§ The House having again resolved itself into a committee of supply, Lord Palmerston moved, "that 13,135l. be granted for the charge of the Royal Military College."
§ Lord Palmerstonsaid, that the number of students furnished with cadetships during the last two years was 113. Of these 46 were by purchase, and 67 by gift.
§ Mr. Humeobjected to the appointment of new officers in the present distressed state of the country, whilst there were many meritorious officers on half-pay who would be glad to obtain employment. He also objected to the high salaries which the staff officers of the college received.
§ Lord Palmerstonsaid, that officers, to be of service to their country, should be well educated. If they were to be instructed in that kind of knowledge which would be useful to them in their profession, it was right that the instructors should be paid for their trouble. All the officers educated at the college had distinguished themselves; a proof that the expense of the establishment had not been thrown away.
§ Mr. Humeobjected to the sons of gentlemen being educated at the public expense. He wished to know how many days, during the last year, the governor of the college, whose salary was 1,500l. had attended at the institution?
§ Sir A. Hopesaid, that he was the governor of the college. He obtained leave of absence for two months, during the last year, upon urgent private business; but his attention was not withdrawn from the establishment. The situation was an arduous one; and, so far from being an object of desire, he had resigned it for the situation which he formerly held, the salary of which was only 400l. He now only continued in it until sir E. Paget, should arrive in this country. The salary was not too much, considering the liberal conduct which the governor was compelled to display towards foreigners visiting the college, and to the society in the neighbourhood. He had held the situation for ten years, but had not grown sixpence the richer, in consequence. The establishment had been maturely considered by government, and was thought not to be too extensive.
Colonel Woodsaid, that the example of the Americans had been referred to; but they had a military college, as well as this country.
Colonel Daviesremarked, that the expense of the American army was 1121 only 500,000l., whilst that of ours was 6,000,000l. He complained of the large and expensive staff maintained to superintend the education of 216 young men.
§ Sir H. Hardingesaid, that in the American college there were 268 cadets, who cost more than he was aware of.
§ Mr. Humesaid, he would ask, whether 24,000l., the amount of the subscriptions of the cadets, was not enough for the college? The government had no right to teach at the public expense what those boys could learn at other seminaries. If they were to be taught every thing at the college, why not teach them their letters? Here were three French masters, two German masters, three masters of history and classics, and a drawing master; he contended that these nine masters should be dispensed with, or that the pupils should pay them themselves. He would move as an amendment, to reduce the vote 3,000l., making the sum voted for the whole expense of the college 10,135l.
§ Sir Hussey Vivianconsidered the estimate not beyond the amount required. Whilst he was upon his legs, he wished to say a few words upon a matter introduced to the notice of the House by an hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) whom he was sorry he did not see in his place. He referred to a paragraph which had appeared in the newspapers respecting a transaction in the 10th Hussars. When it was first mentioned, he had stated, that he had no doubt the affair would turn out to have arisen from a desire to abstain from the infliction of corporal punishment. He thought that such subjects as these should not be brought before the House, because they tended to create prejudices towards a certain quarter, though he was quite sure the hon. baronet had no improper object in bringing this matter forward. He had stated, that the transaction had been exaggerated, and he held in his hand a report from the commanding officer of the 10th, which fully confirmed his statement. The man had behaved extremely ill, and recourse was had to the usual punishment of drill; he lay down, refused to move, and two Serjeants were directed to force him along. He afterwards was confined; and subsequently expressed contrition for his offence. The officer consented to overlook it, but insisted upon his performing two days' drill. The only point of the officer's conduct upon which the commander-in-chief had felt any dissatisfaction was, his not bring- 1122 ing the man before a court-martial and having him punished. He had also received a communication from the mayor of Exeter, in which they declared their decided opinion, that the 10th were the best-conducted regiment that ever entered their city. He had had the immediate command of them for a considerable time, and he owed it to them to state, that he never met with officers more attentive to their duty, or more competent to the discharge of it. The office of adjutant was one of great trouble and difficulty, yet every one of the officers, including the son of the hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) had filled it in their turn. The officer who held it at present was a son of one of the most distinguished families in the land. He was aware, that there existed among them a sort of esprit de corps, which might have been very proper in itself, but had been improperly directed on one occasion; but he was convinced, that the general prejudice against them was most undeserved.
