ARMY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 6 April 1821)

Colonel Davies
observed, that during the war, when the duties of this office were ten times greater than at present, the expense was only one half of what it now cost the country. In 1806 the expense of the War office was only 25,000l., and now, in 1821, it was 50,000l. It was true that since 1806, a new office for arrears of accounts had been created with the principle of which he did not quarrel: the expense of this office was 12,655l., which, added to the charge of 1806, made a total of 37,655l. There then remained a difference of 13,000l., for which he was at a loss to account. He could not see the propriety of raising the salaries of all the clerks to their present amount; and while a general officer had only 400l. a year, it was difficult to conceive why one of those clerks should receive 1,400l. The savings effected by the examination of accounts in arrear would never, he thought, cover the expense to which that examination put the country. It was said that 104,000l. had been recovered by the different agents and paymasters, whose accounts came before the commissioners of; arrear; what part of that sum had been actually received by the country, he did not know; but, taking the whole to be received, the money was recovered at the rate of 33 per cent. The whole cost of the War office in 1806 was 37,355l., and to confine the expenditure of the present year to that sum would scarcely be thought unreasonable; he, however, was disposed to be satisfied with a smaller reduction, and should therefore move as an amendment, a vote of 45,000l. instead of 50,418l.

§ Lord Palmerston
would be content to take for the present year the War-office estimate of 1806; the charge of 1806 being, not 37,355l. but 50,832l. It should be remembered, however, that in 1806 the constitution of the War-office was adapted only to the transacting of the current business; and that£it was net until 1809 that the department for the settlement of arrear accounts, the charge of which for the present year was 17,000l., was established by the Treasury. In comparing the expense of the present year 86 with that of 1806, therefore, he had a right to say—take the expense of that part of the War-office which is employed at the present day in the manner in which the whole of the office was employed in 1806; and as the cost of the establishments for current business amounted for the present year only to 34,000l., it would appear that, as compared with 1806, a considerable reduction of charge had been effected. The gallant member complained of plurality of offices; but the gentleman who filled the office of private secretary, if he did receive a salary independent of that situation, performed duties not connected with it—duties arising out of the applications to the compassionate list. The hon. member expressed doubts as to the actual recovery of the 104,000l., by the exertions of the office for accounts in arrear; but he would tell him, that 14,000l. had been actually recovered and paid into the Bank, and that the remainder of the saving consisted in the stoppage of sums which would otherwise have been paid by government. For the last two years, indeed, the War-office might be said to have cost the public nothing; for its whole expense had been more than covered by the savings effected from the examination of the accounts in arrear.

§ Mr. Hume
insisted, that the noble lord had increased at every point the expense of his department, and was prepared to prove, that if 20,000l. a year more were voted to that department, the noble lord would find employment for every shilling of it. In 1814, when this country had 236,000 men in arms, the establishment of the War-office, and superannuation list, cost 62,136l.; and it had gone on increasing, until the cost of 1821 was laid at 64,690l. The hon. member complained of the management of the arrear accounts, and characterised the raking up of accounts which had lain dormant for twenty, and some for thirty years, as useless, nay, mischievous to the public interest, and cruelly oppressive to the parties concerned: the expense of the examination of those accounts was a flinging of good money after bad. He had no complaint to offer against the conduct of the office of the noble lord. The business was done with great accuracy: all he urged was, that there was three times as much apparatus as was necessary; that it was like a ten-horse power applied to draw a cork. By attention and economy 87 the expense of that office might be reduced nearly one-half; but as half a loaf was better than no bread, he should support the amendment.

§ Sir H. Parnell
complained of the amount of the superannuation list, and also of the expenses of the pay master's establishment. He complained of the number of offices connected with the military accounts, which were, he thought, by far too expensive. He particularly referred to the establishment of commissioners of military accounts in Ireland. In the whole military system there seemed a determination to resist all recommendations which had economy for their object. Why were not the allowances consolidated according to the recommendation in the 4th report of the commissioners? If done, it would not only simplify the process of keeping the accounts, but also considerably diminish the expenses.

§ Lord Palmerston
said, that the Irish board of commissioners were appointed by act of parliament. He thought a consolidation of the accounts alluded to would be very inexpedient.

Mr. Bennet
remarked upon the increase of the compensations latterly. These compensations in 1807, were only 6,771l., whereas now, they amounted to 13,000l. When the noble lord said he was not the accomptant, he wished to know how he reconciled this with the fact of some 8,000l. or so passing through his office for the management of the yeomanry, volunteers, and militia. There used formerly to be an office expressly for the purpose of managing these parts of the service, but at present he understood there was a partnership account, in which this was the noble lord's share.

§ Lord Palmerston
said, that no part of the money passed through his hands. There was a part of his office which merely examined the accounts of these corps, and the warrants were issued from his office for their payments on the paymaster-general.

Mr. Maberly
said, that at least one half of the amount of the charge for agency, 30,000l. might be saved to the country.

§ Lord Palmerston
said, that if the House should deprive the army of their agents, it would be a deprivation of a, great part of their comforts.

Mr. Wilson
expressed his determination to vote for a saving of 5,000l., which he conceived could be effected under the item of agency.

§ Lord Palmerston
said, that the present vote had nothing to do with the agency department.

§ Mr. Creevey
was of opinion that the committee were bound to go more into detail. He saw by the estimates that the deputy secretary of war had a salary of 2,500l. The salary of the first clerk, 1,400l. The principal clerk 1,200l. He had a great curiosity to see a clerk with a salary of 1,400l. a year. He would wish to know at what hours these clerks attended at their offices, and whether they went there in curricles or in tilburies. The most distinguished and successful men in the army had not more than 2,000l. a year. Generals had about 700l., a year, major-generals 500l. whilst clerks had some 1,400l., and some 1,200l. a year. He did not know whether he could just at that time have these clerks brought before the House, but have them they must. He was convinced the business could be done as well for 700l. a year as for 1,400l.

List of the Minority.
Althorp, visc.	Johnson, col.
Barratt, S. M.	Lambton, J. G.
Bastard, E. P.	Lushington, S.
Belgrave, visc.	Macdonald, James
Benyon, B.	Maberly, John
Bernal, R.	Marjoribanks, S.
Boughey, sir J. F.	Monck, J. B.
Bury, visc.	Newport, sir J.
Calcraft, John	Nugent, lord
Calthorpe, hon. F. G.	O'Grady, Standish
Calvert, C.	Parnell, sir H.
Cavendish, Henry	Palmer, C. F.
Chaloner, R.	Philips, G.
Chetwynd, G.	Powlett, hon. W.
Colborne, N. R.	Price, Rd.
Creevey, Thos.	Ramsden, J. C.
Crompton, S.	Rice, T. S.
Davies, T. H.	Ricardo, David
Denison, W. J.	Rickford, W.
Duncannon, visc.	Robarts, A. W.
Dundas, hon. T.	Robarts, G.
Evans, W.	Robinson, sir G.
Farqhuarson, A.	Sebright, sir John
Fergusson, sir R.	Smith, John
Gipps, G.	Smith, W.
Glenorchy, visc.	Tierney, rt. hon. G:
Gordon, Robert	Townshend, lord C.
Graham, Sandford	Whitbread, S. C.
Haldimand, W.	Wells, John
Heron, sir R.	Wilson, sir Robert
Heygate, alderman	Wilson, Thomas
Hobhouse, J. C.	Wood, alderman
Honywood, W. P.	Wyvill, M.
Hume, J.	TELLER.
James, W.	Bennet, hon. H. G.