The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-07 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Ar2m. 6.

On the motion of Sir M. S. SrxwexT, the Lags Har.
hour Bid wa. read a third time, and posed.
Mr. TREVOR presented a petition from some place,
the name of which we could not hear, against the Birming-
ham at.d London Railway Bid.
Mr. EVANS preseuttd a petition from the leaseholders,
hankers, merchants, and trader. of L. ire-ter, in favour of
the Birmingham and London Rail-way Bill.
Mr. BUCK presented a petition froth the parish of
Allhallows, Exeter, against the Exeter Improvement Bill.
Mr. DIXON presented a petition from John Lang, a
writer in Glasgow, praying to be heard by Counsel *0..4
the Bill f.r making a railway between Ednibirith
Glasgow. The Hon. Memlier then moved the third read-
ing of the 13111 for extending the period for building th•
Alditional bridge over the river Dee, at Criester.
On the motion of Mr. Dun sins, tile season.' lea bri;,•: of
Morton's Patent Slip Bill was postpurwil t .ii.y
ftic. •
On the motion cf /sir T. Faxamaßrta, the House
vent into a eorntsitele on Gel. eiltrhee 13,cr.rre slll,
Sir G. Cx.sax in site Qbair. Al;. ilAttivel &ppearsd 114

sJuubel tur the petitioner, Atter several wittiest.% had been
examined,

The House resumed, and the report was brought up.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the Vicar,
Clitir;:hwardens, and Trustees of St. Pancras Church,
Middlesex, against the Metropolitan Cemetery Bill.
M. HUME gave notice tat he would move on Mon-
day for a return of the number of persons holding more
than one dignity or livimz, with the salaries attached.
A message from the Lords announced that their Lord-
ships had giver. their concurrence to several private Bills.
Colonel DAVIES moved for a return of the expenditure
of the colony of New South Wales, Van Dieman's Land,
during last yea, on account of the transportation of con-
victs.

Mr. BURKE preened two petitions, most respectably
signed, against the present system of education in Ireland.
Captain GORDON bore testimony to the respectability
and importance of the petitioners ; they were of that class
in society which entitled their opinions to the highest
consideration.

Mr. TREVOR was sure, that however advantageous
were considered the general principles of education, unless
they wire grounded upon true scriptural doctrines, they
wool•] be of little importance.

Mr. I.EFROY, in supporting the petitions, called
the attention of his Majesty's Government particularly
to the fact, that not only was the feeling of England and
Ireland generally against this measure; but, what was more
extraordinary, the whole bench of Bishops, entirely so, as
a system of religious instruction. He hoped this would
induce them to retrace their steps, and to leave the matter
as it was before, under the Kildare•street Society system.
Mr. RUTEIVEN thought it was not placing the bench
of Bishops in a very attractive attitude to introduce them,
as the Hon. Member below him had done, as the enemies
of general knowledge and instruction. He hoped, at all
events, that their exertions would not, if directed in that
way, be of ivy avail.
Mr. LLFROY had not represented the bench of
Bishops as the enemies of education—he had only adduced
their opposition to this measure, as he had a right to do,
as a system of religious education, to prove that it was not
a system that should be sanctioned either by the Legisla-
ture or the nation.
In answer to a question from Mr. Gisaoasr,
Lord ALTHORP informed the House that the Com-
mittee to he appoitited to inquire into the propriety of re-
newing the Bank Charter would be a secret Committee :
it would be the safer and more advisable course to pursue
in this instance, that the deliberations and resu'ts of the
inquiry instituted by the Committee should not be suffered
to transpire by detail during its sittings. By making it a
secret Committee the whole question would come before
the House in a collected and methodised manner, with all
the necessary details and documents to enable it to form a
deliberate opinion upon a subject of such vital importance
to the puhl c and to individuals.
NAVY CIVIL DEPARTMENTS BILL.

On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM, the House re-
solved itself into a Committee on this Biil, Mr. Bernal is
the Chair.

