the fact just stated might have had on the House, but it had none on him. Allowing that there had been a neglect on the part of the hon. gent. near him, it could not excuse the negligence of others. Recrimination was not justification; this agent Ridge, was appointed by the master-general, and no minutes of his appointment, or his security, were laid on the board table. Millions, or at least many 100,000 pounds in the year passed through Mr. Hunt's hands, while Mr. Ridge was intrusted with a far inferior charge of the public money. The question was then put on the several Resolutions. The first five were adopted. The previous question was moved on the sixth, with a view to the adoption of the following Resolution. "That it is the opinion of this House, the master-general and board of ordnance have been guilty of an omission of duty, in neglecting to take security from Joseph Hunt, esq., a member of this House, and late treasurer of the ordnance, in conformity to the instructions under which they act." Mr. Calcraft thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the vote he had at length given, by which he admitted that the blame did not attach to the Secretary, as he originally contended, but to the Board. He now thought it his duty to defy his hon. friend opposite to bring forward the charge alluded to against him. He should not call him his friend only, but his thrice honoured friend, if he would do so, and afford him an opportunity of meeting it. He thought it impossible, after the Resolution last adopted by the House, that they should now fail in declaring the conduct of the board to be censurable. If they did not do so, away at once with all ideas of votes of censure proceeding from that House. He should therefore move," That for such omission of duty, the said Board is deemed censurable" by this House.' Mr. Whitbread thought it impossible fo the House, after the Resolution they had come to, not to follow it up with censure. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at first endeavoured to throw the blame on Mr. Crewe, and had no objection to his being censured, provided he could skreen his headless Board, which he could get no person to take off his hands. The blame, however, being how declared to belong to the unfortunate Board, he presumed to think that a censure must follow. Supposing a bill to be introduced in the terms proposed, and 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? He could not conceive that even in a House like the present (there being very few members in the House) they could come to a vote that that board was not to be censured. The Chancellor of the Exchequer 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, however, 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 division, a 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 censure now proposed superfluous; but the previous question was in consistent with the censure already expressed, and he could not vote what was inconsistent with that. [Hear! hear!] He wished the Resolution to be withdrawn, but if not he must support 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, he was against going farther. Mr. Brougham preferred the view taken of this question by his hon. friend (Mr. Babington), to that adopted by his hon. 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, therefore we will not censure them. Let gentlemen reflect well before they told the country that the consequence 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 meaning 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. Bankes denied that there was any necessity for those who voted for the former voting for the present 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 deserved. It 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 Resolution last passed was a censure on the board, and had been passed almost unanimously, at least without a division. He therefore was against this new and additional censure, which was only adding one opinion to another of the same sort. He was for the previous question on this ground, that a censure had already been passed by the House on the board. Mr. Tierney was against the previous question, for the reasons given by his hon. 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. As for the censure already passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had denied that the board was to blame, and had thrown all on the secretary; and the cen sure 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 own vote. It was necessary to be more precise, and as all agreed (at least no one said the contrary, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not venture to divide) that the board was highly censurable, it was more manly and consistent to say so in plain terms. He therefore should support the motion of his hon. friend. On the division which then took place, the numbers were, For the additional Resolution of For the previous question ... 18 54 Majority for the previous question 36 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, April 13. [ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.] Mr. Calcraft observed, that in consequence of an accusation made in the progress of the last night's discussion by the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. A. Cooper) supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, against him, whilst he had the honour to hold the office of secretary to the board of Ordnance, he then felt it his duty to give notice, that on this night he would move for certain papers in his own vindication. The charge then advanced against him was, that he had not required from Mr. Ridge, who was appointed by the earl of Moira, agent to a part of the corps of royal artillery, such securities, as by virtue of bis instructions he was bound to do. He had first to observe, that in the perusal which he had since given these instruc tions, he found in no part of them such a duty pointed out. He had not certainly read every line of them, and to meet that part of the question it was his intention to move, that an extract of the instructions applicable to the exercise of such a duty should be laid upon the table. He had then to ask the hon. gent. who made the charge, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by whom it was supported, whethey yet persevered in their accusation ? whether they still were ready to assert that Mr. Ridge, at the period referred to, had not entered into the necessary secu. rities? If, as he believed, they found that the result of their further