SUPPLY.—ARMY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 10 March 1834)

§ Mr. Ellice
rose, for the purpose of submitting the estimate of the charge of the Volunteer Corps. The difference which would be found to exist in the estimate as compared with that of last year, arose, not from the number of men enrolled, which was precisely the same, but from being called upon to make good a sum of 3l. each for clothing, &c, for the present which had not been required last year, in consequence of a vote of 9l. granted three years ago, this being the first year in which an annual vote was proposed under that head. This would increase the estimate for clothing and contingent allowances from 28,119l. to 54,221l. As, however, they had been compelled by this charge for clothing to ask a larger sum than last year, the Government thought that they might, on the present occasion, reduce the expenses without any inconvenience to the public service of calling the corps out to permanent duty. It was therefore proposed now only to call for 22,000l., instead of 55,000l. voted last year, arising from the difference between 7s. a-day, allowed last year on the corps being called out to permanent duty, and 3s. 4d. a-day, proposed this year in consequence of their being now called on to be exercised only in quarters. He understood that opposition was nevertheless to be offered to the vote by the hon. member for Middlesex, who proposed that the several corps should either be disbanded altogether, or, if maintained, that no public expense should thereby be incurred. With this view a return had been moved for by the hon. Member, of the charge of the corps of yeomanry at Uxbridge, who, it appeared, did duty without calling on the public to defray 1368 the expenses they incurred. Now, undoubtedly great credit was due to them for such disinterested conduct, but he could not keep pace with his hon. friend, in thinking that the whole of the yeomanry might be expected to offer such gratuitous efficient service. At the same time he hoped they would not object to the smaller allowance which was now proposed to be given them, and which he thought would be quite sufficient to provide for the due maintenance of the proper discipline of the corps, and its efficiency for public service. He was quite sure, in bringing forward this estimate, he did no more than his duty, in the situation which he filled, in calling the attention of the House to the great and invaluable services which the corps had always rendered when called out on public duty; and he trusted that the temporary reduction now contemplated would not dispose them to act with less zeal and patriotism than had distinguished them during the several years that they had been embodied under the present act. Another difference in this estimate arose from the entire omission of the yeomanry staff in Ireland, which had not been required or called out for service during the last three years. At the same time, if compensation was required for any meritorious individuals who had spent a large portion of their time in that particular service, be should not object to some provision being made for them hereafter. The right hon. Gentleman them moved, "That the sum of 82,179l. be granted for defraying the charge for the Volunteer Corps for the present year."

§ Mr. Hume
thought, if the corps were disbanded only for one year, there was sufficient public spirit and patriotism in England to induce persons to come forward and enroll themselves for the purpose of preserving the peace, and protecting property around them, without subjecting the country to the heavy expense of maintaining such a force. Such a disposition was manifested in France; and he had no doubt, it would be manifested here also, if there were occasion for it. He would mention, that the Uxbridge, the Salisbury, and the Glasgow corps, were existing proofs that such a disposition was not wanting, for they did their duty gratuitously. He had urged his objections to the present system for twelve or fourteen years, and he had been 1369 delighted to find, that the Marquess of Lansdown, when Secretary for the Home Department, had determined to put an end to the corps. The first military men in the country, he believed, had been consulted on that occasion, and their deliberate opinion was, that the corps might be dispensed with very conveniently, and that if the 150,000l. required for their maintenance was to be expended, it would be much better that two or three regular corps should thereby be established. Government had then reduced the volunteers, but the present Ministry, on coming into office, had taken alarm, and placed them on their present footing. Since 1816, the enormous sum of 2,379,722l. had been expended in their maintenance, while there had been comparatively little occasion for their services. Why should there not be as much public spirit in England, as to raise without expense, such a force as existed so efficiently in France, in Holland, and in Belgium? No doubt a National Guard some time ago was considered rather revolutionary; but he was not attached to a name. He only wished a trial to be made of the public spirit of Englishmen, if the present corps were to be disbanded for one year. Plenty would be found ready to come forward without the paltry and unbecoming motive of being paid for their services. Upon the whole, considering that the right hon. Gentleman had held out a hope, that he would be able to dispense with the corps, and, especially sanctioned by the conduct of the previous Administration, he would propose to negative the vote altogether.

§ Colonel Davies
agreed in the proposition to extend this force to infantry as well as cavalry. In the northern counties, where there was a large manufacturing population, the yeomanry had, on many occasions, been called on to risk their lives in encounters with determined rioters, armed with weapons of offence and defence. It could not be expected, that or these occasions, farmers should leave their homes without some remuneration. What they did receive barely covered the expense to which they were put. His hon. friend had referred to the National Guard of France. There was this wide distinction between the yeomanry of England and the National Guard of France, that the yeomanry was a volunteer corps in the true sense of the word. The service of the National Guard was compulsory. 1370 Every person who had a domicile in France was compelled to serve, and the Government provided clothing and arms. The hon. member for Middlesex wished his plan to be tried for one year; but let him recollect that a great deal of mischief might be done in a twelvemonth. Why replace this guard, whose services were only required once or twice in the year, by a standing army, who must be paid for every day in the year?

