been better pleased if it had been a motion for a direct and explicit rejection of the Bill. Mr. Beaufoy felt it incumbent upon him to rise for the sake of doing justice to the great and universally acknowledged merit of the hon. gentleman who had taken such laudable pains to render himself master of the subject, and had furnished the House with so much valuable information respecting it. From that information the House had been taught that upon an average of the last nine years the amount of the poor-rates had increased in a very considerable degree; and perhaps it had escaped them, that, on a calculation upon the probable future increase, governed by that of the last nine years, in the course of fifty-three years, the term of an ordinary life, the poor-rates of the kingdom would amount to the enormous sum of 9,234,000. He enlarged on this alarming speculation, observing that the wisdom of Parliament would doubtless be exerted to prevent the growth of the evil, and establish the maintenance of the poor on such a system as should render it impossible that during the probable lifetime of some gentlemen present, the total amount of the poor-rates should swell to the enormous sum that he had stated. He spoke of the benefit of allowing parishes to incorporate, but objected to the scheme which the Bill would establish, as too complex, too expensive, and too liable to abuse. if he should now bring the business forward in a more harsh form, he desired the House to bear witness that he did it reluctantly, and he trusted that they would' impute it to necessity rather than to inclination. He had engaged in endeavouring to obtain justice for the brave and deserving officers who had been passed by in the late promotion; and no consideration on earth should prevent his persisting in his purpose until the end was attained, unless that House should interfere and order him to desist. When he proposed an address to the Crown, he was told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the House could not in that manner interfere, and that it was an encroachment upon the prerogative of the Crown. He wished to know whether the House had not an undoubted right to address the Crown, when they were fully convinced of the existence of abuses in the executive departments of Government? Every person in every department had a certain power of abuse and corruption, and was not that House to notice it? If any man would venture to hold such a doctrine, he was ready to prove, by numerous instances, the interference of the House to inquire into ministerial abuses. The brave and meritorious officers had been stigmatised and disgraced, and when they applied at the Admiralty to know why they had been so treated, they had been sent broken-hearted away. Far better had it been for them to have fallen in action, than to have lived to be thus degraded! Had that been the case, their grateful country would, in all probability, have voted them sepulchral honours. But now, if they died, and their country acknowledging their great and important services, were to erect monuments to their Debate in the Commons on the Conduct memory, how would the epitaphs run? of the Admiralty in the late Promotion of "To the memory of captains Balfour and Admirals.] April 18. Mr. Bastard begged Laforey, who, after having performed leave to remind the House, that when, upon most glorious services to their country, a former occasion, (see p. 20), he made a were disgraced by a denial of being admotion, by which he conceived that justice mitted to those honours and rewards to would be done to the meritorious officers which they had an undoubted claim, and who were driven from the service in con- died in consequence of broken hearts." sequence of their having been passed by He begged the House to consider the in the late promotion to the flag; he had question seriously, and that the motion not chosen the mode which he then might pass, in order to do substantial jusadopted from any preference given to it tice to the officers, that they might have in his own mind, as the best mode of ob- those honours which were their due, and taining redress for the injuries the officers those emoluments which were their right. had received, but he had brought it for- Thus would confidence be restored to the ward in that shape, because he thought it navy, and that spirit revived which had the most lenient and favourable for minis-been fatally checked by the general opitry. That motion had been rejected, and nion entertained among the officers, that The House divided on the question, that the word "now" stand part of the question : Yeas, 10; Noes, 44. The second reading of the Bill was therefore put off for three months. meritorious services were no longer considered as strong claims to honours and rewards. When the subject was before under discussion, no gentleman had ventured to assert, that the first lord of the Admiralty had done. right. A principle had been laid down to regulate the promotions to the flag by the order of council of 1747. He made no doubt but he should be able to prove to the satisfaction of the House, that the principle had been abandoned, and broken arbitrarily, capriciously, and wantonly. He would prove the fact from authentic letters, some of them written by the first lord, others by Mr. Stephens, and one of them by the first minister of the country. He declared he should be sorry to read any thing of private correspondence. He begged to know if it contained any passage which was considered as of a private nature. He reminded the House how long officers in the navy were to continue in the service before they could obtain promotion and honours; and how very different the case was with respect to the army. There were sinecure places in the army of 2000l. per annum, to the amount of 50,000l.; whereas the whole of the sums given to the navy amounted to no more than 16,000l. per annum. He was far from