§ The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Army Estimates were referred, lord Palmerston moved, "That 6,844l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Allowance to the Adjutant General, his Deputy and Assistants, at Head Quarters, his Clerks, &c."
§ Mr. Humewas utterly at a loss to know for what purpose such an expense was necessary. In 1796 or 1798, a period of war, the whole establishment of the office of the commander-in-chief consisted of sir H. Bunbury and three clerks. The expense of that establishment in the present year was near 6,000l. for clerks, besides 8,000l. for the personal staff. He could not conceive how the 3,661l., which was the proposed sum for clerks in the adjutant-general's office, could' be expended. In 1792 the adjutant-general was allowed only 500l. be- 164 sides his staff pay. The country being now in a situation in which every pound that could be saved ought to be saved, he should propose to reduce it by 1,661l. which would still leave three times as much as it had been in 1792.
§ Lord Palmerstonobserved, that the duties of the adjutant-general's office were multifarious, and quite distinct from those of the commander-in-chief. They consisted in receiving half yearly returns from every regiment in the service, returns twice a month from the inspecting-officers instituting inquiries into claims of every kind, transacting all the business which arose from the recruiting and dismissal of soldiers, granting leave of absence, &c. The House must be sick of references to the year 1792: it was really nonsense to talk of what existed in 1792, unless it could be shown that the business which was now to be carried on was the same as in that year. There was no office under government in which clerks were more closely employed. In 1792, there was nothing known of the state of regiments, or of the claims of individuals. Injustice was then endured from the difficulty of obtaining redress; now, every man of the lowest description in the kingdom knew if his claims were just, that they would be attended to; and his claims often occasioned more correspondence than cases of higher importance. He had seen a hundred letters on the subject of the claim of a private soldier.
Colonel Daviesallowed that it was not desirable to go back to the system of 1792. But his hon. friend made no such proposition. His amendment was, to allow three times the sum expended in 1792. The duties of the office were considerably greater in 1807 than at present, and the expence much less.
Mr. Bennetobserved, that the amendment was founded on the report of the committee of that House, appointed, and he might say packed, by the gentlemen opposite. The reduction of the number of regiments must have considerably reduced the duty of the adjutant-general's office. He wished to ask the House whether, in the present state of the country, they were determined not to reduce one shilling of these estimates? If so, there would be but one opinion as to what that House was in the mind of every honest man in the country.
§ Mr. John Smithsaid, that an hon. baronet who had been in the War-office, was 165 superannuated on a pension of 468l. and was, nevertheless, in the possession of the lucrative government of Trinidad. On what principle did such an individual enjoy a superannuation pension?
§ Lord Palmerstonreplied, that sir Ralph Cooper, had been a clerk in the foreign department of the War-office, on the abolition of which, he received, as was invariably the usage, the pension alluded to.
§ The Committee divided:—For the Resolution, 83. For the Amendment, 54. Majority 29.
| List of the Majority, and also of the Minority. | |
| MAJORITY. | |
| Alexander, J. | Holmes, W. |
| Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C. | Hope, sir W. |
| Attwood, M. | Hotham, lord |
| Bathurst, rt. hon. B. | Hulse, sir C. |
| Beckett, rt. hon J. | Huskisson, rt. hon. W. |
| Beresford, lord G. | Keck, G. A. L. |
| Blake, R. | Leigh, J. H. |
| Bradshaw, R. H. | Lockhart, W. E. |
| Broadhead, T. H. | Long, rt. hon. C. |
| Browne, P. | Lowther, lord |
| Browne, rt. hon. D. | Lushington, S. R. |
| Brydges, G. | Martin, sir B. |
| Burgh, sir U. | Martin, R. |
| Calvert, J. | Metcalfe, H. |
| Cawthorne, J. F. | Monteith, H. |
| Clinton, sir W. | Neale, sir H. B. |
| Clive, H. | Palmerston, lord |
| Cockburn, sir G. | Pearse, J. |
| Cocks, hon. J. S. | Pechell, sir T. B. |
| Congreve, sir W. | Pitt, W. M. |
| Cooper, R. B. | Plumber, J. |
| Copley, sir J. | Pole, rt. hon. W. |
| Courtenay, T. P. | Powell, E. W. |
| Courtenay, W. | Prendergast, M. G. |
| Croker, J. W. | Robinson, rt. hon. F. |
| Dawkins, H. | Rocksavage, earl |