§ Mr. Monckthought that much of the charge might be dispensed with. There was no reason why these gentlemen should be educated at the public expense. If we were to have a metallic currency and low prices, we must have low taxes.
§ General Gascoyneobserved, that the hon. member for Aberdeen had recommended that persons educated at the college should pay the expense out of their own pocket, except officers' sons, who should be educated at the public expense. Now, the case was exactly so. Where the individuals were not officers' sons, they paid for their education.
§ Sir J. Yorkesaid, that if the charge of defraying the expenses of this college were taken from the public, it became a private seminary; and at private seminaries pupils learnt nothing. Noblemen's and gentlemen's sons came away from those schools without learning any thing but extravagance and swindling.
§ Mr. Humereplied, that his object was, not to allow the sons of officers to be educated at the public expense. He was satisfied the gallant admiral would not grudge to pay 125l. per annum for his son's education. He believed the college was a good school, but the public ought not to be forced to pay for the education of other persons. He thought it hard that the people of England should be taxed to educate the children of the rich.
§ Lord Palmerstonthought, that great misunderstanding prevailed upon the subject of this vote. Take all the seminaries of the country together, and it would he found that such an education as was given at the military college could not be obtained elsewhere at as cheap a rate. It had been objected that the cadets should pay the expense of their own education; and so they did in part. But there were the sons of distinguished officers, who could not pay the whole expense of their education; and, would the hon. member exclude them from rising to the height pf their profession? So long as we had, an army, the officers of it should be well educated.
§ The committee divided: For the amendment 22; Against it 87.
| List of the Minority. | |
| Althorp, visc. | Palmer, C. F. |
| Bernal, R. | Pares, T. |
| Blake, sir F. | Rice, T. S. |
| Burdett, sir F. | Rickford, W. |
| Davies, col. | Robinson, sir G. |
| Howard, hon. H. | Russell, lord J. |
| Hume, J. | Sykes, D. |
| Knight, R. | Tomes, J. |
| Leycester, R. | Wharton, J. |
| Martin, J. | Wyvill, M. |
| Monck, J. B. | TELLER. |
| Ord, W. | Smith, S. |
§ On the resolution, "That 35,498l. be granted for defraying the charge of Garrisons at home and abroad,"
§ Mr. Humeobjected that, in a variety of cases, governors and lieutenant-governors were kept up whose appointments were merely nominal. Some never resided at all; and in many places the garrisons were only kept up for the purpose of placing a certain number of sinecures at the disposal of government.
§ Lord Palmerstonsaid, that many of the posts were not sinecures, and that such as were, were rewards given to meritorious officers for services performed.
§ Mr. Humewished to know why Fort Augustus and Fort William, two places which the military commission had recommended for reduction, were not given up? and why there was an increase in the estimate? He understood that, they were still maintained at the desire of the duke of Wellington.
§ Lord Palmerstonsaid, that if they had been demolished, the officers attached to them would have retained their pay during life; so that nothing would have been gained. The trifling increase in the estimate, arose from some addition, of 1124 pay given, to non-commissioned officers. The question came shortly to this—whether the Crown ought, or ought not to have, it in its power to reward long services?
§ Mr. Humewas afraid that the favoured officers, and those of influence, got more of this reward than the meritorious ones. Who, for instance, was the governor of Hull, with a sinecure of more than 800l. a-year?
§ Sir A. Hopeobjected to the term sinecure, as applied to the appointments in question, which were invariably the hard-earned rewards of long service. In the course of a war, during which 500 meritorious individuals had risen to the rank of general officer, there were but forty-four of these little governments to distribute amongst them; and these were the same as had existed in the British army for upwards of a hundred years. They were, in fact, the only reward in the power of the Crown to bestow upon officers who had become distinguished, wounded, or worn out in the service of their country. The hon. member could not point out one individual who had obtained his appointment from mere favour. The individual alluded to was general Hill one of the duke of Wellington's aide-de-camps.
