Commons Sitting of 4 June 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, an Account of the Number of Persons Employed in the Port of London in the year 1832, with the Amount of their Salaries, Pay, and Allowances, and stating the Reductions made since 1819: also the Gross Revenue collected in the said Port in 1819 and 1832, and the Rate per Cent at which it was collected.
Petitions presented. By Mr. LEECH, from Farnham, against the Tithes Commutation Bill.

CASE OF Mr. BEAMISH.
Sir Thomas Freemantlepresented a Petition from Mr. Beamish, who had been recently superannuated from the Navy Pay-office. The question arising upon this petition was not only interesting to this individual, but to the public at large, on account of the manner in which the superannuated pension list was filled up. The petition stated that he had been in his office for a period of twenty-seven years; he was appointed in the year 1805 to the situation of a clerk in the Navy Pay-office. During the last ten years of his service he had been at Plymouth, where he was at the head of the third class of clerks. At the time he entered into the public service there was an Order in Council, by which, after a service of a certain number of years, he would be entitled to a salary of 500 l. He had, in consequence of that expectation, married, and he had brought up a family of nine children. He found, however, that the promotion he had expected had never taken place, and, indeed, notwithstanding the rule of seniority, others had been promoted over his head. In the course of the last year, a list was sent down by the Lords of the Admiralty, and without any incapacity on his part he was superannuated. He complained of the compulsory superannuation, as he was both able and willing to perform all the duties of his office, and being so, he objected to thus being made a pensioner on the public. The petitioner had presented a memorial to the right hon. Gentleman, the Treasurer of the Navy, praying for restitution to his office, or that

373
the grounds of his superannuation might be stated—he had, in like manner, addressed other quarters, but failing in his objects, he had at last been compelled to appeal to that House to take his case into their consideration. This was the statement in the petition which he (Sir Thomas Freemantle) had undertaken to present, not with any view to cast a censure on the Government, but from a wish to assist the petitioner, if his case should allow of the interference of the House. He must say, that he should wish to know the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman had recommended the dismissal of this petitioner from active employment, and he expressed this wish without the slightest desire to interfere with the rights of the Crown in dismissing any of its public servants. The petitioner now received a pension. In his opinion there ought to be no pension granted but on the abolition of an office, or on account of the incapacity of an individual from length of service to continue in the discharge of his duties. None ought to be granted in the case of removal for misbehaviour. The petitioner did not come under any one of these heads. How then stood the question with regard to the public economy? The salary of the petitioner before his removal was 367 l. a-year. The individual who had replaced him, then, possessed a salary of 140 l. a-year, making a total of 507 l. The petitioner now received a pension of 226 l. a-year, the present possessor of his office a salary of 300 l. a-year, and a junior clerk a salary of 90 l. a-year, making together a sum of 616 l. a-year, leaving a balance of 109 l. against the country in consequence of the change. He was indebted to the clearness of the documents connected with the offices under the control of the Admiralty for his ability to make this statement; and if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of that department was now present, he should have his (Sir Thomas Freemantle's) best thanks for the perspicuity of these official papers. The clerks in the Navy Pay-office had in number amounted to seventy-seven last year. From that number twenty-five were to be deducted as transferred to the Admiralty, which left fifty-two for the duties of the Navy-Pay-office. The number in the present year appeared to be only forty-six, but six of the senior clerks were put upon the superannuation list, and six of the junior class were promoted
374
in their stead, so that there might be said to be twelve non-efficients added to the number, making the whole number fifty-eight, instead of fifty-two. The difference, therefore, especially remembering that there were six new appointments to fill up the vacancies occasioned by promotion of the six inferior clerks, was decidedly against the public. In the 7th page of the Estimate the expense of the last year was stated at 21,200 l., from which, if the salary of the twenty-five clerks transferred to the Admiralty were deducted, the amount would remain 16,080 l. In the Estimates of the present year, the expense of the present year was stated at 13,810 l., but to this was to be added a charge for the non-effectives of 1,829 l., and for the six newly-appointed clerks of 1,830 l., making altogether an annual expenditure of 17,469 l., a sum exceeding the expense of last year. These were the observations he had been led to make from the perusal of this petition. If the explanation offered by the right hon. Gentleman should be satisfactory, there would be an end to the matter; if not, the House would, no doubt, allow him to take the course which he might under the circumstances think fit.
Mr. Poulett Thomsoncould but praise the temperate tone and manner in which the hon. Baronet had brought forward this question; but complained of his having introduced the subject of the Navy Estimates, on which, of course, he (Mr. Poulett Thomson) was not prepared without notice to give any answer. He should confine himself in his remarks to the case of Mr. Beamish. It was not the least painful part of the task of a public man, to have to reconcile the conflicting duty of obedience to the public call for retrenchment, with that of a perfect attention to the feelings and comforts of individuals. It was perfectly true, that by the Order in Council of 1822, the petitioner had been deprived of his promotion; but that was a public Order, from which he was only a sufferer in common with others. The petitioner asserted, that on public grounds of economy, and on those of possessing capacity, zeal, and ability, to labour, he ought to have been continued in office, and ought to have been promoted. The House should see how that question stood. The Treasurer of the Navy was a person to whom large sums of money were intrusted