objecting to liberality being exerted to those officers that had been promoted, but he wished that other persons more capable of service were rewarded adequately to their merits. It had been said, that the Admiralty possessed a discretionary power to select captains in the promotion to the flag; but he should contend, that every discretionary power was liable to abuse, and consequently subject to the control of Parliament. That House was constitutionally authorized to superintend and control the conduct of the different departments of the state, and particularly the naval department. In the present instance, though the order of council of 1747 marked and laid down the principles to guide and govern the board of Admiralty in their promotion of officers, and left them little more than to follow the rule chalked out for them, he would prove, that in the late promotion every one of those principles had been totally deserted. The year 1777 had been made use of at one time, and to answer a particular purpose, as a year of peace; and at another time, and to answer another purpose, as a year of war. The reason assigned for advancing one captain to his flag had been assigned as a fit reason for rejecting another. When that House called for papers, they had a right to have the papers they specifically called for; and a refusal would naturally create suspicions. Mr. Bastard investigated all the circumstances of the cases of captain Uvedale, captain Shirley, captains Balfour and Laforey, Bray, Dalrymple, and Thompson. He maintained, that they were all men fitted for command. He spoke of captain Uvedale in terms of great praise, and mentioned his ill health, which obliged him twice to quit his ship. In order to prove the captain's gallantry, he stated, that a brother officer, in the fleet of sir George Rodney, observing captain Uvedale extremely ill, told him of it, and advised him to apply to the Admiralty for leave to come home, when the captain had said in reply, that he had rather die there, than leave the French unbeaten in the West Indies: that sir George had declared he would save captain Uvedale's life against his will, and accordingly sent him home with dispatches. That captain Uvedale was next appointed to the Dublin, but was, after some time, obliged to quit it on account of his health. Mr. Bastard added, that for this reason he had been taken no notice of by the Admiralty. That the fact was, a yard fell upon his head on board his own ship and wounded him, which caused him to undergo a temporary deprivation of his ship; the blood gushing from his wound, a survey of surgeons had been ordered to report his ill health; but he was not superseded at his own request. Was an officer, then, who had been wounded in the service, when actually at sea, and on board his ship, to be deprived of his rank on that account?Mr. Bastard proceeded to state the case of captain Laforey; who had been commissioned by sir G. Rodney to hoist a pendant as commander in chief in port at Antigua. He read the letters of captain Laforey, and the answers of lord Howe upon the subject, and commented upon them, remarking, that although captain Laforey was set aside from his flag, on account of his holding a civil office as commissioner of Plymouth-yard, sir C. Middleton had his rank, notwithstanding he was Comptroller of the Navy. spoke of the appointment of sir John Lindsay, who, though a most respectable officer, was in a state of infirmity from ill health that rendered it highly improbable He that he would again be able to go to sea. | Mr. Bastard reasoned on the fatal consequences of such a promotion of captains to the flag, and mentioned that at one period of the last war a kind of epidemical disorder reigned in the fleet, which made many of our best officers come on shore, and deprived the country of the benefit of their services. In the present case, he dreaded the effect, unless the cause of complaint were removed. The whole service would feel the degradation of the brave and meritorious officers in question so much that they must reprobate the measure. To make others who had not equally distinguished themselves flag-officers over their heads, was to make no distinction between positive service and negative merit. If promotion depended altogether on the caprice and humour of the first lord, mean wretches would get about him, whispering suspicions, and blasting the characters of men; and thus establish a system of conduct fit only for the inquisition. Mr. Bastard mentioned the case of captain Bray, who had been in the impress service, and who had applied for his flag, when the first lord advised him, at his time of life, to give up his claim, and apply to be put on the superannuation list. Capt. Bray, feeling hurt at this, desired time to consider. At length he told lord Howe that he was willing to follow his lordship's advice. He was instructed by lord Howe in what manner to apply for the superannuation. He adopts it, and writes on lord Howe's request, and is then answered, that his application cannot be complied with. Mr. Bastard observed, that if the Admiralty had a power of selection, they ought to use it as an English power, and not a Turkish power of selection. He next read a letter from Mr. Stephens, ordering capt. Bray and his gang to sea; and now, instead of reward, his pay was reduced from ten shillings a-day to nine shillings and sixpence. The agents of capt. Uvedale had written him word, that his name was left out of the list of flag-officers, and 5 per cent. or a shilling in the pound, deducted out of his pay. Mr. Bastard next spoke of the commissioners of yards that had at different times been made flagofficers, particularly mentioning sir Cloudesley Shovel, lord Hood, sir Richard Hughes, and admiral Arbuthnot; but observed, that, in those days, there was another Admiralty; an Admiralty whom he honoured for having brought men of [VOL. XXVII. } merit into the service, but