The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-04-29 00:00:00

same.]—The Noble Lord had here spoken very
wisely—and he hoped that his conduct would be as
wise as his words. This uew system was intro-
duced, it was said, fur the purpose of equslonisg
the two services. But this was a fallacy—the thing
could not he done, and the remain was plaiu—be.
eisrise the navy never entered into societies on the
faith of such a regulation as that ou winch the
army had lung acted. Frows-thiv statement it must
be most most appareet, that the two services could
not be equaiized, without making the regulation
prospective. But there was something ridiculous
iii this idea of equalising the two services—for,
how they could make amends to one branch Of
the service, fig its honourable exertions, by ex-
tending to it the evils which of &outlier, he
was quite at a loss to conceive. For his rum
part, he would not place any limitation what-
ever to these grants—e discretion certainly should
exist—but he objected to the decided prin.
•ciple which said, under this or that circuonstaince,
no relief shall be afforded. At the close of a long
war, the sum total of these rents was 98,0001.
Now, taking the saving 111 this proposed plats at
one-third, was it worth while, for the paltry suns of
33.000/. to excite disgust and discoutent amongst
those who had bravely served their country ? ha
ordinary times, the saving would not he more than
ten or fifteen thousand pounds. Was it worth
while, for such a trifle us. this, to tauut men
whose services were of all others the worst paid?
He did not know that the army was overpaid
at present. •lf it were, that would be a good rea-
sod for reducing it—but certainly was not au argu-
ment for oppressing those who were now embarked
in the service. What was the moral effect produced
by such conduct ? It tended to produce disaffec-
t and distrust amongst men whose only feeling
ought to be reverence for the State and Constitution
of the country. if he had to deal with the army.
as the Government had, he would say to them, " I
will act as liberally with you as I can—l have made
every reduction I possibly could before I came to
•yob—sad I would not have trenched on your
emoluments, but I cannot avoid it." Could the
Noble Lord opposite say that Governmeut had
acted so ? He certainly could not. Did he recol-
lect what had been asked as a provision for the
Royal Dukes? Were not Ministers about to grant,
but for the virtue of those Tory Gentlemen, whom
lie had alluded to a short time ►ince, a sum in-
fiiiitely beyond what they could hope to save by
this regulation ?—(Cries of lkar, hear, hear.)--
Let them look to the grout made to general officers
in 1814—no less a sum than 176,9351.—and yet
they would take from the poor widows the mite to
which the services of their husbands entitled them.
He objected to the first part of the regulation,
because it was a mockery. The Prince Regent
'saiil." Any widow who has another pension—or a
situation to a certain amount—shall not be entitled
to relief." Why, it was in the power of the Prince
Regent's confidential advisers to prevent any of
them from having pensions or situations of this
kind. But let the House observe how unfairly
rewards were apportioned. The grant to Lady
Gillespie was more than three times greater than the
sum, the receipt of which would disqualify any
officer's widow from claiming the ordinary bdenty.
It was easy to ptrcrive what the effect of this regti-
lation must be. It declared thus, in plain terms—
•' If you are industrious and prudent—if you be-
have in such a careful and cautious manner as will
• enable you to provide for your widow—then you
forfeit your claim to the bounty of the State." It
operated contrary to moral feeling—it militated
against the true interest of the State—it was a tax
on providence and habits of frugality.—(Hear.)—
This *mid be the first effect of such a regulation—
what the second would be was well worth consider-
ing. lie demanded whether the regulation, as it
respected the navy, had not given rise to a great
deal of evasion ? Did not the navy officer en-
deavour to leave his money in trust, so that
his family might have the benefit of it, with-
out
being affected by this obnoxious regula-
tion
I This was the effect which, to a certain
extent. the regulation its the navy had produced.
It had, lie believed, in some instaircev, induced per.
eons to commit perjury. Supposes woman, with
4001. a year, and * very large family, who, subsist.
ing un this income. were nearly starving, was not
her situation so critical, that she would be tempted
to swear, in order to procure a further provision.
that she only received 1991. auoually ? He did
not believe this new regulation originated at the
Horse-Guards--or at the 11'ar-Office. Ile did not
believe that any person connected with the army
had proposed it—and sure he was that the Illos-
trious Duke at the head of the military service dia.
liked, and had opposed it. But its being introduced
plainly proved this—that, on certain points Minis-
ters acted in opposition to his Royal Highness. It
was a Treasury rya, carried into effect against the
sense of the army, the House, and the people, for
the 'ostensible purpose of making a very trifling
saving. Under these circumstances he should
mdve for the entire revocation of the regulation in
'question, which could not serve the country in any
degree, but which was calculated to do great injury,
by disgusting gentlemen connected with the mili-
tary service. The lion. Gentleman then moved a
resolution for an Address to his Royal Highness
the Prince Regent, praying that l►e would be gra-
ciously pleased to revoke his warrant of the 45th of
December lest, by which the widows of military
linkers, deriving iiicomes from their deceased lim-
b inds, 'amounting to double the sum which, under
orilioary circumstances, they would be entitled to
doitiaild, by way of pensiou, should be prevented
fison making such claim. 'The resolution went
un to point out the hardships which such a regula-
tion would entail upon individuals, inasmuch as
malty military officers hail entered the married
state, relying ou the provision, which, in case of
their decease, they had hero led to hope their
widows would receive, from the bounty of the
conotry, by hong viewed on the pension list.
Colonel i ) A L KY Min.'', in seconding the motion,
observed, that the regulation in question was not
weir tttttt coded in any re. ord which had come nu-
, ('barbss hi is nodes. Ile
ninliew
eft:rugs orlibuttleiadt ,toboyfb,t.leiree 41st
widows.
At 51141 peroal 3,roug. was devoted to this laudable
purpose. In 1647, wheat the army was to he di*-
, icitait 11, an order was Made for the provisiou of sal•
• I died Wahl% i., and of maimed soldiers. In 1716, a
t ►pccmal proris' was made fur the widows or offs-
: eel,. lie hail consulted with officers who bad been

