matter before the heads of the department than to lay it before the House of Commons. The hon. member said, that the heads of departments, while cutting the salaries of clerks of 90l. per year, had been raising their own. Where did the hon. member find that? He had stated that the salary of the master-general of the Ordnance had been raised from 1,500l. to 3,000l. a year, and he had argued upon the impropriety of such an addition at a time when there should rather be a decrease. When the hon. member gave an account of his own speech to the public, as he owned to him (Mr. W.) that on a former occasion he had done, when that account was most incorrect, there was no part of England which that speech might reach where it would not be supposed that the duke of Wellington had raised his own salary, or that it had been so raised by his predecessors, lord Mulgrave or lord Chatham; but the fact was very different-the salary of the master-general was 1,500l. a year, from the reign of Elizabeth to the period of the union with Ireland. There was before that period, a master-general of the Ordnance in Ireland, but after the union the offices were united, the two boards were consolidated, and the salary doubled. This took place in the year 1802 [Hear, hear]. He heard the hon. gentleman cry, "hear!" Why, then, did he not state this, and not leave it in such a way as to be misunderstood by half the House? He had made some observations on other parts of the board as to salaries and emoluments; but did he question the fact, that the emoluments and salaries of several officers of the board had been lowered ["I do," from Mr. Hume] He would tell him, then, that his own emoluments had been reduced from 1,700l. to 1,100l. a year. An hon. friend near him had suffered a reduction of 2001. per annum, and there were several other reductions; but no correction of the mistakes of the hon. ever, endeavour to follow the hon. member. In his very first observation there was the greatest inaccuracy. Nothing more surprised him than to hear it boldly asserted, that the reduction of the estimates was but 3,000l. He had stated that the estimates were 1,500,000l., and the reduction but 3,000l.; whereas the estimates amounted to little more than 1,300,000l. while the reduction was 53,000l. Ex uno disce omnes: if the hon. member could make a mistake of 50,000l. in a sum of 1,300,000l. what errors might he not have committed in the long detail of figures which he had laid before the House! What reliance could be placed upon his statements, unless he quoted for them competent authority? The hon. member had founded himself in some measure upon the report of the finance committee. He did not mean to say that the hon. member was not entitled, if he thought fit, to rely upon the report of the finance committee: but that report was not binding upon the House; and it was open to opposition from those who might think that the committee had come to a wrong conclusion. The employment of labourers as servants had been objected to. It might be an objectionable practice; but it was not an abuse, for it was a system which had been acted upon for thirty years, and the services of a labourer now formed by usage part of the emolument given to an officer. It happened, however, that the noble duke at the head of the Ordnance department was, up to a certain point, of the same opinion with the hon. member; he thought the practice a bad one, and was taking measures to abolish it: the advantage was not taken from those who already possessed it; but care was taken not to extend it to new comers.--The speech of the hon. member had been so desultory, that the House must excuse him if he rambled a little in pursuit of it; and he would at once notice that insulated accusation touching the conduct of the store-member could correct his disposition to keeper at Sheerness. The hon. member accusing one individual of peculation, argued with his usual candour, that such was the general practice of the department. As to the fact, he (Mr. W.) knew nothing. If it were proved, the individual, besides losing his situation, would certainly be punished in a way which would not be agreeable to him. But it might be doubted, whether it would not have been more fit to bring such a VOL. IV. mis-statement. There was one of those mis-statements in the newspapers, where it was said that he (Mr. W.) denied that the storekeeeper of Dover had a salary of 5007. a year. He never denied it. He stated that the storekeeper had not retired, but never denied the salary of 500l. a year. The mis-statement had appeared in "The Times." This arose from the incorrectness of the hon. gentleman himself. He alleged that a storekeeper 3 B who had not 100l. a year, had been allowed to retire upon the enormous salary of 5001. He had met the hon. member soon after that statement appeared, and said to him, that there was a mistake in a newspaper respecting what he stated, and added, " You have nothing to do with it, for it is false;" but he was much surprised when the hon. gentleman answered, "I am sorry for it, for I wrote it myself." He now requested, if the editor or writer of The Times was in the gallery, that he would do him justice, for he could not expect it from the hon. member. The right hon. gentleman then went on to contend that every disposition to economy was felt in the Ordnance department. The duke of Wellington had abolished sixty-eight offices,-the salaries attached to which amounted to 14,000l. a year. Even the situation of adjutantgeneral at Gibraltar, which had been sought after by men entitled to it from their character and length of service, had been abolished. With respect to the gratuities complained of, he had the same answer which he had applied to the complaint as to servants. At all events it was not an abuse. The system might be objectionable, though that he denied; for it was the only mode by which the officers of the Ordnance department could be placed upon a level with officers of equal rank in the Navy office and in the War-office; but it could not be an abuse, because it was an acknowledged and a recognised practice. The addition to the salary of the secretary to the mastergeneral, had been made by the reduction of a second secretaryship, and without costing the country a shilling. The powder-works at Feversham were carried on at present, because it was found that it would be cheaper to carry on the works for a few years, than to incur the expense of removing the vast quantity of stores which the depôt contained. From the statement of the hon. gentleman one would have supposed that the sum of 270,000l. was expended in repairs; but upon a survey of the estimates, it would be found that the whole sum so expended, in which many payments to superintend. ing officers were included, did not exceed 80,000l. So