Sitting of 16 February 1821

SCOTCH JURIES BILL.
Mr. Kennedy brought in his bill, "To alter the mode of choosing Juries to serve on Criminal Trials in Scotland." On the motion, that it be read a first time,
The Lord Advocatesaid, that he did not rise to object to the first reading of this bill, for he should at all times be ready to give his utmost attention to any subject connected with the administration of justice in the Scottish courts. The hon. member had not communicated with him before he submitted his bill to parliament; if he had, he should have told
718
the hon. member of his intention to bring in a bill, founded upon the report of the commissioners who had inquired into the state of the courts of Scotland, and of his readiness to consider how far the hon. member's object could be embodied in that bill. He was one of those who thought that a great practical evil must be shown before any innovation should be permitted in an existing system, and more especially on a subject involving so many important considerations. Unfortunately, however, there seemed to be a general disposition in the present day to hunt out every hole and corner in our constitutional system to which some theoretical remedy might by possibility apply. He was sure the English and Irish representatives would not think the worse of him for defending the institutions of his native country; and he would therefore say, without hesitation, that the criminal judicature of Scotland, both with reference to its principles, and to the beneficial results of those principles, was highly estimable; and that there were in Scotland fewer trials, fewer capital punishments, and fewer sentences of transportation, in comparison with the population, than in any other part of the united kingdom. He was far from wishing to institute an invidious comparison between the practice of the courts in his own country and that of the English courts; but he hoped he might be excused for stating some of the advantages which, in criminal trials, a prisoner enjoyed in Scotland, In the first place, he was entitled to a copy of the indictment fifteen free days before his trial; and it must be drawn up with the utmost care, specifying the charge precisely, both as to time, place, and substance, and the prosecutor was strictly prohibited from going beyond that specification. The accused was also entitled to a list of the names and designations of all the witnesses who were to appear on the trial against him, as well as the names of all the juries by whom he was to be tried. When the trial came on, no witnesses could be re-examined; and, what was perhaps the greatest advantage of all, counsel was, from first to last, allowed to the defendant. These, he submitted, were no common advantages to the accused; and he contended that it was hardly possible to devise a system better calculated to secure an impartial trial. The only innovation of which he was

719
aware, was, the introduction of the English law of treason, which had been made applicable to Scotland at the time of the union; and he admitted that the proceedings under that law were not so favourable to the accused as those under the law of Scotland. Of this it had very lately been his misfortune to witness a melancholy example. In the course of the last summer, no fewer than 98 persons had been indicted for treason, and the same indictment had been served on so of them, although the offences charged against them had been committed in different counties, and under different circumstances. In that point the law of Scotland had certainly been altered, and he contended that it had been altered to the prejudice of the constitution. He should not object to the principle of the bill, but he desired to be understood as reserving to himself the right of opposing it in any future stage, if he should deem it necessary.
Mr. Kennedywas not surprised that the learned lord should have felt a wish to make these observations on the present occasion; but, at the same time, he conceived that he himself was fully warranted in not having postponed his motion on account of the learned lord's absence the other evening. The learned lord had complained that many of his countrymen took pleasure in stating the defects of the establishments in Scotland. For himself, he was actuated by a very different motive: the love he cherished for the establishments of his country had prompted the desire of remedying their defects. The learned lord had said, that it was not enough to show the existence of theoretical defects, and that some practical defect should have been pointed out to warrant the introduction of such a measure as the present; but he (Mr. K.) was of opinion, that if he exhibited any tiling faulty in theory, which might lead to injurious imputations on the conduct of the learned judges who presided over the criminal court of Scotland, he did better than if he were to take any indelicate notice of the practice into which these learned persons were led by such a defective theory. He meant to propose that the bill should be printed and read a second time a week hence, with an understanding, that it should stand over till April, subject to any future postponement that might be necessary.
Mr. M. A Taylornot disposed to
720
agree in the view which the learned lord had taken of the criminal courts in Scotland. He adverted to the sentence passed on Mr. Muir in 1794, and, on the authority of the ablest lawyer of the day, he professed himself prepared to contend with the learned lord, that the court, in passing that sentence, had exceeded its powers.
The Lord Advocateexpressed his readiness to meet the hon. gentleman, and to maintain that that judgment was legal. He was the more confident on the subject, because that judgment had recently come under the consideration of the supreme court, and had received its sanction.
Mr. J. P. Grantcould not sit silent and hear it said that the supreme court had recently approved of that sentence; because he knew that the ablest judge on that bench held opinions hostile to that sentence. There was scarcely a lawyer of eminence in Scotland who did not entertain grave doubts on the subject.
The bill was read a first time and ordered to be read a second time on Thursday.

IRISH UNION DUTIES.—
Mr. Curwenpresented a petition from Keswick in Westmoreland, praying the House to consider the propriety of repealing the act of last session, for continuing the Irish Union Duties. The hon. member contended that the abolition of these protecting duties, as they were called, would be equally advantageous to the English and to the Irish manufacturer.
Sir H. Parnellsupported the petition, which he conceived to involve a question of great importance. Numerous petitions were in progress, to the same effect, and he sincerely wished for some investigation into the subject. A greater mistake had never been committed than by the Irish parliament when they conceived that by these duties manufactures could be established in Ireland. Their effect was neither more nor less than to shut the Irish manufacturer out of the English market; and this was proved by the tact^ that Ireland had at the present moment no manufactures except where the market was free.
Mr. Hutchinsonopposed the prayer of the petition, the object of which, if he understood it aright, was, to make the chancellor of the exchequer revise the act of last session, by which the protecting duties had been continued for a spe-