§ Mr. Littleton
said, that it would be no economy to abolish the volunteer corps—on the contrary, if it were abolished, it would be indispensably requisite to incur, in some respects, the expense of a standing army. He belonged to a manufacturing county, and could say, from his own experience, that had it not been for the assistance afforded on many occasions by the yeomanry, the most extensive depredations would have been committed. In the whole of the district with which he was acquainted, containing 30,000 men, there had not been a single company of the troop out of doors. The infantry volunteers of other countries exercised only within the limits of the town where the different battalions were formed. He should think it a great misfortune if the volunteer corps of this country were in any degree reduced.

Mr. O'Connell
said, that nobody disputed that a volunteer force might be useful. The question was, whether an experiment might not be made on the patriotism of the English, and a force got up without any expense. In 1780, when all the King's troops were drawn out of Ireland, and sent to America, 60,000 cavalry, artillery, and infantry, not only clothed, but armed themselves, and served for three or four years without a cost to the Government of a single shilling. Surely, in so wealthy a country as England, the experiment might succeed without costing 80,000l.

The Earl of Grosvenor
said, that the yeomanry were put to great inconvenience and expense by their absence from home to attend to the duties of the service, and they did not receive as much as remunerated them for the loss they sustained. There were, he was aware, two troops, one in Wiltshire, and the other in Glasgow, which served gratuitously; but he thought it was well worth consideration, whether it was constitutional to allow bodies to arm themselves, and serve without remunera- 1371 tion, or whether it would not be more prudent that they should receive a small pay, and be obliged to take the oath of allegiance to his Majesty, and to bind themselves to serve him faithfully? He was sure it was not the intention of the right hon. Secretary at War to discourage the yeomanry; but, he feared, that the circumstance of their not being called out for permanent duty, would have that effect, unless they were apprised, that it was but a step caused by temporary circumstances, and that it was not intended to cast any slur upon them.

§ Mr. Brodie
said, that the Salisbury corps, of which he was the Colonel, had performed very useful services, and was maintained at a very small expense to the Government. It was originally clothed by subscription, and armed by his Majesty, and the only expense which the Government had to defray was, the wear and tear of the arms, and the cost of ammunition, which did not exceed 10l. a-year. He suggested, that the general establishment of such corps would be the means of saving, not 9,000 men, as the hon. member for Middlesex had proposed, but 20,000.

§ Mr. Gillon
considered the yeomanry not merely a useless but a dangerous force—the most dangerous that could be employed. It was not possible that they should be under the same subordination and discipline as the regular troops, and, therefore, they could not be expected, on sudden emergencies, to act with as much firmness and coolness. The allusion which had been made to Manchester was most unfortunate. When the circumstances which had occurred there were referred to, they ought to deter Gentlemen from voting for a force which was so liable to be influenced by local prejudices. He should support the reduction proposed by the hon. member for Middlesex, conceiving the force worse than useless.

Mr. Mark Philips
begged the House would draw a distinction between the acts of the yeomanry at Manchester, and those of the Magistrates. He thought that the force had acted very well in circumstances of peculiar delicacy, although he did not deny that there had been some impetuosity on the part of one of the corps.

§ Mr. Shaw
was of opinion, whatever might be done as to England, that there was a necessity to keep up the yeomanry force in Ireland. He feared, there was 1372 some other reason beyond that which was assigned for its suppression. He could not help thinking it was intended as a sop to satisfy a party which would never be satisfied.

§ Mr. Littleton
assured the hon. member for the University of Dublin, that the Government, in withdrawing the vote for the Irish yeomanry, were influenced by no other motive than the consideration that the King's army was sufficient. Surely, 23,000 men were enough to have armed in a population of 8,000,000. He did not believe there had been an instance of the yeomanry in Ireland having been called out for the last three years. At the same time the Government by no means forgot the services which the yeomanry had rendered to the country on past occasions, and they entertained a firm conviction that, should there ever occur a necessity to arm that force again, it would come forward with the same alacrity which it had hitherto displayed. But, he hoped, we had now reached a time when, if it should be necessary to raise volunteers, they would be divested of party prejudices, and that Protestant and Catholic would act in the same service with no other object than to join in the defence of the country.

Mr. O'Connell
said, that if the yeomanry were kept up in Ireland, the King's troops would be required to defend the people against the yeomanry.

§ Lord Ebrington
bore testimony to the excellent conduct and discipline of the yeomanry corps of the county of Devon upon all occasions. A few days ago an East-India vessel was thrown upon the northern coast of Devon, with a most valuable cargo, which would have been totally lost, but for the excellent conduct of the yeomanry corps of that county.

§ Mr. Cobbett
said, that Major Cartwright had called the yeomanry corps the body guard of the borough mongers. Now, the body being gone, he could not see why the corps should not be given up. He felt glad, that not a single Member on the Ministerial benches had attempted to vindicate the conduct of the yeomanry corps of Manchester.

§ Mr. Hume
said, that the Manchester yeomanry corps were so ashamed of their conduct on that occasion, that they dissolved themselves, and had never since been enrolled.

