was

the secretary at war meant to move for some papers relative to the barracks, he immediately came down to the House, thinking it of more importance to hear these motions, than to look at the report. He then begged leave to have the report for some minutes, but finding it contrary to the rules of the House, he had given way. For want of the information, however, which he might have procured from the report, his plan could not be so well arranged as he could have wished. But he pledged himself to the House as a member of parliament, that if the produce of the canteens and manure should be duly applied, it would defray the expence of all the temporary barracks. He would call upon the chancellor of the exchequer, and the secretary at war, who had just come in, to say why his motion had been refused. The secretary at war, however, wishing, he supposed, afterwards to give him the object of his motion, had moved for an account of the rents of the canteens, and the produce of the manure. The paper had been presented, but it did not state any time. Whether the account from 93 or the days of Noah, there was no means of ascertaining upon the face of it. It was besides a general account, but he wanted the particulars, and some specified time. He wanted the produce in each particular barrack, according to the weekly accounts, as sent to the barrackoffice. This was no account at all. He would make his motion again. [The Speaker asked whether this was the same motion he had made before? and being answered in the affirmative, he said, that a motion having been once negatived, one exactly the same in substance could not be received during that session. Mr. Robson then begged with submission to propose another motion, and the Speak er having read it, asked him to state in what the difference consisted between that and the motion which had been negatived.]—Mr. Robson then in continuation, proceeded to state that the secretary at war had come down on Friday last, and moved for a paper on this subject without giving any previous notice. He had therefore been taken by surprise--but his account was only in gross. He wanted the particulars. Ministers said that they wanted enquiry this was his object too, and yet when he did any thing with that view he was thwarted, and asked why he should take these things upon him? If the secretary at war had communicated his motion to him he would have corrected it, but as it was it would answer no purpose, as there

Was

was no particular time mentioned. (The secretary at war said across the table, that there was.)-Mr. Robson said he would read the votes, and from these it would appear that there was not-(here he read the votes).

The Speaker again requested the honourable gentleman to state in what respect his motion differed from the for

mer.

Mr. Robson stated, that there was a difference of a material word.

Mr. Calcraft said, that after what had fallen from the chair, if the motion was substantially the same, we were de bating about nothing, because, however willing his noble friend (Lord H. Petty) was to support the motion, it could not be granted in consistency with the orders of the House.

Mr. Whitbread also said, that the hon. gentleman did not pay the proper respect to the Chair and to the House in not precisely stating the difference, if there was any.

Mr. Tyrwhitt Jones suggested that, the word perma"nent," which was in this but not in the former motion, might make a material difference.

Mr. Robson then said, that the former motion only applied to the temporary barracks, whereas the present applied to the permanent barracks also.

Mr. Whitbread and Mr. Calcraft, as they found there was a real difference, withdrew their objections.

The motion was then read, and, with the above-mentioned difference, was the same as that lately made by Mr. Robson, for an account of dung, straw, &c.

The Secretary at War said, that no objection had been made to the honourable gentleman's motion. With regard to the paper which he had presented on Friday, it had been put into his hands by the barrack-master-general as a contradiction of the statement made by the honourable gentlemen, that no account had been given of the produce of the barrack manure. The account did specify a certain number of years, and the particular barracks and sums, so that the honourable gentleman was mistaken on that point. With respect to the present motion, he would not object to it as the others had been agreed to. But at the same time the production of these papers would be attended with considerable expence and inconvenience, as a number of additional clerks must be employed on purpose. Now whether the House would think it worth while to go on with this business might be a question, as the ho

nourable

nourable gentleman seemed to be doubtful whether he would pursue it. He talked about throwing up the affair, and was now and then moving for more papers, so that he would have considerable doubts whether the right honourable gentleman meant to follow it up unless he expressly said so. Had not his noble friend permitted the other motions to pass without objection, he would not have been very willing to accede to this motion, as the matter was at present before another tribunal. He thought the honourable gentleman's plan was worse than the commission which had been already appointed, and of whose delay and unfitness the honourable gentleman had complained. [Here Mr. Robson made a sign of dissent.] The honourable gentleman did not seem inclined to admit that he had made such complaints, but he certainly had said something that appeared very like a charge of this sort. He had, however, met with no impediment from that side of the House. The honourable gentleman had said that all wished for enquiry. He, however, did not wish for enquiry in this way, because he conceived it would answer no good purpose.-But though he thought that the mili tary commission was more fit to investigate these abuses, he hoped that none of the ministers could, on that account, be justly liable to the imputation of attempting to screen abuses.

