Star.
London, England, 1810-04-13 00:00:00

his headleis Board, ivhiCh he Could get do person to
take off his hands. The blame, however, being now
declared to belong to the unfortunate Board, he pre-
sumed to think that a censure must follow. Sup-
posing a Bill to be introduced in the terms proposed,
ana that the Board did not chuse to inquire for one
or two years whether the Treasurer had lodged his
securities, but on finding that he had not, should then
dismiss him, what security was this that he might not
then retire, owing a balance equal to that due by Mr.
Hunt ? If then this was the state of the matter, what
security was there, if the Board was not liable to
punishment ? He could not conceive that, even in a
House like the present, (there being very few Mem-
bers in the House), they could come to a vote that
that Board was not to be censured.
Mr. PE RCEVAL could not deny that in point of
strictness the heads of the Board were responsible.—
The greatest degree of responsibility, however, he
thought attached to the Secretary. He should not
move to negative the Resolution, but should move
the previous question.
Mr. H. THORNTON thought the Resolution
rather superfluous. It appeared to be doing over again
what had been already done. As it was agreed that
'praise should not be too freely bestowed, the same
'rule, he thought, should extend to censure also. He
suspected that much was owing to something amiss
in the constitution of the Board. He could not, how-
ever, negative the motion, neither did he altogether
approve of the previous question, but was anxious
that the Resolution should be withdrawn.

After Strangers were excluded, and before the di-
vision, we understand a very interesting conversation
arose to the following effect :
Mr. BABINGTON said, that he could not agree
to the previous question.. He was satisfied there was
blame, and he thought it sufficiently expressed in the
preceding Resolution, therefore he might think the
additional ;ensure now proposed superfluous, but the
previous quesion was inconsistent with the censure al-
ready expfessed, and he could not vote what was in-
consistent with that.—(llear, Lear.) He wished the
Resolution to be withdrawn, but if not he must sup-
port it.

Mr. WILBERFORCE differed with his Hon.
Friend, and conceived the previous question only meant
that the House thought it had sufficiently censured the
conduct of the Ordnance in the former Resolutions.
He thought that conduct well deserving of censure,
and therefore he had supported the Resolution to that
effect. Having done so, lie was against going farther.
Mr. BROUGHAM preferred the view taken of
this question by his Honourable Friend on the floor
(Mr. Babington) to that adopted by his Honourable
Friend behind (Mr. Wilberforce), and for this reason
—that by voting for the previous question the House
in fact said, whereas the Board is censurable, there-
fore we will not censure them. Let Gentlemen re-
flect well before they told the country that the conse-
quence of a Public Board being almost unanimously
found to have been guilty of great neglect of duty,
was, that no notice whatever should be taken of it.—
(Hear, hear.) This was, in a few words, the mean-
ing of the vote for the previous question.
-Mr. G. WILSON could not agree with his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Brougham). He thought he refined too
much on the matter. All had agreed in voting a
certain measure of censure, and he was not for voting
any more.
Mr. BAVICES denied that there was any necessity
for those who voted for the former voting for the pre-
sent Resolution. He heartily approved of the former
vote, because it inflicted a censure on the Board of
Ordnance, which they appeared to him to have de-
served—(Near, hear.)—lt was highly necessary to
express the opinion of the House on this point for the
sake of the public service and of justice. But he
thought the present motion superfluous. -The Reso-
lution last passed war a censure on the Board, and
had been passed almost unanimously, at least without
a division. He therefore was against this new and
additi6nal censure, which was only adding one opi-
nion to another of the same sort. He was for the pre-
vious question on this ground, that a censure had al-
ready been passed by the House on the Board.
Mr. TIERNEY was against the previous ques-
tion, for the reasons given by his Honourable Friends
(Messrs. Babington and Brougham). It was saying
to the country, there have been abuses, therefore we
won't reprobate them. There had been neglect,
therefore we won't censure it. Nay, we have found
by our vote that the Board is blameable, therefore we
refuse to blame it. glear, hear.) As for the censure
already passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
denied that the Berard was to blame, and had thrown
all on the Secretary ; and the censure said to have
passed did not touch the Secretary at all. Other
Members threw all on the Board, and, he, for one
Member, voted on this ground, and one on that, and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had his own view
and his owa vote. Jt was necessary to be more precise,
and as all agreed (at least no one said the contrary, I
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did tot ven-
ture to divide) that the Board was highly censurable,
it was more manly and consistent to say so in plain
I terms. He therefore should support the motion of
1 his Honourable Friend.
On the division which then took place, the num-
bers were—For the additional Resolution of Censure
18—For the previous question---54—Majority for the
previous question 86.
sta. ISATIIURIT'S INSTRUCTIONS.

Mr. WHITBREAD said, that u a discussion was to come on
after the recess, on the state of the nation with respect to foreign
Powers; and as there was now left but one Power on the Conti-
nent with whom we had any comniuuication, there were some
papers which he thought might be necessary to elucidate that
discussion; and aF• they were, in his opinion, of such a nature
that no objection could be made to their production, he did not
think it necessary to take up the time of the House rther than,
without any preface, to wove—
." That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, pray-
ing that he will be graciously pleased to order that there be laid
before the House Copies of all Instructions given to Mr. Bathurst
1 and Mr. Stewart, or any other person appointed to communicate
with the Court of Vienna, touching the late hostilities between
Austria and France."
The motion having been read front the Chair,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, be was sorry
to differ from the Hon. Gentleman on the subject. He could by
no means agree to any such motion; and it had always been the
rule of the House to abstain front calling for instructions given
to our own Ministers at foreign Courts, as it Would be opening
a door to the discovery of secret intelligence, which could not
fail to bring
many persons at these Courts into considerable dan-
ger, and would in its future csnsequenees be highly detrimental
,to the public service. He hoped, therefore, the Honourable
Gentleman would not persist in his motion; if he did, he must
certainly oppose it. •
Mr. CANNING coincided in opinion with his Rigid Kr .