half $ century in *the service, sud they deastesl
they entered it with the idea not only that they
would receive adequate pay for themselves, but
that their widows would he entitled to pensions.
Now would it bean advisable measure, for a small
expected saving, to take away front military mess
that feeling towards their country which constituted
its pride and iiifeguard ?..14Hear.) —Where *Ere
obiliged either to pay large sums for commissidus,
dr `to have the Mortification of beholding.yrdiug
men raised over their'hipeds. 'On their deaths, 'those
coussaissious again became the property of thepdblic.
Therefore, ois their marriage, officers in general had
but little to settle on'thove whom they espoused—
and they looked naturally enough towards the pen-
sion, as something beyond what a lady's own fortune,
or the hope of contingent property, enabled them
to consider as a provision for a future period. The
Hon. Colossal then referred to the order of Queen
Anne, in 1708, and df Geo. i. in 1717, relative to
protidiag pensions for the widows of officers. In
both of these orders, all mention of property de-
Aved from the deceased husband was omitted—and
appeared to be omitted otepurpose--for other pen-
sions or allowances from Government were 3'l3y:i-
-deally mentioned aebaring an individual from a
claim on the widows' fund. Hebelieved that offi-
cers -firmly relied on a continuance of the same
of the

valets. ..'hat this was the case at the time
passing of Mr. Burke's Bill, in 1/132, he'could pro-
duce living testimony. A few years since the rate
of pensious Was increased ; but it was not until a
multitude of victories were gained, and grants
were in consequence made, that it began to he
imagined that the liberality of Parliament had ex-
tended to profusion, and that the idea was enter-
tained of curtailing the number of widows who
had a right to demand pessions. The country
asked for economy and retrenchmeut—but cer-
tainly this was not the saving they were anxious
for. A novel and vexatious test was now, it seem-
ed, to be imposed on those unprotected widows,
while othe► ladies were allowed to receive pensions
to a large amount—whether earned by themselves
or their relatives he would not pretend to say.—
(Hear, hear.)—The Hon. Gentleman then took a
brief view of the 18th, 19th, and 20th Reports of
the Finance Committee, which, he observed, did
not recommend any measure of this description,—
and concluded by expressing his hope that the
Prince Regent would recur to the practice which
his illustrious ancestors had long pursued, and
which the votes of Parliatneut had sauctioued fur

