§ The Report of the Committee of Supply was brought up.
§ On the vote of 56,917l. for allowances to the principal officers in the public departments, their deputies, clerks, and contingent expenses, being proposed,
§ Mr. Humesaid, that it was his intention to move an amendment to this resolution, as regarded the reduction of the salaries of the Commander-in-chief and the Military Secretary. He considered it highly detrimental that Lord Hill should hold the office of Commander-in-chief, entertaining, as he 814 did, political opinions at direct variance with those professed by his Majesty's Government, because he had the opportunity of exercising his influence in the patronage of his office in a manner that was calculated to interfere with popular reform.' He did not wish to throw any odium on Lord Hill's public conduct; but he did protest against his being retained in this office, and he called upon hon. Members who professed to be reformers, to vote with him on this occasion, in order to give the people a test of their sincerity. What could be the reason which induced a Whig government to retain a Tory Commander-in-chief? Would a Tory government have allowed a Whig Commander-in-chief to remain in office? He could state, that this subject was one in which, the public felt a deep interest; and he did not go into any company, he did not meet any of his constituents, without the question being put to him, as to what was the reason which actuated the Government in the extraordinary conduct they pursued with reference to this point? The Military Secretary also entertained, as did every member of his family, high Tory principles; and considering that these high offices should not be held by individuals entertaining political opinions hostile to those of the Government, he should move that the amount of the vote be reduced the sum of 6,282l., being the amount of the personal salaries of the Commander-in-chief and the military secretary.
§ Viscount Howickwished to state that he differed entirely from the opinions put forth on this subject by the hon. Member for Middlesex. The duties of the Commander-in-chief were discharged by Lord Hill with perfect impartiality. He knew no instance to the contrary, and he believed none could be produced. He hoped the House, therefore, would not consent to strike off the whole of his salary, which had hitherto been regularly granted.
§ Mr. Ewartsaid, that the House was now considering, not the manner in which officers discharged their duty, but the principles which they held. If Lord Hill maintained the principles attributed to him, it was impossible that they should not bias his conduct. The government of the army would never be properly conducted so long as the authorities at the Horse Guards thought differently from the Administration; and it was essential to the 815 general welfare that the opinions of the array should be in consonance with those of their fellow-subjects.
§ Mr. Robinsoncomplained of the inconsistency of the conduct pursued by the hon. Member for Middlesex, whose constant complaint was, when a Tory government was in power, that they appointed no persons to office but those who entertained similar political opinions with themselves. He would contend that a more mischievous doctrine than that advanced by the hon. Members for Middlesex and Liverpool, he had never heard; for the effect of it was, to convert the whole country into a political arena, and the consequence would be, that it could never experience peace or tranquillity. They were told by the hon. Member for Liverpool, that there ought to be a political army. Now, he would take upon himself confidently to assert, that this was an opinion that was not shared by any considerable number of persons in that House or out of it; and although that hon. Member and others flattered themselves that they spoke the sentiments of a great mass of the people of this country, he would say it was a most miserable delusion. He would say, that the largest portion of the respectable part of the community did not participate in the opinions to which he had referred. He knew nothing of Lord Hill but as a public officer, and he supposed he was retained in the exercise of the situation which he held, on the ground of his peculiar fitness to discharge the duties of his office. Let the House look to what the effect would be of changing any public officer on a change of government. What an expense it would incur to the country. He had seen many such changes, where persons of superior abilities had been replaced by their inferiors in that respect, while the country was saddled with the pension of the one and the salary of the other. The idea of establishing a pure democracy in the country which the bon. Member for Middlesex and his political supporters entertained, was a foolish Utopian notion which could never be realised. He protested against converting all the officers of state, magistrates and public servants, into political partisans. This system had been lately acted upon in Ireland, though the country was in such a disturbed state that it was hardly possible for his Majesty to get persons to undertake the administration of its affairs, and it had been pro- 816 ductive there of the most prejudicial consequences. Persons who carried their opinions to such an extravagant length as this, were the greatest enemies to the quiet and tranquillity of the country.