he could not agree that they were ever out of it. He took notice of an expression of lord Howe's, in one of his letters to captain Laforey. His lordship considered his acceptance of the commissionership of Plymouth-yard, as a dereliction of his nautic pretensions," not considering that office as a military, but as a civil employment. Mr. Bastard observed that such civil employments could only be held, by military characters, and stated the singularity of capt. Laforey's case, it being declared, that previous to February 1778 it was peace, but, for the sake of making capt. Graham it was war. He asked, could the reason for excluding one man be the reason for making another in the same situation? and thus a brave and gallant officer was lost to the service. Mr. Bastard mentioned the case of capt. Shirley, who had the approbation of the Admiralty, and commanded several sail of the line. Finding, however, when the promotion was made, that he was put by, he applied to lord Howe, and desired his claims to be exhibited to the council, when the first lord of the Admiralty refused to lay his case before the council. To capt. Thompson, who had written to know the reason of his being set aside, the first lord would give no answer. Mr. Bastard commented upon an intimation that his Majesty had thought fit to order the promotion exactly as it had been made. He asked, whether ministers could patiently hear such a libel on the sacred name of Majesty? It was impossible, he said, for his Majesty, whose goodness of heart and love of justice they all knew and admired, to have authorized the rejection of the just claims of brave and honourable officers. He now adverted to the letter which he had before declared he knew not whether he was to consider as a public or a private letter, and wished to know whether he might read it or not? [Mr. Pitt said, that he really knew not to what letter the hon. gentleman alluded. If it was any letter of his, he could not tell whether it was a public or a private letter, because he did not recollect what letter it could be, but he should not object to its being read either in the one case or the other. Mr. Bastard had torn the letter, and said, he knew not, if he could make it out. Mr. Pitt desired it might be made out if possible.]-Mr. Bastard observed, that the letter was written by the right hon. gentleman to Mr. Coutts, and the purport of it was to [T] state, that in consequence of certain arrangements the promotion to the flag must stand as it did; the claims of the parties alluded to could not therefore be complied with. He commented upon the word" arrangement," as if an inference was to be drawn from it that naval promotions were to be guided and governed by political arrangements. He wished the House to recollect, that the officers serving in the East Indies, for a very considerable time, and who had been sharers in all the victories there for near half a century, had been superseded by officers who had not served one half of the same time. He would not make any comparisons between those captains that had been promoted and those that had been passed over, but he could not help observing that many passed by were equal in capacity to those approved of by the Board. The House were that night to decide whether officers were or were not to be rewarded according to their merits; whether the service was or was not to be degraded; whether any confidence was to be placed in merit; and whether any difference ought to be made in positive service and negative merit? In conclusion, he declared, that he stood upon the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would move, "That it be referred to a Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Admiralty in the late Promotion of Admirals." Mr. Brett contradicted the assertion that capt. Uvedale had not been superseded from his command of the Dublin at his own request, and produced a letter sent by the captain to the Admiralty, in which he expressly declared, that since he commanded the Dublin he found himself affected by giddiness and other complaints, and therefore requested their lordships to allow him to resign the command of the ship, adding, that as soon as he was able he would return to his duty. He observed, that there was not one word in the letter about the yard of a ship falling on the captain's head and wound ing him, nor had he ever before heard of the circumstance. Mr. Bastard thought the letter of itself a proof of the fact, as the captain could not suppose such a use would be made of the letter as to deprive him of his rank. Sir George Howard as a military man, could not give a silent vote on a question of so much importance. No gentleman could more heartily lament than he did, that such a question should have been brought under discussion in that House, because no one was more sensible of the inconveniencies that would unavoidably arise from that House interfering at all with the departments of the Executive Government. He had always understood that the distribution of rewards and punishments had been wisely lodged in that department, where the duty could be executed with the strictest justice. Though he had the honour to belong to the army, he had ever considered the two military services as blended together. He had often experienced the advantage of considering them under this description. In the course of a long military life, he had always found them in this point of view, and he had never seen any emulation between the officers of each, but that of who should serve their country most effectually. He had been a sharer in much service, the success of which he imputed to the cordial friendship and mutual exertions of the naval and the military parties who were concerned. He could not, therefore, but feel himself very deeply impressed with the facts which he had heard that day stated to the House, and notwithstanding he had ever entertained a high respect