had been made by the Admiralty, and was signed by Lord Melville. The principle laid down in that regulation was most explicit, containing, at the same time, a positive direction that the number should be reduced. The instructions were, that no more men should be entered until the number was reduced to 6,000; and that when the number was reduced to 7,000, the men should be allowed to work on Wednesdays; and when to 6,000, on every day in the week. This regulation was introduced about a year before the late Government quitted office; and at that period, the number of men employed was 7,716; the number employed on the 31st of January last amounted to 7,493; so that, including what had taken place at Deptford, the reduction, in all that time, had not amounted to more than 200 men. He stated these facts to prove that there

355
was an insufficient control on the part of the Board of Admiralty, and an imperfect obedience on the part of the other Boards. Another circumstance that he might mention was, the subtraction of the public property from the dock-yards, which, under the present system, it was impossible to prevent; in illustration of which he might state, that in the course of seven weeks five and a half tons of copper, with the King's mark, had found its way from Chatham to Birmingham, and the fraud had only been discovered by a mere accident. He felt that he had gone to some length in his statement of these abuses, but he hoped that the House would excuse him, because he had done it from the feeling that, as he was about to propose a great change, he was bound to show that there was ample reason for requiring that change. Another instance of the same abuse was, that although a very accurate account of the stores and labour consumed in the building of a ship was kept, it would be next to impossible to give a statement of the money cost of the vessel, which arose from there being what he might call a sort of cabalistic set of figures employed in the dock-yards as to the prices paid; besides which, the old war prices had, till within the last four months, been almost universally kept up—prices that were in many instances 25, 30, and 40 per cent above the present prices current. He would mention one or two instances in illustration of this fact, which appeared in the course of an inquiry held during the last three months. Up to the period of last November, lead, which was now contracted for at 14 s. 6d. per cwt., was entered as costing 1l. 1s. 6d. Iron, which at the present price, was from 8l. 10 s. to 9l. 14 s. per ton, was charged at from 13 l. 14 s. 8d. to 13 l. 19 s. 1d., and copper, the actual price of which, was 8d. per pound, was charged at 1s. 3d. The use of figures was generally introduced for the elucidation of a subject, but in this case it only led to confuse and entangle the question, so as to produce one complete tissue of delusion. He trusted that he had now shown that the present system was defective both in theory and practice, and that a remedy was highly desirable. The measure which he had to submit to the House, was a measure which might be exercised by the prerogative of the Crown, without the intervention of Parliament, for it chiefly depended on a recal of
356
patents of the Victualling and Navy Boards. There were, however, some minor points which would come within the province of Parliament, and he was, therefore, glad that an opportunity was thereby afforded of taking the sense of the Legislature on the subject, as it was far from his intention to counsel the revocation of those patents without the approbation of Parliament. What he intended to propose, subject to the consent of the House, was, the total abolition of the Navy and Victualling Boards, so that there should be but one Board for the management of the whole naval affairs of the country; by which arrangement every department—the building of ships, their repairs, the outlay for stores, the application to Parliament for money, the distribution of the money when voted, the necessary attention to the Appropriation Act—would all be under the control of one Board, which would be responsible to Parliament for the public service of the country. It might, perhaps, be said, that this multifarious business could not be brought within the compass of a single office. He would, however, contend, that, in principle, this objection was not well founded; and that that difficulty would be obviated by a judicious distribution of the labour of the different persons composing the Board. In this opinion he was fortified by the experience derived from the Board of Ordnance. That Board had been constructed on a new model with great care; that Board had been found to work well; and it might, therefore, be considered as the result of an experiment that had answered. What he proposed was, to divide the whole of the naval service into five great departments, with an officer at the head of each. The first of those officers would be the Surveyor General, whose duty would be pretty much the same as now. He would have to superintend the dock-yards—to look to the building of the ships—the care of ships in ordinary, and be responsible for their proper repair. The second would be the Accountant General, Hs would have to superintend the accounts of the Victualling and Navy Boards—accounts which, at the present time, were not kept on the same principle, the double-entry having been advantageously resorted to in the Navy Board—while the same practice in the Victualling Department had been prohibited by an order from the Board of Admiralty, This order, however,

357
would be no longer continued; and he thought that, from the same system being adopted in every department, the Accountant General would be found competent to the whole of the labour. The third officer would be the Storekeeper General, whose duty would be very much the same as at present. He would have to see to the supply of the principal articles necessary for the consumption of the fleet. The fourth officer would be the Superintendant of the Victualling Department, whose duty would be very similar to that of the present Victualling Board, except that some of those duties would be transferred to the other departments. The fifth officer would be the Superintendant of the Medical Department, and of the Hospitals at home and abroad. These, then, were the five divisions under which he proposed to place all the business connected with the management of the civil affairs of the navy in all its branches. He should propose, that the officers at the head of those departments should not be commissioners, holding their situations by patent, and possessing co-ordinate authority with other Boards, even with the Commissioners of the Admiralty itself, as was the case at present; but that they should