§ Mr. Ellice
then proposed "a charge of 16,547l. 12s. 10d., for allowances as rewards for distinguished services, not exceeding three-fifths of the emoluments of garrison appointments which have become vacant; and also of allowances to officers of his Majesty's garrisons at home and abroad, holding their appointments as rewards for military service, but to which no efficient military duty attaches; and which appointments will be abolished on vacancies occurring, when rewards for distinguished military service will be granted in lieu there of."

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
expressed his regret at the course recommended to be pursued by the Committee which sat on the subject of military appointments last year. 'Up to 1788, the army had 30,000l. a-year distributed amongst them, as rewards for distinguished services; the army was then not one-half its present number, and certainly not half so deserving. He felt, that the decision the Committee up-stairs came to, namely, to reduce the rewards to the army, was most unjust. The Committee admitted the claims of the army, and said, because the army had served the country so well, the rewards to be be- 1374 stowed should be cut down. In France, no less than 365,000l. were distributed as military rewards. He trusted, that next year the Government would bring forward some measure for rewarding military service. He knew, that it was almost useless for him to bring forward any proposition on the subject. He, therefore, should only protest against the injustice done the army. He thought, that the principle on which rewards were distributed under former Estimates, was much better than that which the right hon. Secretary had adopted in the present instance, who, he had little doubt, would soon see the propriety of altering his plan.

§ Mr. Hume
was surprised to hear the right hon. and gallant Officer advocate so zealously, the vested rights of the army. If the right hon. and gallant Officer's doctrine were correct, they might soon expect to see those vested rights enforced with fixed bayonets.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
appealed to the Committee, whether in the observations he had made, he had used any such expressions as "vested rights" or "fixed bayonets." In what he had stated, he merely discharged his duty; and he could assure the hon. member for Middlesex, that he should always boldly stand up in his place in that House, to resist injustice, without caring whether his conduct was approved of or not, by the popular voice.

§ Mr. Hume
cared as little about popularity as the right hon. and gallant Officer. He challenged the right hon. and gallant Officer, or any other Member of that House, to point out an instance in which he had courted popularity. So far from courting popularity, he could, on the contrary, assert, that numberless instances had occurred, in which he had actually borne the brunt of the adverse opinions of millions. Why, on a very recent occasion, when his Majesty's Ministers gave way to popular clamour, did he not resist the popular cry? The right hon. and gallant Officer had, therefore, no right to allude to him as a person capable of surrendering his own opinions, merely in deference to the wishes of parties out of doors. He denied, that any injustice was intended towards the army. The present annuitants were not to be disturbed in the enjoyment of their pensions; but it was right to put it out of the power of future Governments, to misapply 1375 the public money by the creation of such I offices as those alluded to. So far from deserving to be attacked for what he had done in this respect, the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, deserved the thanks of the Committee, and of every man in the country, for the efforts he had used to introduce a system of necessary economy into the department over which he presided. It was, he admitted, no more than just, that merit should be adequately and properly rewarded. The right hon. and gallant Officer had referred to the list of 1792, but he had entirely forgotten to state to the Committee the disparity between the number of officers then serving in the army, and the number now employed. He had objected to the grant of 18,000l., and he did so, because he thought any expense that was too high, should be cut down as much as possible, and, that large salaries should not be given where there was not only no merit, but no duty to be performed. He did not mean to say, that Lieutenant-Colonels should be paid like mere clerks, but the system of abuse existing in one public department, could not justify abuse in another.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
said, that a very considerable augmentation had taken place in the army, both cavalry and infantry, since 1792, and the payments had, of course, also increased. He did not mean to say, that the civil appointments were too many or too few; but this he would assert, without fear of contradiction, that the emoluments of the officers of various regiments, were much less now than they were in 1740, nearly a century ago. It was, he repeated, unjust to diminish the emoluments of the army, while in other instances, the emoluments of public servants had been increased. He had a perfect right to complain, that the army had not been done justice to.

§ Mr. Cobbett
understood the right hon. and gallant officer's wish to be, that they should take nothing at all off. The argument, why something should be taken off, was the argument which was now brought forward to show, that no reduction whatever should be made. But it was the non-effective, and not the effective service they were talking about. What was the cost of the non-effective establishment in 1792? It was only right the Committee should know what it cost the country in that year, and what it now cost. In- 1376 1792, the sum of 369,462l. was voted for this purpose. But what was the sum that was now given? Why, no less than 2,589,369l. 10s. 1d. At the period of 1792, the sum granted for widows' pensions, and compassionate allowances, was only 9,000l. and odd. But what was it now? Why, it was no less than 212,100l.; and yet they were told, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, was not justified in his endeavours to make some little saving out of these sinecures, for so he must designate them. He was quite ready to admit, that the army had great merit; but when the right hon. and gallant Officer dilated upon its exploits in Europe, he surely should not have forgotten its achievements on the other side the Atlantic. When the gallant General was enumerating their great services, he ought not to have omitted what they had done for their country in the United States of America. But he observed that the Governor of the Isle of Wight was named on the present list, although he was not a military man. This was the only point upon which he desired explanation.