375
and who was responsible for the disposal of them by those under his directions. The petitioner had never come under his (Mr. P. Thomson's) observation, as he belonged to the department at Plymouth, so that he could have had no personal feeling in his removal, which was to be justified upon economical as well as upon general grounds. The actual saving by retrenchment in the department to which Mr. Beamish belonged, had amounted to 404 l., and his retirement was the only one made in which it had been necessary to use compulsion. There were five clerks at Plymouth, which cost 1,940 l. Subsequently to the change, and without super annuations, the expense was reduced to 1,386 l: to this sum were, however, to be added the superannuations, so that, the saving was not quite so great as it appeared by those figures. He was sorry to be obliged to state anything against the petitioner, but from the records in his office, and his own knowledge, he could say that Mr. Beamish, for personal reasons, could not have been retained with justice to the public service. He did not mean to impeach the petitioner's integrity—that was quite unimpeachable, but the minutes of the office showed that he had an infirmity of temper, accompanied by bodily infirmity also, which rendered him incapable of properly fulfilling his duties. Some of the allegations of the petition were so utterly void of foundation, that he could not help thinking that they were made in total ignorance of the fact. The individual complained of as having been appointed a clerk at 90 l. a-year after the dismissal of Mr. Beamish, had already served for two years as an extra clerk, and was in every way unobjectionable; that appointment also had nothing to do with the dismissal of Mr. Beamish. On the ground of economy, therefore, as well as in consideration of the public service, he should have been guilty had he not proceeded as he had done in the case of the petitioner.
Colonel Daviesfully acquitted the right hon. Gentleman of any personal motive, in the dismissal of Mr. Beamish, but thought it a case of considerable hardship. He had been requested to support the petition, but did not see in what way a remedy could be applied.
Sir George Greybore testimony to the excellent private character of Mr. Beamish, who was one of his constituents. For a
376
great many years, he had discharged the duties of his situation, with satisfaction to the head of the department, and with advantage to the public.
Sir Edward Knatchbullthought that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been able to state some misconduct on the part of the petitioner, as a reason for his dismissal, after a service of twenty-seven years.
Mr. Humewas ready to support the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Freemantle) in a Motion for a Committee to inquire into the case, if he would bring the question forward in that shape. It was quite clear, that whenever the head of a department wished to remove one of the subordinates, nothing was more easy than to find a reason for it. In his (Mr. Hume's) judgment, no man could justly say that Mr. Beamish was unfit for the discharge of his duties, or for any new ones of the same kind which might be imposed upon him, and which he was ready to undertake, without the appointment of any new clerk, at 90 l. a-year. As it was, he was dismissed at once; and, after long service, deprived of every chance of promotion. The case was well worthy of further investigation.
Sir Thomas Freemantlebelieved that that right hon. Gentleman had been imposed upon, and did not well know what he was about when he dismissed the petitioner, whose case was one, not merely of severity, but in his view, of positive injustice. At the same time he imputed no blame to the right hon. Gentleman, beyond allowing himself to be ruled too much by the representations of others. He would contend, in spite of the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the case was one of great hardship, and it would be with him matter of very serious consideration whether or not he should submit to the House ulterior measures on the subject.
The Petition was laid upon the Table.

