HC Deb 08 December 1819 vol 41 cc856-63
Mr. Hume

called the attention of the House to the subject of our present naval expenditure. A resolution, he observed, had been passed respecting it, when the last three millions of new taxes were imposed. Six months had since elapsed without any attempt at reviewing this expenditure. His own opinion certainly was; that not one pound ought to be spared in order to render our naval force efficient. This was due to the honour as well as to the safety of the country. It was at all times of more vital importance than the state of our army; and however splendid the recent achievements of the latter, they had been preceded, and an opportunity opened to them, by the unrivalled victories of our navy. When he compared, how-ever, the present expenditure for this branch of the public service, being between 6,000,000l. and 7,000,000l. whilst we had only 19,000 seamen, with that of the years 1791, 1792, and 1793, it appeared, enormous. The chief cause of the increased expense was the much greater number of ships now employed. We had no less than 607 ships of which 97 only were at sea. Although at the present moment there Were 607 ships in his majesty's service, yet there were no less than 120 other vessels building in the different dock-yards. From the estimates on the table for 1819, the expense for building alone was 1,850,000l.—a sum which, at a period like the present, he submitted, was far beyond any necessity which could exist. The great point, however, to which he wished to call the attention of the House, was the extraordinary disproportion between the disbursements in this department during the years 1792, 1793, and 1794, and those of the present period. If the papers for which he should move were granted, the House would be enabled to see the real state of the case. Surely, no satisfactory reason could be assigned for buildings new ships, which would cost upwards of a million sterling, at a time when we had more than 600 sail capable of being called into immediate service; and at a time, too, when every consideration demanded a decrease, rather than an increase of the public expenditure. He could not refrain on this occasion, too, from stating how much he regretted the addition which, within the last few days, had been made to the marine force. These corps might now be considered almost as a part of the standing army. They were no less than 8,000 strong—a number far exceed- ing their strength at any former period. Their utmost amount heretofore was 5,000 at any one time. He had submitted the motion with which he should conclude, to the proper officers, and he believed there was no objection to meeting his wishes; It was thought that some difficulty would arise in furnishing the details of the accounts which he required; but this difficulty would be obviated when he stated, that he only wanted the totals or aggregates of the expenditures during the years to which his motion would refer. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, That there should be laid before the House ft return of the total number of Ships and Vessels belonging to the royal navy during the years 1791, 1792, and 1793, and during the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, distinguishing their different rates, the number of each employed at se, and the number in ordinary during each year; a return of the number of ships building for the royal navy during each of the above years; a return of all charges incurred for building the same; a return of the total amount of the charges under each separate head, with a statement of the sums actually ex-pended during the three years ending in 1794, and the three years up to the pre-sent time. If these accounts were submitted in a succinct manner, the House would see that the question was of the first importance, and that, in the single department of building, a very considerable saving might be made.

The question having been put from the chair.

Sir George Cockburn

said, he did not rise to promote debate, nor to oppose the production of these papers, so far as they could be given. But it appeared to him, that the larger part could not be made up with sufficient accuracy for the hon. gentleman to found any argument upon them. As far as they could be given, however, they should be laid on the table of the House. There would be no difficulty whatever in furnishing correctly the accounts for the last three years; but those for the years 1792, 3, and 4 were kept in such an irregular manner as almost to preclude the possibility of laying them before parliament in a satisfactory state. The hon. gentleman in the course of his observations, had indulged in remarks which were altogether erroneous; one of these was, that a great many ships were rotting. This applied of course to the ships which were in ordinary. Now, the fact was, that so far from such ships being in a situation to rot, they were actually improving; and, in proportion to the time they were in ordinary, their excellence increased. Thus it was said, "if you let her lie two years longer in ordinary she will run ten years; or, if you let her lie four years, she will run twenty years;" and so on. In truth, it had long been a subject of anxiety to discover the means of curing that most destructive enemy to ships of war, the dry rot. It had, at length, been ascertained, that exposure to atmospheric air was, the true remedy; and, therefore, vessels were opened from; one end to the other, and exposed as much as possible. The effect of this management was, that the navy had never been in a better state than at the present moment. With regard to the necessity of continuing to build, be could only state, that many of the old ships were falling to decay, and therefore it was necessary to supply their place. The policy of keeping up this vital force of the country was too obvious to require a single comment.

Sir Joseph Yorke

said, he thought the object of his hon. friend, in bringing for-word this motion, had been mistaken. What he conceived to be his hon. friend's intention was, that by the production of these papers, such a disproportion would be found to exist between the expenditure of 1792, 3, and 4, and the expenditure of the last three years, as would lead the House to see that a very great reduction might be made in the supplies granted for the service of the navy. In the propriety of this proposition he fully agreed, and he saw no reason why there should not be as great a reduction in the manufacture of ships of war as in the other manufactures of the country. He perfectly recollected an answer which he gave to an hon. member who had formerly belonged to that House (Mr. Whitbread) on tins very subject. On that occasion, allusion was made to the great extent of ship-building; and he said, that this must be the case as long as the dry rot was permitted to continue its ravages, and that until vessels were built under cover, it never would be undiminished. Since that period every vessel and every ship was covered; consequently the destruction must have became much less. He perfectly agreed in the expediency of preserving unbroken the naval strength of the country, but he saw no sort of necessity for carrying on such enormous expenditure. As he was now on his legs, he would take the opportunity of alluding to the manner in which a very meritorious individual, to whose services the country was greatly indebted, had been treated. He alluded to sir Robert Sopping, who, although he had received the honour of knighthood, and had been particularly recommended by that House as deserving of pecuniary reward, had not received a single shilling. He would say no more on, this subject at present, and should conclude by expressing his conviction, that a considerable reduction might be made in the naval estimates.