§ Mr. Ellice
said, that the office to which the hon. member for Oldham alluded, was to cease with the present holder. He had, however, felt it his duty to provide for it in this way.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
observed, that the number of officers on full pay in 1792, was 4,014, and the number of rank and file, 48,000. The number of officers engaged in the army in 1833, was only 5,615, while the number of rank and file, amounted to 95,000 men. The Committee would, therefore, perceive, that in 1792, there was an officer to every company of twelve men; but, that in 1833, there was a company of seventeen men to every officer. The complaint of want of economy in this respect, was consequently groundless. The hon. Member must be aware, that at the end of the war, the list of pensioners was necessarily much enlarged. It was quite clear from the Report of the Committee, that the management and discipline of the army, were in a more perfect state now, than at any former period of our history.

§ Mr. Ellice
next proposed a Resolution, that the sum of 114,000l. be granted for defraying the army pay of General Officers serving with his Majesty's forces, they 1377 not being Colonels of regiments. The right hon. gentleman observed, that a diminution had been effected in this vote, as compared with the vote of last year, in consequence of the nonfilling up of the casualties, that had since occurred. He regretted, that he had not been able to adopt the recommendation which the Committee of last year had given relative to the allowance of those officers who had served prior to the last war. The inquiries he had made, had convinced him, that it would be impracticable to follow up that recommendation. He had no means of ascertaining who the officers were, whose circumstances would enable them to relinquish their pensions, or who they were, to whom those pensions would be continued. In every case, they would be entitled to the whole produce of the sale of their last commissions, and this would so far exceed the value of the annuities they received, that he thought it better not to interfere in the matter. Failing to carry the desire of the Committee into effect in this instance, he had deemed it expedient to leave another recommendation of theirs also untouched. A noble friend of his (Lord Ebrington) intended to supply the omission to which he alluded; and although he did not feel himself warranted in bringing that particular matter forward himself, for reasons which he had stated on a former occasion, he should cordially support his noble friend's proposition whenever it was made.

§ Lord Ebrington
rose to bring forward his Motion of which he had given notice. He would move, "That, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Committee on Army and Navy Appointments, a sum not exceeding 6,500l. be added to the charge of the pay of General Officers, for the purpose of making up to 400l. a-year the pay of all such unattached General Officers, as are not in the receipt of any-other public emolument."

The Chairman
(Mr. Bernal) felt it to be his duty, to say, as the object which the noble Lord's proposition had in view was to make some increase in the Estimate, which his right hon. friend, the Secretary of War, had submitted, that it could not, in point of form, be made. The Committee had no power to augment the Estimates submitted to them by his Majesty's Government, and such a proposition was, not only without precedent, but against 1378 the orders which regulated their proceedings.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge,
although he fully agreed in the substance of the noble Lord's Motion, could not but object to the form in which it came before the Committee. The King, and not that House, was the dispenser of grace, favour, and reward to the army; and he should object to the noble Lord, or any one else, calling on them to confer rewards which could only be obtained by means of his Majesty's pleasure. The Estimate should have been submitted by command of the King, and not until his pleasure respecting it was first ascertained. The same course ought to be taken before any reductions were proposed, for it was of the utmost importance, that the army should look up to no authority but that of the King. It was by his Majesty's direction, that punishments were inflicted, and by him alone should rewards be conferred. His was constitutional doctrine. But it was quite clear, that his Majesty's pleasure had never been consulted on the matter; for had they not heard the right hon. Secretary say, not, that such and such were according to the King's pleasure, but, that "he should be ready to support his noble friend's Motion." If the King's pleasure were ascertained, and the right hon. Secretary had his Majesty's permission for bringing the vote forward, he (Sir H. Hardinge) entertained no doubt, whatever, that it would be passed without difficulty.

§ Mr. Ellice
had not the presumption to take anything upon himself in such a matter; he had only stated, that the would support his noble friend's proposition.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
observed, that the right hon. Gentleman was bound to have informed his Majesty of the nature of the recommendation which the Committee had given.

§ Mr. Ellice
thought that, under all the circumstances, he could not have advised the King to command the adoption of any other course than that which had been taken.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
had understood the right hon. Secretary to say, that he had not taken the advice of his Majesty on the subject.

§ Mr. Ellice
assured the right hon. and gallant Officer that he was in error. He really had not introduced his Majesty's name in the few introductory remarks that 1379 he had made, and, therefore, could not have stated whether he had or had not the sanction of the King for the line of conduct he had pursued.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
had certainly been under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman had not consulted his Majesty at all on this particular point. It was, however, only right that, as to his Majesty peculiarly belonged the discipline of the army, they should look up to him, and to him alone.

§ Mr. Ellice
said, that he should be very sorry to maintain any other doctrine.

Captain Dundas
complained, that there was another service which had not been treated justly. More favour had been shown to the army than to the navy, which was most unfair.

