Sitting of 9 February 1810

WESTMINSTER PETITION RESPECTING A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.
Sir Francis Burdenpresented a Petition of the inhabitant householders, electors of the City and liberty of Westminster, assembled in New Palace Yard, the 9th day of February 1810, by the appointment of Arthur Morris, Esq. the high bailiff, in consequence of a requisition for that purpose, signed by several inhabitant householders, was presented to the House, and read; setting forth, "That in a Petition presented to the House, by Charles Grey, esq. (now earl Grey), on Monday the 6th day of May 1793, and which Petition was entered on the Journals of the House, it was averred and offered to be proved, "That the House of Commons did not fully and fairly repre-
364
sent the people of England;" "That the elective franchise was so partially and unequally distributed that a majority of the House was elected by less than a two hundredth part of the male population." "That the right of voting was regulated by no uniform or rational principle." "That Rutland" the smallest, and "Yorkshire" the largest County, "returned the same number of representatives." "That Cornwall," which by the census taken by order of parliament appears to contain a population of 188, 269, "returns as many members to the House as the counties of York, Rutland, and Middlesex," which by the same census, contains 1,693,377." "And that Cornwall and Wiltshire," containing 373,376 persons, "sent more Borough members to parliament than Yorkshire, Lancashire, Warwickshire, Middlesex, Worcestershire, and Somersetshire united" which contain 2,971,025. "That 70 of the members are returned by 35 places where the elections are notoriously mere matters of form." "That in addition to the 70 so chosen, 90 more of the members are elected by 46 places, in none of which the number of electors exceed fifty." "That in addition to the 160 so elected, 37 more of the members are elected by 19 places, in none of which the number of electors exceed 100." "That in addition to the 197 members so elected, 52 more are returned by 26 places, in none of which the number of voters exceed two hundred." "That in addition to the 249 so elected, 20 more are returned for counties in Scotland by less than 100 electors each; and 10 for counties in Scotland by less than 250 each." "That in addition to the 279 so elected, 13 districts of Burghs in Scotland not containing 100 voters each, and 2 districts of Burghs, not containing 125 each, return 15 more of the members." "That in this manner 294 of the members are chosen, which being a decided majority of the entire House of Commons, are entitled to decide all questions in the name of the whole people of Great Britain." "That 84 individuals do, by their own immediate authority, send 157 of the members to parliament." "That in addition to these 157 members, 150 more, making in the whole 307, are returned to the House, not by the collective voice of those whom they appear to represent, but by the recommendation of 70 powerful individuals, added to the 81 before-men-

365
tioned, and making the total number of patrons altogether only 154, who return a decided majority of the House." "That no less than 150 of the honourable members owe their election entirely to the interference of peers; and that 40 peers, in defiance of the resolutions of the House, have possessed themselves of so many burgage tenures, and obtained such an absolute and uncoutrouled command in very many small boroughs in the kingdom, as to be enabled by their own positive authority to return eighty-one of the honourable members." "That seats in the House are sought for at a most extravagant and increasing rate of expence." "That the means taken by the candidates to obtain, and by electors to bestow, the honour of a seat in the House, evidently appear to have been increasing in a progressive degree of fraud and corruption." And the petitioners are of opinion, that if the representation of the people in the House had not been very defective and unequal, they should not now have to complain of the sad effects produced by several unfortunate and destructive wars, or of the immense debt and taxes with which the country is burthened. They lament that the House have not thought fit to take the petition containing the above allegations into their serious consideration; the more so, as since the time it was entered on the Journals of the House the above causes cannot but have increased the number of corrupt persons who barter for seats; and it is with grief we state, that when a direct and distinct charge was made in the House on the 11th day of May last, against lord Castlereagh and Mr. Perceval, members thereof, and who at the same time were two of his Majesty's ministers, of having sold a seat therein, that the House refused to institute any inquiry; the petitioners are therefore compelled to conclude, that the only alternative which is left to the country is a radical Reform in the representation, or a final extinction of its liberties. And that they cannot conceal from the House, their apprehensions that the prayer of this their petition will not be attended to, until it be too late, but the petitioners will in any event have the satisfaction arising from a concientious discharge of the duty they owe their country. And that the petitioners most earnestly request that the House will, at an early day cause inquiry to be made into the present defective state of the representation, and
366
adopt such other means as shall prevent the choice of representatives from being committed to select bodies of men of such limited numbers as render them an easy pray to the artful, or a ready purchase to the wealthy. To shorten the duration of parliaments; and, by removing the causes of that confusion, litigation, and expence with which they are at this day conducted, to render frequent and new elections, what our ancestors at the revolution asserted them to be, the means of a happy union between the king and the people." Ordered to lie upon the table.

