Commons Sitting of 22 March 1822

PETITION FROM NEWCASTLE, ON BEHALF OF MR. HUNT, AND IMPUTING NOTORIOUS CORRUPTION TO THE HOUSE.
Mr. Lambtonpresented a petition from Newcastle upon Tyne, signed by 4,820 persons, praying for the liberation of Mr. Hunt. He had no hesitation in saying, without at all entering into the consideration of the principles or of the conduct of Mr. Hunt, with which he had no concern, that that individual had been treated in a most unjustifiable manner. The sentence originally passed upon him was most severe; and it could not be in the contemplation of the judges, that the severity of that sentence should be aggravated by the hardships and tortures which had been inflicted on Mr. Hunt by the gaoler, under the sanction of the visiting magistrates; or, at least, without any remedy being applied to the evil on their part. The petitioners urged Mr. Hunt as a fit object for the exercise of the royal clemency. They also represented the necessity of a reform in the representation; and expressed their strong disapprobation of the proceedings at Manchester.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that the petition was not agreed to at any public meeting, and therefore, could not be considered as representing the fair opinions of the inhabitants of the district from which it professed to come. Neither the original petition, nor a copy, had been sent to him, although it was given to other members. The petition could only be taken to represent the opinions of those persons by whom, it was signed. He, nevertheless, though, that the circumstances which had attended the imprisonment of Mr. Hunt deserved the serious consideration of the House.
On the motion, that the petition do lie on the table,
Mr. Fremantlesaid, it was impossible the House, in common justice to its own character aid dignity, should consent that the imputations conveyed in the Petition, should be permitted to lie on the table. Was such an expression as "the notorious and avowed corruptions which have crept into your House," to
1232
be tolerated? Nor was the passage in which the petitioners referred to "the illegal, cruel, and unparalleled deeds committed at Manchester," and "the wickedness of those evil counsellors who had advised his majesty to approve of the slaughter of his own subjects," less objectionable; more especially when it was considered how frequently the subject had been discussed in that House. On these grounds he must oppose the reception of the petition.
Mr. Lushingtoncalled the attention of the House to another paragraph in the petition, which was equally objectionable. It was that in which the petitioners stated, that "the mental, tortures endured by Mr. Hunt, ought to be considered a sufficient atonement for the, crime of showing how your honourable House might he made still more honourable."
Sir R. Wilsonwas surprised to find gentlemen so fastidious, particularly when he recollected that they expressed no displeasure on a former night, when a noble marquis declared, that useless stipendiary offices ought to be kept up, in order to enable ministers to carry on the machine of government. Why were those places to be maintained, but in order to secure the influence of a certain noble lord in another house, and his dependants in this? The House could not fail to perceive the object for which unnecessary offices were continued, when they recollected the manner in which lord Fife had been deprived of the place which he had held, because he voted against ministers in that House. Hon. members might, if they pleased, dispute about terms, but the facts would remain the same. They might call certain offices great, but the purposes for which they were given and held were well known. They were given, according to the acknowledgment of the noble marquis, for the purpose of obtaining for ministers a sinister influence in that House. The people had a right to complain of this.
Mr. Jameswas astonished at the fastidiousness of the gentlemen opposite, with respect to the passages in the petition which imputed corruption to that House, when he recollected the declaration of the late Speaker, that the buying and selling of seats in that House "was as notorious as the sun at noon-day."
Mr. Wynnbelieved that no circumstances which had occurred during the last ten years had even been so grossly miserpre-

