Commons Sitting of 27 June 1821

ECONOMY AND RETRENCHMENT.
Mr. Humebegan by observing, that he ought to apologise to the House for submitting to its consideration a question of such great importance, as that which he had undertaken to bring forward, at so late a period of the session. Various circumstances had, however, concurred to postpone this motion for ten or twelve days beyond the period which he had originally fixed. Any person who had attended to the proceedings of the House, during the present session, must have noticed the repeated statements which had been made, from both sides, of the distress that weighed upon all classes of the community. There were no doubts on his mind, that the agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing interests were equally depressed. The distress of the agriculturists had been described as almost unexampled; manufacturing capital had suffered no less; and commercial transactions of every description produced profits scarcely sufficient to make it a matter of interest to carry them on.—He was of opinion, that relief could only be given by reducing the expenditure of the country, and thus permitting a reduction of the public burthens. Although he had voted in favour of the appointment of the committee to inquire into the state of agriculture, he did not at the time anticipate, that any benefit, except that of placing in a proper point of view the causes of the distress, would result from the labours of that committee. He thought the Report which had been made, would, in that way, have a most beneficial effect. It would show those gentlemen, who were generally said to represent the agricultural interest in that House, how erroneous the opinions were, which they had entertained, of the possibility of raising the price of their produce, in order to, relieve their own distress at the expense of the other classes of the, community. Many persons who formerly entertained such views, were now convinced of their fallacy, and agreed, that the only was relieve the country, was that pointed out by the report, namely, a reduction of the expenditure: and he was confident real relief could only be obtained by the most rigid economy and retrenchment in every department.
1346
The House, acting as the representatives of the people had not attended to their duties in this respect so as to answer, as far as he had been able to collect, the just expectations of the people. Out of doors, he found it was the general opinion among all classes, (except those who derived their subsistence from the taxes, and who, therefore, were excusable for differing on such a point), that the expenditure of the country was on too large a scale; and that the estimates which had been agreed to by this House, ought to have been reduced. Let them reflect on the situation in which we stood.—And here he would observe, that he was not one of those persons who viewed the state of the country with any gloomy or desponding anticipations. He was of opinion that this country possessed capital, energy, and other advantages, which, if properly directed, were sufficient to enable it to surmount all its difficulties.
The object of his present motion was, to enforce the necessity of Economy and Retrenchment in every department of the Public Expenditure. And he would show, that the House, during the present session, notwithstanding the claims which had been made by the people to lessen their burthens, had adopted no measures of that kind. He proposed first to lay before the House a Comparative View of the Revenue and Expenditure of the country during the peace of 1792, and at present. He had selected that year for comparison, because the Committee of Finance in 1817 had done so; and because the circumstances of the country, in his opinion, required scarcely any larger establishments now than at that time.
In 1792, the expenditure of the country was considered large when it amounted only to 16,000,000 l., including the Sinking Fund. It now amounted to 53,000,000 l. without the Sinking Fund. In 1792, the interest and charge of the public debt,—he meant that part paid to the public, getting aside the Sinking Fund,—was 9,5771972 l.; and on the 5th January1821, it was 31,252,612 l. In 1792, the expenses of the civil government and its military establishments (Ireland excluded), were 5,391,206 l. In 1820, the expenses (Ireland included), were 22,087,501 l.,.being upwards of four times the amount of 1792, as appears by the following statement:—

No. 1. ABSTRACT of the PUBLIC RECEIPT and EXPENDITURE for GREAT BRITAIN, calculated on the average Produce of the Years 1788, 1789, and 1790; and Estimates for 1791–2.—[Vide First Report of the Committee of Finance, dated 10th May, 1791.]

RECEIPT.

Permanent Taxes

£.13,472,286

Land and Malt

2,558,000

16,030,286

EXPENDITURE.

