§ Mr. R. Wardrose, in consequence of the indisposition of his noble friend, to move the Ordnance Estimates. The right hon. gentleman began by stating, that although many persons were of opinion that our military establishment was too large, he was persuaded that it was not greater than the circumstances of the country demanded; The increase of expenditure in the department with which he was connected, amounted on the whole to 133,000l., and for the sake of greater clearness he would divide the different heads of expenditure into three classes. The first class was composed of such articles of increased expenditure as were the necessary consequence of regulations, which had either been approved by this House, or in some instances sanctioned by the laws of the country. The second consisted of those articles which were rather matters of arrangement than of additional expense; the third was composed of those items which certainly added to the expenses of our military establishment, but which were justified by the circumstances of the times. The first head he would mention was one of 10,000l., composed partly of the amount of the increased expense of the ordnance military corps, and partly of other items which it was not in the power of the House to control. There was another item of 3,000l., being the amount of gratuities granted for increased services and good conduct to persons in the civil department. The principal source of the increased expenditure was that arising from the additions to the half-pay establishment and to superannuations. These items amounted to 55,000l., which was nearly half of the excess which he had set out with stating to the House. The second class, which consisted rather of matters of arrangement than of additional expense, was confined to the military contingencies of the ordnance establishment. 806 In the miscellaneous charges was an item of from 25 to 26,000l. for allowances of bread, money, meat, beer, coals, &c, the excess under this head amounting to 3,500l. Among these items was one to which he flattered himself the House would most cheerfully accede, he alluded to a sum of 6,000l. charged to the body of the account for the expenses of the trigonometrical survey, which was commenced under the auspices of the late general Mudge. Under the head of unprovided services in the ordnance department the amount stated was 40,000l., though the real amount was not more than 25,000l., and this arose from there being balances in hand equal to the difference of those sums. The third head consisted of those items which constituted an absolute addition to the expenses of the ordnance department. Against these additions it would be necessary to set the savings which had been made in this year; not less than 19 establishments in this department, the expense of which amounted to 500l. per annum, had been put down. Eight establishments in the West Indies, enumerated in the estimates, had been completely put down. These sums added to the former made a saving in the ordinaries of 5,000l., and in the extraordinaries of 11,000l., making a saving in the whole of 16,000l. After deducting this sum the whole amount of the increase of expenditure would be 133,000l. The right hon. member stated, that he was ready to answer any questions, and to give any explanation which might be required upon the subject, and concluded by moving, "that a sum of 293,691l. 8s. 8d. be granted to his majesty in full of the charge of the office of ordnance for land service, for Great Britain, for the year 1820."
§ Mr. Humethought that, in calling the attention of the committee to the amount of these estimates, he should save the time of the committee, if, instead of entering into minute particulars, he looked at the total amount under each head. The object of the committee should be, to see what was the total expense of the ordnance service for this year, compared with that for the last; and whether the circumstances of the country were such as to warrant the present amount. With this view he should take the simple method of showing the difference between the estimates of the last and the present years, rather than follow the 807 plan which had been taken by the right hon. gentleman in laying his statements before the committee. In the year 1819, the total of the ordinary expenses had amounted to 527,397l.; but in 1820 they amounted to 548,304l.; making an increase of more than 20,000l. Then, on the score of extraordinaries, be wished the right hon. gentleman had stated all the items of increase, that the committee might have heard the grounds on which they were deemed necessary to the service. It appeared, however, that the total for last year was 220,821l.; and for this year, 280,389l., making an increase of more than 60,000l. on the extraordinaries for the year 1820. The total amount of ordnance expenses for Ireland last year was 101,000l., but this year it was 111,986l., leaving an increase of nearly 11,000l. The result, therefore was, notwithstanding all that had been said about economy, that the total extraordinaries and ordinaries for Great Britain and Ireland, which amounted in 1819 to 849,230l., amounted in 1820 to 940,680l., making an increase of 91,450l. for the present year. Now with regard to the other three items of the estimate, he observed that the amount of half-pay and compensations for services in the ordnance military corps was 293,690l. last year, and that this year these allowances amounted to 333,584l., being an increase of 60,000l.: the expenses of the civil department, consisting of allowances to those, or to the widows of those, who had held offices of a civil nature in the ordnance service, were last year 38,984l., but this year they were increased to 40,589l.: and with regard to the remaining item, comprising retired allowances granted since last year, the reduction which had taken place in 1819, in consequence of these retirements, amounted to 10,000l., but in 1820 there was only a saving of 5,000l. on that head. The aggregate amount of the sums under the three heads which he had last mentioned was 342,674l. in the year 1819, and 378,307l. in the present year, making an increase of 35,633l., exclusive of the increase which he had before pointed out in the