§ Mr. Roebucksaid, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, did not wish to see all the public functionaries consisting of the friends of liberal opinions, but those leading officers of State, only, on whom depended the character of the Government. It was well known, that not only was the Commander-in-chief opposed to the principles of Ministers, but the army had been made a mere appanage to a family hostile to the popular cause. If they were not afraid to speak out on the subject, the reason of Lord Hill's being in office would be stated simply thus—The present Ministers found that they would not be allowed to come into office unless he was continued in power, and they determined to abandon the control of the army, and to effect as many improvements in other branches of the public service as they could. If Government had really entertained opinions as liberal as those which they professed, and had been desirous of doing justice to their supporters, they would have stood out and refused to come into office until Lord Hill was put out. The country expected them manfully to confess that they were liberal only on sufferance, and that they did not put out Lord Hill because they could not. Lord Hill now ruled the army in defiance of Government, and the reason was, because hon. Gentlemen opposite had too much power in that House, and were numerous enough to pay of the efforts of the friends of the liberal cause. A little longer, and, if the state of parties remained the same, the present Ministry would be turned out. Ministers ought not to make false excuses, but should own that they could not deprive Lord Hill of his office, and therefore would not trouble themselves about the matter.
Mr. Richardsdeprecated this mode of incidentally raising a discussion upon the merits of an absent illustrious individual without notice, and challenged any person in that House, competent to form a judgment upon a military subject, to deny that the Commander-in-chief was eminently qualified to fill the situation, and had actually discharged its duties with strict impartiality.
§ Captain Maurice Berkeleysaid, he 817 could not coincide in opinion with the hon. Member who had just sat down, and he would take that opportunity of mentioning a circumstance which would show that there were just reasons to suspect that the influence of political considerations was not lost upon the noble Lord at the head of this department, and had its effect even upon those who were applicants at the Horse-Guards. A case had come within his knowledge which he would mention. At the time Lord Grey was in office, a gentleman of considerable property in Gloucestershire died and left the whole of it to his son, who, wishing to travel abroad, was desirous of the advantage of wearing the English uniform, and applied to the head of the Whig party for a commission in any regiment, he was indifferent which. Finding, however, that he could not obtain this favour through the Whigs, he went to the family of the Duke of Beaufort, whose son, Lord Edward Somerset, held a situation in the Horse-Guards. Upon making that application he fairly and distinctly said,—"My family have always hitherto been Whigs, and not on the same side of politics that you are; but if we can obtain the commission from the Horse-Guards through the influence of the Beaufort family, we shall in future be on the Tory side." The application, he believed (but he should be sorry to state it as a fact without knowing it to be such), was made through Lord Edward Somerset, and, in the space of a short time, permission came down from the Horse-Guards to Gloucestershire for the gentleman on whose behalf the application had been made to purchase a commission. A commission was purchased accordingly; and that gentleman and all whom he could influence or command, had been Tories ever since.
§ Viscount Howickrose but to make one observation. It was utterly impossible, he said, to give any answer to the statement that had just been made, ignorant as he was of the facts of the case; and when the hon. and gallant Officer reflected on what he had said, he thought the hon. and gallant Officer must acknowledge that he should not thus have brought forward a charge imputing blame to one who was not present to defend himself from the attack. He would call upon the House not to prejudge the case, but to wait until Lord E. Somerset, or some of his friends, bad an opportunity of explanation; it 818 might be that there were circumstances that would account for the extension of the favour, entirely independent of party feeling. The hon. and gallant Officer should not certainly have brought forward a charge of unfairness and partiality without giving notice to the parties implicated.
§ Captain M. Berkeleydenied that he had made any charge, he had simply mentioned a fact in illustration and support of the position that it was unadvisable to intrust such power in hands that were hostile to the political principles of a Government.
§ Mr. Grotethought it hard that the noble Lord should make it a matter of complaint, that a specific and distinct fact relating to the partiality of the Horse-Guards should now be mentioned, because he understood that the noble Lord had challenged all those who disputed the propriety of continuing Lord Hill in his present situation to produce any case in which partiality had been shown by that noble Lord. But no sooner was a specific case adduced, than the noble Lord complained of it. This was a sort of argument which he (Mr. Grote) did not understand. He thought that no answer had been given to the question put by the hon. Member for Middlesex—namely, "Would Sir R. Peel, if he had remained in office, have retained a Commander-in-chief who was a Whig?" If the Gentlemen opposite were prepared to answer that question in the affirmative, then he would admit that they were now acting with consistency; but if they could not do so, then it was quite clear that they were not able to carry out the principle for which they were now contending.
§ Mr. Arthur Trevorsaid, that it was not important what were the politics of Lord Hill, but only whether he had suffered himself to be swayed by political bias. Could hon. Gentlemen opposite bring any charge of that nature home to Lord Hill? In the absence of Lord E. Somerset it was impossible that the hon. House could lay any stress on the circumstance that had. been mentioned. After what had fallen from the hon. Members for Middlesex and Liverpool, it would be seen by what spirit the party opposite were actuated; nothing but party spirit could have dictated the amendment.
