to have taken any part in the debate: but when he considered the respectable quarter from which the motion came, and found that the noble lord had not examined it with his usual powers of investigation, he could not help troubling the House with the reasons which would impel him to give the motion his decided negative. Lord Rawdon lamented that by some singular fatality the noble earl had totally mistaken him throughout his speech, since most of the sentiments expressed by the noble earl were such as he was so far from objecting to, that he most fully concurred in them. The noble earl and he differed in one little particular; and this was, the application of the motion, which, he must contend, was not, in any degree, that which the noble earl had argued it to be. The motion did not desire the House to interfere with the prerogative, and assume and exercise the function of military promotion. Had it been of that tendency, it would have proved, he was ready to admit, highly indecent and improper. It only desired his Majesty to take the case of several meritorious and able officers into his royal consideration, upon the presumption, that, in the late promotion to flags, their merits had been overlooked. To have rested it on any other ground would, in his opinion, have been disrespectful to the Sovereign, and have carried with it an imputation of partiality in the noble viscount, which he was very far from thinking that he deserved. He then stated a case of promotion to flags. in the reign of queen Anne, when the captain of admiral sir George Rooke's ship, who was then at Portsmouth, just preparing to sail on an important expedition, was passed by; sir George Rooke, thereupon, wrote to Prince George of Denmark, remonstrating, against so gross an act of injustice to his captain, and declared that he considered it as a personal affront to himself. Lord Rawdon produced one of sir George's letters to the prince, and read a passage from it. Sir George wrote many more letters to the prince on the .occasion; nor would he sail before justice was done to his captain, and he was re.stored to his rank. With regard to the nineteen captains that the noble earl had said were superannuated, to make eight admirals, the noble earl had not stated, whether they had withdrawn themselves from the service or not. He had, therefore, a right to conclude that they did withdraw, and it was on all hands admitted, that such officers as had withdrawn themselves from the service, had no claim to farther promotion. But, was that the case with the officers in whose behalf he had made the motion then upon the table? Directly the reverse. They were all officers lately in service, and ready and willing to be employed again. They were not men liable to be set aside upon so harsh an imputation as incapacity. The noble viscount had asked if a se jeant of grenadiers, though a brave soldier was fit. to command on a dangerous enterprise? Were the cases in the smallest degree analogous? Surely not. The officers for whom he then contended had actually been in command often. They were looked up to by their whole profession as officers of the first ability, and as fit for command as any naval characters whatsoever. In the higher ranks of the army, officers always rose by seniority, colonels became generals, and so on; and, unless there was some stain in an officer's character, which rendered him unworthy of promotion and unfit for rank, he saw not the inconvenience that could arise from the same practice obtaining in the Navy. Certain he was, that the establishing a precedent of a garbled list of promotion to flags, let it happen when it might, ought to be considered as a most mischievous precedent. It was rank, and not emolument, for which officers of true military feeling were anxious. To know that their country admitted that they deserved to be thought well of, was their ambition; and the noble viscount as well as he, had witnessed the advantages of encouraging that glorious emulation in both services during the late war in America. The noble earl's argument went so far as to shut the door completely against inquiries into the conduct of a first lord of the Admiralty, on any occasion; a principle which he hoped he should never see the House adopt, since it was possible for a marine minister to act as detrimentally against the interest of his country, by abusing his authority, and pursuing im proper measures, as the minister of any other department in the state. The motion was negatived without a division. Debate in the Commons on the Omission of Captains Balfour and Thompson in the late Promotion of Flag-Officers.] Feb. 21. Mr. Bastard began by remarking, that he felt differently respecting the motion he was about to make, than he should have done, had he been able to have brought it forward on a preceding day. He had often observed, he said, that the success of any proposition made in that House, was a good deal governed by the supposed interest the mover had in it, or the connexion in which he was believed to stand with those most immediately concerned. He thought it right, therefore, to declare, that he had no other interest in the question which he should have the honour to offer, than every gentleman present must have in the quiet, happiness, and well being of that service, which the House had ever regarded with partiality, and which he should consider as pre-eminently entitled to his estimation. It was to the navy of England that the country was to look up for its protection. Neither had he any connexion with the officers prior to the late promotion to the flag, nor other knowledge of them, than as men whose reputation stood high in their profession, as men the companions of victory, the actors in those scenes which had reflected honour and glory on the British name and character. That the House of Commons was in a peculiar degree to be considered as the guardians of the interest and honour of naval officers, was an opinion generally entertained by