§ Lord Ebrington
said, that neither service had been more favoured than the other. The allowance of the officers of the army had been reduced from 30,000l. to 18,000l., but no diminution had taken place in the allowance of officers in the navy. It was, therefore, most unjust to say, that his Majesty's Ministers had favoured cither service more than the other; but, above all, it was extremely injudicious to excite a spirit of jealousy between the two services. He was exceedingly sorry for the technical objection that had been raised against his Motion; but he trusted his right hon. friend, the Secretary at War, would take some future opportunity bringing the subject forward.

§ Mr. Ellice
wished the subject to drop without further observation; but he could assure his noble friend, that he would take another opportunity of bringing it under the consideration of the House.

§ Mr. Cobbett
observed, that, this seemed a quarrel between the sister services, which, being a mere family affair, should be left to be settled by the parties themselves. He should like to know how the people of Devon, the noble Lord's constituents, would like to have a sum of 6,500l. added to the charge of I 14,000l. for the pay of General Officers, and General Officers, too, who were not employed at all? The people of Devon, he had no doubt, would agree with him, that three hundred General Officers were more than was required, and although the world might tremble at such a number of Generals, the people of Devon, he was quite sure, would not be as solicitous as the noble Lord to increase the burthens of the country on their ac- 1380 count. But what must the world think of England with her three hundred Generals? Why the people of other countries must tremble at the prospect of a war with England, for with such a number of Generals, she could certainly send 300 or 400, or even 600 battalions into the field. He saw a gallant Admiral smile at this; but the gallant Admiral had no right whatever to smile, for it was well known that there were as many as three Admirals to every line-of-battle ship in the service. He could not consent to the proposed vote for adding to the allowances of three hundred Generals.

§ Lord Ebrington
was satisfied, that the people of Devon would be as anxious as he was to do justice to those who had served their country meritoriously. They would not grudge those officers the rewards which they deserved, and this was the feeling with which he had proposed this vote.

§ Mr. Cobbett
asked, whether the name of Prince Leopold was to be found on the list?

§ Mr. Ellice
replied: Certainly not.

§ Mr. Hume
said, that the expense of General Officers was so very great, that he would put it to the noble Lord whether he ought to sanction such a proposition as the one that he had made. No fewer than thirty-nine had not served at all during the last war.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
observed, that, on a former occasion, the hon. member for Middlesex stated that he should no longer quarrel with the expense, but with the number of these officers. He then had no objection to their receiving 400l. a-year, although he now turned round upon them in a manner so ungenerous. The thirty-nine officers to which the hon. member alluded, received their pensions under King's warrants, and as their average ages were 65, it would be a harsh proceeding indeed to interfere with them. When the question was brought forward again, he should be prepared to show that the whole sum proposed to be voted was more than gained by the 100l. a-year that was taken oft" the different regiments prospectively. The emoluments of regiments were now less than they were a century ago.

§ Lord Ebrington
withdrew his Motion, and the Resolution was agreed to.

§ Mr. Ellice
moved for a grant of 81,240l. for the half-pay and reduced allowances of officers belonging to disbanded foreign corps, &c.

§ Mr. Cobbett,
objected to this money being sent out of England to be spent in Germany and elsewhere. The sum drawn from the people of England in this manner since the peace, amounted to 2,000,000l. It was unconstitutional and illegal to apply the money of the country in this way. Much of it, he believed, was paid to Frenchmen now serving in the French army. These parties were brought into the service of the British army by two Acts of Parliament, which said, that they were to have the same pay and the same allowances, and the same everything as English officers, until within a fixed time after peace should have been concluded. He should divide against the vote, if he voted alone.

§ Mr. Ellice
said, that this was one of the contracts to which the Government found the country pledged when they succeeded to office, and they were bound by every principle of law and justice, to abide by the contract. Some of these allowances were for wounds received in the active service of this country. He was sure, that no one would wish such services to go unrewarded.

§ Mr. Cobbett
asked, would the House believe, that 2,000l. more was paid to the widows of these German officers than was paid to the widows of the whole of the officers of our army in 1792?

§ Colonel Davies
said, it was very well known, that parties were receiving these allowances, who now held offices, civil or military, under other Governments, and in some cases, the money was received in the names of those who were no longer in existence. He thought the public not sufficiently protected against such frauds.

§ Mr. Ellice
said, it was impossible for the Government to guard against all the frauds that were attempted. If the gallant Member knew the particulars of such a case as that he had described, he would have done much more good by representing ii at the War-Office, than to the Committee.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
said, that not one officer, receiving this allowance, could serve in a foreign army, without the permission of his Majesty, in whose service such officers of course remained. In some cases, such permission had been refused and it was only granted where the case warranted it.

§ Mr. Aglionby
said, that these claims were founded on a solemn contract. If the country was not bound to pay them, 1382 he would refuse it; but it appeared that we were so bound by an Act of Parliament.

§ Mr. Cobbett
I say, that that Act of Parliament is against the fundamental law of the land. It is against another Act of Parliament as good as that—an Act of Parliament which placed the King upon the throne. I contend, that by the Act of the 12th and 13th of William" and Mary, the Government was forbidden to bestow any place of military emolument upon foreigners. And I say, that if we take it into our heads to set that Act of Parliament at defiance in this respect, we may also take it into our heads to set it at defiance in other respects.

