The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-02 00:00:00

it would have been better That he bad never put pen to
Paper. If such -conduct was permitted in his Grace, if he
-Were allowed to commit acts contrary to the Resolutions
of that House, then it would be better to tear up those
• Resolutions, and not leave them on their journals. There
were other parallel cases. A Peer of Parliament, a Bi hop,
• in 1701, Lad chosen to interfere in sending a Mend er to
tl.at House. He had said to his eech•siustical to ants,
that he would not renew their leases, unless they voted for
the person he nominated. The ease was brought before
the House of Commons by Sir John Packingtnn, a. d the
Bishop was L'oyd, a very good man, and one of the seven
• Bishops. The case was heard at the bar of that House,
• and an account of it was to be found in Howell's State
Trials, vol. 14. After an examination at the bar, it
Was • referred to a Committee, and the Committee
reported to the House that there had been an in-
terference with their privileges, and the House re-
solved that an Address should he presented to the
Crown, praying that the Bishop might be deprived
of his Almoner's place, which was the only way he
could be punished. And what was the answer of Queen
Anne? In her answer the Queen slid, " I am sorry that
there:is occasion for this Address against the Bishop of
Worcester ; I shall order and direct, that he shall no
longer continue to supply the place of Almoner, but I will
.put another in his loom to perform that office." The
Bishop therefore was dismissed. This decency was ob-
served, and he did not think it possible that a case of that
kind could be brought before the House of Comnsons with-
out the House coining to some determination. There
Were other instances. In 1747 Mr. Pitt, who was after-
Werds called. the celebrated Mr. Pitt, and was then Pay-
master of the Forces, was petitioned against by the people
'Of Seaford, in Sussex, as having been returned by the in-
terference of a Peer, who at a certain dinner had used his
influence with some persons, and had appeared on the hus-
tings. The Parliamentary record in which this was con-
tained went on to say that Mr. Pitt made a juke of the
whole matter, and treated it with contempt, as the matter
Was passed over without further inquiry. That Noble-
plan was a Duke of Newcastle. He did not know if all
• 'Jukes of. Newcastle were the same, but there was one of
the Pelbams who bad tried to influence the return of a
' Member to that House. Unluckily Mr. Pitt was not then
le great a patriot as he afterwards became, and as he re-
'Presented, the Milne Minister, a very swill minority only
voted for the examination, He could find another strong
ea*. The Duke of Chandos had interfered with the
'thetion of Southampton, when Lord Lieutenant of the
county; in consequence of which a strong Resolution was
Placed on their books. The Noble Lord was deeply im •
plicated, and the House resolved that it should be examined
'in a Conatnittee; but when the Committee made a report,
Which Was, that the Duke of Chandos hail interfered, the
• .11ouse, in consequence of a facetious speech of Lord Nu-
gent, passed to the order of the day. The case then before
--them was of more importance; and he would say if these
things were not examined with a serious assurance of
remedying them, the country would look with aver-
sion on their proceedings. What objection could there be
to sending for the individual who was said to have been
the Duke's agent. The House of Commons was bound
to send for Mr. Talents, and call on hint to explain how it
was that that Hon. Member's letter was sent to him under
the cover of his Grace the Duke of Newcastle. The alle-
gation had been made that this agent had desired certain
freemen to vote for a particular person, and what pi e-
vented the House from ascertaining if that allegation was
true? If they did not do this, they would reduce the
people of England to regard that which ought to be their
greatest
blessing as a curse, and that which should be a
. badge of freedom would become a chain of dependence and
ar sign of servility.—(Hear, hear.)—lt would be far better
not to allow them to have votes, than having votes to com-
pel them to vote against their will. They wet e sold when
they were made to vote against their wishes and their con-
science. The Hon. Gent. had said on one occasion, that
he hoped nobody would be harmed on his account. Did
he not, say that ? He believed he did ; and if he did, was
that freedom of election ? The House had been told by
the Hon. Member that only a rabble was concerned ; that
Wall speaking of the people in a most unwarrantable and
arrogant tone and manner. —(No, no.)—The Hon. Mem-
.her asserted that the honest men who had felt how dear
to them were their rights as Englishmen, and who saw
those rights exclaimed against, frittered sway, and tram-
pled on—(No, no, and cheers)—it was so-he asserted
they were composed only of rabble _(No, no.)—That
was the word the Learned Gentleman used ; he said rabble.
. --(Hear, and no, no.)--If only the lowest rabble had the
sense to petition and take care of their rights, for his part
he thought such rabble as muds deserving attention as the
proudest and best amongst themselves.—(Hear, hear.)—lt
was a little too much—(A laugh)— that the House was to
be composed of representatives of Peers. He for one
should always speak.strongly on this point. The question
was, whether they were to be considered as the independent
representatives of- the people,. or whether they were to
allow theinselve to be the creatures of..certain Peers.. 'The
very. lineation was a disgrace. There might-yet be some•
doubt of it in the House--out of the House it was only a
matter of history. He held in his hand.a petition from
-the. friends of the people, which would show Hon. Gen-
. tletnen that he was quite impartial and that he was justified
in being-vehement.—(A laugh. )—The petition represented
the opini, as of the country, and showed that the people
had sufficent grounds for their assertions. Hon. Metnbers
laughed, but he was sent there to be vehement on such
occasions.—(Hear, hear.)—He mentioned that to show
. that he was in perfect good humour, and that lie had no
feeling against the Hon. Member for Newark. The peti-
tioners he bad referred to stated that they were ready to
prove at the Bar of the House their assertions. The
petition was presented to the House by the father of the
Noble Lord behind him (Lord Howick), and it stated
. what lie would then read--
.I.‘,,eThey apirm that 70 of your Honourable Members
,re re-
d by .35 places, where the right of voting is vested i"
in
Burgage and other tenures of a similar description ; and
Which it would be to trifle with
whatever, the elections
the of your Honourable
t
House to mention any number of
er • • at the places alluded to being notoriously mere matter of form.