be appointed under warrants from the Board of Admiralty, and that they should retain their situations during the time they performed their duties properly. In his humble judgment, this was a much more efficacious plan than the present; since, if any change of Administration took place, it would not effect those individuals, who would remain in office while they conducted themselves in a satisfactory manner. The arrangement which he thus proposed would, he thought, be found superior even to the plan of the Board of Ordnance, because the chief officers connected with it were liable to be changed with the Administration, of the day. Thus, when they had acquired a competent knowledge of their duties, they might, by the change of Administration, be deprived of office, which would be handed over to others, who, perhaps, were wholly unacquainted with the business they would be called on to perform. Therefore it was, that he wished those five officers to hold their situations by warrant from the Admiralty during good behaviour. Instead of four Commissioners with the first lord, he proposed that, there should be five Commissioners, one to preside over each of the
358
departments he had enumerated. This system had all the advantage of the arrangement of the Board of Ordnance. It gave the regular cognizance, of each department to its own proper head, while the whole would be brought under the consideration of the General Board, and every thing that demanded investigation would be decided before the Board, and the proceedings would be regularly noted by the Secretary. There would thus be a just division of labour, an undivided control, and a due responsibility, on the one hand, and, on the other, that unity and simplicity which he held to be the very essence and life of public business. It might be objected, that the effect of this plan would be to increase the number of placemen in that House. He recollected, when he sat on the other side of the House, that he and his friends fought a very hard battle, in order to reduce the number of Commissioners from six to four, and they succeeded. He now wished, for the reasons which he had stated, to have five officers, one at the head of each department, who, with the first Lord, would form six functionaries; it being provided, however, that no greater number should sit in Parliament than was the case at present. He might, now, perhaps, without vanity, be allowed to state the number of officers that had been reduced last year, and the number which he would be able to reduce hereafter, if the House acceded to his proposition. The right hon. Gentleman opposite talked the other evening of the "gleanings" of the present Ministry. He would now give the right hon. Gentleman a specimen of those gleanings, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not impede the labour of the gleaners. In the course of last year, he had been able to reduce four Commissioners, producing a saving to the amount of 4,000 l. a year; thirty-seven superior officers, which had effected a saving of 9,470 l.; twenty-five inferior officers, a saving of 1,285 l.; and eight clerks, a saving of 1,970 l.. If the plan that he was now proposing met with the approbation of the House, he should be able, in the next three months, to reduce five Commissioners, to the amount of 6,000 l.; three Secretaries,2,600 l.; twenty-nine superior officers, 10,280 l.; six inferior officers, 1,440 l.; and fifty-four clerks, 11,950 l..—making altogether a saving, under the head of Commissioners, of 10,000 l.; of Secretaries, 2,600 l.; of su-

359
perior officers, 19,7501 l.; of inferior officers, 2,725 l.; and of clerks, 13,920 l.; forming a total saving, if his measure were acceded to, upon the civil establishment of the Navy (always keeping out of the account the Superannuation List, which was a perfectly distinct matter), of 49,059 l. He should, according to his own judgment, imperfectly discharge his duty, after having dwelt so much upon the misappropriation, in defiance of Parliament, of money voted for particular service, if he did not propose to the House a plan to prevent it in future. He would not enter into all the details of that plan, but he thought he might venture to declare, that it would establish an efficient prospective remedy, to prevent that misapplication of the public money for other purposes than those for which it had been voted, some instances of which he had detailed to the House. From the manner in which the proposition of last night was received, he thought he could collect, that there was no unwillingness to accede to the proposal of making the financial year terminate on the 31st March, instead of the 31st December. From the nature of the naval service, a considerable length of time must elapse before the accounts could be transmitted home, from various parts of the world, and it was therefore difficult to audit the whole accounts of the sums drawn, and the payments up to any particular time. But there was no great difference between the transactions of the merchant and the statesmen; and the merchant closed his banker's book at the end of the year, although his own books might be kept open to complete his mercantile transactions. He proposed that the Admiralty should audit their Treasurer's accounts at the close of the financial year, and give the Treasurer an acquittance. The accounts themselves might be kept open till the 30th November, which would be adopting so much of the French system of accounts as appeared applicable to the naval service of this country. He was of opinion, that it would be highly injudicious to alter the mode of paying the fleet. Our system, in that respect, was different altogether from that of the French, which could not, therefore, be applied to our naval service. He proposed no change in that part of the system, which would go on as before. The banker's book would close on the 31st of March, and the other accounts might be kept open till the 30th of November, by
360