much for the candid accuracy of the hon. gentleman's statement! The hon. gentleman had adverted to the pay of the engineer officers; but it would be necessary to take into account, that those officers were not in barrack, and had not the allowances given to officers belonging to the regular corps; in lieu of these extra pay was given them, and he could assure the House that they complained of this as too small. If the estimates were strictly examined, a full explanation would be found in them of many of the points to which the hon. member had adverted. One point he would concede: he would have no objec tion to the production of the Expense ledger every year. The next subject to which allusion had been made, was to the officers on half-pay. On this subject he could assure the House, that selections were made from the half-pay for high situations, and that only subordinate ones were filled up by cadets. As to the professors, there could be no objection to any information respecting them. He would admit that the expense of the Dublin establishment appeared larger than that at Woolwich, but that was explained by this circumstance, that under this head were included several other branches which were not brought into the accounts of the Woolwich expenditure. As to Sheerness, it was true that the expense was increased; but this arose from a great part of the business which was before done at Chatham being about to be transferred thither. As to the establishment at St. John's-wood, he would state what that was. During the war it was considered necessary to have a brigade of cavalry there. The barracks for them were taken for a long lease, it not being thought that the battle of Waterloo would so soon have rendered the lease unnecessary; that barrack was still on hand, and one person was kept to take care of it. It was kept because the lease was unexpired, and he could assure the hon. gentleman that he might have it cheap if he were disposed to take it off the hands of government at present. The establishment at Trincomalce, he observed, was kept in consequence of its being considered necessary for the assistance of the navy. He denied that any clerks were allowed to retire on a full salary, after a short service. He could not then confidently say that there were not any who retired on full pay; but this he could state, that all who were reduced were allowed a portion of their salary; but he challenged the hon. member to produce an instance where any clerk was allowed to retire on full pay after four years service. The hon. gentleman had said, that there was might be cut off, he was rather astonished that the expense was so low as it was. Sir R. Fergusson expressed his surprise, that the right hon. gentleman had left untouched the principal argument-which was, the increase of salaries to the clerks and other officers. Sir H. Parnell contended, that the speech of his hon. friend had been left unanswered. Without entering into any detail, he would read an extract from the 6th report of the Committee of finance. The report stated, that "of late years a system of progressive increase of salaries had been extended to most of the public officers; but in the Ordnance department, this was carried to the greatest length.” This, he contended, was sufficient to convince the House of the fallacy of the right hon. gentleman's speech. The House divided: Ayes 44. Noes 58. Majority against Mr. Hume's motion 14. an expense of 500l. incurred for what was called taking returns of stores. This, however, was grossly incorrect. The fact was, that when a storekeeper was changed, he gave in an account of the stores which had been under his charge, which account was checked by that of a person employed to inspect the stores. This could not be done by the person so changed, and therefore it was deemed most expedient to send a person from London for the purpose. How the hon. member could call this giving a man 500l. for taking returns of old stores, he was at a loss to conceive. He protested against the whole of the hon. member's statement, and would leave it to any unprejudiced man, to state whether he had been fairly treated in being thus brought to argue upon the estimates of several years without any documents, or any preparation whatever. It was true that he had consented to the notice of motion, but he had been unfairly treated by being thus trepanned into such a discussion without preparation. Before he sat down he wished to make one other observation. If the hon. member wished to draw a comparison between the Ordnance estimates of the present year and those of 1793, he should have taken it into his consideration that the prices of things had doubled-that the number of the artillery had been doubled that the pay of the men had been more than doubled. The hon. member might quarrel with the increase of men, if he pleased, but he had no right to say, that with a double number of troops the expense ought to con tinue the same. He ought to recollect that the union with Ireland cast an additional expense of 130,000l. a year on the Ordnance department of this country. He forgot the improvements which had been made in our artillery service. He forgot that the arms now used in the Ordnance department differed widely from those used when the estimates were 400,000l. a year. He forgot, too, the introduction of the horse artillery, and of the driver corps, the latter of which had been properly called by the hon. member for Shrewsbury the sinews of war. The hon. member had omitted to notice all these, which if deducted from the excess of the present establishment above the expense of 1793, would leave a very little difference. Considering these circumstances, and the increase in our colonies, though he might admit that some things place in that government were such as must appear of great importance to every person who looked at political events with a view to their effects on the general interests of this country and of mankind. It had been obvious that, from the very first, the events to which he alluded had excited a hostile feeling in that Alliance, which, notwithstanding that it assumed to itself the epithet of Holy, had manifested views calculated to alarm every friend of freedom. From the first, the intentions of that confederacy had been the cause of much anxiety all over Europe; and that anxiety was more particularly manifested in this country, from the desire which naturally existed to know what part would be taken by his majesty's ministers, when designs hostile to every principle of national law, appeared to be meditated. Impressed with these feelings, he had, on the first day of the session availed himself of the earliest opportunity afforded him to direct the attention of their lordships to this important subject; and on a subsequent day he had