many years.
Mr. J. SMITH said, this regulation appeared to
him to be founded in 'complete injustice. He be-
lieved the officers of the corps of horse artillery
and other military bodies, had actually appro-
priated part of their pay to the formation of a widows'
fund. Would it nut, he asked, be most unjust, if
the widows of the persons who had thus sacrificed
their pay to this benevolent purpose, were told,
because their deceased husbands had made a pro-
vision for them, coining within the scope of the re-
gulation, that they had therefore no claim on the
bounty of the country ?—(Hear, hear./
Mr. F. LEWIS said, though th►re was nothing in
the Report of the Finance Committee, on'this sub-
ject, yet individuals were not therefore to suppose
that it had 'scared the attention of that Committee.
There was winch conversation in the Committee
about it—and it was well known that the naval
officers felt themselves much aggrieved at the situa-
tion in which they were placed. It was the duty
of the Committee to inquire into the cause which
created the difference hetween the two services—

and, on examination, they found, that pensions
were granted in the navy only where a specific case
of necessity appeared—but that, in the army, the
.applicant was not bound to prove that any necessity
existed. They felt it proper, therefore, that some-
thing should he done to remove the constant heart-
burning that existed between the two services.
The Committee having proceeded thus far, left it
to 'Government to make any alteration that might
be considered proper—and, certainly, if no altera-
tion had been made, they would have reconsidered
and fully investigated the subject.
Lord Pataigarrox said, the present regulation
had been considerably modified. The original re•
gelation prohibited widows, whose income was
doable the amount of the pension claimed, from re-
ceiving the bounty of the State—but it was now
proposed, that the prohibitory income should be
four times the amount of the pension—and it was
not meant to extend to any officer who was at pre-
sent married. This got rid of one of the greatest
objections urged against the regulation ; and those
who married hereafter, knowing this regulation to
exist, could not complain of any breach of faith.
With respect to the two corps of Artillery and En-
gineers, which had been mentioned, it should be
recollected, that they were under the control of the
Board of Ordinance, who would deal with them as
circumstances warranted. it appeared evident,
from the orders referred to by his Hon. Friend
(Colonel Dalrymple). that, from the earliest pe-
riod at which pensions were granted, a discre-
tionary power was given fur the selection of
those who were proper objects of the national
bounty. It was true, that principle might not
have been for some time acted on, but it was
very well known that it did exist. He did not
conceive that this regulation could operate much
to the disadvantage of the persons concerned
—the coutributiou made by officers was, in ge-
neral, too small to purchase such au annuity as
would interfere with the pension. The payment
of two pounds or lour pounds a year, would not
purchase such an annuity as would deprive an
officer's widow of her pension. With respect to
Lady Gillespie, it should be observed that her pen-
aims was grouted because the lost her husband in
. That a strong attempt was made to equa-
lise the two services, was evident from this, that, he
believed this very day, an order was issued to the
siavy,renderiug those widows of ufficers only ineligible
to receive pensions, whose incomes were four times
greater thou the provision they called for. Nu mat-
ter what limit was laid down, still cases would come
so near it, that they would be considered matters
of hardship. But, siotwitlistanding that, it was
much better that sonic clear and defined limit
should Ise stated, in order that persons. knowing
that limit, .hould be prevented, when their claim'
were considered improper, from imputing injustice
and pa, tiality to Govermileut. These were MO-
latious for which that House must be responsible,
for they were forced on Government by the feeling,