which time, the greater part, if not all, of the vouchers would be remitted home. His next proposition was, that the Admiralty should, on the 30th of November, transmit to the Board of Audit, the Treasurer's accounts closed up to the 31st of March, and the accounts, together with all vouchers, should undergo an effectual audit, and that it should be the duty of the auditors, on the 31st January of each year, to lay on the Table of that House a report. That report would embrace a balance-sheet, comparing the expenditure with the Estimates; it would show what surplus remained unexpended, and what had been expended beyond the Estimates under each head. The auditors should also state any discoveries of improprieties they might have made, and submit any interrogatories which they might think ought to be put. Within the period of between the 30th of November and the 31st of January, it would not be possible to make a full and effectual audit, but it would be sufficient to enable Parliament, first, to convert what was now a nominal responsibility in the officer who brought forward the Estimates into a real responsibility. The interrogatories, secondly, would enable Members to ask questions, and the person who moved the Estimates would have to give answers to those questions, and explain the interrogatories of the auditors. He concluded that the hon. member for Middlesex would never allow the Estimates to be brought forward without having those interrogatories in his hands. But the great advantage, undoubtedly, would be, that it would convert a nominal into a real responsibility. He was not aware that he had anything further to add to this statement. The measure would make a large reduction in the number of public officers, and a large reduction in the public expenditure; it would diminish the number of placemen in that House, and produce a more effectual control over the expenditure of the public money; it would afford a means of ascertaining that a scrupulous adherence was observed of the appropriation made by Parliament: it redeemed all the pledges he had ever given when on the other side of the House, and acknowledged all the principles for which he and his friends had ever contended. Notwithstanding that, if he thought, in his conscience, that it was not calculated to benefit the public service, and to improve the efficiency of the British Navy, none of

361
those considerations should induce him to bring it forward. But, entertaining an opinion that it would promote the public service, he was anxious that the House should allow him to bring in the Bill. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring in "A Bill to amend the Laws relating to the business of the Civil Departments of the Navy, and to make other regulations for the more effectually carrying on the Duties of the same."
Sir Byam Martinsaid, he had heard the clear statement of the right hon. Baronet with satisfaction, but he did not believe that his plan would benefit the public service. It was easy enough to make a great alteration in theory, which in practice would be found not to be beneficial. The right hon. Baronet proposed to dissolve the Navy Board, and stated, as one of his reasons, that his late colleagues and himself (Sir Byam Martin) had not participated in the views of the Admiralty, but had thrown obstructions in its way. He would say, for himself and his colleagues, that any opposition he or they had ever offered to the Admiralty, was made in honest and open sincerity. He had, when propositions had been submitted to him, pointed out respectfully what he supposed would be their practical operation. He could appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty to bear him out in his assertion. It had been his invariable rule, during the forty-six years he had been in the service, to state, when called upon, his opinion frankly and without reserve. He had very frequently said to the Admiralty, "You have come to a decision contrary to my opinion, but issue your orders, and I will carry them into execution with as much zeal and earnestness as if they were favourite projects of my own." He could conscientiously say, he had always acted up to that rule. The right hon. Baronet had again referred to what he called the irregularity of the precise sums which were voted for each particular department of the Navy not being applied for the exact purposes intended. But that was no new practice, introduced by the late Ministry: the custom had always existed, in the Naval Service, to appropriate the gross sums voted by the House to whatever services it was found most convenient to apply them. Of all the points mentioned by the right hon. Baronet, there was only one which he should notice, and that was connected with the works at Woolwich,
362
which had exceeded the expenditure. That was the case, he allowed; but it was owing to the peculiar nature of the works. While the workmen were engaged in making the basin, the whole front of the sea wall threatened to fall in, and the people were obliged to work at it night and day to prevent it. That had caused a great additional expense. That made the Navy Board sanction from time to time the expenditure proposed by Mr. Rennie; but there had never been the slightest notion of concealment on the subject, and the Navy Board considered themselves perfectly justified, as long as the money was duly appropriated to the public service, although it might not have been voted for the exact purpose to which it was applied. The right hon. Baronet, had stated candidly the cause of his removal from the Navy Office, and he thought he ought to feel gratified that he had been dismissed from the Navy Board, because, in the execution of his duty, he dared to speak his opinion to the First Lord of the Admiralty. While he was in office, he had never failed to speak when he thought the interest of the service required it. The right hon. Baronet charged the Navy Board with wilful and perverse disobedience; but a more unfounded assertion was never made in that House. The instance the right hon. Baronet had referred to, was the case of the Ledgers ordered to be kept at the Navy Office, as a counterpart of those kept at the dock-yards, as a check upon the receipt and expenditure of stores which the right hon. Baronet asserted had never been kept up. It was a new plan, which had been in existence only for one year, and it was not proposed to be continued, and was not very well understood. The right hon. Baronet had also referred to the non-discharge of labourers; but all he had to answer to that charge was, that every order given by the Admiralty had been executed: the right hon. Baronet, in his over zeal, had written an angry letter to the Navy Board, to know why it did not obey certain orders. The answer was, that they were never given. During the progress of the Bill, he should certainly move for papers to throw light on these proceedings, and that no doubts might be thrown on the fairness and justice of his statement. The right hon. Baronet complained of five tons of copper having been lost, without that loss being discovered; but ten tons might have been taken, without any dis-

363