CRIMINAL LAW.
— Sir S. Romillysaid, that in consequence of the notice he had given in the last and the present sessions, he now rose to bring under the consideration of the House, some parts of the Criminal Law of this country; and whatever might be the effect of the motion with which he should trouble the House, he had the consolation to feel that he was but discharging his duty, and was not without great hopes, that what he had to state on the subject must be productive of public good. If he succeeded, he should congratulate the country, and feel great happiness on his having effected what he conceived to be a considerable amendment in the criminal law. It was not his intention to propose any other alteration than on two subjects; first, the frequency of capital punishments; secondly, what had been thought the policy and expediency of transporting persons for life, or for a certain number of years, to New South Wales. On the present occasion, he only meant to take notice of capital punishments. On a future occasion, he would bring forward the subject of transportation. As to the former he believed there was no country on the face of the earth in which there had been so many different offences according to law to be punished with death as in England. The indiscriminate application of the sentence of death to offences exhibiting very different degrees of turpitude had long been a subject of complaint in this country, but it had still been progressive and increasing. He need only refer to those principles so universally and triumphantly established by Dr. Adam Smith, very few of which had been acted upon, to prove this point. In his opinion, nothing could be more erroneous or more mischievous than that certain punishments should be allotted to particular offences, and that the law so laid down should not be acted on, and peremptorily enforced,

367
He believed that, at this moment, not one out of six or seven who received sentence suffered the punishment annexed by law to their respective offences. It was supposed by some persons that the severity of the law might and ought to be mitigated, by the extension of mercy; but this he thought a very mistaken principle; for he thought no laws should be enacted that were not intended to be enforced. There were, indeed, some acts in our Statute book which one could not hear read without horror, and which it was almost impossible to conceive could have found their way into it. Such, for instance, as the Act which makes it a capital offence in any person, male or female, to be seen in the company of gypsies for the space of a month. That Act had, however, been enforced for nearly a century; and it was lamentable to think, that no less than 13 persons had been executed under its cruel provisions at one assizes. There was the greatest reason to believe that our criminal code had, in ancient times, been not only most sanguinary but as sanguinarily executed. Fortescue, who was Chief Justice of the King's bench and afterwards lord chancellor to Henry VI. in his excellent treatise on absolute and limited monarchy, which was written during his residence in France, for the instruction of prince Edward, the son of that unfortunate monarch, relates, that there were more persons in England yearly executed for highway robberies alone, than in France for all other crimes in seven years. In the reign of Henry VIII. it is stated by Hollinshead and other credible historians, that about 72,000 persons were executed, which was after the rate of about 2,000 a year, during the reign of that monarch. In queen Elizabeth's time the number of executions fell to about 400 a-year. From that period to modern times, there were no data upon which to go. Sir Stephen Theodore Janssen, who was sometime Chamberlain of the City of London, published tables (which are to be found in Mr. Howard's book) of the number of persons convicted and executed in London and Middlesex, from 1749 to 1772: the result, of which went to shew, that of 428 persons convicted, 306 were executed, being a proportion of about three, executions to four oonvictions.—From the year 1756 to 1764, the executions amounted to about one half; and, from 1764 to 1771, to more than a half. This brought the account to the end of
368
the first ten years of his present Majesty's reign. In succeeding periods, a great diminution had taken place in the proportion between the number of convictions and the number of executions. In the London district, from 1801 to 1809, only about one-eighth of the persons convicted were executed. In 1808, there had been convicted S7, and only three executed, which was but one in 29.—He had been thus particular in stating the number convicted, to shew, how little the penal laws had operated in the prevention of crimes. In those offences in which the perpetrators could not expect mercy, such as murders, rapes, arson, &c. it could not be expected any alteration in the law should take place; but stealing privately in a shop or in a dwelling-house, with many other offences of the like class, if the capital part of the punishment was taken off, the law might be made more effectual; for people offended against them now, under a certainty that they would not incur the punishment. In the number of persons whose guilt was supposed to be such as that they should be sent to trial for stealing in dwelling-houses, the House would be astonished to find, that in the persons committed in London and Middlesex, in seven years, there have been executed only as 8 to 1,802; and since that only one had been executed out of 1,872. In the other parts of the kingdom, he believed they were in a proportion of one to