And this your petitioners-are ready to prove.
"They affirmthat, in addition to
the 70 Honourable Members
•
So chosen, 90 more of your HonourableMembers are elected by
' 46 placesi In none of which thenumber of voters exceeds 50.
.And this your petitioners are ready to prove,
. " TheyHonourable_ r
oattirm that, in addition to the 160 elected, 37 more
of your Members aerec by 19aces, in none
of which the numbef voters x eedselected 100. And this your pe-
titioners are ready to prove."
. He would ask the Hon. Member for Newark, could he
approve of such a system ?—did lie think that the Com-
- mons' House of Parliament should contain a certain num-
. her of nominees of Peers? The people were perfectly set-
_ 11,Lbile:t_latail this was a farce and a cheat ; that the House
3"ol"ns,Mwl representliw the people, hut a certain number of per-
ho aupcpe of the c
appropriated the franchise of the country.
As to th influence not forgoe
tcon. , that was a point he had
cur of th
By Act of Parliament, the smaller offi-
Cro
An Excise offiwcan were not allowed to interfere at elections.
do so, was ltable r, or a Custom-house Officer, who should
Crownnfamy and to be fined 1001., and to he punished
pwe;sroen imprisonment. If the Officers of the
that g not i allowed to interfere, was it to be suffered
Noble BDiu3kkee,nhu:intog property under the Crown, like the
employ it for that purpose ? The
deprive all the
their ownta.;
011,cert
aust not do that with his own which would
freemen of Newark of what ought to be
musth not think so to deal with his pro-
: secured to him the . perty as
row and destroy the Constitution, which
enjoyment of his ll'Pessession of his property, and even the
proved ,• and if the
proved--if it refused The allegations in the petitions could
the House did not allow them to be
. the prayer of the petition—if it did
bottetw,taitk:otuhide petttion into consideration—he did not see
evererr SADLE again
punish any corrupt boroughs.
4 had never denied that Peers might exert
influence oyer some of the Members of that House ; but
itialnenaelnleegeaoti:_n_ that
. the Noble Duke in question had exerted
titt_letnber,
Sir It MeilrLhr, 112
positively denied.
ON supported the petition. The Hon.
saids no coercion had been used ; but if that were
ironc4Se.
mettbsevrchaame he to be Member for Newark ? The
d written a book from which a quotation
hapaditeualprtlyet been made ; but one was to be found equally
a great dramatic writer—
. • ' "You!
it,,
c. m
aye among you many a purchased slave,
,ice Inike
your asses, and your dogs and mules, 4titaabject and in slavish parts,
them. Shall I say to you
This ern be fre,4
e mustl3l4e wt-slitieha:iti4l:ae:l.; if the Duke heti bpught slaves
hey under bunions ? Let their beds
H "cottoned . yours, and let their palates
ferred
toliacui.ottr
.inquirYs
Ile would inn, with such viands."
had been air them all treated alike; and as punishment
view to "dY inflicted for corruption, lie hoped, with
that this petition would be re-
Mr.
Secret
nuttee,
pin cuakin., it Y PEEL meant to decide the question with-
- of 4.491;5ie
ne political question. He had read the letters
Prefeation of.
thuakeL and he saw no reason why, from the
• be favourably di. '44le Puke's political tenets, lie should
aatiltifr he same tiinePn'ed t
thnwards h"
; lint he saw no reavon
etem... . why e etition should be considered in
go
to
yo._ t•from otherp similar petitions, and he should
ehoreen Jlveoprinciples of common sense and rea-
o'h ea nr
to
_wi
questions involved in the petition
slithe other,• tOr the interference of Parliament ;
been made out Puwn lands—one, whether a case had
and
ference of the Duke;ee' after establishing the inter-
toptet to
the
cruwia Jed take any other step ; and with
the case was, he thought, tt

complete failure. The Hon. Member who had said he was
e. vehement because be represented a populous place, had ad-:
B witted that he had found all the Commissioners of Woods,
a and Forests courteous and at taitive—(Being civil people, said
3 Mr. Hobhouse)—Well, civil and attentive to the interests
, of his constituents when he had occasion to call on them.
, The Hon. Member who spoke last, and represented
, the borough of Southwark must know that the
r Crown had a considerable property in that borough.
and yet it bad not interfered with the election. H.
would say the same of Dover. If the I-lonourab!e
L Metriber who pr, vented the petition, and represented dist
, place, had found any such interference, he would, in
doubt, in a parenthesis, have managed to inform the House
of it. He had found no disposition to exert the influence of
the Crown in his election. So much for the influence of
. the Crown over elections. With respect to the property the
. Duke of Newcastle held under the Crown, he had received
the lease in 1306, and it was to run for thirty year. At the
period of granting the lease, it was not said that any larger
tender than that offered by the Noble Duke had been made.
It was not said, that the Crown required less of the Duke
than it could obtain from other persons. When the lease
' ' was renewed, the sum was raised to x 2,0001. Lord Grenville
I was then First Lord of the Treasury, and as he was opposed
to the Noble Duke in politics, the House might be certain
that no favour was shown him, and that the lease was not
renewed but at its full value. The lease was granted in
1306, and it was granted in the interest of the Govern-
meat. It was the duty of the Commissioners to attend
to that. hi fact, the Crown was quite unfettered, except
as to the duration of the lease, and it had been granted
on the same principle as governed the granting of all
similar leases. He could say also, that there were no
negociations pending for the renewal of the lease—no en-
gagement had been entered into, and there was no implied
engagement between the Crown and the Duke. His Noble
Friend had also stated, that it was the duty of the depart-
trent over which he presided to consult the interest of the
Crown, and let the Crown lands to the greatestadvantage.
