to economy would be to shew, in questions | at least the Paymaster was to be conof that nature, that they regarded the tinued till he could be otherwise propublic interest more than the interest of vided for. If his proposition were the individual. His experience however agreed to, the Treasurer should be dismissed of all discussions like the present was, that and the Paymaster alone retained, by the interest of the public was looked upon which 2,000l. a year would be saved. That as nothing, while that of the individual it had been recommended in 1817 that was looked upon as every thing. It was the office of Treasurer of the Navy should perfectly vain and futile to talk or think of be retained was no argument with him to be economy so long as the interest of the put in competition with the fact, that a public was postponed to that of every in- salary of 2,000l. a year was given for doing dividual which might happen to be opposed nothing. The evidence before the Finance to it. He hoped the hon. Member who Committee shewed that the Paymaster did had moved the Amendment would with- all the duties, and he would rather augment draw it, and allow him to move a resolu- his salary than give the Treasurera farthing. tion, the object of which would be to grant As the consequence of pressing his views only the next half-year's salary to the Pay- might, however, only lead to a division master-general. among those who were friendly to economy, he would propose no additional amendment, but content himself by voting for the amendment already moved.

Mr. Labouchere concurred with the hon. Member for Corfe Castle, and stated that he would not vote against the ministry as to the abolition of the office of Treasurer of the Navy, because such a vote would have implied a censure on the Administration.

Mr. C. Wood said, he had voted for the motion of the hon. Member for Cumberland, for abolishing the office of Treasurer of the Navy, because he thought the Government might have made a more economical arrangement, and that it was the business of the House to compel Ministers to adopt such an arrangement. It appeared by the statements of the hon. Members opposite, that two offices were kept up while one was sufficient, and while the Paymaster, according to the admission of the Secretary to the Admiralty, did the whole business both of Treasurer and Paymaster. To him therefore it was extraordinary that the efficient office should be abolished and the inefficient retained. The responsibility of the Treasurer had been dwelt on, but in fact, when put to the proof, that turned out to be no responsibility at all. The office of Treasurer of the Navy was plainly therefore a sinecure. It had been stated too, that the Treasurer might not only do the duties of his office and attend in Parliament, but also that he had time to look after what had been called the floating and unattached business of the Government. What then was the saving proposed by the abolition of the office of Paymaster? The Treasurer received a salary of 2,000l. with a proportionate superannuation, and the Paymaster had 1,2001. also with superannuation.

Sir G. Clerk said that was not the case.
Mr. C. Wood, in continuation. Well,

Sir George Clerk said, that each of the Members who opposed the vote, did it on different grounds, though only the hon. Member who spoke last advocated the abolition of the office of Treasurer of the Navy. He had been already answered by the hon. Baronet (Sir George Warrender). As to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Corfe Castle, he must reply, that it had been regulated that the Treasurer of the Navy was to be made an efficient officer, and the paymastership put an end to, as soon as the meritorious officer who now held that place could be provided for. The present grant, as proposed, was only for six months; and it was the firm intention of Government to provide for the gallant officer who held the place in some other way as soon as possible.

Mr. Bankes said, that he understood the Government, on the previous debate on this subject, to have pledged itself that the office of Paymaster should be immediately got rid of.

Sir G. Clerk said, no such pledge had been given by him, or with his knowledge. He always understood that it rested upon the contingency of Government being able to find some other suitable office for the present occupier. What he had then stated was, that there would be an immediate saving of 1,000l., and that when the Paymaster could be provided for, there would be a saving of 2,2001.

Mr. Alderman Waithman agreed entirely in the observations of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, and would certainly vote with him on the present occasion. He, for one,

would never agree to the keeping up of a useless office, until the individual who held it could be provided for. The Admiralty ought to be compelled to act up to its profession of economy, and compelled immediately.

the Estimates he would have seen that there was an ample vote to enable Government to reward those seamen who had served their country. It was a great mistake to suppose that seamen who had served their country were turned adrift without any provision being made for them. But if he were not mistaken, the persons to which the hon. Member had alluded, were men who had been in the Ordinary at Portsmouth, and who had been snugly housed there for many years. Many of them had pensions, however, and all who had claims would be provided for, though some of them had not served a sufficient time to entitle them to a pension.

Mr. Maberly said, that it appeared on all hands that the office of Treasurer of the Navy was a sinecure; and yet it was the sinecure officer that was to be preserved, and the other that was to be dismissed. The proper mode of acting was to get rid of the sinecure, and give the man who did the business an ample remuneration. This scheme of the Government was very like its other schemes which promised economy: as for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a saving in the Victualling-office; but the fact was, that there had been an increase of nearly 2001. It was said too that there would be a saving in the Navy-office of 2,9007., but he found superannuations to the amount of 4,0007. He called on the House to continue the office of Paymaster and refuse the salary of the Treasurer.