covery having been made. The right hon. Baronet said, that this arose because an account was not taken of the stores; but to do that frequently would cost several thousand pounds, and if done every year, would employ all the people in the dockyards doing that alone. The right hon. Baronet said, that the price-book was not corrected since 1826; but that was the duty of the professional men; and, in general, the prices were regulated by the prices in the market. The right hon. Baronet had quoted from a pamphlet of his [Sir James Graham said, he had quoted the speech of the hon. Baronet]. He had, then, nothing further to say on that point. The right hon. Baronet, in pursuing economy, was, he was afraid, overlooking more important considerations. Who, he would like to know, would, in this new Board, take charge of the civil service of the Navy? He had always thought that the Comptroller of the Navy should have a seat at the Admiralty, but not be liable to be turned out when political changes took place, and should, therefore, see all the orders of the Admiralty executed. Who could now do that? Who would check the enormous expenditure? Was it to be done by the Accountant General? Was he to send down all bills to the Admiralty? Why, that would amount to 3,000,000 l. or 4,000,000 l. a year, and in war-time to 23,000,000 l. or 24,000,000 l.; and the messenger who had to bring back the bills signed from the Admiralty, might easily walk off with a large sum. There would be no security. He understood that the Surveyor of the Navy was to be continued, and why then was Sir Robert Seppings dismissed? He declared that he had never, in the whole course of his life, met with so diligent, so faithful, so honest a public servant. He was a most respectable man, who had laboured in the public service for fifty years without thinking of his own concerns, and yet he was dismissed. That required explanation. Sir Robert Seppings was one of the most efficient men that ever was in his situation, and in his place they were going, probably, to put in some fanciful builder. His mode of putting ships together was most useful, and its excellence was proved, by every nation having adopted it. He knew that some people had most unworthily tried to raise prejudices against Sir Robert Seppings, but his name would be remembered with honour when those of his traducers would
364
have sunk into contempt and oblivion. As long as a ship floated on the ocean, Sir Robert Seppings would be respected. There were other officers who, out of very moderate incomes, supported families respectably, who were looking with fear and trembling at the right hon. Baronet's plans, and prayed for a speedy decision. He had only made a few observations, but there were a multitude of questions which must be discussed while the Bill was in progress. When the Bill was sufficiently matured to be brought in, he would give it an impartial and unprejudiced consideration. As far as it was calculated to benefit the public service, he would support it; but if he thought it likely to be injurious, he would give it a most decided opposition.
Sir George Cockburnsaid, he must apologize to his hon. and gallant friend (Sir Byam Martin) for not having risen immediately after the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, had concluded his speech, to declare his conviction that the right hon. Baronet had borne hardly and unfairly upon his hon. and gallant friend, and the members of the subordinate Boards in general. He had had a seat at the Admiralty for twelve years, and had frequently thought some change in the civil administration of the Navy must ultimately take place. He was ready to admit that the Admiralty had not always found the Navy Board ready to act as the Admiralty wished. But he had before stated, and he was bound to repeat, that he believed the opposition of the Navy Board was always well intended, and was, in many cases, extremely valuable. It was natural for every man to be zealous, perhaps too zealous, and that he believed was his own case, in making what he considered improvements, particularly on first entering into office: but the Navy Board, which he might call the Board of Detail, being composed of men who had risen principally from the various departments in the service, was generally opposed to any sweeping change, come from whatever quarter it might; and it had, he believed, by that part of its constitution, prevented a great deal of mischief. It prevented other people going too fast; and was, on the whole, he thought, very beneficial. It was a most valuable drag-chain on those who were in too much haste; at the same time, he had never known the Navy Board make any opposition to orders when they

365
were given. With respect to the buildings at Weovil, he must state, that, when the Lord High Admiral was at Portsmouth, he had remarked how inconvenient it was to have the various Victualling Departments scattered about in different places. He had inquired what would be the expense of making one complete establishment at Weovil, where a part of the business was carried on; and, understanding that the price received for the old buildings, which were situated in the streets of Portsmouth, would pay for new ones to be built at Weovil, which was on the other side of the water, they were ordered to be built. It turned out, however, that part of the old victualling buildings were taken as barracks, and did not net so much money as was expected. Parliament was not then sitting; but after Parliament had met—in 1827, he believed—he was asked by his gallant friend (Sir Joseph Yorke) a question on the subject. He had then stated all the circumstances of the case, which met no disapprobation from the House, and on which no deception had been practised. With reference to the alteration proposed by the right hon. Baronet, it struck him that it would destroy the responsibility which now belonged to the heads of the different departments. It was of vast importance to have responsible officers, and in that this measure would fail. The right hon. Baronet had compared his plan to that for the regulation of the Ordnance, but in that, the head of each department, was responsible for his department; but in the proposed plan, the subordinate officers in the civil departments of the Navy would remain in their offices throughout all political changes, and, consequently, they would have the whole correspondence, and would, in fact, be the managing persons, without the responsibility. On them the Admiralty must rely, particularly the members of that Board on first entering into office, several of whom might be ignorant of the nature of naval management. On this account, he thought the heads of the various departments had better be formed into a subordinate and separate Board, having the responsibility, but being liable to the general directions of the Admiralty. If the right hon. Baronet carried his plan, in that respect, into execution, he (Sir G. Cockburn) was convinced, that in three years, or even in one year, it would be found not to work well. However, when the Bill came under the
366
consideration of the House, he pledged himself to give it all the attention in his power.