1233
sented as had been the declaration of the late Speaker, by the hon. gentleman who spoke last. If the predecessor of the present Speaker had uttered the words which the hon. member had imputed, he (Mr. W.) would not hesitate to say, that he had entirely lost sight of the duty which be owed to the House. He appealed, however, to hon. members, who had sat in the parliament over which their late Speaker presided, at the time when the declaration attributed to him was made, whether it contained any admission that the House was corrupt, and whether it did not, on the contrary, express horror that such a character should have been ascribed to it? With respect to the question before the House, he thought it was impossible for any person to have heard the petition read without coming to the conclusion, that its object was, to vilify and disgrace the House, and not only the House, but the administration of justice. If the House allowed such imputations to be spread abroad, not a single institution of the country could be maintained. He knew it might be said, "Let our institutions rest for their defence upon their own high character; if it be found that they do not deserve the odium which is attempted to be fastened upon them, they can sustain no injury:" but he could not admit the truth or wisdom of such reasoning; for there was no institution, however venerable, that could withstand long and continued attacks of this nature. If the House were to permit the court of King's-Bench and the institution of juries to be traduced with impunity, the administration of justice would soon cease to hold that high situation in public opinion which it had for so long a time held with so much advantage to the nation. He had never objected to the reception of a petition which had been respectfully worded; but the decision of the question, whether a petition should or should not be received, did not depend upon a particular expression, but upon the whole tenor of the language. If any person, therefore, could lay his hand upon his heart, and say that he believed the object of the petition to be, to complain of grievances, that person might vote for its reception; but, those who thought with him, that the only intention of the petition was to vilify and traduce the House, must vote for its rejection.
Mr. Bennetmaintained, that the right hon. gentleman had incorrectly stated the
1234
opinion expressed by the late Speaker on the subject of the alleged corruption in that House. The language used by the late Speaker was, that such practices would have made our ancestors startle with indignation. It was not the Speaker who had said that the purchase of seats was as plain as the sun at noon day; but the late Mr. Ponsonby. With respect to the petition, it contained some reprehensible parts, which, had he framed it, he would have omitted: but he was not prepared to say, therefore, that it ought not to be received. He had seen petitions containing language infinitely stronger than this, laid on the table. If petitions were not to contain any imputations on the courts of law or other tribunals, there would be an end at once of all petitions for redress of grievances. The House might, indeed, receive petitions of congratulation and condolence, but none of complaint or accusation. He would not allude particularly to the case of Mr. Hunt, but he believed that many crown prosecutions were carried on from political and vindictive motives. If the people suffered under severe and pressing grievances, how could they avoid expressing their sufferings in strong and pointed language? Upon such occasions, it did not become parliament to look with a microscopic eye at their petitions, to discover if they contained any expressions which could be construed into an insult upon that House. He maintained that the House ought to listen to those petitions, however harsh or uncourtly they might sound in the ears of those gentlemen who had recently left one, and taken their seats on the other side of the House.
Mr. Mansfieldappealed to the hon. member, whether it was to be tolerated, that the gentlemen who voted on one side of the House should be told that they were influenced only by corrupt motives? He, for one, sat in that. House, not by the influence of corruption, but by the unanimous choice of a large number of most respectable constituents; and though his vote had been often given in opposition to the opinions of gentlemen opposite, yet he had given that vote unbiassed by any undue influence or corrupt motive. He disdained such motives as much as any man; and it was, because this petition most improperly imputed them, that he should oppose its reception.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, there was no necessary for the hon. gentleman to sup-

1235
pose that this petition contained any imputation against hon. members, who, like himself, were returned by the free choice of their constituents. His "withers were unwrung." But a minister of the Crown, on a former night, had admitted enough to justify the phrase used in the petition, as that minister, in defending what were by some considered useless places, had supported their necessity, upon the ground that there were always a few to be kept for gentlemen on the opposite side who were gaping for them. It was too much, then, to be squeamish about words, which only conveyed the sense already avowed by a minister of the Crown. He agreed, that more measured words might have been used in this petition, so as to escape cavil or objection in that House; but their own sense would tell them that the words could do them no harm unless they were true. There was surely no harm in telling the truth, "Words break no bones" was the proverb; and certainly they could not, if they were shot at random; for then they were only a fit subject for laughter. He was, however, astonished when the right hon. gentleman asserted, that a similar charge had never been suffered to he on their table. Did he not remember the petition of "The Friends of the People," who offered to prove at their bar, that a certain number of peers and commoners, by their own individual interest, returned a majority of the members of that House? Nobody objected to the reception of that petition; he fancied that Mr. Burke, a great stickler for their privileges, had heard it read, and that Mr. Pitt also a great stickler for privilege, though an apostate from the cause of reform, had not opposed its lying on the table. He denied that this petition ought to be considered as an attack upon the courts of judicature: it only attacked prosecutors: and where the weight of the Crown was used in particular prosecutions, was it not a fit object of attack? As to Mr. Hunt's treatment, it was agreed on all sides, that his sentence had been aggravated most unjustifiably since his imprisonment. Looking to the main question, he thought great allowance ought to be made for the people. When they felt a grievance, it was honourable to them that they expressed themselves strongly upon it; and it was the more honourable to the petitioners, that in this case they expressed themselves indignantly, not at their own sufferings, but at the suf-
1236
ferings of another. By the six acts, much difficulty was thrown in the way of holding public assemblies for the purpose of petitioning. He thought, therefore, that hon. members ought not to reject hastily such petitions, as it was still in the power of the people to present.
Mr. Lambtonsaid, that he had received no notice respecting this petition, until he was advised that the parties were about to transmit it to him for presentation. It was true that it did not emanate from any public meeting; indeed, there would not have been time to have called one, so as to have secured the arrival of a petition before the day fixed for discussing the subject in which the petitioners took such an interest. Besides, they should recollect the many absolute difficulties which were thrown in the way of meetings of the people by the six acts. He was astonished that the gentlemen opposite should be now so eager to complain of a petition, merely because it was not adopted at a public meeting, when they were the gentlemen who declared, that that very circumstance formed no objection to the hole-and-corner petitions which they so highly praised. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynn) was perfectly consistent in opposing what he deemed an offensive imputation in a petitions He had always seen him disposed rather to close the doors of that House than to throw them wide open fir the reception of petitions containing any words likely to offend the squeamish taste of the House. They ought to excuse the people for putting a strong construction upon transactions which were not denied within that House. When on a former occasion he had presented a petition from Lyme complaining of the improper interference of a peer at an election, the hon. baronet opposite (sir J. Graham) asserted in its palliation, that if a noble earl had interfered on one side, it was equally notorious that noble persons in the interest of the opposition adopted the same course at elections. He had also heard lord Cochrane mention the regular market price of a seat, and say that he had paid 5,000 l. for one. When the people out of doors heard that such notorious facts were stated, and not contradicted within, he thought they might be excused for occasionally passing an opinion upon the information which reached them. An appeal had been made to him, whether be did not believe the object of the petitioners was, to insult that House? He did not in

