The Sun.
London, England, 1828-07-05 00:00:00

separately enjoyed by them, or of those offices which
we shall presently recommend to be substituted in
lieu thereof, be given generally to the Board, and
be exercised in rotation by all the Members of it."
The Commissioners, it would appear, therefore
wished ,the Members of the Board of Ordnance
should be without responsibility; but if the House
turned to the Bth page of the Report of the Finance
Committee,.they would find expressed a very differ-
ent opinion, as the. Finance Committee were clearly
in favour of a Board witb responsibility. The fol-
lowing were their words :
" The Committee are of opinion, that where there is
collective.responsibility, each individual is disposed to con-
sider himself a% in a great degree relieved from personal
responsibility ; but that where there is individual respon-
,sibility no such feeling can exist; responsibility is then
brought home to each individual, and is a constant motive
to render him faithful in the discharge of his public duty.
The Committee think that in the latter case (which is the
case of the Ordnance Department), while on the one hand
the advantage of a prompt and consistent administration
securetUby personal responsibility, on the other, the ten-
dency which there always is, when power is vested in a
single person, to .abuse it, is effectually restrained by the
continued checks of the controlling authority of the Board
and Master-General."
Now., he left it to the impartial consideration of
the House, whether the Finance Committee Was
not diametrically opposed to the Military Commis-
.sioners, as to what should be the formation of the
Ordnance Board. The Committee, therefore, in
supporting their recommendation to abolish the office
of Lieutenant-General, by a reference to the opinion
of the
,Military Commissioners, evidently mistook
thofaets-e-(Hear, hear.) With respect to that part
of the recommendation which' stated that the office
should at all events not be continued during peace,
be would not stop to inquire whether the mission of
the Lieutenant-General in 1827 was one of peace or
war. The opinion of the Government in favour of
keeping up the office of Lieutenant-General was
founded on the highest authority that could be
brought forward by him or by any other Man—
namely, that of the late Master-General; he (the
Duke of Wellington) was sent for by the Commit-
tee, and asked—.
•' Do you consider the continuance of the Lieutenant-
General of the Ordnance, as essential to the well-being of
the service? Yes I do. The Lieutenant-General of the
Ordnance has some very important duties to perform ; I
du out mean to say that the Master:General cannot per-
form them ; for :he does sometimes perform those tlutiei.
In ray time the Lieutenant-General was absent sometimes,
and at other times I was absent myself; when he was ab-
-eat Terformed his duties. He has some- duties to pet-
form which are very important, and it is essential to the
well-being of the service that be should perform them ; the
inspection of the troops, and a great deal of duty at Wool-
wiCh, particularly the examination of all the men for dis-
charges; there is a great deal which could not be done
:otherwise, and particularly in the relations of the Board. of
Ordnance to the military force uuder the Ordnance ; it is
very material there should be a military officer constantly
at that. Board." •
• Now he (Sir H. H.) maintained, that after that
opinion it was unnecessary to say one word in sup-
port of the determination to which Government had
come. The Gallant General, after alluding more
particularly to the evidence, hoped the House would
do them the credit to believe, that neither .the opi-
nion of the Duke of Wellington nor his, were given
for the occasion. Ihe Finance Committee of 1817,
1818, and 1819, a period of peace, had paid every
attention to the Board of Ordnance, but did not, in
the, slightest degree, recommend the abolition of the
office. of Lieutenant-General. Indeed, so far back
cis 1751, the duties of that office were laid do%vri
With as much precision as at present. lie was
aware that he might be met' 'with an argument, de-
rived
from the fact that the Lieutenants General had
been absent from the country, and that therefore his
presence at the Board could be dispensed with ; but
upon this point they had the evidence Of the Duke
of Wellington, and if the Members Of the Fineness
Committee had determined to found their Report
upon evidence, and not upon the Report of the Mi-
litary. Commissioners, why, he would 'ask, did they
not.summon the late Surve:or-General and Clerk s
of the Ordnance ?—(Hear, hear.)—lt might be said
that the absenee of Lord Beresford justified the con-
clusion to which. the Committee had come. But
the contrary was the fact; for he, after an absence
of three months, knowing what inconvenience must
be occasioned by it, suggested that -a successor shoutd
he appointed.; and in fact the office was offered at.
