The Sun.
London, England, 1810-04-13 00:00:00

BOARD OF ORI)NANC.I.

.Mr. CALCR4FT waived the motion for the expul-
.sion of Mr. Hunt till Monday, as the House was •
not yet in possession of some necessary letters•
shy l therefore confine-himselito a resolution re-
spesting the sccuritic3. It appeared, that the M.ts-
E ter-General of the Board of Ordnance had been
guilty of a great breach of duty, by which. the
•
try would lose 10,0001. in not requiring from Mr..
Hunt, on his entetinrg on his second Treasurership
the securities prescribed by the in,trudions of Charle3
A letter from the Secretary of the Ordnance
had been written to Mr. Hunt on the subjed, but.
no answer had been received., nor did it appear that
any further step had been taken on the subject. He .
conceived that this was an indefensible breach of
duty which the House could not pats over. He
enumerated the Members of the Board of Ordnance,
and contended that they had not inn(
ing kind of b4siness, in pleading which they.niight
find excuse for such a breach of duty. The first
Resolutions that he intended to. propose were of
fad ; the fast Reiolution was of censure. The_Hon.
Gentleman then read his Resolutions, which were
to the following Aired
That it appears teithis House, that Joseph Hunt, Esq.
a Member of the kiouse, has been twice Treasurer of :he-
. Board of Ordnance,',that'he was near OS months in office on.
his first appointMent in 1803, before security was obtained
from him ; and thit from his second appointment in 1807, it
is not recorded in tfie,o rdnance Department that any security
had been obtained from !ann.

•' That it appeals to this House that a balance of 93„9z61.
stands against the said jcseph Hunt, Esq. as late Treasurer
of the Ordnance. •

•
" That it appears to this House that the Master- Generat
of the Ordnance is directed in the original instructions of
Charles 11. and on which he and the Board, are bound to.
act, to take from the Treasurer of the Ordnance, on his
entering upon office, such security as may, in their
merit, he necessary, subjed to ' the approbation of the
Treasury.
" That it appears to this House that no security was takers
on the second appointment of the said josepf. Hunt, L sq. ro
the office of Treasurer of the Ordnance.
" That it is the opinion of this House tilltthe Master.
General:and Board of Ordnance have geen guilty of -a bread?
, at their iiistrudions in neglecting to take security from the
Isaid Joseph E.sq. and are responsible and ecosural,le
for tins great omission of duty, which, front the statement
of the balances of the said loseph Hunt, Esq. has actualls
occasioned a loss to the Public of to,000l."
! Mr. A. COOPER could not think that the Board
was responsible for the omission of their Secretary,
► who had been instrutited to write, and who had
written aietter to Mr. Hunt, on his appointment to
office requiring the necessary security, to which
answer was returned—a neglect which had not been
Ireported to the Board. The public businesS of such
a Board could not be carried on if they were expedcd
t to attend to all the details of their office. No Gene-
tral charge of neglect of duty, dishonesty, or ci,r-
roption had been brought against the 80, and he:
therefore conceived that such a vote of eciisur‘i
ought not to appear against them on the iouroak..
The Board lamented the loss which the Public Ina
sustained on this occasion, and it wits his intention,
'a ith a view to prevent the recurrence ot.
events, -to move for leave to bring in aßdl to vacat...,
offices in future, unlesS security should be given
the officers on their appoinittunt.
, Mr. PONSOSBX was astonished that any opposition

C

,)uld be made to bis Hon. Friend's Motion. If

ti House passed over such a tratsa&ion as this,
they. ought never again to assume the name
.of
Guardians, of the Public Pnrie. He admitted that
Secretz-iry was extremely culpable, but the Board
were little less so; and they were the responsible.

persons.
The CHANCELLOR of the EkCHECLUER, while he
allowed that there was some blame in the business,
declared that the 'censure contained in the
.11on:
Gentleman's last - ReSehatiOn was infinitely greater'
Than the occasion dentanded; nor was the state--
ment .of 19,0001-. being lOst. to the public, from the
oinisson to take securities frorn
The securities ought to have been 50001. froth the
principal, and two collateral securities of.
:41).; now .it was-only these two list that. were loSt
the ; for the principal was -yet liable for
:he ibi'mer 'sum. If the Board had wholly tiegleEled-
zkeir dirty in this case, they would:- have beetvinf.
4f.cusable ; but the letter which by their dirt died
he:! S:cretary, Mr. Crewe, .wrote to'Mr. Hunt on
25th of April, t 807,. sheaved this was not the'
easy. It was impossible that the
,superiors of stack an
otfice, pressed as they. were by the consideration of
.•ratters 'of:great importance, could follow up the
art of their va ious measures with any thing like
witioteness. lire principal fault certainly lay 06 the
Secretary; but when the wanner in which that -3eritle-i
man had tirr so many years 'discharged the laborious
owlei of nis office was considereili, he trusted that
the House would be inclined to • pass the matter
over.