If, for example, the ground could be built on so as to yield
a larger sum than that given by the Noble Duke, it would
' be the duty of the Beard to let the ground on a building
lease. There would be no difficulty in such a case, he be-
lieved ; but that the House of Commons should address the
Crown to affix a brand and stigma on the Duke of New-
castle, to say that he is not to have the lease of these lands,
was what he could not consent to. The Duke was in this
respect entitled to the canoe privileges as others, and must
be left capable of taking lands from the Crown like any
other person. He apprehended that the property of which
the Duke had a lease for3o years could notbe distinguished
from his other property, and it was no breach of the privi-
lege of that House for him to use the influence which that
property gave him. It was impossible to preserve any dis.
tinction between the property leased from the Crown and
other property. The Duke might let it to tenants at will,
or for a term of years, and might deal with that as with
' any other property belonging to bins. There was on this
ground no reason for the House of Commons to interfere.
Then it was said that seven individuals had received
notice to leave their houses.—(Forty ! several voices called
out.)—No ;he begged leave, to say only seven. What
had been proved to show that the Duke made any im-
proper use of the property held under the Crown? The
petition went to pray that, having made an improper use
of this land, his lease might not be renewed. He believed
that the House would not think it necessary that he
should make any excuses for the privileges which were
derived from property over which the Crown had no con-
troul, and which were exercised in the same way. The
Duke of Newcastle had a right to use his property,
whether hired from the Crown, or derived from any
other soureet as he liked.--The Hon. Member (Mr. P.
Thomson) founded his argument for the interference
of the House on the ground that these personas were
dispossessed because they had refused to vote for their
landlord ; but he did not see that there was any proof
of that—nor was theme any proof that menace had
been employed in order to make them vote for the Duke
of Newcastle. The Hon. Gent. had, however, assumed
that there was some menace, and that they were required
to vote; for if it was not so, why, he asked, were they
dispossessed ? Now, supposing that such was the state of
the case, and that the Duke of Newcastle had used im-
proper and unconstitutional means to procure the return of
the Member he fancied, was it not the duty of those who
felt aggrieved by such conduct to proceed in that course
which had been provided by the House for such grievances.
Was it not their duty to present a petition arid complain of
an undue return at the election ? If they had adopted
that course, then the whole expense of the petition would
have justly and properly devolved on the parties who had
an interest in the question which the Committee were
called on to decide.—(Hear.)—But what would be the
consequence of the adoption of that motion brought for-
ward by the Hon. Gent. ? Why by applying to Parlia-
ment at this late period for the appointment of a Select
Committee to inquire into the merits of the petition, the
whole of. the expenses of these parties would be thrown on
the public.—(Hear.)---If the House was prepared to
maintain the inviolability of that jurisdiction on the sub-
ject of election petitions which he thought admirably qua-
lified for the accomplishment of all the purposes it had in
view, he was of opinion they should scrupulously abstain
from any interference, or, at all events, that they should be.
well satisfied of the imperative necessity of putting these
disappointed parties in possession of such a power, after
so long a time has elapsed, and after they have abstained
from having recourse to the measure which Parliament
has provided for such complaints.—(Hear, hear.)—He
would beg the House to observe the peculiar distinction
between the two courses to which he had alluded. If the
parties had appealed by the ordinary method of petition,
Parliament has provided a tribunal before which the merits
of that pe ition are tried, and the parties examined to the
truth of all allegations on their oath. But then, on the
other hand, he would beg them to look at the conse-
quences of adopting the motion for a Select Committee to
inquire into the men its of the petition. The consequence
would be, that they would send the facts to be inquired
into before a tribunal where the evidence could not be
taken on oath, and where the whole of the proceedings
were likely, therefore, to be subject to great objections, if
they consented to adopt such a course at tire present mo-
ment ; and in such a case they at the same time went far
to supersede that peculiar jurisdiction which, in his opi-
nion, the House ought, by every means in its power, to
fortify and defend. He was not prepared, with the limited
information he possessed, to say, whether the Duke of
Newcastle had, or had not, dispossemed any of his tenants
in the manner which the Honourable Member had been
induced to state. That the Duke had treated his tenants
in that manner, he repeated, he was not prepared to admit
or deny, although, perhaps, from the fact of there lacing
several untenanted houses, it might be presumed that
those who had occupied them were ejected by their land-
lord. He confessed, however, that there was a question
connected with that subject which appeared to him even
more important than anything connected with the privi-
leges of the House. The right of property in every man,
whether a Peer or a Commoner, was to be held sacred.—
(Hear, hear.)—There was, he repeated, no proof of any
menace being used—none that those persons were dis-
possessed because they refused to rote for their landlord.