721
cified time. He deprecated that object as injurious to the interests of Ireland; and said, he could state, from his own knowledge, that if accomplished, it would throw a great number of persons out of bread.
Mr. Littletonsupported the petition, on the general principle, that there should be no tax on the interchange of the commodities of the two countries. He admitted that those concerned in manufactures which existed before the union had a right to expect that these duties, if not continued, should at least be gradually removed: but there was not the same reason for continuing duties on manufactures which did not exist at all in Ireland, such as pottery and hardware, which were almost exclusively the manufactures of Staffordshire.
Lord Althorpwas in favour of the prayer of the petition, because be conceived that no manufactory in Ireland would be injured by the removal of these protecting duties.
Sir J. Newportwas convinced that these duties operated as a heavy tax, and threw a great impediment in the way of British manufacture. With respect to pottery, that manufacture never did exist in Ireland, and never could, because coal could not be had but at a heavy price. His opinion was, that all articles which were duty free should be put on the same footing. Though no duties existed, yet the port charges were the same with respect to the manufactures of Ireland as they were with regard to foreign countries. This operated as an injury to both countries. He hoped the chancellor of the exchequer would take the matter under his consideration. These discouragements tended greatly to the injury of the tillage of Ireland, and broke through a principle which was held in that House; namely, that of binding the two countries together by mutual interest, and doing away all cause of irritation and unpleasant feeling. It was with this view that in 1806 he had brought in the Grain intercourse, bill and experience had proved that that was a beneficial measure.
Mr. Peelearnestly hoped, that the chancellor of the exchequer would give his earliest consideration to this important subject. He was most anxious to see this kind of commercial distinction speedily abolished. These duties, instead of being a protection for a certain portion of the Irish trade, were merely a tax
722
upon her commercial industry, and an evil which it never could have been the intention of the Union to have inflicted upon her. They went to compel the people of Ireland to deal with England at a much higher rate than they would do if no such protecting duties existed. There could be but a few individuals engaged in some particular trades who felt at all interested in the continuance of restrictions upon fair and equal intercourse, which were invidious and severe. He was satisfied that it would be for the interests both of Great Britain and Ireland that these heavy restrictions should be removed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it had been made a matter of complaint by hon. gentlemen, that the measure for continuing those protecting duties had been brought in at the close of the last session, and passed with so much rapidity as not to allow of the necessary attention being paid to the subject. So far from that being the case, it was well known that as far back as the session previous to that, petitions had been presented in great numbers, praying for the renewal of the duties, and a deputation had been sent from Ireland, with the express intention of endeavouring to procure that object. It had been continually represented to him, that there would be great inconvenience in allowing the Irish manufacturer to be taken by surprise. Under these circumstances, he had introduced a measure which would provide for a gradual extinction of the duties. Whether the period fixed was too long or too short, or whether all the details of the measure he had recommended were best adapted to the case or not, he could not determine. But he certainly doubted whether the sudden withdrawing of the protection duties would not be productive of greater evils than those now complained of. It was certainly his desire to conciliate the different interests, and to decide upon this question in the way that would best contribute to the prosperity of each.
Mr. M. Fitzgeraldsaid, that the temper in which this subject was-discussed was with him a subject of congratulation. These duties had been enacted at the Union for twenty years, with a view that at the end of that time they might be revised and possibly extinguished. He did not complain that the chancellor of the exchequer had acted unfairly in continuing them, but that he had acted with-

723
out inquiry, and without laying any grounds for his measure. The great part of these duties were an injury to the English manufacturer who sold, and to the Irish consumer who bought them, without affording the least possible protection to the Irish manufacturer; for there were many duties on articles, no manufacture of which existed in Ireland. Some of these duties too were on articles of prime necessity. A general inquiry into the regulations respecting the intercourse between the two countries would be highly expedient. He had himself discovered that there was a regulation respecting the coasting trade in Ireland, by which duties were levied by port charges amounting to 20 per cent on the freight.
Ordered to lie on the table.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
Mr. Lennardrose to make his promised motion upon this subject. In this establishment, he said, supported as it was at the public expence, the utmost possible facility should be afforded to the access of the public, but especially to those individuals who were devoted to literary and scientific pursuits. He was aware that of late years, a great freedom of ingress was allowed to those who visited the Museum merely for the gratification of curiosity, no less than 50,000 having been admitted within the last year; but what he had to complain of was the difficulty of admission on the part of those who for literary and scientific purposes were desirous to examine the library, to have access to the reading-room, or to see the several collections of minerals, prints, drawings, and coins. In France and the other continental nations, the utmost freedom of access was allowed to strangers who desired to see similar collections, and he could not think it honourable to the character of this country, that a different practice prevailed here. If it were said, that from the value of these collections at the Museum to which he referred, it would be imprudent to expose them to the access of strangers, he should say in answer, that an additional number of officers ought to be appointed to take care of them. This certainly would be a much less exceptionable arrangement than the existing restriction upon the admission of strangers. But the appointment of additional officers would be unnecessary, if it should appear that the Museum had
724
already several officers receiving salaries without any corresponding duty to perform. With a view to ascertain that, he proposed to move for a return of the salaries and extra-service money paid to the several officers of the Museum. At present the admissions to which he referred could not be obtained by any one who did not procure the certificate of the trustees, or who was not known to one of the officers of the Museum; and considering the large sums which had been paid from the public purse for the establishment and maintenance of this institution, he must say, that those grants were very improvidently made, should it turn out, that instead of being found available for a public purpose, it was merely an establishment for the gratification of private favour or individual patronage. The hon. member concluded with moving for an account, 1. Of the number of applications made to the trustees of the British Museum, for the purpose of being admitted to inspect that part of the collection of minerals not generally shown; and the collection of medals and coins; and the collection of prints and drawings; and of the number of similar applications for the purpose of being admitted to the reading-room; such accounts to extend to the last five years past, and to contain the number of admissions in consequence of such applications; and the number of applications and admissions in each of the five years to be stated: 2. Of the amount of the annual salaries, and of the monies paid to each of the present under and assistant librarians, officers, and attendants employed in the care and arrangement of the manuscripts, printed books, minerals, medals, coins, prints and drawings, for extra-service money, or any other sums or gratuities paid to them beyond their stated salaries, and stating the nature and extent of the service and attendance of each officer; and also, the nature and extent of the services for which extra-service money may have been paid; such account to extend to all services and payments within the last ten years.
Sir C. Longsaid, that his object in rising was not to oppose the motion, but to assure the House that it was not less the wish than the duty of the trustees of the Museum to give every facility to the public. There were two classes of persons who required admission: the first