Mr. BARHAM supported "the Resolutions of hiS
Elvin. Friend, lvtd ridiculed the,stipposition that.the
irtitoduction of a Bill to In-event futureeliil, should
be considered a substitute•fOr the cen,ure of the
authors of those thatwere past. . • . s•
Mr. WHIMREAD could not_ refrain.from making
one or two observations. Much had! been said of
the great duties which the Board of Ordnance had
to perform. The faa was, that they sat three ,days
in the week, and four hours•on each day. He un-
derstood that it was the duty .of• the Secretary °fa
?vibe Board to lay on the table of that Board the
,retUrns which had been made to their orders.. Did
Mr. Crewe lay on the table the return to the order
of the Board relative to.Mr:, Hunt ?—(Mr..Ashley
Cooper answered across the table in the negative.)—
Did the Board then read again the minutes.of their
fast proceedings'? If not they negletied their duty.
But it seemed that they were to be excused from
t;,e great pressure of bu4itiess upon them. There
had been no Master-General of the Ordnance for
the last month. If there had been one, therefore,
his I.lace for that time would have been a sinecure.
I; the business of the Board of Ordinance could gO
on for a month without the presence.of their-most
~-tlicient officer, was it not evident that had that so-
ernumerary officer been there, it would have been
his duty, as it was in his power, to 't.r.ke care that
the Pubic should not be defrauded ? The Right
Hon. Gentleman talked of the severity of the Reso-
lutions. _l\f-w, 'with the exception of one word,
stet were Resolutions of faa:alone and with re-
•pect to that word, if the House did. not mark such
a. transaction by.the term " aenSurable," it. would
be in vain (were it not for a sense of duty) to bring
fOrward similar- allegations in fatore. It seemed,
however,. that a Bill was to be brought in to prevent
sticfrtran-adions in future.' In hi, opinion, one of
the in( st elxped:ent modes of- preventing future
evil uas to punish, the authors of the past.; nor
could he coneive a more ,-fret-tual triode ofpro-
ducing future evil, than to allow the authors of the
past to escape with impunity.

Mr. G. JOHNSTONE, satisfied that the loss to the
public by the omi.sion to take 'securities from MI.
Hunt amounted to 50001. only; and not' to ►0,0001.,
proposed to modify the resolution to that effect. He
also proposed that tbd resolution of censure should
run as follows :

That it appears to this House thatithei aster-Ceneratand
Board of ( rdnance have been guilty:Of a tieglea of 'duty in
tailing to tike seenrities.from I osepkilunt, , Esq. -a Member
of that House, on his appointment to
.the Tredsurership,of
the Ordnance, in conformity to the instructions of Char, 11.

By adoptiug such a resolution, he thought that
House would not press too hard ou the Board
of Ordnince,, and that at the same time it would do-.

„.
its duty. • w
; • _ .
Mr. CALCRAFT declared that. the Iion: Gentle,
men opposite seemed to set at defiance all the- prin-
ciples by which 'pnblie d. men ought to be governed .
For what purpose_ were there five members of the
Board of. Ordnance? For what purpose had they-:
suchlarge salaries ? Who. was Mr. Crewe.? A most:
respeanble individual certainly,
.10.1t.,0n1y;. the Secre-
tary of the Board, yt hose busitte. it,..wasto. see their
own orders carried fily into *:i.pcution. The ha-
' lance against-Mr: Hunt had nernr,fieen. known to
the Board till it was fOund in the report, on, the
- table. Could the Hon. Gene ernan opposite say
that it was ? - (Mr. A. Cooper replied 'in the afiir'
rnative). That was so extraordinary that.if he had,
' not heard the Hon. Gentleman say so she would not'
have believed it. In equity the .Meinbers. of the.
Board ought to make good the loss which the pub-.
lic had sustained from their tieglea. If the House
passed this over, he, as a member of the community
who..wished the Honse
.of Coinmons to be respeei-
ed, should tOicerely lament it., .He was astonished
to hear the Chancellor of the-Exchequer endeavour
to throw the blame from the I3oard, and assert that
the Secretary was the most censurable person. The
Board were responsible, and the Secretary not cen-
surable. Were ,he to selea. the Member,. of the
Board to whose peculiar department the duty. that
bad been negle&ed belonged,. he would say' that it.
belotiged chiefly to the Clerk of the Ordnance.
• . The first resolution was then agreed to. On the
second resolution being put from, tie Chair,
Mr.. COOPER obseryed,
.that, as the H.n. Gen-
' tleman had been so personally severe upon him, lie
would state a faa which occurred when. tip:! Hon.
Gentleman occupied the office that he. (Mr. COopery
~had then the honour to bold. A new Agent, a.
Mr. Ridge, had been appointed at that period to the li
Corps 'of Engineers, &c. through whose hands.
above, 97,6271. passed in the yea. It had been
,omitted, however, to take any security upon Mr:
Ridge's Aptiolotnaeni to that office:
'Mr. CALCRAFt said, that, the Hon. Gentleman
seemed to _have resi:rved his notice of this 'circurn-
ionce .as .a kind of masked ;battery against him, the
etiett Of which, however,: Le had a coat of mail