Seven tenants were, he believd, the whole number who had
been deprived of their houses out of seventy. But
passing over that, if the House was prepared to say that
those who exercised on such occasions their just right
of property were to be subjected to the interference of
Parliament, whenever it pleased the parties to come before
it, they would place themselves in a situation equally em-
barrassing and inconvenient, and lay the foundation of a
very dangerous precedent.—(Hear, hear.)—He would say,
they could not do any thing more dangerous or prejudicial
than to leave it to be inferred, that a tenaut who refuses to
vote for his landlord has a right to remain in possession of
that landlord's property in defiance of his wishes. llence-
forward every tenant who chose to vote against his land-
lord, would answer when he was called on to leave that
landlord's property, " Oh, you wish to make me a martyr
to your party prejudices in this case. I recollect that was
done in the case of -the Duke of Newcastle and the people
of Newark, and I shall bring you before the House of
Commons."—(Hear, hear.)—So far, therefore, from pro-
tecting a good tenant and maintaining the purity of elec-
tion, they would be giving ti premium to a bad tenant to
retain possession of his landlord's property, and yet controul
and thwart his wishes whenever it might suit his prejudice
or iraprice to do so. While he alluded to this matter with
reference to its effects on the right of property, he begged
it to be understood that he did not see any material differs
ence, in application, between a Peer of the realm and any
great landed proprietor. The Hon. Gent. had rererred
them to a Resolutiou of the House ; but if a tenant owed
an obligation to a landlord he was bound to repay it; and
if the Hon. Gent. hoped, by any means he could devise,
to exclude the duty owed by the tenant to the landlord
from operating in the disposal of his vote, he was confi-
dent ire Would be disappointed—(Hear, hear)—and he,
(Mr. Peel) standing in his place in that House, was not
eiehained to avow that he hoped he would be disappointed.
—(Hear, hear.)—He thought that property, whatever
might be the nature or extent of the constitutional part
of the question, ought to have a due influence in the estate,
whether the possessor was a peer or a commoner ; and be
could not bring himself to believe that the resolution the
Hon. Gent. had alluded to was intended to exclude that
species of influence. In conclusion, the Right Hon.
(lent. observed, that he was not prepared to girt iris I'9le

for a Committee which never could
,properly determine the it would be difficult or impossible for artificers to
question at issue, indeptn lent of all the objections which get employment elsewhere. But the present opportu-
might be taken to its appointment.—(Hear, hear.) nity had been taken to do away with an abuse which
The petition was then brought tip and read. formerly existed, in permitting the men to carry ase,:y
Mr, P. THOMSON, in moving that it be referred to with them, eve!). evening when their work was done,
a Select Committee, should not, after the discussion the a great quantity of chips. It had been found that during
subject had already undergone, trespass fir any time on the latter part of the day, the men employed themselves
the House. He had heard but one word which could in- in making the chips which they afterwards were to cart y
duce him to think the moti.,n might he spared ; but on away as perquisites. Au allowance bad been substitut. d
consideration he did not think even that word would prove in lieu of this old perquisite, and sixpence a day was'
sufficient. The Noble Lord (Lowther) and the Right now granted to shipwright., and four pence or fivepence
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) bad assured the House that to artificers. The men had gratefully accepted this de;
the Government had no intention at present to renew the duction. Four hundred and fifty men had been discharged
Crown leases granted to the Duke of Newcastle. He from the body of artificers, and 79,000/. was saved on this
thanked them for the announcement, and rejoiced at it; expenditure under the head of Repairs of Ship.. Under
but it did not give any seeerity to the people of Newark. the head of Foreign Yards, there was an apparent increase
The present Government might be determined not to re- of 14,000/., but this was a mere transfer from other heads.
new the leases, but the Duke of Newcastle was at the head On the wages of men in ordinary there 'was a saving of
of a considerable party in the State—he might come into 40,000/. Under the head of Half Pay there was a saving
power, and, by means of that power, procure to himself a of 19,0001. a year. There was no promotion in any rank
grant of the leases which the present Government might except in the. proportion of one to three vacancies. Adini-
be inclined to withhold. The Right Hon. Gentleman rals on foreign stations might fill up vacancies, but they
said the Committee would be a committee appointed to could not fill up the chasms made by promoting inferior
inquire into motives. He (Mr. Thomson) would say, it officers to higher rank. If a Captain died, his place was
was a Committee to inquire into facts. It, as he thought, filled by the promotion of a Lieutenant; but that Lieu-
most truly it would prove these facts were correct, then tenant's vacancy was not to be supplied. Under the head
this House was bound to interfere—not to punish the of Superannuation there was a considerable apparent in-
Duke of Newcastle, however oppressive might have crease to the widows of officers, but this arose from the
been his conduct; not to shake the last election; but mode of making the provision. Formerly upon every
to prevent the renewal of leases which have proved ship's books were borne a number of fictitious names,
injurious to the properties of those who live under called Widows' Men, whose amount of wages and victuals
them, and which are calculated to support a violation was handed over to the Widows' Fund; but this was now
of the spirit of the Constitution.—(Hear, hear.) done away with, and the whole sum to the Fund was
The question to be tried was, he repeated, one voted direct. But the number of claimants had increased,
simply of facts ; and one of two results must follow for in this year the number of deaths had been three
from the inquiry into these facts : either the charges times as great as in any other year. In the charge
must be proved to be true, and a remedy applied to the for provisions a very great saving bad been effected, owing
evil; or they must be declared false, and the character of to the cheapness of the articles. He would call the
the Duke of Newcastle would then be relieved from impute- attention of the Committee to the extent of reductions in
dons which must continue to attach to it until that inquiry the last nine years, although the Honourable Member fur
took place. The Right Hon. Gent. said the leases were Montrose argued that they had made no deductions at all.
