The Sun. — London, England, 1832-02-28 00:00:00

more political rancour, than he had seen displayed towards the present Government by the present Oprosition. The Earl of RODEN disclaimed the use Of personal attacks. lie had nut used the words scorn and ridicule in the manner imputed to hi m . H e did not sa y t h a t the Op position had been the scorn and ridicule of the Govern ment, but of the friends of the Church, when they saw that Opposition met by a vigorous Government. As to the spirit of the Opposition, it had been as bitter and ma levolent in farmer times as any that now existed: Lord LORTON was convinced that the present evils in Ireland arose from the system of concession, and till that Was put an end to, there would be a war of interests in the country. Several Bills were brought up from the Commons, and read a first time.—Adjourned at a Quarter to Nine. HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEB. 27. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. Mr. Clark, from the Gazette Office, appeared at the bar with returns from that office. Mr. RIDER presented a petition from Gravesend against the Bill for the extension of the Gravesend Pier. Mr. HODGES moved the second reading of the Gravesend Pier Bill. Mr. HUME would not in the present stage oppose the Bill; but if the representations made to him were correct, he was convinced that it would have the effect of injuring a great part of the population of Gravesend, particularly the watermen, who formed a very numerous class of in habitants. Mr. HUNT concurred in the view taken of the effects of the Bill by the Hon. Member for Middlesex, and ex pressed his intention to oppose the Bill in Committee. After a few words from Mr. HODGES and Mr. RIDER, the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. On the motion of Mr. EWART the Bill for establish ing a market at Walton-on-the-Hill, near Liverpool, was read a third time and passed. Mr. LITTLETON postponed his motion, which stood for to-day, relative to the arrangement of Members' names on the Speaker's list until Wednesday. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET moved the second reading of the Bridgewater and Taunton Canal Improve ment Bill. Mr. LABOUCHERE presented two petitions, one from the conservators of the river Tone, and another from a town, the name of which we could not catch, against the Bill. Lord G. SOMERSET presented petition. in favour of the Bill. Mr. LABOUCHERE opposed the second reading of the Bill, and moved, as an amendment, that it be read that day 14 months. After a comiderable debate, in which Lord Granville Somerset, Mr. Sandford, Mr. Baring, Mr. Briscoe, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Littleton, Mr. Cresset Pelham, and Mr. Gore Langton took part, the House divided, when there appeared__ For the second reading 97 Against it Majority for the second reading —32 The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be committed. A Message was brought from the Lords, requesting a copy of the Report of the Commissioners of 1820, relative to Education in Ireland.—Ordered. Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that, on the 2d of April, he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the practice of the Court of Chancery in Ireland. The Hon. Member also moved for a copy of any convic tions under the Alien Act by the Magistrates of the bead Police-office in Dublin within the last five weeks. It was agreed to, after a few observations from Lord Althorp, which were inaudible in the gallery. SUGAR DUTIES. Lord ALTHORP gave notice that, on Wednesday next, he should bring forward the renewal of the sugar duties in Committee of Ways and Means. NAVY CIVIL DEPARTMENTS' BILL. Sir J. GRAHAM moved the second reading of this Bill. In answer to a question from Mr. CROKER, Sir J. GRAHAM said that he was ready to discuss the principle of the Bill, either at the present stage, or on the motion that the Bill be committed. The Right Hon. Baronet made a few more observations, which were not heard in the gallery. Mr. CROKER said that he did not mean, on the pre sent occasion, to apply himself to the details of this most extraordinary measure. He entirely agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet that it was in the prerogative of the Crown to revoke those patents and dissolve those boards for the future execution of the duties appertaining to which the present Bill was brought in ; but he meant to contend that if the Right lion. Baronet had advised the Crown to dissolve those Boards and annul those patents, for the reasons which he laid before the House, the Right Hon. Baronet was mistaken in the advice which he had so given, and that the measure was as groundless as it was impolitic. The Right Hon. Baronet founded his proposition for over throwing at once a system which had stood the teat of a century on two or three separate reasons. He began by stating certain historical facts, which be contended justified the course which he had adopted. He next proceeded to state certain recent transactions on the part of subordinate Boards, which he said rendered the remedy he proposed ne cessary; and finally he enlarged on the advantages which he anticipated to accrue to the country from the adoption of the new system. He (Mr. Croker) was obliged to say, after the best consideration he had been able to give the subject, not only on the occasion of the introduction of the Bill, but ever Since, that he differed from the Right Hon. Baronet in every particular, and most positively and determinedly with respect to the facts on which he had relied. The Right Hon. Baronet began his statement by referring the House to the " Memoirs of Mr. Secretary Pepys," with the view of showing what had taken place at an early period of our naval history. Now he was sorry to be obliged to ask the Right Hon. Baronet to what memoirs he had referred ? (Here Mr. Croker sat down fora short time, but no an swer was given to this question, and he resumed.) He thought that the behaviour of the Right Hon. Baronet was not very courteous. On introducing the Bill, the Right Hon. Baronet referred the House " to the period of the restoration of the Stuarts," when as it appeared in Mr. Pepya'e Memoirs, the then Duke of York, afterwards James 11., on his appointment to the office of Lord High Admiral, dismissed the subordinate Boards, and kept the power and controul in his own hands." The Right Hon. Baronet had not thought proper to inform him to what memoirs be had alluded. Now it was well known that Mr. Pepys kept a private dairy, which was published a few years ago in rather a bulky form ; but it might not be so very well known that there was also published, in 1689, a very small book, written by Mr. Pepys, which which was called " Memoirs of the Royal Navy." To which of those two books the Right Hon. Baronet had re ferred he could not say, but he would maintain that in neither of them was there any pretence or colour for the assertion of the Right lion. Baronet.