Mr. F. Baring said, that the only argument he had heard in favour of the vote was, that the services of the gentleman who held the office of Paymaster had been active and efficient, and that it was the duty of the Government to retain him in that situation till he could be otherwise provided for. To that argument he could never agree. He had lately observed, that seventy seamen, who held trifling situations on board ships at Portsmouth, had been discharged, and he should be glad to know whether Ministers had waited until these brave men, who had fought and bled in the service of their country, were provided for, before they were sent adrift? At another place one hundred and twenty men were dismissed with a very short notice. He had, a few days before, received an account of thirty families thrown out of the employment of Government, without any notice or provision whatever. He knew no individuals who had such claims on the rewards of the country, as these seamen, who were often compelled to enter its service. It would be most unjust therefore if Ministers kept a single officer in employ for an hour more than he was wanted, while they discharged these poor seamen, and left them to starve, unprovided and unpensioned. Their services had not Mr. Peel observed, that out of the five been limited to the Victualling or the Navy speeches that had been made against the office; their duties had led them under item, four of them contained different and tropical suns and amidst the ice of the distinct propositions as to the two offices. poles; they had braved storms and battles, This was of itself sufficient to prove that it and if they were to be turned off, while a was a matter of extreme difficulty for his ministerial office was to be kept up to re- Majesty's Ministers to bring forward a proward the services of some man who had position with respect to this situation that at most never braved any other storm than was at all likely to produce unanimity. that of a debate, the people might with He denied that there was any difference justice cry out against the Government in the language held by Ministers on the and the Parliament. It appeared, indeed, present, and on the former occasion. They that while these men, who had actively asserted that there would be an immediate served their country, might be sent to the saving of 1,000l. a year, and that eventuparish for relief, one of his Majesty's ser- ally the saving would amount to 2,2007. vants must be made a burthen to the public, per annum, and they said so still. Their till a pension could be found to suit him. object was, to continue the office of PayAfter this, let them hear no more about a master until some provision might be made desire to relieve a suffering people. After by the falling in of a situation connected this, let there be nothing said about plans with the patronage of the Crown, for the of retrenchment and economy. person who now holds it, instead of sadSir George Clerk said, if the hon. Mem-dling the country with a pension. ber had but looked a few pages further in thought it would be very unjust to remove

He

Mr. D. W. Harvey called upon the Member for Radnor to put an end to the debate, by stating whether he were willing to hold the office of Honorary Treasurer of the Navy until the Paymaster of the Navy was otherwise provided? If he would do that, the vote would be unnecessary.

Mr. F. Lewis observed, that he had no wish to accept of the office as a sinecure. He would rather have an office full of business. The hon. Member asked, whether he would consent to perform the duties of the office without salary? That was a question on which he as an individual could not decide. It was for the House, and not for him, to decide how the duties were to be performed, and how the person performing them was to be remunerated.

a distinguished naval officer from the situation, without granting him an adequate provision. The Estimates had been for some time in the hands of the Members, and therefore it could not fairly be urged that the House was not aware that the vote was to be proposed. Neither was it just to insinuate that the Government were taking this step for the purpose of keeping up its patronage; because in this case, they were providing for an individual whose brother, his right hon. friend, the Member for Liverpool, had voted against them on this very question, the object of which vote, had it been successful, would have been to have turned the Ministers out of office. They therefore might be wrong in judgment, but was it possible to say that they were acting from any corrupt motive? He would give the House this assurance-that the office of the Paymaster of the Navy should never again appear in an Estimate. They had never contemplated its appearance there; but when the Motion was made the other night, he did expect that Parliament would make the provision for one year. If within two months an opportunity of a vacancy should occur, the Government would take advantage of it, and in preference to any political claim, would give the appointment to this officer. But it was possible that no such vacancy would occur, and he therefore trusted that the House would not compel them to turn this individual out of office without any provision whatever.

Mr. Hume hoped that the House would not consent to any compromise, but decide the question upon principle. He did not see in what respect the King could be said to want patronage, or how he could use it to save the public purse. [Order] He supposed that the interruption must proceed from some very new and young Member, who had never heard the Minister talk of the King's patronage, and of the patronage of the Crown. ears must be extraordinarily delicate to be offended at what he had said,

His

Mr. Peel lamented that his argument had not penetrated the understanding of the hon. Member, who must be extremely pugnacious if he were disposed to quarrel with the very modest proposal of Ministers. The experiment he wished to try was, whether the office of Deputy could not be abolished-the principal being required to discharge the duties. If it should turn out that the experiment failed, he would undertake that in the estimates of next year only 2,000l. should be taken for the salary.

Lord Howick said, that he took a similar view of the subject to that taken by the hon. Member for Abingdon. The sum, it must be admitted, was small; but economy was not for him the most important consideration. The House had then in its power to remove one dependant on the Government from the House, and as there was already more than a sufficient number of members of Government in the House, to get rid of one would be a con- Mr. V. Smith said, that having elicited stitutional benefit. The effect of agreeing, this information from the right hon. Secreto the vote would be, to confirm the Trea-tary, he should beg leave to withdraw the surer of the Navy a political officer, de- Amendment. pendent upon the continuance of Ministers in their places, for his situationin that House. He did not so much regard the expense as the influence, and he should willingly vote for the total abolition of the office.

Mr. Trant supported the Amendment, in order to compel Ministers to immediate economy.

The Committee then divided on the original Question, when there appeared for the original Motion 155; against it 69; Majority 86.

List of the Minority.

Beaumont, T.
Althorp, Lord
Bright, H.
Benett, J.

Blandford, Marquis
Baring, F.
Blake, Sir F.
Buck, L. W.