1237
his conscience believe that such was their object; but rather that they meant to apply for the liberation of Mr. Hunt. If, in making that application, they had used terms which would induce the rejection of their petition, he should lament the circumstance, from the unfavourable impression it might create in Mr. Hunt's case—a man with whose principles and politics he had nothing to do, and whom he only recognized as a man suffering under injustice—in the minds of those who would before many days have to decide upon it.
Mr. Peelsaid, that after perusing the petition, he could not come to the same conclusion as the hon. gentleman had; namely, that no offence was intended by the petitioners. He entirely agreed with him that nothing was more impolitic than to check the expression of the people's complaints; yet he trusted to the hon. gentleman's own candour to admit, that nothing could be so prejudicial to the right of petitioning itself, as suffering the language used by these petitioners to pass without censure. It was a studied attempt to throw obloquy and insult upon all the institutions of the country it charged the government with instituting vindictive prosecutions, it cast a slur upon the administration of justice, and stated that the judges had punished Mr. Hunt merely because he shad endeavoured to bring about a reform. Was it possible to permit such an imputation as this to be east upon the judges of the land? As to declaration respecting the imputed notorious corruption of that House, if they once admitted the principle that such an allegation could be allowed in petitions, it would be too late to attempt to stop the repetition of such language. Viewing this petition, therefore, as a precedent, which, if adopted, would inevitably lead to a repetition of insults, he felt himself called upon to reject the petition.
Mr. Monckdeclared, that the petition though strong, was couched in language similar to that often expressed in the discussion of the same topics. He was decidedly in favour of receiving it.
The House divided: Ayes 22. Noes 123.

List of the Minority.

Barrett, S. M.

Creevey, T.

Birch, J.

Ellice, E.

Bernall, R.

Fergusson, sir R.

Bury, lord

Gaskell, B.

Calvert, N.

Hobhouse, J. C.

1238

Hume, J.

Robarts, col.

James, W.

Robinson, sir G.

Maberly, J.

Wood, alderman

Maule, hon. W.

Wilson, sir R.

Monck, J. B.

TELLERS.

Nugent, lord

Lambton, J. G.

Ricardo, D.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Palmer, C. F.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of Supply, sir John Osborn moved "That 154,200 l. be granted for Improvements in the Dock-yards for 1822."
Mr. Humesaid, in the committee on these estimates last year, a great deal of conversation had taken place respecting this vote. Then, as now, his principal objection to the vote, was, as to that part of it which applied to Sheerness. Last session he submitted that they ought to vote no more money towards carrying on the works at Sheerness, until they had received sufficient information as to the propriety of continuing those works. In 1814, when these great works were first begun in our dock-yards, the estimate laid on the table for Sheerness, was 824,992 l.; but the actual cost was found to be 1,355,000 l., being about 500,000 l. more than the amount stated in the original estimate. It appeared, by papers before the House, that to complete these works, would require, exclusive of the vote for the present year; 618,000 l. If to this sum they added the total vote for the year, which was 65,000 l., the amount required for their completion (supposing even that the expense should not exceed the estimates), would be 683,000 l. so that the works at Sheerness, when finished, would have cost the country altogether2,038,000 l. When these works were first begun, some difference of opinion existed among the government-boards whether the proposed dock-yards should not be established at Purfleet rather than Sheerness; but finally, the preference was given to Sheerness. At that time, the means now possessed by us were not exerted. Now we employed, on all occasions, steam vessels, for taking line-of-battle ships from one station to another, as might be deemed necessary. By these vessels, line-of-battle ships, and East Indiamen of the largest class were towed against wind and tide with the most perfect safety and success. No place that could be selected possessed greater capabilities for docks than Purfleet. There was nothing but chalk to excavate, and the work would have been dry and secure.

