The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 2, 1844.

Lord STANLEY—Yes, she was at Spithead or Ply-
mouth. Now, the passage-money to which Sir Robert
Wilson was entitled for going out was 200/, and Sir
Alexander Woodford was entitled to the same sum for
his passage-money homewards. The Warspite was
lying idle, and it cost no more to send her out with Sir
Robert Wilson to Gibraltar, and bringing Sir Alexander
home, than to pay to those two officers their passage-
money. On the contrary, it cost less for the payments
actually made to them, which amounted to 911. 10s.
each ; so that on the point of economy the cost had been
less than that if the one had gone out and the other
had come back in the ordinary packet. But he would
ask the House whether there was not a certain amount
of consideration attached to a representative of her Ma-
jesty in going out thus to his government.—(Hear.)
He did not by any means say that expense was to be no
consideration, but if a ship was thus in commission and
was lying idle, he did consider it had been, under the
circumstances, advantageously employed in conferring
power and consideration upon an officer going to take
the command of so important a Governorship and for•
tress as that of Gibraltar.—(Hear.)
Sir C. NAPIER did not like that sort of reasoning
at all. It was not the mere expense of going from Spit-
head to Gibraltar and back, but it was the expense of .
putting a ship in commission, and getting her crew, and
making her fit for sea and for duty, that was to be looked
at. Ships were not fitted out but at an enormous cost
to the country ; they were not fitted out for passage
boats, but for far different work. He recollected well
being captain of a ship for two years, and all he had to
do during that period was to take out a Governor and a
Commissioner to the West Indies.—(Laughter.) He
called it great waste.—(Hear, hear.) He repeated, and
he was sure the country and the service would agree
with him, that British ships of war ought not to be made
into passage-boats.
Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, in reference to the Hon.
Gentleman's (Mr. Hume's) other question, begged to say
that the expenses now charged for Mr. M`Gregor were
incurred in the year 1842 and in the early part of 1843.
With regard to the general question as to the Stade
duties, he was happy to say an arrangement was likely
to be come to very speedily, but the nature of that ar-
rangement it would be improper in him to communicate.
Mr. HUME said, he observed in these estimates that
the public were charged with fees for the conferring
honours upon individuals. If there were such fools to
be found as to seek these things, he really thought they
ought themselves to pay for them.—(Laughter, and
Hear, hear.) He thought a Committee upon this and
some other items would do a deal of good, and he did
not know but what he should move for one. Again, in
p. 11. he found an item,lol/ for a surgeon for the Scilly
Isles, and 421. for medicine for the Scilly Isles. He
wished to know who were the proprietors of these
Scilly Isles ?—(Laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I do
not exactly know who the proprietors are.—(Laughter.)
Mr. HUME—Then what business have you paying
doctors and medicines for them.—(Laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
fact was, a communication had been made to the Go-
vernment representing that the people in these isles were
sorely afflicted with disease, and were in the most de-
plorable state for medical help, which they had no means
of procuring, and it was thought a duty not to refuse as-
sistance so dreadfully needed, and the cost of which was
so small.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME said he perceived there was a sum of
2,3001. set down as the salary and expenses of the Mar-
shal of the Queen's Bench Prison for three-quarters of a
year. The former Marshal of the prison, he understood,
had 6,0001. a year. He had complained of it again and
again, and he had been assured that the salary would in
future be more moderate. He wished to know what the
salary of the present Marshal'was ?
Mr. M. SUTTON said that the salary of the Marshal
of the Queen's Prison was 700/. a year.
Mr. HUME said he should move for a detailed ac-
count of the salary and allowances of this officer. He
also complained of the sum of 3201. charged for bring-
ing silver from the Bank of Ireland to the Bank of
England.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex-
plained that the silver was brought over to accommodate
the Bank of England, during the great demand for silver.
Mr. HUME thought the item ought to have been
carried to the general account of the expenses of calling
in the coinage.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER again
explained that there was at the time a great accumula-
tion of silver in the Bank of Ireland, which was lying
there useless, while there was a great demand for it in
England, aad therefore it was brought over here, but
t u attwht
oahute
dwßaoirugi
lshdet
whenHa r
arise
that the expense could not be charged to the Bank of
England,
M
the coinage was first called in. The gold was called in
for
oEr thet saidhe he
great
eahtad warneddemand inconvenience
without any provision being made by the Mint or
for silver, in consequence of so • ereigns being
made receivable only at a cert •v •
am weight. Great incon-
venience was felt in consequence; some bankers had had
to give one per cent. for silver to furnish their custo-
mers with, and in some cases silver was not to be pro-
cured at all. There was great culpability somewhere
the large establishment of the Mint was at such a junc-
ture perfectly useless, no additional coinage of silver
the Gentleman r
B•
aHn Bank
having been made ;it went on in its old jog-trot man-
ner. This was not the way in which a great public de-
partment ought to be conducted. It had the power of
working four times as much as it did, yet no increase
was made, notwithstanding the great pressure
for silver felt by the public. This charge of 3201 ought
to be paid either by the Master of the Mint or by the
Right Hon. Gentleman, he did not know which—(Hear,
hear)—it was a charge the public revenue ought not to
be subjected to. But though he made these observations,
he begged to say that the present estimates were the
best he had ever seen submitted to the House of Corn-
mons.—(Hear, hear.) But still they might have been
better.—(Hear, hear.)