Interest and Charges of the Public Debt

£.9,317,972

Interest on Exchequer Bills

260,000

9,577,972

Civil List

898,000

Charges on Consolidated Fund

105,385

Navy

2,000,000

Army

1,748,842

Ordnance

375,000

Militia

95,311

Miscellaneous Services

128,416

Appropriated Duties

40,252

5,391,206

Annual Million to pay off the National Debt

1,000,000

1,000,000

£.*15,969,178

* Viz. Foe Interest of the Debt and Sinking Fund

£10,577,972

For Expenses of Civil List, Military Establishments, and Civil Government

5,391,206

TOTAL

£.15,969,178

N.B. The Expenditure of Ireland was somewhat above One Million Sterling.

He would take this opportunity of observing, that the public accounts were in such a state as to render it impossible for any man, whatever industry he might possess, to come to an undisputed conclusion upon them. If one person made up an account from them, another might easily draw up a different one, upon the same authority, and challenge the preference for correctness. His hon. friend, the member for Portarlington (Mr. Ricardo), whose unavoidable absence he regretted upon the present occasion, had assisted him in examining the various official accounts, in order to ascertain whether any, and what, progress had been made towards the reduction of the public debt within the last five or six years; or whether it continued the same in amount as at the
1350
Union of the English arid Irish exchequers in 1817. On so simple a matter as the deficiency of the consolidated fund, there were three public accounts, all signed by the same person, all relating to the same period, and all differing in amounts [Hear, hear!]. As to the reduction of the debt, there was a difference of some millions between the budget and the annual accounts. Both of these accounts, however, showed plainly that the statement made by the chancellor of the exchequer last year, of there being a reduction of 29 millions in the funded and unfunded debt, could not be borne out. He (Mr. H.) had examined the interest paid on the funded and unfunded debt for the last eight years, and found that the charge for the last year exceeded that paid on

1351
the preceding years. The amount of the Capital of the debt varied from various causes, and was not to be looked to so much as the amount of the annual or annuity charge to the public which had in

No. 3.—Amount of INTEREST paid to the Public on the FUNDED and UNFUNDED DEBT of the UNITED KINGDOM, and for the Charges of Management at the BANK of ENGLAND, in each of the following Years, ending December in each Year (exclusive of the Sinking Fund).

——

1815.

1816.

1817.

1818.

1819.

1820.

Interest paid on Funded Debt

27,176,930

31,392,890

29,166,085

28,873,638

29,737,640

29,126,973

Charges of Management

259,970

265,400

284,589

277,699

274,393

276,419

Amount of Interest and Charges

27,436,900

31,658,290

29,450,674

29,151,337

30,012,033

29,403,392

Interest on Exchequer and Irish Treasury Bills

3,014,003

2,196,178

1,815,927

2,200,414

779,992

1,849,220

Total Charge for the Debt *£

30,450,903

33,854,468

31,266,601

31,351,751

30,792,025

31,252,612

Average of 1817, 1818, and 1819, £.31,136,792.

* Vide Annual Finance Accounts for these Years.

