The Sun. — London, England, 1830-03-30 00:00:00

tad' I. ade • :40 vit. , !41 0 4 of i Ear,: Last gyred au the ny) veil up. gut the only in the ate the on rest at's itly d if ise— not tsed was I it rred ject )uld the sing iber lent the 4 ' was ook wal, that the Government had no right to make that grant ; and he could assure his Hon. Friend, that if he would consult counsel on the point; be would find that, accord ing to the terms of the leases of the buildings in the Park, the Government had no right or power to throw it open to the public. Mr. W ARBURTON condemned the mode in which some of the new buildings erected in the site of Carlton palace had been leased to Mr. Nash. His interest was of course opposed to the public, and in that way the public convenience was neglected. Mr. ARBUTHNOT said, in reference to Mr. Nash be coming the lessee of some of these premises, the facts were 441 14 these: Mr. Nash made an offer for a lot of ground far the erection of five houses, at the end of the area in W aterloo-place, which could_ not be let. He took it on the condition of building those houses upon it, after- Wards to be let to such tenants as the Heads of the W oods and Forests might approve of; and Mr. Nash undertook to give them at the prime cost. He (Mr. Ar anb,t) knew that Mr. Nash had subsequently let them the prime cost. Mr• B EAUMONT wished to know whether there had been any Public competition allowed for this g wh t ier, on it had be en set up to public auction, or on the contrary, Mr. Nash had not been suffered to take it by a private bargain ? Mr. ARBUTHNOT said the public was fully aware at the time that this lot of ground was to be let. It had not been set up to public auction, because in the opinion of the greatest lauded proprietors in London that was not the best way of letting it ; that it might thus go off at a price below its value, and that the buildings erected there might thus be let to unfit and irresponsible persons. Mr. BEAUMONT saw no reason why St. James's Park should be looked upon in the light of private grounds. Re was sure it would be a source of satisfaction and plea sure to the Sovereign to see his subjects enj ling the com fort and recreation which that Park would afford them. He sincerely believed, if the Noble Lord opposite we:uld make a representatio n on the subject in a proper quarter, that the convenience of the public would be fully attended to in that respect. He was sure the royal heart would be gladdened to see the inhabitants of this metropolis enjoy ing the recreations afforded by that Park. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that St. James's Park was an unfortunate instance to select for complaint, for within a very short period means had been taken to afford the greatest advantages to all classes of the public, by the improvements in that Park.—(Hear.) — There was at this moment a road in progress on the south side of the Park, which, when completed, would be of great advantage to the higher orders, and the opening of the interior of the Park had been productive of the greatest advantages to all classes of society.—(Hear.) After a few words from Mr. BEAU3IONT, the question was put and agreed to, and the House went into a Com mittee of Supply. Mr. G. DAWSON said he proposed to take the vote for the civil contingencies now upon account, as the amount Was required for the carrying on of the public service, and th e House wotsld hereafter have an opportunity of discuss ing the votes separately. He accordingly moved-.." That a sum not exceeding 100,0001. be granted to his Majesty for defraying the charges of the civil contingencies for 1830." Mr. HUME would not object to the taking this vote upon account now ; but when the separate votes should come to be discussed, he would move a resolution, that it is expedient to effect a reduction in the diplomatic ex penses of the country. He should object to voting 60,0001. or 70,0001. for extraordinary diplomatic ex penses. A pledge had been given by Mr. Canning, that every reduction would be made in the diplomatic expendi ture of the country ; but instead of that, it had gone on increasing ever since. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, it would be found that considerable reductions had been ef fected in this part of the public expenditure this year. The resolution was then put and agreed to. NAVY ESTIMATES. Sir G. CLERK proceeded to move the remainder of the Navy Estimates, and commenced by moving a sum of 99,0001. for defraying th e c h arges f or repa i rs and im provements in hi s "Majesty's dock-yards. This vote had been objected to on account of the sum called for for the erection of a new naval hospital in Malta. The building of that hospital had been determined upon in consequence of the increase of our naval force in that quarter, and of th e want of adequate accommodation for the sick. Mr. MABERLY objected to voting 17,0001. for the erection of this hospital. In his opinion Government had failed to nuke out a case of emergency, and their conduct Lad evinced a total disregard of the opinion of Parliament. Sir G. COCKBURN said that Government had endea voured as long as possible to avoid the expense of erecting a new hospital at Malta. After the battle of Navarin, however, Government received the most distressing report of the misery which our wounded sailors experienced from the situation and the inadequate accommodation of the old Lospital. It was at that period far from improbable that another engagement might have occurred. Government therefore considered it their duty to provide against such a contingency, and he did not believe that a British House of Commons would blame them for what they had done. Mr. HUME said he objected to the conduct of Govern ment,-because. it was opposed to the principle that no foreign works should be executed without the consent of Parliament unless upon cases of emergency. In the present instance no case of emergency had been made out. He would therefore oppose the grant. The - CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER main tained that Government had acted upon a case of emer gency. The hospital at Malta was found inadequate to provide for our sick when we had only 6,000 men off that station. When our force was raised to 8,000, Govern ment felt it imperative upon them, for the benefit of the service, to build a new hospital. Lord ALTHORP said that he believed a new hospital was wanted at Malta, and therefore he did not blame Go vernment for having built one. But it did not appear to him that there had been that sort of sudden emergency which justified Ministers in going to such an expense tvitho,ut the previous sanc ti on of Parliament. At the same time, when the question was whether our wounded seamen should be provided with a comfortable hospital, instead of being carried to a bad one, up a steep hill, which must add to their sufferings, Le could not object to the vote. Mr. CROKER said, it was impossible for Government to delay any longer the building of a new hospital, after our force off that station had been increased. Mr. WARBURT@N said that it rppeared to him that the House was called upon to make this grant with out any satisfactory estimate having been placed before it. Mr. CROKER repeated his former statement, that all the necessary estimates had been laid before the Treasury in July last ; that at that time they had been rejected, but that in consequence of the emergency which had rendered it necessary for us to send an increased force into the Me diterranean, it had been deemed necessary to proceed with the building of the hospital. After a few desultory observations from an Hon. Maxima, whose name we could not learn, Lord Jonst RUSSILL, and the CHANCILLOR Of the EXCHEQUER., Mr. AIABRILLT proposed that this part of the vote should be postponed till the papers were printed. Ma. HUME wished to know what amount of money had been already drawn on account of this work. Sir G. COCKBURN.