Page images
PDF
EPUB

tleman had described. They had not acted as blind instruments, but as beings perfectly possessed of sight. They had altered the dispatch, by omitting a sentence (which Mr. Sheridan read.) Mr. Sheridan added, that, as all hope of defeating the bill was then over, he would not trouble the house any more than merely to take five minutes of their time in reading a statement of the different characters of the two India bills; a matter the more necessary, since, in the whole course of the debates, the bill of his right honourable friend appeared to have been much misunderstood. Mr. Sheridan here proceeded to read the paper at length. When he was about half through, he was interrupted by

Sir Robert Smyth, who desired to know the authority of the paper; and whether it was an extract from a pamphlet, or a more authentic document. If it were the latter, it might be laid on the table and printed for the use of the members.

The speaker declared that the honourable gentleman was perfectly in order to read the paper as part of his speech.

Mr. Sheridan said, he had before stated, that the paper was a description and comparison of Mr. Fox's India bill and Mr. Pitt's India bill, drawn up carefully by himself; and extremely necessary for gentlemen to attend to, as it would give a perfect comprehension of each.

After Mr. Sheridan had gone through the paper, the question was put, the bill do pass," which was carried without a division.

APRIL 18.

"That

CONDUCT OF THE ADMIRALTY RELATIVE TO THE PROMOTION

OF ADMIRALS.

By an order of council, dated in the year 1718, and addressed to the lords commissioners of the board of admiralty, they are directed to proceed in the promotion of officers to the rank of admirals in the navy, according to the seniority of such officers upon the list of captains, regard only had to their being duly qualified for the rank to which they shall be promoted. By a subsequent order of 1747, the lords of the admiralty are authorised to superannuate such captains of long and meritorious service as shall be disabled from serving as admirals, by age or infirmity, under the title of admirals upon the superannuated list; or, as it is commonly called, the list of yellow admirals. In a promotion made by the board of admiralty, on the 15th of September, 1787, in which sixteen captains were promoted to the flag, upwards of forty captains had been passed over, the greater part of which had the offer made them, of being put upon the superannuated list, but conceiving themselves entitled from their past, and their capacity for future service, to the rank of acting admirals, they refused the retreat that was offered them; and had endeavoured, but without success, to obtain their re-establishment from the board of admiralty. This partial promotion had occasioned a great and

general disgust; and especially amongst the officers of the navy, who were alarmed to find that the expectations of reward for the longest and most meritorious services were to be dependent upon the caprice of the first lord of the admiralty; and it was, therefore, thought a proper subject for parliamentary animadversion. Accordingly, on the 18th of April, Mr. Bastard moved in the house of commons, "That the house do resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to inquire into the conduct of the board of admiralty, touching the late promotion to the flag." As this motion went to a direct charge of ministerial, misconduct against the first lord of the admiralty, and was free from the objection of interfering improperly on the functions of the executive government, it was necessary to meet it upon the distinct merits of the case. In support of the presumption of misconduct, Mr. Bastard stated the cases of Captains Balfour, Thompson, Uvedale, Sherley, Bray, and Laforey, and several others were mentioned in the course of the debate. With the view of obviating the unfavourable conclusion these cases seemed strongly to support, it was argued by the chancellor of the exchequer, in defence of the admiralty, that none of the circumstances alleged amounted to more than a negative proof that the officers in question were not disqualified for the rank for which they contended; but that where a selection was to be made (and that a selection was expedient would appear, not only from the uniform practice of the navy, but from the great expense and sundry inconveniences which would unavoidably result from an overloaded list of flag officers), it was necessary that a discretionary power of making that selection should be lodged in the commissioners of the board of admiralty. He admitted that they were responsible to parliament in the use of that discretion; and that whenever a case was made out, strong enough to warrant a suspicion of such abuses as deserved censure or punishment, it was the indispensable duty of the house of commons to proceed to inquiry. But he denied that such a case had been made out. It had not been alleged that there was any officer of incompetent merit amongst those who were promoted, on whom a charge of partiality or corruption could be founded. It had not been asserted that the first lord was actuated by either malice, or any sinister motive, towards those who had been passed over, upon which he could be charged with injustice or oppression. The point to be decided by the house was, whether they could infer from the statement they had heard, that the judgment of the first lord upon professional merit was not to be trusted; but ought to be corrected by theirs. Such a case might undoubtedly occur; but he warned the house of the mischiefs that would inevitably arise from opening their doors, without the most palpable and urgent necessity, to the discussion of professional qualifications and the accomplishment of military promo

tion.

Mr. Dundas contended against the motion, as it would, if carried, produce these two bad consequences :—First, that all future promotions must be by rotation and seniority; and next, that no first lord of the admiralty would, in future, subject himself to such an inquiry as that now proposed; which, of necessity, would make him prefer a promotion by seniority to responsibility, and the certainty of disobliging. Mr. Dundas justified Lord Howe's conduct, by saying, that no person had imputed a corrupt or sinister motive to the noble viscount; and it was natural for him, who was responsible for the officers he employed, to make those captains admirals, in whose hands he could trust his character with the greatest confidence.