| Domville, sir C. | Scott, hon. J. J. |
| Downie, R. | Shaw, R. |
| Dundas, rt. hon. W. | Somerset, lord G. |
| Ellis, T. | Strutt, J. H. |
| Fellowes, W. H. | Taylor, sir H. |
| Fynes, H. | Temple, earl of |
| Gascoyne, I. | Townshend, hon. H |
| Goulburn, H. | Trench, F. W. |
| Grant, rt. hon. C. | Vansittart, rt. hon. N. |
| Hardinge, sir W. | Wallace, rt. hon. T. |
| Hart, G. V. | Ward, R. |
| Harvey, sir E. | Wilson, sir H. |
| Harvey, C. | TELLER. |
| Holford, G. | Clerk, sir G. |
| MINORITY. | |
| Bankes, H. | Chaloner, R. |
| Benyon, B. | Chetwynd, G. |
| Bernal, R. | Corbett, P. |
| Boughey, sir J. | Creevey, T. |
| Bury, visc. | Crespigny, sir W. D. |
| Buxton, T. F. | Crompton, S. |
| Davies, T. H. | O'Grady, S. |
| Denman, T. | Palmer, C. F. |
| Dickinson, W. | Parnell, sir H. |
| Duncannon, visc. | Philips, G. jun. |
| Evans, W. | Rice, T. S. |
| Farquharson, A. | Rickford, W. |
| Glenorchy, visc. | Robarts, A. |
| Gordon, R. | Sefton, earl of |
| Graham, S. | Smith, hon. R. |
| Grattan, J. | Smith, R. |
| Guise, sir W. | Tierney, rt. hon. G. |
| Harbord, hon. E. | Tremayne, J. H. |
| Heron, sir R. | Whitbread, S. C. |
| Honywood, W. P. | Whitmore, W. |
| Hume, J. | Williams, W. |
| Hurst, R. | Wilson, sir R. |
| James, W. | Wilson, T. |
| Johnson, col. | Wodehouse, E. |
| Lennard, T. B. | Wyvill, M. |
| Lushington, S. | TELLER. |
| Monck, J. B. | Bennet, hon. H. G. |
§ On the Resolution, "That 6,192l. be granted for defraying the charge of an Allowance to the Quarter Master General, his Deputy and Assistants at Head Quarters, his Clerks, &c."
§ Mr. Humesaid, that though the office of quarter-master-general was one of considerable labour and importance in time of war, it was monstrous that the country should be burdened with so many quarter-master-generals, &c. in time of peace. Above 3,000l. of the grant now proposed was to defray the expense of offices which had no existence in 1803, when the commission of military inquiry was in existence, and which in 1804; only cost the country 954l. He should therefore move, as an amendment, that a reduction of 1,500l. be made in the expenses of this office.
§ Lord Palmerstonobserved, that the hon. member was upon this occasion completely caught in his own toils; for this was one of the establishments which was precisely on the same footing of expense that it stood in 1792.
§ Mr. Humecontended, that there were five permanent district quarter-masters at present, whereas there were no such officers in 1792.
§ After some further Committee divided:—tion, 104. For the Majority 44.
§ On the Resolution, "That 922l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Allowance to the Deputy Quarter Master General in North Britain, his Clerks, &c."
167§ Lord Palmerstonsaid, the office was as old as the Scotch Union, and the duty of the quarter-master-general was to make such arrangements as would prevent the troops in Scotland clashing on their march.
§ Mr. W. Smithsaid, that the public were to pay 900l. to prevent 1,300 men in Scotland meeting on the same road.
The Lord Advocatestated a recent instance, when the quarter-master-general was called upon to discharge an extensive and important duty, in consequence of several regiments of the line marching to Glasgow.
§ The Committee divided:—For the Resolution, 98. For the Amendment, 56. Majority, 42.
§ On the Resolution, "That 5,180l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Allowance to the Judge Advocate General, his Deputy, Clerks &c."
§ Mr. Chetwyndobjected to the grant as a profligate expenditure of the public money. The allowance to the judge-advocate exceeded the salary of the lord-chief-justice of England, and he had not only a deputy-adjutant, but an assistant-deputy in his office. Fie hoped the country gentlemen would remember their pledges to their constituents, and draw the strings of the public purse a little tighter. With that view, he should move, as an amendment, that the sum of 3,180l. should be granted in the room of 5,180l.
The Judge Advocatecomplained that the hon. gentleman should have brought the charge of profligate expenditure against him, without having previously informed himself of the fact. The present arrangement had been made in 1807, and the duties of the office had considerably increased. The salary of the judge-advocate-general was not, as the hon. gentleman supposed, 5,180l., but 2,500l. a year; and when they knew that the correspondence had considerably increased in the department since that period, and that the military business of Ireland had been added to that of Scotland and England, he was sure the committee would not look upon the grant as exorbitant.