—None has been drawn yet. Mr. HUME was glad to hear it—but still thought that Government had made but a very lame case of it.—(A laugh.) The.conversation on this item then dropped. Mr. HUME said that there was another item in this vote to which he felt considerabl e objection. After voting a million and a half for new churches, he could not see any reason why the Committee should be called upon to vete 2 ,000/. for the erection of a new chapel at the dock-yard at Pembroke. Sir B. MARTIN explained the circumstances which had induced the Government to consent to the erection of this chapel at the public expense. Last year, when he went down to the dock-yard at Pembroke, the officers met hi m With a representation that the shipwrights were anxious to attend divine service at the established church, but were not able to do so from want of room. As there were m u pwards of 500 shipwrights there, and as their fa ramesLamounted to upwards of 2,000 sou l s , th e Govern ment ce uail dee • med it o n l y r i g h t to a ff or d t h em a place for the lebration of divine worship. Only 2,0001. would be wanted for the erection of the chapel this year, 4,0001. would be the total expense of its erection, as Mr. Macin• tosh had contracted not built now • to erect it for that sum. If it were it would never be built at so cheap a rate at any other period, as her. Macintosh, who w a s now building some works for the ordnance, could build at a chztrrate innv than he could at any other time. I°,lel DAVIES supported Mr. Hume's objection to the grant. MABERLY said that there bad been an intention at one time to get rid of this dock -yard altogether. If so, what occasion was there to build this chap el? Sir G. CLERK said that there were so many local ad vantages about this yard, that he could assure the Com mittee that there was no intention at present to abandon it. Mr. HUME called upon the Committee to consider well what they were make a dock and at goin g to do. If they determined to y un to vote mono Pembr o k e, they would soon be called cativoy for the purpose of building fortifi ons to protect it ) for the d ockyard could not protect itself. He should therefore propose to postpone the voting of this item of 2,000/. till next year, when they would be able to discover whether this dock lard would be continued or not. After a few observations from Sir T. BARING in sup port of the suggestions of Mr. HUME, Mr. TRANT observed, that having a great regard for the moral instruction and religious welfare of the army and navy, he felt himself bound to support this part of the grant. The gallery was then cleared for a division ; but j as the reporters were leaving it, Mr. HUME consented to withdraw his amendment. He had another question, however, to put to the gallant officer opposite. How was it that he came to ask the Committee this year to vote 3,0001. for works upon the lakes in Canada ? Sir G. COCKBURN said, that the sum was wanted to keep up the works which were necessary for the repair of the ships we had on the lakes at the close of the American war. By the treaty then made, we had a right to keep them in repair, though we could not increase their num ber. It was impossible to say what the expense of these establishments might be in time of war; but it would never exceed 2,008/. or 3,000/ a-year, in time of peace. He could assure the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, that the American ships at Sacket's Harbour were :as well taken care of as our own. The vote was agreed to. Several other sums were then voted without opposition. ORDNANCE ESTIMATES. Mr. S. PERCEVAL then rose to propcse the Ord nance Estimates to the Committee, but spoke in so low and indistinct a tone that the greater part of his speech was inaudible in the gallery. We understood him to say, that be should not occupy much of the time of the Committee, as the duty which he had to perform was fortunately very simple. The reductions which had been made in the Ordnance Department in the year 1820, had been carried to the utmost point to which they could be well carried with a due regard to the proper equipment and permanent efficacy of that branch of the public service ; and therefore he should not have to detain them long by enumerating the retrenchments which had taken place in this department. Almost the only alteration which had been made in the estimates this year, was in their form, which he had endeavoured to render more simple. The ordinary of the ordnance contained all that was included formerly under that head in the ordnance estimates for Ireland, and the pay of barrack-masters and serjeants ; and the extraordinaries contained all that was formerly in cluded under that head in the ordnance estimates for Ire land. They also contained the charge for the repair of barracks, and for the remainder of the barrack estimates. Now the ordinary for this year was 604,3471., last year it was 608,548/., so that it was this year 4,2011. less than it was last. The extraordinaries amounted to 804 1 853/. this year; they had amounted to 822,7271. last year, so that there was this year a saving on this head of 17,874/. There was, however, a charge of 4,0341. for unprovided services this year, which had no existence last year; but there was more than a counterpoise for this increase in the diminution which had been made in the military store branch, which was last year 93,612/., and which was this year only 78,455/. In this manner the total saving in the charge for the effective this year was 33,1981., and in the charge for the non-effective was 3,556/.,making a total saving of 36,750. The first vote which he should have to submit to the committee would be a sum of 85,625/., for the purpose of defraying the expense of the civil establishments of the ordnance at the Tower, in Pall-mall, and in Dublin, which was 1,217/. less than the vote of last year. The expense of the departments at Woolwich had been increased this year by 300/., owing to the general increase of salaries there, arising from length of service. The Hon. Gentle• man then went through the different alterations which had been made in the charges for the stations at home an abroad, for the master-gunners, and for the corps of en gineers, but his statement of them was very imperfectly heard in the gallery. The charge for the regiment of artillery was this year 283,626/. That regiment bad been greatly reduced in the year 1822, and the consequence had been, that it had been obliged to be increased in the year 1825, as it was found to be impossible to carry on the service without that increase. There was, however, he repeated, on the total ordinary of the ordnance a dimi nution of 4,0001. odd. The Hon. Member then entered into a further statement of the reductions which had been recently made, anil intimated, that under the direction of the present Master-General, the work of reduction might be considered as always going on ; but what the reductions already made or still in contemplation were, it was quite impossible to understand from the Hon. Member. He concluded by moving, that a sum not exceeding 85,0251. be granted to his Majesty for the purpose of defraying the salaries to the Master-General, the Lieutenant-General, and the other persons employed in the civil establishments of the ordnance at the Tower, Pall-mall, and in Dublin. Sir J. GRAHAM congratulated his Hon. Friend the Secretary for the Ordnance upon the very clear and satis factory manner in which he had stated the estimates of his department to the Committee. It must be gratifying to the House to see his Hon. Friend dedicating his time in dustriously and manfully to the public service, instead of eating the bread of idleness and cringing at the doors of that treasury from which his father, who bad achieved the road to eminence, had been accustomed to dispense the patronage of the nation. So much he felt himself called upon to say for the sake of friendship and his Hon. Friend.