We were now in the sixth year of peace; and he would repeat, not with standing what the chancellor of the exchequer had stated, that during that time the charge of the debt had not been reduced a single pound; on the contrary, it had been increased to the amount he had stated, of 115,820 l. a-year. although during that period there had been an excess of revenue over the proper expenditure. Whenever ministers were disposed to lessen the burthens of the country by reducing the expenditure, he could assure the House they possessed the easy means of doing so. Notwithstanding each of the hon. members, in proposing their estimates, had stated that the charges were reduced to the lowest possible rate, he (Mr. Hume) thought they were framed, considering the situation of the country, on a most extravagant scale. If the House adopted his suggestions he would undertake to prove, what he had already pointed out, that various items of the expenditure of the country might be reduced, not in a trifling or insignificant amount, as the noble marquis opposite would tell them, but to the extent of upwards of four millions sterling, without lessening the efficiency of a single department of the public service [Hear!].
It had been stated, on a former evening by the noble marquis, that the expenses
creased, and was actually 115,820 l. more for the year 1820, than it was on the average of the years 1817, 1818, or 1819; as appeared by this statement:—
of our establishments had been reduced a million and a half. This reduction, as he should show, was neither in the army, navy, nor ordnance departments, though some would be found under the head of Miscellaneous Estimates, which might be increased or reduced, from year to year, at the pleasure of ministers. The apparent reduction this year arose from the chancellor of the exchequer's not having proposed several large votes usual in the miscellaneous estimates, such as the expense of the coinage, 100,000 l.; queen Anne's bounty 200,000 l. &c. &c.; and this he called a saving of a million and a half; but it was more than probable he would call upon the House to vote these sums in the next year; and, it was of little importance that they saved 50,000 l.. this year, if they were to pay 100,000 l.. the next. The savings which he (Mr. Hume) had proposed were of a very different nature. It was stated that there was a reduction in the military estimates as compared with those of last year, which was true; but when compared with the estimates of 1817, 1818, and 1819, there was none.—The sums Voted for these Services in each of the past four years, from 1817 to 1820, inclusive, would best show whether the assertions of the noble marquis were correct or not.
From the statement he held in his hand, it appeared that the estimates for 1821 were larger than any of the preceding years, except 1820. He would ask the House, whether this was a situation in which things ought to remain? The chancellor of the exchequer and the noble

No. 4.—Comparative Abstract of the ESTIMATES voted for the ARMY NAVY, and ORDNANCE, in the last five Years, viz., from 1817 to 1821 inclusive.—[Vide Annual Estimates.]

Years.

Ordinary Military.

Ordnance with Stores.

Navy.

Total Estimate.

£.

£.

£.

£.

1817

6,682,318

1,284,035

5,985,414

13,951,767

1818

9,494,290

1,267,999

6,547,810

14,310,099

1819

6,582,800

1,212,000

6,527,781

14,322,581

1820

6,807,466

1,380,002

6,691,345

14,878,813

1821

6,643,968

1,327,000

6,382,786

14,353,754

The hon. member then proceeded to take a comparative view of the actual expenditure for the army, navy, and ordnance of the United Kingdom for 1792 and 1820. He pointed out to the House, that in the year 1792, the whole charges for these depart-

No. 5.—Comparative Abstract of the EXPENSE of the ARMY, NAVY, and ORDNANCE of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Years 1792 and 1820.

In 1792—

Great Britain Army Ordinary

*1,814,000

Ireland Britain Army Ordinary

† 516,349

2,330,349

Ordnance Great Britain

422,001

Ordnance Ireland

22,862

2,775,212

Navy

1,985,482

Total charge in 179

£4,760,694

In 1820—

Great Britain Army Ordinary

7,941,513

Extra

984 911

8,926,424

Ordnance Great Britain

1,401,585

10,328,009

Navy

6,387,399

‡ £.16,715,408

Total Charge in 1792

4,760,694

Being more in 1820

£.11,954,714

than in 1792.

* Vide Parliamentary Papers, No. 314, of 1821.

† Vide Vol. 15, Journals Irish Parliament.

‡ Vide Annual Finance Account up to 5th Jannary, 1821.

marquis professed a great desire to promote economy; but he, as well as the country at large looked more to deeds than to words; and he was sorry to say, he had seen nothing in his examination of the expenditure of the country, for the last six years, to prove their sincerity.
ments were 4,760,694 l., and that in the past year they amounted to 16,715,408 l. making an increase of 11,954,714 l. for the charges of 1820, above those of 1792; as per the statement following;—
It was but fair, however, to state that, in this large increase of charge, the Retired and Half Pay amounted to near 4½ millions, That of the army in 1792, was 458,247 l., whilst in 1821 it was 2,818,805 l., but, after making that allowance, the expense was too great the circumstances of the nation.

No. 6.—Abstract of HALF-PAY, and RETIRED FULL-PAY in the ARMY, NAVY, and ORDNANCE ESTIMATES, for the Year 1821 (the Pensions and Retired Allowances in the Public Offices not included).

ARMY.