extraordinary and ordinary expenses. It appeared, therefore, that the nett expense of the whole ordnance establishment for Great Britain and Ireland, which had been last year 1,191,905l., was this year 1,319,854l., making a difference of 127,949l.; and this increase of expense 808 had been imposed on the country since last year, notwithstanding the anxiety which ministers professed for economy and retrenchment. He thought the country had a right to expect that these expenses, as well as the other branches of our military expenditure, should be made to approximate to the scale of charges which existed in former times of peace. On looking back to the amount of these estimates before the late war, it would be found that in the year 1792, the total sum voted for the ordinary and extraordinary expenses of the ordnance service was only 377,898l., and the Journals of the House would show that the average sum voted for the whole expense of the ordnance establishment during the six years preceding 1793 did not exceed 310,000l. But if they took the average expense of the last six years of peace, they would find that there had been an average increase of 800,000l. At the same time, he thought it would be unfair not to state, that a considerable portion of this increase arose from half-pay and retired allowances, which amounted respectively during the years 1819 and 1820, to 293,000l., and 333,000l. He would therefore take this opportunity of saying, that it was in vain for any individual to criticise the various items of expense in a committee of that House: for economy could be introduced effectually by those persons only who had the superintendance of the service. At page 7 of the estimates he observed a charge of 7,500l. made for repairs and other contingencies at Gibraltar; and he would ask, if this was any proof of a desire to economise? He contended, that if there was a surplus revenue collected at Gibraltar, it should be applied to defray the expense of repairs and the other charges of the fort; at all events, he thought these charges should be paid out of the money so raised, before any part of it went into the privy purse. He was also at a loss to see what right ministers had to include the expense of the Ionian islands in these estimates. By the treaty of Paris, the king of Great Britain was made protector of the Ionian islands, with an express provision that they were themselves to defray the expenses of a military establishment not exceeding 3,000 men, and that if this country should think fit to keep up a greater establishment in these islands, it should defray the increased expense. That treaty had been made under the con- 809 viction that the revenue of the islands was sufficient to keep up their military charges, and he regarded it as a charter by which the protection of Great Britain was secured to these islands on the one hand, and on the other it was stipulated that we should not be at the expense of supporting their military establishment. He therefore entered his protest against the charge of 3,000l. which was included in these estimates, under the head of the Ionian islands. There was another article of expense which he had mentioned last year, and which was perhaps not worth alluding to at present—he meant the expense of manufacturing gunpowder. He believed there was at present in this country a stock of powder sufficient for twenty years of peace, and yet he saw that in the two royal powder-mills at Feversham and Waltham-abbey, there was an annual charge of 10,500l. for repairs and labour. He did not challenge this item in particular, but he wished to point it out as worthy of the attention of the House. The hon. gentleman next called the notice of the committee to the list of pensioners who had received retired allowances since last year. If the noble duke who presided over the ordnance establishment was as anxious for retrenchment as the right hon. gentleman had represented, was he warranted in giving an individual, for three years services, a retired pension equal to one-half of the salary he received while in the service? He had been led to believe that it was not in the power of ministers, without violating an act of parliament, to give pensions for less than ten years service, except in cases of sickness. Yet in this list there was a person who had been only three years in the service, with a salary of 90l., but who now received a pension of 45l.; another who had been four years in the service, received also 45l., being one-half of his former salary; and another who had been 5 years employed, and whom he supposed to be a young man, from his being only a junior clerk, had also an allowance equal to half the amount of his salary. Two other persons, after 9 years service, with salaries of 175l., had allowances, the one of 75l., and the other of 85l.; and he would ask if this was consistent with the act which had been passed to regulate pensions? The report of the committee which had inquired into that subject, and of which he believed the hon. member for Corfe castle had been chairman, said ex- 810 plicitly that there was nothing to oblige the country to pay pensions to those persons whose services had been dispensed with, unless their services were such as to entitle them to an allowance. The right hon. gentleman might perhaps be able to explain the grounds on which these pensions had been granted, but he could not see that any economy had been practised on the occasion. He would recommend the appointment of a committee to revise the whole of the system; for, without impugning the intentions or the knowledge of those who had the charge ef the establishment, he conceived that from their very situation they were prevented from viewing the subject as they should. He gave the noble duke at the head of the ordnance credit for the reductions which he had made in the foreign departments, but he was confident there was room for still greater reduction and consolidation in these departments, especially in the store-keeper general's department. If a proper system of consolidating these establishments were adopted, he was convinced that nineteen more appointments might be reduced before next year, without rendering the service less efficient than it was at present.
