The Sun.
London, England, 1822-03-23 00:00:00

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.

Oirthe motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCII E QUER,
that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. HUME suggested the expediency of proceeding with
some of the Bills before the House in the early part of the
evening, and thought it might be well not to devote the whole
night to Supply.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER briefly ex-
plained the course which, in his judgment, it would be most
convenient to take with the Superannuation Bill, and said that it
was not intended to press the Receiver General's Bill at a late
hour of the night.
Mr. BENNET had intended, when the report of the Com-
mittee of Supply was brought up on the preceding day, to have
objected to the amount of the salaries of the first Lord of the
Admiralty; and to that of the Secretary. Having been absent
when the report was brought up, he could not do so now, but
he took this opportunity of protesting against their present
amount.

The House then resolved itself into the Committee.
NAVY ESTIMATES.

Sir J. OSBORN reminded the Committee, that the resolu-
tion he had now to propose was. that which had been brought
forward on a former night. He moved the following grant :
For defraying the expence of improving the Dock-yards for
the year 1822, 154,2001.
Mr. HUME thought no more money ought to be voted for
the works now in progress, till information had been obtained
that should prove the propriety of their being continued. It
would be in the recollection of the House,/that in the year
1814, when the great works at Sheerness Dock-yard were be-
gun,
the estimate of the whole expence was 844,9001: Now
after an expence of 1,355,0001. had „already been incurred,
being half a million over the original estimate, and exclusive
of the vote called for in the present year, they were given to
understand that the sunk of 618,0001. would be wanting to com-
plete the undertaking, making with the 56,0001. now required
for Sheerness a total exceeding2,ooo,oool. Under these circum-
stances, he objected to a further vote till some inquiry had
taken place. When the work was begun, there were doubts
which would be the better place, Purfieet or Sheerness. The
latter had been preferred, but it should lie remembered that
we had means now at our command, of.. which we were not
then possessed, and that by means of steam-boats, ships of the
line could now be carried up and down the river without diffi-
culty. He had been informed that at Purfleet or Northfieet
the works required could haVe been made and carried to any
depth with safety. At Sheerness, accident after.accident bad
occurred, and in January, 1820, a large part of what had been
done had been carried away by an irruption of the sea, and the
damage thus done was not repaired but at a great expence to
the country. He had seen a statement put forth, that if the
works at Sheerness were to be discontinued, and a similar un-
dertaking entered upon elsewhere, the new one migTit be com-
pletely executed for a smaller sum than would be necessary to
finish that which was now advancing towards completion. At
present he believed it was doubtful whether the works which
had cost the country so much could be finished at alt ; and
reduced as our Navy was now from what it had been when
this plan was formed, and possessing the means to which he
had before alluded, which we had not in 1814. it was doUbtful
whether the works were now necessary. He then would pro-
pose to diminish the amount of the grant now before them, in-
tending afterwards to move for a Committee to inquire into the
state of le case, and determine-whether or not it would be pro-
per to proceed. He should therefore call on the. Committee to
take 50,0001., on account of Sheerness, from the sum named
in the r.•solution. In the vote for this year, he found a consi-
derabl: sum taken from the usual grant for the Breakwater in
Plymouth Sound.
Sir J. YORKE suggested that it would be more regular to
take the sense of the House, in the first instance, as to the re-
-tion which the Hon. Gentleman intended to propose with
..pect to the grant for Sheerness. •
Mr. HUME said that he could not pursue that course, 'be-
eaune.there'was but one vote for Sheerness and Plymouth. In
the las'. year there was a large vote for Plymouth ; for the pre-
sent year the vote was small—it was but 25,0001. He thought
it would be a better course to vote a large syin, so that the
works might be completed in a shorter time ; by that means