upwards of 3,000. So that, on an average of 7,196 persons committed for trial for those offences in the years 1808 and 1809, which the law calls capital offences, only one had been executed. Thus if the question were to be fairly considered, as to what the execution had been, it might be said the law had been unexecuted. In bringing this subject before the House, he hoped he should not, as he had been on former occasions, be represented as a person wishing to be thought possessed of more refined feelings and a greater degree of humanity than his neighbours. He had no such ideas in his mind, but in what he did was actuated as much by a desire for the public good, as for that of individuals; and he was particularly induced to bring this matter before the House, from a conviction in his own mind, that the non-execution of the law in the infliction of those punishments he had alluded to, was the cause of crimes, by holding out a prospect of impunity. The circumstances of the times rendered it im-

369
possible that all the convictions for this species of offence should be carried into effect. Judges, jurors, prosecutors, and the crown, all felt sensible that it was impossible for the statutes in these cases to be carried into effect. This alone was sufficient for all reasonable men, that such inefficient and inapplicable laws ought no longer to remain on the statute book. It frequently happened, that parties were deterred from bringing depredators to punishment, from the severity of the penalty which would be the result of their conviction, and persons were thereby led to the perpetration of crimes by the impunity which was held out to delinquents. As the law was at present put in force, the judges on the circuits, and ministers of the crown in London, decided against whom the sentence of the law should be put in force. This he could not help considering as an unpleasant duty to be committed to any hands. When saying this, however, he was far from meaning to say any thing against the judges of the present day, or those who are gone. He did not recollect any one that had not acted to the best of his judgment according to the intention of the laws, as they stand at present. But if this practice was to be continued, the Legislature should prescribe certain rules to go by in every case. He would not, however venture at present to introduce any great change into our criminal code, but would only suggest, that mere violations of property, unattended with any circumstances of personal violence, or dangerous effects to commerce, ought to be exempted from capital punishments. He had it in view to move for a repeal of the acts of king William 3, which made it a capital felony to steal in a shop to the value of 5s.; the act of queen Anne to a similar effect against stealing to the value of 40 s. in a dwelling-house; and the act of George 2, against stealing to the like value from any bark or vessel in any river or navigable canal, or on a wharf, for any of which offences persons found guilty, on conviction were liable to the penalty of death. It was true that the extreme penalty of the law was very rarely put in execution against such offenders; but this was not owing to the leniency of the laws, but to the practice which had of late years been adopted, of suffering such matters to be decided according to the opinion of the judge before whom the matter was tried. This practice of leaving to the discretion of the
370
judge before whom a cause was tried, the sentence which was to be carried into execution, was severely condemned by sir Matthew Hale and lord Bacon. He thought the discretionary power at present granted to the judges highly dangerous, and such as no men would desire to be vested with. In some cases, the nature of a prisoner's defence, when he had attempted to prove his innocence by alibis, which the judge had thought ill established, has gone against him. Sometimes it was held as a matter of aggravation, that the offence was committed in a place where such offences were rare, and therefore that they ought to be checked, or that they were common, and therefore ought to be punished to prevent their multiplication. Many instances might be adduced of the different judgments which had been pronounced upon the same offence by different judges—The hon. and learned gentleman exemplified this by some cases which had fallen under his own observation, as baring happened of late years. Some years ago, on the Norfolk Circuit, two men were indicted for stealing poultry in a poultry-yard. One of them made his escape, the other was tried before lord Loughborough at the assizes, and convicted; but having been till then a person of good character, and this his first offence, lord Loughborough thought these circumstances deserving consideration, and only sentenced him to six months imprisonment. The other man who had fled, hearing this, and desirous to see his family, again returned, and surrendered himself. He was tried before Mr. Justice Gould, who, unfortunately for him, had a different idea from his brother judge, and thinking, as it was a first offence, it would be an example more for the public good to punish him severely, sentenced him to transportation for seven years: so that as the first of these culprits was coming out of his confinement, the other was setting out on his voyage beyond the seas. He alluded also to a similar instance in the case of duelling, in which the opinion of one judge was, that killing a man in a duel was certainly murder in the eye of the law; but that it had so long been alleviated, from various considerations, that it was seldom brought in more than manslaughter, and the jury gave a verdict accordingly. In the other case, the judge was of a different opinion; the verdict was for murder, and the unhappy gentleman was executed.—On the contrary, if