§ Mr. R. Wardsaid, that the hon. gentleman in the course of his remarks had not pointed out a single place or establishment which he thought should be suppressed. He called on the hon. gentleman to name one that could be dispensed with; though he did not pledge himself that those who had the charge of this department of the public service would accede to the recommendation of the hon. gentleman, because he conceived that from their experience they were best able to judge what establishments were necessary. He thought, however, that he had already stated sufficient proofs of the sincere desire which the noble individual at the head of the ordnance had to make every reduction for the sake of economy that was consistent with the efficiency of the establishment over which he presided. Those petty clerks on whose pensions the hon. gentleman had animadverted, were not he believed, known even by name to the noble duke, who had granted them pensions on the recommendation of those who were acquainted with the nature of their services and their claims. He was completely at issue with the hon. gentleman on the construction of the act of parliament which the hon. gentleman had erro- 811 neously called the act of the member for Corfe-castle. It was in fact Mr. Perceval's act; for Mr. Perceval had been chairman of the committee, and had as such brought in the bill. The House were in possession of all particulars relative to the offices which had been suppressed, and the terms of the half-pay usually allowed upon their suppression. The whole of the estimated cost of those in the West India department did not amount to more than 700l., or perhaps 800l.; and the half-pay was not more than 45l. He would put it to the House, whether there was here any waste of the public money? Still, however, he would allow, that if those offices were not entitled to half-pay under the act of parliament, those who had allowed it were blameable; but he defied the hon. gentleman to prove that they were not so entitled. There was an excess upon these estimates, as he had already stated in his opening speech, of 133,000l. at the utmost, in the year: and upon that account alone, more than upon any reasoning which he had advanced, the hon. gentleman appeared to insist that there could be no economy in the ordnance department. During the whole of that hon. gentleman's speech, he could really discover no other point but this—that there was an excess, and therefore there could be no economy. Now, he had not adverted to the nature of the different articles constituting that excess, most of which were articles of necessity. The hon. gentleman had stated that there was an excess of 80,000l. upon the extraordinaries of the last year; but in this he had made a mistake. With all his accuracy, his penetration, his acumen, and his disposition to impute blame to the ordnance department, he had decidedly made a mistake. He could not have perrused the estimates of the last year. [Mr. Hume here intimated that he had said 60,000l. not 80,000l.] The tendency of the hon. gentleman's observations went to show, that the excess was 80,000l., and the whole statement could only have resulted from the hon. gentleman's not understanding the article of stores. If the hon. gentleman looked at the estimates of last year, and then at those of the present, he would find that the difference between 80,000l. and 60,000l. (the real excess) resulted from the circumstance, that 20,000l. for old stores had not been credited to the ordnance. The hon. gentleman seemed to have assumed, that the 812 country was in the same state now as it was in the year 1792. But would any man pretend to say this was really the case?—that all the articles which found their way into these estimates were at the same prices during the two periods?—that the situation of the empire was not very materially altered? Why, on the contrary, hon. gentlemen would find that the establishment itself, being almost double the pay of military corps, was almost doubled also. They would also find that a vast number of new charges were necessarily created by that increase. In the first part of his speech, the hon. gentleman seemed to have considered the difference between the estimates of a period he had selected, and those of this year, at 800,000l., upon an average calculation: to be sure, in his calmer mood, and upon calculation, he had rated it afterwards at somewhere about 400,000l. Now, before the year 1792, the ordnance estimates, altogether, were not more than 400,000l,; and the total allowances for military half-pay amounted to nearly the same sum. The only way, however, to judge of the question, was, to compare the ordnance estimates of the present time, with those of some period before the war, and to look at the principle upon which the difference between them had proceeded. In order to see this the better, he (Mr. Ward) had been at the trouble of examining an old ordnance estimate made at a time of profound peace. He had taken the year, not 1792, but 1788, which was between the peace of Paris and the breaking out of the revolutionary war. He knew of no reason which had actuated him in doing so, but that it was a year of peace succeeding a long war; and because he thought it would serve to show how this subject should be viewed. In 1788, the ordnance estimates were 419,000l. In considering what were the real expenses at the present time, as compared with 1788, he thought it was but right that they should deduct all articles from