granted in 1806 ; but the fact was, that although the old In salaries alone, since 1821, there bad been a reduction of
lease expired in 1806, it was renewed as early as 1801. fourteen persons, with' salaries of 7000/, whilst in the
He had one word more to add en this measure. The Right Navy Pay branch there had been a reduction of twenty-
Pion. Gent. says the people of Newark had received little four persons, with a saving of salaries to the extent of
injury, because only seven were ejected. He should think 10,0001. Including the Dock-yards, there were not fewer
one too many; but the only reason for the number not being than 468 officers reduced, effecting a saving of 88,650/. in
greater was that a great many persons, through the fear of eight years. The reductions had been in the foreign yards
consequences, refrained from voting. The Right Hon. Gent. twenty-nine persons, and 13,000/. ; in the Victualling
had asked why the parties did not present an election petie Office 48 persons, and 8,5001. ; in the Victualling Yards
titan ? He could tell the House why they had not. It was 37 persons, and 5,280/. ; in the Medical Establishments
possible that menace and a number of indirect means might eight persons, and 3,600/. ; making in all 150,240/. If
be brought into operation, to influence the disposal of votes, the Committee considered that this was out of the Civil
although nothing direct could be effectually proved to the Establishment of the Navy, they would find that out of the
House. That was the reason why they did not petition. total amount of 450,0001., a reduction of one-third. He
In many cases, however, there was no need of menace, be. would now come to the question of the number of men in
cause the tenants had the example of the elections of 1786 the Navy. Last year the number voted was 30,000 for
and 1816 in their recollection, when numbers were dispos- the Naval Service alone. In the last autumn the situation
sessed of their holdings, because they presumed to give a of Europe rendered it expedient that this country should
vote contrary to the wishes of the Duke of Newcastle. The increase its Naval force in the Mediterranean, and three
Hon. Member having concluded, by expressing adetermina- large line-of-battle ships were fitted out and dispatched to
tion to pt., as the motion, the House divided— that station. The consequence was, that the total amount
For the Committee
Against it 194 in consequence of what had since taken place, that force
Majority
133 had been again reduced to 29,000 men, below which the
SUPPLY. average number of men could not be brought. The wages
On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Com- of the men were taken at the same rate as the last year.
mittee of Supply, He should now move a vote that 29,000 men should be
Sir J. GRAHAM, in consequence of an intimation that employed for the service of the year ending the Ist of Ja-
some reductions had been made in the salary of the Tree. nuary, 1831, including 9,000 marines.
surer of the Navy, withdrew his motion on that subject for Sir J. GRAHAM had listened with great attention to
the present, but reserved to himself the right to bring the the Hon. Baronet, but it did not appear to him that he
question before the House when they came to consider the had made out satisfactorily the extent of the reductions
amount of the vote to be granted for that department. he had stated. The Hon. Baronet bad stated that it was
Mr. HUME in connection with the subject of reduction the intention to maintain both the Treasurership and the
mentioned by the Hon. Baronet, thought that a fit oppor- Paymastersitip of the Navy. until some opportunity should
tunity to allude to the amount required for the collection occur of providing for the Paymaster, and this appeared
of the Customs and Excise. He believed it was nearly four to hint to be a distinct admission that both officers were not
millions; and as its expenditure was wholly under the necessary. The Treasurership of the Navy might have
patronage and cnntroul of Government, and beyond the been attached to some other officer of the Privy Council,
cognisance of the House, he thought the subject well worth and the entire sa'ary of the office might have been saved,
attention. as, by attaching the office of President of the Board of

NAVY ESTIMATES.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of
Supply.
Sir GEORGE CLERK should proceed to go through
the items of the Estimate, and explain as briefly as he
could the various reductions which had taken place in the
present Estimate as compared with that of last year.
With regard to the office of Treasurer of the N ivy, he had
now to announce to the House that the salary had been
reduced one thousand pounds a year, leaving it just one-
half of what it was in 1797—the year, to the standard of

Trade to the Mastership of the Mint, had proved that these
two offices might be discharged by one person. One Gen-
tleman (Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald) had proved that the duties
of the President of the Board of Trade, and the Treasurer
of the Navy might have been conducted together, and
therefore the Treasurership of the Navy might have been
referred to some other office, even the Woods and Forests,
and the whole salary of the Treasurer of the Navy might
have beers saved. This, however, was not the moment for
going at any length into the question, and all that he should
do was, to point out the view he took of it, after a hasty
consideration of what had fallen from the Hon. Baronet.
Having stated the view he was disposed to take of the
question, he should merely add, that if, after consulting his
friends, and taking the opinions of other Members, he
should fine that he was likely to be supported, he should-
think it his duty to move his resolution respecting the
Treasurership of the Navy, in the subsequent passage of
the vote through through the House.
Mr. HUME complained that the lion. Bart., though he
had gone into the items, had not stated the aggregate amount
of this year's vote.
Sir G. CLERK said, that the aggregate amount would
be 5,595,000/., which would show a saving in wages and
victuals of 64,0001. and a total saving of 282,9391.
Mr. HUME thought the whole Establishment most ex-
traordinary, and, considering the ch:rnges that had been
made, the estimates appeared to him nearly the same as last
year, and the deductions were upon the large items. The
Hon. Bart. had said that deductions had taken place since
the war, but he (Mr. Hume) asked, were they not to ex-
pect deductions as soon as the country was in a state of
peace ? Notwithstanding the great credit which Alinisters
took to themselves for their economy, the Home was called
upon to vote estimates exceeding, by 400,000/., that which
was voted in 1821 and in 1822. They would never bate
down the 6,000,0001. of pensions, unless they came to a
resolution of allowing no pensions at all except to disabled
persons. Could the antipathy of all classes to the system
of pensions be wondered at, when, in the paper he held in
his hand, there appeared such names as Dundas and Ba-
thurst palmed on the country for pensions of 5001. a year?
