The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-05 00:00:00

w

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 4.
The ballot for Stafford went off in consequence of there
being no one to answer when the parties to the
tition were called in; and the gallery wa•, in consequence,
opened at a quarter pas► four o'clock.
Mr. LEACH presented a petition from Farnham, con-
cerning the payment of tithe..

Sir T. FRENIANTLE said he had a petition to pre-
sent from Mr. Charles Beamish, late a clerk in the Navy
Pay-office, who had been removed from his situation
without sufficient cause. The petition was important to
the public, as well as to the individual, as involving a
question of unnecessary superannuation. The Hon.
Member then went into the particulars of the peti-
tion, from which it appeared that he had been in the
service twenty-seven years, having been appointed in
1805 ; that for the last seven years he lied been acting
as chief clerk to the third class at the Navy Pay-office
in Plymouth, where he bad been stationed for ten years ;
and that, at the time when he was in expectation of pro-
motion, he was surprised with a notification that he was
to be placed on the superannuated list. He had applied to
the Treasurer of the Navy, and subsequently to Lord
Grey, and other members of the Government, begging to
be restored to his situation, or be inform-d of the
grounds of his dismissal. Being still able and willing to
perform the duties of the situation, he objected to becom-
ing a pensioner and burden to the public. He thought
the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Treasurer to the
Navy, could not do other. than state the grounds of this
gentleman's dismissal.—(Hear, hear.) The Honour-
able Baronet then adverted to the estimates for the
Navy Pay-office, and contended that, according to the
present system, more money was expended in salaries and
sitiperennuations than had been for some years previously.
He showed a considerable increase of expenditure i❑ the
Navy Pay-office department. He did not wish to
impute any harshness to the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
I', Thomson), nor any desire to deprive an individual of
proper remuneration; but he thought that the Right
Hon. Gentleman should have inquired into the private
mss umstances of the individual before he cut off •o
great a portion of his salary. He hoped the explanation
of the night Hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory,
test If not, he (Sir T. Fremantle) should feel it his duty
'to proceed further.
At the suggestion of the SPEAKER, who observed
that the petition, being one for remuneration, ought not
to be introduced except by the consent of the Crown (as
we understcod), it was read, and besides praying fur
remuneration, it prayed also that the petitioner be re-
instated.
Mr. P. THOMSON said he should have been sorry if,
from any want of form, the petition had been rejected. He
could wish that the Hon. Baronet bad not gone into any
statement respecting the expenses of the Navy Pay-office
without giving him notice, because he was in consequence
prevented, for want of documents, from answering him.
He had no doubt if he had had notice to prepare himself
with figures and calculations, he should have been able to
show that the Hon. Baronet was wholly mistaken in his
result.—(Hear, hear.) It was always painful for any
min at the head of any department to answer the call of
the public for a more economical arrangement in
his office, and at the same time to avoid doing any injury
to individuals. The present, however, was not one of the
cases of that description which weighed so heavily with him,
for however unpleasant it might be to speak of the merits or
demerits of any individual, he shoutl be compelled to
etete such a case as he felt confident would induce the
House to agree with him in what he had done. It was
not necessary for him to go into all the details of the
petition. The first complaint was, that by an Order in
Council of 1822, the petitioner was deprived of
certain emoluments to which be had considered him-
self entitled. That certainly was the case, but that
was an arrangement that was deemed necessary
to be made for the purposes of economy, and the peti-
tioner only shared the fate of other clerks.—(Hear.)
The next complaint of the petitioner was that he had not
been promoted. The Hon. Baronet had stated, on
behalf of the petitioner two special grounds of
complaint, first, that, upon grounds of economy the
Government were not warranted in depriving the gentle-
man of his situation ; and next, that, upon ground, of ca-
pacity and zeal, the Government ought not only to have
retained Mr. Beamish in his office, but have pro-
moted him.—(Hear, hear.) Of all the gentlemen
who had been superannuated, Mr. Bearnish, he admitted,
was the only forced one. It might he said, why did not
the Government continue this gentleman in his office of
