the king, but he could not help thinking that the words of the act left room for some doubt. The fact was, however, that no foreign general had the command of a district; those generals commanded their own brigades, and it was highly useful to the service that they should do so, from their acquaintance with the manners and language of the troops. But he was ready to admit that a foreign general might accidentally have the command of the militia or other troops in a district in which he was stationed. His lordship spoke in high terms of the services of the troops of the German Legion wherever they had been employed, and also of the generals, particularly barons Linsingen and Alten, with whom he had been on service. As to the number of foreign troops actually stationed in Great Britain and Ireland, it did not exceed 5,000 men. He thought, however, that the noble earl (Liverpool) had said more than he had intended to say in stating that the legislature had sanctioned the constitutionality of the introduction of foreign troops.

The Earl of Liverpool in explanation observed, that he had never intended to say that the legislature had sanctioned the constitutionality of introducing foreign troops, but merely that the acts which had passed had by legalising rendered it not unconstitutional in ministers to introduce these troops into the country. He certainly never meant to give up the old constitutional principle; on the contrary, he considered these latter acts as exceptions to the general principle.

Lord Grenville rose to say a few words on this subject; first, with respect to what the noble secretary of state had alluded to respecting a bill passed during the few months he had last the honour of serving his Majesty. He wished noble lords to recollect, that a bill on this subject was passed at the close of the session of 1804; and he hoped they would take the benefit of example from this instance, and every other of this kind, and in future guard against the difficulties and dangers consequent on such a mode of introducing important bills into parliament, or they would but ill discharge their duty. He would venture to say, that it was in consequence of such a practice, that the employment of foreign generals remained a matter of legal doubt, even under the provisions of that bill, notwithstanding a practice of six years continuance; all which doubts might have been effectually

prevented, if that act had been precisely and properly framed at first. When he, and those with whom he acted, proposed the bill alluded to, in 1806, they gave no opinion on the subject, and, consequently, none could be fairly imputed to them. The formation of the measure was in 1804, and the troops had been sent abroad, where most properly such troops should be sent, to their own country, to the north of Germany. During the first week the noble lord was in office, he was in daily fear that army would never return: but luckily it was saved from the wreck of Germany, and from the rashness of administration. He also at the same period learned the increase of their numbers. They had been invited to join the British standard in consequence of advice (which would have been reluctantly given by himself,) not as fugitives, but for the deliverance of their own country, and of Europe, on the faith of a proclamation. Their situation had to a certain degree become desperate, and they were on their way to the British shores. It was in that case impossible to exercise any discretion on the subject; nothing was a more imperious duty than to keep sacred our faith. Whether the original question were right or wrong, ministers on that occasion had no option. The present ministers wished always, from a bad habit, to shove off responsibility on the shoulders of others. He could assure them that he came down disposed not merely to defend the policy he had adopted, but also that of 1804. He was not afraid to avow his opinion, that the circumstances of this country and of Europe rendered it advisable, to a limited extent, to employ such troops to fight in the common cause. The impression on his mind was not against the employment of the troops, but against the number of foreign generals commanding districts. This was a case that ought not to admit of doubts, which, it was unnecessary for him to say, might, under certain circumstances, be questioned in the most disagreeable manner. He was much obliged to his noble friend (lord Rosslyn) for his statement respecting the manner of employing the foreign officers, of whom and of the troops, he had no doubt of the merits. merits. They (the officers) should be employed as brigadier generals; but it was always an inconvenience when they were employed in higher command, especially at home. Government ought therefore, to take great care that such

command should be, if possible, but temporary. The King's servants were bound, in such a case, to exercise more than usual

caution.

The other orders of the day were then read; after which, their lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Thursday, April 12. [RESOLUTIONS RESPECTING MR. HUNT'S SECURITIES.] Mr. Calcraft rose. He had, he said, given notice of two motions, the one respecting the very reprehensible conduct of the board of ordnance, in not taking securities for the fidelity of Mr. Hunt in the responsible situation he filled; the other for the expulsion of Mr. Hunt, as a member of that House. The latter motion he should postpone for the present, as certain documents necessary to be in the hands of members were not yet printed. The former motion, he should bring on now, in doing which, he felt it quite unnecessary to trouble the House at any length, the facts were in themselves so simple, and the duty of the House to pass a strong censure on the parties implicated, so obvious and so urgent. It appeared from the general orders in the reign of Charles II. that a regulation was made for the direction of the board of ordnance, by the neglect of which, in the case of Mr. Hunt, that board had been guilty of a great and reprehensible omission, whereby the public had sustained a loss of 10,000l. and for which, according to every principle of justice, they ought to be responsible. Under the general order to which he alluded, the board were bound to oblige the treasurer of the ordnance, before he was allowed to proceed upon the duties of his office, to find securities for 10,000l. such as the board should think eligible, and as the treasury should approve. But although Mr. Hunt had, for the second time, been appointed to this office so far back as 1807, he was never obliged by the board to enter into any sureties, and he absconded from his office, and left the country with a deficit in his accounts, as appeared from the ordnance returns, of 93,2961. It appeared from the report on the table, that a letter had been written to Mr. Hunt by Mr. Crewe, secretary of the board, and dated April 22, 1807, shortly after the appointment of Mr. Hunt, requiring him to enter into the sureties prescribed: but from that

