§ Mr. Waltersaid, that pursuant to the notice he had given, he would now rise to move as an Amendment on the first Order of the Day, the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the advance of public money which had been made to the Thames Tunnel Company. At nearly the close of such a long and wearisome Session, he was aware how difficult it must be to get the House to attend to fresh matter. As, however, he had no other object in view than to save the money of the public, which was the paramount duty of that House—as he was not himself to blame for the delay—and as the subject, moreover, was not one of very great difficulty, he hoped the House would afford him its attention during the short statement that he had to make to it. Having brought this transaction already under the consideration of the House, and having upon that occasion detailed at some length the grounds upon which he should move for this inquiry, it would not be necessary for him to go into those details again, and he could, therefore, save the time of the House. On the former occasion he had moved, in addition to the Treasury minute which had been laid on the Table, for copies of the Reports of professional men, if any such had been made, before the money had been granted, 747 respecting the existing state of the Tunnel, the estimated expense of completing the same, and the probability as to the future re-payment of the money advanced. It appeared from the production of only this single document, that previous to the granting of the money there had been no Reports received from professional men as to the existing state of the Tunnel; that no estimate had been made out as to the expense of completing it; and that no security had been given for the future repayment. On the contrary, it appeared that on the present occasion the public money had been advanced without any of those guarantees and securities usually deemed necessary in all such cases where Parliament or the Government advanced a loan out of the public purse of the nation. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lambeth, who on a former occasion announced himself as one of the Directors of this Company, had then stated, that he (Mr. Walter) was altogether in error if he supposed that the sum required by the Company had been advanced by the Commissioners under any individual Act of Parliament framed for that purpose. In fact, that hon. Member then asserted, that such a statement was altogether without foundation, and that the Commissioners who had advanced this money, had so advanced it under the ordinary powers vested in them. Now, if Gentlemen would only look at the document laid on the Table, they would see in passage after passage, that reference was made to the 3rd and 4th William 4th, cap. 121—which was the private Act of the Thames Tunnel Company—as the express and sole authority for the advance of this money; and had it not been for that Act, it was not too much to say, that the Commissioners would have refused the advance of this money (for it did so happen that they had already twice previously refused to advance it); it could be nothing but the force of this Act of Parliament applied to them that could induce them to alter their minds and make the advance in question. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lambeth, on the former occasion when the subject was under discussion, stated, that he (Mr. Walter) might have obtained all the information he required by applying to him. Now, he (Mr. Walter) in bringing forward the subject, had not preferred any charge against that hon. Gentleman, or against any other individual. If, how- 748 ever, he had applied to him, or to any one connected with the Company in the first instance, it might then be said, that he had availed himself of private information to which he should not have had recourse. He had determined, therefore, entertaining, as he did, a strong conviction of the impropriety of this grant, upon seeking the means of investigation through no other but public sources. From such sources all the information he possessed on the subject was derived; and he might now be permitted briefly to advert to the circumstances connected with the progress of this Thames Tunnel Act through the House. He trusted that in doing so he should not be considered as transgressing the bounds of that propriety and personal respect due from one Member to another; but he must say, that it did appear to him very singular to find one Director of this Company, on the 1st, of April, 1833, moving the second reading of this Bill, which authorized the advance of 270,000l. to the Company, and another Director of the same Company on the same occasion presenting a petition to Parliament praying for aid to the said Company—a petition which was rejected on the ground of being a money petition, and not having received the sanction of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had also upon the former occasion defied him to prove that there had been any irregularity in this proceeding. Now, he begged leave to say, that it was one of the Standing Orders of that House, under the head of "Applications" for public money, that the House would not proceed with any Motion, Bill, or grant for any sum of money arising from the Crown, but in a Committee of the whole House. He would ask, if that form had been complied with in the instance of this Bill? He would ask, whether the House had been apprized at the time by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, of this transaction? He was convinced that not a dozen Members knew of it at the time; and he was further convinced, that if the general body of the Members of that House had been apprised of it, they would have been sure to reject such a grant, as former Boards of Treasury had done. He had no intention to cast any imputation upon the noble individual who had formerly filled the office of Finance Minister, but he would nevertheless say, that public business roust not be con- 749 ducted upon the ground of personal confidence, and that names, however respectable, should not be placed in the room of that investigation and inquiry which the public interests in cases of this kind imperatively demanded. It was evident from the absence of those other documents, for which he had moved, and which should always accompany a transaction of this kind, that the money had been advanced in the most naked and unguarded manner. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in the former discussion, had talked of this work as one of national importance, and one which would be productive of great national utility when completed. The right hon. Gentleman, too, as well as he remembered, had spoken of the work as one of a stupendous nature. He, however, would say, upon the authority of competent judges, that it was a work of stupendous folly—a work which he did not believe any one would undertake to complete, if all that was already done were given him. Of this he was sure, that a score of floating bridges might be established on the Thames for the money which this project would ultimately cost. He had not moved for a mass of papers which he might have moved for, because their production would be expensive, and he thought that the papers already laid before the House sufficiently entitled him to have a Select Committee appointed to inquire into the transaction. It would there be seen that the Commissioners for the issue of Exchequer-bills, had departed from their usual course of proceeding under the stringent authority of this Act of Parliament—that this Act was obtained in an informal manner—that the public money so advanced would lead to no useful result, and that there was no security whatever for its repayment. As he would not be entitled to a reply, he would now meet one or two objections which might be started to his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated, that he would take care, before any further sum of money was advanced, to use proper caution and inquiry. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would do so, and the effect of such investigation on his part would probably be to prevent the issue of any more money for this purpose; but that would not be sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman's care should extend further; he should endeavour to get back a portion of the public money which was 750 already granted, and which might be justly said to be placed at present in a dangerous situation. If the Directors were men of strict integrity, seeing the inutility of the project, they would be anxious to return any portion of the public grant that had not been already consumed. As to any parallel cases, he was sure there were none similar to this. The Commissioners might, in a few cases, have advanced money on security of works, but never till their own surveyor had examined into the validity of the security. The Act of Parliament, which he might say was smuggled through the House, had been their guide, and had enforced their submission in the present instance, for no inquiry had been made. If this Committee should be refused, the country would then see whether there was any difference between the present and other Administrations, in which the broad shield of Ministerial influence was cast over the supporters of Ministers, simply for this reason, and for this reason only—because they were the supporters of Ministers. He could assert, with some knowledge of public transactions during the last thirty years, that there never was a case more entitled to investigation, or one in which the refusal of inquiry would be more reprehensible. He trusted the House would grant this Committee, the labours of which would not be burthen-some, and would not extend beyond a few days, in order to enable them to make their Report. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the introduction of a Bill, entitled 'An Act to amend the Acts relating to the Thames Tunnel Company,' passed in the 3rd and 4th of his present Majesty's reign; and to inquire further respecting the advance of 30,000l. by the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer-bills in aid of Public Works, under the provisions of the said Act, with a view to prevent the advance of public money without full and adequate security for the repayment of the same."
Mr. Francis Baringsaid, that no one could be more anxious than he was that the whole transaction referred to by the hon. Member should be investigated from the beginning to the end, and he would say, on the part of his noble Friend, over whom the hon. Gentleman seemed to suspect that the Government would throw "the broad shield of protection," but 751 whose character needed no such defence, that nothing could possibly give more satisfaction to his noble Friend than an investigation of the whole subject. Before, however, the House should agree to the hon. Member's Motion for a Committee, let it for a moment examine the case which the hon. Member had endeavoured to make out. Now, what was this very grave case, as the hon. Member brought it forward? The hon. Gentleman said, that it was a standing rule of the House that no grant of public money should be made, except in a Committee of the whole House, and then he asked whether a great irregularity had not therefore been committed in passing this Act. Now, if the hon. Member had looked at the Act narrowly, he would have seen that it did not come under the Standing Rules of that House; indeed, there was scarcely a Private Bill that passed that House that did not take similar powers to obtain a loan of Exchequer-bills, and it was scarcely necessary to add, that such Bills were never committed to a Committee of the whole House. This very Session a Private Bill, containing a clause similar to that in the Bill in question, had passed that House, and it was only because the Treasury objected to it, that it was thrown out in another place. There were many instances in which similar powers were taken by Private Bills, and nobody, except the hon. Gentleman, would ever imagine that it was a grant of public money. He must ask, whether the hon. Member seriously supposed that a Committee would be appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the passing of an Act through the House of Commons. Such a thing had never been heard of before; unless, therefore, the hon. Member should make out some case, some appearance of a job, something having a primâ facie case to support it, he could not conceive how he was entitled to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the passing of an Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman stated that there were no official documents furnished, and he (Mr. Baring) would grant that statement was true. But the Treasury minute stated that Lord Althorp had taken upon himself the whole responsibility; his noble Friend had been extremely interested in the advancement of this great public work, which he justly regarded as one of national importance; he had inquired minutely into all the cir- 752 cumstances connected with it, and having done so, he took upon him the responsibility to advise the grant. The same thing was frequently done in similar cases by those who filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Treasury found that in the Bill a discretionary power was vested in them as to making the advance by the loan of Exchequer-bills. The course followed in that instance by the House was the usual course followed in such cases, namely, to leave it to the discretion of the Treasury when and in what manner the advance should be made. In the year this Act was passed, an advance was refused, as the Treasury did not feel they had sufficient funds at their disposal to meet it. In the next year, however, a million was voted for public works, and out of that sum the Treasury thought it right to make this advance; and though this was a case in which what might be deemed sufficient mercantile security could not be given to the public, though it was one in which the repayment of the money could not be made perfectly safe, yet when it was considered what an interest was attached to the progress of this great public work, when they referred to the universal interest it had created on the Continent, when it was recollected that scarcely a foreigner visited our shores who did not go to see this magnificent work, he was sure it would be admitted that the Treasury had a fair right, and were perfectly justified in advancing this money. As to the charge of carelessness advanced by the hon. Member, he must say that this power had been exercised with great care and caution by the Treasury. A minute had been drawn up by him (Mr. Baring), under the direction of Lord Althorp, affording the greatest security that could, under the circumstances, be afforded to the public against loss. That minute was now on the Table of the House, and any hon. Member, by referring to it, would see that it was a most cautious one. He was sure that a reference to it would prove that the discretionary power exercised by the Treasury in this instance, in advancing a portion of the money voted for public works for a work of this magnitude and importance, had been exercised with the greatest possible caution, and that the Government of the day was not chargeable with carelessness or neglect on that point. To be sure, the hon. Gentleman had been good enough to say that he did not impute 753 improper motives to the noble Lord (Lord Spencer). It was a great stretch of generosity on the part of the hon. Gentleman, and he (Mr. Baring) was much obliged to him for declaring that his noble Friend had not been guilty of a job. Again he thanked the hon. Gentleman for his kindness; but he was sure of this, that no one who knew his noble Friend would do him the injustice to take the slightest notice of the no-insinuations of the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Hawesmust beg to recall the attention of the House to the charges which the hon. Gentleman had made in the former discussion on this subject, and he would demand of him, in the face of the House and the country, to justify those charges now. He quoted from the hon. Gentleman's speech, as given in The Times newspaper:—"The money which had been advanced, and which he had no doubt was lost, was not of so much consequence as the deviation from the established law of Parliament. He believed it to be the rule of the House that money should not be granted without the leave of the House; and this Bill, authorizing the payment of 270,000l., had been got through totally without the knowledge of the House, under the disguise of a private Bill." The hon. Gentleman had not said one word on that subject to-day. To be sure, he had talked of smuggling an Act through the House; but he did not state it as a fact. It would be rather curious indeed to find him state any grounds for such an imputation, for such it would be upon the House. He (Mr. Hawes) was as ready to have any part of his conduct canvassed as the hon. Member for Berkshire could be. But how did the facts really stand with regard to the passing of this Bill? The Thames Tunnel Bill was read a first time on the 1st of April, 1833, it was read a second time on the 4th of May, it was committed on the 17th of May, it was reported on the 9th of July, and it was read a third time on the 8th of August. Surely that was a considerable time for a Bill to take passing through the House. But the hon. Gentleman seemed surprised that on the day it was read a second time, a petition should have been presented in its favour. Why, there was nothing more common; indeed, that was the most appropriate time for the presentation of such a petition. It was, he believed, presented by his gallant Friend 754 the Member for Devonport, and it came from the inhabitants in the neighbourhood of the tunnel, who felt anxious for its completion. The petition was withdrawn on a point of form. But as to the Bill, was it a Bill authorising the advance of 270,000l.? He (Mr. Hawes) would deny that it was any such thing. It was merely a Bill giving the Lords of the Treasury power, if they thought fit, out of the money that had been voted for public works, to give an advance in aid of this work. How stood the fact? At the period that the Bill passed, the Commissioners had not 30,000l. in their hands; but in the next year a million was voted for public works, and the advance was then made. Let not the hon. Gentleman imagine that this was done without precedent; an Act of Parliament was passed on the 7th of June, 1824, to amend former Acts respecting the issuing of Exchequer-bills for public works, and it authorised the Lords of the Treasury, if they thought fit, to advance sums of money for that purpose on security. That was the precedent for this Bill: it was the 5th of George 4, c. 71. Now, here at once was a precedent for this Bill. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: There were ten or twelve such Acts.] He would then ask the hon. Member to make good his assertion, that this Bill had been smuggled through the House. He would ask him to state any one single act that justified such a charge. The hon. Gentleman was extremely cautious in attacking individuals, and yet very ready to deal in general imputations. When the hon. Member had said that the Bill was smuggled through the House, he had called on the hon. Member to say who it was that had so smuggled it. He challenged him, in the face of the House and the country, to make good a single charge he had brought forward. Now as to the character of the work for which the money was advanced. The work, the hon. Gentleman was pleased to say, might be considered by some a national work, but he was disposed to look upon it as one of "stupendous folly." Now, he (Mr. Hawes) held in his hand an extract from a journal, which he could not say was at present any authority with that House or with the hon. Member for Berkshire, but which was a journal of large circulation, and which, therefore, when it directed attention towards a work as one of a national character and importance, must be 755 taken as some evidence of the public opinion on the point. He repeated, he did not know whether the journal in question was any authority with the hon. Member, or with the House; it was certainly none with him (Mr. Hawes). The journal to which he was referring was The Times, and he would just call the attention of the House to a leading article in the The Times of July 4, 1828. It was in the following terms:—"A meeting, at which the Duke of Wellington is to be present, takes place to-morrow, in support of the Thames Tunnel enterprise. After stating this fact, and soliciting the attention of the public to it, it would be unjustifiable, and even absurd in us to represent the enterprise as one which, under the most favourable circumstances, is likely to yield a beneficial return of interest for the capital employed, at least for a very long time to come. But at the same time it must be considered as a noble undertaking; and so much the more noble will it prove, should it be concluded, as it is found to be environed and impeded by unforeseen difficulties and accidents. Whoever contemplates the project in this light, will feel it to be his duty to lend it support, and to press its progress from higher motives than those of personal interest—from a desire to do honour to his country and the age in which he lives. We cannot deceive any one, if we would, as to the pecuniary prospects of the undertaking; but we would not withhold the incitement of a more generous principle of action." Now, here surely was strong evidence to prove the fact that the public mind was generally possessed with a favourable feeling as to the national character of the work, and the importance of completing it. He had said enough about the Bill. This article, it would be observed, appeared when the Duke of Wellington was in office; an application was at the time made by the Company to the Government for a loan, and a long investigation took place before the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn) as to the security. Lord Althorp was called in both by the proprietors and by the Duke of Wellington to state the result of his inquiries. His Lordship made a report, in which he stated that the lowest income that might be expected from the tunnel would be 15,000l. a-year. He would now read the answer of Mr. Goulburn. The hon. Gentleman read the answer, which was to 756 the effect that the report had been considered by himself and the Duke of Wellington, that they had no reasonable doubt of the security, but that, owing to the heaviness of existing engagements, it was not intended to place in the hands of the Commissioners any further sums of money that year for advances in aid of public works. Now, here was the approval of the security on the part of Mr. Goulburn. He would now read a letter on the subject from the Duke of Wellington, prefacing it with the remark, that the noble Duke had always taken a generous and lively interest in the success of the project. Indeed, it was one in which men of all parties took the greatest interest; for the deputation which went up to the Duke of Wellington on this occasion was headed by Lord Morpeth and Sir Robert Inglis. The hon. Gentleman here read the Duke of Wellington's letter, which was dated in 1829, and was to the effect, that he thought it better that the question should not be brought before Parliament that Session in the way of direct aid from the Treasury, but that he hoped the subject might be brought forward next Session, and he trusted their Lordships of the Treasury would approve of that course. Here, surely, was an approval on the part of the Duke of Wellington of the principle of advancing public money in aid of this work. As to the Treasury minute, he (Mr. Hawes) would, as a director, say, that it was extremely strict and severe. The hon. Gentleman had said the Exchequer Loan Commissioners had refused to grant the money. It was convenient for him to make this statement; but it was not the correct one. The answer of the Commissioners was, that as the work was of a nature that did not admit of any contract for its completion, or the giving the Board such security as they must require, they did not intend to advance any money without special legislation on the subject. It was obvious at once that it would be impossible to execute the work by contract, as the contracting parties could not give security for the preservation of the work already done. With regard to the sum already advanced by the Exchequer, namely 30,000l., he held in his hand a detailed statement up to June, 1835, of the expenditure of that money. He did not feel it necessary to defend himself on this occasion, as the hon. Member had not thought proper to attack 757 him by name at all. He would, however, say, in the face of the House and of the country, that the hon. Gentleman had made charges which he could not justify as he ought, and that he (Mr. Hawes) was therefore entitled to say, that he had brought forward a case totally unfounded, and entirely unworthy of the notice of Parliament.