725
consisted of those who came for the purposes of general inspection, and to that class very great facilities had been afforded within the last few years; and the number of such visitants was not less than 50,000 in the year. The other class who required admission was the much more important one; it consisted of literary men and artists who came for the inspection of the drawings, medals, &c. It must be obvious that it would be dangerous to admit strangers indiscriminately to such places; and that therefore some restrictions on admission were necessary. He happened to know, that, by the general admission to the valuable library in France, very considerable losses had been sustained. The question then was, whether the restraint adopted at the Museum was too great? It was said by the hon. member, that no person was admitted to certain parts but by the recommendation of one of the trustees; but it should be recollected that there were 43 trustees, and several of the principal officers of the place, to any of whom an application might be made. The officers were all disposed to afford every facility in their power, and if any complaint of neglect on this head were to be made, it would meet with immediate attention.
Mr. Gurneysaid, he should not discharge his duty if he did not bear testimony to the general facility given to the public by the trustees and the attending officers of the British Museum. By application to the proper officers, admission might be had to the coins, manuscripts, &c. on other days besides those on which the public were admitted. The officers employed were men of high literary attainments, and none could be found more fitted for the employments which they enjoyed. The French government expended more money in the care of their library than was given by us for the support of the British Museum altogether; and he was surprised how well the duty was discharged at so small an expense.
Mr. Brightconcurred in what had been said respecting the facilities given to the public.
Mr. Colborneagreed in the encomiums passed upon the trustees and officers, and suggested the propriety of erecting an edifice, which should be at once a commemoration of our victories, and a depot for the contents of the Museum.
Mr. Bankesspoke of the decayed state of part of the Museum, and expressed his
726
wish that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the condition of the Museum, in order to its improvement.
The motion was agreed to.

MOTION FOR THE ORDNANCE ESTIMATES IN DETAIL.
Mr. Humerose to draw the attention of the House to the Ordnance Estimates for the present year, and to submit a motion on that subject; the reasons for which he should state in the first instance. That retrenchment was the object that he had in view, as well as the avowed object of the House itself, could hardly be doubted. It became necessary, therefore, to point out what alterations could, with the least inconvenience, be made; but in order to satisfy members with regard to particulars of this nature, it was also necessary that accurate and detailed accounts should be placed before them. The estimates, as at present framed, gave none of the requisite information: they entered into no details, but left the House utterly ignorant of all the items which went to compose the separate heads of expenditure. It was impossible for the House to judge what reductions were practicable or expedient, or to what extent they ought to be carried whilst the existing system of account between the public and the Ordnance department was allowed to prevail. The commissioners of military inquiry had in one of their reports advised that a different form of accounts should be adopted, and it was certainly singular that the House should have hitherto been content to vote the sums demanded, on an inspection merely of their total amount. The necessity for setting out these accounts in greater detail would appear manifest on a reference to the last ten or twelve years, during which, it would be found that, the sums actually disbursed did not correspond with the finance accounts.
In the statement which he was about to make, he should not notice the article of old stores. He should confine himself entirely to the actual sum charged against the public. He would take, for instance, the three last years; the estimate for 1817 was 1,189,000 l., and the sum charged in the finance accounts for the year ending January 5th, 1818, was 1,435,000 l., the difference between the estimate and the actual expenditure being 246,000 l. In 1818, the estimate was 1,200,000 l., and the actual expenditure 1,400,000 l.