§ Lord John Russellsaid, that he had changed his opinion since last year upon this point. He thought that the Crown ought to have the power, of providing for officers; and that a place was better than a pension, because there was something of honour attached to it. Still he could not understand why Fort Agustus and Fort William had not been demolished.
§ Sir H. Hardingesaid, that since the Caledonian canal had been constructed, one, of these forts stood at the very entrance of it; and if it were not for it, any privateer with a couple of, guns might come up to the lock gates and blow them off. As for the other fort, it was, used as a barrack, and was wanted in that part of the country. Besides, he believed, that the maintenance of these forts was part of the act of Union with Scotland.
§ Mr. Humesaid, the forts were not built till after the Union. The canal alluded to was itself useless, and it was too much to pay 1,000l. for a fort to protect it. He thought the garrisons, in the colonies, ought to be paid for by the colonies themselves. He was sure, with 1125 reference to Canada, that that colony would be happy to defray the whole expense of its own government, if they would only give them a good government and British laws. Why should not Gibraltar pay for its own garrison? So long as the revenues of Gibraltar went into the pocket of the king, the House ought not to grant a shilling for its support. Again with respect to the Cape of Good Hope, if his majesty's government would only give the people of that colony a good governor, and English laws, they would be ready to pay all their own expenses. But how was the fact? Lord Charles Somerset was a man whom every body detested.
§ Sir A. Hopefelt himself called upon to interfere, when he heard a gallant officer spoken of in so disrespectful a manner in his absence. He really thought it altogether unfair to take this course.
§ Mr. Humecontended for his right to allude to the conduct of public officers. How else were they to be brought to justice? And how was it in this very case? Lord Charles Somerset could not be got over to this country, although they had been led to expect that he would be here to take his trial long ago.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought the hon. member misunderstood the grounds on which he had been called to order. It was not because the hon. member was bringing charges, but because he was using unguarded expressions. His whole argument, however, was foreign to the purpose, because not a halfpenny of the governor of the Cape's salary was paid out of the present vote.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that his argument was quite to the purpose. He said, that if the Cape had another governor, it might be made to pay all its own expenses. In saying that lord Charles Somerset was detested by every body, he meant every body, at the Cape; and as far as his knowledge went it was so. [Cries of "Order."]
§ Mr. Hume.—Under accusation! Why that was just What he said—under serious accusations—for which he ought to be brought to justice.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonwas disposed to believe that the hon. member for Montrose had exceeded the instructions of his constituents of the colonies, and that he had pledged them more extensively than they 1126 were willing to redeem. He had undertaken to say, that the inhabitants of the Cape were willing to pay all the civil and military expenses of the colony, if lord Charles Somerset was removed from the governorship. It was to be wished that the hon. member had stated his authority for that assertion, which at present rested entirely upon his assumption. As to that noble lord's not coming home to answer the charges, it should be recollected, that he could not leave his charge till a successor was appointed. A highly honourable and intelligent officer had been sent out in that capacity, and the immediate return of lord Charles might be calculated upon. The hon. member was, without doubt, warranted in commenting upon the character of every public man in that House, and not to do so, if he thought there was reason, would be a dereliction of duty; but in God's name, let every man have a fair trial! With respect to Canada, the hon. gentleman was pleased to say, that upon certain conditions, named by him, the people there would be most happy to pay their own expenses. Now, on the part of the people of Canada, he begged leave to say that they would be happy to do no such thing. Instead of bringing forward these doctrines about our colonies in this desultory manner, on a question of estimate, why did not the hon. member bring the whole subject fairly under the consideration of the House? He would undertake to say, he would not find twenty persons in Canada, to sign a petition to pay their own expenses. The question was, whether the colonies were or were not to be preserved? If they were worth preserving, expenses must necessarily be incurred in their maintenance. As to the administration of the money, he could only say that it was disposed of in the most economical manner, through the hands of a responsible body.
Colonel Daviescondemned the whole management of the colonies as the most infamous system of jobbing on the face of the globe. The expense of keeping every colony was greater now than it had been while they were in the hands of the power from which it had been taken. Under the Dutch the Cape of Good Hope paid all its expenses. His object in rising was, that his hon. friend should not be hunted down.