—(Hear, hear.) But was it the fact that at the Restoration the Duke of York abolished the subordinary Boards, and the Navy Board in particular ? He denied that it was ; for one of the first acts of the Restoration was to i'e-establish the Navy Board. Mr. Pepye, in his diary, dated the 29th of June, 1660 (being only one month after the period of the Restoration), stated that he was sworn as Commissioner of the Navy Board, and took possession of the Navy-office, and from that hour until the present moment the Navy Board had never been abolished. He therefore gave a di. rect contradiction to the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Baronet next pro ceeded to say that the effect of that improvement (which had never taken place, be it remembered) was the dawning of an era which ended in raising the British navy to the highest pinnacle of glory. He supposed that the Right Hon. Baronet alluded to the engagement at Lowestoife ; but there were Commissioners of the Navy at that time ; and if the lion. Baronet had read the Journals of the Houses he would have found that an impeachment was talked of against one of them for his conduct in Chatham, when the Dutch were in the Thames. He repeated, that since the re-establishment ol the monarchy on the 29th May, 1660, down to the present hour, the Navy Board had never once been abolished. There never was any re storation of these Boards, because there had never been any abolition of them. He had been very much puzzled to know what could have induced the Hon. Baronet to make such a statement as that which he had referred to. He found that when James IL was obliged to go abroad, in con erneqsu!nce of the Test Act, the Admiralty was put into com rill 'lon 54oment. The sam e comm i ss i on ex i sted at the present . The Ri g h t Hon. Baronet had fallen into the Boardror as Pepys 's editor, by mistaki n g the Admiralty for the N avy Board. Still this would not account Boathe Right H on. Baronet having stated that the Navy liih was aboli s h e d at the Restoration. When the Lord e r th g Admiral ret urne d from abroad, he induced his bro to revoke the commission which had been appointed ; but as t o the Navy Board and the Victualling Board having been b • olish e d the Vi ctnallin ; nothing of th e ki n d occurre d . I n f act, it appeared, Board was created at that timeleast that the firstaccording to Beatson and other authorities, patent for the constitution of the Board was issued at th established at period, although he believed that it had been planation (I)rtebvek"lY. If he could not give a better ex had fallen, it a, error into which the Right lion. Baronet been so courteous because the Right Hon. Baronet had not quoted.--mear, andal to tell hi m f rom w h at b oo k h e h a d puke of Y or k‘ a laugh.) Wh en J ames 1 1 . ( t h en i returned from abroad, he made his brother ;sane a commission, Which Was to inquire into the affairs of the navy and to put them on a better footing. Did he abolish the Navy Board ? No ; he added four practical men, such as those whom the Right Hon. Baronet wished to get rid of.—( Hear.) Amongst the four individuals ap pointed by the influence of James was Sir Anthony Dean, who was originally a common shipwright, and as eminent a man in his profession as Sir Robert Sepping.—(llear.) Thus, by a curious blunder, the Right Hon. Baronet jus tified the dismissal of Sir Robert Sepping, by the appoint ment of Sir Anthony Dean in the time of Charles ll. (Hear.) Within two years after its appointment, the com mission of inquiry was abolished by James 11., who wrote a letter to the Commissioners, thanking them for what they had done. The Navy Board, however, had never been abolished, but had continued from that time down to the present. So much for the Right Hon. Baronet's re ference to ancient authority.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had also favoured the House with some modern reasons, which, unfortunately for him, had no more foun dation than his ancient authority.—(A laugh.) The Right Hon. Baronet had stated that "much inconvenience had resulted to the public service from the disobedience of the subordinate Boards, and by their pursuing a course which created an under-current of resistance." Now he had had the honour to fill the office of Secretary to the Admiralty for 22 years. During that period he conducted, of course, all the public correspondence, and much of what was considered private communication, and he de clared, upon his honour and conscience, in the course of that time he never knew one instance of what could be considered disobedience, nor any course of operations which could be fairly called an under -current of resistance-- -(Hear.) He was perfectly astonished that the Right Hon. Baronet should have made such a charge against the Navy and Victualling Iroarde. He had indeed heard that some evidence was given before a Finance Committee up stairs about these Boards being slow to do this thing, and unwilling to do that thing —some vague and general charge of that nature. The evidence which was given before that Committee was, however, a sealed book to him. It had been circulated amongst the Members of the Com. mittee, but never laid before the House, and lie had en deavoured in vain to procure a copy of it. He, however, appealed to all persons who bad been in office during the last 20 years, and asked them whether anything like a system of opposition to the Admiralty Board had ever been pursued by the Navy and Victualling Boards. He never heard of such a thing. If there bad been any re bukes to those Boards, they must have been given by him. But he denied the fact, as boldly as he did that the Duke of York, on the Restoration, abolished the Navy Board. To be sure, the Nary Board did not always agree with the Admiralty Board. Those two bodies sometimes differed on particular questions, and it was salutary for the public service that they should do so. It was riot intended that the Navy Board should merely slavishly register the decrees of th e Admi- ralty Board. It had been heretofore always considered a ground for praise that a subordinate authority should ope. rate as a check upon a superior one. The Right Hon. Baronet had stated that the members of the Navy Board contumaciously opposed the Admiralty Board, because the former held their offices by patent, and could not be de prived of them. By a strange fatality every fact which the Right Hon. Baronet advanced failed him, and every height which he climbed only made his fall more deep and heavy.—(Hear.) He had looked into this pretended patent, which the Right Hon. Baronet said rendered the Navy Board independent of the Admiralty Board, and he found that it not only recited that the Commissioners held their office during pleasure, but actually stated they were to obey all the orders and instructions which they might receive from the Commissioners of the Admiralty. It had just occurred to him, and he might as well mention it now, that the Right Hon. Baronet had made the mistake respecting Pepys's authority, in consequence of having perused the first report of the Board of Revision, which was delivered to the House a great many years before Pepys' Diary was published. This report referred altogether to the little book called the Memoirs of the Nary. Perhaps the Right Hon. Baronet bad never seen the original work, and therefore be would show it him.—(A laugh.) The book commenced in this manner:—" In April, 16M9, my unhappy master, James 11., was obliged to give up the throne." He would not answer for the report of the Board of Revision being the source from which the Right Hon. Baronet obtained his information, but he very much suspected it. He had quoted at second-hand, and had therefore misquoted. The Right Hon. Baronet next charged the Navy and Victualling Boards with having misappro priated the public money, by carrying on works which cost a much larger sum than was annually voted by Parliament. The Right Hon. Baronet a'so complained that the sums which had been voted tinder one head in the estimates had been applied to another. He would only say that such had been the law and practice with respect to the Navy Boards ever since they had been in existence. Such was the peculiar nature of the naval service, that it was impos sible to do otherwise than adopt the practice which the Right Hon. Baronet condemned. He would take the liberty of reading the opinion of Hitsell on the subject. After stating, that under the Appropriation Act, all sums voted by Parliament were applied to the purposes for which they were voted, Hatsell remarked " but in the instance of supplies granted for the navy the practice has been dif ferent. All the different sums granted by