The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-25 00:00:00

ing to imply that Lord Fitzroy Somerset was i-po o I
at the Horse-guards. The case of the men.he had a hided
to was one of very great hardship.
In answer to Mr. CHARTERIS,
Mr. F. MAULE said that non-commissioned officers
and their wives were not placed in the same rooms with
private soldiers. With respect to married soldiers, an
arrangement was in progress by which they would be
enabled to provide themselves lodgings out of the bar-
racks.
Mr. OSBORNE complained of the use of shell-jackets
on march, and criticised other points of regimental cos-
tume. Nothing could be worse conducted than the whole
of the clothing department. The dress of the officers of
the line seemed adapted for no other purpose than to ren-
der them as frightful as possible.
Mr. F. MAULE said the object of all the late altera-
tions had been economy. In the Kafir war, the officers
ending that the distinction of a blue coat, while the sol-
diers wore red, rendered them a mark to the enemy,
laid the coats,aside, and adopted red jalkets the same as
those of the soldiers. This was also found to be a
matter of convenience, and now the bite, coats were laid
aside.
Mr. HUME asked who was the master tailor.—
%aughter.) If it was not the duty of the Secretary at
ar to attend to these matters, to whom did that duty
belong? If there was no one responsible for it, changes
might succeed each other without end.
Mr. F. MAULE said the changes were made after
being well considered by the Commander-in-Chief, and
submitted by him to a board of general officers.
Mr. OSBORNE said he had reason to believe that
these alterations generally emanated from some clothier,
who possessed the ear of some general officer. He had
no doubt, so uncomfortable were the shell jackets, that
that before six months were over there would be another
general order on the subject.
Colonel DUNNE complained of the rank given to the
Captains of the Guards as Lieutenant-Colonels ; they
furnished about one-half the whole number. An officer
of the line could rarely attain the rank of Lieutenant-
Colonel under twenty or thirty years, and after serving
in every part of the world, which the officers of the
Guards were not required to do. The system that was
pursued in giving more speedy promotion to the Guards
than to the officers of the line was most unjust. He had
no feeling against the Guards, or to the distinction be-
tween the Guards and the line, but he thought the
fairest, plan to pursue would be to promote the most
deserving officers of the line to the Guard-3.—(Hear.)
Mr. FOX MAULE said that the question to which
the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman referred would come
before the Committee of Inquiry. Ho was of opinion
that the Guards should be permanently fixed in London.
Colonel LINDSAY said that during 32 years there
were only three instances of officers of the Guards ex-
changing to regiments of the line.
Mr. OSBORNE said that the commands of stations
were given to guardsmen. He had no objection to the
Guards, and he believed if they were to have a monarchy,
that it would be necessary to have Guards. He denied
that they were peculiarly fit for London service. The
only reason why captains in the Guards were lieutenant-
colonels was, that it was considered advisable to have
those about the Court general officers. It was unjust to
the officers of the line that they should be promoted for
such a reason.
Colonel ANSON said that the average age of general
officers in the Guards was about 60, which was as high
as in the line. With regard to the fitness of the Guards
for London duty, he did not say that other troops were
not able to perform that duty, but he believed no one
would deny that the Guards performed their duty effi-
ciently, and that the line were but too happy when they
found themselves brigaded by the Guards.
Cot. DUNNE did not assert any superiority for the
line, and he would not admit any inferiority. He be-
lieved that no Irishmen were admitted into the guards.
Col. LINDSAY said that he knew one regiment in
which there were some Irishmen. But there was cer-
tainly an indisposition to take Irishmen or Scotchmen
into the guards, because the corps of guards was dis-
tinctively national.
Mr. OSBORNE said that with respect to the nation-
ality of regiments, most of the 42d Highlanders, called
the " Black Watch," who fought at Waterloo, were
Irish m en.—(La ugh ter.)
Sir D. L. EVANS complained that no mark of recog-
nition had been given to General D'Aguilar and Colonel
Brereton for their distinguished services in the Canton
war.
Lord PALMERSTON bore testimony to the skill,
energy, and ability displayed by the officers in question,
which had been followed by results so beneficial to
~the
commercial interests of this country.— (Hear.)
Mr. HUME, before the vote was passed, wished to
congratulate the House on the state of discipline which
existed in the army, notwithstanding the disuse of cor-
poral punishment.—(Hear.) That was extremely satis-
factory to those who advocated its abolition.(Hear.
hear.) With respect to the amount of the vote, he con-
sidered there was great room for reduction. They were
not now likely to be invaded, so that he thought the
number of men could be reduced. In the years 1834,
1835, and 1836, the average number of men in the army
was 86,500. It was now 113,000. In addition to this
number there were 150,000 invalids enrolled. There
were yeomanry and militia, and a police force of 23,000.