1239
But at Sheerness accident after accident had occurred. The building were raised literally upon a quicksand; and in every instance, it was in the first place necessary to drive piles into this sand. In January, 1820, a very large portion of the new works was broken down by a sudden irruption of the sea, which accident occasioned to the country an additional expense of several hundred thousand pounds. He would here beg the gentlemen opposite to explain one singular circumstance. In 1820, the total amount necessary to complete these works, was estimated at 171,000 l.; but the actual cost proved to be 200,000 l. and upwards, for all the yards. But the amounts which they had been in the meanwhile called on to pay for these works, in all the yards, would be little short of 954,000 l. No doubt all this was to the great benefit of the persons employed. He had been told by engineers of considerable ability, that they doubted not only the utility of the works so far as they had gone, but the utility of the works so far as they had gone, but the utility also of continuing them. He had seen estimate, by which it appeared that if even government were to commence new and extensive works at Purfleet, they would not require so much money as was necessary to complete the old works at Sheerness. When we possessed a great navy, it might have been very proper to accommodate them with additional room; but now, in the seventh year of peace, he understood that we had more docks than we had ships to put in to them. He had shown that the expense of the works at Sheerness, when they should be complete, would be upwards of 2,000,000 l., assuming even that the estimate would not be exceeded. No single board ought to be intrusted with the management and direction of such expensive undertakings as these. A committee ought to be appointed by that House, for the purpose of considering their utility, and of bringing before them, not merely the government engineers, but other engineers of ability, in order to have the full benefit of their opinions; and he should propose, that the House would not vote more than 20,000 l. or 30,000 l. a year for these works, until a report should have been obtained from such committee. He should at present move to reduce this vote by 50,000 l.; being the estimated amount for the old works at Sheerness.
Sir J. Osbornsaid, that with respect to Sheerness, 50,000 l. was all that was require-
1240
ed to complete the new works. A sum of 15,000 l. additional was required for building a smithery. As to the utility, or otherwise, of Sheerness, as a station for docks, he should leave the House to decide upon that point; but he thought it preferable to a place which the hon. gentleman called Purfleet; meaning he presumed, Northfleet. With respect to the Breakwater, he could not agree with the hon. gentleman as to the propriety of the course which he suggested. The hon. gentleman, by means of large grants, would wish to have the works completed in two or three years. He was convinced that if that course were followed, it would occasion, not a saving, but an increase of expense.
Sir J. Yorkecontended, that the works at Sheerness were undertaken under the immediate direction of most able and experienced men. He had only to mention the names of Mr. Watt, captain Huddart, and Mr. Jessop. The works notwithstanding the observations that had been made, would stand the test of severe criticism. Of this expenditure it was to be observed, that every shilling was spent in the country, and in some way or other found its way back into the Exchequer, and the hon. member should recollect, that his constituents were not a little benefitted, as the Aberdeen granite was much employed. When they recollected the various instances of unprofitable expenditure—the twenty millions spent in St. Domingo—the twenty millions lost in the Austrian loan—when they cast their eyes to the course of the Medway, and observed a certain hill, on which a lazaretto was erected at an expense of one million, of which not a vestige remained, the whole having been sold for 10,000 l., he really thought the hon. member had pitched upon one of the least objectionable parts of the ministerial expenditure. Before the improvements were undertaken, there was scarcely a dock in Sheerness and Chatham fit for a ship of the line, and as for Chatham, the river below was so shoal and intricate, that even when ships had been repaired and were fit for sea, they had grounded on their moorings, and were obliged to be returned to dock. The works were now completed, and the sum proposed was merely to erect, a wait to separate the great basin from Powder-monkey-bay, without which it was supposed the water could not be let in without danger of a blow-up. The great basin