—(Hear, hear.)—Though he was now addressing the Committee from that part of the House where the principal friends of Ministers were now generally stationed, —[Sir James spoke from what are usually called the op position benches]—he did not altogether partake of the feelings of many of the Hon. and Noble Friends whom he then saw around him. He was not one of those persons who professed predilection for the present administration ; he had therefore no coyness in consenting to a resolution condemnatory of their conduct, where he conceived that conduct to be erroneous. He was not one of those per sons, whose votes were wrung from them, when he bad to vote against Ministers, and he had therefore never refused to give his vote in support of resolutions, which were in nocent in themselves, merely because they censured those Ministers. He brought forward this motion, however, with sincere pain and regret. He felt that a motion of this nature, having the character of an economical reform, especially when joined to the question of reform itself, was obnoxious in the House ; yet he did think, that in times like the present, a motion like that which he in tended to make, was demanded of him by a sense of public duty, and he should endeavour to discharge it. He had not the honour of a personal acquaintance with the Noble Lord, the Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance ; but he was not ignorant of his brilliant career in arms, which had commenced from early youth, had carried him to foreign service, and had raised him from the lowest to the highest rank in his profession ; which had shone in Portugal, in Sp,in, and in France, and made him :a sharer in the glories of Waterloo.—(Hear, hear.)--He (Sir J. Graham) thought him fairly en- titled to the favour and gratitude of the House ; but when, year by year, the House voted sums for the payment of governorships of fortresses, Plymouth, Edinburgh Castle, and others, to which considerable emoluments were attached, and which, it was said, were always reserved for the reward of military services, he thought the services of the Noble Lord might be so rewarded, and he was certainly entitled to such a kind of reward. Then was the situation of Lieutenant-Generalship of the Ordnance such a species of reward? Certainly not; on the contrary, his argument was, that that office was of a double character, partly civil and partly military, and that it was not indispensably ne cessary. The principle on which he should argue the question was laid down in the report of the finance com mittee, in thee terms:—" No Government is justified in taking the smallest sum of money from the people, unless a case can be clearly established to show that it will be pro ductive of some essential advantage to them, and one that cannot be obtained by a smaller sacrifice. The real wants of the people shall not be made to give way to any imagi nary wants of the state, which arise from so many sources, that it is frequently very difficult to prevent the operation of an undue influence." Then was the situation of Lieu tenant-General of the Ordnance productive of real advan tage to the public service, or was it one of the imaginary wants of the state? He (Sir J. Graham) was prepared to argue that the office was not of essential advantage to the public service, but one of the imaginary wants of the state. In arguingthis question, it was impossible for him to enliven a thrice-told tale. This battle had been fought before; he (Sir J. Graham) had brought the subject before the House once already. He trusted, then, that the House would bear with him whilst he went over tl.e evidence. The House would probably be alarmed at that portentous volume (pro ducing the report of the finance committee); but it was his intention to read only a short extract or two. lie should first refer to the evidence of the Duke of Wellington before the finance committee. His Grace had given plain an swers to simple questions. The Noble Duke was asked— " Do you consider the continuance of the Lieutenant- General of the Ordnance as essential to the well-being of the service ?" Answer—" Yes, I do." His Grace went on to show the reason. " The Lieutenant-General has some very important duties to perform. I do not mean to say that the Master-General cannot perform them, for be sometimes does perform those duties. In my time, the Lieutenant-General was absent sometimes, and at other times I was absent myself. When he was absent, I per formed hie duties," So far the evidence of the Duke of Wellington established the fact, that each of these offices was vicarious to the other. When the Master-General was absent, the Lieutenant-General performed his duty; and vice versa, when the Lieutenant-General was absent, his functions were performed by the Master-General : the duties of each were the same. The Noble Duke pro ceeded—" He has some duties to perform which are very important, and it is essential to the well-being of the ser vice that he should perform them : the inspection of the troops, and a great deal of duty at Woolwich, patticularly the examination of all the men for discharges." The last clause in his Grace's answer it was material to consider, because circumstances had occurred since 1628 which ma terially varied the force of his observation. It was this—. It is very material that there should be a military officer constantly at the Board." He (Sir J. Graham) would state how this office was constituted. There was a Lieu tenant-General, a Surveyor-General, a Clerk of the Ord nance, a Storekeeper, and a Clerk of Deliveries. At the time when this evidence was given, the Lieutenant-General was in Portugal, the Surveyor-General was a naval officer, the Clerk was his Hon. Friend opposite, the Storekeeper was Mr. Singleton, and in fact the only military officer was the Clerk of the Deliveries ; whereas at present, there were four military officers to one civilian. This fact materially varied the evidence of the Duke of Wel lington, which was given at a time when there was only one military officer in attendance. When the Board assembled, at present, and when the Master- General was in attendance, and the Secretary, out of eight individuals, there were no less than six military officers ; two of them full Generals, two Lieute nant-Generals, and two Colonels. It was more like a Court-martial than a Board to consider the important sub jects of contracts for timbering guns, the price of pipe clay, and other matters which came before the Board. The next evidence be should refer to was that of his Gal lant Friend (Sir H. Hardinge), at page 33; and what was the evidence he gave? The first question was—•' Is the office of Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance titular ?" The next question he was asked was—" Does he attend the Board ?" The answer was—" He ought to attend the Board, but he is at present employed in the command of the army in Portugal." Question—How have the duties of his department been performed in his absence ?" An swer—." I should say with very great inconvenience to the public service."—(Hear, hear.)—He would request the House to consider, in conjunction with this answer, the statement of his Gallant Friend given in the opposite page —"I can state when I was at the Board, and Lord Beresford was absent, the Surveyor-General and myself being both military men, and assisted by the Duke of Wel lington, did perform the duties of the Lieutenant-General, and I do not know that positive inconvenience resulted to the public from his absence."—(Hear, hear, from the mi nisterial benches.)