time forth it did not appear, by any document accompanying the report, or by any evidence whatever, that any further steps had been taken by the board to oblige Mr. Hunt to give the necessary securities. Now this was so palpable a breach of duty on the part of the board as it was impossible to pass by without censure, consisttently with any attention to the responsibility of public officers trusted with the money of the country. If the board had any defence to offer for this flagrant omission, he should be glad to hear it. He had searched and inquired for a motive in every quarter, but could find none. The board of ordnance were amply paid for their own services; they were amply aided by subordinate officers; they sat but three days in a week, and, therefore, could have no plea of being so overwhelmed with business as not to have time to attend to their duty in this case; in fact, they could have no excuse. There was something peculiarly indulgent in the conduct of the board to this gentleman, Mr. Hunt, on the ground of sureties, for which he (Mr. Calcraft) was totally at a loss to account. Upon Mr. Hunt's first appointment to the treasurership, in 1803, he was suffered to remain eighteen months in his office without producing his sureties; and after his second appointment, three whole years passed without oblig. ing him to produce or enter into any. Having stated these facts, he felt nothing more now necessary than to state to the House the resolutions he had to offer. It might be said that that regulation laid down in the general order of Charles the Second was only imperative upon the master general of the ordnance. But every one knew that for a long series of years the official management of the ordnance business devolved upon the board. At present, he believed that there was no such officer as the master-general of the ordnance; and he did not mean to impute the slightest blame to lord Chatham, who, he believed, knew nothing whatever of the transaction. The hon. member then read his Resolutions as follow:

1st, Resolved, "That it appears to this House, that Joseph Hunt, esq. member of this House, has been twice treasurer of his Majesty's board of ordnance. That he was nearly eighteen months in that office on his first appointment in 1803, before any security was obtained; and that on his second appointment in 1807, it is not recorded in the ordnance department, that

had occurred as to the loss of the security. That loss was actually but 5,000l. so far as the negligence of the board might have been concerned. There were to be two securities of 2,500l. each, with Mr. Hunt's own for 5,000l. This last would, of course, have gone, notwithstanding any previous vigilance of the board. The letter of Mr. Crewe, desiring the security, was then on the table-this security was not given, and so far there was an error, but the board had done its duty. He knew that the board ought in strictness-(the word ⚫ strictness' was echoed from the opposite side)-Gentlemen might quarrel with the word, but though in strictness the board should have seen that the duty was done, there was no censure to be attached to them for not following their inferior officers throughout the minute detail of their business: a certain degree of confidence must be réposed in those inferior officers. Whatever neglect had occurred was the neglect of Mr. Crewe; yet it was to be hoped that the House, acknowledging the services of that highly meritorious officer, would not think a censure on his conduct the proper mode of proceeding. Thus situated, his hon. friend (Mr. A. Cooper) had proposed a resolution in addition to those before the House, which, admitting the fact of negligence, went to prevent its recurrence. The neglect was undoubtedly to be charged to the secretary; but his services should stand between him and any severe proceeding on the part of the House. But he believed there was no very violent intention against Mr. Crewe; he could do nothing in one way or the other with party, and it was only with party that the gentlemen on the opposite side were anxious to have to do.

Mr. Barkam found that the same practice was resorted to on all similar occasions. The crime was always to be thrown off the principal on the subordinate officer. The right hon. gent. had just said that we should consider on whom the censure was to fall; but the true mode of proceeding was quite the reverse; the only question was, whether censure was deserved, and this should be decided, without at all considering where it was to fall. As to the right hon. gent.'s insinuation about sparing Mr. Crewe, because his good or evil could not affect party, it was unjust and unfair. The right hon. gent. would be ashamed of it on a little reflection, and regret that in a peevish moment he threw out an aspersion which it was impossible

VOL. XVI.

that he should believe. He was not fond of using strong words, but he was persuaded that the right hon. gent. knew there was no ground whatever for so idle an insinuation. What would the public think if the | House should itself determine to screen offences like those which were then calling for their fullest revision.