371
this discretion was given by positive law, every man would know what he had to expect. The most able defence of this system was to be found in the works of, the late Dr. Paley, the excellence of whose writings in general had given him a credit that had had a very mischievous effect, from the errors others had imbibed from this particular part of them. He then went into a long investigation of what Dr. Paley had said on this subject, of capital punishment, and urged many arguments in order to refute his doctrine, in which he endeavoured to shew that Dr. Paley took for granted the very thing in dispute. The hon. and learned gent. concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the acts of the 10th and 11th of William 3, as takes away the benefit of clergy from persons privately stealing in any shop, warehouse, coach-house or stable, any goods, wares, or merchandizes of the value of five shillings, and for more effectually preventing the crimes of stealing privately in shops, warehouses, coach-houses or stables."
Mr. Windhamwas somewhat surprised to hear, and particularly from his honourable and learned friend, who had just sat down, such animadversions as he had made upon a writer, whose works had done more for the moral improvement of mankind than perhaps the writings of any other man that had ever existed. The doctrines laid down and established by that wise and able writer might be considered as the principia of moral philosophy. They rested upon a basis which was not to be shaken by fanciful theories or crude speculation. The system of morality contained in Dr. Paley's works was founded on the nature and moral fitness of mankind, and until man should become a different being from what he is at present, that system would continue to be the wisest and the justest for the guidance and government of mankind. The character and authority of that great and good man, stood so justly and eminently high in universal estimation, that he should have thought it unnecessary to say anything in vindication of his writings. But when they were assailed from such a quarter and by such a man as his hon. and learned friend, he would not suffer the attack to pass silently off, or without entering his protest against any attempt to decry them. Having said thus much, not in defence, of Dr. Paley, for that was
372
quite unnecessary, but in order to acquit himself of any implied acquiescence in the attack made upon his principles, he should next proceed to consider the merits of his hon. and learned friend's motion. So far as he attested his object from his speech, it appeared to him that his learned friend wished to take away all discretion in the infliction of punishments. To this principle he could not assent, for he was persuaded that no good and much mischief would result from the entire exclusion of discretion from the laws. But he would readily admit that the discretion if left in existence ought to be on the side of remission and not of aggravation. If his hon. and learned friend's principle were to be adopted, and all discretion taken away, there would then be an end to that most amiable and endearing attribute of majesty, the power of extending mercy. He would grant, however, that the discretion, which, with Dr. Paley, he thought ought to exist somewhere, should be regulated by certain known and fixed rules, and also, that so far as words were capable of doing it, the intention of the legislature on this head should be accurately defined. He feared it was impossible to attain the end which his hon. and learned friend had in view, unless indeed we could reach the perfection of law, by which every offence, which ought to be punished, would be punished, and no act deserving it should escape punishment. As this perfection of law was unattainable, he could not concur with his hon. and learned friend in taking away that discretion in the administration of the laws, which was actually necessary to correct their inevitable imperfection. But if he could not assent to that principle of excluding all discretion, he had equally strong objections to the manner in which his hon. and learned friend proposed to transfer whatever portion of discretion might be suffered to remain from the judges to juries. (No, no, said sir Samuel Romilly.) He had certainty understood his hon. and learned friend to have so stated his principle. (No, no, repeated sir S. Romilly) Well he should not persist in pressing his interpretations of his hon. and learned friend's sentiments against so positsve a denial, but would contend that as a discretion must be left somewhere, it would be much better that it should rest with the judges than with juries. Whatever might be the limits applied to discretion, there must still be a gradation

373
not only of offences, but of guilt in different perpetrators of the same legal offence, and there must necessarily exist in some living tribunal a power to proportion the punishment to the degree of moral guilt. The right hen. Gent. then reverted to the vindication of the doctrines of Dr. Paley, and after stating to them to be impregnable to assault, and unaffected by the arguments of his hon. and learned friend, he concluded by saying, that the best defence he could make for Dr. Paley would be to leave his writings to vindicate themselves, and expressing a hope that gentlemen would consider them attentively before they should decide upon the measures, which his hon. and learned friend proposed for their adoption.