the expence of keeping up a large establishment for superin-
tending these works'would be avoided. The expence of that
establishment stood at 6,4001. a-year •it would, therefore, he
submitted, be better, by passing a large grant, to have the
work completed in two years, than by passing small grants to
keep it going on for ten years ; for the longer the work was in
hands, the longer, of course, would the country be saddled with
the expend of the superintending establishment. The Hon.
Gentleman next called the attention of the House to the very
great expence attending the different dock-yards. Sinee the
year 1811, the expence amounted to 4,500,0001. ; and if the
present Estimates were carried, it would exceed five millions.
Having expended to much, they would pause before they pro-
ceeded farther, whether, in the embarrassed state of the Fi-
nances of the country, it would be wise to lay out additional
sums of money, on works that might ultimately turn out to be
useless ? The Hon. Gentleman, after repeating his wish for
the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of the
works at Sheerness, and the propriety of proceeding any fur-
ther with the same, concluded by moving as an Amendment,
that a sum of 104,0001. should be substituted for the sum of
154,0001.
Sir JOHN OSBORN said that the grant now asked for was
necessary ; nor could he for a moment think that the statement
of the Hon. Gentleman would prevent the House from-agree-
ing to the vote. Of the sum stated in the grant, 50,0001. were
all that was necessary for the new works-15,0001. of which
were for completing the smithery; the remainder of the grant
was to be expended on the different yards. With respect to
the works at the Breakwater, he could not agree with the Hon.
Gentleman as to the propriety of the course which he sug-
gested. The Hon. Gentleman, by means of large grants,
would wish to have the works completed in two or three years.
He was convinced that if that course were followed, it would
occasion, not a saving, but an increase of expence.
Sir J. YORKE contended, that the Works at Sheerness were
undertaken under the immediate direction of most able and ex-
perienced men. He had only to mention the names of Mr.
Watt, Mr. Hudder, and Mr. Jessop. The work, notwith-
standing the observations that had been made, would stand' the
test of severe criticism. Of this expenditure it was to be ob-
served, that every shilling was spent in the country, and in
,some way or other found its way back into the Exchequer; and
the Honourable Member for Aberdeen should recollect, that
his constituents were not a little benefitted, as the Aberdeen
granite was much employed.—(a laugh.)—When they recol-
lected the various- instances of unprofitable expenditure—the -
twenty millions spent in St. Domingo—the twenty millions lost
in the Austrian loan—(hear, hear !)—when they cast their eyes
to the course of the Medway, and observed a certain hill, on
which a lazaretto was erected, at an expence of one million, of
which not a vestige remained, the whole having been sold for
ten thousand pounds,he really thought thelion. Member had
pitched upon one of the least objectionable parts of the Mini-
sterial expenditure—(Here.)--Before the improvements were
undertaken, there was scarcely a dock in Sheerness and Chat-
ham fit for a ship of the line ; and as for Chatham, the river
below was so shoal and intricate, that even when ships_had been
repaired and were fit for sea, they had grounded on their
moorings and were obliged to be returned to Dock.—The
works were now completed, and the sum proposed was merely
to erect a wall to seperate the great basin from what was known
by the facetious name of Powder-monkey Bay, without which
it was supposed the water could not be let in without danger of
a blow up. It was true there had been eight accidents in the
course of the work, but none except one were at all serious.--
That accident had added 70001. or 80001. to the expence ; but
even on that occasion there was not the least settling of the
work.- The great basin had now 27 feet at the mouth, and
would now admit a first-rate with all her guns and stores. As
to Plymouth Breakwater, it had already been found to be of
the greatest service. He had had a letter from the Superin-
tendant of the works there, which stated,- that during the late
heavy gales, there were seldom less than twenty sail of out-
ward bound merchantmen in the Sound ; and that Catwater
(a small harbour within the Sound) was full of them ; and that
the whole were so secure, that but for the culpable negligence
of the commander of a French vessel that went to pieces on
Drake's Island, not five pounds worth of damage was done.—
Every other anchorage on the coast was locked in an easterly
wind, but a vessel could always go in and out of the Sound.
Mr. RENNET trusted that the Gentlemen who were so
learned in these matters, were more accurate in their estimate of
the utility of the Sheerness works than they had been as to their
expence. The estimate of their expence originally wasloo,oool.
double that sum had already been expended, and before they
were finished, it was probable that the expense would turn
two millions. The establishments of the Dock-yards, in ge-
neral, were _very fit to be examined, and he should suggest
it for consideration, whether the establishments at Chatham
and Sheerness could both be necessary ? He was glad, how-
ever' to hear that one part of the works had been completed,
and he hoped - that the rest would sot be commenced hastily ;
that is to say, without the fullest estimate before the House of
the expence.
Sir G. CLERK observed, that the work just begun had been
finished within the expence estimated ; but that the excess had
afterwards arisen by an alteration of the plan of the Docks,
which had been intended for third-rates, and were afterwards
enlarged to admit first-rates. It was to be recollected that the
estimated expense of the Arsenal at Nordifleet was ten millions,
and it was at the same time said, that it would be still necessary
to preserve the old works at Sheernms, which would have had
to be repaired at an expence of a million ; so that the compari-
son should be made between the two millions which might be
expended at Sheerness under the present plan, with the eleven
millions which would have been expended if the Northfleet Ar-
serial had been proceeded with.
Mr. BERN AL said that an expenditure which was neces-
sary might yet be excessive. As to the conduct of the works at
Sheerness there had been considerable doubts. But he wished
now more particularly to point out the case of the Bermudas,
which could not be under the immediate superintendance of the
Government. Pown to the last year inclusive, 253,0001. had
been expended there on the Arsenal, and the estimate of the ex-
pence to finish it was 290,0001.—50 large an expenditure, so
far from the immediate inspection of the Admiralty, could not
be too vigilantly watched, or we might be plunged in a gulf of
expense which it was impossible to fathom.
Sir G. COCKBURN said, the Admiralty had proceeded
with all possible caution, and had recently sent out Mr. Jessep
to report whether the best place had been pitched upon, who had
reported in the affirmative. The arsenal was finished, but the
anchorage was not occulted, and the sum which remained to be
expended was for a breakwater. Mr. Jessop, who had no in-
terest whatever in the matter, had made a careful estimate, and
though it was impossible to say that an estimate would prove
exactly correct, there was no reason to suppose that the expence
would be more or less.
After a few words from Sir I. COFFIN in favour of the
Works at Sheerness,
Mr. BRIGHT spoke strongly in favour of the Works at
Bermudas,_ as important for the protection of the West Indies.
Sir J.
_YORKE, Sir I. COFFINOIrId Sir G. COCKBURN,