727
In 1819, the estimate was 1,100,000 l., and the amount in the last finance accounts was 1,538,000 l. being a difference of 400,000 l. which had in no way been accounted for in that House. Perhaps he had already said enough to prove the necessity of a more strict and rigorous investigation into the conduct of this department. He had great reason to believe that in various other branches of our military expenditure a similar course of profusion would be found to prevail. At a time when they must look to retrenchment, and to that alone, for increasing and strengthening their resources, the House could not be too diligent in their inquiries upon this subject. His intention had at first been, to compare the different sums total, in their present or late amount, with the expenditure for similar purposes in the year 1793, the last year of peace previous to the revolutionary war with France. He was willing, however, considering the great change which had taken place in all our establishments, to select the year 1796 as a fair period on which to found a comparison. That was the third year of war, and a time when the scale of all our military establishments had been greatly raised. He wished only to refer for one moment to the Ordnance expenditure during the three years previous to the war. The amount of it in 1791 was 506,000 l., including a sum of 70,000 l. for the discharge of debt contracted. In 1792 it was 419,000 l., and in 1793, just before the armament, it was, including the charge for artillery, 513,000 l. The average was about 440,000 l.; which average, after all the reductions and alterations made, amounted in 1819, the fourth year of peace, to 1,400,000 l., and in the following year to 1,500,000 l. It now appeared by the estimates for the service of the present year that the same amount was to be continued, or at least that the whole saving did not exceed 15,000 l. A sum of 3,000 l. had also arisen under the head of "saving from old stores." Having arrived at the fifth year of peace, we had only yet effected a reduction of 300,000 l. in this part of our war establishments. In the last year there was also a very large sum granted for special purposes; so that, with, all the savings made, the expense of this year was much beyond that of 1819.
In order to lay further ground for his motion, he. should now refer to one or two articles, as affording practical evi-
728
dence of the disposition and exertions of ministers to carry their boasted schemes of retrenchment into effect. The Estimates laid before the House, as he had already said, proved nothing, showed nothing, and in order to procure some light, he must again have recourse to the reports of the finance committee. In the 13th report of that committee, a very minute account was set forth, such an account as should alone satisfy a House of Commons, when disposing of the public money. It would be easy to show that where a saving had actually been made in one instance, the sum so retrenched had, instead of being carried to the credit of the public, been divided amongst other clerks or official persons. The House must, he was sure, feel surprise to learn that the salaries in the Artillery department amounted to 43,000 l. or 8,000 l. more than was recommended by the commissioners of military inquiry in the year 1810. Under the head of Tower and Pall-mall department, the charge in the year 1782 was 38,000 l.; in 1796 it had increased to 51,000 l.; and, in 1805 its amount was 105,000 l. Here, then, was a regularly progressive increase but it might be explained, and perhaps justified, by the circumstances of the country, and the long continuance of war. But what would the House say on hearing that six months after the last mentioned period the charge under this head was raised to 120,000 l.? It was now, in the fifth or rather sixth year of peace, 8,237 l. more than was recommended in 1810. In another part of these accounts 30,000 l. would be found charged as gratuities for length of service. He apprehended that these were paid to persons who were receiving remuneration for their services under another head of expenditure. The finance committee of 1796 described the gratuities as temporary additions to the emoluments of the clerks and officers, rendered necessary by the then increased price of provisions. They at that time amounted to 42,302 l. As in all other cases, however, where the exercise of patronage and pecuniary influence was left to the discretion of the board, the same effect continued long after the assigned cause or pretext was withdrawn. The sum was gradually increased from the year 1796 till 1812, when it amounted to 8,000 l. The next year it became 9,600 l. the next year 10,000 l., then 15,000 l., 24,000 l., and so on till it now

729
amounted to 30,000 l. And this, the House would observe, was a sum granted to this department to enable them to meet the pressure of a temporary rise in the price of provisions! In the 13th report of the commissioners of military inquiry, they expressed their surprise at this circumstance, and observed that these additional gratuities were granted by his majesty's warrant. They complained, therefore, not of the authority under which they were allowed, but of the discretion exercised by those who recommended these grants to the Crown. The commissioners said they believed it was a practice unknown in any other department, and that it had gone to the extent of trebling the former salaries. After all the warnings which had been given to the Board of Ordnance, he could not conceive what justification could be offered for the large and unnecessary additions which had been made to its expenditure under this particular head. Unless ample and accurate statements were annually laid before parliament, this system of waste would continue, the abuses would be progressive, and it would become more and more difficult to apply a remedy.
He would now proceed to mention a few instances of this prodigal increase and extravagant disbursement as they related to individuals. In the first place, the pay and allowances of the master-general of the Ordnance had been doubled. The salary of the clerk had received a considerable addition. The secretary to the master-general, whose salary was 300 l. per annum, in 1796, and who ought to be regarded as a private rather than a public secretary, now received 2,000 l. In 1819 the finance committee thought it a great merit to advise the reduction of this sum to 1,500 l. per annum, just as if it was the case of a public secretary, instead of being a private appointment, or as if there was no public secretary; although the person who did actually fill that office was at the same time receiving 1,400 l. per annum. The office of under secretary, to which there was a salary of 300 l. attached, had indeed been abolished; but lest the public should derive any benefit from the abolition, the salary had been divided amongst the clerks. It would be seen by a reference to the same accounts, that various new appointments had been created since 1796, and that similar abuses prevailed in every branch
730
of this extensive department. He wished, however, to make a few observations relative to the storekeepers, and more especially to the storekeepers at Sheerness and Dover. With regard to the latter, he would here remind the House that he bad asserted on a former evening that the late storekeeper retired on an allowance of 500 l. a year. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. It. Ward) had contradicted this statement, and he was the more surprised at the contradiction, as the right hon. gentleman must have been acquainted with all the circumstances, he having a short time before appointed one of the freemen of Queenborough to succeed that officer. Did the right hon. gentleman then, intend to assert that no storekeeper had retired upon a pension of 500 l? [Mr. Ward gave a nod of assent to Mr. Hume.] If such was his intention, he must call the particular attention of the House to the case of the storekeeper at Dover. The storekeeper at that fortress, in 1796, had a salary of 120 l. a year, and an allowance of 20 l. a year for house-rent. In 1801, 80 l. a year was added to his former salary. In 1805, 50 l. was added to it, and in 1808 a further sum of 50 l. Afterwards the salary was increased to 420 l. and at present, it was 500 l. a year. Was such profusion to be tolerated in the present impoverished state of the country? He trusted that gentlemen would pause before they sanctioned it by their votes. The right hon. gentleman had said that no storekeeper had retired upon a pension of 500 l. a year. Would he recollect what had happened at Dover and Sheerness? At the latter place, where in 1796, the storekeeper had no more than 100 l. a year, Mr. A. Gibbs had retired lately upon a pension of 500 l. a year. Such a grant, even if it were a solitary instance ought to convince the House of the propriety of looking narrowly to the Ordnance estimates; but when he told them that similar profusion had occurred at Portsmouth, where the storekeeper's salary was now 1,100 l. instead of 600 l. as in 1796, they would see the absolute necessity of instituting a strict inquiry into their nature and amount.
Neither was this lavish system confined to our ports at home; on the contrary, it was in full force in Malta, in Gibraltar, in Barbadoes, in Ceylon, and at the Cape of Good Hope, as he would prove by a comparison of the estimates