§ Mr. Ayshford Sanforddeclared, that he had never been able to understand why, 819 when a change of administration took place, it should be thought right that the head of the naval department of the State should be changed, but that the head of the military department should not. He believed that the Country had suffered very considerably in consequence of such a distinction being made between the two set vices. When Earl Grey first came into office, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, wag placed at the head of the Admiralty, and the House was aware that many alterations were made by that right hon. Baronet in the civil department of the Admiralty which had worked great advantages to the country. He believed that the saving effected by those alterations amounted in one year to between a million and a million and a half. Now, it was his firm belief, that if a similar change had taken place at the head of the military department, the country would have reaped an equally great advantage from it.
§ Mr. George F. Youngthought, the reply to the argument of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was very Obvious. With the duties of the First Lord of the Admiralty Was combined the superintendence of the civil department of the navy; whereas with the administration of the civil affairs of the army, the Commander-in-chief had nothing whatever to do; therefore it did not belong to his department to introduce those economical improvements in the civil department of the army, which were effected in the naval department by the First Lord of the Admiralty, when the right hon. Baronet was appointed.
§ Mr. Aglionbysaid, that according to the argument of the hon. Member for Tynemouth, if it could be shown to him that the Commander-in-Chief had a controlling power over the civil affairs of the army, the amendment of the hon. Member for Middlesex ought to be adopted. Now, he (Mr. Aglionby) thought it could be easily shown, that the Commander-in-Chief did possess that power; and if so, the hon. Member was himself bound to support the amendment.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, that he did not mean in the slightest degree to derogate from the military or personal character of Lord Hill. Indeed he had had opportunities of seeing that noble Lord in situations where he showed himself well entitled to the love and confidence that 820 was shown towards him. He (Colonel Thompson) would be the last man, therefore, to disparage the well-earned military fame or the excellent private character of that distinguished officer; but he was Opposed to the noble Lord upon political grounds, and upon those grounds only. He felt that the amendment of the hon. Member for Middlesex deserved the support of all Liberal Members, and therefore he should vote for it.
§ Mr. Scarlettsaid, that an important motion of this sort ought not to have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Middlesex without due notice. This was only the first step of a certain party to bring the army under the control of Parliament, and he could not conceive any measure fraught with greater mischief to the country than taking the control of the army and navy out of the hands of the Crown, in which they were at present placed by the Constitution.
§ Sir Charles B. Veresaid, that the army, as a body, ought not to have any political bias, and Lord Hill had proved by the admirable state of the army at present that he had supported that principle in the exercise of his command. There was no man deserved higher of his country than Lord Hill, and he ought not to be attacked by a side-wind motion of this nature.
§ Mr. Wasonsaid, that a Tory Government had shown in the case of Lord Beresford, that they considered a military commander subject to political control. When the Duke of Wellington brought forward the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, Lord Beresford was at the head of the Board of Ordnance at that time, and the noble Lord applied to the head of the Government to know if he might be permitted to refrain from voting on that occasion; the reply of the Duke of Wellington was, that Lord Beresford might vote as he pleased, but that the Master-General of the Ordnance must vote for Catholic Emancipation.