Mr. Herbertsaid a few words in support of the motion.
The Solicitor-Generalthought that a question involving not only the lives of many individuals, but the rights and properties of all his Majesty's subjects, ought to be considered with the most deliberate attention. His hon. and learned friend might have alluded to him, when he adverted to those who were friendly to existing systems, and adverse to innovations. He was ready to admit, that he was attached to the existing system of law, and extremely jealous in his views of any new theories. Whether the doctrines were derived from Smith, or from Paley, he was not disposed to give up practical benefits for plausible advantages. He considered the proposition as calculated not for its particular object, but to cast discredit and odium on the whole body of the criminal law. The argument of his hon. and learned friend went to cut up by the root all discretion in the judges, because it went to confine that discretion within certain limits, at the same time that it professed to extend the discretion of the jury.
Mr. W. Smithdid not think any large portion of the hon. and learned gent.'s speech relevant to the question. He contended, that his hon. and learned friend, so far from trusting to theory, had confined his statements and reasonings to facts; and that what the hon. and learned member had attributed to theory was only an inference from facts. His hon. friend had never had an idea of giving way to wild, extravagant, and visionary schemes of theoretical perfection, in the motion he had made, but had founded both his reasoning and proposition on the evidence of facts. The whole foundation of the mo-
374
tion of his hon. and learned friend, rested upon the inconvenience of the present practice. He did not mean to make any charge against the learned gent. (the Solicitor General) but he was of opinion, that the whole of his argument went against any amelioration whatever.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdefended the principles and arguments laid down by his hon. and learned friend (the Solicitor General.) He could not concur in the views of his hon. and learned friend the mover. If a discretion were to be left in any quarter, he did not know where it could, more safely be vested than with the judges. He admitted that what had been stated by his learned friend, formed a fair case for the consideration of the House. And, though he should not oppose the motion, he would not pledge himself in either way as to his future opinion upon the measure.
Sir S. Romilly, in a brief reply in which he did not feel it necessary to touch upon any argument against his motion, complained of the misrepresentations of his sentiments which had proceeded from a right hon. gent. not then in his place,(Mr. Windham). He had never abused the doctrines of Dr. Paley, but on the contrary had stated, that the excellence of his works had given credit to, and caused mischievous effects to be produced by such errors as he had fallen into. The hon. and learned gent, then took notice of the various arguments urged against his motion, and stated that this was only one of the measures which he meant to bring forward for the improvement of the criminal law.
Lord G. Grenvillesupported the motion.
The question was then put, and leave given to bring in the bill.

VOTE OF THANKS TO LORD GAMBIER.
The Lord Chancelloraddressed lord Gambier to the following purport,—"Baron Gambier, I am requested to inform you that this House has passed an unanimous Vote of Thanks for the skill, zeal, ability and anxious attention which you so eminently displayed against the enemy in Basque roads, whereby you were enabled,
356
under the greatest disadvantages, to destroy the enemy's ships, enjoying a peculiar situation amidst their shoals, and under the imagined security of their shores. The eminent services, baron Gambier, which you displayed on former occasions in the cause of your King and your country, have not escaped the recollection of this House. It is remembered, when his Majesty thought you worthy of the high honours which he conferred, this House also considered you entitled to the greatest reward it could bestow, namely, their thanks, and on that occasion you were pleased to express yourself in the strongest terms of gratitude for the favour bestowed, and to pledge yourself that it should be the endeavour of your future life to evince your grateful remembrance by devoting yourself to the best service of your country. Baron Gambier, the House have also at this time to thank you for those recent services which have completely proved the truth of your former pledge. I have likewise to observe, that a distance of time has elapsed since you performed those services for which you now receive the thanks of this House, but the time which has intervened has tended only to prove more strongly the character which you have always maintained, and the justness of your title to the distinguished honour now conferred upon you. It is not for me, baron Gambier, to mingle any feelings of my own with the high honours of this House, but I may be permitted to add that I feel a personal gratification in communicating the thanks of this House, to you a second time, and I am more partilarly disposed to feel so from the personal respect I bear towards yourself."