Allowances for General Officers

£. 174,069

0

Full Pay for Retired Officers

£. 129,999

12

Half-Pay and Military Allowances

819,169

19

Foreign Half-Pay

121,265

0

In-Pensioners of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals

58,766

12

Out-Pensioners of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals

1,155,305

19

Widows Pensions

120,993

4

Compassionate List, Bounty Warrants, and Pensions for Wounds

179,220

0

Reduced Adjutants Local Militia

19,819

10

Superannuation Allowances

40,196

14

2,644,736

12

NAVY.

To Flag-Officers, Captains, &c., of His Majesty's Fleet

970,400

0

Bounty, Chaplains Widows and Orphans, and Widows Charity

40,500

0

Superannuations to Officers in the Military-Line Naval Service

142,096

13

Superannuations to Commissioners, Secretaries, Clerks, &c.

105,973

16

1,258,970

9

ORDNANCE.

To Military Superannuated, Retired, and Half-Pay Officers, &c.

313,703

3

To Civil, Superannuated, Retired, and Half-Pay Officers, &c. &c.

42,227

6

355,930

10

Total

£.4,433,706

11

No. 7.—Comparative Amount of HALF and Retired PAY and MILITARY PENSIONS in the ARMY of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in 1792 and 1821.

DESCRIPTION.

1792.

1821.

General Officers

£.6,427

£.174,069

Full-Pay Retired Officers

15,064

129,999

Half-Pay Officers

223,161

819,170

Foreign Half-Pay

—

121,265

Chelsea Hospital, In

21,797

58,767

Chelsea Pensioners, out

151,307

1,155,306

Widows Pensions

9,382

120,993

Compassionate List

—

179,220

Adjutants Local Militia

—

19,819

Superannuation Allowance

—

40,197

Total Great Britain

£.427,138

2,818,805

In Ireland, Pensions

9,420

—

Half-Pay Officers

17,450

—

Widows, Officers

4,239

—

Total in 1792

458,247

Increase of Half-Pay and Pensions in 1821, more than in 1792

£.2,360,558

He had prepared two statements—one to show the total of the half-pay, or the dead charge in the three departments oft the navy, army, and ordnance. The other, to show the comparative amount of half-pay and pensions in 1792, and in 1821, in the army alone.
When the House considered that the total unredeemed debt of the country, funded and unfunded, had increased from 244,405,021 l. at an annual charge, for interest of 9,577,972 l. in 1792, to 836,948,923 l., at an annual charge exclusive of the sinking fund, of 31,252,612 l., it ought to be convinced by that alone, that a vast reduction of our establishments was necessary to enable the country to keep faith with the public creditor without exhausting the public resources. He was well aware of the delicate situation in which he stood with regard to different members in the House. One, the hon. member for Yorkshire, (Mr. S. Wortley) had said, that he could not support his (Mr. Hume's) propositions for reduction, because they contained mere matters of opinion; and that he was disposed to place more confidence in the declaration of ministers than in his: of this he did not complain. Another hon. member (Mr. Abercromby) had declined to support his propositions because they contained mere matters of fact. [A laugh.] When, therefore, gentlemen came to the same conclusion upon premises so totally different, and that too on the same evening, it appeared to him a difficult task to determine what course he ought to pursue, to obtain their support, on the present occasion. The noble lord at the head of the military department (lord Palmerston) had said, that there were two things over which even the immortal gods had no power—facts and figures. He was happy to agree with the noble lord—it was on facts he (Mr. Hume) principally relied; and, with the aid of figures, he considered himself invincible. The noble marquis on the opposite bench, had formerly said, "Show me but a reasonable ground for reduction, and I will be the very first person to attempt it." He (Mr. H.) had, for several months, been employed in pointing out, in detail, the different items that might be reduced; and he would now recapitulate, in gross amounts, to the noble marquis, the different sums which he had recommended to the House, on very reasonable grounds, to be reduced; but, before he did so, he begged leave to call their attention to the progressive in-
1358
crease of the actual expenditure of the united kingdom, as shown by Finance Accounts for the four last years. In 1817, the expenditure amounted to 68,710,503 l., in 1818, to 68,821,437 l., in 1819, to 69,448,899 l., and in 1820,to 70,850,742 l. The very mention of this progressive increase ought to convince the House how imperatively it was called upon to arrest the lavish expenditure of government. In the course of the present session he had occupied a very large portion of the time of the House [loud cries of Hear, hear! from the Ministerial benches;—re-echoed from those of the Opposition]:—he was willing to confess the fact, and also to explain the reason of it. In former sessions, the noble marquis opposite had taunted gentlemen on (his) the opposition side of the House, with always dealing in general charges of profusion, and with never bringing forward any specific instances. Now, he had followed a perhaps novel course, and, out of pure regard to the noble marquis, had brought forward a great variety of instances of, what he would not hesitate to denominate, the most wanton profusion.
For example, in 1792, the expenses of the army alone, without the ordnance, were 2,331,149 l.; in 1820, they were 8,926,424 l. exclusive of 105,527 l. for the Military College, the Military Asylum, militia, &c., which are not included as military expenditure, but charged under the head of Miscellanies. He had prepared a comparative statement showing the actual expenditure for the army in Great Britain and Ireland in 1792, and also for the last four years, in order to prove that the assertion made by the chancellor of the exchequer, that a reduction of more than 500,000 l. had been effected in this department since the last year, was not correct, if they were to judge by the estimates. He had also extracted an account of the total Army expenditure in Ireland in 1792, amounting only to 516,349 l., whilst in the ordinary estimates for army, full and half pay, &c. for 1821, there is in p. 49, an estimate of 1,168,057 l. exclusive of barrack, commissariat, contingent expenses, &c. &c., which would show the house the great increase of expenditure, in one part of the empire.
The charge for 1821, in the ordinary estimate, is actually more than for 1817,