"

Mr. Whitbread wished to ask one or two questions. Gentlemen on the other side had talked of the laborious duties and minutiæ (he thought that was the word) of the master general of the ordnance's business. (No, from the treasury benches.) Well then, the minutiae of the board, of which he is the head; that board sat three days in the week, and between three and four hours each time. Here was an oppressive occupation! Did Mr. Crewe make no return of his not having received the securities; and did the omission of that return, which it was their duty to have obtained, or have known the cause of its delay, awake none of the sensibilities of that illustrious board, who sat, like the gods of Epicurus, enjoying their tranquil elevation, without allowing it to be ruffled by any care of governing? Did they not not look over their own minutes, to see if their own orders had been complied with or not? But when it was determined to do nothing, the honest excuse was, that there was too much to do. There had now been no master-general for more than a month, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that no injury had been sustained by his non-appointment. Here, then, there was a sinecure office. Why not find a duty for the lazy emolument of the master general, and let him look over the securities? The resolutions before the House were fair and unexaggerated; the mere statement of the fact. If they should then decline to do their duty, it was a farce to talk of responsibility; it would be idle to sit there, a mock tribunal, to try allegations which it was previously determined to find false, or to give a judgment which was only a ridicule upon the principles of public and deliberative justice. Who was the proposer of the new act? A member of that very board of ordnance,who admitted the whole charge, and yet shrank from its conclusion. He submitted it to, he would call it, the modesty of the House, to say whe ther, with those facts before them, they could venture to look the public in the face, after acknowledging that negligence was suffered to operate for three years, 2 T

till the public lost 10,000l. by it; also acknowledging that they did not think, or were not allowed to think, the negligence deserving of censure.

Mr. Johnstone thought it would be wrong to pass over such a circumstance entirely; yet, as no charge of intentional guilt had been brought forward, the proposed censure appeared to him rather too severe. The omission might have easily occurred in the multiplicity of business in a great public office. He should, therefore, propose as an amendment to the resolution of censure, the following one; "That it was the opinion of the House, the mastergeneral and board of ordnance were guilty of a neglect of duty, in not obtaining security from Mr. Hunt, the late treasurer of the ordnance."

Mr. Calcraft could not let the motion pass away in that manner. For what were enormous salaries to be given, and palaces to be bought, for public officers? For what were 3,000l. 2,000l. 1,500l. a year to be given, but for doing public duty, and guarding against negligence? But why expect all the duty from the secretary? Five members sat at the board table three times a week, with frequently but very little in their portfolios, while one secretary attended, and was fully occupied every day from ten in the morning till six in the evening; the board attending only from twelve to four, or five. He would ask any gentleman in the habit of attending at public boards, whether when a letter was sent, the answer was not looked for at the regular time? Why was not Mr. Hunt's security rigorously required, when it was known that he had left office before with a balance of 11,000l. against him? A great sum was lost in consequence; yet even if nothing were lost but the security, 10,000l. were too much; nay 10s. of the public money would be too much to be thrown in such a manner

The Chancellor of the Exchequer amused himself with observations on the party feeling which might make them spare Mr. Crewe, because his injury could not affect party But was the surveyorgeneral of the ordnance a person connected with party? In this view the board of ordnance was not worth powder and shot; it was not worth five farthings, whether the present members were in or out, so far as party purposes were concerned; but there was a principle which would account for his pressing the point. He was, as a member of that House, bound

to look into the disposal of the public money. Thin as the House was then, could it be supposed that he (Mr. C.) feit himself so much lowered in the opinion of his friends as not to be able to have collected a fuller attendance, if party purposes were concerned? but his only object was public justice. Was there to be censure or not? If the minister had a minister's power, he would have displaced some of the members of that board; but bound up in trammels, as he was, he must submit, and appear in that House the humble apologist or the boasting defender of conduct which he must know to be inconsistent with every feeling of public duty. There were in the board but two active situations; one that of the surveyor, and the other that which was held by the hon. gent. (Mr. A. Cooper); the rest were the mere sleeping partners of the concern. When he (Mr. Calcraft) was at the board, he always demanded security, and followed up the demand. If the hon. gent.'s (Mr. Johnstone's) resolution were more acceptable, he must be satisfied with it, but not till he had tried his own.

Mr. A.Cooper begged leave to call to the hon. gent.'s remembrance, that Mr. Ridge, the ordnance agent, had been suffered to remain in his office for a year without security, though large sums of money, at least 100,000l. a year were passing through his hands.

Mr. Calcraft professed his total ignorance of the transaction: he only wished to have his public conduct thoroughly sifted, in every situation in which he was placed; and if he had not done his duty in the fullest manner, he was ready to submit to all the censure which could be laid upon him. He had no idea of affixing individual or peculiar blame to the mastergeneral.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that it was no wonder, when the hon. member so triumphantly boasted of his perfection, that his hon. friend near him (Mr. A. Cooper) should have produced a slumbering fact, to make him recollect that it was at least human to err. It was rather evident, that in the zeal of his reform the hon. gent. was himself not infallible. The act now proposed was to prevent a recurrence of the injury which had occurred, and by operating as a check on the person who received the office, it would do more to effect its purpose than any stimulus applied to the board.

Mr. Ponsonby did not know what effect