for the character and talents of the noble lord at the head of the Admiralty; yet after what he had heard, he thought the House could not, without lowering its honour and its justice, refuse an inquiry. Among other extraordinary circumstances the hon. gentleman had stated that capt. Thompson had written to the Admiralty to know why he had lost his rank, and that no answer was returned. If the fact was correct, it was intolerable. Capt. Thompson had received what, he had ever thought one of the greatest honours a military man could receive, the thanks of his Sovereign, and of both Houses of Parliament, for his great and meritorious services, in common with others, who shared in the glory of the famous 12th of April, 1782. The House ought not to imagine, that men led by their genius, and qualified to follow the military profession in either service, looked to the number of paltry shillings they were to receive per day, as a compensation for their laborious life and perilous services. There was not a man, he would venture to say, that ever got a commission in the navy, who did not assure himself, that by a continued series of honourable and meritorious conduct, he should obtain a flag. It could not, censure or punishment, he should ever hold that to be the indispensable duty of the House to proceed to inquire. But, the present motion turned upon this single question: had a case sufficiently strong to warrant that degree of suspicion which alone could justify the House in proceeding to inquire, been made out? Had it been said, that the conduct of the Board of Admiralty was so distinguished by partiality, capriciousness, or oppression as to give a ground of censure? No, it was only said, let us inquire; there may be grounds." If there were, they ought to to be stated, and then that which was always a painful and delicate task might be necessary. First, let the House ob therefore, but prove a deep and cutting | mortification for any man, conscious that he did not deserve it, to find that he was put aside in the day of promotion. Military men, from the nature and danger of their profession, must be allowed to feel more poignantly and with more nicety and quickness of animation than those accustomed to the frigid rules of civil office. To such feelings he had ever been accustomed, and he trusted they were feelings neither misbecoming a gentleman nor an officer. The power of settling promotions and appointing to command had ever been lodged in the Board of Admiralty; but if either were wantonly and capriciously exercised, that House would act wisely and with becoming dig-serve what were the obvious divisions into nity to employ its constitutional functions of inquiry and control. Mr. Hopkins objected to the motion as unnecessary and improper, the present Board of Admiralty having in the late promotion to the flag followed former precedents during a course of several years. There scarcely ever had been a promotion to the flag, without some one captain having been put aside; and upon a reference it would be found, that throughout a given period 139 captains had been promoted to the flag, and 244 passed by, but it never had been considered as putting a stigma upon their naval characters. Mr. Drake said, he subscribed to every thing that sir George Howard had said. He thought favourably of the present administration, and generally had hitherto given them his support; but, in the present instance, the facts stated by the hon. mover were so important and so clearly made out, that he should consider himself to be guilty of treachery to his constituents, if he did not give the motion his support. Mr. Pitt acknowledged, that when the subject had been last under discussion, he objected to that House taking upon itself to advise the Crown as to the distribution of military rank, and stated it to be highly dangerous not only to the body of officers, but to the constitution itself. That the present was the proper mode of proceeding, and that the House had a constitutional power of inquiring into the conduct of any department of Government, with a view either to censure or punishment, was unquestionable, and whenever a case was made out, strong enough to warrant suspicion of abuse, that deserved either which the subject seemed to fall. It was said, that in the late promotion to the flag, many officers had been passed over and omitted; it was only contended, however, that a few of those were omitted improperly. The principal question was, whether captain Lafey was properly excluded or not? On the subject of captains Thompson, Uvedale, and the others, the argument was, that it was an act of oppression. Those he took to be the two distinct points of consideration, and to them he should apply the arguments which he meant to use. In the course of what he had to say, he did not mean to enter into a disquisition of the services of the officers in question, or invidiously to form a comparison between them and their brother officers; it was unnecessary and sufficient to admit, what he believed no man would deny, that they had all distinguished themselves while acting in the capacity of private captains, and proved themselves officers of great bravery. He would take the case of capt. Balfour, who with capt. Laforey, had signalised himself, by one very brave action to argue upon. He did not mean to speak lightly of it; because it was, undoubtedly, a most brilliant and successful proof of courage and conduct for officers in boats to enter the harbour of Louisbourg, and cut out one of the enemy's ships of the line. It was an action that had deservedly raised captains Balfour and Laforey, high in the opinions of their countrymen; but would any man say, that because capt. Balfour had the good fortune to have enjoyed an opportunity of displaying great bravery and skill with success, that, therefore, at any subsequent period of his life, he was the most proper man to be made an Ad |