Sir G. COCKBURN begged leave to call the attention of
the Committee for a few moments to the principal tendency
this measure. The Bill, as it was represented to them,
was framed for the purpose of giving more efficient con-
trol over the management of public expenditure in the
civil departments. His opinion of it wrot, that it would be
much mere inoperative for this purpose, as it appeared,
than as the Boards were formerly constituted. If
an admission audit were applied to the former ac-
counts, a touch more efficient measure than that now
proposed, would have been the result. The Ha-
nourable Member for Middlesex had stated on a previous
evening that, under the operation of this Bill, accounts
would at least be as efficiently managed as under the
former system ; but the principle of this measure, be
would remind the committee, was to make an improve-
ment. It was a tevotirite prinriple in the Finance Cern.
mittee, that individual responsibility should be put on those
who were in charge ot the different department., as that
was the only means of securing adequately their attention;
under this system, however individual responsibility
was studiously taken away. The only person men-
tioned in ;Le Bill, and that for a particular purpose, was
the Accountant-G. netal, and all the re ponsibility that
was formerly afforded to the public would now be done
away with. What was to be substituted for it ? A Lord
of the Admiralty was to be placed over each department.
To remedy the evils complained of, it would be much better
if the individuals that were intended to be placed at the
heads of the departments were constituted into a
Board by themselves, having no distinct responsibility
fur the due execution of their duties. The auditing of ac-
ceunts which was proposed under this system was all a
pretence, to which he saw every possible objection. There
was no sufficient responsibility any where, and those per-
sons who had the centred were kept in the back ground.
He was sure if all the details were to be brought
officially to the Admiralty, those who had to over-
look the whole, could not by any possibility do their
duty. If at this moment it were set to work, it could
not go on for any length of time, even in peace ; but
if a war took place, it would completely stand
unlese, indeed, it were left to others than those chiefs
who were entirely irresponsible. The Board of Ordnance
wag the Board which had been more particularly held
tip as a pattern, than any other Board. Where that
Board differed from the present was this—in the Board of
Ordnance the chiefs of each department formed themselves
into a separate Board, and they hid a chief over them—
the Commander-in-Chief—and they were each respon-
eible, one to the other. The whole thing, therefore, might
be traced to the Commander-in-Chief, who certainly had
his subordinate agents, but who was responsible for the
whole. Here the principle ought to be the same ; there
ought to be responsible, instead of irresponsible, persons
appointed. Wi;la these observations of objection he had
prepared a proposition which, he thought, would meet the
veoss he bad been holding nut to the Committee,
a id which was to the effect, leaving out the greater part
of the clause as it now stood, that after the number
of persons were reduced, an adequate specified number
should be appointed to superintend respectively one of
the several branches into which the civil department of
the navy might be divided, such posolis, however,
to be assisted by a chairman to conduct the business of the
respective Beards, the whole to be subject to such arrange-
ments as the person holding the situation of Lord High
Admiral should from time to time direct.
Sir B. MARTIN, in seconding the Amendment, went
into detail to show the improper mode in which the posted
ledger was made up. When he intended to move for cer-
tain returns, tie Secretary of the Admiralty wrote to
the Navy Board, to ascertain certain particulars up to the
lit Oct knowing that he (Sir B. Martin) left office on
the 15,11 Sept. as if for the purpose of showing that the
blame, it any, attached solely to him, and showing what
number of clerks, and what was the time which was
ecciipied by them.—(Hesr, heir, hear.) The answer
of the Navy Board completely removed all particle of
blame from the Navy Board and placed it on the Admi-
ralty Board. By a paper which load been laid on the
table ot the House, it appeared that at the time when the
Right Hon. Baronet stated there were large arrears, there
were no arrears at all. It was said that Lord Melville
had effected a reduction in the Navy .yards, so as to leave
only an establishment of 6,000 men ; that order, upon
looking at it, signed by Lord Melville, instead of
making such a reduction, did not go to reduce the
number of meu, but to :educe the wages, and to cause
the payment of what was called ship-money to cease,
rather tiler, order the discharge of the men. The Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) then required the re-
duction to be made to 6,000 men, and the expenses to be
made correspondent with that number, and it was-
charged that the Navy Board did not obey those instruc-
tions. He (Sir Byam Martin) referred to the Ad-
miralty letters, in which the reports of the
Navy Board in reference to the obeying of those
orders were highly approved of. As to the charge against
tee Navy Board, that no reduction in the estimates had
been made, he had an order signed by a Lord of the Ad-
miralty, showing, that in 1829, the wages of the men
amounted 480,0001., and in the following year 445,0001.,
therefore there was a reduction of 35,0001. Therefore,
it Was extraordinary that every charge made by the Right
Him. Baronet against the Navy Board was erroneous.
The Hou. Baronet (Sir B. Martin) proceeded to detail
(Aker items in which reductions bad been made, to show
that Instead of 250 men discharged, as stated by the Right
Hon. Baronet, it amounted to 657, and including inferior
officers the total number discharged would be 720 user
Therefore the Right lion. Baronet in all his points
to
prove the disobedience of the Navy Board failed,and the
documents he had referred to contradicted hiTh. Then
as to the embezzlement of five tons of copper, it was extra-
ordinary that of the elsa -gee of neglect agaiest the Navy
Board, the paltry embezzlement of five tens of copper
should he brought forward. He investigated that circum-
stance, the particulars of which he explained, and stated
that he first head of it by a letter from Birmingham,
asking if it was illegal to purchase copper bearing
the King's mark. His answer was seat by a Bow-
street officer, and upon inquiry he found the embezzle-
ment could not be discovered, owing to the system adopted
by the Navy Board. Then as to the charge of making
imprudent contracts ; why, that charge should be brought
against the Navy Board, where all the contreca were made
with the approbation of the Admiralty. The Right Hon.
Baronet did not entirely rely upon his own judge