Lord Gambierreturned answer, in purport, as follows: "My Lords, I am fully sensible of the honour conferred upon me, by the vote of thanks which your lordships have been pleased unanimously to bestow. No greater reward can possibly be given to any man than the thanks of this House; and no greater inducement can be held out to stimulate the zeal and exertions of those who serve in the cause of their country. If, my Lords, on former occasions, I was led to consider this attention to my services as an obligation, I do now, and shall in future, still endeavour to entertain every due sense of such distinguishing favour. I have also, my lord, to acknowledge my obligation to you for the condescending and gracious manner in which you have conveyed to

357
me the thanks of this House, and the kindness with which you have expressed your own feelings on this occasion."

LORD WELLINGTON.
The Earl of Liverpoolmoved the order of the day, for taking into consideration his Majesty's Message, recommending it to that House to concur in the measure for granting a Pension to lord Wellington. On a former occasion, when he had the honour of moving the thanks of that House to that noble viscount for his brilliant and important services in the battle of Talavera, he had little expectation that his motion would have encountered any opposition; but in that hope he had been disappointed, and perhaps his present motion was destined to meet with a similar opposition. He should beg it, however, to be recollected that lord Wellington's services were not confined to the battle of Talavera only; that the noble viscount had performed important and splendid services in other climates and countries, and that within a very short period he had twice delivered the ancient and faithful ally of this country from the unjust domination of the enemy. Whether, therefore, the House had to consider the number or the importance of lord Wellington's exploits, they must think him eminently entitled to any mark of favour and reward which it was in their power to bestow. A similar reward had often been granted for a single action, where no previous service of any magnitude had been achieved; but on the present occasion, it was a series of brilliant services, which the House had to acknowledge and remunerate. He did not think it necessary to dwell any longer on a subject which called not for any argument to enforce it; but should content himself with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, assuring his majesty that this House would cheerfully concur in the measure to which his Majesty's most gracious Message referred."
Earl Greysaid, that having already stated the reasons why he objected to the Vote of Thanks, and entered his opinion on the Journals, he should not now trouble the House further on the subject; especially as, if the bill came up from the other House, there would be other opportunities of discussion. He begged to say, however, that he retained his opinions formerly delivered on this subject. He must therefore give his negative to the motion.
The Duke of Norfolkthought, that
358
there was great valour, and no doubt, skill, shewn in the battle of Talavera; but it was called "a decisive victory," to which appellation he could not possibly think it entitled. The immediate results of the engagement were by no means the proper usual consequences of a victory.
The Address was carried without a division.

NAVAL REVISION.