professional men, and, he believed, he could produce an authority in support of that assertion, which even the Admiralty-board itself would admit to be unquestionable-he meant the authority of lord Howe. Mr. Bastard here read an extract from a speech made by lord Howe in the House of Commons, when the thanks of the House were voted to lord Rodney and the other officers, concerned in obtaining the victory on the 12th of April 1782, in which his lordship stated, that the protection of that House was what officers looked up to, and what contributed essentially to keep emulation alive. Mr. Bastard pursuing this subject, remarked, that the public opinion was the principal aim and object of every officer; and when that was lost, the atdour of the service sunk, the spirits of those employed became dejected, and disgrace to the country followed. This had been the case in the state of Rome. While the people took an interest in the character and welfare of their officers, their arms were victorious in all quarters of the globe, and the Roman name was heard every where with reverence; but when dissipation had distanced virtue, and the Senate became negligent of the honour of their officers, the Roman arms were no longer successful, and those who bore them, were reduced to the necessity of begging in the streets, like Belisarius. Having thus generally endeavoured to impress the House with a sense of their situation, as guardians and protectors of the honour of British officers, he came immediately to the point, and censured the late promotion to the flag, as a promotion founded in inequality, and disregardful of distinguished desert. Among other officers of undoubted merit, captains Balfour, Thompson, Laforey and sir Digby Dent, had been passed by totally unnoticed. He reasoned upon the evil conse quence of such neglect, and called upon the House to correct it, by an address to his Majesty. So far from its being true, that the House by acceding to such a proposition would be chargeable with an improper interference with the preroga tive, lie contended, that the House would do its duty in an eminent degree, and render essential service to the country, by showing that it was ready to stand forward the advocate of neglected merit. He produced the order of council of 1747, establishing the list of Yellow Admirals, and maintained, that it was an institution provided only for such officers as were unfit to serve either from want of capacity or from infirmity. He declared, that neither the one nor the other of these was the case with the officers for whom he was contending. He particularly urged the claims of captains Balfour and Thompson to the interference of that House, as they both stood in a predicament peculiar and distinct from the other officers, who had been passed by in the late promotion to flags, having received the thanks of the House for their conduct on the 12th of April, 1782. He should, therefore, make them the subjects of a distinct motion, and if the House thought proper to agree to that, he meant to bring forward the other officers, who had been passed by, in a subsequent motion. He argued against the impolicy of suffering naval promotions to depend merely on the caprice of a first lord of the Admiralty, and put it to the House to consider the probable consequence of their refusing to do captains Balfour and Thompson the justice that was their due. What a lesson would it hold out to the service, and what would gentlemen whose sons were hereafter to enter into the naval profession, think it necessary to say to them for the purpose of instructing them how to obtain a flag? Instead of advising them to do their utmost to sink, burn, and destroy the enemy's ships, instead of telling them that victory was the road to rank, and that the higher they carried the British name, the more near they themselves approached to the acquisition of honour and reward; and instead of seeking to capture the enemy's ships of war, their counsel would be to look after merchantmen, to seize upon private property, to increase their fortunes rather than their fame, and by that means to obtain parliamentary influence; in short, to regard nothing but servility and meanness, to manifest a studious attention to the caprice of a first lord of the Admiralty, to show a readiness to run on his errands, to be his flatterer, his follower, and perhaps his pimp. Mr. Bastard affirmed, that officers who had, during a long life of hard service, behaved well, and who came not within the order of council, and were as able and as willing to enter upon actual service as ever, considering being put upon the superannuated list the same as being rejected, degraded, and stigmatized. He now moved, "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to confer some marks of his royal favour on captain Balfour and captain Thompson, who received the thanks of this House for their behaviour on the 12th of April, 1782." lives in the cause of their country should, by the caprice and injustice of the naval minister, be rejected, stigmatized, and disgraced, are complaints that forcibly address themselves to the humane and benevolent feelings of the House. On the other hand, we find a difficulty in believing, that a nobleman of acknowledged humanity and unquestionable honour, whose whole life, almost from his childhood, is a proof that the naval service of his country is the strongest passion of his heart, should have been guilty of wanton oppression, of premeditated injustice, and of a deliberate attempt to ruin the naval interests of the kingdom. But while we listen with that candid attention that is due to the complaints of those who have borne arms in the service of the state, and at the same time are anxious to know if so unlikely a circumstance can possibly be true, as that the naval minister, on this occasion, has contradicted the uniform tenour of his life, we find our inquiries suddenly arrested by a preliminary question, a question which the House, I am persuaded, will