In London there were 5,338 policemen; in the boroughs
of England there were 4,400; in the counties, 2,509; and
in Ireland there were 10,639. He was greatly sur-
prised at the increase in the police force. The number
of men in the navy was now 43.000 instead of 27,000; in
the ordnance, 13,0110 instead of 8,900. Without includ-
ing the artillery, he believed there were now no less
than 236,000 armed men in the country. That was
enough to exhaust any country. He should move that
the vote be reduced by 445,0001, though he did not mean
to divide the House upon it.
Mr. F. MAULE said he would not enter into the de-
tails which had been mentioned by the Hon. Member,
as the subject would come before the Committee of In-
quirY ; but he would ask whether there was anything in
the ,state of Europe or in the state of their own country
—(near, hear)--which would justify them in reducing
the army now 7—Ulcer, hear.) The army was not more
than they ought to have, and he only trusted in Provid-
ence it might be found sufficient.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. OSBORNE said that he had brought a plan be-
fore the House by which 2,000,0001. of money might be
saved without reducing the army by a single man, but
it had been disregarded. The great question which the
people of this country had now to decide was, how they
were to pay all these forces. The increase of the police
force in the metropolis might be accounted for by the
number of new streets which aro added every year to
the metropolis.
Mr. Hume's amendment was then negatived without
II division, and the vote agreed to.
On 168,2371., for the expenses of the general staff of-
ficers and the garrison officers of the Tower of London
being moved,
Mr. HUME thought that a great reduction might be
effected in this item.
Mr. OSBORNE objected to having two general offi-
cers, one commanding the army and the other the ord-
nance. One person was sufficient to perform the duties
of Commander of the Forces and Master-General of
the Ordnance. Then there was 9001. a year for
the Duke of Wellington as Governor of the Tower.
He would knock off 1,0001. a year from these salaries.
Then there was the Tower Major. No person could
say who he was. Then there was the chaplain, the
physician—although there were the army surgeons—
and the apothecary to the Tower, who had 101. a year.
—(Laughter.) When there was the gentleman porter
with 80/. a year—(Laughter)—and the gentleman gaoler
with 60L—(Laughter.) Then there were 40 yeomen
warders, as if there were no troops. He would try to
do away with the whole thing, and move that the vote
be reduced 3,9111. ls. Bd.
Mr. F. MAULE said the whole of the Tower estab-
lishment had been under a review of a Committee of that

House, and they let it stand as it was. He should be
the last man to vote under any circumstances to deprive
' 'of a place of honour that Noble and Gallant Officer who
did so much service for his couatry.—(Hear.)
Mr. OSBORNE said the Hon. Gentleman tried to ride
off upon the Duke of Wellington. Ho would say nothing
in disparagement of that illustrious individual; but as
_ the Right Hon. Gentleman made reference to his ser-
vices, he would say in reply that the country had amply
' repaid them.—(Hear, hear.) He had two regiments,
find Strathfieldsaye, and other things.
Colonel LINDSAY said that the gentleman gaoler
and the gentleman warder were not appointed by the
Government. They were non-commissioned officers,
and the situations were given them as something better
than retiring pensions.
Mr. OSBORNE protested against debasing non-com-
missioned officers by calling men who had served their
country gentlemen porters and gentlemen gaolers. If
they served their country let them get suitable pensions.
The country would not object to that. But let them not
be paid by being made gentlemen porters and gentle-
men gaolers.—(Hear.) He would divide the House.
After a few words from Mr. HumE and Major,
BLACKALL,
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against it —4B
. The vote was accordingly passed.
On the next vote, 96,5901. for the charges and expenses
of the public departments,
Mr. B. OSBORNE said this charge was lumped toge-
ther in a most extraordinary way. He regretted to find
fault in a matter affecting an office so well filled as that
of the Judge Advocate General was at the present time,
but for the life of him he could not understand what the
use of that office was. It was an office usually given to
a barrister who could get no briefs, and he really thought
many a briefless barrister could be got to fill the post for
one-fourth the cost. He hoped, therefore that hia
friends would support him in a motion that the expense
,of the Judge Advocate General department be reduced
3,000/. per annum.—(Oh.)
The. JUDGE ADVOCATE-GENERAL thought it
really surprising that the Gallant Gentleman who had
himself served, should not know better than to depre-
ciate the office which he had the honour to hold. The
duty -of the Judge-Advocate was to examine and report
upon all the courts-martial which were held in the
• • army, and they amounted to nearly fio,ooo per annum.
Besides this, constant and continual references were
made to the Judge-Advocate by the Horse Guards on
- points-of great delicacy and difficulty. He said nothing
as to the salary of the Judge-Advocate that was a
point upon which he hoped he should not be asked to
• give any opinion. This, however, he begged to remark,
that of late years not only had the duties of the office
• been much increased, but the occupant of the office had
been deprived of a great amount of official assistance.
• -On another occasion he should be happy to enter more
at detail into the duties devolving on the office, and he
thought he should be able to show that the office was
net overpaid .
lIUME, having been one of the Committee of
Inquiry into the payment of this office, some years ago,
wag bound" to say that he thought Owe was-no lavish
this department,