duct. The new commissioners were to make no reports to parliament, but merely to the board of Treasury. A fourth matter of difference was, the commissioners of accounts were named by parliament, the new commissioners by the crown, which was to appoint a successor in case of death or resignation. He concluded with saying, that he flattered himself, he had shewn that the present Bill was unnecessary, that it was absurd, and that it gave powers of an alarming and unconstitutional nature.

The Attorney General said, that till near the close of his speech, he did imagine that the hon. gentleman had not known that there existed a law, which gave to commissioners all the powers which the present Bill would give the new commissioners. That those powers were uncommonly great and extensive, he was ready to admit; but he was not therefore ready to say, they ought not to have been given. They had been given before without any of those alarming consequences following, which the hon. gentleman appeared to dread. On the contrary, people had slept as quietly in their beds since the Act for appointing commissioners of accounts had passed, as before. With regard to the extravagant construction of the words of the Act, which the hon. gentleman had indulged himself in putting, there was not a single statute, that would not bear as ludicrous an interpretation; but, did any man imagine, that the commissioners would dare to act upon the clauses in so extraordinary a manner, or, would harass the subject by such an enormous abuse of their power? If they did, he would be bold to say, they were liable to be punished, for having exceeded that authority, of which the plain sense of all who read the Bill, would enable them to trace the limits. With regard to the power given to the crown to appoint a successor, in case of death or resignation, where was the harm of it? Did the hon. gentleman know, that in a bill moved by Mr. Fox, and which had passed into a law, for the appointment of commissioners to receive and examine into the claims of American refugees, the same power had been lodged in the crown, and there had not been any of that alarm and danger held out then? Why? Because the hon. gentleman and his right hon. friend were in administration at the time. It was that which made all the difference. Mr. Attorney concluded with declaring his entire approbation of the Bill.

[VOL. XXV.]

Mr. Pitt said, he must beg leave to answer some objections of the hon. gentleman with respect to the persons appointed to this work. He flattered himself, that the choice of them was such as could be liable to no reasonable animadversion; two of them were persons of the most unimpeached reputation, who had already distinguished themselves by their ability and integrity, in a work nearly allied to this in question, namely, the settling of the army accounts; and to them was added a third, a man of an independent fortune and unblemished character, who was not in office. As for the minute, which had been read from the proceedings at a late board of Treasury, at which the hon. gentleman had assisted, he was surprised to find, that his argument on that subject had taken the turn it did; for from the experience he had had of the grounds which the gentlemen on the other side were fond of going on, and the sort of questions which it was their most favourite task to agitate, he imagined that the whole of the hon. gentleman's observations on that minute would have been confined to the three first words of it-it began "Present, the duke of Portland, lord John Cavendish, and Mr. Montagu." Those were the three words to which he alluded, and he expected, that on the authority of those three names the hon. gen tleman would have grounded a charge of presumption against him, for venturing to deviate from a precedent furnished by so respectable an authority. He confessed he was one of those who felt the most sincere respect for each of those three gentlemen; but he was not of the number of those whose superstitious veneration for any name, not even the respectable name of Cavendish itself, led them to consecrate the failings and errors to which such names were held out as a sanction. For this reason, he had been induced to abandon the line chalked out for him by that precedent, because he thought no precedent could be of sufficient authority to warrant a violation of his duty; and as the hon. gentleman had thought proper to read a very large part of the minute, in order to shew that he had deviated from it, so he would read a very small part, in order to shew, that in such a deviation he was not only not to blame, but he hoped, deserving of approbation. Here Mr. Pitt read that part of the minute which prescribes to those appointed to inquire into the abuses of the several offices, "that [2 B]

now

they shall confine their researches to the known and lawful perquisites of each subordinate officer, relying on the integrity of those in higher departments, that they would prevent any private clandestine practices of peculation and extortion." Thus, he observed, a new and extraordi. nary power was given to inquire into and correct obvious and trifling abuses, while those of a more covert, dangerous, and extensive nature were to be left to the ordinary control and superintendence of the old establishment. This he supposed was done to avoid the imputation of littleness and insignificance, which he was charged with, and which was illustrated by the elegant allusion to rats and ratcatchers. For his own part, he could see no reason for passing over even the most trifling abuses, except laziness or pride, and those were obstacles that he hoped would never stand between him and his duty; nor could he conceive how, in the present situation of this country, any person or persons to whom the care of its interests were intrusted, could justify to themselves to omit any exertion that might tend even in the most minute particular to promote that economy on which the recovery of the state from its present depressed situation so much depended. He concluded by recapitulating the instances in which this system differed from, and those in which it agreed with the other, pointing out the benefit to be expected from the various deviations.