731
in 1796 and in 1820. Mr. Hume then read extracts from them to prove his assertion, and, after doing so, called the attention of the House to a new and useless office, lately instituted; namely, that of store-keeper of ordnance in the Artillery depot in the Regent's park. What occasion there was for a depot of Artillery in that quarter, when the Tower and Woolwich were so near, he was at a loss to discover; but he found that a Mr. Mash Wood was appointed to take care of it with no less a salary than 360 l. a year. When the public money was frittered away in such useless expenditure, surely gentlemen would agree with him in thinking that it was their duty to check it. By cutting away useless offices in one quarter, and by curtailing the salaries of them in another, he was convinced that the Ordnance estimates might be reduced from 1,500,000 l. to 1,100,000 l. There was now a half-pay list of 330,000 l. and it appeared to him that, under such circumstances, if in 1796 the estimates were only 450,000 l. the estimates in 1820 ought not to exceed three times that amount. And yet they did exceed that sum; nor was it wonderful, when they recollected the gross and lavish expenditure in the storekeeper's department at Sheerness, into the particulars of which Mr. Hume entered at considerable length. He next adverted to the gunpowder department of the Ordnance, in which no attention to economy had been displayed. For instance, the expense of the establishment for manufacturing gunpowder at Feversham amounted to more than 3,000 l. in salaries and allowances for different officers; and yet not one barrel of gunpowder had been manufactured there for some years, and the very mills themselves had been let to a gentleman at Dartford. Strange, however, as the intelligence might appear to the House, he could inform them that in 1819, some time after the mills had been let, and when not a single barrel of gunpowder had been manufactured in them by government, a gentleman was appointed, with a large salary, inspector of the manufactory; and not only had he a salary assigned to him, but even a private House for his residence, in order that he might always be on the spot to perform the duties of his office. So, too, had the other officers of the establishment. Mow, he did not blame the government for letting the
732
mills at Feversham; he only blamed; them for not breaking up the whole establishment, when they let the premises with which it was connected. If they had broken it up, they would not only have saved the country some thousands a year in the payment of salaries, but would have added to its revenue a large sum, arising from the sale of the houses connected with it. Similar instances of waste and extravagance were to be found in the same establishments at Sheerness. There, too, the different clerks had houses found them by government; for this ostensible reason—that they might always be on the spot to notice what occurred. How far that reason was a valid one the House would be better enabled to judge, when he informed them that the various clerks resided at Queenborough, and let to strangers their houses at Sheerness. So far was that system carried, that one of the common labourers in the works, who was entitled to a couple of rooms, imitated the example of his betters, and let them out to a convict-keeper. Such was the system at these two places: he did not mean to say that every other station was as bad, but he would undertake to show before a committee, that every one of them was faulty. The hon. gentleman then alluded to the heavy expenses to which the country was put by the floating magazines between Chatham and Sheerness. Besides the expence to the country, a great evil had arisen from it to the constitution. The persons employed in that service by the government were allowed to vote at elections, and were not disqualified as persons employed by it were in the Post-office and elsewhere. That was a point which he trusted that the House would notice, as it was intimately connected with its own privileges. To show how much the purity of election was likely to be affected by this system, he informed the House that not less than 66 freemen of Queenborough were employed in the Ordnance craft, who, under the direction of three magistrates of the place, returned the members for the borough. The whole system of these floating magazines, if properly examined into, would show how grossly the public money was sacrificed and exhibit in the broadest light the corruption of government.
He thought that he had now done enough to prove that some examination into the Ordnance estimates was abso-