ot, but said be had the authority of Mr. Barrow,
tlw the Admiralty could undertake the management
,if ;t.I the business of the subordinate hoards, beside that of
its own. Mr. Burrow, in his evidence before the Finance
arnittee, said that he did not k :ow how the Admiralty
thiieers could be reduced, for they were all fully
winked, and then there were several Lords of the
A.Lniralty—now there was but one, was it likely he could
undertake the duties of the Admiralty and the subor•
dictate offices? Vie were introducing a system which the
Fri•nch had just abolished, and doing away with our Navy
Big lrd at the very time that the French, following our
fornrr example, had adopted that very system. So
struck were they with our superiority that they had their
Navy, Victualling, and other Boards. Even the Ameri-
cans were adopting our plan. As the Bill had been
stripped of all the strong groun is which originally reconi-
mrnded it, he trusted that the Right Hon. Baronet would
not persist in it, or that, if he did, the House would not
Airport him by adopting it. If he were not afraid of
being charged with having lent himself to an under cur-
rent, he would suggest the ituproprie•y of that provision
of the Bill which related to the 18 persons who were
educated at the Naval College at Portsmouth. Those
persons were brought into the service under an Order in
Council, by which they were assured, as a condition of
their entering the service, that they should be competent
to rise to the highest stations in it. That was no inure
than fair, since, after a seven years' apprenticeship, they
were compelled on entering the service to give a bond of
8001., as a security for their remaining not less than 10
years in it. He asked the House then to be cautious how
it made itself a party to the act of injustice now in pro-
gress, by which men not educated to surveying were to be
employed, to the imminent hazard of that important
branch of the public service, and to the utter ruin of the
individuals, who, devoting 17 years of their life to the gain-
ing of knowledge and experience, received his Majesty's
assurance that they should be preferred.
Sir J. GRAHAM begged to allude to the observations
made by the Hon. and Gallant Officer who had just sat
down, arid in whom he had regretted to observe some
little irritation. The Hon. and Gallant Officer had
charged him (Sir J. Graham) with misrepresentation of
fact ; it therefoie became necessary that he should again
briefly advert to the statement which he had made. The
first point which the Hon. and Gallant Officer had made
related to what he (Sir J. Graham) had said with respect
to the great arrear of the store ledeer. The llon. and
Gallant Member then admitted that when he went out of
office that ledger was in arrear, but he said that that was

