The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-06-20 00:00:00

THE STATESMAN

Sit H. MARTIN seconded the imendment. He log-
ged leave toast/ran irtstanceagalast the alleged influence
of Parliamentary interest in promotions. Oa his return
from a foreign service, seven officers were promoted oat
of his ship; and of these, two only had friends who were
supporters of Goverensent.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
Sir 1. COFFIN was by no means disposed to join
with the Hon: Member for Aberdeen in censuring the
Admiralty for the manner in which promotions were dir-
tributed. Daring the American war be knew many mid•
shipmee who were 18 or 19 years in the service before
they h .dobtained promotion; so that things were not
worse now than before. He was desirous for his part to
see the navy complied of persons of high families, as
well as of persons of long service and naval merit.
Mr. r. PALMER would not undertake to may wlte,
thaw the promotions which had taken place were right or
wrong, but sufficient evidence at least appeared to justify
inquiry into the subject of their propriety.
Captain GORDON said, that many Midshipmen had
served double thetime prescribed by the rules of the ser-
vice without being promoted, and were not allowed half-
pay. H 6 thought this deserved tbe consideration of the
House. He bad nothing to observe on the promotions,
but he trusted the House would not check what little as-
piration remained in the Navy.
Mr. G. BENNETT said, that the only grounds for pro•
motion should be merit and standing in the service. The
gallant admiral near him compared these times with the
American war, and derived consolation as to the conduct of
the Admiralty from the comparison. Had it been then in
qneetlea, the reference would have been to the battle of the
Hogue—if at the time of the battle of the Hogue, some-
thing worse would have been alleged, as to the fleet which
watched the Armada. They were but too apt to praise their
own times at the expeoce of those long since past.
_ . _

Mr. CANNING had thought the reverse of the lion. Gen-
tlemen's proposition was that which was most generally ac-
cepted—the disposition to extol past times at the expenoe of
the present. He coasidered that the case of the mover bad
been met triumphantly by hlsgallant friend near him. There
must be a discretion left with the Admiralty, whether inter-
est or merit stamped the claims. lie thought that the ad-
inurement of that profession was so much more honourable
n proportion to the difficulties which men of mere merit
overcame by competing with persons of rank mingled with
their pursuits in the same profession. lie thought that the
gilt's of the -eerie° was the but which could be devised to
illustrate the glory of the navy in War, and to maintain it in
peace, end that it was in perfect analogy -with the mixed
principles of the Constitution.

Sir F. M. OMMANNEY said he should like to ask the
Gallant Admiral bow many Masters had been promoted since
the wart They were deserving men, and ought to be pro-
moted. They were the most efficient men in the day of bat-
tle.—(Cries of Question, Question.)—lle thought the House
ought not to neglect the humbler classes of the Navy. The
Honourable Member proceeded to make some further ob-
servations, but the impatience of the House for the question
was so greet, abet they were either insuditile, or were heard
too Irregularly to admit of any arrangement. The Hon,
Member moved as an amendment a Resolution which we
understood to be to the following effect:—" That the House-
is satisfied that the powers vested In the hands of the Ad-
miralty are exercised with discretion and judgment; but
that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty praying
that be will be graciously pleased to give directions that
for the future no Officer of the Navy be promoted to the
rank of Rear Admiral, to be superannuated immediately
afterwards; and that Captains shall take rank by seniority
only."
No one bating seconded this amendment, it fell to the
ground.
Sir G. COCKBURN meted the previsus question.
Mr. GRATTAN made an observation which was unheard
in the Gallery.
Mr. HIJME replied. He suffered the two first Resolu-
tions to be negatived. but divided the House upon the third.
The Gallery was then cleared, and the Honse divided.
when the nowhere were—For the Resolution, 32—Against
It, 163—Mejorty against it, 121.
Oa our return to the Gallery «e found the SPEAKER
putting the question on the other Resolutions, which were
all negatived without a division.
Mr. WESTERN moved for leave to bring In a Bill to al-
ter Ste existiag law relative to the qualification for jurors.

Mr. PEEL said, he did not mean to oppose the introduc-
tion of the Bill, as the 'abject was ooe of great importance,
bat at the same time be world not pledge himself to sup-
port it.
Lease was accordiogly granted.
CORONATION EXPENSES.