explained.
Mi. HUME said, the explanation that had been given as to
the Works at Sheerness had been in some measure satisfactory.
As to the works at Bermudas, he thought it was hardly safe to
trust the judgment of a single engineer, _as it was known that
the late Mr. Rennie had been very widely mistaken in many
of the estimates of works that had been begun by his advice,
and if other opinions had been taken, the Caledonian Canal
would never have been undertaken. He had mentioned last
Session that there were very different opinions respecting the
works at Bermudas.

Sir„G. COCKBURN said, that it was to decide between
these conflicting opinions that Mr. Jessop had been sent out.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, the House would be satisfied that
a great degree of vigilance had been exercised, and he should
agree to vote the v(hole estimate. He hoped, ho;vever, the
Ministers would not hesitate in bringing forward any vote that
might be necessary for the completion of great national works.
They would ill understand the call for economy, which was so
powerful in the country, if they omitted any expenditure ne-
cessary to the security of the possessions of the country at home
or abroad.

The Amendment was withdrawn, and the original motion
agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES.

Lord PALMERSTON moved the following grants :
To cover the Charge for the Pay of General Officers in Great
Britain, not being Colonels of Regiments - £108,522
To cover the Pay of General Officers not being Co-
lonels of Regiments in Ireland , - - 1,903
To defray the Charges for Garrisons at home and
abroad - - - - - - - 28,894
Mr. HUME hoped many of the offices held by persons who
did not perform the duties of them would be abolished on
the deaths of those individuals. He did not think the charge
for garrisons ought to be so large, and unless he heard that
which induced him to 'change his opinion, he should submit a
motion to the Committee for deducting something from it.—
He particularly noticed the establishments in the islands of
Guernsey and Jersey, and the charge for the Militia, which he
understood was hardly called out oftener than once a year.
He also offered a few remarks on the taxes raised in Gibraltar,
and on the charge which it threw on these estimates. He wish-
ed to know if it could not be lessened. He thought a Grant
of 22,0091. more than ought to be demaded for Garrisons in
England.
Lord PALMERSTON stated the islands of Guernsey and
Jersey to throw no expense on this country beyond that for
the Staff, the remainder being paid out of the revenues of the
Islands. The Hon. Gentleman was misinformed with respect
to the Militia. Instead (of being called out but once a year,
it was called ont once a fortnight,. and the inspector had
reported them to be a most efficient body of men. With re-
spect to the charge for Gibraltar, it was less than formerly by