Sir Thomas Troubridgesaid, that every thing stated by the two last hon. speakers strongly corroborated all that had been so ably urged by the first Lord of the Admiralty. It was well known that a jealousy had occasionally subsisted between the Navy and Admiralty Boards, and that their difference of opinion had been most injurious to the interest of the naval service on a variety of occasions: on this subject, he would produce better authority than his own, in a letter of advice written by Lord Rodney to Lord Chatham when First Lord of the Admiralty, to which he begged leave to call the particular attention of the House. Lord Rodney said, 'Above all things keep up the dignity of the Board, and never suffer inferior Boards to obtrude any point whatsoever, which they will always attempt to do, and are ever ready to remonstrate in-stead of obeying, but never suffer any admiral or captain to dare to remonstrate against, or disobey the orders of the Lord High Admiral. The Navy Board, in particular, have ever been ambitious of rendering themselves an independent Board; they have not yet carried their point, and I hope never will. The Board of Admiralty are responsible for the state of the navy, and are liable and amenable for their conduct to Parliament; of course all subordinate Boards should be under their control, and obey their commands—make them lay all the contracts for their stores and their ac-counts before the Board of Admiralty once or twice in the year, together with an account of the condition of every vessel belonging to the State, and particularly mark the class of ship which is in every port. The Board of Admiralty then will always have it in their power to know in what manner the Navy Board make their appointments—my meaning for this suggestion is, that the Navy Board, from favour, or the Surveyor of the Navy, through partiality, recommends a ship belonging to some friend, of theirs, or some ship which, they have constructed, in preference to all others, never suffer any dictation, but keep all the patronage to the Admiralty; all the officers of every rank would then look up to it.' He now came to a very serious part of the letter, to which he begged

367
the attention of all parties. Lord Rodney went on to say, 'For God's sake never suffer your mind to be prejudiced against any officer, and be ever on your guard against any one who attempts to traduce a brother officer.' Many parts of this letter, he thought, fully corroborated what had been said by the First Lord of the Admiralty. At all events it shewed what were the opinions entertained by officers of high rank and great experience. He could further corroborate this opinion, by the testimony of his own immediate ancestor, who had sat some time as a member of the Admiralty during the administration of the late Earl of St. Vincent. He hoped, therefore, that party spirit would not be allowed to have any influence upon the decisions of hon. Members with respect to this Bill, and he trusted that the experience and talents of those who had been in office, would be brought to the aid of the proposed alteration; which in his conscience he deemed pregnant with good to the British nation in improving the administration of the British Navy, of which he had the honour to be a humble member. He could not on this occasion avoid paying the tribute of his gratitude to his Majesty's Government for introducing this measure, and also for the reduction in the amount of the Estimates now lying on the Table, which he looked upon as the best security that Government meant strictly to fulfil the pledges of economy which they had made on their acceptance of office. The noble Earl at the head of the Government, in himself a model of consistency as to his public conduct, aided as he was in the other House by Lord Brougham, and supported as he was in this House by high talent, could not, he thought, fail in rendering his country great and permanent service.
Sir George Clerkperfectly concurred in the hope expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down, that every hon. Member who entered into the consideration of this subject would divest himself of all prejudices or party feelings; and he was therefore surprised that after expressing that hope the hon. and gallant Member had ended his speech by eulogising one party in that House. He would not, however, follow the hon. and gallant Member's example; but would confine himself to making a few observations on what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty.