—(Hear, and cheere.)—Was not this enough to make the
poor rise and say, " No more of this—we are starving !"
Admiral Shield and Admiral Cunningham had double
pension's of 450/. anti 500/. each.
Sir G. CLERK—No, no.
Mr. HUME—" No, no ;" he could show the Hon.
Baronet that this was the ease.—(Here Mr. Hume read
the printed paper corroborating his' statement.)—He now
came to consider the vote in the Chairman's hands. In
his opinion Ministers had no reason to congratulate them-
selves on the reductions in these Estimates. As large a
sum was charged for the superintendants of the workmen
as for time workmen themselves. Nothing could be wore
extravagant. What he wished to ask was, whether we
were at peace or at war? Let that question be distinctly
answered, and he should understand what we were about.
In 1821 and 1822 the number of seamen and marines
voted for the service of the year was 21,000. In one
subsequent year 1,000 men were added, on the pretence
of the state of South America ; in another year another
1,000 men, on the ground of the Burmese war ; and
so the estimate went on increasing until 1827, when
it amounted to 30,000. It was then asserted that when
the causes of the increase had ceased it would be re-
duced. What prevented the estimate now from being
carried back to the state in which it was in 1821 and 1822 ?
Was there any thing in the condition of South America
to prevent it? Was there any Burmese war to prevent
it? In 1792 the whole number of men voted for the naval
service was only 16,471, including 4,000 marines, so that
the number of seamen was little more than 12,000. At
present the number proposed was 29,000, being 13,000
men more than in 1792 ; and yet let the Committee con-
sider what the situation of England was in 1792 with re-
gard to other naval powers, when compared with her si-
tuation at present. In 1792 the naval power of Fiance,
of Spain, of Holland, was much more formidable than at
present. The only naval power that had risen since that
period was the United States of America. According to
the opinion of a most competent judge whom he had con-
sulted on the subject, one thousand seamen and marines
would be amply sufficient for the West Indies (where wo
had now 2,347) ; 1,000 for South America ; 685 for the
Cape of Good Hope ; 765 for Africa ; 800 for North
America ; 6,750 for Home Service ; 2,672 for the
Blockade ; 600 for the Mediterranean, &c. &c. making in
the whole 20,750. Why not throw in another thousand,
and reduce the proposed number to that amount ? Why
(lid we keep up 5,000 more marines than were necessary .
The marines at present employed were 9,000 ; in fin Mer
times they were only 4,200. At 1( a-t a reduction of
4,000 might be made with great advantage; 'file expense
of the officers nearly amottnted to a third of the expense of
the roen ; the charge for the former being 71,0001.—that
for the latter, 245;000/. The pay of the superior officers of
the marines was enormous. That of a General was 1,7281. ;
that of a Lieut.-General was 1,303/. ; that of 'a Major-
General, 1,0371. Now as all these individuals were naval
officers, and had other appointments and eroctiumentA
he would ask why might not their pay as officers of
marines be redurTd ? houlti, be told that the corn-
iniesiona in question were given to meritorious persons ;
but he would repeat that those persons had other things to
depend upon. As to the officers of marines, prcmper,ly so
called, God knew that their promotion was very sthw, and
ilmat their advantaies were. Very limited. They appeared

which an Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) wished to reduce
all the establishments. This was a smaller sum than that
enjoyed by any person who ever held the office. It would
be recollected, when the subject was last under discuSsion,
that a motion had been made in 1826, to raise the salary
of the President of the Board of Trade to 5,0001. a year.
That proposition was rejected, and it was suggested that it
would be more expedient to give 2,0001. a year to the
Board of Trade, and td add to it the office of Treasurer of
the Navy. Great objections were also taken to that pro—
position, principally on the ground of the inefficient 'na-
ture of the services of the Treasurer of the Navy, but it
should 'Mao be recollected, that the proposition was
adopted on the recommendation of Mr. Tierney, a gentle-
man who, having held the office himself, was aware of the
important nature of its duties, and who was not 'very
likely to lend himself to any waste of the public money
in unnecessary offices. In the debate on that occasion
Mr. Tierney said, " he could by no means concur
with those who thought that the office of Trea-
surer of the Navy should be abolished. It was an
office of very old standing, of considerable public
importance, and of great personal responsibility to the
holder. He had held the office, and speaking from the
recollection of twenty-three years back, he could assure
the Committee it was by no means a sinecure." This
was the language of Mr. Tierney, and even the Member
for Montrose was so convinced of the importance of the
office, that he merely moved for an inquiry to ascertain
what alteration could be made in its salary and duties..._.
The office was; however, then united with that of Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade, as he had described ; and if
it had continued to be so, and if' they had proposed to
confer the same office lately held by the Right Hon. Gent.
(Mr. V. Fitzgerald) on some other person, no objection
would probably have been made. He was prepared now
to show that a considerable saving had been made in the
office within a very short period. In 1817, the Finance
Committee finding 5,000/. paid to the Treasurer of the
Navy, and only 2,0001. to the Paymaster of the Forces,
objected to the sum as too • large, and recommended a re-
duction. When Lord Goderich was appointad President
of the Board of Trade the salary of the Treasurer of the
Navy was accordingly reduced to 3,000/., and it was now
further reduced by 1,0001., being left at the same amount
as that paid to the Paymaster of the Forces. It was said
that the Treasurer of the Navy had no duties to perform,
except the payment of orders on the Navy Pay Office; but
the truth was, he had business to transact which must
occupy a great deal of the time of any man. He had to
take charge of and investigate the whole of the seamen's
wills, and to administer all powers of attorney, as well
as to perform many other duties of the same kind. There
were two Acts of Parliament that pressed much upon the
Treasurer of the Nary. By the first, the management of
Greenwich Hospital was imposed upon him, and it was
extremely necessary to have a responsible public officer
presiding over the payment of pensions. Last year an
Act of Parliament, the House would reatember, had com-
pletely altered the constitution of Greenwich Hospital.