inquiry proved that such securities were given by Mr. Ridge, it would then be his duty to move for a return of their date. There was also another question which he was anxious to put to them. He wished to be informed whether, when lord Chatham succeeded lord Moira at the head of the Ordnance department, the securitics given by Mr. Ridge were renewed? Because it was well understood that as they were given directly to the individual at the time at the head of the department, they were not binding on Mr. Ridge when a change of administration had placed another person at the head of that board. There were some other observations which he felt necessary to make, but which he by no means brought forward to screen himself. in any part of his official conduct from the fullest responsibility. Although he must say, that, even if there had been culpability in the case of Mr. Ridge, he could only be exposed to a proportion of it, for at the same board there sat then two officers nearer to him, and who still continued in the same situations, and who, of course, must, if blame was deserved, take their share of the criminality. He had also to impress upon the House that there was a very great distinction between the case of Mr. Ridge, even if what was alleged against him (Mr. C.) was true in every particular, and the case of Mr. Hunt, upon the discussion of which it was introduced as parallel. It was this, that all agents appointed as paymasters to the corps of artillery, indeed to all regiments, were responsible to the commanding officer of such corps, and the commander of course, responsible to the country for the conduct of his agent. In the place of secretary of ordnance, the situa tion held by Mr. Hunt, there was no reciprocal responsibility, and the consequence was, that the country became the loser by his defalcation. Mr. A. Cooper stated, that although there was no insertion in the instructions specifically injoining the duty of requir. ing securities, still it was the universal practice to demand security from all agents, through whose hands any portion of the public money went. Independent of all provision or enactment, the principle was itself conclusive. In answer to the questions of the hon. gent. he had to state, that the bond in the case of Mr. Ridge had been made out, but was not executed by that gentleman. Mr. Calcraft asked across the table whether it was executed by his sureties? Mr. Cooper. Yes; it was executed by his sureties. With respect to the other question, he must say, that he did not acquiesce in the conclusion, that securities were not available if not renewed in case of a change in the department. The se curity was given not to the person at the head of the board, but to the King. There was one other topic introduced by the hon. gent. to which he felt it incumbent upon him to advert. He had been charged with bringing forward against that gentleman, an accusation for his conduct in the case of Mr. Ridge. He had done no such thing, but when his own character was implicated by the hon. gent. in censure on account of Mr. Hunt's defalcation, surely it was natural for him to turn upon his accuser and say, even in your own administration, you yourself have been guilty of the very omission, for which you now so loudly proclaim that I am culpable. As a further proof of that omission in his administration he would beg to recal the attention of the hon. gent. to the case of Mr. Hopkinson, who also was an agent, and by whom no security whatever had been given, though his appointment took place during the administration of that ho nourable gentleman. Mr. Calcraft. This is altogether a new charge, but I have no doubt it stands upon equally strong grounds as the case of Mr. Ridge, which the confession of the hon. gent. has confuted almost as quickly as he uttered it. Let those gentlemen be brought to the bar. Let the House be put in possession of the fullest evidence upon the subject, and I feel confident that such accusations must recoil upon those who have so indirectly advanced them. But allowing we were guilty, can that be an excuse for the offences of those who perpetuate the abuse, until the country is made to feel the actual loss and evil? Will the country think it receives a just performance of duty from those for whose services large salaries are paid to them, merely, because when charged with a dereliction of their trust, they think they have the power or the opportunity to recriminate. Recrimination is no defence. If their charges are well founded, let them bring them directly before the House in a parliamentary shape, and if we are guilty let us be subjected to that merited censure under which the present board so very justly suffers. It is quite ridiculous to make a parallel between the cases of Mr. Ridge and Mr. Hunt, even if the accusation against me in respect to the former was true; but, as it is most unfounded, as clearly appears even by the admission of him who has made it, I must say it is insulting the public, which has been robbed to a large amount, to distract the course of public justice by the introduction of irrelevant and unconnected subjects. Mr. Long admitted, that recrimination was not a good set off, and constituted a miserable defence; but when the hon. gent. in the pomp of official superiority denounced his successors, it was natural for them to retort the charge if they could, and try him by his own acts. If omissions of a similar nature could be laid to his charge, it was impossible in the overbearing triumph that he was inflicting, that flesh and blood could rest silent, and with the knowledge they had of some of his own omissions, not illustrate them. Per situation, as he appeared to entertain Sir J. Newport stated, as the characteristic distinction of the present ministers, particularly of the Chancellor of the Ex-low the ordinary standard of men in point chequer, that for every grievance complained of, for every act of misgovernment and mistake-for every measure of policy which had bequeathed calamity and ruin to the country, the only justification was the power and capacity to recriminate. What had the country to do with their bickerings and recriminations? If any charge or accusation could be brought against their opponents, why not bring them? To insinuate them, and not venture to arraign those whom the ministers were anxious to depreciate, was, in his opinion, instead of a defence for their own misdeeds, an aggravation of their offence, insomuch as they kept such charges secreted merely as an apology for their own