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

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 same commission existed at the present
. The Right Hon. Baronet had fallen into the
Boardror as Pepys 's editor, by mistaking the Admiralty
for the Navy Board. Still this would not account
Boathe Right Hon. Baronet having stated that the Navy
liih was abolished at the Restoration. When the Lord
er th g Admiral returned from abroad, he induced his bro-
to revoke the commission which had been appointed ;
but as to the Navy Board and the Victualling Board having
been b •
olished
the Victnallin; nothing of the kind occurred. In fact,
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 him from what book he had
puke of York‘ a laugh.) When James 11. (then
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 the 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 expenditure of which he had no knowledge, 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 perdition.—(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
ebraesifsulloufwveidtailiipty,
he ventured to foretell that it would be found completely
and
daalteetriivnigty.prinlcfiptlhees
pwrhesiechnt
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 come; go, and they
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 Commissioners of the Navy." He (Sir
thi
J. Graham) said that this was a new Board of Ad-
ra
ny,
, w constructedthe Lord
were.
state
TheyH ig
what l I
were
Aerde l
the
most
Admiral
et ;t:
st
effects
tandi
he
s-
tfaoctthoreys.k—ilf(tldielana
anr,lgieeamr.e)nt
0:`
theG Great progress,"
n
profilreisrsn,:k' saidand
Pepys." The Duke then went to take the command of
the
yNaneti w e
report, " was made in the preparation of the fleet, owing
hilfiehe et
wduarsizpigretsleientto Dutchsu paeviiarn.tend it Hec(id
oinwll.trno iolcl tedpptrieei;
thea liriti
vail during his absence. A sudden change
took place f°
vy Board, but the same careful management
.11
the worse, which, on his resuming hismanagement atr
home, was instantly checked. The Duke then went
abroad again for five years ; in his absence new men were
appointed to the Navy Board, without either experience or
pi
industry. What was the effect? That all was again su-
et head-quarters,—that waste
that the navy becanse inefficient. At tPhreeveanilield'o—ftainvde years the Duke returned ; and., o• n finding the mismanage-
ment which had taken i
place •
li the interval, suspended all
the ineinbers of the Navy Board, and confined their 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 confine their attention to matters of ;lc-
count. Tire report then proceeded to shrew the effect pro-
duced by this concentration of power. "In ten years and a
half after the Commisioners were appointed, the Kiog visited
the dock. yards, and finding every
inm
his satisfaction, 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
Aupdornnirtale 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
sFi innuaantcee
that
he Committee,(sr which
Graham)w a s much
hu
thi
though
heososurgigigiuhatli
thatt adee:veie,rinet than
to thnce wa
that
sh
toessnetoi
mt opinions. The Gallant
main-
tained that lie was fully justified oinn::ianllttreNdd,ionwgitthowe
aistfyoert
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 accounting 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 recommendations 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 changed 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
systembenefit thans
of t h
eit
presentilad beeneyat e
nu,n
was,der the
that old.
d prevented a 'stem it
necessary expenditure. Under the profrsel
ss)•hatever
would be impossible for the Board of Actioira y
teho'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. iLYnadence which
Air. Canning proposed to send a naval force to the Tagus,
0 rie onu the_
three days after he had intimate,[ his wish twelve t,hips, of

he line were ready, and on their way down the Channel. '
The Hon. Baronet concluded by expressing his regret that
there ,hould have been brought forward, on such slizht
grounds, a plan so novel, so wild, and so impracticable.
Sir G. COCKBCRN said, that so far from his opinion
having been altered by what he had heard to-n'ght, his
objections to the plan had acquired fresh force. It had
been said that the Bill would put the five officers under
sufficient controul, and that every one would be respon-
sible for he did. He (Sir G. Cockburn) agreed, that
nothing was so good as to saddle each officer with due
responsibility ; but his objection to the present Bill was,
that it did not do se.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet
had referred to the Ordnance Board; but in the Ordnance
Board each person was responsible for the department of
which he is the head. But by this Bill none of the chiefs
would have such responsibility. The Accountant-General
bad none, according to the Bill, and the other officers were
not mentioned at all. He should not olject to the second
reading of the Bill, because he hoped that before it went
into a Committee, it would receive improvements from
the hints thrown out.