1241
had now twenty-seven feet at the mouth, and would now admit a first rate with all her guns and stores. As to Plymouth Breakwater, it had already been found to be of the greatest service.
After a short conversation, the amendment was withdrawn, and the resolution agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
On the resolution "That 28,894 l.18 s. 1d. be granted for the Garrisons at home and abroad,
Mr. Humehoped many of the offices held by persons who did not perform the duties of them would be abolished on the death of those individuals. He did not think the charge for garrisons ought to be so large, and unless he heard that which should induce him to change his opinion, he would submit a motion to the committee for deducting something from it. He particularly noticed the establishments in the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, and the charge for the militia which he understood was hardly called out oftener than once a year. He also offered some remarks on the taxes raised in Gibraltar, and on the charge which it threw on these estimates. He wished to know if it could not be lessened. He thought 22,000 l more than ought to be demanded for garrisons in England.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, threw no expense upon this country beyond that for the staff, the remainder being paid out of the revenues of the islands. The militia, instead of being called out but once a year, was called out once a fortnight, and the inspector had reported them to be a most efficient body of men. With respect to the charge for Gibraltar, it was less than formerly by 3 or 4,000 l. When asked, if some diminution of expense could not be effected in the present charge, he did not feel himself at liberty to hold out any expectation of that kind. Some offices in the garrisons, on the extinctions of the interest in them, had not been filled up; but with respect to the governors, so far as his influence extended, he would not diminish the number of such appointments. These appointments had been considered the honourable rewards for military services. They had been bestowed in a way which the country must approve, and in the present holders of them, the committee would recognise many of the most distinguished ornaments of their country. These offices had been approved by suc-
1242
cessive committees of that House, and therefore he did not fell in to be his duty to propose that any of them should be abolished.
Colonel Daviessaid, that those who had shed their blood in defence of their country ought to be liberally rewarded; but, in his opinion, those who deserved such rewards would feel the honour to be greater if they were conferred by parliament. When parliament sanctioned a reward for faithful service, no person could doubt that the reward was justly bestowed; because the case of the individual was brought forward openly. But this was not the case with reference to the Crown. It was in the power of the Crown to grant rewards from motives of the merest favouritism. Therefore, arguing on principle, the system appeared to him to be excessively bad; and, in proportion as it was objectionable, it must appear evident, that to place the duty of rewarding merit in the hands of parliament, would be infinitely better. He could not conceive why such an expense at Gibraltar should be countenanced, when it was known, that during the last reign, no less than 124,000 l were received from Gibraltar, and placed in the privy purse. This was contrary to every principle on which Gibraltar, was held; for most assuredly any taxes levied there ought to be appropriated to, the necessary expenses of the local government. In his opinion, there was not a single station abroad, that was not made, some way or other, subservient to a system of corruption.
Colonel Gossettsaid, the militia of Jersey was not only assembled every fortnight, but every Sunday, after divine service. Those who belonged to the militia had certain privileges, with respect to taxation; but then they received no pay, and were only clothed once in even years. The salary of the governor of he island was defrayed out of its revenue.
Sir I. Coffindeprecated the idea of any attempt to alienate the islands of Jersey and Guernsey from this country, considering the important services which they had often rendered to this country in defending it against France, and that since the days of William the Conqueror, there never had appeared more loyal subjects in the empire. As to the governments of the several garrisons, he thought them essential to the Crown as the rewards of merit; and the manner in which these appointments were usually disposed of,

1243
proved the eminent utility of the arrangement.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he had no indisposition to reward military men in the most liberal manner but the question was, in what way provision was to be made for them? The noble lord could, no doubt, adduce a long list of highly respectable names by whom these governorships had been held. The same might be done with respect to every public office. But, that was no argument for keeping up useless places. When it was attempted to do away the board of trade, the names of Gibbon, of Addison, and of other celebrated men, were mentioned as having been connected with that office, and therefore it was contended that it ought not to be suppressed. But, the question was, not who held the, office, but whether it was of any public use? He could see no reason, if military merit were to be rewarded, why it should not be brought before that House There was one argument strongly in favour of such a proceeding; namely, that no case would be brought before the House that would not bear the light. He did not mean to say that government would, unless peculiarly pressed, confer rewards on undeserving men; but they ought not to be left open to temptation. "Lead us not into temptation," was a prayer which they were constantly putting up; and to prevent ministers from encountering that temptation, which night lead them to abuse the power of the Crown, he would remove from them the authority by which they disposed of those governorships.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that last year there was a governor of the Isle of Wight, who never held any other military appointment. The governor of Dartmouth was also a gentleman, formerly a member of that House, who had no other military connection whatever. He did not know to what extent such instances might avail, but he held them to be improper.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, it was very true that lord Malmsbury, the governor of the Isle of Wight, never was in the army; but the governorship was conferred on him, in consequence of his giving up a pension of 2,000 l. a-year, which had been granted to his father for public services, and which he would have enjoyed in reversion. The situation of governor of the Isle of Wight was worth between 1,00 l. and 1,200 l. a-year; so that the public were benefited by the transaction, to the
1244
amount of 800 l. per annum. As to the propriety of leaving with the Crown the power to reward military merit, he was completely at issue with the hon. members for Worcester and Shrewsbury. The principle they wished to enforce was the most unconstitutional that could be imagined. They admitted that it was right and proper to have rewards for military merit; but they went on to say, that while those rewards were placed in the hands of the Crown they might be misapplied; and, in order to prevent an abuse, they argued that the power of granting such rewards should be taken front the Crown, and given to the House of Commons. Such a doctrine was utterly at variance with the principles of the constitution, and if acted on, must lead to the most dangerous consequences. Be would contend, that it was necessary to place the command of the army in the hands of the Crown, and that it was equally necessary that the reward of military merit should be left with the sovereign. If ever the day came when the power of rewarding military services should be transferred from the Crown to the House of Commons, those who saw so baneful an alteration might Say, that they had witnessed the deathblow of the constitution.
Colonel Daviessaid, could not possibly be inconsistent with the constitution to apply to parliament for the reward of military services, as ministers themselves had proposed so many pensions to military officers at the close of the late war, which pensions too were adjudged with an alacrity that amply proved the disposition of parliament to recognise the justice of such claims.
Mr. Wynnthought, that unless it was meant to dispute the old constitutional maxim, that the Crown was the fountain of honour, the proposition of the gentlemen opposite could not be consistently maintained. History should show gentlemen the danger of transferring to any other power than that of the Crown, the grant of military, rewards and distinctions. Upon such a transfer, the country must, whatever gentlemen might mean, become an absolute republic, for he was persuaded that they who began by petitioning; would very soon end with demands. Let the House consider how short a time elapsed before the parliamentary army in the reign of Charles the 1st, insisted upon their claims being attended to. This would always be the case when a popular assembly