§ Mr. Hume
was understood to say, that, as the refusal of these allowances would be a breach of a special Act of Parliament, he could not vote against the grant.

§ Mr. Ellice,
in moving the sum of 1,327,848l. 7s. 2d. for the pensioners of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, observed, that considerable reductions had seen commenced in those establishments.

§ Mr. Cobbett
thought the grant excessive. These pensioners received upwards of 31l. per annum, or about 12s. a week, which he thought was quite monstrous. Besides this, the official expenses for attendance on these old men cost 30,000l. a year. The out-pensioners received 11½d. a day, being nearly 6s. a-week, for doing nothing, whilst the day labourer got but five shillings a week at the very outside for the sweat of his brow. When he (Mr. Cobbett) was a soldier, these pensioners got but 4d. a day, and it was quite enough now. Nothing went down now but a red coat. He had been one himself, but the House seemed to forget his services.

Mr. O'Connell
said, that some of the apartments in Kilmainham Hospital were now appropriated to certain officers of the garrison at Dublin. He wished to know whether it was the intention of Government to displace those indidivuals in the arrangements they were contemplating with regard to that institution.

§ Mr. Ellice
replied, that all he could say at present with regard to that institution was, that arrangements had been made to remove such in-pensioners as could be removed to Chelsea Hospital, whilst the more infirm would be accommodated in certain infirmaries and hospitals of Dublin.

Mr. O'Connell
said, that this change had given great dissatisfaction to a large part of his constituents, and he felt it his duty, therefore, to mention it. It might be advocated as a very judicious piece of economy; but was there any very great saving to recommend it? He thought it a very great cruelty to bring away these poor pensioners, removing them from their native land, from a national institution which they had long looked upon with affection and pride, particularly as the removal was contrary to their inclination. None were in-pensioners of that institution, except by inclination—old soldiers, whose friends and families were separated from or altogether lost to them, and who found a home and an asylum within those walls. Strong remonstrances had been made to Government not to put down this institution; and whatever little saving might be effected by so doing, could not compensate for the dissatisfaction which such a measure would cause.

§ Mr. Ellice
assured the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that Government would not have proposed this change if they had thought that it would at all interfere with the comforts of the individuals in question. The hon. and learned Gentleman might rest assured that no such measure of cruelty would be enforced against those whose infirmities might unfit them for a change to this country; but every encouragement would be given to them to remove to their own families, or elsewhere, as might be convenient. The hon. and learned Gentleman had remonstrated against this proposal for putting down a national establishment. He could assure him that there would be no change in the nature, though there might be nominally in the future destination of that establishment. The fact was, that this year the lease of the artillery barracks in Dublin would expire, and it could not be renewed, and the necessary repairs executed, without considerable expense. When, therefore, it was considered that the whole number of persons in that establishment was 270, and that 1384 there was an abundance of accommodation for them in Chelsea Hospital, he did not see that it was worth the expense of 12,000l. to keep up a separate establishment for their use.

§ Mr. O'Dwyer
begged to say, that he set very little value on the consolation which the Secretary at War had just administered. The right hon. Gentleman had assured the committee that the hospital should be kept up, which meant that the stores and mortar should not be transferred to England. No doubt if the expense of carriage were not an objection, the fabric would be demolished, and the materials conveyed to London. The right hon. Gentleman would call that demolition by the delusive and most mischievous name of "consolidation," and the committee would be quite satisfied. He protested most strenuously against this wholesale destruction of everything Irish. It might be agreeable to some persons to accumulate all the office-desks and office-forms of Ireland in five or six large houses in London, upon the plea of economy, and under the name of consolidation, but he undertook to say that the breaking up of public establishments in Ireland had inflicted much individual misery—had diminished the expenditure in that impoverished country, but did not produce any corresponding saving to the State. He had not any official data to guide him in this statement, but he venture to make the assertion on the received opinion of the public, assisted by his means of personal observation. He now came to consider the proposition of the Government, with regard to Kilmainham Hospital, and the measure of appropriating this establishment to the ordnance service, and he unhesitatingly asserted that the Government had no legal right to justify such a proceeding. The House was frequently reminded of the protection due to vested interests, and this was a case in which there should be a consideration of the kind. The history of this hospital was brief and interesting. It was founded in the time of Charles the Second. The edifice was raised by funds created by a deduction of sixpence in the pound from the pay of all officers, soldiers, and other military persons serving in Ireland. Lands which formerly belonged to the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, which belonged to the Crown in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, were conveyed to the hospital by the tenure of perpetual alms for the support 1385 of the establishment, for many years the invalids were supported by this mode of revenue. Would the House of Commons think it just to divert this ancient charity from the intentions of its original founders? But, on higher grounds than those of technicality, he (Mr. O'Dwyer) wished to know-was it politic to break up this institution? There were many things which might be done, which it would be very inexpedient to do. With respect to this institution he would say, that there was no Irishman who did not feel a national pride in this establishment. It was one of those few monuments existing in Ireland which created in most men an ennobling attachment to the Constitution under which they lived. It was creditable to the country that there should be in the capital an asylum for the brave and worn-out defenders of the land; and the breaking up of this establishment was a measure so small in its conception, that it seemed to be devised by the genius of a pedlar, and adopted without consideration by the Secretary at War. It was part of a system of denationalization which should be discouraged. The object seemed to be to take from Ireland all her public establishments, and conduct the government through the Post-office. He asked the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, who had paid a flying visit to Ireland, and who had investigated the affairs of this establishment—he asked the Secretary for Ireland, who knew the feeling in Ireland on the subject—finally, he asked the Secretary at War to name any one person of authority who approved of the breaking up of Kilmainham Hospital? He ventured to assert the scheme was disapproved of by the Commander of the Forces in Ireland. At all events, the Committee had a right to know whether this was not an ill-advised scheme planned by some incompetent person, or whether it was a measure recommended by those who were competent to give an opinion.

