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

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);

hemr.THreoalsmuer:r);
wthhoeseMdeumtibees:
wfohreoßleirshcoip;isl
aoCnradsitnlleia:lit(arlyAyir,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,
and 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
well 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 13ERCEVAL 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
stendoffi?eelF•i wrsnto,
as filledt a
tihte.
s Lord Mul-
t-
dig the,
l thirty years :
‘tvhiet
hdsetcains it: of the
rleicooum inse uponen,iati
ot
nh e
osfu htjleicet
Finance
al
r,8c2,8,n
in-
accurate Com-
mittee. That Committee had come to an unfair and
conclusion when they inferred that the office was
unnecessary, beciuse it was of such a nature as, to admit at
I:Bcertain
roas rnt diGmdeLiendsoerrodta duringfi;:t.ll oileni raaati:es hertnandeereelreally
yt
itiz,ll
never absented themselves at
' all ; 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 contended that the
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.—selnne
tmhoetipvreesseonfttin°ssetanbycewthhemy wsueerhe wsaastisfigeivdenthat
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-