each estimate which were not articles of actual service—for example, the half-pay: and from the charges for services, those which were dead expenses; not expenses of an actual nature, but inevitable ones. To take, then, the total increase of the charge, as had been suggested by the hon. gentleman, the real expenses of the department at the present time would be 1,380,000l.: whereas, upon the principle he proposed to follow, of de- 813 ducting certain expenses not of an actual nature, the estimate of 1788 would be in fact only 398,000l. From that of 1820, by the same rule, they would have to deduct for half-pay, and for allowances, compensations, &c, 374,173l. and for incidental expenses, 1,487l.; which deduction would altogether amount to 375,660l. Then, again, there were a vast number of services in the present ordnance department which did not exist in the year 1788; and in making this comparison between the two periods, it was not proper for him to throw them out of the calculation. For example, in 1788, there were no horse-artillery, therefore that could be no article of such comparison; but new services of this kind formed the reason of such excess. Then there were the expenses for Ireland in the present estimate—these amounted to 111,986l.; and these were not to be charged before the Union. The charge for the horse-artillery was 348,000l. At the time alluded to (1788), this service was so imperfectly performed, that it was found necessary to press into it any common carters that could be found. The forage and supply of draught horses were charged at 12,916l., and contingencies at 7,000l. But, in short, without entering into a more minute recapitulation of the details, all these various services amounted together to 645,000l. which deducted from the total expenses of the present period, namely, 1,380,000l., left those actual expenses for the year 1820, as compared with 1788, 735,000l. He hoped he was clearly understood, and particularly begged to call the attention of the hon. gentlemen to this part of the subject. There was still therefore an excess of actual expense, in 1820, of 337,000l. over the charge of 1788; this sum being the difference between 735,000l. and 398,000l.; an excess which was to be accounted for, principally by the increased efficiency of the establishment. There were the pay of the director-general of the field train, and the total charge on the reduction of the ordnance military corps; the one item being 3,072l., and the other 5,000l. to enter into that account. It might be said, that that reduction should not have been made at 5,000l.; but so long as the country allowed it to stand in that way upon the estimate, he must presume the country considered it a proper establishment. The next point of difference in this comparison was, that in the year 1788, the total pay of the artillery was 113,000l., whereas it 814 was now estimated at 244,451l.; the excess of this charge, therefore, accounted for 131,451l. The establishment of the artillery corps in 1788 consisted of only eight companies; whereas now, the addition of a large body of sappers and miners, and the improvements, made it infinitely more effective than it had ever been before, and occasioned a difference of 8,000l. The utmost charge for pensions and superannuations in this department, for Great Britain and her colonies, was, in 1788, not more than 134,900l.; whereas, in 1820, it stood 181,175l. But he would only ask hon. gentlemen to look at the state of the empire; since 1788, fourteen or fifteen new colonies had been added to it; and they would see how much the establishment had been of necessity enlarged. He apprehended that he should not be very far off from the truth, when he said that the navy, for instance, had been almost doubled since 1788, as to the number of ships of the line frigates, and armed vessels; and the gun-wharfs at the ports of Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Chatham, were all under the direction of the Board of Ordnance; and yet the difference in the charge for pensions in remuneration of inventions and improvements in the artillery service, and to superannunted and disabled men and pensioners, between 1788 and 1820, a period of 32 years, was not more than 47,000l.; although this resulted after such a continued war, and such an extension of empire. Realty, the difference must be considered, under the circumstances, almost nothing; and the Board of Ordnance, instead of incurring blame, had some claim, he thought, to the approbation of the House, because it was no more. The expenses incidental to the Tower, and the other forts and garrisons, which in 1788, were about 18,000l., were now 35,000l.; and another item (which we did not hear) that was then rated at 60,000l., was now 150,000l. Such too was the case of barracks, of which there were then comparatively very few, but which had greatly increased in number during an unintermitting war of so long a duration. The inference to be drawn from the taking these various differences into account was, that the Ordnance department, so far from being to blame for an increase of its estimated expenses of upwards of 330,000l. since 1788, was rather entitled to credit for confining the excess to such a sum. The hon. gentleman had asked a 815 question respecting the military general secretary. He had asked, whether any increase of his pay had been recommended? A former finance-committee had recommended that it should be 800l. a year, but the hon. gentleman might have