in consequence of an order of the Board of Admiralty,
which rendered it impossible that it could be kept up close.
Now what was the fact ? In consequence of a remon-
strance which he (Sir James Graham) had made on com-
ing into office to the Board of Admiralty, the arrear, not-
withstanding the reduction of the establishment—not-
withstanding the diminution of the number of clerks, and
thepressure of current business, was, in February, coin-
pletely swept away, while the whole every-day business
was at the same time punctually transacted. So much
then for the first point. The second to which the Hon.
and Gallant Officer alluded was the construction which he
(Sir J. Graham) had put upon a letter which related to
the reduction of the establishment fer the dock-yards,
dated the 9th of January, 1800. Tlie Non. and Gallant
Officer must allow him to say that he thought be would
have dealt a little more candid') and a little more fairly,
if, when adverting to the construct' m put upon that
letter, he bad read the whole instead of a part of it. He
(Sir James Graham) w•uld read the letter and would
then leave it to the Cwrnmittee to say whether he had put
a wrong construction upon it. The Right Hon. Bironet
s,•cordingly read the letter, and maintained that he had
acted in strict conformity with its instructions. As to
the abstraction of the five tons of copper from the dock-
yard at Chatham, the next point to which the Hon. and
Gallant Officer had alluded, he thought that the Hon. and
Gall .nt Officer's own admission was sufficient to prove the
accuracy of his (Sir J Graham's) statement that the store
ledger was n,:t carefully kept, since it appeared that the
first information which the Hon. and Gallant Officer had
received of the theft, was not through any officer of the
yard, but from the person at Birmingham to whom the
copper hid been sold.

Mr. ROBINSON here rose, and observed that he saw
stran.!ers in the gallery'.

Strangers were immediately ordered to withdraw, and,
the gallery having been cleared, the Haute, as we were in-
formed, was counted, but upwards of forty 31 -tubers being
present, the debate proceeded. On our re-admission we
found

Sr JAMES GRAHAM con.inuing his observations.
The consolidation of the Navy Board with that of the
Admiralty would be the means of saving much expense,
and, at the same time, would simplify and facilitate the
transaction of business. That was the opinion of his
predecessor, who had expressed himself in favour of the
plan comprised in the Bill then under consideration. With
every r-spect for the opinions and consistency of the
Itght Hon. and Gdlant Gentlemen opposite, he must sly
that there appeared to him to he a most extraordinary dis..
crepincy between the observations which they had mane
that evening, and the evidence which they gave before
the Finance Committee with respect to the consolidation
of the Navy and Admiralty Boards. The object which
he (Sir J. Graham) had in view, was to do away with
al subordinate Boards, and to form one Consolidat.d
Board. From all the minor Boards, as they at present
existed, an appeal was made to the Board of Admiralty,
whose decision was supreme, and must he acted upon.
Thus it was that the opinions of the subordinate Board

were over-ruled by Cie Board of Admiralty ; and then,
it followed that those whose opinions were set aside were
compelled to carry into execution works which were
directly contrary to their judgment. Hence arose a
want of energy and vigour which was hiehly detri-
mental to the public service, and which could not be
got rid of ex, ept by such a consolidation of the
Boards as was now proposed.—(Hear.) That consolida-
tion once effected, he would undertake to say that, under
the head of correspondence alone, a reduction of thirty
clerks might be made. At present seventy clerks were
employed to perform that p irt of the business; but, if the
Boards were united, forty would he sufficient. As to the
selection of officers, he must contend that no enactment
could be made upon that point; it must he felt to the
Executive to select such persons as in their consciences
they believed to he fit and competent. It had been slid
that the Bill would do away with individual responsibi-
lity. That he denied. Individual responsibility would
he increased to a very material extent. Objections, he
thought, had properly been made on the ground that part
of the business was still to be done at the Admiralty anti
part at Somerset House. He perfectly agreed that the
whole business ought to be done under one roof ; but his
principle was, to go on gradually and to feel hie way before
he proceeded to consolidate more Boards. Gentlemen on
the other side complained that there was no balance sheet.
That complaint, he thought, came with a bad grace from
men who hid been voting away million after million with-
out any balance-sheet at alt. His balance-sheet, he readily
adtnitted was imperfect, but it could not be otherwise
while the accounts front foreign stations were not yet re-
ceived. He had, however, effected a commencement, and
usted that in-time the system would-become more correct.
Sir B. MARTIN explained, and said that mane of the
persons now selected to Litt as surveyors were totally unfit
for the situation, and those best qualified had been dis-
placed. He had been displaced by the Government, and,
he thought, very properly, because he was not a man that
would act with them. Ile would not join with them in
the Reform Bill, and above all he could not vote with
them on Lord Ebrington's motion.

Sir THOMAS TROWBRIDGE said the old system
produced great inconvenience from the clashing of the in-
ferior Boards with the superior. The Gallant Officer
then adduced two inatances to prove the correctness of his
statement.