third clerk, or make him a second one ? It was painful
to him to state anything against an individual, but as he
hail been challenged by the Hen. Baronet, he would state
that he did not promote Mr. Beamish, because he thought,
from the records of the office, he should be doing an act
of injustice to the public and to himself if he did so.
He found, from the minutes on the books of his office,
there had been frequent hickerings and complaints of this
gentleman. In stating this he did not mean to impeach
the integrity of this gentleman at all; but from the bodily
infirmities with which Mr. Beamish was afflicted, added
to the circumstances to which he had adverted, lie (Mr. T. )
considered himself hound to adopt the course he had done.
The Right Hon. Gentleman went on at some length to
show that there was no feundation for the charges that
had been made of grievance in this particular instance ;
that it was absolutely essential to the due administration
of the public service that there should be a discretion in
the bead of a department over those who were in the
subordinate branches, and that it would be extremely
inconvenient for the House to take into consideration
such cases as the present. If such were allowed, and it
any subsequent proceeding were founded on this petition,
it would be impossible fur aoy gentleman duly to perform
his duty at the bead of any of the departments.
Colonel Davies, Sir. G. GREY, and Sir E. KNATCH-
BUee supported the petition, and endeavoured to shoe,
that there was a particular grievance in the present in-
stance, while not the slightest imputation could be east
on the character or integrity of Mr. Beamish.
Mr. HUME said that though this was the case of an
individual, it involved a principle of great importance.
The question was whether the heads of offices were
to have the power of burdening the public with
pensioners just at their pleasure ?—(Hear, hear.)
From the inquiries he (Mr. H.) had made, Mr. Beamish,
whom he had seen, had conducted his duties with the
most strict integrity, which was admitted in that House,
and was now quite capable of continuing to per-
form his duty. No man had ever declared him to be in-
eipable. He (Mr. Hume) hoped the Hon. Baronet would
move for the appointment of a Committee on this subject,
which he would second with great pleasure, as it would be
then seen whether due discretion had been used. No one
could deny that a discretion rested with the heads of offices,
but individuals in public offices were not to be sent adrift
without a moment's notice, and the public loaded with pen-
sioners, at the caprice of any one. The public were paying
no less than half a million of money for the Superannuation
list. When Lord Guderich was in the office which the
Right Hon. Gentleman now filled, he stated that be had
no doubt when any appointments were made, they would
be filled up from the superannuated list.—(Hear, hear.)
He" (Mr. H.) did not know whether any appoint-
ments had been made from that list, but from the
return he held in his hand, no less than nine
appointments had been made to persons who had never
been employed before. One had been appointed at the
age of 33 years, notwithstanding 45 was the period at which
superannuation might take place. If it were said superan-
nuated persons, fit for further service, would not take
inferior offices, and at inferior salaries, he (Mr. Hume)
would only rok why clerks in this department of the public
set vice should be on a better and more independent foot
ing than medical gentlemen? If surgeons in the army
or navy on half-pay did not accept of any duty that might
be pointed out for them, they were immediately removed
from the list of half-pay surgeons, and so ought it to
with respect to these men.
Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE said he was persuaded
that the Right Hon. Secretary was imposed upon, and did
not know what he was about when he signed the order
complained of--(Hear, hear.) Mr. Bearnish, perhaps,
was unfortunate in having a bad temper, but that
was not a sufficient reason fur discharging him from
his situation.—(Hear.) With respect to the reduction of
which the Right Hon. Gentleman had spoken, he should
like to be better informed about to it. He had with
him a motion for a return, to which he hoped the Right
Hon. Gentleman would not object, which would show
what the amount of the saving occasioned by the change
which had taken place, amounted to.
Lord G. SOMERSET noticed that there were persons
of 45 and 59 years of age appointed to situations for the
first time, which was against the regulations.
Mr. ELLICE said that there must be some mistake in
the return, for the regulations were strictly adhered to.
Mr. C. WOOD said that a person might have been for
years employed in a department, and yet not have In et-,
regularly in the troops before.
After a few words from Mr. P. THOAISON,
Mr. O'CONNELL brought in a Bill for disfranchising