—But he goes on—" But I must say it was extremely inconvenient to myself and Lord Downes, and those who performed those duties ;" thus negativing the fact that the absence was productive of public incon venience, and resolving it into a source of private incon venience. The next question was—" Did not the Com mission of Military Inquiry recommend the abolition of that office ?" This question seemed to have staggered his Gallant and Right Hon. Friend. He answered—" They did recommend the abolition of that office, but, I believe, with certain qualifications, and I also believe that they did not take the very best view of that subject." The Gallant Officer then went on to detail the duties of the Lieutenant- General, as stated by the Duke of Wellington, respecting superintending the discharge of pensioners, the discipline of the corps at Woolwich, and he states " the Lieut.-General ought also to attend the inspection of the men at Woolwich himself, to see that every soldier who is discharged with a pension is fit to be discharged ; his military ex perience is of importance in superintending the discipline of the military corps at Woolwich." On the point lie de posed to, as to the necessity of the Lieutenant-General's superintending the discharge of the pensioners, and the details of the corps at Woolwich, he would refer the House to page 38 of the evidence, where his Right Hon. Friend gave the following reply. He was asked—" Why might not the pensioners be examined by the Chelsea Board ?" Answer—" I see no objection to it further than the charge for the pensioners being in the Ordnance Depart ment, there would be no saving by the 'transfer ; there would be a feeling on the part of the soldiers, that their interests were not so well attended to by strangers as by their own officers." So far with respect to the pensioners. Then with regard to the discipline at Woolwich. The Committee asked-" Might not the office of Lieutenant- General be disposed of, if that duty were transferred ?" His Right Hon. Friend's answer was—" He has, besides, very important duties to attend to, in taking care of the discipline of the 7,000 artillery, and '7OO or 800 officers, in attending reviews, and looking after the interior affairs and details of the regiment ; in fact, he is a General Officer commanding a division of troops." Now he (Sir J. Graham) would beg to refer the House on this point to another part of his Right Hon. Friend's evidence, in pages 110 and 111. Question—" There is a sum of 1,642/. charged for a Deputy Adjutant-General and As sistant of Staff, two Aides-de-Camp, and so on : was not that appointment first made in 1795, after the war had begun?" Answer—" I cannot state accurately what was the precise date, but the artillery requires the staff of a Deputy Adjutant-General for 7,000 men in as great a degree as any corps in the army would require a similar Staff Officer ; and the artillery staff, is, as compared with the force in men, smaller than that of the line."' Question—" Who fills that situation now ?" Answer—" Sir Alexander Dickson." Ques tion—" You consider that that is necessary now, though in former peaces it did not exist ?" Answer— "lt is absolutely necessary ; the routine of the rota of duty to be taken, the military police and discipline of the corps at Woolwich," his Gallant Friend added, with his usual force and adroitness, " in a great degree depend upon him, though under the orders of the Lieutenant• General of the Ordnance." He, (Sir J. Graham) would only trouble the House with one further passage from this evi dence ; it was in page 38. His Right Hon. Friend was asked—" If the Lieutenant-General has the discipline, what has the Master-General to do ?" Answer—" He has the general superintendence of the whole department, military and civil, in all its branches, and a complete con trout over it, so much so, that be can order and direct the Board to do as lie pleases, except in matters of money and account." Question—" Gadd not he give directions re specting the discipline of the corps, that which you con sider now to be the special duty of the Lieutenant. Gene ral?" Here he (Sir James Graham) begged to remark to the House the statement of the Duke of Wellington, that he actually performed the functions of the Lieutenant- General when Lord Beresford was in Portugal. The answer of his Gallant Friend was—" I conceive that he might, if it is supposed that the Master-General is to be always present." So that it was clear that tke Master- General was competent to the performance of the duties of the Lieutenant-General, and might perform them with out inconvenience to the public service. The Gallant Officer went on—" But the Lieutenant-General has at the Board other very important duties; all the military ques tions come before him, such as the estimates for military works and fortifications; lie has the whole of the military correspondence : for instance, if it is necessary to erect a barrack, or a military work, and we are in com munication with the Commander-in-Chief, it would come before him, he would assist the Board with his military opinion ; we have become a much mere military department than we were before, since the transfer of other departments, and at present there is a much greater necessity fora Lieut.- General than formerly." If the department has becom e much more military, let the House observe how much more military the board had become, consisting, as it now did, of six military men and two civilians. The last question he should quote was this—" If the Master-General were an efficient officer, applying his time and attention solely or principally to the business of the Ordnance, might be not fulfil all those duties with respect to the discipline at Woolwich, and the general superintendence of that de partment, which you have described as now falling on the Lieutenant-General?" He (Sir J. Graham) requested the attention of the House to the answer given by his Right Hon. Friend to this question—" The Master-General of the Ordnance has generally been an officer of state, and a Cabinet Minister, giving, on questions which may arise, his military 'opinion ; the Master-General is, as I have before stated, in the case of the Duke of Wellington, liable to be sent away on the public service." This had been the case in former instances. Lord Chatham, when Master-General, went with the expedition to Walcheren ; Lord Cornwallis held the same office conjointly with that of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. But at the present mo ment, when the Master-General was not a Cabinet Mi nister, and where there was no chalice of his being called upon foreign service, all the reasons here alleged were futile. But he (Sir J. Graham) could not help thinking that his Right Hon. Friend contemplated a special case, when he added, " I conceive, if Lord Beresford, experi enced as he is in the affairs of Portugal—' experienced ! (exclaimed the Hon. Member) as the groans of the victims of Don Miguel can testify, pining in the dungeons of Portugal; experienced ! as those can testify who were forced to fly their native land'—were to be called away from his duties at the head of the Ordnance, and sent to Portu gal, it would be extremely hard that he should be obliged to relinquish that situation, merely because he was found useful and efficient for the service of the State but having a lieutenant, who in his absence can do his duty, justice can be done to the department and to the indivi. dual." If ever there was a case established by the very evidence brought forward to defend it, but which militated in fact, against it, lie (Sir J. Graham) thought that "this was this case, and that the direct converse was shown by the evidence of the Duke of Wellington and his Right Hon. Friend. He (Sir J. Graham) then came •to the report of the Commissioner; of Military Inquiry; and