§ Lord Granville Somersetsaid, he should like to know if it were the intention of Ministers to oppose the appointment of this Committee. For his part, he thought that it was a subject well deserving the attention of Parliament, especially when so large a sum of money was to be advanced under the authority of an Act of Parliament. He greatly doubted the expediency of advancing 246,000l. out of the public funds for carrying on a work of this nature. Certainly, where such a sum was advanced, there should be strong evidence as to the goodness of the security and the importance of the work in a national point of view. Now, he did not think that the hon. member for Lambeth had at all negatived the assertion of the hon. member for Berkshire, that this Act of Parliament was one authorizing the Treasury to advance money, nor had he proved that when the Act passed the Members of the House, generally speaking, were at all aware that gave so sweeping a power. He would not say that the Act had been smuggled, but they all knew how private Acts were passed, and he must say, that so large a sum as this should not have been voted without discussion. The hon. Member (the Secretary for the Treasury) stated, that this Bill contained only a clause similar to clauses contained in other private Bills that had been often previously passed. Now, as that hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that the Treasury had prevented a Bill with a similar clause from passing the Lords, the Treasury should, if it knew of the Clause in this Bill at the time of its passing, have stopped its progress. The hon. Member for Lambeth challenged inquiry as to the passing this Act, while the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury opposed any such inquiry. Now he, (Lord G. Somerset) cared little about the Act of Parliament, but he did care about the advance of so large a sum of money for this particular purpose without any chance of its being repaid. He did not think that it ever would be repaid. It was 758 neither more nor less, therefore, than a grant of the public money completely and entirely given away. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the authority of the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Goulburn in 1829; but did they propose any Act for that purpose in 1830? As far as he recollected, the Duke of Wellington then took this course—he did not propose a grant of public money for the work, but he contributed a sum out of his private fortune towards it, on the principle that it was a national work, the funds for the completion of which should be supplied by private subscription. He (Lord G. Somerset) did not know on what grounds it was calculated that this 246,000l. would complete the work. The subject appeared to him one that suggested a fair inquiry. He was not for giving 246,000l. of the public money away for the completion of a work, the final completion of which was doubtful, and the national utility of which was equally problematical. It was not a work that connected a great tract of country. It certainly would connect two very populous portions of this great city, but that would not entitle it to be dignified with the character of a national work. If inquiry were refused now, at all events it should be granted next Session. He thought that no time should be lost in inquiring into such a transaction.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad not addressed the House before, because he was quite willing to let the case stand upon the speeches of his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury, and his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, who had stated the whole of the case, and had completely met the assertions of the hon. Member for Berkshire. On a former occasion he had objected to this inquiry on the ground that such an inquiry had never been asked before; but this he would say, that if the hon. Gentleman would bring any kind of charge against the department with which he was connected, so far from resisting such an inquiry, on a future occasion, he should be most anxious that the whole of the proceedings, quoad the Treasury, should be investigated. But as to the present motion, who had ever heard of ah inquiry into the circumstances connected with the passing of a former Act of Parliament? Even if he were disposed to grant such an inquiry, it could not be granted except in an extreme case, and when they had all the facts before them, 759 Indeed, the House would have no right to institute such an inquiry, unless it was shown that the Bill in question had been improperly passed. No Gentleman could support such a motion, unless he believed there had been something wrong—something like smuggling of the Bill through the House. Now, there had not been the shadow of a case of that kind made out in the present instance. The hon. Gentleman indeed asserted that the forms of Parliament had been departed from. He did not then fill the office he now occupied, and therefore he did not need that gracious vindication of his character, which the hon. Gentleman had with such zeal and generosity extended to his noble Friend. The hon. Gentleman asserted that this Act should have been committed to a Committee of the whole House. Now, no money was actually voted by this Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman's doctrine was correct, not a single private Bill containing any clauses concerning a loan from the Exchequer Commissioners could be passed without going through a Committee of the whole House. But, great as was the knowledge which the hon. Gentleman seemed to think he possessed, he passed a most undeserved imputation upon the former House of Commons, and upon the former Speaker, when he made such a charge; the fact, however was, that the hon. Gentleman was not able to produce a single case to show that there had been, in this instance, a departure from the rules and orders of that House. In answer to his noble Friend who had spoken last, he would just quote a precedent under a former and of course a good Government, as his noble Friend was a member of it. He could quote twenty such precedents, but one was sufficient. He referred to the 10th of George 4th.