Mr. HUME rose to introduce a subject which he con•
sidered of importance. Having stated the facts respect-
ing the Coronation on a former night, he should be brief.
The Hon. Member for Knaresborough made a motion on
the subject of the French indemnity in 1816, and from
that period they had received no account of the indem-
nity from the French Government. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer had indeed stated that a portion of it was
appropriated last year without application to Parliament.
He complained of his Majesty's Ministers for having ta-
ken on themselves to snake that appropriation. It ap-
peared impossible the proceedings could be justified. In
1821, it was said the money was applied to the Co-
ronation. It was astonishing how the expense of the co-
ronation could have been so great. One of the items
was the diamond bauble which bad been kept on hire iu
a useless state. He thought a Committee ought to he ap-
pointed to inquire why the expeose of the coronation
bad so much exceeded the Estimate, and concluded by
moving " That a Select Committee be appointed to in- '
quire into the circumstances which occasioned an expense
of 13,8281. in the charge for the coronation, more than
the Estimate of 1820. Also to inquire why 113,2181. had
' been applied to the discharge of the coronation expenses
without the sanction of that House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER flattered
himself he should have little difficulty iu shewiog, that there
was no necessity for the committee moved for by the Hon.
Gentleman. The House must feel how difficAt it must have
been to hire formed any correct opinion as to the probable
expense of the coronation. Many of the services had -been
performed at farmer coronations by persons in the house-
hold of the King, which offices had been abolished by Mr.
Burke's Bill. And it was so very long since such a ce-
remony had taken place, and the information was so vague,
it was rather by guess than any thing like certainty. that a
judgment could be formed of the expenditure. It was obvi-
ous that the expense must now be much greater than 80 or
70 years ago. Bat he bad no objection to state the two
items of which the Hon. Member complained. lie meant
the crown and the coronation robes. With respect to the
crown, the value set upon it by the jeweller was 05,0001.,
which with the other regalia were hired at the rate of 10 per
cent. The postponement of the coronation enhanced the ex-
pense considerably. ‘Vith respect to the particAlar ankle
of the crown, it was obvious that it had been prepared, and
the jeweller was entitled to a per ceutage for the first year.
At first It was considered desirable that the crown should he
purchased. and should form a part of the royal regalia ;
Ornately perhaps it would have been economy, bat et all
events it would have been most becoming the disnity
of the crown that it should be kepi. But Ministers did
not know whether they would have been justified in incur-
ring this expense, antil they learned the full amount of the ex-
penditure. However, his Majesty had determined to sacrifice
pot tion of his personal income for the permanent use of
the crown; but before it was possible to decide, leis
Majesty had, with that liberality which distinguished
him, given up 30,0001. a year .of his income, which
rendered it impossible for him to carry his design into
execution (hear, hear, hear.) But surely Parliament
could see nothing wrong in t.,is. The other item refer-
red to by the Hon. Oent. was the robes. It was custom-
ary that two robes should be provided for the Sovereign.
This practice had been observed upon all former occa-
sions. He certainly was not prepared to say what gran.
tity of ermine or embroidery. or whether the gold lace
,ea, a quarter of an inch thicker than at the late Corona-
don (hear, hear.) But these were subjects beneath the
inquiry of Parliament. It was also customary that new
robes lbould be provided at the Coronation, which war.:

worts by the Sovereign at the "mite and eluting of
parliament; however, this was omitted by bis 'late 51a•
pay, which rendered them the more necessary on the
present occasion. The saratents were now a COMM),
old. and were so Utterer and patched together, that if
any body should have the misfortune to tread upon them,
the robes would escape from his Majesty's shoulder (a
laugh.) 'rhe Right Hon. Gentleman next defended the
conduct of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in
applying the money to the purposes of the Coronation
without the consent of Parliament, and concluded by
saying he must oppose the motion of the Hon. Gentle-
man, because he conceived the appointment of a cow
mittee quite unnecessary.
The House then divided, when there appeared,
For Mr. Humel motion, 77—Against it, 127—Majo-
rity, 50.