heard, that since that time another committee of finance had recommended that it should be 1,500l. a year. Here the right hon. member replied to the several observations which had been made by Mr. Hume relative to the charge of 7,500l. for Gibraltar. He could assure him that the Board of Ordnance was innundated with memorials and reports from different engineers attached to the various fortresses, declaring their inability to answer for the maintaining, with the funds allotted to them, their respective works in a weather-tight condition. The hon. gentleman perhaps knew that the whole sum applicable to such repairs was 80,000l. and that was found totally insufficient for these purposes. With respect to his questions, he (Mr. Ward) did not feel himself called upon to answer them; and what the hon. gentleman had thrown out, might form the matter of a specific motion. Since 1818, however, he understood there had been no surplus revenue applicable to the repairs of the fortress of Gibraltar; and therefore it was perhaps impossible to effect the hon. gentleman's wish that it should be made subservient to such an object. The same observations would apply to the case of the Ionian Islands. The right hon. gentleman then went on to defend the propriety of the board's keeping its faith with its servants, by retaining in its employ those artificers of gunpowder, with whom it had been a stipulation at the time of their engagement, that they should not be turned adrift; and observed upon the unrivalled quality of the gunpowder now manufactured by those in the pay of government; whereas, the badness of the government gunpowder (as it was termed) was, during the American war, the subject of frequent remonstrance and complaint. After some further remarks upon the absolute necessity of retaining the works at Feversham and Waltham-abbey on their present footing, the right hon. gentleman concluded by saying that while the charge of 10,500l. was objected to, it should be remembered, that if government were to dispose of their immense stores of saltpetre, charcoal, and sulphur, which were materials not of a perishable nature, and therefore easy of 816 keeping, the public would lose between 200,000l. and 300,000l.
§ Mr. Creeveysaid, an extraordinary answer had been made to an objection which he felt an interest in, as it was similar to one which he was about to make. When it was objected that a sum should not be voted for Gibraltar because there were other means of supplying that expense than by a vote of parliament, it was answered, that it should be made the subject of a separate motion, and this too in a committee of supply [Hear, hear!]. Now, he would not consent on the part of the people of England to pay for the repairs of forts at Barbadoes and the Leeward Islands. He would produce an act of the assembly of Barbadoes which provided for that express purpose without burthening the people of England. The hon. member then read the Act of the Assembly of Barbadoes of 1663, declaring that it was necessary for several purposes relating to the government of those colonies, and specially for "the reparation of the forts," that a competent revenue should be raised, and that for those purposes they granted a duty of 4½ per cent to be levied on all imports [[Hear!]. What, then, had they to do but to apply this revenue? He would prove that the revenue existed. There were papers before the House showing that the duties had produced 57,276l. a year. But it had not been applied to the purposes of the colonial act, and he would tell them why. Instead of repairing the forts, 1,500l. was given from it to the right hon. Charles Long; 500l. to sir Home Popham [For what service? from a member on the ministerial side]. He did not know for what sir Home Popham had got it, but not, he presumed, for repairing the forts. Mr. Huskisson had another pension, lord Hood another, the hon. Fulke Greville, and lady Mansfield another, with various others, and by these several lords and ladies and gentlemen, this fund was swallowed up, which should go to the repair of the forts. There was the Colonial act creating the duty, there was the money raised by it, and which, instead of repairing the forts, went into the pockets of ladies and gentlemen [Hear, hear!]. This was a subject which had been before spoken of, but never discussed adequately, because it had never been discussed by itself. The act bore date 1668. For some time after, it was not applied as it should be. In the time of queen Anne the planters of Barbadoes pe- 817 titioned the Crown on the subject, and the House of Commons addressed the Crown. Mr. Secretary Vernon, from the queen, declared to the House that the fund should be thereafter applied to the reparation and erection of forts, &c. In the Civil List act of that day, in going over the small hereditary revenues, the 4½ per cent duties were always excepted. So far was he from thinking this was not a fit time for bringing forward this subject, it was, in his opinion, the very time. They should tread in the steps of the House of Commons of the reign of queen Anne. He was quite sure that when the question came to be understood in the country, that it would not be endured that they should vote a sum for the reparation of the forts in the Leeward Isles, when there were funds specially for that purpose. He was sure that the country would not, without dissatisfaction, see its representatives not only not apply this money to its proper purpose, but put it into their own