§ Mr. Villierswas sure there was not an hon. Member in that House who was actuated by any feeling personally hostile to Lord Hill, but, upon political grounds, he thought the motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex ought to be supported,
§ Mr. Williams Wynndenied that the course followed by the hon. Member for 821 Middlesex was either regular or constitutional. What would the hon. Member gain by the success of his motion? Not the substitution of one individual for another as Commander-in-Chief of the army, but the entire abolition of that office. If the hen. Member desired to act in an intelligible manner, he ought to propose an Address to the Crown, setting forth that that House, notwithstanding the deep gratitude it felt for the distinguished military services of Lord Hill, was of opinion, that he ought to be dismissed from the office of Commander-in-Chief, because his political opinions were not such as the House could approve of. That would be an intelligible mode of proceeding, though it would unquestionably be the first proposition of the sort ever known in the history of the country. Motions had undoubtedly been made in that House relative to the army, but they were directed against the Ministry of the time being, for allowing political considerations to bias them in the disposal of military patronage. It had been said, that a Tory Government would not suffer a Whig to exercise the functions of Commander-in-Chief. Did, then the hon. Gentleman, who ventured on that statement, not know that the brother of Mr. Fox was appointed Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, at a time when that gentleman was the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons? Were they not also aware that the father of Lord Grey was Commander-in-Chief in the West Indies, and that Sir John Jervis, afterwards Lord St. Vincent, had been selected from the very ranks of the opposition to command in the West Indies? In fact it was the duty of the Government to take advantage of professional merit wherever it was to be found. The hon. Member for Ipswich had told a story about the Duke of Wellington and Lord Beresford, He (Mr. Wynn)did not know whether or not that story was true, but he certainly was not disposed to believe it. With respect to the other case which had been mentioned to the House, he certainly thought that a notice ought to have been given of the intention to bring it forward. It was not fair that the reputation of an officer like Lord Hill, who had claims on the gratitude of the country, should suffer on account of anonymous statements. With respect to the question before the House, he considered, that the object which the hon. 822 Member for Middlesex had in view amounted to an improper interference with the prerogative of the Crown. It was undoubtedly the right of the House to allot what sum it might think proper for the expenses of the army; but if a charge was intended against any individual, it ought to be stated intelligibly, and directly in the form of an address The present proceeding was an attempt to dictate to the Crown whom it should not employ, and the next step would be to dictate whom it should employ. Thus, if the hon. Member for Middlesex's object were attained, that House would arrogate to itself the management of the army, than which nothing could be more dangerous to the constitution.
§ Captain M. Berkeleywas surprised, that doubts should have been expressed respecting the accuracy of the Statement he had made. He had been challenged to state names. He would do so. The gentleman on whose behalf the application was made to Lord Hill was Mr. Lovesey. The application was made by Lord Segrave and refused; but when made by the Beaufort family it was granted.
§ The House divided on the original vote:—Ayes 72; Noes 26: Majority 46.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Adam, Admiral | Hogg, J. W. |
| Agnew, Sir A | Howard, P. H. |
| Bagshaw, John | Howick, Viscount |
| Balfour, T. | Hoy, J. B. |
| Barclay, David | Johnston, Andrew |
| Barnard, E. G. | Labouchere, H. |
| Bateson, Sir R. | Lennox, Lord G. |
| Bennett, J | Lowther, J. H. |
| Berkeley, hon. F. | Lushington, Dr. |
| Bernal, R. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Bolling, Wm. | Ord, W. H. |
| Bonham, R. F. | Parker, John |
| Bramston, T. W. | Pechell, Captain R. |
| Brodie, William B. | Philips, M. |
| Bulwer, Edward L. | Philips G. R. |
| Campbell, Sir J. | Pollock, Sir Fred. |
| Cavendish, hon. G. H. | Price, S. G. |
| Copeland, W. T. | Richards, J. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Richards, R. |
| Donkin, Sir R. | Rickford, W. |
| Eaton, Richard J. | Rohinson, G. R. |
| Fector, John Minet | William, Roche |
| Ferguson, Sir R. A. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Fergusson, R. C | Sanford, E. A. |
| Fleetwood, Peter H. | Scarlett, hon. R. |
| Forster, Charles S. | Scott, Sir E. D. |
| Gaskell, J. Milnes | Seymour, Lord |
| Goring, H. D. | Sheppard, T. |
| Grey, Sir Geo., bart. | Sinclair, Sir G. |
| Harcourt, G. S. | Smith, R. V. |
| Hay, Sir A. L., bart. | Stanley, Edward |
| Stuart, Lord J. | Walter, John |
| Thomas, Colonel | Wynn, rt. hon. C. W. |
| Tracy, C. H. | Young, G. F. |
| Trevor, hon. A. | |
| Troubridge, Sir T. | TELLERS. |
| Vere, Sir C. B. | O'Ferrall, R. M. |
| Vivian, J. E. | Wood, Charles |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Rippon, Cuthbert |
| Brady, D. C. | Roebuck, John A. |
| Bridgman, Hewitt | Tancred, H. W. |
| Brotherton, J. | Thompson, Colonel |
| Chapman, M. L. | Tooke, W. |
| Collins, W. | Tulk, C. A. |
| Divett, E. | Villiers, Charles P. |
| Elphinstone, H. | Wallace, Robert |
| Grote George | Warburton, H. |
| Hall, B. | Wason, R. |
| Hawes, B. | Williams, W. |
| Hindley, C. | |
| Humphery, John | TELLERS. |
| Hutt, Wm. | Ewart, W. |
| Leader, J. T. | Hume, J. |