Parliament are added together, and the total is applied generally to the naval service. This distinction has arisen from necessity, it being found impossible from tile nature of the se t ser vice to confine the expenditure of the sums granted to the immediate purposes for which they were granted." He would also quote another great authority, Mr. Fox, who, whe❑ some person had made a similar objection to that now advanced by the Right Hon. Baronet, said, " there is nothing new in the Admiralty practice of applying to one branch of the service the sums which had been voted by Parliament for another." The Hon. Baronet said that this practice had been abolished since 1798. In that year the affairs of the navy were under the adminis tration of the father of the Noble Chancellor of the Ex chequer. He would always speak of Earl Spencer's a,t ministration of the navy as every Englishman spoke of it. It was glorious in war, and prudent and economical in peace. Even if it did not suit his argument, he trusted that be had too much admired in his youth, and after he came into office, the administration of the Noble Earl to withhold from it his humble praise; but it did suit his argument. It so happened that in the year 1793 the money voted for the service of the navy was applied in the same manner in which it had always been ap plied before, and he might add, in the same manner In which it bad been applied ever since. He would refer to an instance which could not have escaped the at tention of Earl Spencer, because it was one in which his attention teas peculiarly and interestingly called. The Noble Earl conceived the idea that ships could be built at Milford-haven at a smaller expense than at other places. By way of experiment he sanctioned the building of two ships at Milford-haven, one of which was called the Mi?ford, and the other the .Lavinia. lie need not state how anxious Earl Spencer watched the progress of these vessels, which he thought from local circumstances might be built at a chesper rate at Milford-haven than at other yards, as indeed they were. However, he found that in 1798,1799, 1800, and 1801, during Earl Spencer's ad mini,tration of the navy, and in 1802, 1803, and 1804, under the administration of Lord St. Vincent, the sum voted in the estimates amounted cumulatively to 130,0001. more than they cost. The actual cost of building each vessel was 30,0001. The greater part of the money voted never went to Milford, but was applied to repairing ships which came home disabled in battle. The money being thus applied, it was necessary to vote every year a fresh sum for the building of the ships. The public, however, lust nothing by the transaction. In 1798 it was deter mined to make a reservoir at Plymouth dock-yard. The sums voted for this purpose were applied to other pur poses, as the exigencies of the service required ; and fresh sums being voted for the reservoir, the whole cost of the work appeared, according to the estimates, to be 21,900/. In 1798, 2,000/. were voted for the erection if a painter's shop. The Right lion. Baronet had alluded to this cir cumstance, and said, " Will the House believe that a vote was made annually from 1789 to 1809, an account of this painter's shop, until it appears to have cost the country no less a sum than 21,800/. ?" The fact was, that in this as in the other cases, the money voted for a specific pur pese had been otherwise applied, and the painter's shop not built yet.—(A laugh.) He was not defending such absurdity. It arose from the estimates not being printed and fairly brought before the House of Commons. When he came into office, in 1909, he suggested that they should be printed, and his suvettion was acted upon, and thereby the painter's shop, the reservoir at Plymouth, and much other trash was swept away. He mentioned these circum stances to show that the Right Hon. Baronet was wrong in stating that a new system had been established in 1789. The Right Hon. Baronet had complained that 560,0001. voted by Parliament for other purposes, had been employed in the completion of works at Cremill yard and other places. If this money bad not been so applied, it would have been necessary to get a vote of money for those works. Then, again, they were finished at a cheaper rate by being finished quickly. The contractor for the works at Cremill yard made a deduction of 21 per cent. from his original con tract, on condition that he might complete the job as expeditiously as he could. He did not contend that it would be right to apply money to works which had not been previously sanctioned by Parliament, except it Was in a case of great emergency, such as the establishment of the hospital at Malta, about the period of the battle of Navarin. The Right lion. Baronet had insinuated that his predecessor in office bad improperly diminished the purchases of timber, and had not accounted for 1,000,0001. The Right lion. Baronet was the most ungrateful man alive to complain of the million unaccounted for, because he found it in the coffers of the treasury when he came into office, and it was the possession of so much ready money which enabled him to bring forward two sets of estimates this year without calling for money. The Right Hon. Baronet said that in 1830 195,000/. less were expended upon timber than ought to have been spent. This fact appeared upon the balance sheet which the Right Hon. Baronet had produced to the House. But the Right lion. Baronet had not looked at all to the items in his balance sheet, otherwise he would have found that this 195,0001. were appropriated to the payment of wages, the necessity for which was much more imperative than the purchase of tiiiaber. He would now call the attention of the House to certain minor points to which the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had referred in proposing his Bill. Among the grave and weighty charges preferred against the subordinate Boards, he would begin with the charge of not keeping a ledger. Would Hon. Members believe the fact that the Navy Board, which bad existed since the days of Henry Vlll.,—that this Board, with all the offices connected with it, was to he abolished, for not keeping a ledger? This ledger, he it observed, had been ordered in the year 1830; in that year the late Administratian went out; and because the Navy Board did not keep the ledger, it was forsooth to be swept utterly away, and its functions were to be banded over to the Admiralty, who had never kept a ledger at all. Now was this the amount of guilt that should overturn the Navy Board ? Possibly the fault of not keeping the ledger (if fault it were, which he did not go so far as to call it) was attributable to the Admiralty itself. He would enter for a moment in the history of this ledger. It had been thought necessary, by his Hon. and Gallant Friend who sat near him, to make every practicable reduction in his department. On this point his Hon. and Gallant Friend believed he had gone too far—certainly he had gone as far as he could. With a view to economy, the clerk of the check to the stores in the dock •yards had been reduced, as it was considered that the benefit of his peculiar services might be attained by keeping a ledger at the office of the Navy Board, similar to that kept by him. And, true enough, that benefit might have been secured if there had been a sufficient number of clerks at the Navy Board. But after making an experiment, the persons in the dock yards said, that they could not continue to make ab stracts of the vouchers, but that they could furnish the vouchers themselves. They were desired by the Ad miralty to send the vouchers to the Navy Beard, where the abstracts would be made; but that Board having re monstrated to the Admiralty, the practice fell into disuse, and he (Mr. Croker) would venture to say, that the ledger could never be kept until additional