No. 8.—Amount of the ARMY EXPENDITURE (Ordnance and East Indies excepted), of the UNITED KINGDOM and COLONIES abroad, for the following years;—

Actual Disbursements.

1792.

1817.

1818.

1819.

1820.

Comparison of the Estimates of Ordinary Service for 1820 and 1821.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

Army Ordinary Services

*2,331,149

7,014,494

7,255,646

7,719,924

7,941,513

‡Ordinary Estimates 1820

6,807,466

†Ordinary Estimates 1821

6,643,968

Army Ordinary Extraordinaries

—

2,600,370

1,261,398

1,730,127

984,911

Less in 1821 than 1820

£.163,498

Total in each Year

2,331,149

†9,614,864

†8,517,044

†9,450,651

†8,926,424

When he first submitted to their notice his Comparative Statements relative to the establishments of the army in 1792 and in 1821, he had considerably understated the establishment of the latter year; an error he had been enabled to
1818, or 1819; and only 168,498 l. less than for 1820.
correct by the papers lately laid on the table of the House.
In comparing the numbers of the army in 1792 and in 1821, on the amended statement, he begged to premise that the numbers of 1792 were put down at
the
full establishment of the army, although it was well known to be deficient by several thousand men; whereas, in 1821; not more than the numbers actually embodied were entered. In 1792, for Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies, the number of regular troops amounted to 45,242, the artillery and marines to 8,115, the militia and yeomanry to 33,410; making a

—No. 10.—Statement of the MILITARY FORCE, regular and irregular (Men and Officers included), in GREAT BRITAIN, IRELAND, and the BRITISH COLONIES (exclusive of the East Indies), in the Years 1792 and 1821, made up from Returns before Parliament.

1792.

Regular Cavalry and Infantry in Great Britain

*15,919

Regular Cavalry and Infantry in Ireland

†12,000

Regular Cavalry and Infantry in Colonies

*17,323

(Including the Corps at New South Wales)

45,242

Royal Artillery

3,730

Royal Marines

‡4,425

8,155

Total Regulars

53,397

Militia of Great Britain Disembodied

§33,410

Total Irregulars

33,410

Total Regular and Irregular Troops

86,807

* Parliamentary Paper, No. 40, of 1816.