inquired whether the representation issued by the allied courts on the subject of the Neapolitan revolution did correctly and truly state the disposition and engagements of his majesty's government with respect to such events as those which had taken place. The answer given on that occasion by the noble earl opposite appeared to be in a great degree satisfactory. He had said, that the document which had appeared in the public papers, though substantially true, was in some respect not correct. He disclaimed the engagements to which it was therein stated that this government was a party; and he disclaimed the principle of interference with the internal arrangements of independent states stating, what every one would admit, that circumstances might arise by which such interference would be justified. The noble earl then proposed to lay before the House a document, containing a full explanation of the conduct pursued by his majesty's government. That paper had, in conformity with the noble earl's promise, been laid before their lordships; and it was now for him to regret that, after perusing it, he had not obtained from it that satisfaction as to the conduct of his majesty's government which he expected it would have afforded. He felt himself, therefore, bound to propose that their lordships should address his majesty for further in formation; and, in doing so, he thought it necessary to trouble their lordships with some observations on the note of the allied sovereigns, and on the paper in reply to it which the noble lord had laid on the table of the House. After the disclaimer of his majesty's ministers, cold and feeble as it was, that the claim of interference set up by the allied powers was one which could not be admitted, as being contrary to all the principles of international law, it might perhaps be thought unnecessary for him to say any thing on that subject. He could not, however, help noticing the remarkable principle asserted in the paper published in the "Hamburgh Correspondent" in December last, as the circular of the allied powers. The claim set up was nothing less than the right of a general superintendence of the states of Europe, and of the suppression of all changes in their internal government, if those changes should be hostile to what the Holy Alliance called the legitimate principles of government. It mattered not how general the wish of the people for the change might be; it mattered not, however inoffensive that change might be to other. states; it mattered not that every people were acknowledged to possess the right of correcting the abuses of their government, and rescuing themselves from political degradation. Yet those monarchs who had assumed the censorship of Europe, and sat in judgment on the internal transactions of other states, took upon themselves to summon before them the monarch of an independent state; to pronounce judgment on a constitution which, in concert with his people, he had given to his country, and threatened to enforce their judgment by arms. This was plainly declaring that all changes of government which did not square with their ideas of propriety were to be put down. Nothing could be more unjust, nothing more atrocious, than this principle. This was, however, the fair construction of the principle on which the sovereigns composing the Holy Alliance declared they would act. But this was not the first time that principle had been asserted: if their lordships' attention had been directed to what had been passing on the continent, they must have perceived the same principle advanced in papers which had previously been issued by the allied powers. If they looked at the Note on the subject of the German constitutions, opposition to the despotic principles of that wicked confederacy was of so late a date as the 19th of January last? Was not the note of prince Metternich to baron Berstett, to which he had alluded, known to ministers? Were they ignorant of the memorial of the court of Russia on the affairs of Spain? And, finally, were they ignorant of the article which had appeared in the Berlin Gazette? He must say it appeared most clearly, that the principles on which the allied sovereigns meant to act could not fail to have been known to his majesty's ministers at a very early period, and long before the paper issued from Troppau, to which the declaration of the 19th of January re presented by prince Metternich to the minister of Baden-that baron Berstett, of whom their lordships had recently heard so much-they would see the same principle laid down. They would also find it in the Memorial of the court of Russia on the transactions in Spain, and it was above all, most unequivocally and intelligibly propounded in the "Berlin Court Gazette" of the 19th December, though the paper which appeared in that gazette had no official signature; yet when their lordships considered the state of the press in Prussia, when they knew that every publication took place under the control of a strict censorship, it was impossible not to regard that document as published by authority, and as express-plied. Now, either they did remonstrate ing the opinions and the views of the Prussian government. The gazette states, that there could be no communication between the allied powers and the government of Naples, because it is asserted that such communication would be, to recognize the legality of insurrection. The new constitution was declared to be the product of unlawful power, and it was distinctly stated that "the monarchical principle rejects every institution which is not determined upon and accomplished by the monarch himself of his own free will." This article in the Berlin Gazette appeared to be published for the purpose of clearly expounding the principle which had been more or less distinctly asserted in all the notes of the holy alliance published on the late events in Spain, Portugal, and Naples, and it went plainly to establish, that no change of government was to be permitted which appeared contrary to what was called "the monarchical principle"-that was to say, every reform of abuses, every improvement in government, which did not originate with a sovereign, of his own free will, was to be prevented. Were this principle to be successfully maintained, the triumph of tyranny would be complete, and the chains of mankind would be rivetted for ever. Was there, then, to be no improvement in government except such as was granted as a matter of favour? Hopeless, indeed, was the condition of the human race, if they were to obtain no political rights except such as spring from the benevolence of sovereigns-of the monarchs who composed the holy alliance. And now he would ask, how did it happen that the first declaration which his majesty's minister had made in At or they did not. If they did, what then, |