hands should be employed for making out the abstract. Could the Navy Board be blamed for this? No ; and he would assert, that it was but fighting with the wind to adduce such a circumstance as a pretext for destroying the ancient constitution of the navy. The next minor point to which he would advert was much more serious, not as regarded the navy, but as regarded the Right Hon. Baronet oppo site—he meant the reduction of labourers in the dock-yards. The Right Hon. Baronet had stated that by a positive order of Lord Melville the number of labourers employed in the dock-yards, including apprentices, were to be re duced to 6,000, also that no additions should be made, except in case of death, and yet it was found that the number in April list exceeded 7,000. He (Mr. Croker) would deny that the order alluded to was positive. All that had been intended was to economize, by reduction, within as short a time as might be reasonable and expe dient. The number of labourers was not to be reduced by the Navy Board, but by the band of God, and the opera tion of time. What was the Navy Board to do under these circumstances ? The order from the Admiralty was issued in January, 1830, and the day after it was put forth, the Board proceeded to carry it into effect. They executed the order by copying it and sending the "ipsisma verba" to the different dock yards.—( Hear.) So far from the Admiralty expecting that the reduction should be imme • diate, that they gave directions for the labourers in the _dock-yards to work en Wednesdays, when they should come down to 7,000 persons. There was another monstrus charge advanced against the Navy Board. It was stated, that in the book of prices kept by the Board, articles were rated beyond their prices in the market; as for instance—lead, the current price of which was 14s. 6d., had been rated at 11. Is. ; and iron, which might be pro cured for 91. or 101. a ton, was set down at 10/. 10s. What was the secret of all this? 'Why, a fact well known in commerce--that goods were entered at their official value, on an average used only for the purpose of compari son. Difficult—extremely difficult—must it have been to make out a case against the Navy Board when re course was had to such a charge as this. It was next asserted that the Board had neglected to have sufficient surveys, and in support of the position they had been toll of the theft of five tons and a half of copper, the loss of which had first transpired at Birmingham. He would inform the Right Hon. Baronet that he was totally mistaken in his construction of this circumstance. Five and a half tons of copper might sound like a con siderable quantity, but it should be recollected that an old seventy-four when broken up contained forty tons of copper, and it was not therefore surprising that the quan• tity in question should have been stolen from Chatham dock-yard, especially when the watchers on the yard had been struck off. The theft of the copper considered as a cause for dissolving the Navy Board was the most ex traordinary part of the whole transaction. He had noticed every one of the Right Hon. Baronet's objections, and he would maintain that there was not one scintilla of evi dence against the Board, nor the slightest proof that it had be-n the occasion of anything amiss, of which the Right Hon. Gentleman's plan could afford a remedy. He would again, in reference to the question, quote the simple language of Pepvs, used at a time when exceptions were preferred against the Navy Board. This quaint writer said, as he (Mr. Croker) would say, that " lie admired the impudence of men who could offer a remedy so silly in a business of so much importance."--(A laugh.) This, however, might be taken with other occurrences as a symbol of the complexion of the times.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the proposed plan, he would object to it, as unduly aggrandizing the power of the Admiralty.__ (Hear.) Never, hitherto, had the Board of Admiralty been a money office ; that power our ancestors had reserved for the King in Council, and when the order in Council was given, it was sent by the Admiralty to the Navy Board, who examined the order; it remonstrated against it, if on examination they considered it wrong. What would be the situation of affairs now? The Beard of Admiralty would be relieved of all responsibility ; they need not ap. peal to the King in Council—there was no check upon them. But then there was an audit, and what description of audit ? An audit under the authority of the Admi ralty itself, sanctioning the passing of its own order ! It was monstrous to give any office of State such unrestrained controul over the public money. Again, over each of the five departments there was to be a Lord of the Admiralty. What to do? Was it to ensure a real authority? Ifreal, then the subordinates must obey; if not real, then the sub ordinates must be accountable, and what would be done with subordinates who were accountable, yet not re sponsible ?—(Hear, hear.) With a view to carry into effect what one Lord of the Admiralty desired, it would be necessary to have an order from two—so here they would have the absurdity of one Lord not being able to do any thing without calling in another, who would be as irre- sponsible as he might be ignorant respecting the matter he sanctioned. The name of an individual would be given to pass an account about which he knew nothing. But the branch of accounts was still more difficult. If the llon. Baronet had done him the honour to offer him (Mr. Croker) the superintendence of the accounts, he would have declined it altogether.—(Hear.) He knew very well that the Right Hon. " fructifier" opposite (the Vice- President of the Board of Trade) was a . most valuable ac- eountant —(A laugh). He understood the Right Hon. Gentleman to intimate that he would not trust him in accounts. Mr. P. TEIOMPSON—" I said no such thing." Mr. CROKER—He would, however, take the liberty of saying, that he was quite as trustworthy as any gentle man who had discovered the novel mode of " fructifica- tion" for paying the public debts. How, he would ask, could a naval officer make himself responsible for millions of the ex p en di ture o f w hi c h h e h a d no k now l e dge, and over which he had no controul ? Every body must per ceive what would be the result. The subordinate men would do all the business—(Hear, hear)—and if they did the business, would it not be better to make them respon sible? He would recommend that they should be united into a Board of five persons. He did not demand the alte- - ration of a single item in the plan of the Hight Hon. ronet but that of responsibility. He would recommend the formation of a Board on the ground that though indi viduals might misapply the public money, there W 39 a reluctance in human nature to enter into a coalition for a breach of trust. If this Board were formed, the Lords of the Admiralty could afford the efficient controul of intel- ligent men in visiting the yards and attending the sittings of the Board. But while the Lords of the Admiralty were thus engaged, what would they do with the great mi litary transactions of the country ? What would become uf their natural occupations ? For his own part he did not think it possible that they could bestow the requisite attention on these even in times of peace, and at their re cent introduction to office, when the proverb would be on their side, that " new brooms sweep clean."—(A laugh.) Should any moment of difficulty arrive, they would break down, and perhaps at a moment when their breaking down would prove p e rdition.