Mr. Paull said that he was surprised to hear the honourable gentleman say, that ministers had resisted his motion on a former occasion. They had not done so, for only two gentlemen on the other side had said No, and the honourable gentleman did not think fit to divide the House.

Mr. Robson stated nothing but what he believed on good grounds to be true, and the report would bear him out in what he said. As to the expence, the papers consisted only of two sheets and a half, and might be made out in two hours and a half. As to the charge of insincerity, and doubt whether he should prosecute this business, he would ask the noble lord over the way (Petty), whether he did not say, that he was ready to proceed immediately with the enquiry? There was a refinement in penetration in this business, and nothing would give him greater pleasure, than to have the matter before an honest jury. But then he had been desirous to wait for the report of the commission. He would describe what the report was. It gave a history of the barrack establishment, with the costs at

tending

tending them, and then proceeded to the examination of the barrack accounts, and there found out General Delancy, with his one per cent. a thing that was notorious at all the public offices before. He did not wish to speak disrespecifully of any person, but public men were in situations where they must submit to be animadverted upon. They had begun at the wrong end. What was the use of all this history; or what did it signify what happened a century ago? The abuses were still going on, and what they ought to have done was to have turned their attention to the present time. If they had done this, half a million might be saved to the public, and a report of this sort would have been of use. Was he then to wait four or five years, till the commissioners made another report? He would warn the chancellor of the exchequer not to resist a bona fide enquiry. He would have to answer to him as a member of Parliament, in a future session, how 1,700,0007. of the public money had been lost. There were a great many abuses in the other offices, and to these he would turn his attention at a future period. He had always at heart the good of his country. He had heard much of the talents of the present ministry, but the best proof of their talents would be to save the talents of gold and silver. Government had professed a resolution of adhering to the most rigid economy, and an honourable admiral had said that the navy might be kept up at two thirds of the present expence. He agreed with him in this, and he would sift that quarter. These things were worthy the attention of the House. He proceeded again to express his surprise at the charge of insincerity, and said that government would not have a leg to stand on, unless they adhered to economy. The country did not call for peace, but for enquiry into public expenditure. The chancellor of the exchequer came in with the affections of the people, who expected that ministers would perform what they promised as to economy. He said that the rents of the canteens, and the produce of the manure, would defray the expences of the temporary barracks. This was a plain assertion by which he would stand. There were sales of different materials at the barracks when they were left, and he wanted to know how these had been accounted for? and his next motion would refer to this. There was a mode by which the barrack accounts might be consolidated, and

made

made every three months, and he did not see why it should not be adopted.

The Secretary at War and Mr. Robson then mutually explained. After which the motion was agreed to.

A message from the Lords announced their assent to the auditors' bill, Lord Rodney's annuity bill, and others; and requested that the House of Commons would sit some time: which, on the motion of Lord Henry Petty, was agreed to.

Mr. Robson then moved-" That there be laid before this House a return of all the sales, which have taken place at the several temporary barracks, or buildings rented cr hired by government, and used as barracks, or as barrack store-houses, in the whole of Great Britain. That the said return do embrace all such sales between the first day of January, 1793, and the 24th day of June, 1806; and that it be exhibited in nine columns, in the order, and with the titles, here following, viz.-1st, The name of the parish (or station) and the county, where each sale respectively was made; the said names of the parishes (or stations) following each other in due alphabetical order. 2d, The date of the sale. 3d, The name of the auctioneer or person by whom the sale was made, and, if the sale was a private one, stating that circumstance. 4th, The names of the purchasers, if less than six in number. 5th, A general description of the things sold. 6th, The name of the barrack-master or other person under whose immediate direction and superintendance the sale took place. 7th, The gross amount of the sale as credited to government. 8th, The total amount of all the sus expended by government in fitting up each building respectively. 9th, The number of men or horses quartered in each station respectively.

Mr. Windham observed, that ministers were placed in a disagreeable situation by the honourable gentleman's motions, since he seemed to consider persons who might on any account object to them as wishing to protect abuses and peculations. But it must be from the most gratuitous love of abuse, if ministers could object to the discovery of abuses which took place under their predecessors. In this observation, however, he could not include himself, for the present motion had some reference to him in an antecedent state. Here he could not but remark the inconsistency of the hon. gentleman. He had complained that all the work VOL. III. 1805-6.

5 B

of