1245
attempted to distribute military rewards and to keep in its own hands the command of the army. He objected also to this mode of distributing rewards, because he was satisfied that it would be in the end the most expensive mode. It had always been found that that House was disposed to go beyond the measure of reward recommended by the Crown in cases of extraordinary merits.
Mr. Humesaid, his object was, to see whether the House would consent to cut down useless offices and sinecures, and leave that just and legitimate influence to the support of the monarchy which it was the intention of the constitution that it should possess. He had never heard, until within the last week that the keeping up of sinecures was necessary to the influence of the Crown. He would always maintain, that that Crown did not deserve to be supported, which could not stand upon the legitimate influence to be derived from the patronage of so vast an expenditure as that which was incurred by the government of this country. With the view of ascertaining how many advocates there were for that system, he would move a reduction in the estimate of 12,344 l.
Mr. R. Smithwas of opinion, that, for all practical purposes, the House possessed a due control over the power of the Crown. He would not support the amendment, however useless the places might be, unless it could be proved that they were conferred without any merit on the part of those who held them. Let any instance of a reward conferred without merit be produced, and he would support a proposition for abolishing the place.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that would be the most invidious shape in which the question could come before them, as it would he going into the merits of an individual. The Crown was the fountain of honour, it was true; but it could not be said to be the fountain of reward, at least, in the sense of pecuniary recompense. It had the power of nominating to certain offices, but it was the duty of that House, as guardian of the public purse, to control and regulate the amount of pecuniary compensation for public services.
The committee divided: For the Amendment, 21; Against it, 80.

List of the Minority.

Beaumont, T. W.

Bright, H.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Bernal, R.

1246

Belgrave, vis.

Pares, Thomas

Crompton, Sam.

Ricardo, D.

Crespigny, sir W. De

Russell, lord J.

Hume, Jos.

Robinson, sir G.

Leycester, R.

Sykes, D.

Monck, J. B

Smith, W.

Martin, John

Wood, ald.

Phillips, Geo.

TELLER.

Palmer, C. F.

Davies, col.

Price, Robert

On the resolution, "That 137,297 l. 11 s. 4d., be granted for Full Pay for retired Officers,"
Mr. Humesaid, that the whole charge for retired allowances in the year 1819 did not amount to more than 107,000 l.; but a new system had been recently adopted. When the garrison battalions were called out, the noble lord selected from the full and half-pay some officers who had never served more than a year, and others who had actually not joined the army for 25 years. These persons were put into the veteran corps, and, after a few months, placed on full pay for the rest of their lives. The number of officers who had been transferred from the full pay and half pay to veteran corps, were 247 officers in all; 68 from the full pay, and 179 from the half-pay. The public burthens from were by this proceeding increased to the amount of 13,870 l. a-year. He had no hesitation in declaring it to be illegal, for, by the act of parliament, no man was entitled to enter a veteran corps unless he were unfit for active service. One individual was put on half-pay after three year's service. In the first battalion of the 8th dragoons, an individual, after four year's service, was transferred to a veteran corps which was disbanded the next month. A person, named Prichard, had only served one year. He was appointed to the wagon train in October 1794; and in August 1795, he was put on the half-pay list, where he continued until Jan 1821, when he was transferred to a veteran battalion, which was shortly after disbanded, and he was placed on full pay for life. He should conclude by moving, "That the vote be reduced by he sum of 13,870 l."
Lord Palmerstonapprehended, that the House must be aware of the grounds upon which officers were appointed to veteran battalions, and also of the circumstances under which they were allowed to retire from such battalions on full pay. The conditions attendant upon such permission was, that they abandoned all claim to fu-