—(Hear.) True policy required that in the time of peace they should prepare for war. Let the number of those in office be reduced, but let them beware formedalteration e b r a e si f s ull o u f w v e i d ta i l i i p ty , he ventured to foretell that it would be found completely and d a a lt e e t r i i v n i g ty. prin l c f ip t l h e e s p w r h es i e ch nt abortive in the hour of expectation, nor would one farthing be saved by its adoption, but, on the contrary, a great deal be lost. He would not stickle about the pageantry of an appointment. Let a salary he given, but let it be given to a Board. Ile cared not whether the members were ap ' pointed by warrant, or by patent, provided the essentials or naval safety were secured to the realm.—(Hear, hear.) Would the House allow him to ask what, with a single officer to each department. would become of the country's service in case of that officer's sickness or imperative ab sence? Should such.an event take place, it would be a most disagreeable circumstance for the First Lord of the Admiralty, who would be called on to perform duties with which be was utterly unacquainted. He would put the question, however, upon still higher grounds. He be lieved that the business might go on more smoothly and easily under this new system; but did human prudence sane tion the House in supposing that business went on more efficiently because it went on with ease and smoothness? Weknow that nobody commands an army so effectually as a despot. He says, 'ccome, and they com e; go , an d t h ey go." There is no remonstrance to his orders. Every thing that be commands must be attempted, if not exe cuted ; but when all that is done, there is an exercise of tyranny against which every gallant heart naturally and necessarily revolts. We had sent persons to France to take lessons in French accounts and in French economy ; but we did not seem inclined to take example by our intelligent neighbours, when they were imitating us and adopting the lessons of our experience. In 1824, the French Mi nister of Marine bad established a Board of Admiralty, which he called " Conseil de Mer." He certainly had hoped that he should never live to invoke the example of France as a fit subject of imitation in the navy of Eng land ; but now that he had lived to that day, he would only say that the invocation was not of his making.— (Hear.) Again let the House look to what had been re cently done in America. America had established a Navy Board in 1815. He had only that morning looked at the, Act by which the American Navy Board was constructed, and it was so like our own that he believed the instruc tions of Pepys were embodied in it. He had one other observation to make, and then he bad done. Under the new system, what was to become of the Secretary of the Admiralty ?—(A laugh from the Ministerial benches.) How that officer would be able to perform the duty which would devolve upon him under the new system he for one could not conceive. All lie had to say was, that though he had been for 22 years Secretary of the Navy, he had never been absent from his office for three weeks more than twice in all that time, and that during the whole of his tenure of that office, he bad never, in the ordinary course of business, left his bureau, even for half an hour, without leaving word where he was to be found. He looked upon such an arrangement to be ab solutely necessary to the proper discharge of his duty and his conscience. If, however, this new system were to be carried into effect, they must have two, or three, or four Secretaries of the Admiralty, as they had now two, or three, or four different departments. The Right Hon. Gentleman then sat down amid considerable cheering. Sir JAMES GRAHAM thought he had good reason to congratulate himself, that throughout his long premeditated speech the Right Hon. Secretary had busied himself with replying not to the speech with which he (Sir J. Graham) had introduced this measure to the House, but to the speeches which lie had made on naval affairs, not only in the present but also in former sessions of Parliament. He would endeavour to follow the Right Hon. Gentleman re gularly through all the topics of his very discursive speech —a speech in which he had endeavoured to refute speeches, which he could not refute at the time when they were made, and in which he had omitted all consideration of the arguments by which he (Sir James Graham) had endeavoured to recommend this measure to the favourable notice of the House. And here he would remark, that he could not help being surprised that there should be so strong a lurking suspicion in the mind of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that he (Sir J. Graham) had misquoted the authorities which he had produced on a former occasion in support of the provisions of this Bill. He would not enter into any investigation of the reasons which induced the Right Hon. Gentleman to entertain such a suspicion—he would only say that he believed he was not more likely to make a misquotation to gain a tem porary advantage in debate, than the Right Hon. Gentle man himself was, and therefore he was surprised to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman accusing him of Calsifying, though not intentionally, the authority of Mr. Pepys. He begged the House to attend to the course which the Right Hon. Gentleman had pursued upon this occasion. In the first instance he had endeavoured to make the House believe that lie (Sir James Graham) had addressed it without any authority; but, then, seeing that he (Sir James Graham) held in his hand his au thority—namely, the first report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the civil affairs of the navy, which the Right Hon. Gentleman said he knew by heart—he boldly stated that he (Sir J. Graham) had not read it correctly to the House. He would, therefore, apply himself without de lay to the refutation of that charge ; and as the best mode of doing it would he by producing the authority itself, he would read the authority of Mr. Pepys, as stated in that first report. In that report the history of our navy was traced with great minuteness from the earliest times down to the present. It was divided into distinct periods, and the third period commenced with the restoration of the Monarchy under Charles 11. The report stated, that on the Restoration the Duke of York was appointed Lord High Admiral—that the Navy Board was dis missed—and that a plan was devised for the restoration of the navy. He thought that the House would recollect that the Right Hon. Gentleman had said that this report must be inaccurate, as the small memoir of Mr. Pepys, on the state of the navy, was not their known to be in existence. But the Commissioners who drew up that re port were as accurate in their statements as the Right Hon. Gentleman, and perhaps a little more so. For they proceeded as follows :—" All the proceedings of the Duke of York in the management of the navy, either when he was Lord High Admiral, or after he came to the throne, are minutely detailed in a great number of manuscript vo. hones in the Pepysian Library at Cambridge, of which thirteen volumes have at our desire been sent for our perusal." They then proceeded to state the contents of those volumes. The House would recollect that the Right Hon. Gentleman had asserted that the Duke of York did not revoke or abolish the powers of the Nivy Board.