§ Mr. Hume
was sorry to hear hard words against economy. He must say he thought, that the expenses of the institution in question, about 50l. per man, were more than could be fairly justified. The expense of the establishment at Chelsea was unnecessarily great; but the expense of Kilmainham surpassed it. He would recommend, that the payment of the pensions should be made through the hands of a regular army agent, at the 1386 usual rate of commission, which would effect a saving of 12,000l. a-year. Amongst other items of the official appointments at Chelsea, was that of 300l. a-year for the clergyman; that was too much. He hated political clergymen; and he hoped that the chaplain had some duties to perform, which would keep him from meddling with politics.

§ Lord John Russell
said, that, as there was no longer a separate army for Ireland, and as the Irishmen and Englishmen were indiscriminately mixed throughout the service, there could be no objection to the proposed union of the two national military hospitals. He had only acted on a principle long established in the department to which he belonged. It was a practice of long standing to appoint to offices in Chelsea Hospital persons of military claims; men, who had, in some way connected with the army, entitled themselves to encouragement and patronage. The King's warrant had laid down a rule, by which the disposal of such offices was regulated, for it directed that those should be appointed, whose sufferings or merits in the military service gave them a claim to remuneration. In bestowing the particular appointment referred to by the hon. member for Middlesex, he had looked only to the services which had been performed by the gentleman who filled that office, without regarding political differences; and, if in doing this, he had deviated from the path pursued by his predecessors, he bad nothing with which to reproach himself. When the hon. member for Middlesex brought forward a motion to abolish the institution, he would certainly resist it to the utmost, for he was determined to uphold this admirable establishment to the utmost.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
said, the statement of the noble Lord was most satisfactory. As Chelsea Hospital was to be preserved, it was most desirable, that all the offices in it should be filled by men of merit, who had deserved well of their country in a military capacity. But he should take leave to say, that he would much rather see Kilmainham also preserved. It was an act of justice to the noble Lord to state, that what he said about the King's warrant was quite correct. The duty was imposed on him to appoint proper persons, and a more proper and creditable selection than Mr. 1387 Gleig he could not make. Mr. Gleig was a gentleman of considerable distinction, who had served in the army, and with great credit. He was also the author of distinguished works connected with the military service; and the appointment would, he was sure, give general satisfaction among all classes connected with the army. He would ask persons who objected to the appointment—and he would especially direct himself to the quarter on his left,—whether there was any vituperation against the Duke of Wellington when he appointed the Rev. Dr. Grey, now Bishop of Hereford, to a most valuable living? When he appointed Mr. Abercrom by, was there any vexatious paltry objection raised? The noble Lord, by the appointment of Mr. Gleig, had acted according to the King's warrant; and he was perfectly justified. He would, however, leave that subject to refer to one on which he had given a notice, the commutation of pensions. In 1831 and 1832, he brought under the notice of the House the question of the commutation of soldiers' pensions, because he thought then, as he did now, that it was cruel, unjust, and impolitic to leave men who had fought for their country, and deserved well of it, dependent for the means of subsistence on accidental circumstances. There were no less than 3,000 English, Irish, and Scotch, who had been forced to commute their pensions for a sum of money. That was a case of peculiar hardship, especially on the Irish, who had no Poor-laws to fall back on as the English had, and were not, perhaps, men of such frugal and provident habits as the Scotch. He would before have brought the question under the consideration of the House; but that the late Secretary at War (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) told him that it was under the consideration of Government, and held out hopes, that the evil would be rectified. He would then ask the right hon. Secretary whether the practice of commuting pensions were to be put an end to; and whether those who commuted their pensions, and had gone out to the colonies as emigrants, an occupation for which they were totally unfit from their age, their inexperience, and their feebleness, were to be restored to the Pension-list? Those old soldiers were now either begging or breaking stones or doing the most menial offices in our distant settlements; 1388 and he thought that, for the credit of the army, something should be done to alleviate their condition, and put an end to the system which brought them to that wretchedness. He had made some objections before to the way in which parts of the Estimates were drawn up. The East-India Company paid to the dead weight, as it was called, 60,000l. a-year. He thought that sum which was now paid to the Consolidated Fund, should be paid to the Secretary at War, in diminution of the whole Estimates; and there was a memorandum of his left in the office to that effect. The Estimates he thought should be made to correspond with public services. There was an item of 17,000l. charged in this estimate, on account of pensions paid for persons in the Ordnance department. He approved of the ordnance pensions being paid at Chelsea; but he thought the sum necessary for them should be placed in the Ordnance Estimates.