three or four thousand pounds. When asked, if some diminu-
tion of expence could notbe effected there, he did not feel him-
self at liberty to hold out any expectation of that kind. Some
offices in the garrisons, on the extinctions of the interest in
them, had not been filled up ; but with respect to the Gover-
nors, so far as his influence extended, he would endeavour to
prevail on the House not to diminish the number of such ap-
pointments. These had been considered the honourable re-
wards for military services--they had been bestowed in a way.
which the country must approve, and in the present holders of
them, they would recognise many of the most distinguished or-
naments of their country. These Offices had been approved by
successive Committees of that House, and therefore he did not
feel it to be his duty to propose that any of them should be
abolished.
Colonel GOSSETT explained the cause of a small increase
of 6951. which appeared in the present Resolutions.
Mr. R. SMITH remarked, there was a charge for clothing
the Militia.
Lord PALMERSTON briefly replied, but was not dis-
tinctly heard in the gallery.
Colonel GOSSETT said, the Guernsey Militia were clothed
at the public expense once in seven years.
Colonel DAVIES objected to Governments being kept up
merely to reward military worth ; wishing those who distin-
guished themselves to be duly requited for their services, he
thought that it would be better that they should receive that
reward at the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HUME could not receive the assertion of the Noble
Lord with respect to the Militia, unless he could say of
his own knowledge, that they had been called out oftener
than he, (Mr. Hume), had stated. He understood that the
Guernsey Militia had not been called out for six months.
The whole system of that islanli wanted revision. The people
must be the happiest in the world ; they paid no taxes to
any body, and they received all the protection that England
could give. He wished to know whence, and from whom, the
Governor and Lieutenant-Governor received their pay ?
Mr. GOSSET said, Lord Beresford had reported the mili-
tia to be a very different body of men. It was true that the
people of Guernsey paid no taxes, but in lieu of taxes they
had to maintain a militia 6,000 strong, whose pay did not cost
this country a single fraction.
Mr. G. BENNET said, that the question was, whether
the House would allow a certain number of offices which were
perfect sinecures, and of no use whatever ? It had been the
custom to refer to the characters of persons who held useless
offices, in order to' sustain them ; but they ought to look at the
utility of the offices themselves. He thought a Town Major
and Town Serjeant of no use, and that a Surgeon alone was
necessary.
Mr. W. SMITH said, that last year there was a Governor
of the Isle of Wight, who never held any other military ap-
pointment. The Governor of Dartmouth was also a Gentle-
man, formerly a Member of that House, who had no other mi.
litary connection whatever. He did not know to what extent
suchinstances might avail, but he held them to be improper.
Lord PAL3IERSTON said that it was quite true that the
late Governor of the Isle of Wight, the Earl of Malmesbury,
who held the reversion of a pension granted to his father for
eminent services rendered to the public, had never been in the
army. But the circumstances under which he held the Gover-
norship were, his having accepted .it upon giving up his life
interest in the pension. By that arrangement a considerable
saving had been effected, because the pension was 10001. a
year, and he believed the salary of the office to be not more
than eleven or twelve hundred. It was in contemplation to
abolish the situation, and he was not certain whether the Go-
vernorship of Dartmouth was not also to be reduced. He
was entirely at issue with what had fallen from the Honour-
able Gentlemen opposite, as to the unconstitutional doc-
trines which they had that night advanced upon the pro-
priety of making. Parliament the distributors of military re-
wards. The principle was most unconstitutional, and must
lead to the worst consequences. It had always been held,
that for preserving the just balance of the Constitution, -it
was necessary that the Crown should not only have the com-
mand of the Army, but the distribution of rewards and hon-
ours for exemplary services. He was quite convinced that if
ever Parliament should allow the arguments which had come
from the other side to be successful, and such power to be wrest-
ed from the Crown; that moment they would strike the death
blow of the Constitution. ,
Colonel DAVIES contended that the doctrine of the Noble
Lord would lead to the principle that Parliament should exer-
cise no controul over the public money. This was such a doc-
trine as he had never heard before, and hoped never to hear
again.
Mr. C. WYNN said, that if it was a new doctrine that the
Crown was the fountain of honour and the fountain of reward,
it was one which was to be found in all the most valuable
writers on the Constitution. He contended that Parliament
had never done more than to recommend the King to grant re-
wards ; and the moment it assumedla further power, the mo-
narchy would be at an end, and a republic would be established.
If the army were to look to that House, those who at first peti-
tioned might easily go a step further and command. If they
looked to the history of the country they would see how these
effects had been realised with regard to the Parliamentary army
in the reign of Charles the First. Another material objection
which he entertained towards the principle contended for was,
that it would lead to the most extravagant military expenditure
that had ever been known in the service. This would be the
consequence of the favour in which applicants to Parliament
were held, or other circumstances which naturally presented
themselves out of such, a state of things. They might see by,
the cases of private Claims that a rate of remuneration infinite-
ly higher than any yet known would be then established.
Colonel DAVIES and Mr. WYNN explained.
Mr. G. BENNET said, that it had never been argued that
the Crown was to be limited in its power of bestowing honours
or rewards.
Mr. HUME said, that his object was to see whether the
House would consent to cut down useless offices and sinecures,
and leave that juA and legitimate influence to the support of
the monarchy which it was the intention of the constitution
that it should possess. He had never heard, until within the
last week, that the keeping up of sinecures was necessary, to
the influence of the Crown. He would always maintain that
that Crown did not deserve to be supported, which could not
stand upon the legitimate influence to be derived from the
patronage of so vast an expenditure as that which was in-
curred by the Government of this country. He wished to
ask the Noble Lord, whether a Committee of that House had
not recommended the reduction of Fort William and Fort Au-
gustus ? He concluded by moving a reduction upon the esti-
mate of 12,3441.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that the Hon. Member had
asked him a question which he might have answered himself,
by taking the trouble of walking up stairs to the library. The
fact was, that the reduction of these forts was recommended,
but that it was afterwards found advisable to retain them.
Mr. It. SMITH was of opinion, that for all practical pur-
poses the House possessed.a due controul over the power of the
Crown. With regard to the proposed amendment, he could
not vote for general reductions of such a nature.
Mr. W. SMITH thought the Crown was more properly the
fountain of honour than of reward.
A short conversation then ensued, in which
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed,
that the two forts which had been alluded to were at one time
intended to be reduced, but that they were held to be of some
impottance by the Master of the Ordnance, and in conse-
quence of that the subject had been left open to further consi-
deration.
Mr. HUME mentioned the offices and charges which he had
erased as being useless and complete sinecures. There was the
garrisoning of the Cape of Good Hope, which he had struck
out, as the colony was able to pay for itself, and the gover-
nors and Deputy Governors of Hull, Chester, and other
places, at which these officers were not known. Their salaries
amounted to the sum he_ proposed to reduce.
The Committee then divided—