Lord Melvillerose to make the motion of which notice was given in his name by the earl of Aberdeen. His lordship said, that this was a question which ought to have no relation to, nor be influenced by party feelings, as it was one which concerned only the essential interests of the country. In the time that lord Howe was at the head of the admiralty, and sir Charles Middleton of the navy board, a practice prevailed which had not prevailed since; that of keeping a regular digest of the regulations and rules for the direction of the dock yards and the administration of the civil service generally of the navy. There had been no revision of the rules or the practice on this subject till recently, since the times when the duke of York was lord high admiral a century ago. His lordship here entered into a review of the Reports of Naval Revision which contained a very useful history of the navy of Great Britain. He wished to impress on the House, first, that all the Reports of the committee of Naval Revision were originally made not as containing plans for permanent and final adoption, but suggestions for trial, and as experiments to receive improvements from the result of experience, and the well-founded opinions of those who are competent to advise upon the subject. All the Reports which had been placed in the hands of the King, and since produced to that House, as well as the four Reports which had not been laid before them, were to be considered as having the character he described. He could give a variety of illustrations of this opinion from various parts of the Reports; but it was impossible to enter into such a detail, without engrossing too much of their lordships' time. He should particularly notice one circumstance in the Reports, and that was the great difference in the modes of keeping the accounts therein suggested; one in an early Report on the admiralty board, concerning the dock yards; the other, in the 11th Report, respecting the Victualling board. He shewed, in an extract of a Letter from the

359
commissioners to the admiralty, written after the 15th Report had been made, that they there again urged the propriety of a revision of their former Reports; and in that letter they said, that since their 1st Report, material improvements had suggested themselves in the modes they had previously recommended. He therefore maintained this conclusion, that these Reports were now open for farther revision and alteration, before the regulations they recommended should be rendered permanent; and that it was necessary they should be revised and amended until brought to a state of absolute perfection. It appeared that the 6th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th Reports had been presented to the King on the 7th of Sept. 1808, that after remaining but one day before the council, they had been sent to the Admiralty board, and five days after were returned to his Majesty for the purpose of having the recommendations they contained carried into execution. These six voluminous Reports therefore had passed the council and the Admiralty board, without much consideration. He supposed, from this haste, that the board did not intend to revise them. The subordinate boards, with the diligence which, he knew, characterized them, were now acting upon them, certainly contrary to the intentions of the commissioners themselves, because the Reports could only be considered as experimental. If there were a difference between the two modes of accounting recommended, and one mode were preferable to the other, let it be seen whether there was any thing so different in the construction of the two offices which prevented the application of similar principles.—The revision of which he was desirous, and which was so necessary, could not be left either to the Admiralty or Navy boards; not from their want of ability for that purpose; but for reasons stated in the very patent that established the commission; "that it was impossible, during the war, and with the pressing daily and hourly duties of those boards, for them to undertake such laborious investigations." No money could have been better laid out for the public service, than a few thousand pounds to provide for the continuance of the commission, till the commissioners should have revised their former reports. He had reason now to lament that the period most convenient for this revision had passed without affording an opportunity to the commissioners, for again revising
360
the reports which they had made on this most interesting subject. With respect to the commissioners, some alteration had taken place since their appointment; for instance, the advanced period of life of one, lord Barham, had rendered it necessary he should retire from the labour of official business, and another (Mr. Fordyce) whose ability, integrity and capacity for business were exemplary, had died within the period assigned to the discharge of their duty. He complimented highly the talents of the several commissioners, and it was also to be recollected how important and arduous a duty attached itself to the revision of naval affairs. They were bound to extend their researches to a period as far distant as that when the duke of York presided at the head of the Admiralty in the reign of Charles the second. Lord Barham was much advanced in years, and might not be inclined to re-engage in such labours: but sir Roger Curtis, Mr. Serle, and admiral Domett remained, though even they might be fully employed in other services. If lord Barham were willing to resume his labours, and the commission could be revived, he should be glad. At the same time, he trusted ministers would not conceive he was calling upon them to institute another commission of naval revision. He knew too well the inconveniences which would result from the institution of a second commission. His only object in addressing their lordships upon this important subject was to direct their lordships attention to the importance of those Reports upon the table. The noble viscount concluded by moving "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, requesting that he will be pleased to inform the House what steps had been taken conformably to the Report of the Commissioners for Naval Inquiry; and whether it was the intention of his Majesty's ministers to act on the recommendation of that Report."