—(Hear, hear, from Mr. Croker.) Well, upon that point, too, he would join issue with the Right Hon. Gentleman. The report proceeded:—" The powers granted to the Commissioners of the Admiralty and Navy Board were recalled—(Loud cries of " Hear," from the Ministerial benches)—and the entire management was put into the hands of the Duke as Lord High Admiral, to whom three new Commissioners were appointed to act with the Treasurer of the Navy, the Comptroller, the Surveyor-, and the Clerk of the Acts, as principal s l now e b eg management h y leave officers and C omm i ss i oners of the Navy. " He (Sir thi J. Graham) sa id th a t thi s was a new Board of Ad- ra n y, , w constructedthe Lord were. state TheyH ig what l I were A er d e l the most Admiral et ; t: st effects t and i he s tfaoctthoreys.k—ilf(tldielana a n r,l g ie e a m r. e ) nt 0:` the G Great progress," n pro f ilre i s r s n ,: k ' said and Pepys." The D u k e then went to take the command of the yNaneti w e report, " was made in the preparation of th e fl ee t, ow i ng hilfiehe et w du a r s iz p ig re t s l e ie ntto Dutch su paeviiarn.tend it Hec(id oinwll.trno io l c l t ed pp t riee i; the a lir iti vail duri ng hi s absence. A sudden change took place f° vy Board, b u t t h e same careful management .11 the wor se , w hi ch, on his resuming hismanagement at r home, w as i nstantly checked. The Duke then went abroad again for five years ; in his abs ence new men w e r e appoint e d to the Navy Board, without either experience or pi industry. What was the effect? Th at a ll was again su et head -quarters,—that waste that the navy becanse inefficient. At t P h r e ev e a n il i e l d' o — ft a i n v d e years th e D uke returned ; and . , o • n finding the mismanage ment which had taken i place • li the interval, su s p en d e d all the inei n b ers of the Nav y Board, and confi ne d t h e i r duties merely to the accounts. He then exercised similar autho rity to that which he had exercised previously to his leaving England. He appointed new Commissioners, but in the measures of Reform which he recommended the Members of the Navy Board were not displaced, they were only directed to confin e their attention to matters of ;lc count. Tire repo r t t h en proceeded to shrew the effect pro duced by this concentration of power. "In ten years and a half after the Commisioner s were appointed, the Kiog visited the dock. yards, an d f i ndi n g every inm his satisf act i on, lie dissolved the coission." He (Sir J. ) Grahan thing accomplished to 1 contended that this resolution on the part of the King amounted to a dissolution of the Navy Board, But. to proceed—" lie dissolved the commission with marks of his high approbation, and then restored the management to the regular Boards."—( Hear, hear.) That was conclusive proof to his mind that at that time the concentration of power was in the single Board over which the Lord High Admiral himself presided. The Right Hon. Gentleman • had proceeded to impugn his statement as to the di ,• t. obedience of the orders of the Board of Admiralty by these subordinate Boards. For proof of that statement he relied upon a speech made in that House en a former evening by an Hon. and Gallant Officer whom he saw opposite, and A up d o rn n ir t al e evidence which he hail given before the Finance Committee. lie had likewi4e relic] upon the opinions avowed by a Gallant Admiral opposite, who had given testimony seemed before insinuate s F i innuaantcee that he Committee, (sr which Graham)w a s much h u t h i though heososurgigigiuhatli thatt ade e : v ei e ,ri n et than to thnce wa that s h t o e s sn e toi mt opinions. The Gallant main tained that lie was fully justified o in n :: i a n ll t tr e N d d , i o n w g it t h o w e a i s tf y o e r t preserved in a form which made it cognizable to every member of Parliament, and i❑ a place to which every man who then heard him could resort at plea sure. The Gallant Admiral had said, that one use of these Boards was, to prevent the Board of Admiralty from going too fast ; and in the discussion which took place the last time that this Bill was before the House, be bad said that they were the drag-chain of the Board of Admi ralty. That expression was most appropriate, and he thanked the Gallant Officer for having used it. What was the evidence of another Hon. Gentleman who had occupied a seat at the Board of Admiralty? He had quoted his evidence upon a former occasion, and he would sow repeat it. He was asked this question :—" Do you conceive that the Admiralty require to be reinforced by any such authority, or that there does not reside in the council of the Lord High Admiral sufficient authority ?" His reply was,—" I conceive in subordinate departments, where parties are very much interested in maintaining an over-establishment, they are always inclined to make resist ance against any alterations which are to take away the emoluments of the department. Retrenchment is always ungracious; and it is constantly seen, when there is any great class of reduction effected in any department, that the views advocated by the parties interested against the reduction are very well backed by Members of Parliament and others connected with them. If this Committee think that the Admiralty are right in the general views which they entertain, I have no doubt that their sanction mid authority, or their recommendation in favour of the vietes of the Admiralty, will be extremely useful." On what ground, he would ask, was it that the lion. Member for Dumfries-shire thought that the limited:intervention of this House would be necessary ? He was sure that the lion. Member, from contemplating the resistance of the subordi nate orders, knew that it existed, and that it had too often proved successful. No one could concur more strongly than he (Sir Jame■ Graham) concurrediin the high eulogium passed upon the character of the Gallant Officer on the other side of the House. But the Gallant Officer had argued as if he (Sir James Graham), in introducing this measure, was not backed by any professional authority. Now he appealed to the Gallant Officer whether there were not in the present Board of Admiralty officers who stood as high in their profession as men could do.— (Hear.) He stated unequivocally to the House that he introduced this measure with the unanimous consent of all his colleagues in the Admiralty, given after they had had fifteen months' experience in the toils of office. They were all of opinion that by the direct controul which it would give the Admiralty over the subordinate Boards, their labours would not be increased, but diminished. But, said the Right Hon. Gentleman, " all this proceeds from the thirst of uncontroulled power, which at present pos sesses the Baird of Admiralty." Here it appeared to him that the Right Hon. Gentleman, with all his ability, was guilty of some inconsistency; far first he said that the Board of Admiralty is hunting after new powers which i does not at present possess ; and then he read the paten by which the different Boards were constituted, clear , . and incontestably proving, that in every case where the Board of Admiralty interfered the sale duty of the other Boards was to obey its orders. What, then, was his objection to the present e)stem ? That the Board of Admiralty was not at present always cognizan , of the steps taken by the subordinate Boards, and that it had therefore no controul over them within such a period as made it a real and efficient controul.