derelictions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with gentlemen opposite, that nothing could be less a justification of the conduct of ministers than finding fault with others. Nothing could be farther from his intentions than a wish to build his character, or the character of his friends, on the failings of others, and really he did not think the House, or the country, would think highly of him, or of his friends, because they stood a little higher than the hon. gentlemen opposite.If the hon. gent. had the same ideas of the duties of the office he had held, while he filled that of talent, but to bring them down from their vaunted elevation to the level of fal lible beings., Yet to think that an hon. gent. should come there and plume himself so much on what he had done, when such an omission could be proved, was too much to be borne in silence. It really was but just to give him a hint on the subject. If the hon. gent. wished for information on the subject he had no objection to granting it; he would only state, that on the preceding day, when he entered that House, he had no more intention of speaking of the case of Mr. Ridge than he had of discussing the concerns of the em peror of Morocco. That case would not have been brought forward but for the exultation of the hon. gent. Mr. Ponsonby. The right hon. gent. has assumed, that the merits of his administration are so transcendant as neither to require foil nor contrast. He has presumed that the results of his government and the interests of the country, every day give an additional value to his services, and a splendor to his ministry; that the higher he lifts himself in office, the more dignified he becomes in reputation, and that the country accords with the panegyric which he has so modestly pronounced upon himself. But it is not te his talents that his praises are restricted. | No! his charity for the misdeeds of his opponents-his compassion for their defects form no inconsiderable share of his own eulogium. He, forsooth, will never build his reputation upon any recriminating attack upon his political opponents. Indeed, one is at a loss which to admire most, the modesty with which he speaks of his own exploits, or the compassion which he kindly extends to our demerits. Let him allow me to protest against his generous condescension. Let me hope to impress upon him, that we seek no such irresponsibility for our public conduct. If we have acted improperly-if the country has suffered in its interests by our of fences-if we have afforded illustrations of dereliction of duty and breaches of trust, in God's name let the Chancellor of the Exchequer recollect the paramount duty he owes the country, and bring us to trial for our misdeeds. For such attacks we are prepared; and when unequivocally brought forward, we must be grateful. The acrimony, the violence, the political asperity of the right hon. gent. we are not inclined to fear, but I do beg leave to protest against, and deprecate as the most disheartening of all visitations, namely, their commendation and compassion. Mr. Calcraft said, he held in his hand a copy of the sureties of Mr. Ridge. If there was only one name to the bond, the public would be secure; but he would be able to shew that the sureties were completed. The right hon. gent. had said that he had accused him of recrimination. It was not of recrimination he had accused him, but of attempting to recriminate when there were no grounds for it. He had also taken merit to himself for granting the papers necessary to a member's defence; he had talked as if he had the House of Commons in his pocket; but he (Mr. Calcraft) did not ask it from him as a favour, he asked it from the House of Commons as a right, and not from him, who seemed to carry the majority in his pocket. Mr. R. Ward conceived that such language was disorderly and unconstitutional; no member had a right to say that any person carried a majority of that House in his pocket. Mr. Calcraft said, that though, perhaps, the language was disorderly, it was not un constitutional. The right hon. gent. did not carry a majority in his pocket, but, from the force of his eloquence, and the cogency of his argument, together with the independent circle by which he was surrounded-he did manage to quash such inquiries as were disagreeable to him. The motion was then carried; after which Mr. A. Cooper moved for the papers relative to the case of Mr. Hopkinson, copies of his sureties, &c. which was also agreed to. [THE PETITION of the East INDIA COMPANY FOR RELIEF.] A Petition of the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies was presented and read; setting forth; "That the Petitioners, in the month of April 1808, presented a Petition to the House, setting forth, amongst other things, that, upon a review of the state of their home finances from the 1st of March 1808 to the 1st of March 1809, the payments estimated to be made by the Petitioners would exceed the probable amount of their receipts by the sum of 2,433,1857., and also the impossibility of the Petitioners being able to raise the whole of that sum from their own resources, therefore praying such relief as the House might in its wisdom deem their case to require; and that the causes which produced the embarrassments at that time experienced by the petitioners were amply detailed in their said petition, which petition being referred by the House to a Committee of its members then sitting upon East India affairs, the House, upon the recommendation of their said Committee, were pleased to vote to the petitioners the sum of 1,500,000l., upon account of the claims of the Petitioners upon his Majesty's government, which sum, together with the aid derived from sales, more favourable than had been estimated, of the company's goods in the year 1808-9, enabled the petitioners to provide for the wants of that year without requiring further assistance; and, in the year 1809-10, their receipts were nearly equal to their payments; and that the causes which led to their financial embarrassments in the year 1808-9 have not yet totally ceased to oper ate, and they are subjected to new difficulties, arising chiefly from the following causes: 1st. From the excessive and unexampled drafts made in the two last years upon the Petitioners from India, amounting to 4,707,9461., part of the Indian debt, incurred in the course of several wars and expeditions carried on there against Indian and European powers; and as the condition under which the greater part of that debt was contracted allowed an option to |