1247
ture promotion in the army. The committee would also remember, that the difference between half pay and full pay, was as 2 to 3 only, and not as 2 to 4. The hon. member seemed to think there was some act of parliament requiring medical certificates of incapacity for service, in all cases where officers were appointed to veteran battalions; but he defied the hon. member to produce it. The fact was, that the hon. member. (Mr. Hume) entirely mistook the effect of the act to which he alluded. The act provided, that where an officer desired to retire from any existing regiment of the line, or existing veteran battalion on full pay, there certificates were necessary; but no certificate was required where the removal was the act a government. The case of Mr. Pritchard was a peculiar one. In the early part of the late war, he had been a resident in Flanders, and, in consequence of considerable services which he rendered to the British army, he had been compelled to fly from that country, and his property had been confiscated by the enemy. Being admitted fro have strong claims upon the English government, he had been appointed, in 1795 or 1796, to a commission in the waggon-train; he had had subsequently been reduced, in consequence of an alteration in that corps; and the commander-in-chief, finding him in indigent circumstances, had, as a reward for his past services, appointed him to a veteran battalion.
The amendment was negatived, and the resolution agreed to. On the resolution, "That 764,200 l. be granted for the Charge of Half Pay to Reduced Officers for Great Britain,"
Mr. Humecalled the attention of the committee to the present amount of the half-pay estimate. At the sitting of the finance committee in 1817, the charge of the half-pay had been 647,000 l., and the committee had promised a probable reduction of, annually, about 7 or 8 per cent. But, instead of any such reduction, the charge had, from year to year, gone on increasing. In 1818 it became 651,000 l.; in 1819, 737,000 l.; in 1820, 783,000 l.; in 1821, 765,000 l., and in the present year 808,000 l. or 809,000 l. Here, instead of diminution there was a regular course of increase. He was quite aware of the answer that would be given to him. It would be said, "The half pay is increased, because you have reduced the full pay." Yes; but he would not admit
1248
the application of that answer. He contended, that the full pay had not been diminished in a proper degree; promotions had taken place, and fresh officers had been brought in. Reduction, no doubt, had taken place in the army, and he gave the noble lord opposite credit for it as far as it went but his complaint was, that it did not go far enough. Then it would be said, that he was never satisfied. But he denied that fact. Let the regulation for the army be only fixed upon the proposition brought forward by a gallant officer with respect to the marines. Let one vacancy in three be a promotion, and let the other two be filled up from the half-pay; and his side of the House would remain silent and content upon the subject. But how was it possible for the country to sit down under the pressure of the existing system? In the course of less than seven years from the end of the war to Jan. 1821, there had been no fewer than 2,553 new commissions: of these, 1,103 had been first commissions, 597 being obtained by purchase, and 506 by gift. It was to this system that the increase of half-pay was to be ascribed; and seeing the chancellor of the exchequer in his place, he would submit a plan to his consideration. Ministers had been endeavouring to lower the interest of the national debt from 5 to 4 per cent. and the scheme which he had to propose would save a great deal of money. Many officers were now, from time to time, leaving the service, finding no doubt, that they had no chance of getting on—that young men were put over their heads, and that their services were neglected: now he (Mr. Hume) desired, that when a lieutenant, for instance, wished to retire, and was to receive 400 l. or 600 l., or whatever the value might be, for his commission, that the chancellor of the exchequer, who could borrow money at 3 or 4 per cent, should become the purchaser, and pay the 400 l. or 600 l.borrowed at 3 or 4 per cent, instead of granting an annuity at 13 or 14. The list of officers, he (Mr. Hume) believed, now amounted to 8,000. No such number could be wanted; and a saving of the difference between 3 per cent, and 13 per cent, upon the cost of a commission would be the effect of the system he proposed. Another consideration which he would submit to the noble lord opposite was this: that officers should be prevented from going upon half-pay for life, until they should have gone through