FOREIGN POLICY.
Lord Ebrington: Seeing my noble friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his place, I wish to put a question to him relative to an occurrence in another place. The question which I desire to put is this:—Does there exist on the part of his Majesty's Government any intention to alter the course of policy to be pursued with respect to the relations subsisting between this country and Portugal? I am aware that a Motion

377
upon this subject will regularly be brought under the consideration of the House by an hon. and gallant Officer on the other side, by means of a Motion, of which he gave notice yesterday; but I, nevertheless, think it essential that the House should be put in possession of the intentions of his Majesty's Government, and should receive from my noble friend an assurance on the subject. I am anxious to receive from my noble friend an assurance that no steps elsewhere taken will have the effect of influencing the policy of Ministers, until this House has had an opportunity of declaring its opinion upon a question regarding which it is as well entitled to express an opinion as the other branch of the Legislature. I repeat, that this House has as good a right as the other House of Parliament to express an opinion upon the foreign policy of this country; and I have every reason to believe, that when that opinion comes to be expressed, it will be found diametrically opposite to that of which we have heard in another quarter; and that not only does a majority of this House think so, but likewise a vast majority of the people who sent us here as Representatives. I consider it, therefore, essential that we should receive from my noble friend an assurance that there will be no change in our policy until this House has had an opportunity of declaring its sentiments. Not only does a difference exist between this House and another body on the question of foreign policy, but I am persuaded also, that differences exist upon several other questions of great magnitude and importance, involving the highest interests of the country; and that on this as well as on other questions, I entertain no doubt that we are sustained by a vast majority of the people of England.
Viscount Palmerston: During the period that we have had the honour to advise the Crown, we have with respect to Portugal, as with respect to all other matters of foreign and domestic policy, pursued that course which we thought most conducive to the interests of the country, and the dignity and honour of the Crown; and so long as we have the honour of performing the task of advising the Crown, we will not depart or swerve in the slightest degree from those principles which have hitherto governed our conduct.

CHINA TRADE.
Sir George Stauntonsaid, in bringing forward a question of
378
this nature, he laboured under the disadvantage of his Resolutions having been so long before Parliament, without his having had an opportunity of stating the grounds upon which they rested. He considered, however, that he was doing far better by bringing them forward at the present time, whilst the question was as yet sub judice between the East-Indian Directors and the Government, than if he brought them forward when the Government plan was finally arranged. The importance of the subject was evident by the fact that the private trade to China was fast increasing. There were now residing at Canton 142 British residents, and the private trade amounted to 25,000,000 dollars in the year, while that of the company was only 12,000,000 dollars. Last year there were thirty-seven vessels lying at one time at Linton, a small island on the coast, engaged in carrying on unmolested a contraband trade. That was a state of things not contemplated in 1813, and showed, that it was no longer a question whether the company should continue to have the monopoly of the trade. He felt satisfied, therefore, that a revision of our commercial arrangements with that country ought to take place. It could not be expected, that these conflicting parties would long live in harmony, nor could it be expected that either of them should be able to inspire the local authorities in China with respect, unless some higher power—some public representative were sent there to control both parties.—The hon. Member proceeded to read extracts from several documents, and to comment upon them in support of this view; when, on the motion of Mr. Sheriff Humphery, the House was counted, and forty Members not being present, the House adjourned.