Sir R. Fergussonperfectly agreed with the lion, gentleman as to the extravagance of the sum proposed; and wished to know at how many general courts-martial the present judge-advocate-general had presided? The deputy-judge- 168 advocate was the person who performed the business of the office.
§ Mr. W. Smithsaid, they had that night had another proof of the unfair manner in which observations originating on his side of the House were treated; for no sooner had a complaint been made of a general system of profligate expenditure, than the right hon. gentleman rose, and took the whole charge to himself, whereas, the charge was against the system, and not against the individual.
§ Mr. Chetwyndsaid, he had no idea whatsoever of making apersonal allusion to the right hon. gentleman. He could have harboured no such intention, as the right hon. gentleman was perfectly unknown to him. He said, and would repeat it, that he considered the whole system to be one of profligate expenditure. His majesty's speech from the throne, and the speeches of ministers, had led him to expect a great reduction of expense. But he had been so much disappointed, that though no man was more inclined to support ministers, he could not do so when he saw them resist every proposition that tended to retrenchment. He was determined to do his duty to the country, while he had the honour of a seat in that House, without indulging in any personal feeling or motive.
§ Mr. Denmanhad no hesitation in saying, that the labours, not only of the chief justice, but of the puisne judges, far exceeded those of the right hon. gentleman. He regretted, that particular circumstances prevented him from attending in his place to assist those who had so honourably opposed the enormous grants of the public money—exertions which if they did not tell at the present time, would operate most beneficially hereafter.
Mr. Martin,of Galway, was as ready to economize as any man, but it was neither economy nor prudence to reduce the salaries of public officers. The army should have the highest legal talent. The judges were not liberally paid; and therefore a comparison of their salaries and that of the right hon. gentleman was unfair. He should vote for the larger sum.
§ Mr. Humebegged to remind the House, that the salary of the former advocate-general (sir C. Morgan), who not only acted as advocate-general, but as secretary to the board of general officers, amounted in the whole to 1,033l. whilst the dry salary of the right hon. gentleman 169 amounted to 2,500l. a year. The deputy advocate-general at present per formed merely the duties of a common clerk, and as such ought to be paid. It was not consistent with reason to suppose that so many courts-martial should take place at present as were held when the army was more numerous. 1,000l. might fairly be deducted from the judge-advocate's salary, and he would then receive 400l. more than sir C. Morgan received up to the year 1806.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that the judge-advocate had been under secretary of state for 12 years, and could not therefore be entitled to any compensation on the ground of giving up his profession. If the salary of his office was 2,500l. during war, some reduction ought to be made now. He was sure that the office, with a salary of 2,000l. would gladly be accepted by gentlemen at the bar, of adequate qualifications. He confessed himself dissatisfied, not only with the original resolution, but with the amendment. He did not consider the offices of deputy judge-advocate, or assistant judge-advocate, in any way useful; and would therefore move, that the proposed sum should be reduced by a sum of 1,200l. being the amount of the salaries of those officers.
§ Lord Miltonprotested against the idea of taking the salaries of 1806 as any standard for the salaries of the present day. In 1806, corn was sold at 88s. now it was sold at 54s. Country gentlemen were forced to reduce their rents; every class in society suffered a sensible diminution. Were those who held offices under government to be alone exempt from the effects of that pressure which bore so hard upon society.
§ Mr. R. Martinsaid, if the hon. gentleman would propose a reduction of 5s. he would vote for it.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, the ground for the reduction of the salary of the judge-advocate had failed, because it had been shown that the business was as great now as it had been in time of war. The argument drawn from the depreciation of money would apply to all offices.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. gentleman who now filled the chair of that House, and who preceded the learned gentleman in his office, had, he understood, attended, with one exception, every general court-martial held in London during the 170 period that he was judge-advocate. Now, he was informed that although the present judge-advocate, might give 600 opinions in the course of a year, he had personally attended but two courts-martial.
The Judge Advocatesaid, the rule which he found established, and which he had observed was, for the judge-advocate to attend in person only at the trial of general officers. The trouble and investigation in other cases were however just the same.
Sir R. Fergussonbegged to ask, how-many courts-martial on commissioned officers the right hon. gentleman had attended since he held his office?
The Judge Advocatestated, that he had attended all the courts-martial held at headquarters except one, and their number, he believed, amounted to six.
§ The committee then divided: For Mr. Bennet's amendment 44; against it 92: majority 48.—For Mr. Chetwynd's amendment 51; against it 83: majority 82.—For Dr. Lushington's amendment 53; against it 82: majority 29.—The original resolution was agreed to. The chairman obtained leave to report progress, and at a quarter after two in the morning the House adjourned.