Mr. Secretary Windhamsaid, that the estimates, relating to the pay of Militia Officers, went to extend the same additional allowance to subalterns in the militia, as to those in the regulars. But it was not proposed to extend this allowance to the field-officers of the militia: the reason of which was, that, from the constitution of the militia service, they were necessarily men of considerable property, besides what arose from their pay. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill, to amend the acts of the 42d of the king, as far as related to the pay of militia officers.
§ Sir W. Elfordexpressed his astonishment, that so great a state-question, as whether the captains in the militia should be on a different footing from those of the regulars, should be brought forward at such a late period of the session, when most of the militia officers had retired from the house to their military avocations. It was a measure founded on this most unwarrantable principle, that, because men filling official situations had private property, they should therefore forego their official salary. But he had not heard that it was ever proposed, that the duke of Bedford, for instance, should relinquish his official salary as lord lieutenant of Ireland, because he possessed a large private fortune. Many of the field-officers of the militia were possessed of very moderate fortunes. He had belonged to that body for 20 years, and he had found his pay fully exhausted by his contribution to the mess, and by his house-rent alone when on service: an extension 1037 of the additional pay to those would, therefore, prove acceptable. Every private gentleman who entered the militia as an officer, gave up his time to the service, and was, in a great degree, incapacitated from attending to his private affairs. He therefore deprecated the measure as unconstitutional, and not founded on any analogy with what took place as to individuals in other official situations.
Colonel Woodobserved, that field-officers in the militia must possess a certain degree of property in the country, and therefore there was not the same reason for making an addition to their pay, as for increasing that of field-officers in the regulars, who were in general very differently situated.
§ Mr. Percevalcontended, that the principle of the measure went to spew, that officers of the militia should have no pay at all.—Leave was then given to bring in the bill, which was accordingly brought up by the secretary at war, who moved that it be read a first time.
§ Sir W. Elfordprotested against the principle of the bill, which would give a deathblow to the militia.
The Secretary at War said, that the notice which he had given was, that an increase of pay should be given only to officers of a particular rank, and in certain cases, as it was expressed in the bill. This was not exactly a measure for a general increase of pay, therefore the hon. baronet might as well complain that it was not extended to colonels.
§ Mr. Percevalsaid, that, from what he now understood the bill to be, it gave much greater powers to ministers than what were necessary for the object which they had in view. The law at present was, that the militia, as to pay, should be exactly on the same footing with the infantry in the regulars. But now it appeared that, in certain cases, an increase was to be allowed to the one and not to the other. But the particular object was to give the increase of pay to the militia subalterns, and to withhold it from the other officers. There was no such particular distinction, however, in the bill. Besides, the principle would certainly go this length, that no pay should be allowed to the superior militia officers at all, and the measure could not be defended on any other ground. This might be a good principle, but it certainly was one which deserved some consideration before it was established; and therefore to 1038 propose it at this late period of the session, was not very fitting.
§ Mr. Windhamstated, that this Would not affect the officers now serving in the militia, as they were not put upon a worse footing than when they entered, and this went only so far as to say, that they had no claim to a participation in the proposed increase.—But the learned gentleman objected to the principle. The principle, however, was not what he had stated it to be. It was not that the militia officers ought to have no pay at all, but upon the plain and obvious one, that different kinds of service ought to be differently rewarded. The pay, it was true, had been the same hitherto: but was that a reason why it should not be varied if there should appear good cause for it? A certain proportion had been established between the pay of officers of different ranks: but that, too, might be varied, if there was reason for it. As to the militia officers above a certain rank, they must have private fortunes: and could it be contended, that, because you gave an increase of pay to officers in the army, whose services must be acknowledged to be of a superior nature, who might have no private fortune, and might be obliged to depend solely on their pay for the establishment of their future lives, you ought, therefore, to allow the same increase to persons in circumstances altogether different? The thing was preposterous on the face of it. He then adverted to the additional expence which an allowance of additional pay to the superior militia officers, would occasion, and contended that this ought to be avoided, since there was no necessity for it.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that a badge of inferiority would thus be fixed upon the militia officers, much more hurtful to their feelings than the want of the pay, and they would consider this as a precursor of some future measure still further to degrade them. The right hon. secretary himself had recognised the principle of an equal pay, by giving it to the subalterns. The militia captains might be equally in want of the pay, because the qualification required was only 200l. a year. The saving altogether would not be more than 17,000l. But, suppose the increase of pay should be allowed to the captains, the savings then would be quite trifling. The sum for the increase of pay to the regular field-officers was only 16,000l. The militia were in numbers about one-third of the regulars, and the saving would only be the third of 1039 16,000l. He called upon the noble lord opposite (Temple) to support the cause of the militia on the present occasion, as he had done at former periods.
Mr. Alexanderstated the influence which their situation gave to militia colonels, who possessed advantages which could not be possessed by the regular colonels.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that if the hon. gent. had looked at the estimate, he would have found that the additional pay did not extend to the colonels in either case.
Lord Templepressed his wish that his hon. friend would reconsider his measure. Upon the principle which he had stated, different parts of the army itself might have different claims. As to the colonels of militia, they had no claim whatever. The field-officers had not much; but as to the captains, he must really insist upon the pay being extended to them, because if officers could not be found with the proper qualifications, power had lately been given to accept of them without, and many had been therefore admitted without the qualification.
§ Lord De Blaquierehoped that there could be no difference of opinion as to the necessity of extending the additional allowance to the captains of militia. But he thought the distinction extremely invidious, even as applied to the field-officers. He was surprised that this period of the session should be chosen for the introduction of such a measure, when the militia officers had left their duty in this house, to go discharge more pressing duties, and he hoped, therefore, that it would be reconsidered.
Colonel Craufurdcould not see why the measure should be objected to, except it was with a view to render his right hon. friend unpopular with the militia and volunteers; a purpose in which the hon. gent. on the other side had laboured with great perseverance, but he believed with little success. The cavalry were excluded from this increase of pay, and so were the guards, upon the principle that they could go on very well without any addition, while, in the cases where it was allowed, there was a necessity for it. It was to prevent meritorious officers from being put in prison, or being forced to quit the service, from the absolute inability of existing upon their pay. If there was no complaint on account of the cavalry and the guards, where was the ground for complaint in the case of the militia?
§ General Tarletonknew, froth his own observation, that the militia were brought to a very high state of discipline, and this was owing to the officers. They were fit to combat with any regular troops against any enemy whatever; and when there was so much merit on the part of the officers, it was hard to make this invidious distinction.—The bill was then ordered to be read a second time the next day.—Sir C. Pole, pursuant to notice, moved for leave to bring in a bill to extend the advantages of the 35th of the king to the petty officers, seamen, and marines, in the navy, by enabling them to allot part of their wages to the support of their wives and families. Leave given. The bill was then brought up, read a first, and ordered to be read a second time the next day.—The nabob of Arcot's Debts bill was reported, and ordered to be read a third time the next day.