733
lutely necessary: he would, however, add another observation in order to strengthen the conviction which he trusted he had already created. Honourable gentlemen were perhaps aware, that if a common labourer took a couple of brass nails, or a log of wood out of the Ordnance stores, he was liable to be transported for life; but would they believe that if a storekeeper took a boatload of them, not the slightest notice was taken of that fact? He would prove that it was a frequent practice with the storekeepers to appropriate part of the old stores to their own use—and especially in the case of Mr. Pennell, of Sheerness. He had old carriages cut up for his own use, and not only cut up for his own use, but cut up for him by the servants of the public. Coals, too, had also been taken from the king's stores. This might be one of the perquisites of the storekeepers, or the right hon. gent, might not know that such things were practised. If he did not, and if such practices were not allowed, he trusted that his attention, would now be attracted to them, and that care would be taken to prevent them in future.—The hon. member then proceeded to notice the expenditure in the gunpowder manufactory at Waltham-abbey, where he said that every officer, now that only 1,000 barrels a year were manufactured, was receiving more than he did when 26,000 barrels were manufactured. The whole course in fact was calculated, and calculated only, to keep up the quantum of government patronage. There were items without end, to which he could refer: there was a charge of 4,268 l. for master gunners, without any thing in the nature of detail attached to it. How the gunners were employed, the House was not told; but this lie could tell the House that one of them, kept a grocer's shop, nine miles from the place where he was supposed to be upon duty. At Woolwich, the expense was 14,000 l. and the clerks upon the establishment were more numerous than the artificers employed. Again, at Feversham, 50 l. or 100 l. a-year was paid to a serjeant for looking after 15 men. Heavy expenses were incurred, and most needlessly, in taking returns of stores; individuals being sent from London especially to perform that duty which might as well be done by persons on the spot. If matters were shown to be in such a corrupt state at
734
Sheerness, was it not fair to infer that all was not quite right in other places? What he wanted was information, detail, specification. It had been recommended again and again to the Ordnance department, that the artificers should appear in the estimates, divided and classed into corps and battalions, in the same way in which the different regiments appeared in the army estimates. Why should not that course be adopted? Why should not the house be allowed to see its way, instead of seeing a lumping charge of 250,000 l. without one word of why or wherefore? 42,000 l. stood against the item of "engineer officers." Engineer officers were not to he made in a day, and they ought doubtless to be taken care of; but the House ought to know the number provided for, and the rate of provision. Something more than "the master and civil officers of the military college at Woolwich" ought to be given for 7,700 l. In fact, with so many officers upon half-pay, the keeping up even of 150 cadets, might be well dispensed with. To provide commissions for them was quite impossible; their education fitted them only for military life; and the truth was, that a number of young gentlemen were ruined at a very considerable expense to the country. The "expenses extraordinary" really presented a singular example of compendious statement: for 270,000 l. the country had three words—"Repairs, current services, and contingencies." What the repairs consisted of, he could not conceive; and many military officers, whom he had questioned upon the subject, were in the same state of darkness. Stores, too, furnished a charge for 40,000 l. Really, while the country was selling old stores every day, the House ought to be chary in granting thousands for the purchase of new ones. Members would see that single instances were not the subject of complaint. There was a laxity through the whole system. Even the mode of making up the accounts was most objectionable; and the house was scarcely free from blame in permitting claims for unprovided services to be brought up from time to time—charges made in 1820 for matters occurring in 1818, &c. He wished to be clearly understood. In protesting against existing expenses he did not complain that peculiar circumstances should have carried charges to an unprecedented height; all he blamed was, the indisposition to abate

735
them when there was no longer a necessity for their existence. Really, however, after so many professions of economy, he did hope that some reduction would be effected; and, while he was upon the subject of reduction, to what point could he more properly call the attention of the House than to the Irish establishment? The charge for the staff at head-quarters in Dublin exceeded the sum paid to all the labourers and artificers throughout Ireland; and the contingencies in that country were estimated at 32,000 l., while those of England amounted only to 5,000 l. In stating these facts, he imputed no blame to the right hon. member opposite; he only blamed the system pursued, and wished to see that system changed. The path to reduction was obvious, and opportunities presented themselves at every step. It was an important fact that officers were receiving at the present moment, nearly 40 per cent more than they received during the heat of the war. By their relief from the income tax, and by a rise of at least one fourth in' the value of money, the incomes of those gentlemen were increased nearly 40 per cent. By proper attention, by such management as it was in the power of the House to adopt, he could see his way to a reduction of five millions in the expenses of the very next year. Let not the hon. gentlemen on the other side oppose reduction with so much determination; their patronage would not suffer a tittle by it. If they had fewer good things to give away, why then the good things, being more few, would be more valuable: the scarcer the place the greater the favour. Surely if money could be saved to the country, and patronage increased to the right hon. gentlemen, no party could object to the measure.
He was sensible that he had already trespassed heavily upon the time of the House, but he could not avoid saying a few words upon the charge of 42,000 l. for compensations. This item of charge had lamentably increased of late, and the compensations to the civil department quite overbalanced the saving of 20,000 l. arising out of the deaths of officers and soldiers. Something like detail as to this charge of 42,000 l. would be of much advantage; as he believed he could point out instances of compensation given to persons after only two years' service. The hon. gentleman then recommended the adoption of a measure which had been
736
pointed out by the commission of military inquiry—the laying annually before the House the public ledger of the Ordnance department. The adoption of that measure would afford to the House the total amount of the expenditure of the Ordnance department for any given year. If the House conceded to his motion, the estimates already on the table (quite useless in their present stale) might be taken off and printed in an intelligible form. The hon. gentleman then moved, "That the Ordnance Estimates for Great Britain and Ireland for the present 3'ear be submitted to this House in detail; distinguishing in separate columns the amount of salary, gratuity and allowances of each officer, the amount of expenses in each department, and the total of the whole; distinguishing such officers as have been appointed to new offices since 1793."
Lord Nugentseconded the motion.
Mr. R. Wardsaid, that the details required by the motion, when every particular should be entered into in such a way, that not a single figure could be kept back, would produce extreme inconvenience, and create much useless trouble. He had expected, that this subject would have been discussed in the regular course of committee, and not in single speeches between the hon. gentleman and himself. According to the usual practice, the estimates had been laid on the table; but he was not disinclined to furnish a separate paper for the information of the hon. gentleman. He had hoped that he should not have had to enter into the details then, but after the speech of the hon. gentleman, containing, as it did, some correct statements, and others very incorrect, he was much surprised to find, that such a speech had followed the notice that had been given. He did not deny the right which the hon. member had to enter upon the subject, but nothing could equal his astonishment on finding that he was involved in such a discussion after the notice by which the motion had been preceded. The hon. member had chosen to go into a very minute detail indeed; he had commenced with the first article in the estimates of 42,000 l. Salaries to officers of the Tower and Pall-mall. He (Mr. W.) had nothing to trust to except his memory, and yet the hon. member had come down backed by his friends, and elaborately prepared for the discussion. He would how-