be would first refer to the evidence of Lord Chatham before that Committee, a personage of whom, both on account of his name and talent, he could not speak with disrespect. Lord Chatham said lie considered the office of Lieutenant-Gene ral of the Ordnance a link of the civil and military service, and on that account essential to the due performance of the duty of the Board, as well as to support the Master-Gene ral in the duties of his extensive office. This might be well said in 1810, when Lord Mulgrave was Master-Ge neral; Sir Thomas Trigge, Lieutenant-General; Robert Moorsom, Esq., (a naval officer), Surveyor-General ; the Hon. Ashley Cooper, Clerk of the Ordnance; and Mr. Singleton, Clerk of the Deliveries. At that moment, out of nine persons, there were three military and six civilians. Now, however, out of eight persons, six were military and two civilians. Before he adverted to the reports of the Committee of Military Inquiry, and of the Finance Com mittee of 1828, be thought it better to anticipate an objection, that the Finance Committee had passed too glibly over the evidence of the Duke of Welling ton and his Right Honourable Friend opposite (Sr Henry Hardinge.) But the fact was, that the Com mittee actually stated that they had given to the evi dence of the Duke of Wellington and Sir H. Hardinge all the weight which was justly due to it. They did not leave the House to infer their sense of its value, for they stated it, and they stated also the reason why they came to an opposite conclusion, and why they viewed the testimony , of those officers with jealousy. The reason the Commit tee assigned was, that these persons, however qualified by their official stations to give full information on these sub jects, were likely to be influenced by professional feelings. So that the Committee not only attended to the evidence of the Duke of Wellington and Sir H. Hardinge, but they told the House that the reason why they did not give full weight to it was, because it might be influenced by pro fessional feelings, which might ensnare their judgment and bias their opinion. He could not help calling the attention of the House to the speech of the Right Hen. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel) on proposing this very Committee. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, " On the subject of these estimates, I will say, that I am satisfied there exists in the new Members of the present Government, as well as in those who belonged to the last Administration, a sin cere desire to see economy in the public expenditure car ried to its utmost length, and if, through the recommend ation of the Finance Committee, it should appear practi cable to make some reduction in the expenditure of the next half year, that, I am confident, will be cheerfully effected." No words could be stronger than these, and he (Sir J. Graham) believed that they led the House to think that the recommendations of the Committee would be adopted. But if there were any doubts upon the sub ject, he might refer to the observations which had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman within the last tell days,— and not once, but often,—and not of a negative, but of an affirmative character. He (Sir J. Graham) thought he recollected the argument of the Right Hon. Gentreman in respect to the motion brought forward by him (Sir J. Graham) regarding the Treasurer of the Navy. His (Sir J. Graham's) case rested on a vote of the House in 1826, in which the House decided that that office should be held conjointly with another effice. And what was the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman? He placed his reliance on the report of the Finance Committee of 1817, which, be said, was so important that it absolutely rode over time vote of the House of Commons in 1826. So on the question brought forward on Thursday last, by his Hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. P. Thomson), the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman was so con vincing, that though he (Sir J. Graham) had come down to the House with the intention of voting for the mo tion, he was convinced by the Right Hon. Gent.'s speech, and left the House. The Right Hon. Gent. then said, on no account refer the matter to a Committee, because you will not only suspend the functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it would be a mockery to refer the subject to a Committee unless the House was prepared to abide by its decision.—(Hear.)—Here, then, was negative and affirmative testimony. And after all these professions and statements, let the House consider what was the tenour of the report of the Finance Committee in respect to the office under consideration. They say that the Commis sioners of Military Inquiry considered that the appoint ment of Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance was not essential to the constitution of the department ; they concur in this opinion, and adverting to the fact that the Lieute nant-General has been absent from England at different times, they were of opinion, that during peace the office may be dispensed with, and the salary saved. He called upon the Government to redeem their pledge with the public in good faith and honour. They bad promised to reduce the establishments of the country, and yet in a time of peace they were called upon to maintain the profusion of a war expenditure. This was his opinion in the year 1818, how much more so ought it not to be now, with all the ac cumulated suffering which had since fallen on the country? Was there in fact any comparison between the degree of distress that prevailed in 1828 and that at present ? Were there not at this moment large classes of the poor in a state of complete destitution, stretching out their hands for any portion of relief, and appealing to their humanity and compassion for sympathy and assistance ? But he would plainly ask, were the Ministers free agents on the present occasion ? Were they not pledged by their own resolution of the 12th of February ? Had they not on that day resolved, that in all the establishments of the country, civil and military, every saving ought to be made which could be effected without the violation of existing engagements, and without detriment to the public service? This was what was promised on the 12th of February : why then was not this saving yielded to,the pub lic voice ? If the Government fell back upon their resolu tion, and when the opportunity arose refrained from evincing a desire to enforce it, it would be in vain for them to expect the confidence of the public : the people would retort upon them that they hid abandoned their pledges, and shown no sympathy for the real sufferings of the community. Why was this departure from duty ma nifested F He verily believed, not because the Govern ment were averse from succouring those who were dis tressed—not because they thought the public service re quired the prolongation of these offices—but because the Government were in such a position that they were com pelled to have a certain mode of upholding influence within the walls of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)—Look at the list of ordnance officers who were in Parliament? There was, first, the Master-General, who was himself a peer -(Lord Beresferd) ; then came the next in command, the Lieutenant-General, (Lord R. E. H. Somerset), who represented an important county (that of Gloucester) in the House of Commons; then followed the Surveyor- General, who was Member fla- Sandwich (Sir H. Fane) ; the Clerk of the Ordnance, the Member for Newport (Mr. Spencer Perceval) ; the principal Storekeeper, the Member fur Cambridge (Colonel Trench) ; the Clerk of the Deliveries, the Member for Scai borough (General Phipps); there was then. the Secretary to the Master- Genera!, the Member for Queenborough, (Lord Downes); he mr. T H re o a l s m u e r:r ); w t h h o e se M d e u m ti b e e s : w fo h r eo ß le i r sh c o i p; i s l a o Cn r ads i t n lle i a: lit ( ar lyA y ir , t. were not very accurately defined : they were however various, for whatever were his musters in the Ordnance, he was at least well known to muster the troops in that House on all trying occasions.