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 bad 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 93,296l. 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, consistently 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 obliging 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 ordnances. 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 any security whatever was given by him, 2.That there is a balance of 93,296l. against the said Joseph Hunt, esq. as late treasurer of the ordnance. 3. That the master-general of his Majesty's ordnance is directed in the original instructions of king Charles 2. under which he and the board now act, to take from the treasurer upon his first entrance on the execution of his place, security to such an amount as he may judge necessary, and as shall be approved of by the treasury. 4. That the security taken in the first treasurer ship of Joseph Hunt, esq. nearly 18 months after his entrance on the execution of his place, was 10,000l. 5. That no security was taken on the second appointment of Joseph Hunt esq. 6. That it is the opinion of this House the master-general and the board of ordnance have been guilty of a breach of the instructions under which they act, and by which they ought to be formed, in neglecting to take security from Joseph Hunt, a member of this House; and are responsible to answer as to this omission of duty, which, from the state of the balances against the said Joseph Hunt, has actually occasioned a loss of 10, OOOl. to the public."

intended no opposition to the main part of the resolutions; but would contend that it clearly appeared that the board at least had not been deficient in their duty. A minute had been made to direct Mr. Hunt's securities to be called for, with which it turned out that he had hot complied; but this involved no culpability of the board. He remembered when a similar charge had been brought in the case of sir H. St. John Mildmay's compensation against the treasury board; but on its appearing, that the error was the work of inferior officers, and his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no share of that error, the censure of the House did not attach to the proceeding, as an instance of the general negligence of the board of treasury. It would be in the present instance an unnecessary and unusual exercise of their judgment to censure the board of ordnance, which lay under similar circumstances; but to obviate a similar occurrence, he should move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the security to be taken for the faithful discharge of the duties of public offices, and for vacating such offices, unless such security should be given within a limited time. The board did not know that a balance of 11,000l. stood against Mr. Hunt, after his first resignation of office. He must on the whole deprecate so severe a censure as that proposed by the hon. gent. on the opposite side.

was surprised that an act like that which had been just stated should have occurred, but was still more surprised at the defence, the idle, superficial, and vague defence, which was attempted to exonerate the board from the blame it so justly had incurred. The defence increased the crime; there was no ignorance of the original transaction; Mr. Hunt's securities had been noted, and a minute made; but the precaution which might have saved a large sum of money to the public was omitted, with the idle and insolent levity of men careless of public opinion or public duty. He would not say that the members of the board of ordnance were all actuated by the same spirit; but it was obvious that there had been a great neglect, and how was it accounted for? The board had directed their secretary to do the business. He (Mr. Ponsonby) knew nothing of the constitution of the board; but if the House could be induced to pass over such a transaction, it would be absurd in them to expect that the country would respect their purity or their pretensions. He would be glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer stand up in his place, and after being forced to name the transaction which was then before them, tell them by what title the House was to set forth itself as the guardian of the public purse, if it should suffer it to pass by with impunity. Was it possible that the ordnance board should be so much employed as not to have time to enquire whether the secretary had done his duty? The gentlemen on the opposite side seemed inclined to throw the blame on the secretary; but was any negligence of his to excuse theirs? 10,000l. was but a small sum compared with the heavy loss which had been sustained—it was small in those expences to which the present unfortunate state of the world urged us; but the principle was most important; and if this act passed without censure, nothing, he was convinced, could persuade the people of the honesty or the virtue of the House of Commons.

would not defend the ordnance board; but the present censure was unsuited to any rational purpose of correction. He must however, rectify a misconception which 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 2,50Ol. 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 reposed 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 serve 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.

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 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.

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 business. (No, from the treasury benches.) Well then, the minutiæof 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 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 whether, 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, 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.

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 appealed 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 master general and board of ordnance were guilty of a neglect of duty, in not obtaining security from Mr. Hunt, the late treasurer of the late treasurer of the ordnance."

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 away. The Chancellor of the Exchequer amused himself with observations on the party feeling which might make them pare Mr. Crewe, because his injury could not affect party But was the surveyor general 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.) felt 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.

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.

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 master-general.

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.

did not know what effect 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."

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."

certainly thought it his duty to vote against this Resolution. The House had already censured the conduct of the board of ordnance in this particular. To prevent the possibility of the recurrence of such an evil was now the preferable mode of proceeding. This, he thought, could be only done by a bill; but he hoped it would provide that the securities should be in a greater proportion to the sums passing through the Treasurer's hands, than they at present bore.

thought it impossible for 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. Crews, 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 now 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.

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.

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:

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 inconsistent 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 en 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.

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 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 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,