737
ever, endeavour to follow the hon. member. In his very first observation there was the greatest inaccuracy. Nothing more surprised him than to hear it boldly asserted, that the reduction of the estimates was but 3,000 l. He had stated that the estimates were 1,500,000 l., and the reduction but 3,000 l.; whereas the estimates amounted to little more than 1,300,000 l. while the reduction was 53,000 l. Ex una disce omnes: if the hon. member could make a mistake of 50,000 l. in a sum of 1,300,000 l. what errors might he not have committed in the long detail of figures which he had laid before the House! What reliance could be placed upon his statements, unless he quoted for them competent authority? The hon. member had founded himself in some measure upon the report of the finance committee. He did not mean to say that the hon. member was not entitled, if he thought fit, to rely upon the report of the finance committee: but that report was not binding upon the House; and it was open to opposition from those who might think that the committee had come to a wrong conclusion. The employment of labourers as servants had been objected to. It might be an objectionable practice; but it was not an abuse, for it was a system which had been acted upon for thirty years, and the services of a labourer now formed by usage part of the emolument given to an officer. It happened, however, that the noble duke at the head of the Ordnance department was, up to a certain point, of the same opinion with the hon. member; bethought the practice a bad one, and was taking measures to abolish it: the advantage was not taken from those who already possessed it; but care was taken not to extend it to new comers.—The speech of the hon. member had been so desultory, that the House must excuse him if he rambled a little in pursuit of it; and he would at once notice that insulated accusation touching the conduct of the storekeeper at Sheerness. The hon. member accusing one individual of peculation, argued with his usual candour, that such was the general practice of the department. As to the fact, he (Mr. W.) knew nothing. If it were proved, the individual, besides losing his situation, would certainly be punished in a way which would not be agreeable to him. But it might be doubted, whether it would pot have been more fit to bring such a
738
matter before the heads of the department than to lay it before the House of Commons. The hon. member said, that the heads of departments, while cutting the salaries of clerks of 90 l. per year, had been raising their own. Where did the hon. member find that? He had stated that the salary of the master-general of the Ordnance had been raised from 1,500 l. to 3,000 l. a year, and he had argued upon the impropriety of such an addition at a time when there should rather be a decrease. When the hon. member gave an account of his own speech to the public, as he owned to him (Mr. W.) that on a former occasion he had done, when that account was most incorrect, there was no part of England which that speech might reach where it would not be supposed that the duke of Wellington had raised his own salary, or that it had been so raised by his predecessors, lord Mulgrave or lord Chatham; but the fact was very different—the salary of the master-general was 1,500 l. a year, from the reign of Elizabeth to the period of the union with Ireland. There was before that period, a master-general of the Ordnance in Ireland, but after the union the offices were united, the two boards were consolidated, and the salary doubled. This took place in the year 1802 [Hear, hear]. He heard the hon. gentleman cry, "hear!" Why, then, did he not state this, and not leave it in such a way as to be misunderstood by half the House? He had made some observations on other parts of the board as to salaries and emoluments; but did he question the fact, that the emoluments and salaries of several officers of the board had been lowered ["I do," from Mr. Hume]? He would tell him, then, that his own emoluments had been reduced from 1,700 l. to 1,100 l. a year. An hon. friend near him had suffered a reduction of 200 l. per annum, and there were several other reductions; but no correction of the mistakes of the hon. member could correct his disposition to misstatement. There was one of those misstatements in the newspapers, where it was said that he (Mr. W.) denied that the storekeeeper of Dover had a salary of 500 l. a year. He never denied it. He stated that the storekeeper had not retired, but never denied the salary of 500 l. a year. The mis-statement had appeared in "The Times." This arose from the incorrectness of the hon. gentleman himself. He alleged that a storekeeper