—(Laughter.) He really did not know how to designate the Hon. Mem ber's office better than #;ry saying that he was the Ajax septcmplex of their divisions.—(A laugh.)—So that out of eight principal officers of the Ordnance, one was a Peer of Parliament, and the other seven were Members of that House. In the year 1811, there were only four Members sent amongst them from that board ; but the number was doubled at this moment; it was quite evident how all these gentlemen must vote, for there was sufficient expe rience of an error of that kind to know what would be the fate of a refractory member on such occasions; official persons so placed had merely to turn the ear of the deaf adder to any suggestions but those which were sent down to them from head-quarters, and blindly follow the Great Captain of the Administration wherever he might chuse to lead them. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had on a former night adverted to the corruption which was known to have been exercised in the time of Mr. Walpole, a nd contrasted it with the decline of Government patro nage, which was now obvious in all the public offices. But (lid the Right Hon. Gentleman see no diffeience be tween Walpole's time and the present ? Could the same unblushing tricks, and openly-avonied corrupt artifices, be now played with safety by any Minister? The over whelming corruption of past times had been, as Mr. Burke we ll said, " the perennial source of all prOdigality ;" but it could not be practised to the same extent at present—no Minister would venture on such a mode of sustaining his Government; the merit therefore was not great of aban doning views which were no longer practicable. Why should not the Mouse listen to the prayers and sup plications of a suffering people who were crying out aloud for the administration of some relief for their sufferings? It was in vain to hope for the mainte nance of these large establishments, or to get rid of most importuning and reiterated demands for re trenchment, until much greater reductions were made than had been at present effected by the Government, That rouse had already toted es imates in a time of profound v. ace for 82,000 men; and had refused, though earnestly pressed, to bind up that bleeding artery, through which the circulation intended to give, life to the country was so prodigally and profusely evacuated Let the House of Commons do its duty, as it did on Friday night, and then the country would look up with confidence to its decisions. The sum at present in question was not much : it was a trifle compared with other sums ; but the principle in volved in their decision upon it was of great magnitude, for it would establish or reflect ridicule upon their past pledges of economy ; these trifles, light as air, " Are, to the jealous, confirmat'ons strong " As proofs of holy writ." The people will judge for themselves from decisions of this kind, what dependence they can place upon the pro lesions of retrenchment of which they have heard so much of late,—they will see that Parliamentary patronage must be preserved at all hazards ; and the people will com pare the votes of the Government with their pledges of economy—their votes for putting money into the pockets of the sons of their colleagues—their refusal to obey the Finance Committee in the abolition of this office the Ordnance. if the people find chicane and miserable de sire for place in those departments imcnediately under the eye of Government, they will no longer submit to this de gree of delusion, but will compel their representatives to do them justice. For his part, be would endeavour to sustain the sinking spirits of the people, in the hope that proper attention would still be paid to their wants and sufferings. He concluded by moving, that the proposed vote of 85,0251. be reduced to 83,525/, to strike off the silary of the office of Lieutenant-General of the Ord nance.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. SPENCER 1 3 ERCEVAL said, he rose on the present occasion with considerable diffidence, for he knew it was out of his power to compete with the Hon. Baronet in securing the attention of that House. If he failed, then, in convincing the Committee that they ought to re ject the proposed reduction, he knew that his failure would be attributable, not to any imperfection in the matter really at issue between them, but to his inadequacy to cope with the eloquent speech of the Hon. Baronet.— Of this he was quite sure, that if the office of Lieutenant- General were to fall this night from the ordnance depart.. ment, it would not he for want of its fitness and pro prietyor the just necessity for its maintenance to discharge a full share of the public business. With this natural distrust in himself, he had the consolation of knowing that he would be followed by those who would repair what he might mar in this debate. The simple point to which he should call the attention of the House, was the evidence in favour of the retention of that office; and they had on the one side the testimony of the Noble Duke at the head of the Government, and of his Right Hon. Friend near him— (Sir H. Hardinge)—persons of the most competent judg ment upon such matters, and who clearly; fully, and un hesitatingly declared that it could not be abolished. Here were military men of the highest professional knowledge, who were known to devote themselves unremittingly and arduously to the duti.s of this department, in which they had served for five years, and who had put on record their evidence of the necessity of maintaining the office. And what was the testimony on the other side?— Who were the men who sat in judgment upon the de cision of such military authorities upon a purely mili tary question ?—(Hear, hear.) They were gentle men unversed in these affairs, upon which nevertheless they took the task upon themselves of pronouncing a sweep ing and decisive opinion. But it was said, official gentle men had a bias to keep up establishments,—might not there be a bias elsewhere to display a wish to pull them down, when the public were in a season of distress, and popularity the result of such a disposition to enforce re ductions? The Hon. Member then referred to the evi dence given by the distinguished persons he had named, to show the necessity of there being an efficient military per son in the office of Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance, on account of the urgency and importance of his duties, and he quoted the letter of the Duke of Wellington in 1823, to show what was his sense of the imperative pres sure of the ordnance business, when in offering the Master- General's office succe,sively to Lords Hopetoun and Hill, he distinctly pointed out such to be the nature of the du ties, that they imposed a residence in town for the greater part if not the whole of the year. It was impossible in deed, in an office full of military details, that this should be otherwise, and what he had already said showed the sense entertained by the highest judges upon this point. The Hon. Member said that he had intended to have re ferred in more detail to the evidence given before the Finance Committee upon this office, but, as he thought the Hon. Baronet had failed in making out any case to sup port his motion, and as he had shown that the most un exceptionable authorities were all the other way, he should leave the question in the hands of the Committee without further remark. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that if the Committee sustained the confidence of the Hon. Member who spoke last, in his anticipation of their votes, it must certainly be on grounds very different to those which he had urged in foundation of it. The Hon. Member had set out with at tacking the Finance Committee, forgetting that the Com mittee had emanated from the Government itself, on the proposition of Lord Goderich and Mr. Canning. Let the Committee see what they had to decide upon. The aboli tion of this office had been repeatedly recommended, and the last Finance Committee had only followed up the in tentions of the Commissioners of Military Inquiry. If, then, these reports were to be a dead letter, the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite might well say that they were lights' to deceive, not beacons to guide them. In the Committee of 1817 there were too many official people, and their report was drawn up from the dictation of one of them, in one of the offices in Downing-street; but that of 1828 came with a more independent air of authority, for it was composed of men of all parties, and was deservedly entitled to great weight. It was quite futile to attempt to disparage it, for the Committee had had the benefit of all the military evidence which was tendered to guide their judgmest. The inconvenience which it was alleged had been sustained, in consequence of the temporary absence of the Lieutenant-General, was more than once referred to, for the purpose of proving the necessity for the existence of his office. But such proof, he would remind those Hon. Members, was altogether insufficient, inasmuch as there was great difference between the case of an establishment that had reckoned upon the services of an existing officer, who was suddenly or unexpectedly called away from his post, and that of the same estab!ishment under another state of things, when there was a certainty that the duties of this officer, whatever they were, must be otherwise performed.—(Hear.) General GORDON said, he viewed the subject on which they were required to decide as a great professional question.—(Laughter.)—lt was, in his opinion, a serious hardship that they should endeavour to reduce the privates when they were acting on so different a principle with re spect to the Generals. What was the paltry sum of 1,2001. a year compared with the services of the army, which had so many commanding claims on all the sym pathies of the House ? It was absolutely a mere nothing. , —(Laughter.)—lt was, he repeated, a great professional case, and in that light alone ought they to consider it. If they were to be such sticklers for economy, and had re solved on fastening on some example of 1,2001. a year, why did they not make an attack on some other quarter, —the Prebendary of Rochester, for instance? and he could assure them that in him they would then find a staunch ally, but, in this case, the thing was too monstrous to be thought of.—( areat laughter. )—He should therefore vote in opposition to the amendment. Lord UXBRIDGE conceived that it was utterly im possible to reduce the office of Lieutenant-General con sistently with what was due to the interests of the public service. He hoped that he should not be thought incon sistent in his present vote, as it was his conscientious be lief that the duties of the Ordnance Department could not be efficiently discharged if this very necessary office were abolished.---(Hear.) Mr. PERCEVAL said a few words in explanation, which were not heard in the gallery. Mr. LIDDELL expressed his intention to support the Hon. Baronet, from a belief that the office in question was totally useless, and might easily be dispensed with. Lord HOWICK said he should give a similar vote, as the simple fact that the duties had been already dispensed with furnished the surest proof that it was unnecessary. Sir H. HARDINGE observed, that they ought to be careful how they over looked the valuable testimony of the late Master of the Ordnance in favour of the necessity of keeping up this essential branch of the Ordnance Depart ment. He should reply to the declamation by plain facts ; but while he fully admitted that the distress of the country required a cutting down of all unnecessary expen , e, he de nied that the office sought to be abolished was an unne cessary expense ; and he was borne out in his denial by s te nd offi ? eel F • i w rs n t o , as filled t a t i h t e . s Lord Mul t- dig the, l thirty years : ‘ t v h i e t h d s e t c a i n s i t : of the rleicooum in se upon en,iati o t n h e o s f u htjleicet Finance a l r,8c2,8,n in accurate Com mittee. That Committee had come to an unfair and conclusion when they in ferred that the office was unnecessary, beciuse it was of such a nature as , to admit a t I:Bcertain ro a s r n t diGmdeLiendsoerrodta duringfi; : t .l l o ilen i r aa a ti:es hertnandeereelreally yt itiz,ll never absented themselv es at ' a ll ; Lord Chatham was absent but lour months • and the Duke of Wellington about five. The LieutenantlGeneral, during the last twenty-five years, had been absent in all eighteen months, or on an average three Weeks in each year. 'Hear, hear. )—Moreover, c bin Sir Wi iCrutton went to Portugal, it was in contemplation to replace him in the office by Sir Herbert Taylor, but that intention was afterwards relinquished, owing to sub-equent arrange ments. The great body of evidence in support of the pro, . • priety of its continuance he thought they should also take into consideration. They had the testimony of Lord Chat ham as to its importance, and again that of Mr. Canning in 1822. In the great speech which it might he recollected he had delivered on the subj-ct, he had truly stated that the military commission had never con:einplated the can tinuance of the Board of Ordnance with less than five Board officers, anti it was equal!y true that the salaries of the Board Officers were at present actually less than had been recommended by the Military Commissioners. —The Finance Committee of 1817 or 1818 had never once called the necessity of this office in ques tion with all their anxiety for retrenchment, and it was but fair that they should now bear in mind the strong evidence of the Duke of Wellington in its favour in 1822, when he never anticipated that it would so soon be ,elected for attack. Hon. Members had said that his evidence, how respectfully soever they might be inclined to regard it, was not sufficient to overcome the fact of absence in Lieutenants-General, but he had now shown that this absence was in reality nothing. That the Duke of Wellington had given his evidence with sincerity it was presumed no person would dispute, and he begged leave to add that his own evidence had been equally sincere. It was rather unfair now, when the labours of the ordnance were severest, to say we are sensible you have faithful] done your duty; but we will deprive you, in return, of the assistance which you have alwaysexperienced hitherto. Mr. Ward, the Secretary of the Ordnance, who had pre ceded himself, expressed his opinion, in 1822, that it was preferable a clerk of the ordnance should be dispensed with rather than the Lieutenant-General.. The English and Irish barrack-board had been united in the ordnance department since 1823, and the business was therefore considerably increased, so that the present period was, of all ethers, the most inopportune for proposing such a re duction. He hoped, also, that they would hesitate before they proceeded to cast a slur on the Duke of Wellington, to whom the abolition of this office must appear as if they discredited his evidence.