agree with me in thinking must be decided before we can possibly proceed. The question is, will not the motion before us prove ruinous in the event, to the very service which it purports to promote; and will it not also prove dangerous in the extreme to the constitution, of which we are appointed the guardians and trustees? If, upon inquiry, such shall appear to be the real Mr. Gerard Noel Edwards seconded tendency of the motion, the complainants the motion, and took notice of what had themselves, from all I have ever heard been stated in the newspapers, as having of their characters, will be the first to fallen from the first lord of the Admiralty request that it may not receive the during the debate of the preceding day, countenance and sanction of the House. in the House of Peers, when he compared-The nature of the question appears a post-captain to a serjeant of grenadiers. [The Speaker said, the hon. member must not allude in that House to any thing stated in a newspaper.] Mr. Edwards reasoned upon his reference, and declared, that he considered it as a most unfair comparison, in the highest degree degrading to gentlemen of the nautical profession, who had by their merit attained the rank of post-captains. Mr. Beaufoy rose and said: The hon. gentleman who made this motion, has introduced it by a narrative of circumstances which are naturally calculated to engage attention, and secure a favourable hearing. That officers of distinguished merit should be denied the just rewards of their service; that men who have hazarded their exceedingly obvious from the grounds on which the proposer has expressly declared, that he has brought it forward for consideration; for he tells us, that it arises from the unjust and unwarrantable selec tion which his Majesty, by the advice of his naval minister, has made in the late promotion of captains to the rank of admirals. He describes that selection a founded on caprice, injurious to men of distinguished merit, and every way de structive to the naval service of Britain. On this occasion, therefore, two questions naturally arise: first, ought the power of selection to exist at all? secondly, if it must exist, in whom ought it to be vested? The hon. gentleman, from the tenour of his argument, seems desirous of contend in his Majesty, if this motion should be carried, will the patronage of the navy in all future times be found. For what is the ing that no right of judgment, that no power of selection, that no means of choice should, upon such occasions, exist in any department of the state: he endea-language in which, if this motion should vours to show, that the weakness of age, that the debility of sickness, that mental incapacity, and that professional demerit (which, however far from existing on the present occasion, must sometimes exist; and when it does exist, will neither be readily acknowledged, nor be capable perhaps of public satisfactory proof) should intrude on the service of the state at a time when all that is valuable to the kingdom, to its honour, its existence, may depend on the utmost vigour of exertion, the highest mental capacity, and the greatest professional knowledge. He means to contend, that no distinction should be made between the infirm and the vigorous, between the capable and the ignorant, between (1 will not say the coward and the brave, for that is a distinction unknown to the naval officers of Britain, but between) the indolent and the active. If seniority of service had been, as the hon. gentleman contends, it ever ought to be, the rule and standard of promotion, the line and measure of advancement in the navy, many of the most brilliant victories which this kingdom has knowif, never could have been obtained. Had it been so in the army, even Wolfe himself, a name that impresses every mind with veneration, even he (from a disease which, though it did not disturb the vigour of his mind, nor prevent his discharging the active duties of a soldier in the field, hung, however, on his life, and was dragging him to an early grave) could not have lived to have attained the rank of a general officer; and that glory which shone with so intense a light, irradiating the whole empire with its beams, never could have risen to the view. But as nothing which merits the name of argument has been urged on this part of the subject, I think it unnecessary to trouble the House with any farther remarks on the first of the two questions which I stated. The second question is, admitting that the power of selection in all promotions to the rank of admiral must somewhere exist, in whom ought it to reside? The constitution answers, unques. tionably in the executive magistrate; but the object of the present motion is to show, that not in the Sovereign, as to every real purpose, as to every substantial effect, but in the representatives of the people, ought this power to be vested. In them, and not pass, the House will be understood to address the Sovereign. "Those whom your Majesty, for purposes which you deem perfectly sufficient, has thought proper to pass by without particular dis-.. tinction, we, the Commons of Great Britain, for reasons that we deem still more sufficient, desire that your Majesty will specifically distinguish; those whom your Majesty thought it was not for the interest of your service eminently to reward, we, being much more competent judges of that service, request may be honoured with such rewards as your Majesty, on better consideration, may think proper to bestow." The hon. gentleman has told us in what terms, if this motion does not pass, the House of Commons will be considered as addressing the officers of the navy; permit me to tell you in what manner, if this motion does pass, the House will be understood to accost them. "Are you desirous of advancement in the service? do you wish for the emoluments and ho nours of your profession? address yourselves to the members of the House of Commons; endeavour to cultivate an interest with them; attach yourselves