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had also paid him a compli ment, in replying, not to hie speech of the other night, but to a speech which he had made in the course of last session on what he must still call the misappropriation of the public money. The Right Hon. Gentleman had ad verted to what he had said respecting the opinion of Mr. Hatsell and of Mr. Potts on that point, and had endea voured to show that he (Sir J. Graham) must be in error, because at the time when Mr. Hatsell wrote, the Appro piration Act did not apply to the estimates for the naval force. But the Right Hon. Gentleman ought not to have forgotten that in 1798 the Appropriation Act was ex tended to those estimates also. He admitted that when Mr. Hatsell and Mr. Potts wrote, it was neither the law nor the practice to have those estimates strictly appro priated. But since their time the ltw had been altered, though not the practice. The Right Hon. Gentleman asserted that the practice never accorded with the law. Why, that was the very charge which he brought against the Right Hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. He said that the practice which they had followed was a vicious practice, for which nothing like satisfactory defence could be offered. " But," continued the Right Hon. Gentle man, " no loss was ever sustained by this practice." Not but loss might have been sustained by it; and sure he was that if it had been suffered to continue, loss would have been sustained by it. The Right Hon. Baronet, after sonic almost inaudible observations in reply to Mr. Croker's animadversions on the naval administration of Earl Spen cer, proceeded to remark that during the last four years that the colleagues of the Right Hon. Gentleman were power, this practice had been carried to a more dangerou, extent than it had ever been carried at any previous period, He challenged the Right Hon. Gentleman to adduce, i he could, any instance in the time of Lord Spencer's naval administration, in which the estimates sent in the subordinate Boards to the Board of Admiralty were greater than the votes submitted by the Board of Admi ralty to Parliament.—(lle ir, hear.) On a former occa sion he had stated that there were two cases—the one, A mill at Deptford, and the other certain works at Woolwich, —in which the estimates sent in to the late Board of Ad miralty by the subordinate Boards were each 10,0001. hiss than the estimates subsequently submitted to Parliament by that very same Board of Admiralty.—.(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) " Then," said the Right Hon. Gentleman, " whatever be the blame of this misappropria tion, it must rest with the Board of Admiralty, which failed to controul it, and not with the subordinate Boards, which perpetrated it." He stated that it wa. very difficult to ascertain where the blamtt ought to rest, for the com munications between these Boards were carried on by wore of mouth only, and there was no trace to he discovered ol the authority upon which the subordinate Boards acted. The evil consequences of this system were cu well put by Earl St. Vincent, that he would take the liberty of laying before the House tha sentiments which he had expressed upon it in his place in the House of Lord'', in 1805 E irl St. Vincent said—" With respect to the Ministeria: communications between the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Comptroller, it is one of the great vices of Navy Board, and serves no other purpose but to screen them from all responsibility ; for when called on to ac- count for disobe , iience to the most positive orders from the superior Board, the constant reply is, that the Comptroller explained the reason in a Ministerial com munication with the late First Lord." Lie (Sir .1. Graham) believed that, in the examination of some cases which were then pending, the country would hear a little more of these Ministerial communications with the late First Lord.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gen tleman, in speaking of the misappropriation of the public money, had admitted it to be most unconstitutional to coaarnence any public work without previously submitting the estimate to Parliament. He (Sir J. Graham) had, however, stated five cases in which this bad been done, and curiously enough it happened, that four out of the five cases in which the expenditure had commenced before any vote of Parliament was obtained to sanction it, were cases which had occurred in the time of the late Administration. The Right lion. Gentleman had also stated that the sur plus of the different grants voted was regularly carried to the general service of the year. He admitted that such was the fact ; and it was owing to his having found a very large surplus under the head of " Timber" on coining into office, that he had been enabled to carry on the navy ser vice so long without applying to Parliament for fresh funds. But what was the explanation which the Right Hon. Gentleman had given respecting this surplus ? Mostjejune and unsatisfactory. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, " Under the head of wages, you will find that a deficiency of money was voted." He (Sir J. Graham) contended that nothing could be more unconstitutional than the keeping up a larger number of men than that voted by Parliament, and the paying their wages out of the surplus belonging to other grants. He assured the House that during the last year there had not in any part of the world been one boy borne on the books of the navy more than the maximum for which he had asked wages during the Sear.—(Hear, hear.) — Passing from these minor topics, he would now proceed to his observations upon the measure itself. lie would first remind the House that the most important provisions of this Bill were that which created a controul in the Board of Admiralty over the subordinate Boards, which did pot exist at present, and which he deemed highly necessary. The Right Hon. Gentleman consPered that the total amount of estimates voted for the naval service of the year was applicable to any particular estimate, and that the money granted Was not restricted to the professed r urpm for which it was granted. That yeas a drctrin-, or he should rather sty a practice, which he looked upon as the primary cause of all the evils which pervaded these depart ments. In the next place he would remind the House that this Bill, if the House should sanction it, would con vert a nominal into a real and efficient controul. Sir Jas. Graham proceeded to inform the House that lie proposed to re-enact the audit, which was sanctioned by the Act of the 2d of William 111. Asthe audit at the end of the year could not be either a perfect or a final audit until all the accounts were furnished, be proposed to keep the account open until all the other accounts were received, even from the most distant parts of the world. He would keep the audit also open until two months after all the account! were closed with their vouchers; and then the expendiT', ture on each head, whether it be a surplus or a defies ciency, should be fairly statad to Parliament. He said that this was the best answer to the objection which the Right Hon. Gentleman had urged against the measure which he had introduced, for it proved the titter ab surdity of his having introduced it with a view of getting irresponsible power to that department over which lie presided. Then, said the Right lion. Gentleman, the effect of this measure will be to make the Board of Adrni ratty an accountin g Board. Now the Board of Admiralty under this Bill would not be more of an accounting Board than the Navy Board was at present, and every body knew that the Navy Board was not an accounting _Ward: Not one of the least recommendation s of the measure itself was the arrangement by which the officers to constitute the Board would hold hold their appointments, not by patent hut by warrant, and greater facilities would be thus afforded for their removal. The measure would en sure the certainty of a due fulfilment of the duties, and the imperfect controul which had formerly existed would be removed, and the officers would have the controul over all the Boards. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, with great pathos, had asked what was to liecome of the Secretary to the Admiralty. He begged to assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that Mr. Barrow, the present Secretary, from whom he (Sir I. Graham) had received every assist ance (though he differed with him in politics), for the promotion of the welfare and interests of the service over which he had the honour to hold the guardianship—_ (Hear)—that gentleman had, with perfect consistency, maintained his political sentiments, and had given him (Sir J. Graham) that assistance which he felt proud to avow, and should ever remember with the most grateful feelings : and Mr. Barrow not only thinks this measure practical, but salutary, and that it would have the effect of correcting many of those grievances which he well knows to have existed. By the opinion of Mr. Barrow, he felt fortified in the strong sentiment he entertained in favour of this measure,—a measure by which he gained no patronage, as, indeed, he sought none; but he im plored the House, for the sake of the service over which he most humbly superintended—he entreated the House, for the sake of that service, to allow the Bill to be read a second time.