For the Amendment - - - 21
Against it - - 80
Majority for the Resolution - —59
The next resolution was for a sum of 137,2971. to be granted
for the full pax of unattached officers-of the army.
Mr. HUME called the attention of the Committee to what
he conceived to be a great abuse in, this part of the service. A
new system hid been introduced by the Noble Lord, by which
Officers were appointed to the Veteran Corps who had scarcely
served at all, and then immediately afterwards placed on full
pay. There were 247 Officers who had been thus transferred,
and the effect was, that as soon as the Veteran Corps were dis-
banded, they retired upon full pay. The consequence which
followed from this course was, that 13,8701. a-year was saddled
upon the public for the life of these Officers. He conceived
that these appointments were against the Act, inasmuch as it
was expressly provided that no person should be allowed to re-
tire to the Veteran Corps until disabled from actual service.
He could instance many cases where these appointments had
taken place with scarcely any service. There was one Officer
named Pritchard, who, although he had been in four services,
had only seen one year of active service in the waggon train.
He remained from 1797 upon half-pay until 1821, when he was
appointed to the Veteran Corps. Every one of these indivi.
duals ought to be put back upon half-pay, and he should there-
fore move a reduction of 13,8701., being the amount of the
difference.
Lord PALMERSTON said, the House would be aware that
the ground upon which the disbanded Officers of the Veteran
Battalions were allowed full pay was, that they were com-
pelled to forego all promotion in the army. As a compensa-
tion for this disadvantage, they were allowed the full pay
of their rank. It should be borne in mind, that the dif-
ference of half and full pay in most ranks, was not as two
to four, but as two to three. The Honourable Member

had mistaken the meaning of the Act, when he conceived
it necessary that an officer shoulel be disabled before he could'
be eligible to an appointment in the veteran corps. If an offi-
cer claimed to be placed upon the retired list, then it was re-
quired that he should produce medical certificates of disability.
But the two cases were most distinctly different. With regard
to the case of Mr. Pritchard, he had rendered material service
to the army in Flanders, in 1795, where he then resided. Ow-
ing to the part he took he was afterwards obliged to fly his
dwelling, and his property was confiscated. He was then ap.
pointed to the waggon tram, and afterwards retired upon half-
pay up to 1821, at which period the Commander-in-Chief ap-
pointed him to the veteran battalion, as a compensation for his
losses and services.

Mr. HUME said, there was not only one case but many
which he could instance, of improper appointments of this na-
ture. If what the Noble Lord said with regard to the case of
Mr. Pritchard were correct, it appeared that he had been used
very ill in not being compensated at an earlier date.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that the Hon. Member first
complained that Mr. Pritchard had been used too well and
then that he had not been treated well enough. It reminded
him of the controversy upon the digitalis between the physi-
cians and the biographer of a great man. The physicians were
accused by this Gentleman of having killed their patient by
givin& him digitalis. They maintained, however, that :hey
had given him no digitalis. " Then," replied the biographer,
" why didn't you give him digitalis ?" The Hon. Member's
case appeared to him to be exactly parallel.
Mr. HUME shortly explained; and after an observation
from a Member and Lord PALMERSTON, the Resolution was
carried. _ _

A vote of 7,9371., for the full pay of retired Officers in Ire-
land was then agreed to unanimously.
The next Resolution proposed was for granting the sum of
824,3931.95. for the half-pay and military allowances.
A few observations upon the subject of the relations of
June, 1814, passed between Colonel DAviEs and Lord PAL-
MERSTON.