368
He felt some difficulty in expressing a decided opinion on a plan so extensive, particularly on a first view of it, as detailed by its author to the House. He could assure the right hon. Baronet that he was most ready to assist in promoting any part of the plan which might appear likely to be beneficial to the public; but it appeared to him, from the imperfect conception he had formed, after hearing the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that there were parts of his plan which would aggravate the evils the right hon. Baronet complained of; and that there were other parts of it which he apprehended would be found wholly impracticable. The right hon. Baronet laid down as the ground-work on which he proposed to build his improved system, that the Admiralty, being the superior Board, was frequently thwarted by the other Boards, which ought to be strictly subordinate to the Admiralty, and that the result was exceedingly injurious to the public service. He altogether differed from the right hon. Baronet in that view. It was the duty of the Navy Board to point out any practical difficulty in the way of executing the plans of the Admiralty; and it was the duty of the Admiralty to modify their plans when that difficulty was satisfactorily proved to exist. In fact it did frequently happen, that the suggestions, and even remonstrances of the Navy Board, led the Admiralty to make improvements in its projects. It was the bounden duty of all persons connected with the public service, to give their opinions openly but respectfully, and he therefore regretted that the right hon. Baronet had not found amongst those under his command some man of independent mind like his hon. friend (Sir Byam Martin) to point out to him the practical evils of many parts of his proposed plan, which must be evident, he thought, to any man of experience, even on a cursory view of it. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that there had been a want of sufficient control by the Admiralty over the other departments, and especially over the expenditure of the Navy Board, and that there had been in several instances an excess of expenditure in that department above the Estimates submitted to that House. Part of that excess arose in the Victualling-Office. It had been his duty on a former occasion, to explain that circumstance, and he begged now again to repeat the explanation. During the four years subsequent to 1825,

369
there was a great reduction in the price of provisions, and a surplus of the money voted for that purpose, the Estimates having been calculated on the prices of provisions during the former years, remained on hand. At that time several works of importance were in progress, the expense of which had been spread over a number of years, for the purpose of not pressing too much on the resources of the country; but with a surplus on hand from the other grants, it became expedient, and in fact, economical, to employ that surplus in carrying on those works more rapidly than was at first contemplated. Up to a late period of the war, the Navy Estimates were voted in one sum, and the Appropriation Act did not apply to them. He was not prepared to say, that if each of the departments could be confined to a sum specified by Parliament, it would not be a great improvement. The right hon. Baronet said he would try that experiment. He did try it last year, and the account on the Table shewed that the plan had not been practicable. The principal charge however, against the administration of the Navy, was, that nearly 1,000,000 l. less than the sum voted for stores in the four years, 1825, 1826, 1827, and 1828, had been laid out. It might be presumed, in consequence, that the naval arsenals were insufficiently supplied. Acting under this impression, the right hon. Baronet himself took a vote for stores, to the amount of 800,000 l. But in the course of last year, having had an opportunity of inspecting the dock-yards, he found that there was no deficiency, and he had accordingly proposed a much less vote this year. He begged leave to state how the surplus money was disposed of. During the years 1825, 1826, 1827, and 1828, when the public service required ships to be sent to the Tagus and to the Mediterranean, the Admiralty was obliged to increase the number of seamen beyond what had been voted; and was forced by circumstances over which they had no control, to employ that increased number much longer than was expected. The House must be aware that, by Act of Parliament, the Treasurer of the Navy was bound, in the first place, to pay seamen's wages out of any monies in his hands, without reference to the Appropriation Act; and if the right hon. Baronet would look to that circumstance, he would find that the sum paid on that account, would very nearly exhaust the
370
sum which was allowed but not expended on stores. During the three years, 1826, 1827, and 1828, there had been an actual saving upon the sum voted by Parliament for the Naval Department, of above 1,000,000 l., which the right hon. Baronet found in the Exchequer, and with which he was carrying on the naval service for the present quarter. The right hon. Baronet had also charged the Navy Board with not having carried into effect the orders of the Admiralty, for the reduction of the workmen in the dock-yards. The order of November, 1829, for the discharge of artificers was not obeyed, on account of the extreme distress which prevailed at that time throughout the country. It was stated, that the greatest possible hardships would arise, if so many men were discharged at that particular moment; the men were therefore retained, but at a great reduction in the previous amount of their wages. The right hon. Baronet must recollect, that when he came into office, so far from finding an excess in the number of workmen employed in the yards, that it became necessary for him to order that these workmen should work six days instead of five; therefore it did not become the right hon. Baronet to find fault with the Navy Board for having made that arrangement. Another subject alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, as a defect in the present system, was the want of a sufficient check upon the expenditure of the stores in the dock-yards,—as an illustration of which he adduced the fact of the abstraction of a quantity of copper which had not been missed; but when it was considered, that extreme labour, time, and expense, were necessary to make frequent surveys of the stock remaining in hand, it would not be surprising that a quantity of copper should have been purloined from the yard at Chatham, without that fact having been known till an intimation to the Navy Board was given by an anonymous letter from Birmingham. The persons were then detected, brought to trial, and convicted; and a change had been made in the watchmen over the yard, which would make it impossible for any article to be stolen again. The right hon. Baronet had also stated, that the three Boards were appointed in a similar manner by patents under the Great Seal. But until the right hon. Baronet had affirmed it, he had never before heard that the authority of these Boards was considered

371