—an Act which was passed for explaining and amending former Acts for the formation of the Ulster Canal. This Act was passed on the 1st of June, 1829, and it contained a Clause, empowering the Ulster Canal Company to take a loan of 120,000l. from the Commissioners of Exchequer-bills. Now, here was an Act precisely similar to the present, and he imputed not the slightest blame to the Government of the day when it was passed. There was no doubt that this was a most interesting national work. The Duke of Wellington had stated that it was such, and had expressed a hope at the time that 760 the Government of which he was the head, might be enabled to bring it forward for consideration in the next Session. It was true that he had not done so, but his feelings with regard to the work, might be gathered from an Act passed during his Administration, the 9th of George 4th., chap. 63. It was an Act enabling the Tunnel Company to borrow sums of money for the completion of the work, and in the 22nd Clause the power was given to them of applying for a loan to the Commissioners of Exchequer-bills, and it gave the power, as it expressly stated, without reference to personal security. The Treasury had determined to advance the money, because they felt that this was a great national undertaking, which it would be a national disgrace to leave unfinished, and to a certain extent a reflection upon the country at large, that the individuals who had spent all their money in carrying this project to its present extent should be left to lose every thing without any effort being made on the part of the public to finish the work. Again, he would assert that there had been nothing unusual in the course taken—that it was warranted by precedents of various kinds of adverse Governments, and that the Treasury was fully and entirely justified in what it had done. He was ready to admit, however, that they were bound to proceed with the greatest caution—that they were bound to see every 6d. advanced properly expended, and to examine the results as they went along, in order that if a reasonable doubt should arise that the sum in question would be sufficient to complete the undertaking, they should, in discharge of their duty to the public, stop any further advances for that purpose. He could assure the hon. Member, that not an additional 6d. would be issued without a full examination of the expenditure. He pledged himself to that course during the recess, and then when the House met in February it would be for the House to determine whether he had advanced any money without sufficient grounds. If the hon. Gentleman should think so, then let him move for a Committee of Inquiry, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be ready to second his Motion. One of the propositions of the hon. Gentleman was, that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should endeavour to get back the portion of the money already advanced—advanced, it should be recollected, upon 761 the faith of an act of Parliament. Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not commit such a breach of faith, even though it might earn from the hon. Gentleman that same generous consideration for his character which the hon. Gentleman had been kind enough to bestow on that of his noble Friend (Earl Spencer.) The noble Lord opposite said, that no further money should be advanced without due inquiry. He again pledged himself to that course. Then let the hon. Gentleman move for a Committee of Inquiry into his conduct next Session, and, he repeated, he would himself second the Motion. He had stated his objections to this Motion. It afforded, indeed, a singular instance of the happy effects of the investigations of some hon. Gentlemen who concerned themselves in Parliamentary proceedings, and the results of whose most important and most distinguished labours generally declared themselves in the discovery of some extraordinary mare's nest. The hon. Member for Berkshire was most renowned in that species of discovery. He had found out certainly, in the present instance, a very extraordinary mare's nest, and he wished the hon. Member joy of his discovery.
§ Mr. Sheppardsaid, that he had seconded the Motion upon the principle of economy, and because he thought the public should be fully satisfied on such a subject. After, however, the Motion had been met so handsomely and so fairly by the Members of the Government, he would not say another word, unless to express his wish for the success of the undertaking for which the money was to be advanced.
§ Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, the work was one of national importance. It was so viewed by the Duke of Wellington, who had stated, that if finished, it would be of great military utility. He maintained, that the money was only lent, and that it was lent upon good security. As a Director, he would say, that no persons were more anxious for the fullest investigation and inquiry, than the Directors and proprietors of this Company. Let the hon. Member move for such inquiry, and he (Sir Edward Codrington) would second the Motion. With regard to the petition which he presented on the day the Bill was read a second time, he begged to say, that that was the most proper moment for presenting a petition.
§ Mr. Waltersaid, that after the assur- 762 ance which had been given, that no more money should be advanced without the most rigid inquiry, he would withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion withdrawn.