† Journals, Irish Parliament, Feb. 7, 1792.

‡ Journals, Commons.

§ Parliamentary Paper, No. 363, of 1821.

total of 86,807. In 1821, the number of regular troops was 81,106 men; the artillery and marines were 15,872; and, with some troops at the Cape and in Ceylon, amounting in all to 101,539. The militia, and yeomanry, and other irregular corps amounted to 162,328, making a grand total of 263,867, and giving an increase of 177,060 men, above then umbers of 1792.

Men in Arms, or may be in Arms in a few hours or days:

Total of Regular and Irregular, 1821

263,867

Total of Regular and Irregular, in 1792

86,807

More in 1821 than in 1792

177,060

* Army Estimates, 1821. † Estimates of 1821. ‡ No. 362 of 1821.

? Parliamentary Paper, No. 363 of 1821. ║ Parliamentary Paper, No. 330 of 1821.

¶ Parliamentary Paper, No. 189 of 1821. ** Parliamentary Paper, No. 306 of 1821.

†† See Act of 2nd Geo. IV., C.

Such a comparison must speak volumes to the mind of every considerate and independent member in the House. In the increase which he had just pointed out, was included nearly 10,000 dragoons and

No. 11—Comparative Statement of the Number of HORSE GUARDS, LIFE GUARDS, DRAGOON GUARDS, DRAGOONS, and FOOT GUARDS, in GREAT BRITAIN, in the Years 1792 and 1821, of RANK and FILE, and also of OFFICERS and NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.

——

RANK and FILE.

Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers in 1821.

Total of Men and Officers in 1821.

Increase In Rank and File in 1821.

1792.

1821.

Life Guards

411

688

187

875

277

Horse Guards

261

344

86

430

83

Dragoon Guards

696

2,668

1,506

9,326

1,972

Dragoons

2,080

5,152

3,072

Foot Guards

3,126

5,760

848

6,608

2,634

Total Number

6,574

14,612

2,627

17,239

8,038

N.B. The number of Cavalry which were in Ireland (supposed 12 or 1,400 men) in 1792, must be deducted from the increase, to give the fair comparison.

The noble lord on the other side of the House, in defending the, present large establishments of the army, had said, that the reliefs for foreign stations were the principal causes of the increase; but, surely, the household troops were not available for that purpose, as none of them were ever sent abroad in time of peace. This being the case, he would maintain that the reduction of them was most called for, and ought instantly to take place. The sum saved to the country, by such a reduction, would not be a trifle, since the expenses of every horseman employed in the service were nearly as great as those of the junior clerks in the public offices, some of whom,
household troops, the most expensive class in the army. He had prepared a comparative Statement to show the number of life and foot guards and cavalry at these periods.
though they ought in justice to be the last, would certainly, on the plan on which the present ministers proceeded, be the first to suffer in case of any reductions, that their superiors in office might enjoy their overgrown emoluments in security.
He declared, for himself, and those friends about him who had urged retrenchment, that it was hot in this way they wished reduction to commence [Hear!] It appeared, by a statement taken from papers on their table, that the expense of a dragoon and horse, exclusive of his forage, &c; was 57 l. a year, and of a life, and horse-guardsman 75 l. a year, whilst the charge for infantry of the line was only 31 l. per man.

No. 12.—Comparative Statement of the Expense of the LIFE GUARDS, HORSE GUARDS, DRAGOON GUARDS, FOOT GUARDS, and INFANTRY of the LINE, exclusive of the expense for Corn, Hay, Stabling, &c., &c. (vide Parliamentary Paper, No. 399 of 1821).

Expense of a Regiment of

£.

£.

s.

d.

Life Guards of 8 Troops and 437 Men and Officers

32,446 or

74

4

11

each Man.

Horse Guards of 8 Troops and 430 Men and Officers

32,513 or

75

12

2½

each Man.

Dragoon Guards of 8 Troops and 439 Men and Officers

24,836 or

56

11

5½

each Man.

By the Annual Estimates p 3.