Captain PECHELL thought that the Committee had
not had a sufficient explanation of the charge made of
sending out one of the largest class of ships to Gibraltar
with the Governor, Sir Robert Wilson. He objected to
the employment of large ships of war for such a purpose.
It had been made to appear that it was the cheapest
mode, but this could not be ascertained unless they had
a return of the cost of the wear and tear of one of these
large ships during a passage of fourteen days in the
winter season.
Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH objected to several
items of expenditure, such as 5501. for abstracts of the
accounts of turnpike trusts, and 459/. 11s. 2d. to the
Poor-law Commissioners for preparing certain returns
ordered by the Government.
Mr. COLLETT said he perceived there was a sum of
2,945/. for the cartoons which were exhibited in West-
minster Hall. He wished to know whether this was
the amount, after deducting the money which was re-
ceived from those who paid Is. each to see them before
the public was admitted ?
Sir G. CLERK said the sum referred to by the Hon.
Gentleman was the amount paid as premiums. The
sum received from the public went to defray the ex-
penses of fitting up the Hall, and for the payment of
those who attended. There was a balance remaining
of 2001, which would go to meet the expenses of the
other works of art which were advertised to be seen in

the ensuing month.
Sir C. NAPIER said he understood there was a con-
siderable disagreement between Sir H. Pottinger, their
Minister in China, and the naval and military officers
employed there, the latter not liking to be placed under
a civilian. Tie wished to know from the Noble Lord
the Secretary for the Colonies whether there was any
truth in this report ? He wished also to know why it
was that a frigate should be employed to convey Sir R.
Wilson to such a petty place as Gibraltar, while Sir C.
Metcalf was sent to Canada in the Columbia ? The
Noble Lord talked of the dignity of sending a Governor
in a man-of-war, but he did not see what dignity there
could be in sending out a frigate to Gibraltar.
Lord STANLEY said he had no hesitation in telling
the Hon. and Gallant Officer that general instructions
had been sent ont to the naval and military officers, in
consequence of the anomalous position of their affairs in
China, at the time, that they should render Sir H. Pot-
tinger every service in carrying on his operations. He
believed there was some difference of opinion with regard to
the nature of the services they were to perform, but there
was not the slighest difference of opinionduring the whole
course of their military operations. Whatever con-
struction might be put on the instructions, he did not
believe that there was any difference with regard to the
cordial discharge of their duties by the officers. With
regard to the second question,-he thought that it would
create more respect for him if they sent out the Go-
vernor of Gibraltar in a frigate, particularly as there
was one to spare. Sir C. Metcalf went to Canada in the
Columbia, because it was more convenient for him than
if he went in a frigate, which could not, at the period he
went out, take him to the seat of Government.
Sir C. NAPIER expressed himself satisfied IN ith the
answer of the Noble Lord to the first question, but he
could tell the Noble Lord that a most deserving officer,
Lord John Hay, gave up his ship in disgust at being
constantly employed in this service.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL objected to the payment of
80/. to Mr. Brownrigg, the inspector of constabulary, for
making an analysis of the Arms Act, which was of no
use, and very badly drawn up.
Lord ELIOT said in reference to what had been said
by the Hon. Member for Roscommon, that he did not
think the items to which he referred could be objected
he was supposed
make an abstract of
ttoo.belaVpitehrsroenspevcetrytocoMmrp.eSternotw ntorigg,
the Act referred to by the Hon. Gentleman, and the
801. was for the expenses of preparing a number of copies
for the different constabulary stations.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL, in allusion to the item of
591. 175., for the expenses of a Commission of Inquiry
into certain alleged malversations on the part of certain
officers of Kilmainham gaol, in connection with the ex-
pense of convicts, complained, that although Major
Palmer (who had been, according to the report of the
Commissioners, guilty of gross negligence), had been
dismissed by the Treasury from the office he held in
connection with the convict establishment in Kilmain-
ham gaol ; yet he had been continued by the Irish Go-
vernment in the office of Inspector-General of the
Prisons of Ireland.
Sir G. CLERK admitted that, although the report
acquitted Major Palmer of all knowledge of a participa-
tion in the malversaions alluded to, yet it stated that
he had been guilty of gross negligence, and, therefore,
he had been removed from his office ; but no complaint
had been made against him in his office of Inspector-
General of Prisons. He had satisfactorily performed
the duties of that office for twenty-three years. He had
introduced many and great improvements into the ma-
nagement of the prison, and, therefore, it had been
deemed advisable to continue him in his office.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL'S complaint was against the
Noble Lard for continuing in office a man whom the
Treasury had dismissed for gross neglect.
Mr. F. T. BARING did not confider the explanation
of the Baionet to be at all aatiaitctorp