which Pttevented -him from feeling. If lhe Hon.
Gentleman wOuld,bring the circumstance before the
House, and`sheW that when in office he had not
done his duty in the most correct, conscientious, and
coMplete. manner, he would be much obliged to.
• him. If there had been a negle6t• in this case he
had net er heard of it before, nor did he know that
it was attributable to him. Had the Hon. Gentle-
man asked the Lieutenant 'General and the Sur-
veyor General whether it was in cotiforrnity to the
inStruaions' to the Board to take securities for
Agents? (Mr. A..CoOper answered in the affirma-
tive.): If sd,
.although it was too late for -censure,
the Board of Ordnance to which he had' had tbe
honour to belOng, were unquestionably culpable.
He should' feel that he was hitosell culpable. But
were he tentimes more culpable that %%mild be no
sef-offagainst' the .neglea of the present Board in
the case under disetpsion.
Sir C. ADAMS Made a few observatons, but in-a
tone-so Mandible, that we were ithable to collect the
substance of what he said.
The CHANCELLOR 'of the EXCHEQUER Said it had
not been the-intention of the Hei. Member who;
brought forward the instance of'' neglea WhiCh 'had
occurred while-the Hon:Gentleman oplioSite was in,
an Official sititanon, to urge that as a justi&ation of
the neglen complained of in-the present instance.
It had not been produced as a set oil; but it was per-
fellyn natural for his lion. Friend to, state that cir-
cumstance, and the. Hon. Gentleman'(Mr. Calcraft)
ntiOtt ba not unreasonably expected to look wi'h a
Milder eye oh the faihogi of ot hers, when lie .found,
!bat even lusOWn perfection could-not save him from
error,

111 r. PONsoNDY contended, that the nm'.leal,.of
ofNers uaS excuse for those al present in ofce.
No cnrCurn•tances" had been 131-Ought forward to
establish the-truth of that siatentent, and if it were
proved trne, it would be recrimination, but could
not: amount to a justification of that whiCh they
complained of. The Honourable Gentleman op-
posite ought to bring forward proofs of the fia
he coial& If he did that, as iu the present.
instance, he woold• censure the neglect before
them, so would he censure that, it censure were
deserved. ,

The resolutions were then put and agreed to,
except the laSt, on which
Mr. G. Jon.Nstoisia moved, as an athendmerit,
that the words " guilty of an omission .of duty in
negle6lins to take 'security of Mr. linnt, confor-
mable to . the instiuiitions under which they a6ted,"
should be substituted for the words of the original
resolution.
, After,a short conversation across the table, be-
tween Mr..Calcrait and the ChancellOr of the EZ-
chequer, the amendment was canted without a di-
vision.

Mr. CALCRAFT observed, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had argued that no neglect was charge-
able to the Board ; but voting as he bad, he evinced
a conviction of the reverse being the fa&.' He was
obliged to the Right Hon. Gentleman for
.his vote;
but he could not compliment him on his consisten-
cy. He defied. the Hon. Gentleman opposite to
Make good the charge be had brought forward. He
always called that Hon. Gentleman his honoured
friend ; but if lie would bring the charge at 'once, he
would call him his thrice honoured friend. IQs the
Board had been voted guilty of an omission of duty,
Le•lxould move, "That for such an oinissi,ai the
said Board is deemed worthy of the censure of (Ns
Ijoese"
Mr. G. JOHNSTONE objefled to the motion, as lie
was of opinion a sufficient censure had already been
expressed by the vote they'had just given, and that
it would be better to prevent such occuriences ter
the time so come, by a Bill, than to censure what
bad already passed by. He hoped the Bill to.be
brought in would provide that greater securitieq, and
More proportionate to the trust,. shopld be given.—
Securities to the amount of 10,0061. bore no:pro-
portion to trust confided _to the ,Sectetary4l she
Osdnance. • - )
Mr. WHITBREAD perceived the-Hon. Gentleman
opposite had got his friends into ehe House), and
was now endeavouring, to, get them out of it. The
case that had been adduced as similar to that before
them lie contended was not a parallel case. _After,
the defiance of his Hon. Friend, if
.proofs Of the faCt
were not broughc forward with him that statement
would obtain no credit. After voting that a Publie
Board had been guilty of a breach of their duty, lie.
hoped there would not be found even a small majo-
rity in a.thin House to leave the punisliMent of the.
offence to a Bill for preventing its recurrence.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he
had stated that in point of strii:Aness,the Board was
responsible, but that the greater blame, attached
,itself to another quaff ter. He thought they ought„:`
not to proceed farther, and wo4ld - therefore move
the previous
.question, •
Mr. H. THORNTON remarked,' that as the House
were careful bow they bestowed their p6ise, they
ought also to be sparing of their censure. He, thought
the censure proposed a little too harsh, yet he was
far from wishing the sentence' should be the reverse
of that 'proposed. He did not exa6tly apkoflifof
the previous question ; be would rather the motion'
should have been withdrawn. Under all the circum-
stances lie should give theprevious question his sup-
port.

A division took place, when the numbers were--

For the-previous question - - - 54
Against it - - - - . 18

Sir G. WAIIRENDER gave. notice of a motion for
a. Correspondence between Mr. Davison and the
Secretary of the'Board of Ordnanee, relating to the
duty of the Treasurer of the Ortinance.;