£.

£.

s.

The 3 Regts. of Foot Guards of 6508 Men and Officers, cost

222,959 or

34

5

each Man

A Regiment of Infantry of 10 Companies and 746 Men and Officers

23,059 or

31

0

each Man

N.B. To the latter Sum there may be some additional charge for Contingencies which will increase the amount; and the charge per head will become greater in proportion as the number of privates in each Regiment is reduced, whilst the Officers and Staff remain the same.

The sum that would be saved by a reduction of 10,000 household troops, and an equal number of troops in the colonies, would amount to about 753,955 l., independently of a saving by the reduction of their staff officers. A large reduction of expense might also be effected by altering the establishment of the army as to the number of regiments. The noble Secretary of War had laid before the Finance Committee, in 1817, a statement, by which it appeared that 8,000 troops formed into 10 regiments of 800 men each, (the number at which it was then determined to keep the regiments,) could be maintained for 74,326 l. a year less than the same number of men could be kept up, in 20 regiments of 400 men each, as on the establishment of 1792; and, consequently, in 60,000 rank and file, the present number, the sum of 557,445 l., had, in that year been saved to the country. The regiments in 1821 had, however, for what cause he could not tell, been reduced to 650 men each, and, consequently, the expense to the country in keeping up the present number of 60,000, has thereby been increased in no less a sum than 209,042 l. a

The ESTIMATES for 1821 are,

Establishments For Recruiting for the troops in India

£.23,211

Establishments For Recruiting for the Great Britain

40,677

Establishments For Recruiting for the Ireland

9,510

Total

£.73,398

In 1792 the expense of the general and staff officers in Great Britain and the Colonies, was only 23,365 l.; in 1821 it was 133,490 l., being 110,125 l. more in 1821 than in 1792. In 1792 the staff in Ireland cost only 10,501 l., now it was 40,143 l., giving an increase of 29,642 l.
year. Instead, therefore, of reducing the number of men in each regiment, as had been done, he would recommend to reduce the number of regiments from 93 to 75: 75 regiments of 800 each, would contain the same number of rank and file as 93 regiments of 650 each; and, a saving of 209,042 l. a year be thereby effected in the staff and regimental establishments of these 18 regiments. This was so clear that he wondered the noble lord (Palmerston) had deviated from his own plan, a plan so consistent with his professions of economy, but with which the present regimental establishment was totally at variance. The reduction of entire corps, therefore, would produce the greatest saving to the public, and ought to be enforced. A large saving might also be made in the recruiting department which for 1821 was estimated at 73,398 l. a sum he considered extravagant at a time when they ought to be reducing the army. The establishment of 497 Serjeants and privates for recruiting was too large, and 20,000 l. at least ought to have been deducted from that amount.

No. 13.—Comparative Statement of the CHARGE for MILITARY STAFF for GREAT BRITAIN and the COLONIES in 1792 and 1821.

1792.

General and Staff Officers in Great Britain

*£. 6,247

General and Staff Officers in Colonies

† 17,118

Total

£.23,365

1821.

Staff at Head Quarters

£.15,089

South and North Britain, Guernsey and Jersey, Medical Staff Officers and Allowances

34,547

Staff for the Colonies, Old and New, and Allowances to Medical Officers

83,854

Total

‡£.1334,90

Increase of Staff Pay in Great Britain and Colonies

£.110,125

* Vide Parliamentary Papers, No. 87, of 1817.

† Vide Parliamentary Papers, No. 117, of 1816.

‡ Vide Annual Estimates.

If the staff for Great Britain, Ireland and the Colonies, with the establishments for the same are taken, the amount, for 1792, was 44,295 l., and for 1821,194,457 l., being an increase of 150,162 l.,

No. 14.—General Abstract of the CHARGE for MILITARY STAFF,, and the Office, Establishments of the ARMY of the UNITED KINGDOM and its COLONIES in 1792 and 1821.