739
who had not 100 l. a year, had been allowed to retire upon the enormous salary of 500 l. He had met the hon. member soon after that statement appeared, and said to him, that there was a mistake in a newspaper respecting what he stated, and added, "You have nothing to do with it, for it is false;" but he was much surprised when the hon. gentleman answered, "I am sorry for it, for I wrote it myself." He now requested, if the editor or writer of The Times was in the gallery, that he would do him justice, for he could not expect it from the hon. member. The right hon. gentleman then went on to contend that every disposition to economy was felt in the Ordnance department. The duke of Wellington had abolished sixty-eight offices,—the salaries attached to which amounted to 14,000 l. a year. Even the situation of adjutant-general at Gibraltar, which had been sought after by men entitled to it from their character and length of service, had been abolished. With respect to the gratuities complained of, he had the same answer which he had applied to the complaint as to servants. At all events it was not an abuse. The system might be objectionable, though that he denied; for it was the only mode by which the officers of the Ordnance department could be placed upon a level with officers of equal rank in the Navy office and in the War-office; but it could not be an abuse, because it was an acknowledged and a recognised practice. The addition to the salary of the secretary to the master-general, had been made by the reduction of a second secretaryship, and without costing the country a shilling. The powder-works at Feversham were carried on at present, because it was found that it would be cheaper to carry on the works for a few years, than to incur the expense of removing the vast quantity of stores which the depât contained. From the statement of the hon. gentleman one would have supposed that the sum of 270,000 l. was expended in repairs; but upon a survey of the estimates, it would be found that the whole sum so expended, in which many payments to superintending officers were included, did not exceed 80,000 l. So much for the candid accuracy of the hon. gentleman's statement! The hon. gentleman had adverted to the pay of the engineer officers; but it would be necessary to take into account, that those officers were not in barrack, and
740
had not the allowances given to officers belonging to the regular corps; in lieu of these extra pay was given them, and he could assure the House that they complained of this as too small. If the estimates were strictly examined, a full explanation would be found in them of many of the points to which the hon. member had adverted. One point he would concede: he would have no objection to the production of the Expense ledger every year. The next subject to which allusion had been made, was to the officers on half-pay. On this subject he could assure the House, that selections were made from the half-pay for high situations, and that only subordinate ones were filled up by cadets. As to the professors, there could be no objection to any information respecting them. He would admit that the expense of the Dublin establishment appeared larger than that at Woolwich, but that was explained by this circumstance, that under this head were included several other branches which were not brought into the accounts of the Woolwich expenditure. As to Sheerness, it was true that the expense was increased; but this arose from a great part of the business which was before done at Chatham being about to be transferred thither. As to the establishment at St. John's-wood, he would state what that was. During the war it was considered necessary to have a brigade of cavalry there. The barracks for them were taken for a long lease, it not being thought that the battle of Waterloo would so soon have rendered the lease unnecessary; that barrack was still on hand, and one person was kept to take care of it. It was kept because the lease was unexpired, and he could assure the hon. gentleman that he might have it cheap if he were disposed to take it off the hands of government at present. The establishment at Trinco-malee, he observed, was kept in consequence of its being considered necessary for the assistance of the navy. He denied that any clerks were allowed to retire on a full salary, after a short service. He could not then confidently say that there were not any who retired on full pay; but this he could state, that all who were reduced were allowed a portion of their salary; but he challenged the hon. member to produce an instance where any clerk was allowed to retire on full pay after four years service. The hon. gentleman had said, that there was

741
an expense of 500 l. incurred for what was called taking returns of stores. This, however, was grossly incorrect. The fact was, that when a storekeeper was changed, he gave in an account of the stores which had been under his charge, which account was checked by that of a person employed to inspect the stores. This could not be done by the person so changed, and therefore it was deemed most expedient to send a person from London for the purpose. How the hon. member could call this giving a man 500 l. for taking returns of old stores, he was at a loss to conceive. He protested against the whole of the hon. member's statement, and would leave it to any unprejudiced man, to state whether he had been fairly treated in being thus brought to argue upon the estimates of several years without any documents, or any preparation whatever. It was true that he had consented to the notice of motion, but he had been unfairly treated by being thus trepanned into such a discussion without preparation. Before he sat down he wished to make one other observation. If the hon. member wished to draw a comparison between the Ordnance estimates of the present year and those of 1793, he should have taken it into his consideration that the prices of things had doubled—that the number of the artillery had been doubled—that the pay of the men had been more than doubled. The hon. member might quarrel with the increase of men, if he pleased, but he had no right to say, that with a double number of troops the expense ought to continue the same. He ought to recollect that the union with Ireland cast an additional expense of 130,000 l. a year on the Ordnance department of this country. He forgot the improvements which had been made in our artillery service. He forgot that the arms now used in the Ordnance department differed widely from those used when the estimates were 400,000 l. a year. He forgot, too, the introduction of the horse artillery, and of the driver corps, the latter of which had been properly called by the hon. member for Shrewsbury the sinews of war. The hon. member had omitted to notice all these, which if deducted from the excess of the present establishment above the expense of 1793, would leave a very little difference. Considering these circumstances, and the increase in our colonies, though he might admit that some things
742
might be cut off, he was rather astonished that the expense was so low as it was.
Sir R. Fergussonexpressed his surprise, that the right hon. gentleman had left untouched the principal argument—which was, the increase of salaries to the clerks and other officers.
Sir H. Parnellcontended, that the speech of his hon. friend had been left unanswered. Without entering into any detail, he would read an extract from the 6th report of the Committee of finance. The report stated, that "of late years a system of progressive increase of salaries had been extended to most of the public officers; but in the Ordnance department, this was carried to the greatest length." This, he contended, was sufficient to convince the House of the fallacy of the right hon. gentleman's speech.
The House divided: Ayes 44. Noes 58. Majority against Mr. Hume's motion 14.

List of the Minority.

Becher, W. W.

Hutchinson, hon. C.H.

Benett, J.

Langton, J. H.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Lennard, T. B.

Benyon, B.

Macdonald, Jas.

Bernal, R.

Martin, J.

Bright, R.

Monck, J. B.

Brougham, H.

Newport, sir J.

Browne, Dom

Nugent, lord

Caulfield, hon. H.

Parnell, sir H.

Creevey, Thos.

Ricardo, D.

Denison, Jos.

Rice, hon. G.

Evans, Wm.

Robarts, A.

Fergusson, sir R.

Robarts, G. J.

Fitzgerald, right hon. M.

Sefton, earl of

Sykes, D.

Glenorchy, lord

Talbot, R. W.

Gordon, R.

Taylor, M. A.

Graham, S.

Trcmayne, J. H.

Grenfell, P.

Whitmore, W. W.

Guise, sir W.

Williams, W.

Harbord, hon. E.

Wyvill, M.

Heron, sir R.

TELLERS.

Hill, lord A.

Hume, J.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Folkestone, visc.