MR. SHERIDAN said, he should have declined rising, had he not heard from the argument of the right honourable and learned gentleman opposite to him, that no one captain had been promoted but such as the noble viscount could have a confidence in. That was (Mr. Sheridan said) the only consistent reason which had been given for the promotion. Mr. Sheridan went into a statement of the number of admirals on the list; and, after having mentioned the various different descriptions, declared, that when the promotion took place, there were twenty-four admirals, at least, as able in body and spirit as those last made. To what, then, was the last promotion to be ascribed? Was it done in a time of war? No, it was not; but on the mere rumour of a war. The right honourable gentleman had asked, “Would that house pretend to judge of the qualifications for admirals?" Thus the right honourable gentleman always led them from the question. They would not pretend to judge of the qualifications for admirals; but one thing they surely judged of, and that was, whether the admiralty acted, in their promotions to the flag, consistently with their own rules. The fact was, they had not done this. In the case of Captain Laforey, the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer said, that the first lord of the admiralty had laid it down as a rule, that officers, taking a civil employment during hostilities, abandoned their pretensions to military preferment. He admitted it was a good rule. Another rule was, that no person of bodily infirmity was entitled to promotion ;that was a good rule likewise. Again, any officer, who had not been at sea in the course of the preceding war, was not to be promoted to a flag; and this was a third good rule. But their rules and their conduct did not agree. Captain Laforey was set aside, and Sir Charles Middleton promoted, though both holding civil employments, taken by each flagrante bello. Sir John Lindsay-for it was necessary to speak out-though a most respectable officer, laboured under such bodily infirmity, that it was not likely he should go to sea again; whilst Captain Robinson, one of Lord Rodney's captains, who lost a leg in the action of the 12th of April, was suffered to limp away from the admiralty without employ, though otherwise hearty, and as fit for service as ever. As there were twenty-four admirals on the old list fit for service, and no service very likely to be wanted soon, the late promotion could not be justified on the principle of state

[blocks in formation]

necessity; and the moment this principle was abandoned, in came the principle of honorary rewards and emoluments; under which construction the late promotion fully merited the charge of being partial, capricious, and oppressive. Mr. Sheridan said, he liked the minister's argument of responsibility; but he feared it would not much hurt them, as he observed it always came from themselves. Their responsibility was, to confess that they were responsible, but to stop all inquiry, and prevent the house from deriving any benefit from their responsibility. He differed a little from his right honourable friend, as to that house only having a power to interfere with the executive department, for the purpose of censure or punishment. He agreed with Lord Kaims, who had well observed, that there was nothing like abuse, or even suspicion of abuse, in the executive departments of government, of which that house could not take cognizance. That house had a right to interfere, whenever it thought necessary; and to go to the crown with wholesome admonition. The promotion, if not inquired into, would break the heart of the navy, and perhaps ruin the service.

The question being put, the house divided; ayes 134; noes 154.*

MAY 5.

WAYS AND MEANS.

The order of the day for going into a committee to consider of the ways and means, being read, the house went into a committee, and various papers were referred to the same. Mr. Pitt opened the business, and in a long speech argued, "that we had the fairest ground for confidence; that we should not only enjoy ample funds for the liquidation of every expense, but also for carrying on the great purpose of the late arrangement—the extinction of the capital of our debt,” &c. &c.

MR. SHERIDAN remarked, that however invidious it might seem to start objections to so flattering a statement of the revenue and increasing resources of the country as had been just given by the right honourable gentleman, it was necessary to dispel

The very inconsiderable majority by which the minister defeated the inquiry, encouraged Mr. Bastard to make another attempt. On the 29th of April he moved, "That it is highly injurious to the service, and unjust, to set aside from promotion to flags, meritorious officers of approved service, who are not precluded by the orders of his Majesty in council." After a debate of several hours, the house divided on the previous motion; noes 220; ayes 169.

the delusion under which this country had been acting for some time, and to detect the fallacies which were still attempted to be imposed on the public, and continue that delusion. The right honourable gentleman had entertained the house with an account of the sad state of the French finances; and he, for one, wished so well to that part of the right honourable gentleman's argument, that he hoped the French finances would always be found in as bad, or even a worse situation, whenever the right honourable gentleman should have occasion to draw such a comparison as he had now done. But how had they been reduced to that miserable state in which they were represented to be? By doing that which we had done, and were continuing to do. The French had not faced their situation; and by endeavouring to impose on themselves, and to make it appear better than it really was, they had rendered it infinitely worse than it might have been.

Not, however, to dwell upon the situation of our rival, or to triumph, because it was worse than our own, the real question before the committee was, to consider, whether our receipt was equal to our expenditure. The annual expenditure for the peace establishment, as now stated by the right honourable gentleman, was to be in future £15,624,000. This might, therefore, be considered as ground to argue from; since, however much it might exceed that sum, it could not reasonably be expected to fall short of it. In order to make up an income equal to this expenditure, by taking the receipts, not on an average of several years, but one year only, and making up the accounts from April, 1787, to April, 1788-instead of from January to January-a revenue was produced on paper of £15,792,000. Mr. Sheridan contended against the accuracy of this statement; and said, the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the state of the finances in 1786, would put the matter in a clearer light. The annual expenditure was there stated to be £15,390,000; and the annual revenue as there stated, with £100,000 additional taxes, fell very far short of that sum, if fairly calculated. If the right honourable gentleman, instead of the receipt of the last year-which was acknowledged to have been more productive than any former year had been, from accidental causes that could not be expected to operate for another year-had taken, as he ought to have done, the average of 1786 and 1787; the produce of all the taxes would

« PreviousContinue »