The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-05 00:00:00

that in the hour of danger the Line had ever allowed the
Marines to take the lead. That was entirely a mistak?..
Captain ECHEL L felt that he was obliged to agree
in almost every word that had fallen from the Hon. and
Gallant Member; but still he thought the Gallant Officer
would have been a better advocate had he dismissed from
his mind all party feeling upon the question. Those on
his side of the House were equally as anxious to serve the
poor marine as those on the other side, and the Hon. and
Gallant Member had got the start of them by his superior
finesse. lie trusted that when the Marines were on ser-
vice in the guard ships, that time so served would be al-
lowed to count as sea service.
Mr. C. WOOD—Although he was very anxious to get
to the Estimates, still he would not allow the debate to
close without saying a few words in reply to the observa- •
tions of the Hon. and Gallant Officer. He had very cor-
rectly stated the intention of the Government in making
the Order in Council—they thought it was very desirable
that the marine and the seamen should be placed as near
as possible on the same footing. Sir H. Hardinge in giv-
ing his evidence before the Military Commission, said the
army would be dissatisfied by having the prospect of only
6d. a day after long service, while the marine, with not so

severe duties, had the prospect of Is. ; on inquiry it was
found that the marine had not only an advantage over the
soldier of the I;ne, but that he also had an advantage over
the seaman. No soldier, however long his service might
he, was entitled to his discharge—the marine can claim it
and his per,ion besides. The marine and the seaman had
always a right t 3 their discharge after a pe,iod of
twenty one years' service. It was true the seaman
was not alwa3s sure of continuous service, the ma-
rine was, so that he having continuous service
if his service on shore, which was not so heavy as on board
ship, was to count in the same proportion, the marine
would have an advantage over all the other services. They
were not prepared to reduce the pension of the marine to
that of the line, but they had determined to adhere, zs near
as possible, to the system of bringing the marine and sea-
man to the same level, and that was the object of the Order
in Council. _ _

Capt. BO LDER 0 —G reat boasts !—( Laughter. )
Sir El A RDINGE begged to be allowed to say a few
words, as he had been personally alluded to. Before the
Military Commission, when he was giving evidence as to
the punishments of the Army, he also adverted to what he
considered a grievance. He considered that the Army
would be considerably dissatisfied if they were perspectively
to receive no more than sixpence a they
of pension for
twenty-one years, and then only when 1 e got his dis-
charge accompanied with certificates of good character,
while the marine, after the same length of service, and
without reference to charactef, was to receive one
shilling. He felt bound to state that such a de-
cided preference being given to one service over
another must naturally cause dissatisfaction in the
army. The Reform Parliament had been very anxious to
do away with the punishment of flogging in the service,
but at the same time there was such a spirit of economy
prevailing, that they were most anxious to reduce the pen-
sions to deserving men to sixpence a day after a very long
service. He appealed to any man, naval or military,
whether this difference was not calculated to excite great
dissension and dissatisfaction. Formerly, before any change
took place in any department, the advice of the other de-
partments was taken. For instance, in 1829, the navy
warrant was not carried into effect until after it had been
referred to the Admiralty, to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, on a financial account, to the Ordnance depart-
ment, &c., in order that it might be seen whether
it was a fit warrant or not. Under these circum-
stances they assented to the warrant of 1829, which
left a marine soldier, after 21 years' service, Is. a day,
and gave him Is. 2d. in the event of his being able to
serve 25 years. The warrant of 1833 said the soldier
should only have 6d. a day after 21 years service, and then'
went on with certain rates of additional pay up to 11d.
per day. He thought it his duty to give this evidence
before the Commission, but he did more, for he wrote to
the Secretary at War cautioning him as to the difficulty
of the position in which he would be placing the army ;
and this incomenience be felt to be so great, that he had
intended in the year 1833 to bring it before Parliament, in
order that the just claims of the soldier might be brought
before the Rouse. He was spoken to by the First Lord
of the Admiralty ( Sir J. Graham), who wished him not to
bring the question forward at that moment, as great in-
convenience would accrue from its being brought forward
by a General Officer. Ile was also sent for by the Ad-
jutant General of the Army, who said that such a course
would be extremely difficult in the service. He, there.
fore felt it his duty as a military man to abstain from doing
so.—( Hear, bear.) Never had he given any op-
position on the subject of the Army Estimates. He
had always endeavoured to support the Govern-
ment of the day in carrying these Estimates into effect—
because he considered this service superior to any party
consideration. —( Cheers.) In 1831 and 1833, he strongly
noticed a great grievance, he meant a commutation in the
soldiers' pensions. He told Sir Henry Parnell, the then
Secretary at War, that the step he was about to take would
ruin a great number of old soldiers, but he persevered.
In 1832 he again appealed to the House, and, in a very
long and tedious speech, pointed out the inconveniences of
the system. In 1833, when the Hon. Member for Coven-
try (Mr. Ellice) was Secretary at War, he undertook to
put an end to the system ; and lie (Sir H. Hardinge) did
not mention it again until this day. He was now called
upon, in consequence of the motion of his Gallant Friend,
who had so ably brought forward the case of the marine
soldier, to state his opinion on the subject of this warrant.
It was to allow him Is. a day, but to increase Isis period of
service in a very large degree ; and that, in many sn-
stances, would almost prevent men from obtairing any
pension at all.--( Hear.) The marine soldier was one of the
most valuable defenders of the country, and his discipline
and loyalty had on every occasion been most strikingly
exemplified. With regard to the subject of the pension,
to show how strong the case of the marine soldier and the
army was, he would just advert to the circumstances under
which pensions were granted to the three classes, the
sailor, the marine, and the soldier. It was known to mili-
tary men that soldiers had 6d. a day in the year 1798, and
shortly after the mutiny at the Nore, the payment of the
army was increased to Is. a day, and the most beneficial
arrangements made. The marine was placed on the same
footing as a soldier in 1806, avowedly because ho was a
soldier on shore. The sailor had no claims for a pension

up to the year 1815. Without depreciating the rewards
which were due to sailors in her Majesty's Beet, he must

say by the Order in Council of 1637, which they were esta-
blishing- to the detriment and disadvantage of the marine

service—they were doing a most impolitic thing as re-
garded the naval service, because they were doing that
which might risk the discipline of the tieet, for if these
men were to be placed on different allowances, it would not
give satisfaction on board, the ships. He could not conceal
from the House and the public that a great injury had
been committed on the army by the warrant of :63:1. It
was the duty of the Government of that day to have pre-
sented that warrant to the Admiralty to obtain the appro-
bation of that department, and if the Admiralty had not
gone with them, surely there was enough of ability in that
Government to have known that two warrants so dissimilar

as that of 1833 and the old one, which left Is. a day, could