to those who, if your deserts shall not have been such as to recommend you to the notice of your Sovereign, will move for an application to the Crown in your behalf, will vouch for your characters, and urge the House to demand from the Sovereign an equivalent for that promotion which he has thought proper to refuse. In this manner your wishes can never be frustrated, your ambition never be disappointed; for the Sovereign must either consent, (be your professional demerits what they may) to give you the distinction to which you aspire, or a recompense of equal value if this distinction should be withheld." Who does not perceive the consequences that must result from so pernicious an innovation? who is not convinced that from the hour that such a precedent is established, the navy of Great Britain, that navy which is justly esteemed the bulwark and chief dependence of the state; that navy which has enabled us to assume the foremost rank among the nations of the world; that navy which at this hour is raised so high in the general estimation of the public, that it would be difficult to find any term of praise, any species of panegyric that is not already worn, that is not become common and familiar to every ear, will be utterly destroyed. The hon. gentleman has mentioned the character and conquests of Hawke; let him recollect that that character was established and those conquests obtained under that very rule of promotion, that order of service which he is so anxious to overthrow. If, then, we value the experience of the past, or look forward with expectation of glory to the future, let us be cautious of departing from a rule that has hitherto maintained us in honour; let us be cautious of novel experiments on the great essential, not of the well being alone, but of the very being of the state. Above all, let it be remembered, that if the patronage of the navy be transferred from the executive magistrate to the Commons of Great Britain, that principle of responsibility, which is the surest guard and most substantial protection from the abuse of power, will cease to exist. At present, ignorance in the selection, or corruption in the choice of the officers on whom preferment is bestowed, brings with it, especially if the welfare of the state should be endangered, a parliamentary interference for the removal or the impeachment of the minister; but if this power be transferred to the Commons of Great Britain, it will be exerted without restraint or the shadow of control; for who shall call to an account the representatives of the people?-But it is not on the naval service alone that this pernicious innovation will be found to operate; we shall soon hear of similar complaints in every other department of the state; we shall soon be told that officers of ancient standing, of acknowledged fidelity, of the highest worth in the civil line are causelessly passed by, to the injury of their fortunes, the degradation of their characters and the prejudice of the kingdom: a recompence for injustice so severe will invariably be asked; not a promotion will take place in the Customs, not a single remove in the Excise, but complaints will be made that honest integrity is insulted by capricious selection, and that an equivalent for injury sustained is most justly due. The interference of the House will be anxiously solicited to save from destruction the basis of our security and our honour, the revenue of the kingdom, without which no armament could be equipped, no troops could be paid. The judges too, we shall be told, are no longer selected for their virtue or their learning, their wisdom or their experience; but ignorance and folly, it will be said (for such reports are not the less likely to be advanced from their being altogether untrue) are placed upon the judgment seat. In this manner all the active powers, all the real energy of the executive magistrate, will be transferred to the representatives of the people : the ancient barriers of the constitution, those distinctions of authority which our ancestors have established, those separations of power which they deemed essential to the very existence of freedom, will be utterly destroyed. For my own part, reasoning as a man whose first object on all occasions is the liberty of the people, there is nothing I so much dread, as that mode either of opposing or assisting the executive magistrate, which consists in the usurpation of his rights: nor is this an apprehension which belongs only to myself; for who does not recollect the extreme dismay which impressed the general mind, when a proposition was brought forward by a right hon. gentleman, (the real greatness of whose character, could any thing have recommended it, must have made it acceptable to the kingdom) for assigning the executive authority of a large proportion of his Majesty's empire to persons originally named by the representatives of the people? The nation was perfectly aware, that grievances the most alarming at that time existed in India; it was perfectly aware, that measures the most vigorous, were absolutely requisite for their removal; but the people trembled when they heard that the redress was to be obtained by an executive power in those whom they had appointed to legislative authority alone: they perfectly understood, that if the same persons who exclusively possess the right of granting supplies for the service of the state, and who also constitute a third part of the legislature, should assume the additional power of executive government, nothing could possibly prevent their becoming completely despotic. That the apprehensions of the kingdom had their foundation in truth, no arguments are necessary to prove; for no axiom is more obvious, than the maxim that this constitution is dissolved from the instant that executive authority is assumed by the representatives of the people. What form of government may succeed, I never shall think worth an inquiry: for the happiness of those who would be willing to survive |