Lord Mulgravewas not fully prepared to make that reply which perhaps would be most consistent with the motion of the noble viscount. With regard to the propriety of many of his observations, no one would question their real importance. But no one more than the noble viscount ought to be convinced, from experience, that considerable confidence ought to be placed in those who directed the affairs of the admiralty. It was not his own wish that these Reports should, in their present

361
state, have been presented to the House, but he had acquiesced in the desire of others whose minds were not satisfied on the subject and who had urged their production. He agreed with the statement made, that from the time when the duke of York presided in the Admiralty many irregularities and abuses had crept into the different civil departments of the navy, which in 1805 led to the appointment of the commissioners of Naval Revision. In the first instance they were appointed for a limited time only, but towards the end of that period they found it impossible to accomplish what they had been appointed to execute. Their suggestion of the difficulties they encountered led to the extension of their appointment for a few months longer. But by those who directed the government at the time even this grant of a longer period was given with a considerable degree of reluctance. In the course of a short period those who succeeded in administration, were more favourably disposed to continue the labours of their commissioners for a still longer period than the utmost limit prescribed to them by their predecessors. He was sure those labours had produced considerable benefit already, and, with the noble viscount, he entertained great regard for the Reports themselves. It had been asserted that six of these Reports, very voluminous in their bulk, had been but one day before the council board, from whence they were referred the day after to the Admiralty board, and in the course of five days were returned to his Majesty that they might forthwith be acted upon. But whatever measures had been taken with respect to them, he could assure the noble viscount, had been resorted to upon a conviction of their utility to the public service. He did not clearly understand the object to be attained by the motion before them, but he presumed the noble viscount meant to infer, either negligence, or precipitancy in the council board, and that of the admiralty. But as to any fact stated relative to the mode in which the recommendation contained in the Reports had been carried into execution, it ought to be recollected, that one of these commissioners, admiral Domett was, perhaps, of all men the most competent, from his talents and persevering industry, to carry into execution every improvement in our naval department. It was from him he (lord Mulgrave) gained that satisfactory information, upon which he could rely, and which induced the
362
adoption of any measure that without more detailed and deliberate consideration, might be termed hasty. The difference between the regulations of the dock yards, and those of the victualling yards, had been strongly impressed upon their lordships as calling for immediate alteration. These regulations had certainly been adopted in conformity to the Reports; still the difference resulted from the distance of time which elapsed between revisions of the one and those of the other. He must allow with the noble viscount, that the regulations of the victualling yards were more simplified in all respects than those of the dock yards, where unnecessary accounts were kept, and many clerks and other persons employed, who were of no real benefit to their management, and the innumerable books which were kept, were no more useful than so much waste paper. But independent of all these considerations, he did not perceive the utility of the noble viscount's interference, for he trusted some confidence ought to be placed as he said before, in those who presided over this department. With respect to those Reports, which were not then on the table, there were two of which he would never consent to the production, at least at the present time. One of these Reports was the eighth, which related to Northfleet, and he should be extremely sorry to see it produced, for thereby the contents might transpire, and reach the enemy, which would be injurious to the best interests of the country. These reasons would also prevent the production of another report, which regarded the supplying of timber for the British navy. He would at no time consent to the production of this report. He was upon the whole surprised that the noble viscount should have been so much alarmed, as to hasten to the capital for the purpose of giving his advice upon the present state of our navy. There was not much to fear, for such had been the growing prosperity of the British fleet, from the time when the duke of York presided as lord high admiral, down to the present times, that if the whole of these Reports had been burnt, or torn to pieces, and lost to the country, he could assure their lordships the navy of this country would, in spite of every abuse, still prosper; therefore, it was certainly remarkable that the noble viscount's imagination should have been so much alarmed at phantoms, as to induce him to set out in the midst of winter

363
from the extremity of Scotland, anxious to lend his assistance for the purpose of saving our navy from destruction. The noble lord concluded by moving the previous question.
Lord Melvillerose to explain. He had not made, nor did he mean to make, the slightest reflection on that excellent officer, admiral Domett. He was confident that many parts of the reports, not yet produced, might be given without any danger whatever; and he would inform the noble lord, that he should move on a future occasion for such parts as might, without public detriment, be produced. He denied that he made any charge of rashness or neglect against the noble lord. Whenever he should feel it his duty to do so, he should take care that the noble lord should understand his intentions. As to what had been said of his leaving retirement and coming up to town, he supposed that the noble lord intended it for the purpose of amusement, and to his amusement he had no particular objection. He then regretted the decay of ship-timber here, and alluded to the two commissions of the House of Commons in 1774 and 1792. His opinion was in favour of constructing the proposed dock at Northfleet, the expence of which the public affairs could, for such a purpose, very well spare, if the finances were well managed, and not wasted on fruitless exertions.
The previous question was put and agreed to.