1249
a certain length of service. It was a common practice now for gentlemen to buy commissions with a view to being immediately put on half-pay. He knew that in more than 300 instances commissions had been bought, and the purchasers put on half-pay the same day. The purchase, in fact, of a commission, was the purchase of an annuity. Now, the navy did not pay pensions until after seven years' service; and what reason could be shown why a mere lad, an ensign, receiving his commission, perhaps, as a gift from the commander-in-chief, should, in the same hour, sit down with a provision for life. He doubted how far such gifts could lawfully be made by the commander-in-chief; and was quite sure that, under the circumstances of the country, the power of making them ought to be restrained; but, if the appointments were given, let a regulation be made, that any officer retiring under ten years' service, should receive, not half-pay for life, but merely the price of his commission. If some such regulation were not brought forward by the other side, he should feel it his duty to do so before the close of the session.
Sir. J. Hardingesaid, that however frequently he differed from the opinion of the hon. member for Aberdeen, in military matters, he perfectly agreed with him, in respect to the wisdom of taking officers from the half-pay list to active service. There was a statement of that hon. member to which he was desirous of calling the attention of the House. It was one which he had repeatedly made in that House and elsewhere, and particularly at Hereford, and other county meetings. This statement was, that during a period of five years, there had been in the army 2,553 appointments—["Promotions," from Mr. Hume.] —well, promotions; and that if these had been made from the half-pay list, there would have been a saving of 200,000 l. annually to the country, and of two millions and a half eventually. He had been surprised at the largeness of this number, and was consequently led to examine into it, when he found that so far from there having been 2,553 promotions, the whole number of actual vacancies which occurred in the five years, was 663. So that the hon. member had actually overstated 1,890 in the number of appointments, and 1,800,000 l.in the saving which would have arisen by filling them up form the half-pay list. He would explain how the hon. member had
1250
committed a gross error, which was made up of the most inconceivable collection of errors, that ever any one man committed. He had made his calculations upon this principle:—If a lieutenant-colonel retired, his rank was filled by a major, the majority by a captain, the captain's by a lieutenant, and the lieutenant's by an ensign. This, of course, made only one vacancy to be filled from the half-pay; but, strange to say, the hon. member had taken and calculated upon five, and thus he had made his overstatement of 1890 in numbers, and 1,800,000 l. in expense. And this too he had stated openly, in the face of the country. The effect of this must, have been, to prejudice a great portion of the people against the manner in which the army was administered, and against the, valuable services of the commander-in chief. This error of the hon. member was a sufficient test of his general mode of calculation. With respect to the half-pay list, there were but two modes of relieving it either by deaths or casualties. There were 600 reductions last year, and the whole which could be reduced, so as to bring in an actual saving to the public, was about 30 commissions. Was it, he asked, advisable to interfere with the half-pay list, for the value of thirty commissions—to take away hope and honorable ambition, and disgust the army? What, substantial saving would there be in taking away from the commander-in-chief, a fair source of patronage, which, in. point of fact, was a part of the constitutional influence of the Crown?
Mr. Humesaid, he had not expresses any wish to take from the Crown the power of appointing officers. All that he contended for was, that a reduction of these objectionable appointments would be a real service to the army. He admitted that the gallant officer had shown that he had made a mistake in his statement, upon a former occasion. But it was the only mistake, in point of statement, he had ever committed in that, House. He had discovered the mistake afterwards, and had mentioned it to his hon. friend the member for Shrewsbury, who recommended him to correct mistake the first favourable opportunity, and this he had resolved to do. With respect to the gallant member's remarks upon county meetings, he begged to say, that he had attended but one county meeting since the time of his making that statement. If hon. members would look

1251
at the number of calculations and statements he had brought before the House, it would be matter of surprise that they were in general so correct. He thought if one in three were accurate to the letter, it was as much as could be fairly expected; but he was persuaded that the hon. members opposite would sleep soundly now that they had detected him in one mistake.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, it appeared, that the hon. member's calculations were made upon the principle adopted in venturing a smuggler's cargo; namely, that if one in. three was safe, there was still a profit. The mistake of the hon. member was no slight one. He had not only stated it in his speech of last June, but had repeated it in December, when addressing the people of Hereford, who had voted him a cask of their generous beverage, for the accuracy of his calculations. It was a pity the hon. gentleman did not discover his mistake before he received the reward, that he might have undeceived them at the time that he received so grateful a token of their approbation. The error was not one of calculation only, but of reasoning and logic. The very document from which he drew his statement, by containing the number of promotions by purchase, showed, that the vacancies could not have been filled up from the half-pay list. The noble lord here detailed the number of commissions given since the peace, the proportion of vacancies filled up from the half-pay list, from purchase, or the free exercise of the patronage of the commander-in-chief, and contended that the commander-in-chief had attended to the claims of the officers on half-pay as much as was consistent with the good of the service, and the just expectations of the other class of officers. During last year, his royal highness had given 25 commissions to civil persons, and 23 to officers on half-pay.
Mr. Bennetstated, that six weeks ago, on going over the estimates with his hon. friend, he (Mr. H.) declared to him the mistake. He also expressed his surprise that the acuteness of the gentlemen opposite had not discovered the mistake before. It was his advice, that his hon. friend should take the first favourable opportunity of setting himself right with the House. The noble lord thought it most strange that his honourable friend should fall into such an error, because-it was a mistake of logic. Now he (Mr. B.) had
1252
sat long enough in that House to be well convinced that there were no mistakes into which that House fell more frequently than mistakes of logic. The surprise of the noble lord reminded him of the scene in the "School for Scandal," where Mrs. Candour affects such astonishment at finding other persons as wrong as herself. The resolution was agreed to. The chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.