Mr. S. Rice, in allusion to the complaints against lord C. Somerset, took oc- 1127 casion to eulogize general Bourke, who had been sent out to supersede him.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the hon. member might as well have eulogized the character of sir Peregrine Pickle. What had that officer's character to do with the present question? In a time like this, every shilling that could be saved ought to be saved. Why should individuals in this country be called on to pay for the garrisons of Canada or the Cape of Good Hope, any more than for the troops employed in Jamaica? If the colonies were worth being defended, surely they ought to pay for that defence. In his opinion, the 5,900l. charged for those garrisons ought to be deducted. He would therefore move, that the resolution be reduced by the sum of 5,900l.
Mr. Wilmot Hortondefended the propriety of the vote. It was very true that the power of taxation, to meet the expense of the garrison—and every other expense with respect to the Cape of Good Hope—rested with the government. The question, then, was, whether the colony was able to support the necessary expense? There was nothing analogous between the situation of the Cape of Good Hope and that of Jamaica. The hon. member talked of introducing British laws, and even the British language, in the former place. But it was deceiving the House to say that such objects could be effected in so easy a manner. Every thing possible had been done for the amelioration of that colony.
§ Sir R. Wilsonsaid, that when he was at the Cape, a Dutch officer, who had been governor there, informed him, that he had been always able to levy sufficient in the colony, for the maintenance of the garrison, &c, without calling for a shilling from the mother country. He did not understand why that should no longer be the case.
§ The committee divided: For the amendment 21; Against it 116.
| List of the Minority. | |
| Bernal, R. | Newman, R. W. |
| Blake, sir F. | Palmer, C. F. |
| Blight, H. | Rickford, W. |
| Burdett, sir F. | Rumbold, C. E. |
| Davies, col. | Sykes, D. |
| Evans, W. | Tomes, J. |
| Hobhouse, J. C. | Webb, E. |
| Knight, R. | Wood, T. |
| Leycester, R. | Wyvill, M. |
| Marjoribanks, S. | |
| Martin, J. | TELLER. |
| Monck, J. B. | Hume, J. |
§ On the resolution, "That 107,296l. be granted for defraying the charge of half-pay and reduced allowances to officers of disbanded foreign corps, of pensions to wounded foreign officers, and of allowances to the widows and children of deceased foreign officers, for the year 1826,"
§ Lord Palmerstonsaid, that they were permitted to sell their half-pay, in precisely the same way as British officers, but that commissions did not bear the same price according to the rank. The instances, however, were few in which this permission had been taken advantage of.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that if old men whose incumbrance on the public would be determined by a few years, were allowed to substitute younger men in their places, he could not see where the system would stop.
§ Lord Palmerstonsaid, the hon. member had adopted a mistaken view of this matter. The half-pay was by no means a perpetual arrangement, as he seemed to suppose; nor were the individuals who remained on the list a whit more immortal than those who sold out. The advantage of the system was this, that those foreign half-pay officers formed a class of men who could not be employed, without a special act of parliament; but, by allowing them to sell out, instead of supporting a body of officers from whom we could derive no service, we procured the assistance of British officers whose services were at once available. This arrangement did not substitute young lives for old ones. It was most advantageous to the country, and to the persons immediately concerned, by giving a scope to the preferment of meritorious officers. This was a most desirable object. Since the peace, officers were growing gray in the service, who, in consequence of this arrangement, were enabled to get forward.
§ On the resolution, "That 1,285,566l. be granted for defraying the charge of the out-pensioners of Chelsea-hospital,"
§ Mr. Humesaid, there was no man more anxious than he was to provide for those individuals who had served their country in the field; but he could not conceive why this expense should go on increasing. In 1821, the sum charged was 940,000l.; in 1822, 966,000l.; in 1823, 1,224,000l.; in 1824, 1,229,000l.; in 1825,1,240,000l.; and now it was 1,285,000l. He should 1129 like to know what reason could be assigned for the increase.