Mr. HUME begged the attention of the Committee to the
Report of the Finance Committee of 1817, upon the subject of
the present vote. They found the half-pay of that year to
amount to six hundred and forty-seven thousand pounds, and
thought that it might be reduced in years to come, 5 or 7 per
cent. Instead of that, it had been progressively increasing year
by year, until it had arrived at the sum now proposed.—(Hear,
hear.)—He was aware that the reason he should have given
for the increase was, that many had been put upon full pay.—
Ile was willing to give the Noble Lord credit for having filled
up more vacancies from the half-pay this year than upon any
former one; but still he thought he had not carried the principle
far enough. He only differed with him in the degree, and if
the Noble Lord would continue to act upon it, the country and
the service would be satisfied with that part of his system.
There was a measure of finance connected with this subject,
which he was anxious to suggest. When Officers retired from
the service, instead of paying them in annuities at 13 or 14 per
cent. let them be paid off altogether with money borrowed at
3 per cent. and a great saving might be created. He thought
officers of the army ought not to be allowed to retire on half-
pay until they had served a certain time. • Naval officers
could not retire upon half-pay until after six years service.—
He trusted Government would attend to this subject, or he
should, bring it substantively before the House.
Sir H. HARDINGE said, that however frequently he dif-
fered from the opinion of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen in
military matters, he perfectly agreed with him in respect to
the wisdom of taking officers from the half-pay list to active
service. There was a statement of that Honourable Member to
which he was desirous of calling the attention of the House.—
It was one which he had repeatedly made in that House and
elsewhere, and particularly at the end of the last Session,
when he moved an Address to the Crown, requesting a third
investigation into all the departments of the State, and more
especially in the military department. It was also repeat-
ed at Hereford and at various county and other meetings.
This statement was, that during a period of five years, there
had been in the army 2,553 appointments—(" promotions,"
from Mr.Hume.)--Well,promotions ; and that if these had been
made from the half-pay list, there would have been a saving of
200,0001. annually to the country, and of two millions and a
half eventually, allowing the annuities to continue twelve
years. He was surprised at the largeness of this number, and
was consequently led to examine into it, when he found that so
far from their having been 2,553 appointments-4" promotions"
from Mr. 'Hume)— ' promotions the Hon. Member now called
them, but he would shew that he made his calculations upon
appointments ; but' the whole number of actual vacancies
which occurred in the five years was 663.—(Hear, hear, hear !)1
—So that he had actually overstatedl,B9o in the number of ap-1
pointments, and 1,800,0001. in the saving which would have
arisen by filling them up from the half-pay list.--plear, hear !)
—He knew it was not easy to make calculations in figures ap-
pear clear in a discussion of that sort, but with the permission
of the House, he would explain how the Hon. Member had com-
mitted a gross error, which was made up of the most inconceiv-
able collection of errors altogether that ever any one man com-
mitted. He had made his calculations upon this principle :
If a Lieutenant-Colonel retired, his rank was filled by a Major,
the Majority by a Captain, the Captain's by a Lieutenant, ands
the Lieutenant's by an Ensign. This of course was only one
vacancy to be filled from the half-pay : but strange to say, the
Hon. Member had taken and calculated upon five, and thus
he made his over-statement of 1890 in numbers, and to over-
state 1,800,0001. in expense.--(Cheers.)—And this too he had
stated openly in the face of the country—he had placed it upon
the Journals of that House, and stated it at Hereford, and in
almost all the public meetings which had taken place in this
country.—(Cheers.)--The effect .of this must have been to pre-
judice a great portion of the people against the manner in which
the Army is administered, and against the valuable services
of the Commander in Chief. The actual number of appoint-
ments in the specified time he had found to be as follows :-31
Lieut.-Colonels, 34 Majors, 140 Captains, 297 Lieutenants,
and 161 Ensigns and Comets, making in the whole 663. This
error of the Hon. Member was a sufficient test of his general
mode of calculation. He thought it very invidious to endea-
vour to place the Commander in Chief in such a point of
view. With respect to the Half-pay List, there were but
two modes of relieving it, by either deaths or casualties.--
There were 600 reductions last year, and the whole which
could be reduced so as to bring in an actual saving to the pub-
lic, was about 30 Commissions ; was it, he asked, advisable
tointerfere with the Half-pay List, for the value of 30 Com-
missions; to take away hope and -honourable ambition, and
disgust the army.?—(llear, hear !)—What substantial saving
would there be in taking away from the Commander in Chief
a fair source of patronage,: which in point of fact was a part
of the constitutional influence of the Crown ?—( Hear.)
Mr. HUME said he had not expressed any wish to take from
the Crown the power of appointing officers. All that he con-
tended for was, that a reduction of these objectionable ap-
pointments would be a real service to the army. He admitted
that the Hon. and Gallant Officer had shewn that he (Mr. H.)
had made a mistake in his statement upon a former occasion.—
(Hear, hear, hear !)--But he submitted that it was the only
mistake, in point of statement, he had ever committed in that
House.—(Cheers and laughter.)—He had discovered the mis-
take afterwards, and mentioned it to his Hon. Friend the 31em-
berfor Shrewsbury, who recommended him to correct the mis-
take the first favourable opportunity, and this he had resolved
to do. With respect to the Hon. and Gallant Member's re-
marks upon County Meetings, he begged to say, that to the
best of his recollection he had attended but one County Meet-
ing since the time of his making that statement. If Hon.
Alembers would look at the number of calculations and state-
ments he had brought before the House, it would be matter of
Surprise that they were generally so correct. He thought if one
in three were accurate to the letter, it was as much as could be
fairly expected ; but he was persuaded that the Hon. Members
opposite would sleep soundly now they had discovered one mis-
take.—(Hea ,r hear !)
Lord PALMERSTON said it appeared the Hon. Mem-
ber's calculations and statements were made upon the-prin-
ciple adopted in venturing a smuggler's cargo. If -one in
were safe, there was still a profit.—(A laugh.)—The mis-
take of the Hon. Member had now been admitted, but the
Hon. Member, though he had discovered it, could sleep upon
it at least until December last ; and had then availed himself
of the generosity of the worthy citizens of Hereford ; their
generous liquor, and their handsome vase. Surely, the Hon.
Member would now return it.--(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)—
The mistake of the Hon. Member was, however, not one of
arithmetic Merely ; it was one of reasoning, and that reason-
ing, too,' upon documents in his own possession. The Hon.
Member had called for a Return, distinguishing Commissions
purchased from those not purchased ; and he, therefore, must
have seen the number and distinction of promotions. In 1812,
the Half-pay List had become so reduced, that an Act of Par-
liament was passed to authorise the putting Officers pn half-
pay without a previous exchange. In the year 1812, 2224 had
been put on the'list, in consequence of this Act; and the total
on the list, in the year 1816, including exchanges, was 4661.
Since 1816, the number of applications of persons on the
list to be called into service was 3600 ' and of these 2347
had been gradually called. This sheaved that the applica-
tions had not been neglected.—(Hear, hear, hear !)—The ap-
pointments by purchase should, he conceived,. be placed en-
tirely out of the question ; for the Commander-in-Chief had no
power over an Officer's property in his Commission. He
trusted the Houle would see that the Commander-in-Chief had
paid every attention to the half-pay list. The total of the
number of first commissions in the year 1821 was 209 ; of these
107 had been purchased; 34 had been given on the recommend-
ation of Officers who had claims on the Army ; .20 on the re-
commendation of the Marquis of Has'tings„ as 'Governor-Ge-
neral of India; 25 on that of Gentlemen in Civil Departments,
and' 23 had been taken from the Half-pay List. The twci last