co-equal. The hon. and gallant officer (Sir Thomas Troubridge) had remarked, that thirty years ago, when a relative of his was in the Admiralty Department, there were similar complaints made against the Navy Board; and the hon. and gallant Officer had read a letter of advice written by Lord Rodney, which he seemed to consider extremely applicable to the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham). He had no doubt that the right hon. Baronet would be extremely happy to adopt the advice contained in that letter, but he was afraid, the power he appeared so desirous to obtain, would be found infinitely greater than he and his colleagues at the Admiralty would be able to manage, and a great deal of efficient control over the expenditure of the Navy would therefore devolve upon persons who, by the proposed arrangement, would be without any personal responsibility whatever. The right hon. Baronet had stated that it was not intended that the new offices created by his plan should be considered political offices, whereas the persons who hold the higher ones would be subject to ministerial changes; the consequence would be, that these persons, during the first two or three years of their being in office, must depend upon the recommendation of the persons who filled the situations of secretaries and chief clerks. The persons filling these higher situations, would no doubt be of the greatest integrity and ability; but would it be possible for the Admiralty, unless it had persons under the Board really acquainted with the details of office, to perform their duties efficiently? The real responsibility would be thrown upon persons obliged to act under the dictation and advice of those to whom no responsibility attached. With respect to the union of offices, the first step ought to have been, to have tried the effect of uniting the Navy and the Victualling Boards, still retaining the five officers as at present, because it appeared to him that in no one part of the plan of the right hon. Baronet, had he made any provision whatever with regard to the immense correspondence which would fall upon the Admiralty, on the extinction of the subordinate Boards. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that all correspondence, and all questions relating to expenditure, and all propositions of importance, were intended to be discussed openly at the Admiralty Board. If that Board attempted
372
to take upon itself these duties, and to conduct all the correspondence, neither the Lords of the Admiralty, nor the Secretary of that Board, would be able, for one week, to carry on the business of the office. He was surprised the right hon. Baronet had not entered into some of those important details. The right hon. Baronet appeared to have a very inaccurate idea of the nature and extent of the duties performed by the Navy Board; he would say perhaps, that he would destroy the correspondence between the three Boards; but that would make a very small reduction upon the total amount of the correspondence carried on by the Navy Board with all the dock-yards in the kingdom, with officers fitting out ships with contractors, and with various other parties. Naval officers very frequently complained of the Navy Board, on account of its strict adherence to regulations which frequently compelled it to refuse what appeared to the officers, reasonable requests. When an officer had got a ship to fit out, he was naturally anxious to obtain many extra articles beyond the proper establishment; and then it very often became a very troublesome part of the duty of the Navy Board to refuse its assent, which excited unpleasant feelings between the parties; and he had no doubt that some such feeling occasioned that excellent quarter-deck law, for strict subordination, laid down by Lord Rodney. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet, what power the Surveyor-General, the Accountant-General, the Storekeeper, and the chief medical officer were to enjoy? Were those officers to have any power to give orders of their own authority. The right hon. Baronet intimated that an Act of Parliament could not limit these matters. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet; the only way in which those things could be satisfactorily discussed, would be, a Committee to inquire into the various details; and as the right hon. Baronet had said that the labours of the Finance Committee had been arrested just at that point, that was an argument why a Committee should now be appointed; and certainly a measure of such magnitude, and of such immense importance, as that of altering the whole administration of the navy, which had existed from the time a navy was first formed, was one which he thought Parliament should not sanction without being fully satisfied of the practicability of the

373
plan proposed. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that in the whole of these arrangements no new appointment was to be made by him, except another Lord of the Admiralty. He was glad to hear it, because reports were in circulation, that it was intended to dismiss Sir Hubert Seppings. He regretted that a person, whose great services had been recognized by a vote of this House on a recommendation from the Finance Committee of 1819, and whose fame was not confined to this country, but was spread all over Europe, should be dismissed from the service of his Majesty. There was no country that had a navy which had not adopted his plans; and he felt no less surprise than sorrow to learn that it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet to discharge so meritorious an officer, who was still as capable of carrying on his duties as any person in his Majesty's navy. The right hon. Baronet had stated that another part of his plan related to the auditing of accounts. That he approved of, for according to the present system, there was no such thing as any efficient audit of the naval accounts—it was a mere matter of form; but he saw no advantage to be derived from making the accounts up to the 31st of March and the books up to the 30th of November. He begged leave to ask the right hon. Baronet, if any material error should be discovered in the accounts, or any expenditure above the estimates authorized by the vote of this House, should take place, who was to be responsible for the irregularity—the Board of Admiralty, the Accountant-General, or the officers of the Navy-office? Here was matter of audit, and who was to be answerable for the deficiency? If it was the Board of Admiralty, that would be making it a Board of Account, or nobody would be responsible for any errors which might arise. If it was intended that the Board which gave the orders was not to be accountable, and the Accountant General was not to be so, according to the right hon. Baronet's own statement, but to be strictly a subordinate officer, the right hon. Baronet, in fact, exempted his superiors from all responsibility. There were many further details, which he would pass over at present, but he must observe, that unless some concentration of the business took place, if the new plan was attempted, it would most assuredly fail. If the higher departments were conducted at Charing-
374
Cross, and the details at Somerset House, the most important documents would be obliged to be carried through the streets upon all occasions, and much time must be necessarily lost in communication. In conclusion, he begged leave to state, that if there had been formerly a complicated and inconvenient manner employed in keeping the naval accounts, that difficulty had been removed by the improved system of double entry brought into use by Mr. D. Thompson, the present Accountant General. Further improvements, he admitted, might be made, and a better audit established. He had no intention of opposing the Motion for bringing in the Bill, but he must set down by declaring, that he feared the result of the right hon. Baronet's plan would be, to create confusion and embarrassment in the naval administration of the country.