pockets, and burthen the people to make up the deficiency. When the process was understood, it would not belong endured. His experience gave him considerable expectations on the subject. When he first made a motion on the two overgrown tellerships of the exchequer, he was almost hooted out of the House, such was the clamour at his having thought of invading the sacred rights of property. But the progress of opinion respecting those offices, after that exposure, was speedily such, that the noblemen found all at once that the circumstances of the country were so peculiar that they could not feel justified in retaining the superfluous emolument, and after receiving it for 19 years, begged to be relieved from it for the future. They knew that though there were only 45 members in the House against them there was not one man in the country for them. The pensions charged on the 4½ per cent fund, were so contrary to law and decency, that he was quite certain that when the thing was fully known, the ladies and gentlemen would all be desirous to take their leave [a laugh]. He was happy to find that it was lately stated in the House that a prospective claim of 1,500l. a year on this fund had been abaudoned. He had not before known the fact, but he hoped to, see the lords and ladies drop off one by one. He should take the sense of the committee upon the subject, and if defeated he should divide on the report, 818 and if he was not then successful, he should make a specific motion on the subject. His intention was, when the vote came which embraced that item, to move an amendment to omit the expense of the fortification of the Leeward Islands. As to another subject, he remarked that the confusion of the estimates of the military half-pay and civil super-annuations was a violation of the act of the 50th Geo. 3rd, ch. 15. In the army estimates, the expenses were, in obedience to that act, stated separately under each head.
§ Mr. R. Wardcertainly did not mean to go into a discussion on the great question of the 4½ per cent duties, and their proper application: it was a question on which great difference of opinion existed; but it had recently been debated in both Houses of Parliament, and the majorities had declared themselves of the opinion which was now acted on by government. But in steering clear of discussion he said distinctly that the hon. gentleman had proceeded on ex parte statements, in coming to the conclusion he had come to. His opinion was founded on certain words which he had found in an act of parliament; but he could assure the hon. member that there were many other material particulars to be taken into consideration in deciding the question, and he had heard the present practice defended in a very able manner by the late lord Melville. He said, therefore, again, that the hon. gentleman's statement on the subject was an incorrect and garbled one. The item objected to would be open to discussion when the resolutions came to be reported. With respect to the alleged violation of the act 50th Geo.3rd, the accounts were now stated as they had always been since it was passed, and he saw in them nothing contrary to its provisions.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the hon. gentleman had excited his astonishment and sorrow, and done himself very little credit by the manner in which he had treated one of the most liberal and public-spirited acts ever done in this or in any country—[Hear, hear!]. The lofty and generous conduct of the marquis, of which the hon. gentleman had spoken so lightly, had drawn forth the universal respect and gratitude of this country, and he believed of Europe. The hon. gentleman had taken on himself the credit of having compelled the noble marquis by the observations he had made in the House, to give up those official emolu- 819 ments, for his voluntary and noble sacrifice of which he bad received the thanks of the two Houses of Parliament, and of the common council and the corporation of the city of London. Speeches of the character of the hon. gentleman's held out little encouragement for disinterested conduct and did not tend to induce others to resign private rights for the service of the public. The hon. gentleman who was putting forth this suggestion might surely have remembered, that long before his observations, proper or improper, were heard, so early as the year 1812, the two noblemen to whom he alluded had surrendered a large portion of their incomes to the necessities of the country. Upon the minds of such men, the observations of the hon. member must have acted rather as checks than as incentives to such a surrender; and it evinced no common magnanimity to triumph over the feelings which such attacks were calculated to inspire. The right hon. gentleman concluded by adverting to Mr. Creevey's observation upon the Leeward Island duty, and asserting that from the time of William 3rd, with one exception in the reign of queen Anne, those duties had always been considered as part of the revenue of the Crown, and as one of the funds peculiarly applicable to the reward of public services. Whatever question with regard to those duties there might arise between the legislature of these islands and his majesty, there could not possibly be any between the islands and the grantees, and it was equally as clear that if his majesty should restore to the sole use of these islands the funds in question, the House would have to make good those pensions which were now paid out of the 4½ per cent duties.