Sir GEORGE CLERK said the arguments of the
Right Hon, Baronet had been so fully answered by his
Right Hun. Friend (the late Secretary to the Admiralty)
that it would be only waste of time to say a word more in
answer to them. The Right Hon. Baronet had adduced
two further complaints against the Navy Board, which be
contended were totally unfounded. That particularly re-
lative to arrears in the Navy Board was unfounded, inas-
much as the greater part of the arrears had arisen since
the accession, the present Government, and in conse-
quence, the change in one department, which had been
made in November, 1830, was found so inconvenient that
recourse to the former system was found necessary. e
would support the amen,lment of his Hon. Friend, which
was to this effect—that the Navy and Victualling Boards
should be amalgamated, although he should not have pr,)-
posed it. But he conceived that this was a preferable
mode to that which the Bill suggested. He objected also
to the Bill, because it was an unfair mode of shrinkins
from responsibility.
Mr. HUME said, s.omething bad been said respecting
the expenses to which the country had been put in educat-
ing persons for naval architecture, and on this subject he
had more than once cal ed she attention of the House. It
was to be regretted that, of the eighteen individuals who
had been so educated for a series of years at a considerable
expense, not one could be selected to succeed Sir Robert
Sepping, but that an officer of the navy was obliged to be
appointed He did not agree with the Right Hon. Baro-
net who had last addressed the Cominiftee in what he had

stdted as to the rrspondibility in tiie proper (pi inter being
rewoved, He believed, on the contrary, that it would

sty, ogthen that re•puusibility. But it had also here muti-
❑u_ted that ao great saving would be accomplished. Why,
the Right Hon. Baronet opposite had already stated that
out of 70 clerks who had been heretofore employed, 40
only were retained, and they were sufficiently numerous to
transact the business. It was impossible to doubt that
had not the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the
Admiralty, been fully persuaded of the practicability of
the plan, he would not have proposed it ; nor could it
consistently be imagined that he had brought the
matter forward withont due inquiry and deliberation.
He (Mr. Hume) thought, not only in point of money
would the Bill be found to effect economy, but also
in time.—( Hear.) By getting rid of the two steps which
intervened between the applicants and Government, ecos
noiny in time was effected, and a promptitude in the cor-
respondence also followed ; for it had been admitted that
the correspondence being carried on between one Board
and another until it reached the fountain head, caused not
delay only, but much additional labour, which would not
he accomplished but by having a numerous body of clerks.
The great object of the Bill would be rendered nugatory
by the amendment, and he was, therefore, opposed to its
adoption.

Mr. GOULBURN, upon a consideration of this ques-
tion, felt that it was a change proposed upon scarcely any
other ground than that it was a change in the existing
system. When he reflected on the polit;cal ferments which
might possibly tike place in the country, he thought it
was the more necessary that the practical parts of the ad-
ministr ition of public business should be left as permanent
as possible.

Admiral ADAM supported the original resolution.
Mr. K. DOUGLAS thought that the Admiralty was
not competent to perform the duties of all those hoards
now in existence. He supported she amendment.
Lord INGESTRIE objected to the want of responsiuility
which could not fail to prevail under the present Bill. On
the whole, he was of opinion that the change would prove
detrimental to the service.

Captain YORKE also objected to the change which
this Bill contemplated. Toe present experiment was not
a new one. It had been tried before—and, after ten years'
experience, had been given up as inefficient.
Mr. C. PELHAAI made a few observations, which were
inaudible in the g &cry. We understood him to be opposed
to the Bill.
The gallery was then cleared for a division ; when there
appeared—

For the original motion
For the amendment 5O
Majority against the amendment —6B
The several clauses were then agreed to, the House re-
sumed, and the report was ordered to he received on Mon-
day next.

Mr. T. F. BUXTON postponed his motion on Colonial
Slavery until the 18th of May.

POLAND.

Mr. C. FERGUSSON postponed his motion relative to
the state of Poland until Fi iday next. He trusted that
in the mean time Ministers would reflect upon the state of
that unfortunate country. It appeared that orders were
issu,d by the Emperor of Russia, on the 26th of February
last, which if carried into operation, would have the effect
of destroying the political existence of Poland, contrary to
the first article of the treaty of Vienna. He trusted that
Ministers would be prepared by that night to consider the
injustice of those orders, as respected thei being in direct
violation of the treaty of Vienna, which it was for the
honour and character of Great Britain, in this instance,
to maintain.