Sir Isaac Coffin

felt it his duty to offer a few words in defence of that highly meritorious corps to which the hon. mover had alluded—he meant the royal marines. If it had not been for the integrity and loyalty of this corps, the whole fleet under lord St. Vincent, at the time of the mutiny, would have been carried into Ireland. It was to the conduct of the marines alone that the safety of the fleet, as well as the preservation of the lives of the officers; was to be ascribed. He had repeatedly seen them in service, both on shore and on board, and never knew an instance in which they had not manifested great courage, zeal, and loyalty. He therefore maintained, that in adding 1,000 men to the marines, the House was not turning them into a standing army.

Mr. Croker

regretted that the hon. mover should have brought forward this subject now—not that he meant to say that a subject of such importance ever came amiss, but that many of the papers included in the motion would, as a matter of course, be laid on the table of the House, with the navy estimates for the year; and therefore, an additional degree of trouble and expense would be incurred. From what quarter the hon. gentleman had obtained his information respecting the expenditure for the navy for the years 1792, 3, and 4, he was at a loss to conceive; but most certainly ho did not seem to be in possession of all that might be collected on the subject. If he had consulted the Journals of the House, he would have found, that, in addition to the estimates for those years, there was always a very large disbursement, the effect of which was, the creation of the navy debt which had subse- quently been funded. When, however, the House proceeded to the discussion of this subject, he pledged himself to prove, when they looked to the size of the ships, and the other necessary differences in the state of the service, that there was by no means that enormous difference of expense which the hon. mover would insinuate. With regard to what had fallen from his gallant friend (sir J. Yorke), though he differed from him in the view which he had first taken of the question, yet he felt satisfaction in the opportunity which was afforded of paying a most de-served compliment to him for the great attention which, for many years, he had devoted to this particular branch of the public service; and he had the pleasure of stating, that the very system which that gallant officer had recommended was that which those now in office were studiously pursuing. When ships decayed it was necessary that their places should be supplied. The hon. mover had said, that there were 120 vessels on the stocks; where he had got this information he knew not, but had he consulted the papers which were already before the House, he would have found his error; for most certainly his account was greatly exaggerated. With reference to the actual state of the navy, without any regard to the temper or disposition of foreign powers, it had been considered expedient to keep a proper number of ships fit for service. Beyond this number, which was founded on a sound view of the policy of the country, no increase had taken place. The House would therefore see, that they were not building at random; and that they were not, as had been stated, manufacturing vessels merely for the sake of building them. He begged also to allude to the observations which had been made with respect to sir Robert Sepping. Of the merits of that individual no man entertained a higher sense than himself. It was only last year, however, that the recommendation had been given to the committee of finance, to grant him a sum of money in consideration of his great merits. So far the admiralty had done all that was in their power to farther his claims. The committee of finance had since resolved, that he should receive 5,000l., and the Prince Regent had confirmed that resolution. From the shortness of the period which had elapsed since the meeting of parliament, no opportunity had been afforded for completing this object. The Prince Regent had also been pleased to confer upon Mr. Sepping the honour of knighthood.

Sir Byam Martin

said, that when the papers which had been moved for were produced, he would take upon himself to say, that the hon. gentleman would be found to be incorrect in every point to which he had alluded. He would pledge himself to prove, that he was wrong in every instance to which he had called the attention of the House. He wished to say, that the accounts referred to in the motion could only be obtained with great inconvenience, arising from the incorrect manner in which the naval accounts had been kept in the years 1792, 3, and 4; and when they were produced, he thought they would be more likely to mislead, than to inform the House. He begged leave to say also, that, two years ago, the committee of finance kept him before them for a full hour, with a view to ascertain whether they could not get rid of one poor unhappy clerk. If, therefore, his department was now to be called upon to undertake an increased portion of labour, he trusted no objection would hereafter be made to a considerable addition to the estimates; for it was impossible to go on without an enlargement of expense.

Mr. Hume, in reply, pledged himself, when the accounts were produced, to prove every one of his allegations; and, with regard to the expense of these accounts, he would undertake for five pounds, if they would give him the inspection of their books, to obtain all he desired. He could not but complain of the spirit in which this motion had been met, after he had endeavoured to reduce it into that shape which was likely to be the least objectionable. For his own part, he could see no rational ground for objecting to the papers, nor could he discover what difficulty would be found, unless indeed it was said, there were no accounts at all for the early period to which he referred. If there were such accounts, and this had not been denied, then all he wanted was an abstract of their totals or aggregates. He was particularly anxious that these papers should be in the possession of the House before the discussion of the estimates for the service, of the year.

Mr. Croker

thought the hon. gentleman had no reason to complain of the spirit in which his motion had been met, when all that he had asked had been at once ac- ceded to. The hon. gentleman was however mistaken when he supposed that the papers for which he had moved were to be obtained without trouble. He was ignorant of the manner in which the public accounts were kept and therefore could form no correct judgment on the subject.

Sir Joseph Yorke

observed, he did not wish to make any invidious comparison; yet be considered, when the services of sir Robert Sepping were contrasted with those of Mr. Graham, a Bow-street magistrate, who had received 5,000l., that such a sum was extremely inadequate to the merits of the former. He thought that he should at least have had 10,000l., at all events, the grant of 5,000l. was very paltry.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the 5,000l. to Mr. Graham had been granted upon his resigning a lucrative situation, in consequence of ill health; whereas sir R. Sepping still continued to receive the emoluments of a profitable office.

The motion was then put and carried.