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS could not help reminding :he House of the great inconvenience whisk would arise ,n the several departments affected by the provisions of the Bill introduced by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite. The provisioas iu that measure were quite incompatible with the due discharge of the duties of the Board now to be established. It was true that a saving might be made of from 2,0001. to 3,0001., but it was to be at the sacrifice of an efficient performance of the duties. Sir BYAM MARTIN with respect to the provisions of the Bill, would first look at those who it was intended should constitute the new Board. In the place of Sir Robert Seppings, an officer highly distinguished, was to come Captain Symons, and the important dirties of the former were to devolve upon an unprofessional man ; for though than Captain Symons a better officer never stood upon a quarter-deck, yet he knew that he did not under stand the business of a shipwright, and he would venture to say, that if Captain Symons was asked the question, he would admit that he was unfit for the office. if the pro posed measure was carried into effect, the multiplicity of documents daily to be teemed upon the new Board would make it necessary fur a van to bring them down. In proof of this he begged to state, that during the period he had himself held office, no less than 158,000 issue notes had come before them in one day; and at the period when postage was charged, the expenditure in that parti. cider was 4601. daily. By the appointment of Captain Symons, a great injustice also would he done to many de serving and able superior officers at present at the head of the various dock-yards, who had a right to look for and expect that promotion to which their services had justly entitled them ; and further, by seeking to carry this mea sure, the Right Hon. Baronet would occasion hi.. Majesty to break faith with the apprentices, who h,d served 12 and 11 years in the dock-yards, under a pledge of promotion, of which, notwithstanding that pledge, this me isure would deprive them. Indeed, such was their alarm that he (Sir B. Martin) had this day received a letter from one of them, soliciting his interference in getting him employed under some private company. If the Right Hon. Baronet would adopt the suggestion made by his Right Hon. and Gallant Friend, and unite the Navy and Victualling Boards, a great saving would be made, without the danger of rendering complicated the duties, and thereby injuring the naval ser vice. In reference to the reduction in the expenditure at the d. ck-yards of 49 0001., as suggested by the Right Hon. Ilaronet, he could not but remind him, that by doing so, he would discharge from 11,000 to 12,000 men, at all 'macs prepared in case 01 war, speedily to equip a fleet, and he thought this reduction would incapacitate the Admiralty !I-0m accompl siring such an equipment in case of need.' Sir G. CLERK could not avoid remarking that the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, that the Navy Board had been abolished in 1660 was founded in a:l . °r. Commissioners had been appointed at that period for the express purpose of correcting abuses and errors that more supposed then to exist; but the Navy Board in point of fact had never been abolished. It was too much that on such erroneous authority the Right Hon. Baronet should advise his Majes!y to abolish the Navy and Vic tualling Boards ; and the House had a right to complain that the Right Hon. Baronet had not looked for and re ferred them to better authorities for such a measure as that now before the House. He held in his harol a report from the Commissioners who had been appointed, and who had searched the records of the Navy Board, and they state, that at the restoration of Charles 11., that monarch constituted the Navy Board under the Great Seal, consist ing of a Surveyor, Storekeeper, Secretary, and other offi cers ; and that in 1660 three Commissioners were adihd to the Board to assist in the discharge of the duties ; and also that in January, 1661, the Duke of York, then Lord High Admiral of England, issued and introduced a series of instructions for the guid once of those officers in the dis charge of the duties reposed in them. In 1666, one of these Commissioners so appointed was directed to take upon himself the examination of the victualling ac counts ; and in 1671, the storekeeper's accounts were assigned to him for auditing. These returns showed to the House and the Right Hon. Baronet, that the Navy Board was at this period an existing independent Hoard, and they further showed that in 1683, the Victualling Board was established, and had continued up to the present time. The next argument which the Right Ron. Baronet bad urged in support of the measure, was tOunded on an opinion expressed by the late Lord St. Vin cent in the House of Lords in 1605. In that opinion he (Sfr George Clerk) could not concur. But the true ques raou was, would this Bill remedy the evils of which the Right lion. Baronet complained ? No, not any of the evils would be remedied. The Board of Admiralty would have a more unlimited power to carry their objects into effect ; and if he were sure of always having an econo mical Admiralty Board and a profuse Navy Board, the Bill might do good ; but it was more likely to be the reverse ; it was more likely that the Admiralty would incur mine sessary expense, than if their measures passed the ordeal of a strict examination at the Navy Board. HC (Sir G. Clerk) could not conceal his disappointment at the Right Hon. Baronet's system of auditing accounts. The manner in which the accounts were now laid before Parliament afforded a better check than the proposed system of audit. If the Audit-office were able to examine such voluminous accounts between November and January, only two months, he could only say that public accountants had just reason to complain of the past conduct of that Board. But it was perfectly impossible that the accounts could be so audited. Another objection to the Bill was, that it made the subordinate officers liable to be changed at every accession of new Ministry; whereas, under the present system, officers in the navy departments, not con nected with political duties, were not chan g ed any more than the Boards of Customs and Excise. He did not think that the question of economy, where the saving was so small, ought to weigh against the advantages of the present system ; the question was whether the business would be better conducted under the system benefit than s of t h eit presentilad been eyat e nu,n was,der the that old. d prevented a 'stem it necessary expenditure. Under the profrse l ss ) •hatever would be impossible for the Board of Act i oira y t e ho ' se of Mr. were the talents of the members, aider 7the navy would would fall into arrear, and the efficiency 0 . barges of lavish expenditure be impaired. Whatever c trati fono t le navy. d -igainst the late adman* might be ma e f the public service had never been more this branch o H would remind the Hon. Batonet, that when . 4, efficient. e Barrow, to get through the mass o . f corr. i L Y nadence which Air. Canning proposed to send a naval force to the Tagus, 0 rie o n u the_ three days after he had intimate,[ his wish twelve t , hips, of