Mr. HUME should not act fairly to the Right Hon.
Baronet if he did not take this opportunity of expressing
his opinion that the Right Hon. Baronet was entitlel to
the thanks of the House for the attempts he had made to
obviate the evils of the present system. He begged the
House to remark the difference of the speech of the Hon.
Officer who had just sat down, and that of the late Secre-
tary. Instead of resting his defence on the antiquity of
the offics., he had come to the question,—had the late
Board answered the purpose or not? He (Mr. Hume)
believed it had not. The Finance Committee was convinced
there were great abuses there; be believed that it bad, on
many occ isions, been a drag on the Admiralty. What,
after all, were the objections of the late Secretary to the
Bill ? The first was, that it gave too much power to the
Admiralty. For that very reason, he (Mr. Hume) sup-
ported the Bill ; for his opinion was, that the Admiralty
ought to have more power, and that its orders should be
xecuted as expeditiously as possible. The next objection
was, that there was no responsibility and no audit. But
did he not know that the Navy Board audited their
own accounts ? Could there he a greater mockery ? The
Right Hon. Baronet proposed an efficient audit, which
there ought to be. But there was no responsibility. Were
the Lords of the Admiralty nobody ? Was it fair to say
there was no responsibility, when there were Lords of the
Admiralty answerable for whatever they did? The object
of the Bill was to do away with all subordinate checks,
which were productive of delay, expense, and chicanery.
As far as the principle of the Bill went there could be no
bjection to it, and its details might be improved in the
committee.

Mr. HUNT said, that the Right Hon. Baronet had
talked of a saving of 40,0001. or 50,000/, by his mea-
sure ; he wished t I know whether any part of this was
tak n up for superannuations; because, if 1000 ship-
wrights were to be discharred, and the officers to be pen-
sioned off, there might be little or no saving. When he
had heard the Right Hon. Baronet the other nizlit, he
had poured a broadside into the late Administration ; but
the late Secretary to-night had returned the broadside,
and I e (Mr. Hunt) thought had wrecked the Hon.
Baronet. The late Secretary had completely answered
the Right Hon. Baronet, and proved that the system had
always been the same, and had continued till the last month.
Sr JAMES GRAHAM, in explanation, observed that
he had said, or intended to say, that independently of the
measures which this Bill would carry into effect, he had,
by other econsmical arrangements, effected a saving of
49,0001. With respect to superannuations, the persons
removed were entitled by law to superannuation ; but he
should con,ider it his duty to bring under the consideration
of the Gunn-6! tee the scale of remuneration.

Jr. CROKER thought it unnecessary to take the sense
of the House on this occasion, but he should deem it his
duty to do so on the third reading, unless there were ma-
teriAl alterations made in the Bill in Committee.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed this day se'nnight.
JURY (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. STANLEY moved the commitment of the Grand
Juries (Ireland) Bill. In accordance with a suggestion
made by his Learned Friend, the Solicitor-General for Ire-
land, he had embodied in the Bilk a provision, by which
the Irish law was assimilated, both in letter and spirit, to
the English. By this provision Irish magistrates would
Imre no more controul over the Grand Jury list, than Eng-
lish magistrates possessed at present.
'f he Bill then passed through a Committee.
ANATOMY BILL.

On Mr. WAano KTON'S moving that the House should
res. lye itself into a Committee on the Anatomy Bill,
Mr. HUNT proterved ag,inst entering on the discussion
of so important a subject at so late an hour.
Sir R. INGLIS was very desirous to remove all stigma
from dissection. For this purpose he would propose to
exclude from dissection the bodies of murderers, the bodies
of persons committing suicide, the bodies of persons dying
in prison (still wishing to dissociate all idea of disgrace
from the act of dissection), the bodies of all persons dying
in hospitals, it being most essential that the poor should
not be led to entertai❑ any suspicion that those who ought
to cure them had an interest in killing them. How, then,
were subjects for dins- ction to be procured ? He objected
to any open sale—to any market of human flesh. He
would proceed to say who, in his opinion, ought to be die
sected. First, all who choose to leave their bodies for dis-
section, or %oho chose to sell their bodies during their
lives, securing to them the right of pre-emption in the re-
purchase of their hodies on paying due interest; then all
who died in workhouses, and who were unclaimed by
their friends, or whose friends bad not expressed a dislike
to their being dissected. This latter would afford a large
supply of bodies ; but if bodies were necessary at all, a
large number were necessary. It had been calculated that
there were above seventy schools of anatomy in London,
and that the annual demand for subjects amounted to
1,100. In St. Giles's parish last year 599 persons died,
who were buried by the parish ; in 3larylebone parish 350
persons h-. 1 died in the workhouse, and 290 out of it,
making 640 persons, a!1 of whom had been buried by the
parish. In a former year 5,204 persons had died in all
the parishes of London, who bad been bud, d by the pa-
rishes. Here it was evident that there were abundant
means of supply, after deducting those whose relations
might exprtss dislike to dissection. He was also desirous
that the remains of bodies so dissected should receive
Christian burial.