—(Hear.) Lord ALTHORP said, he had no doubt that the Duke of Wellington and the Right Hon. Gentleman had given their evidence in perfect sincerity, and thought that they were correct in their opinions • but 'he contend e d th a t th e House had a right to be satisfied with respect to the rea sons on which their opinions were founded, without mean ing to throw reflections on the evidence, or to arraign the were insufficient, as they found that the duties of the given.— se l n n e t m h o e ti p v r e e s se o n f t t in ° s se tan by ce w t h he m y w su e e r h e w sa as tisfi g e iv d en that Lieutenant. General could very well be performed by the Master-General, as they had often been before. What were the duties which the Lieut.-General had to perform, exclusively of what he performed as a Board officer? wasN o n o, absent. except that casethose was General was an efficient officer. But if it was the business t n when n lie- of Government to provide for the absence of their officers, he ef admitted Aititaeldter that-G Master-General, thee ra Lieutenant- General ti e they ought to have a deputy for every office.—(Hear.) — The Right Hon. Gentleman had taken the average times of absence of the Master-General during a certain period of years ; but he did not think that that would do away witk the plain fact, that the Master-General was absent for 11 mouths together. It had been stated, that the Finance Committee preferred this Board to any other Government Board. The reason of that was, that every officer hall distinct duties to perform, with one single exception, and that was, the Lieut.-General.—( Hear, hear.)—The Noble Lord concluded by expressing his intention of voting in favour of the amendment. Lord E. SOMERSET said be did not rise to speak on the general question before the House, but simply to cor rect an error into which the Noble Lord who had just spoken had been betrayed. The Noble Lord had stated that the duties of the Master-General and of the Lieute nant-General of the Ordnance were the same, and might be performed by one person ; but he could assure the Noble Lord, that since he had the honour of filling the situation of Lieutenant-General, he bad had constant occupation, and the Master-General had always been present. He considered that the duties of the Master-General could only be performed by an officer of high rank. Mr. MABERLY stated, that notwithstanding the ma jority which the Government had in the Finance Commit. tee, that Committee had come to the resolution of recom mending the abolition of the office of Lieutenant-General. He conceived that the duties of that officer could be better performed by officers in the artillery than in the line ; but. they were such as required some scientific knowledge. Lord MORPETH informed the House, that notwith standing the authorities it had heard quoted in favour of the office in question, there were also some which could be adduced of an opposite nature. Lord Moira, in 1810, said that the Lieutenant-General bad no duties to perform beyond what be performed as aboard-officer, except in the case of the absence of the Master-General. It appeared that Ministers in that House were inclined to adopt the doctrine broached elsewhere, and to hold committees cheap. The only recommendation for specific reduction given by the Finance Committee was with respect to the office under' debate, and that recommendation had been neglected.— . (Hear.) —He considered the diminution in taxation ought to make the House more earnest than ever in reducing the lenditure.—( Hear.) expo Mr. PEEL said no man was more disposed than he was to give full credit to the Hon. Baronet, who moved the' amendment, for the most perfect sincerity, yet he was • sure that the Hon. Baronet would not desire to be exempt from that ordinary rule of debate, by which all that was said by one party was not taken for granted by their op ponent, but submitted to that close examination, which was necessary to the investigation of truth. The Hon. Baronet had proved himself a most skilful advocate, for with all his professions of sincerity, he had contrived to press into his speech every argument connected or un connected with the subject, which might produce an impression .unfavourable to the Government—the influence of the Crown in that House ; and the opinions of Lord Beresford in Portugal ; the condition of the Portuguese confined in Terceira ; and lastly, Ajax himself's.- (Laughter.)—All this might be very well by way of orna ment, but did not seem to have much connexion with they object which the Hon. Baronet professed to have in view, —namely, to prove that the office of Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance was an unnecessary one.—(Laughter.)---, The Hon. Baronet first attempted to throw on Govern ment the blame of treating with marked disrespect all Committees, and particularly the Finance Commit tee, and calling upon the House to support that last mentioned Committee. Now, what were the facts of the case ? The Finance Committee made four very able reports, containing several suggestions as to the most proper mode of carrying on the public; service, and, with the single exception of the office of Lieutenaut. General of the Ordnance, the re eommendations of that Finance Committee had been acted upon, or attempted to be carried into effect by the Government.--illear, hear.) If the House recollected, the first report of the Finance Committee referred to the mode iii which annuities were granted, and pointed out how a saving might be effected by an alteration of the system. That suggestion was ink. mediately assented to by the Government, and carried into effect by the Bill which was brought in by his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The second report referred to the Ordnance, which for the present ho would not notice. The second report recommended an alteration in the mole of granting superannuation allow ances ; and, if that recommendation were not carried into effect, it was certainly not owing to any fault of the Government. His Right Hon. Friend proposed a measure to carry into effect that recommendation, but he did not meet with that support from the House which he felt himself entitled to expect. The fourth re port of - the Finance Committee reviewed the gene ral financial system of the country, and among its re commendations was the abolition of a nominal and delu sive sinking fund. That recommendation was carried into effect, and a Bill was brought in to appoint a surplus re. venue for the purpose of forming a sinking fund, The second report of the Committee referred, as he had said, to the ordnance departments, and every one of its recom mendations relating to the reductions of the salaries of the officers had been attended to.—(Hour. )—The Government could not therefore be charged with treating with disrespect the recommendations of that Committee. They had given piactical proofs of their desire to carry into effect the im provements suggested by the Finance Committee. But how was it the duty of public servants to act? If a man in the situation of the Duke of Wellington was conscien tiously convinced that it was for the interest of the state ' that a certain office should be maintained, was it his duty to act contrary to his conviction, and propose to the House to adopt the recommendation of the Committee of Finance, or appeal to the House from the report of the Committee, and give effect to that, which, in his conscience, he be lieved would tend to promote the interests of the public service ?—(Hear.)—lf a Minister of the Crown, whom the Constitution made responsible for his conduct, was not to act on the well-considered deliberation of his own mind, —if the Duke of Wellington, responsible as lie must be for the - efficiency of every branch of the military service, but above ail of that particular branch over which he pre sided for so many years, was not tt. liberty,—nay, if it Was not his sacred tiiity to appeal to that House (for that w,13 all lie claimed a right to do) iu support of what he be-