HC Deb 29 March 1830 vol 23 cc990-4

The Chancellorof the Exchequer, having moved the Order of the Day for bringing up the Report of the Committee of Supply,

Mr. Bernal

begged to know if there was any truth in the report that it was intended to deprive the captains of his Majesty's ships of the power they had hitherto possessed to appoint midshipmen? He understood that something of that kind was to be introduced in the new regulations, which, besides being prejudicial to the service, he was sure would create great discontent.

Sir G. Cockburn

said, that all the patronage the captains had enjoyed was to be continued with respect to the appointment of midshipmen; but they were to be deprived of the nomination of the first class of volunteers. One captain received a number of volunteers on board, and then perhaps in six months another was appointed, who received an additional number, and so they continued until the ship returned, when they were set on shore without any provision. To remedy this evil the Admiralty had taken the appointments into their own hands, resolving to receive none who were not afterwards to be provided for.

Mr. Hume

said, that before the Report was brought up, he wished to know! whether or not it was the intention of his, Majesty's Ministers to ask for a grant of money for works in Canada. He put this i question because an hon. friend of his, who had a motion standing relative to that colony, desired to know, and could not attend in his place to ask, and he thought, as well as his hon. friend, that no vote should pass till the general questions connected with that colony had been discussed. He thought that the right hon. and gallant General at the head of the Colonial Government should bring forward his propositions on the subject before any money was asked for. The complaints of the people of that colony were so numerous, and in his opinion so well ground-ed, that to vote money for the colony till the causes of them were removed appeared to him highly improper. In fact, unless some conciliatory measure were first introduced, he should resist the grant of any money whatever for Canada.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

would do every thing in his power to further the views of the hon. Gentleman, but he could! fix no day for the discussion of the general questions connected with Canada. He would postpone it as long as possible.

The Report was then brought up. On the question that it be read,

Mr. Maberly

wished, he said, to call the attention of the right honorable the Secretary of War to the Marine corps, which appeared to him expensive and unnecessary. It consisted of 4,000 men, though the gallant Admiral opposite had stated that 1,000 would be sufficient to perform the requisite duties. If it were said that they were wanted for garrison duty, that he would contend could be performed by the regular troops. If 4,000 marines were kept up for that purpose, they were unnecessary, or 4,000of the regular troops ought to be reduced. The reduction of these 4,000 men would be a saving of 200,000l. a year—a sufficient sum to make him think the subject well deserving the attention of the House of Commons. He was aware that the reduction could not be made this year, but he did hope if the Secretary - at - war and the gallant Admiral took counsel together, that they would be able to save this sum next year.

In reply to a question of Mr. Hume,

Sir G. Clerk

stated, that there was no separate charge for victualling the marines.

The Report of the Committee was read.

Mr. Hume

objected to the sum of 5,000l. voted for the payment of fees, and declared that he would move as an amendment to leave out that sum; but forbore to press the matter, on the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertaking to look into the subject, and make such an alteration as would next year be satisfactory to the hon. Member. "He further inquired if the expense of the ships lying in ordinary had not been greatly increased. He had received information, that it had been increased to the amount of 5,000l. a year, and he should be glad to learn whether or not that were correct.

Sir Byam Martin

said, the system followed at present was different from the system formerly in use: captains had been substituted for masters; but as there were fewer of them, the expense was not increased, while the ships were much better taken care of.

Mr. Monck

objected to the vote for what is called "the widow's charity," which, he said, was a misnomer. In the ordinary acceptation of the word 'charity' meant a gift from the rich to the poor; in this case, however, the poor contributed to raise a fund for the benefit of the rich, and were at the same time excluded from any share in its advantages. Having previously, however, made several remarks on the subject, he would then only ask whether the regulation bestowed pensions on widows in proportion to the rank of their husbands; whether every case was considered on its own merits, and whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to adopt some means of; curtailing this expense.

Sir G. Clerk

stated, that the amount of the pension was always determined by the rank of the officer when he died, and that: measures would be adopted to prevent the increase of this branch of expenditure.

Mr. Hume

stated, that the object of his hon. friend was, to see one principle adopted throughout the public service, according to which the widow of an officer should no more be pensioned than the widow of a private soldier. It seemed to him extremely hard that the widow of a soldier, who had served in all countries and climates for the greater part of his life, should receive nothing, while the widow of an officer, who had perhaps served only a few years, and never been abroad, should be provided for. At present the Army, the Navy, the Ordnance, in short, every branch of the public service, had its own peculiar system of granting pensions, which to him appeared very improper, and he should recommend that pensions be altogether abolished. They! encouraged marriage, which, in his opinion,' ought rather to be discouraged in the officers as well as in the men. The present system encouraged officers to many, and unless it were checked the charge for pensions must augment every year. It was the duty of the Government to make some alteration, and at least to have one general uniform system for granting pensions in every branch of the public service. The hon. Member also protested against the grant of 300l.a year to the widow of commissioner Sir George Grey. He saw no reason why the widow of a poor shipbuilder, who had served twenty years, should get no allowance; while the widow of a commissioner, receiving a large salary, and serving perhaps not half the time, should have 300l. a year for her life.

Sir G. Cockburn

said, that pensions of that kind were no longer granted, nor had there been any granted to the widows of commissioners appointed since the year 1825. Before that time, however, they were entitled to a pension by an Order in Council, and it was not thought right to depart from the old practice with regard to those appointed before that time.

Mr. Maberly

was of opinion that a report of the number of Pensions granted by Government should be annually laid on the Table of the House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said such a Report was to be laid on the Table.

Mr. Monck

did not object to the particular vote of 300l. but he repeated his complaints of a want of uniformity in granting pensions. Here was the widow of a commissioner who had 300l. a year, while the widow of a common sailor or soldier had no allowance whatever. The hon. Baronet had informed the House that such pensions were to be discontinued in the civil service, and perhaps the hon. Baronet would recommend that the same principle should be adopted in the military and naval service.

Mr. Hume

asked, what necessity there was to have flag officers at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Chatham, and Cork, particularly at Chatham, where there were never more than two or three ships. The salaries of these officers amounted to 12,000. or 14,000l. a year, which, in his opinion, was money wasted. He would like also to know why houses were hired for these Admirals when between 30,000l. and 40,000l. had been expended on building them suitable habitations.

Sir G. Cockburn

replied, that these Admirals were necessary to carry on the public service, and as none but old and distinguished officers were appointed to these situations, they might also be considered as the reward of merit. He did not think that it would be possible to dispense with the services of such officers, or reduce the Estimate any lower.

All the Resolutions of the Committee were agreed to.