Sir George Murray,. After the most careful con-
sideration of this question, he (Sir Henry Hai-
alinge)' was now of decidedly the same opinion
before, the House as lie bad been before the
Committee ; and with the same sincerity he now
de-
clared that, in his judgment, the office of Lieut.
General of the Ordnance was necessary. The Board
of Ordnance had all through acted in a manner quite
consistent with the praises that the Finance Com-
mittee had been' pleased to bestow on there. And
never in one instance did they continue an office
that. had- ceased to be necessary. The salary of
Lieutenant-General was now reduced from 1,500/,
to 1,2004 The recommendation of the Committee
as, to other . reductions had been assented to, and a
sum of: 9,093/. had, been taken from different sala-
ries' and -even while the committee were sitting,
the Master-General of the Ordnance had effected
reductions to the amount of 9,000/. The Right
Hon. Secretary•concluded. hey moving that a sum,
not exceeding 24,935/.,, be granted to his Majesty,
for defraying the expellees of the salaries of Master-
General, and of the other officers of the Board of
Ordnance for 1828, a sum of 2.5,000/. having already
been voted on account, for that purpose.
Sir H. PARNELL—The Committee had, after
looking attentively through all the evidenee, decided ,
by the 'largest majority that had appeared upon any
question which came under their consideration, that
the. office of Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance
was unnecessary. The Hon-Member, after stating
that the military branch of the Ordnance; as well as
that of the %Engineers employed about building,.was
too great, proposed; ns an amendment, that instead
of 24,935/., the vote he'redueed to 24,3351.
Sir EDWARD OWEN Opposed the amendment.
General 'task SCOYNE waaatit4oss to know the
meaning of the Hon. •Metuber stho. moved the
amendment, for he appeared to wish'that the Lieut-
General should be removed, and another General be
appointed in his place. Instead of dispensing with
di
e n o subject,tzaie (imlla ned u
the Rthat office, it Would,. in his opinion, be better to re-
duce the'staff in Irelantl,wl4lle.rethasL. ipeeurtedriaaynto-nGiye,n,seo-
nd commanded only 2,000 men, while the Lieuten-
ant-General of the Ordnance, in -addition to his
duties at the' Board, commanded a corps of 9,000
men, and Tor both was paid
that, with resloefetdt.
to emolument, ojlnnfcnt fo tr
e,) 1
the was
Li
par with 'a LieuteriantsGeneral on the Staff.
Sir H. PARNELL said, the Hon. Member was
l
only
e looeny aa
l
of
'Artillery.
Sir H. HARDINGE denied
the correctness *of
that assertion of the Ilon. Baronet.. The Lieut.-
General went, down to Woolwich when requisite,
and there performed all 'the functions of a General
Officer.
guit
thee ignorant
te
Mr. BANKES contended that the recommenda-
tion of the Finance Co • l
mmittee ought to have
weight in preference to any authority that could he
cited.
Sir G. CLERK said, that the duties of the,
Mister-General Were so naativ, and so complicatrst
tts- to ieridr it impossible for him to attend tai alt
~ths minute detailsof the Ordnance Department_,
t Rear, litar):l74he performance of which necessarily
devolved upon the • Lieut.-General. The efficierici
of the artillery, in the absence of the Lieut.-General
.(Sir H. Clinton)had been relied on as a proof that
the presence of that Officer was not necessary to
keep that distinguished corps in a proper state—but
its efficiency was the consequence of the state of
perfection in which that Gallant officer had left it.—
(Hear, hear.)—The Hon. Member proceeded to
contend that the Lieut.-General was an officer who
could not be dispensed with, and that the greatest.
possible inconvenience would result to the service
were the number of the Board of Officers reduced.
Mr. MAI3ERLY- contended. at crrnnt