Captain Yorkesaid, he feared one Board would never be able to get through the complicated business connected with the civil administration of the navy. He knew the duties of the subordinate Boards were at times very severe; and as to the greater certainty of the amount of the different estimates being applied for the specific purposes intended, he doubted if the new plan could have that effect, where so much depended on the cost of the articles to be provided, and the necessity of more or less repair which ships might require during the year. With respect to Sir Robert Seppings, he was undoubtedly a man of the highest, attainments in his profession, and had effected great improvements in ship building, as was acknowledged by the officers of all foreign navies with whom he (Captain Yorke) had come in contact. As to the gentleman who, it was rumoured, was to be appointed his successor (Captain Symonds) he had the pleasure of his acquaintance, and knew him to be an excellent officer, and a man of great ingenuity and science, and he had built some small vessels, which answered very well, but he was a great experimenter, and it was doubtful whether his plans would succeed when applied to large ships of war, which required other qualities besides being fast sailers. With all the detail of ship-building and of workmanship he was necessarily unacquainted, as he had not been brought up to the profession of a shipwright.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he should be better able to appreciate the reductions

375
proposed by his Majesty's Government in the Naval Department, after they should have carried on the business of that Department with the reduced establishment for some time. But he was bound to say, that the reductions appeared to him to be very extensive, and of such a nature that, if they could be carried into effect without injury to the public service, the right hon. Baronet would be entitled to the thanks of the House and the country. But there was one part of the reductions to which he hoped the right hon. Baronet had not pledged himself, as he thought that it could not be carried into effect. It was at variance with the principles upon which his system of reduction appeared to be founded. Those principles were two-fold; first, that the heads of the several public departments should be responsible for the officers employed under them. Secondly, that they should have an entire control over those officers. Now, he thought that they neither could be held responsible, nor exercise a sufficient control, if the officers held their places by warrant, quamdiu se bene gesserint, that was to say, that they would not be revocable by a new Administration, or by the Board of Admiralty, when it pleased.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the right hon. Baronet quite misunderstood him, and that he never intended to convey such a meaning in what he had said, and that he had not used the expression quamdiu se bene gesserint.
Sir Robert Peelthought that there should be an uncontrolled authority in the Board to remove the persons employed under it. They ought to be placed, as regarded their removal, precisely on the same footing with Under Secretaries of State. There were many ways in which an officer might so conduct himself as to render it imperative upon the head of his department to remove him, although he should not have done anything which could be directly charged as misconduct. Besides, no Administration ought to have the power of precluding any other which might succeed them from appointing to those offices persons in whom they might have confidence.
Captain Berkeleythought that the consolidation of the Navy Board with the Admiralty would be a great boon to all persons connected with the naval service of the country, and that improvements in ship-building would be the result.
Mr. Humeexpressed his satisfaction with the alterations proposed by the right hon. Baronet. He thought that if the reductions could be carried into effect without the naval service being impaired in efficiency, that right hon. Gentleman would deserve the thanks of the country, and the support of the House. He was fully convinced, although there might be some doubt about the minor details, that the proposed arrangements, from their simplicity, would be found both more economical and efficient than the present complicated system, many parts of which he verily believed, were only created for the purpose of making work for the others.
Mr. Crokersaid, that he would not, at that late hour, occupy the House by refuting the observations of the right hon. Baronet, in reference to the late Administration, inasmuch as many Gentlemen who had heard the attack were not now present to hear the defence. But he was bound, in fairness to the right hon. Baronet, to give him credit for the goodness of his intentions, at the same time that he was compelled to deny his facts, and to dispute his reasoning. He should, however, reserve his arguments for a more fitting occasion.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that whenever the right hon. Gentleman should think proper to grapple with his statement, he would do his best to defend it. With regard to the officers alluded to by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) their appointments would be held by warrant, and not by patent; and, of course, on a change of Government, they would be removable, if such should be the pleasure of the new Lords of the Admiralty. In fact, his plan placed them precisely on the same footing, in that respect, as the Under Secretaries of State.
Leave given, Bill brought in, and read a first time.