were the remaining aointments occasioned by patronage
mid it was a demonsUnble fact,,,that the public had sustained
no loss by the exchange.
After a few observations from Colonel DAVIES,
Mr. BENNET said his Hon. Friend had certainly men-
tioned the mistake in question to him ; and he had recommend-
ed him to set himself right in the House on the subject. The
Hon. Members opposite were certainly welcome to make the
most of the mistake. They reminded him of the Lady in the
" School for Scandal," who appeared to be rejoiced at the dis-
covery of errors in others from which she thought she was free
herself. '
Sir H. HARDINGE explained.
Mr. T. WILSON concurred in the Hon. Member's sugges-
tion for paying off the Officers on the half-pay list, and saving
14 per cent.
The Resolution was then agreed to.
The following sums were then voted, viz.:—
For Half-pay in respect of the Forces in Ireland - V 4,764
For Allowances to reduced Officers - - - 60,193:
On the question for voting 114,8701. for Half-pay of reduced'
Foreign Officers in the English service, their Widows, and
Orphans,
Colonel DAVIES said, that an English Officer, on receiving,
his halfpay, was compelled to sign a certificate, verified by
affidavit, that he held no military situation under any foreign
power. This regulation was enforced by the Foreign Enlist-
ment Bill, which deprived Officers of their commissions if they
entered into military service against the provisions of the Bill.
But Foreigners in this respect had an advantage' over English -
men ; for there were many instances of the former holding
commissions under this Government while they were in foreign
service. There was one case of an officer who held an English
commission, and was at the same time a Sub-Prefect of France.
The Gallant Colonel here read a letter from an English Officer
in France stating that two Foreign Officers in military ser-
vice abroad had been allowed to draw their half-pay under
their English commissions. He thought some regulation,
should be adopted to prevent this. A certificate from the Go-
vernment under which the Officer resided might answer the
purpose.
Lord PALMERSTON said. every possible attention was
paid to prevent the practice alluded to. If the Gallant Officer-
would give him the names of the two individuals, he would
inquire into the circumstance, and should the statement prove,
correct, they would deserve the punishment which they cer-
tainly would receive. Similar instances had been mentioned
to him ' • but, on inquiry, he had always found that the officers
alluded to had not drawn their half-pay. The German Legion
were paid under an Act of Parliament passed to recompense
their services, and their case therefore stood on different
grounds.
Col. DAVIES said that his suggestion was for a regulation
to prevent the abuse.
Sir C. LONG said there could be no better regulation than
calling for the affidavit of the officer. Statements similar to
that of the Gallant Member had sometimes been made to him;
but on inquiry he had always found them incorrect.
Sir H. HARDINGE said he had himself applied ineffectu-
ally, on behalf of a foreign officer, for a relaxation of the rule.
Mr. HUME wished to know why the German Legion re.
ceived half-pay, in addition to their full pay, in foreign service ?
Lord PALMERSTON said, he had already stated they re-
ceived it under an Act of Parliament passed for rewarding
their services in the Peninsula. Half-pay was considered as
much a retaining fee for future, as a reward for past services.
Colonel Davits and Lord PALMERSTON explained. -
Mr. HUME said, that as it appeared from the Noble Lord
that half-pay was a retaining fee for future services, he called
upon that Noble Lord to make some regulation respecting the
Clergymen who had found their way into the army as officers.
No return had been made of the number of these officers, ale
though the House had made an order on the subject. He con-
ceived that the order could be complied with, by calling upon
officers to add to the usual statement a declaration that they
were not in holy orders.
Lord PALMERSTON said, he had stated that the half-pay
was of a mixed nature—for services partly prospective and
partly retrospective.
Sir C. LONG said it was impossible to make the Return