§ Lord Palmerstonsaid, the vote was required to requite those soldiers who had served for a given period, or who had within that period been disabled in the service of the country, and had thus become entitled to pensions. It was not for those who administered the regulation to dictate what number of men should present themselves for admission; it was only when those claims were made, that the duty of the officers of that establishment commenced, by investigating the nature of those claims. Considering the large amount of the army during the war, there must have arisen a greater number of claims from those who had been partially disabled, than could have been supposed to have been reduced in consequence of deaths. He felt confident that the House would not apply an ill-judged economy to the pittance of the soldier who had been disabled in the service of his country.
§ Mr. Humerecollected the noble lord folding forth in 1817 and 1818, that most of those on the pension list were men who must have suffered from the war, and that a great reduction might naturally be expected to take place; but if instead of 800,000l., the expense was found to amount now to 1,200,000l., it must be evident that there was something wrong. He had heard that much of this increase arose from some deficiency in the personal appearance of the men—from their want of whiskers, or some equally important matter, and that those who were thus deficient, had received a hint to be off, in order to make room for younger and better looking men. He suspected also that there was something wrong in regard to the officers on half-pay. After the reduction of the army in 1816, the amount of half-pay and allowances amounted to 460,000l. We were then told by the finance committee, that a great decrease might naturally be anticipated; but, instead of that, the amount had regularly increased till 1822, and even now was more than in 1817. In that year it had been 647,000l.; in 1818, 651,000l.; in 1819, 737,000l.; in 1820, 783,000l.; in 1821, 765,000l.; in 1822, 818,965l.; and now for 1826, it was 770,530l. There had, therefore, from 1816 to 1822, been a regular and large increase, after it had been supposed that the amount had reached a maximum. If, at the peace, every officer in the army had been put on half-pay, the total 1130 amount, he believed, would not have exceeded 400,000l. or 500,000l. He felt certain, that the increase boded something wrong and rotten, and that it ought to be strictly investigated.
Sir C. Longsaid, that the hon. member had not taken notice of the fact, that in 1822 the out-pensions of Kilmainham had been, incorporated with those of Chelsea. He admitted, however, that the position taken by the hon. gentleman was one in which he himself had been placed. He had looked for a diminution under this head; but instead of it, he was surprised by an increase. He had also found the utmost difficulty in accounting for it. He knew that it could be accounted for, in part, by the reduction of veteran battalions, and in part by the recalling of troops from the East and West Indies. But these two modes were not enough to account for a gradual and progressive increase. He thought it wrong decidedly, and had sent persons into various parts of England to detect fraud and imposition, if they existed. None had been detected. He had sent parties into Ireland upon the same errand. But as yet he had no satisfactory returns. He could not say where the fault lay. Certainly, the government was not blameable. They could not refuse the pensions. The increase was probably owing chiefly to the service-pension list existing under Mr. Windham's system, adopted when the House and country did not seem to have the least idea of the extent to which the expense might be carried. He had opposed that service-pension plan at the time it was proposed, and he was now clearly convinced that it ought never to have been carried into effect. But that regulation had been subsequently altered, and its provisions confined to those who had enlisted under that system. The rest were under a different regulation, and not entitled to a service-pension until they had served twety-years. Under the former system, it was competent, in many instances, for persons to retire on service-pensions, whose ages only amounted to about thirty. The hon. member must therefore complain of Mr. Windham's law. But he hoped we had now reached the acme of the effects of that system.
The resolution was agreed to. On the question, that the chairman report these resolutions to the House,
§ Mr. H. Gurneycomplained of the hardships suffered under the commission 1131 for army arrears. He held m his hands the case of a gentleman, whose father had been in the service of government for fifty years, and having taken the agency of two fencible regiments in 1794, had delivered in his accounts to the War-office in 1800, had received his quietus in 1807, and in 1824 his son and executor had been brought into the court of Exchequer, and there remained under process.
§ Lord Palmerstonbelieved the hon. member could not name any ease in which the person called on was not liable to pay. Still it did not follow, because an individual was called on to pay money in this manner, that any doubt was cast on his honesty; for it might happen that too great a sum was originally issued by government to the individual) and then it night, properly and fairly, remain in his hands till he was called on Co repay the balance Of that which he had received On the other hand, the delay of the government in thus calling on an individual was no imputation on them; for they might not be able to make up their accounts immediately. In all these cases, in which the parties had resisted the claim of government, their resistance had been found illegal.