§ Mr. Ellice
said, that it had been determined to put a stop to the commutation of pensions. It was a highly objection-able system. The person who first brought it forward to promote the comforts of soldiers, he (Mr. Ellice) would say, knew little of the condition or capabilities of soldiers. Soldiers had not that prudence, that skill, or that bodily vigour, that were necessary to qualify men to become settlers. He had restored men to their pensions in all cases when he had an opportunity, and after the amount of the commutation was refunded. But he believed, that the document sanctioning the commutation was signed by the gallant Member himself when in office.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
begged to say, that he had never signed the documents of the commutation of pensions; out of so shameful an act, he would wash his hands; on the contrary, he cautioned the right hon. member for Dundee against such an arrangement. His object was to allow soldiers, with the consent of Parliament and their own, the facility of emigrating to the colonies. But he never sanctioned the monstrous plan of forcing men to commute their pensions. It was what he absolutely spoke against.

§ Sir Henry Parnell
said, that the commutation of pensions did not emanate from him; and when he took office, he found the system recommended, and a 1389 draught of the plan among the official papers.

§ Mr. O'Dwyer
asked, was not the proposed abolition in opposition to the recommendation of the general officer who commanded in Ireland; or did that officer give it his approval?

§ Mr. Littleton
said, that there were other parties in Ireland who were as competent to give an opinion on that, point as the present Commander in-Chief, however entitled to respect his opinion might be. The question was one of economy; if the economy were small, he (Mr. Littleton) would not advocate the abolition; but when a considerable saving was to be made, that was another thing. It was the opinion of the best judges, that there could not be a better place for the royal artillery than Kilmainham Hospital.

§ Mr. Sheil
said, that there was no Irishman of any party who would give his assent to the removal of the establishment. No matter how broken up into parts they might be, still they were all on national grounds opposed to the abolition of that useful institution. Every one re-collected what discontent the removal of the naval station from Cork produced; the Custom House was removed, the Stamp Office was removed; every establishment that could benefit the country, and which the country valued, was removed. Now, it was proposed to remove Kilmainham Hospital, and he (Mr. Sheil) supposed that it would soon be proposed to remove the Courts of Law.

§ Mr. O'Reilly
said, that he was no advocate for old ascendancy establishments, and therefore he would advocate the abolition of Kilmainham. The Irish people did not care for such establishments. Catholics were excluded from the benefits of Kilmainham, as well as from other establishments of Ireland; and as long as that was the case, he did not care how soon they were removed.

Mr. O'Connell
rose to protest against the doctrine of the hon. member for Dundalk. Catholics were admissible equally with Protestants to Kilmainham, and treated equally well.

§ Mr. O'Reilly
would ask the hon. member for Dublin to move for a return of the number of Catholics admitted to Kilmainham, and then he would find, by the return that it was an exclusively Protestant establishment. Catholics were eligible to all places, to the Corporations even; 1390 but how many of them were admitted? The Ministry should be cautious in taking statements from Members who were supported by the ascendancy party in Ireland.

§ Mr. O'Dwyer
said, that after the speech of the hon. member for Dundalk, there was to be found one Irish Member in that House, who did what would be very unpopular in Ireland. "But," said he, "the Gentleman will find that all will not allow political antipathies to engender private acquaintance." Blunders might, perhaps, be the peculiarity of his country. He meant, that however men might differ in politics, those politics should not embitter private acquaintance.

List of the NOES.
ENGLAND.	Wason, R.
Aglionby, H. A.	Watkins, L.
Attwood, T.	Whalley, Sir S.
Bewes, T.	Wilks, J.
Blake, Sir F.	SCOTTLAND.
Buckingham, J. S.	Gillon, W. D.
Cobbett, W.	Johnston, A.
Collier, J.	Oliphant, L.
Dykes, F. L. B.	Oswald, R. A.
Evans, Colonel	Wallace, R.
Ewart, W.	Wemyss, Captain
Faithfull, G.	IRELAND.
Fielden, J.	Barry, G. S.
Guest, J. J.	Blake, M.
Hawkins, J. II.	Evans, George
Handley, Major	Fitzgerald, T.
Humphrey, J.	Jacob, E.
Hurst, It. II.	O'Connell, M.
Hutt, W.	O'Connell, D.
James, W.	O'Dwyer, A. C.
Lennox, Lord G.	O'Reilly, W.
Lister, E. C.	Roche, W.
Potter, R.	Ruthven, E. S.
Parrott, J.	Ruthven, F.
Staveley, T. K.	Sheil, R. L.
Todd, R.	Vigors, N. A.
Trelawney, W.	Walker, C. A.
Turner, W.	TELLER.
Walter, J.	Hume, J.
Warburton, H.

List of the NOES.
Cobbett, W.	Williams, Col.
Faithfull, G.	TELLER.
Fielden, J.	Ruthven, E.