alluded to by the Hon. Member ; for he had no right, as Pay-
master, to call upon any officer to declare whether or not he
was in orders. The officer might refuse to answer the ques-
tion. He did not believe there were more than twenty such
officers, though the subject was a good topic for a speech at a
ptiblic meeting.
Mr. HUSIE said there should have been a clause inserted
in the Mutiny Act, giving power to call for the declaratiOn in
question.
Sir C. LONG said, -that if the Hon. Member thought so he
might have proposed the clause himself.
Mr. GOULBURN said, the calling for such a. declaration-
at present would be a tyrannical as well as an illegal act. It '
was compelling a man to disclose his resources, without any t
law to warrant the compulsion. ,
Lord NORMANBY said,he hoped the subject would be
attended to on the passing of the next Mutiny Bill.
GOULBURN said, it would be better to pass a Bill to
prevent Bishops from ordaining officers, as there was no law
to prevent a Clergyman from becoming an officer in the army.
—(A laugh.)
After ,a conversation between Mr. HuSIE, Mr. GOULBERN,
and Lord PALMERSTON, the Resolution was agreed to.
The following Resolutions were then agreed to without any
material observation, viz. :-35,6751. for In-Pensioners of
Chelsea :-16,2471. for those of Kilmainham Hospital :-
975,4531. for Out-Pensioners of Chelsea; and 214,0001. for
those of Kilmainham.
On the Resolution for 26,3001. for the Royal Military
Asylum.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether the number of chil-
dren admitted into this Hospital was to be reduced ?
Lord PALMERSTON said, a reduction was contemplated,
but it must be obvious that it would be a work of time, consi-
dering the number of claimants arising out of the services of
the army during the last war.
After a few words from Mr. BENNET and Lord PALMER-
STON, the Resolution was then agreed to.
The following Resolutions were then agreed to, viz.:-
102,8271. for Widows' Pensions, and 21,4491. for those of
Ireland. , •
On the Resolution being put for 179,2501. for the Compas-
sionate List,
Mr. HUME wished to know whether there was any inten-
tion to revise the present system under this Fund. He believed
pensions had been obtained under a false representation that
the objects of them had received wounds.
Lord PALMERSTON said, there would shortly be a Re-
-turn laid before the House, which would give every informa-
tion on the subject. He should be happy to receive informa-
tion from any person respecting any supposed abuse, and would
give every attention to it.
After a few words from Mr. Truett and Lord PALMERSTON.
in explanation, the Resolution was then agreed to.
The following sums were then voted, Viz.-36,9321. for the
Superannuation List; and 7,6061. for that of Ireland.
On the Resolution for 32,0001. for Exchequer Fees,
Col. DAVIES-asked what was meant by this Resolution ?
Lord PALMERSTON said, the sum was a Fund paid into
the Exchequer, partly for certain of its Officers, and the re-
mainder for the Consolidated Fund.
After a short conversation between Mr. Hume, Lord Palmer-
ston, Sir C. Long, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
Resolution was agreed le.
A Vote was then passed for 2,690 men for the Irish Veteran
Battalions ; and another for 83,1761. for paying them.
The House then resumed, and the Report of the Committee
was ordered to be received on Tuesday.
WAYS AND MEANS.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
it
-was ordered that, on Monday next, the House should resolve
itself into a Committee of Ways and Means.
"'ORDNANCE ESTIMATES. -
Mr. R. WARD gavenotice that, on Monday:next, he should
move the Ordnance Estimates.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of ; and at
ELEVEN O'CLOCK the House adjourned.

LIST OF VIE MINORITY
OF 22, WHO VOTED FOR RECEIVING THE NEWCASTLE
- PETITION IN FAVOUR OF MR. HUNT.
Barrett, S. B. N. Hobhouse, J. C. Robarts, Colonel
Birch, J. Hume, J. ,„ Robinson, Sir Geo.
Bernal, R. James, W. Wood, Alderman
Bury, Viscount Maberly, J. Wilson, Sir R.
Calvert, N. Malik, Hon. W.
Creevey, T. Nugent, Lord TELEERS.
Ellice, Ed. Monck, J., B. Bennet, Hon. H. G.
Fergusson, SirR.C. Ricardo, Davit' Lambton, J. G.
Gaskell, Ben. Palmer, C. F.