Mr. Sheridan said, he wished the right hon. gentleman, instead of answering arguments that had not been used, had confined himself to such as had. He had not said one word of the high character of the duke of Portland, lord John Cavendish, or Mr. Montagu, but had spoken of the minute itself, to shew that an inquiry had been ordered. With regard to its being an inquiry into such fees and emoluments as were legal, it was that, and that only; because the board of Treasury knew that the heads of the different offices would of themselves take care to prevent any illegal fees being taken. He reminded the House, that he had stated four essential points, in which the act appointing the commissioners of public accounts differed from the present Bill, whereas it had not been attempted to answer him but in one, and in that most feebly; as to the Act for appointing commissioners to receive the claims of American refugees, the reading of which had been so triumphantly recom

mended to him, it was an Act that gave no powers of an extraordinary nature, and therefore it was not of the least importance, constitutionally considered, whether the crown or parliament appointed the successor in case of death or resignation.

Mr. Burke desired that Magna Charta might be referred to, and that part read which states that "nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur," &c. While it was reading, there was a laugh on the Treasury-bench side of the House. Mr. Burke thereupon observed, that what he had desired to be read was, he believed, at this day regarded just in the same light as Chevy Chace, or any other old balladas fit only to be laughed at. It was, however, to him of serious importance, and he would shew that the present Bill was a direct and violent contradiction to Magna Charta and the common law of the land. He proceeded to point out the clauses empowering the commissioners to call for persons and papers, as clauses that went an extraordinary length indeed; so far even as to force persons to criminate themselves. He enlarged upon this as an infringement of the liberty of the subject, which that House, as the guardian of the constitution, ought never to countenance. He took notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's expression, that the aim of the Bill was to inquire after and correct possible abuses; a better phrase, he had never heard, nor one more truly applicable to the subject. Thus, he said, it was avowed that there was not any known existing necessity for the Bill, but that it was produced with a view to hunt after one. He appealed to the feelings of the House, whether such unconstitutional powers as the Bill would authorize the commissioners to exercise, ought to be trusted in any hands but upon the most pressing necessity. He animadverted also on that part of Mr. Pitt's speech, in which he had insinuated that former boards of Treasury had been too proud and too lazy to do their duty. He declared he deemed pride and laziness two of the worst vices human nature could fall into. Pride made us arrogant and disdainful to all who differed from us in opinion, and laziness made us neglect our own duty, and push it off to be discharged by our deputies. The one led to high honours and large emoluments; the other made us disdain to merit either the one or the other, but induced us to revive the ancient practice of the Flagellants, not indeed to lay the lash

tion of Magna Charta, the common law of the land, and the constitution.

Mr. Rolle wondered not at the hon. gentleman being an enemy to all inquiries. He reminded the House of the case of Powell and Bembridge, as a proof how well the heads of offices inquired into and corrected the abuses in the departments immediately under them. He hoped the inquiry into the state of the forest lands of the crown, was not intended to be dropped. It was, he said, about to have been abandoned by the last administration, as he well knew, by having seen a letter from Mr. Montagu, to an intimate friend of his, upon the subject. He expatiated on the state of the crown forest lands in Devonshire, and spoke also of the Forest of Dean, urging the necessity of prosecuting an inquiry.

upon our own backs, but upon the backs of those under us. In the present Bill there was, he said, an obvious tinge of the school in which the right hon. author had been bred. Most schools had their characteristics; thus the school of Venice was known by its colouring; the school of Raffaelle by its design; but the school he alluded to, was the school of large promise and little performance; the school where smiles and professions were dealt out liberally in the outset, but the issue was always a tyrannous exercise over menials and dependants, under pretence of great economy and great attention, but where the utmost probable produce from such oppressive stretches of power, could be but inconsiderable. He called the Bill a slander upon the whole official establishments of the kingdom, and said, it presumed the general prevalence of the grossest corruption and fraud, in every one of them. The public offices of Great Britain, he believed, were the best conducted, and the most free from affording real ground of censure, of any in Europe. They made a part of the national reputation; and that House ought not to suffer them to be so foully slandered, as they were in that Bill, which was clearly, not a Bill of use, but a Bill of idle parade and ridiculous ostentation. It was a sample of doing nothing at all, when it was pretended that a great deal was done. He took notice of the vermin abuses mentioned by Mr. Sheridan, and said, it was but too true, the right hon. gentleman opposite to him loved to hunt in holes and corners,

after

Rats and mice, and such small deer

As had been Tom's food for seven long year. Though the Bill was a reptile crawling in the dirt, he said, it would be found to bite hard, where the constitution ought not to be lacerated. He lamented that the invidious task of investigating the characters and qualifications of the three commissioners had fallen upon him; but he should do his duty, though he meant not to provoke any man's resentment. He then entered into a discussion of the separate characters of sir John Dick, Mr. Molleson, and Mr. Baring, paid each of them the highest personal compliments, but gave his reasons for declaring all the three totally unqualified to execute the duties imposed on them by the Bill. Mr. Burke returned to the point from whence he set out, and said, the Bill was a direct viola

Mr. Pitt assured the hon. gentleman, that the subject of the forest lands was uppermost in his thoughts; and as soon as the two great questions of the Irish commerce and the reform in the representation were disposed of, he should introduce it to the House.