It was now under a Commission,, at the head of which
was placed the Treasurer of the Navy as a Privy Coun-
cillor. The next Commissioner was the person who, for
the time being, was at the head of the Woods and Forests.
These two acted in this capacity without any salaries,
whilst the remaining three Commissioners received their
regular salaries. The scale of expenditure in this parti-
cular was still more necessary now thso in 1826. As
soon as an opportunity should occur of adequately provid-
ing for the Gallant Officer who new held the situation of
Paymaster of the Navy, it was the intention of Govern-
ment not to fill up the appointment, and thus a saving of
1,200/. a year would be effected in favour of the public.
Thus, by throwing upon the Treasurer of the Navy such
arduous duties, there would be an irmnediste Paving of
1,000/. a year, and a further saving of 1,200/. a year.
In the Admiralty Office, in the department of Widows'
Charity, the Secretaryship had been abolished, and
the duty of the office transferred to the Commis-
sioners of the Navy, whilst the constitution of the Navy
Office itself had undergane a change. The places of
two of the Commissioners of that Board were reduced.
In the establishments of the Dock-yards, in the salaries of
the Officers, there was a saving of 8,00 C!. compared to the
last year. This was owing to the reduction of Dlitford
yard, which was no longer a building yard, but 414
merely for the reception of old stoma. Ait arrangement
was making with respect to Plymouth Dock-yard, by
which it was hoped to effect a considerable saving, amount-
ing to between 10,0001. and 12,000!. a year. With
respect to the wages of artificers, the amount was leas than
the last year; 440,000/. was now charged for artificers,
but this included all persons employed in email craft and
navy transports, all of whose expenses were farirtierly
classed under the head of the Expenses of Ships in
Ordinvy. A reduction had been avoided by throw-
ins 4410 ye; of epploy at the present mopleut, wbgti

to be utterly neglected by Government, and the only prias
in their profession to which they might aspire were given
to naval Men, who had nothing to do with the marines.—
T se were all matters which demanded revision stud re-
duction. On the whole, he repeated his conTicti,an that
the number of marines might be advantageously reduced
by 4,000 men. Ile c“old show from the evidence of an
Hon. and Gallant Officer opposite to him, given before the
Finance Committee, that the naval establishment in the
time of peace might be reduced to 21,000 or 22,000 men.
That number would be 6,000 more than we had in 1792,
and would be (Null to what see bad in 1921. He w,s
anxious to hear what reasons could be sssigned for not
reducing the number to that amount.—(Something was
arid across the table, which we (lid not hear.)---If his Mil•
jesty's Government were engaged in considering bow to
make further reductions, he would give them the oppor-
tunity of doing so, by merely moving as an amendment,
that the number of men proposed should be voted, t.ot
front the Ist of January, 1830, to the lit of January,
1831, but from the Ist of January, 1830, to the 30th of
June, 1830.

Sir G. COCKBURN, as his evidence had been referred
to by the Hon. 'Wernher (Mr. Hume) beggefl to Sae a few
words. The House must recollect that the Hon. Member
had sai I the same thing last year ; and he (Sir G. Cork-
burn) had said then, as he said now, that it was an unfair
mode of stating that evidence. The question put to him
wzv, what would be a proper peace establishment for the
Navy ? He had replied, that it was almost impossible to
give an answer to the question, for it depended upon ►o
many circumstances. He was then pressed ay an Hon.
Member on the Committee to say something on the sub-
ject. He (Sir G. Cockburn) then said, he must know the
exact state of things ; that if we were at perfect peace
without the slightest prospect or chance of war, and
nothing interfering with our commerce or any chance of
it, he did not think we ought to have a man-of war on the
sea. The remark was, that that was not a proper thing ;
aml then, at the request of the Committee, he had stated
what be had thought was the lowest establishment for
each station. That was the manlier in which the evidence
had been drawn front him ; and he again said that it was
unfaii to use it as the Hon. Member had done.—(Hear.)
—Looking around, the Committee could not consider the
country in the State in' which his answer had supposed it.
War had just closed between Rio Janeiro and Buenos
Ayres, which had interfered with our merchants, who
were still applying for a force, for the South American
station ; and although the Burmese war had indeed closed,
there were rising settlements in Ncw Holland. With re-
spect to doing away with half of our marine force, he (Sir
G. Cockburn) had never argued that the number of marines
now voted was absolutely required. But it was a most
valuable corps, and it was desirable to have such a body
ready for duty in case of war, instead of taking raw inen,
who would he sea-sick.

Sir G. WARRENDER, even on the principle of eco•
nomy, could not concur with the Hon. Member (Mr.
Hume) in his proposition for reducing the marines, al-
though there were other points in the Estimates on which
he should agree with him in voting for a reduction. With
respect to the Treasurership of the Navy, after a resolution
pissed by the House on the 12th of February, that it is
the opinion of this House, that in all the establishments of
the country, civil and military, every saving ought to be
made that can be effected," he had not expected to see
that office separated from other duties, for the first time,
when a new writ was moved for Radnor a few days after.
When he (Sir George Warrender) first came to the House,
the Treasurership of the Navy was filled by Mr. Rose,
who, though he disbursed 19,000,0001. of the public mo-
ney, executed also the office of Vice-President of the
Board of Trade; and any person recollecting that period,
must remember the activity of Mr. Rose. The duties of
these two offices might easily be executed by one individual
with a saving of 3,0001. to the country. He (Sir G.