§ Mr. Humereferred to the reports of the finance committee to show that from 1715 to the year 1786 the 4½ per cent duties had been included in the revenue. It was not until the last-mentioned year, when the consolidated fund was established, that they were no longer comprehended in the general revenue, so that the right hon. gentleman's statement respecting them was perfectly unfounded.
Mr. Bennetmaintained, that in the original act of parliament imposing the 4½ per cent duties it was expressly stated that they were for assisting in the protection of the Leeward islands. Subsequently, in the reign of Charles 2nd, they were taken as a part of the hereditary 820 revenue. In the reign of William 3rd two acts passed, applying them to the same purpose. But the whole of these misappropriations of the duties was nullified by a decision in the reign of Anne, which took from parliament and the Crown the power they had assumed on the subject, and applied the duties as they had been originally applied in 1663, to the support of the fortifications of the Leeward islands. In the early part of the late reign, pensions had certainly been settled upon the fund in question: the duke of Gloucester had for some time a pension upon it. The receipts, however, became, during some years, deficient: the duke complained that he did not receive his revenue, and the pension was removed to the consolidated fund. By and by the receipts increased, and became again sufficient to answer the former demands; and then, of course, the duke of Gloucester's pension was restored to it! No such thing: the duke remained upon the consolidated fund, and the 4½ per cent duties were saddled with new charges in favour of new pensioners. As to the two noble lords, of whose sacrifices so much had been said, it was difficult to know on what ground they had acted as they had done, for it was difficult to know the motives of men's hearts. They had never thought of surrendering that to which they were entitled until a year after the subject had been mentioned in that House, and until a strong feeling of disgust at their hesitation to disgorge what they had obtained at the public expense had been manifested throughout the country. He thought that persons like the noble marquis, who were ultimately induced to resign their sinecures, in the distressed situation of the country, instead of being so highly panegyrised for their generosity, ought to be called on to refund the countless thousands they had previously received of the public money for no adequate service whatever.
Lord Castlereaghdid think, and he was sure the feelings of the House and the country would go with him, that the mode in which the two honourable members had expressed themselves, in relation to the fees of the tellerships of the exchequer, was neither fair, candid, liberal, nor just. It would have been but justice to say, that this fund had lapsed into the hands of the noble marquis, who had exhibited such unexampled disinterestedness and public spirit in sacrificing his 821 rights to the necessities of his country, from a father on whom the office had been conferred as an inadequate reward for eminent public services. For when he had retired from an elevated situation in the profession, which his talents and Learning had long adorned, that office had been conferred on him as a small compensation for his services, and to make a provision for his family. He could not conceive any thing more hostile to the exercise of exalted public principle, than to see two hon. members indulging in the feelings displayed that night: one taking to himself the merit of having compelled a renunciation of income which was purely voluntary, and an almost unparalleled instance of patriotism; the other making it matter of taunt and accusation that the noble lords had not refunded all the profits they had ever derived from the offices.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrepeated his assertion, that the noble marquis in question had made large sacrifices to the public interest long before the observations in parliament of the hon. gentleman opposite.
§ Lord Miltonobserved, that there was one circumstance respecting the office held by the noble marquis, to which no allusion had been made either that night or previously. It was well known that a judicial office had been held by his father, which usually enabled its holder to amass a large fortune. That office he had resigned; and it should alwa3's be remembered what the cause of that resignation was. It had taken place because he believed it necessary to the defence of the rights and liberties of his country—believing that to save a compromise of his principles, he was obliged to separate himself from the administration then in power. It was upon the question of the Middlesex election, that, differing in opinion from his colleagues, he had thought he could no longer retain the chancellorship. The recollection of this fact should endear the memory of the father, and secure for his descendant the respect and attention of the country.
§ The several resolutions were then agreed to.