Mr. Fox rose to say a word or two on some particular things that had fallen in the course of the debate; and first, he could not help remarking the extraordinary answer given by the learned gentleman to his hon. friend's objection to the Bill, on the ground of its giving such alarming and unconstitutional powers to persons appointed at the will and nomination of the crown. The learned gentleman had referred to this, by saying, "Here is one Act, which gives commissioners powers equally extraordinary, and here's another Act which enables the King to appoint successors, on death or resignation." Mr. Fox reasoned on this strange mode of joining the operation of two Acts, extremely different in their natures, merely to make out an answer to a plain objec tion. He replied to Mr. Pitt's remark on the conduct of the board of Treasury, at which lord John Cavendish sat, and said, had that board acted otherwise than they did, he should have thought they acted very unwisely. To inquire into an establishment with a view to see if the purposes of economy could be answered by any reform, was one thing; to detect abuses and criminate parties, was another. These objects could never be obtained at one and the same time. The pursuit after each must be separate; for, when blended, success could not be hoped for. Mr.

Fox reprobated the Bill as useless, but said he hoped, when the time of its renewal should arrive, care would be taken to regulate it so as to remove the danger ous consequences that might result from the powers it vested in the commissioners. The Bill was read a third time and passed.

Debate in the Commons on the Fortifications at Portsmouth and Plymouth.] March 14. Mr. Gilbert brought up the report of the Ordnance Estimates.

Mr. Bastard stated to the House what had passed on a former day, when it was agreed that this report should be re-committed; and concluded by moving, that the said report be re-committed.

Mr. James Luttrell (Surveyor-general of the Ordnance) observed, that the Ordnance Estimates were reduced as low as the necessary services for the year would admit of, and they had passed without objection to any article contained in them: but some dissatisfaction had arisen on the proposed application of 50,000l. granted for the purpose of securing, by fortifications, the principal dock-yards of the kingdom. The importance of that question merited the most serious consideration of parliament. The national treasure had been greatly exhausted by the late unfortunate war. Economy in all the public departments became highly expedient; but, to neglect the most essential preparations for the future safety of the kingdom, would be to adopt a ruinous and impolitic parsimony, not justified by any public disaster or fatal necessity. He was adverse to a general system of defending the kingdom by fortifications. It would be only furnishing an advantage to an invading enemy. The destruction of a country town or city could never decide the fate of the war; but the demolition of the principal docks and naval stores of the kingdom would strike at the very root of our naval power; and it must be of the highest importance to guard against such a blow. To defend our dock-yards effectually, it became necessary that a moderate force should be able to repel an enemy till the strength of the country could be collected; and this could only be accomplished by fortifications. Many advantages, and no possible mischief, could arise from such a measure. Veteran troops only could be opposed to veterans in the open field, and superior numbers of the enemy must probably succeed;

but within forts, militia, seamen, almost any stout brave fellow might be as useful in the article of defence as the most experienced soldier. There is only a certain limited time that any fortification can hold out against the regular approaches of an army, if nature affords no peculiar extraordinary advantage, such as the rock of Gibraltar. There could, therefore, be no risk that an enemy, even in possession of the proposed fortifications, could be capable of holding them for any considerable length of time against the collected force of this country; but as a possession for twenty-four hours of any situation, from whence the docks, stores, and shipping might be destroyed with red-hot shot and shells, would strike a fatal blow at the navy, surely such strong works as should be capable of resisting any superiority of numbers, for a certain time, ought to be raised for the purpose of guarding these most important posts, that reinforcements might arrive to repel the enemy before any essential mischief was done.

The advantages to the navy arising from the proposed fortifications would be extremely great and important. They would remove alarms and apprehensions, such as had cramped and confined the employment of our navy at the commencement of the last war;-apprehensions then, perhaps, justifiable from the defenceless state our dock-yards. French troops would always be stationed on the opposite coast of the Channel, if our wooden walls must answer every purpose, and ships were to be detained to remove the fears of invasion. Such a mode of carrying on war must be fatal to Great Britain; inferior in number of ships to her enemies, and still more inferior, if French troops, in any situation, were suffered to block our ships up in their ports, and thereby virtually act as an increase of the naval force we may have to contend with. He wished to give ministers no excuse in future for adopting a system of defence so ruinous and disgraceful. He observed, that it is easy to make use of pompous declamation, and to represent the navy of Britain as invincible and superior to all the world in arms; but that experience had taught us we have no advantages to spare, and therefore the navy should be eased of every unnecessary incumbrance and check upon any of its operations. We should hope for the best; but it is wise to provide against the worst that could happen. He reminded the