Warrender) concurred with the Hon. Member (Mr.
Hume) in what he said with respect to the pensions to
young gentlemen after three or four years' service. With
respect to a young friend of his (Mr. Dundas), he had
been an efficient member of the Navy Board, and it was
proper he sheu!d be restored on a vacancy. But with re-
spect to Commissioners Shield and Cunningham, they had
been long in the public service, and no pensions were more
properly bestowed. With respect to the vote before the
Committee, he was of opinion that, on grounds of eco-
nomy, and on all the other grounds assigned by the Gallant
Officer (Sir. G. Cockburn), it was a wise measure to main-
tain a large proportion of marines.
Mr. LABOUCHERE could not go so far as the Hon.
Member (Mr. Hume) in contending that no pensions
should be granted to public servants. He was not sur-
prised at the proposition, considering the principles acted
on by the Government ; but he could not join hina in
The lion. Member concluded by expressing his intention
to support the amendment of the Hon. Member fur
Aberdeen.

Mr. MABERLY thought his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Aberdeen fully justified in the motion be had pro-
posed, as to the period for which the grants were to be
voted. When we came to deal with numbers, it belonged
to Ministers to say in what state the country was,—whe-
ther we were at war or peace. As yet, we had had no-.
thing but an incidental statement from the gallant officer
opposite, who was not a responsible person in such mat-
ters ; no Cabinet Minister had made any statement as to
what wis the real situation of the country ; yet we were
called upon to vote 29,000 seatnen and marines, in the ab-
sence of all information calculated to enable us to judge of
the number actually necessary. His Hon. Friend only
pledged the House by his amendment to suspend its vote
till some Cabinet Minister came down and made out a case
calling for a particular amount of force. In 1817 the
Finance Committee recommended 19,000 seamen and
marines as a proper force : what were the circumstances
which required that 10,000 more should now be kept tip ?
lion. Gent'emen opposite could not make out that more
than 3,000 or 4,000 additional men were necessary be-
yond the estimate of 1817. Allowing the correc'nese of
their reasoning, that addition to the force of 1817 would
make 23,000, yet we were asked to-night to vote 29,000
men. if we talked of marines, the Gallant Officer oppo-
site said, " Oh, we must have marines, for soldiers will
be se t-sick and useless." Well, if Government chose to
keep up a large force of marines, why not make them more
available to the army and reduce the army? No doubt
we should be told that the numbers now proposed were
necessary; but he asked why require 10,000 men more
than were recommended by the Finance Committee of
1S;7? Till that question was answered, he should be
justified in voting for a reduction in the force now pro-
posed ; but without going so far he supported his Hon.
Friend's amendment, which he considered an extremely
proper one.

Mr. PEEL always felt pleasure in communicating any,
information he could, consistently with the proper per-
formance of his public duty as a Minister of the Crown.
The Hon. Gent, who had just sat down wished Govern-
ment to make out a case for the increase in the number of
men in the naval service in 1830, as compared with the
number in 1817. It would he admitted that it might not
be consistent with the interests of the country for Ministers
to state in detail the particular reasons of a given increase
in a particular year. Was it not obvious that there might
exist reasons connected with our naval power, which would
justify an increase in that department, and at the same
time dictate silence on the subject? However, so far as
his daty permitted, he would give the information required,
The Hon. Member took 1817, and asked why in 1830
should our naval force amount to 29,000 men, when in
1817 it was fixed at 19,000 ? This question imposed
upon Government the task of accounting far an increase of
10,000 men. In 1830 we had 3,000 marines more than
in 1817. The House had discussed the policy of keeping
up all effective Marine establishment, and it appeared to be
admitted that there was something so peculiar in the con-
stitution and character of that force, that it was necessary
to keep it up its present state, if we wished to have an
effective Marine.—(Hear, hear )—The Marines gt present
amounted to 9,000 men, of whom 4,500 were afloat, and
4,500 on shore. These divisions alternately replaced each
other, and thus became qualified for the full discharge of
the peculiar duties of a Marine force. The 4,500 who re-
mained at home were occupied in mixed naval and mi-
litary duties; and it appeared that even those who were.
ashore were only two nights out of three in bed: oo that
thtic duties were not trifling. He felt the lull force of
observing principles of economy i‘n tine of peace as far as ,
was consistent with the pul,lic safety; Uut ht aslte4
whether we weie got adopting a large. anit txkm erunomy,
and attiling tP, the chapces of contigued panes, by keeping
the naval power of the ciagntry in a good and effective
state?—Heart hgar.„),,,Without saying any thing of the
jealousy of other powers, and giving them full credit for
peaceful intentions, he declared his opinion that the
etrnCa
sciousness of a country's' strength would be to 3;ixala and
opponents the best incentive to neacc,-,-.-(fTear.)—We
Were called upon to adopt a, decidea tone in our foreign
so, except we were prepared to
ar
n
necessary. If
aapcot:acy,es.:lyi \v,s.:s:iottnel
v\i(if:;n:t .e'evssena necessary ennacrae.v.
and
be
pre-
paredouatry were callc',l, ukon suddenly to build and man
inte-
ships fee war, it was. admitted that two years !mud pass,
ariacncie
to
of
iteoakcee,vwigeoarhooouslddle;Lial:.ti(lis
(and those the most valuable and invellaat years in a
naval contest,) before she
with effect floin sole to defend het self
'4.govous adversary, or to attack an
mo,nev4; wisll advantage.--(Cheere.)—Under the bea4