Mr. WASON bad several objections to the Bill, and
was especially averse to allowine surgeons to have subjects
in their private residences. The object ought to be to
supply the anatomical schools, and not individuals.
S r F. TRENCH said that the impression on his mind
wwii, that the provisions of the Bill would be nugatory—
that they would not give facilities for dissection—and that
they would afford an additional stimulus to Burking. In
his opinion, the title of the Bill ought to be, " A Bill to
prevent the study of anatomy, and to encourage Burking.
--(A laugh.)" He contended that the main fault at pre-
sent was in the surgeons themselves ; and that if they would
carefully examine every body offered them, and reject those
the appearance of which was suspicious, the greater part
of the existing evi!s would soon be done away with. What
he would propose was, the giving suicides and other., pro-,
*Med that they were not claimed by near relatives, to the
surgeons after death, and he could not see any objection to
allowing individuals to sell their own bodies.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL suggested that no removal of a
body should be allowed without a certificate as to the death
of which he hail died.
Mr. WARBURTON had no objection to the Bill being
extended to Ireland, provided that Irish Members would
ta! e on themselves to say that such an extension would
be useful.
Mr. STANLEY said, that a deputation from the Irish
College of Surgeons bad called on him, and proposed cer-
tain modifications for the admission of the Bill into Ire
land. It had, however, been arranged that it would be
better to see how the BR worked in England, after which
(if deemed advisable) it might he extended to Ireland.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL explained.
Mr. STANLEY said, that there was an objection
which he had decidedly to make to what had been pro-
posed with respect to Ireland, which was, that all the bodies
should be disposed of by the Chief Secretary for Ireland.—
(A laugh.)
Colonel SIBTIIORPE said, that it was very disgust-
ing to enact that every body not claimed should he given
up for dissection. Supposing an Irish labourer came over
here and died in an hospital—of course there would be no
relations to claim him. If the Hon. Member for Brid-
port chose to give up ,•is body, he had no objection ;
and he should not mind giving up his own, though, to
be sure, it was not worth much.--(A laugh.) The
G idarit Colonel then went on to say, that, in his opinion
crimes were not punished with sufficient severity—espe-
cially those most rascally of all criminals, horse-sealers,
who were tried at every assize, and yet rarely ever got
hanged, which they richly deserved.
Mr. SHELL wished to know whether the Hon. Member
meant that it should be lawful to import dead bodies from
Dublin and Liverpool ? He presumed that such was his
intention ; and yet, according to the Act, no body could
he removed from one part of England to the other.
Air. J. WEYLAND was so inimical to the principle of
the Bill, that he did not believe that any alteration could
make such a change in it as to do .sway with his objections.
He should have no objection to give up the bodies of all

criminals, and he would likewise consent to persons being
allowed to devise their bodies after death.
The gallery was then cleared for a division—
Ayes
`coes l3
Majority in favour of the Bill —sl
On our re-entering the gallery we found Mr. HUNT on
his legs, resisting the motion for the Bill to be re-com-
mitted to a Committee of the whole House.
Mr. MACAULEY said a few words in favour of the
'notion, and the House again divided, Mr. Hunt alone, as
far as we could hear, calling out " No," when the question
was put.

The numbers were—
A)es 39
Noes
Majority
The House resolved itself into a Committee, some
amendments were added, and the House resumed. The
report was received, and ordered to be taken into farther
consideration on Friday next.
Toe other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Half-past Two o'Clock.

LIST OF THE MINORITY
ON THE FIRST DIVISION.
Mr. Hunt Mr. Chichester Mr. Wynne
Mr. Ruthven Lord W. Lennox Mr. M. O'Ferrall
Mr. C. I'elham Colonel Sibthorpe Mr. Owen O'Connor
Mr. Gordon Mr. Hodge Mr. H. Grattan

conclusive ; for, after all, it is but an assertion
made according to the best of the Noble
Earl's belief (who, if we remember rightly,
entertained a similar belief, just previous
to the rejection of the last Bill), and who can

trust the vows of penitence and recantation
proffered by a faction of whom the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR in his brief and able speech last night,
spoke but the literal truth, when he said, " In
all my recollection, in all my experience, in all
my observations of political affairs, I never yet
have seen more rancour,--I say advisedly, more
political rancour shown, than I have seen dis-
ployed towards his Majesty's Government by
the present Opposition ?" Who, we repeat, can
trust such a squad ?

In the debate last night in the House of
Commons, Mr. CROKER, at considerable length,
and with the usually happy result, inveighed
against the new Admiralty regulations of
Sir JAMES GRAHAM. In the course of his
diatribe he quoted an observation of the Learned
SELDEN, to the effect that he " admired impu-
dence"—this was perfectly natural ; the Right
Hon. Ex-Secretary is a good judge ofthat quality,
which is the antipodes to bashfulness. Sir J.
GRAHAM replied in an unanswerable spirit, and
carried the House with him.