——

1792

1821

Amount of Expense of Staff in Great Britain

£.* 6,247

49,636

Office Establishment

* 10,429

20,824

Amount of Expense of Staff in Ireland

† 10,501

40,143

Amount of Expense of staff in Colonies

17,118

83,854

Total in each Year

44,295

194,457

* Vide Parliamentary Papers, No. 87, of 1817.

† Vide Parliamentary Papers, No. 526, of 1821.

The Estimates for the public departments of the War Office, Pay-master General's Office, Judge-Advocate-General's Office, and comptroller of Accounts, were in 1792, 45,335 l.; in 1821 they were 99,237 l.; being an increase of 53,902 l.

No. 15.—Abstract Amount of the Public Departments of the ARMY of GREAT BRITAIN in 1792 and 1821.

——

1792

1821

The Paymaster General, his Deputies and Clerks

£.18,344

28,884

Secretary at War, his Deputy and Clerks

9,978

51,881

Fees at the War Office, received by the Deputy and Clerks

4,997

—

Judge Advocate General

2,421

5,180

Judge Advocate General North Britain

—

650

Comptrollers of Accounts

5,103

12,642

Commissary General of Musters

4,492

—

Total in each Year

£.45,335

*99,237

* Exclusive of a charge of 13,371 l. for Superannuations in the War Office, and of 1,000 l. in the Pay Office, &c. &c.

The Estimates for the War Office alone in 1792, were 13,253 l. and now they were, including the Superannuation list, 64,690 l., an increase of 51,437 l. The rapid increase of the charge for superannuations in this office deserved very particular attention.

No. 16.—An Account of the Expense of the WAR OFFICE for the Years 1813, 1817, 1819, 1820, and 1821.

——

1813

1817

1819

1820

1821

Correspondence Department

£.30,240

28,356

23,483

23,269

21,527

Accounts

20,334

14,061

14,408

13,947

12,656

Foreign

3,600

—

—

—

—

54,174

42,417

37,891

37,216

34,183

Arrear Department

5,721

18,574

18,121

15,564

17,136

59,895

60,991

56,012

52,780

51,319

Superannuations

—

6,771

11,689

12,798

13,371

Total in each Year

59,895

67,762

67,701

65,578

64,690

The charge of the commander-in-chief's office in 1792, amounted to 846 l., now to 14,475 l., giving an increase of 13,629 l. He pointed out these cases to the House as examples of extravagance, and hoped that many of them had only to be mentioned in order to be corrected. The hon. member then complained of the manner in which commissions were at present filled up. He had a list in his hand of 233 individuals who had been placed on the half-pay list within the same year, and upwards of 130 of them on the same day on which they had received their first commissions. The half-pay was originally intended as a reward for past services; but, by the system now adopted, it was a mode of increasing the pensioners of the Crown, which ought not any longer, to be allowed. He was of opinion, that the members of the administration might be well employed during the recess, in devising some measures to put an end to the purchase or grant of annuities for life in this manner, so very disadvantageous to the state. But this was only a small
1370
part of the ground of his complaint: there was another which he considered to be of much greater importance. It appeared by returns on the table, that in the last five years 1,194, first commissions had been given in the army, artillery, engineers and marines, and 341 in the navy, making a total of 1,535 first commissions since the peace! In the army 1,105 officers had been appointed to first commissions, of which 508 had been given away without purchase. If these 503 commissions had been filled up from the half-pay, taking the average rates of half-pay of infantry and cavalry at 54 l. 15 s. each, there would have been a saving to the country of 27,813 l. a year, or of 333,756 l. at 12 years purchase. It appeared also that the number of promotions in the army, from cornets to lieutenants, from lieutenants to captains and so on, in the last 5 years, was 1,448; and, if to these, the 1,105 first commissions were added, there would be a total of 2,558 commissions granted in that time.

No. 17.—Total Number of Gentlemen who have been appointed to FIRST COMMISSIONS in Regiments of Cavalry and Infantry of the Line; of Promotions of Cornets, Ensigns and Second Lieutenants, to be LIEUTENANTS; of Lieutenants; to be CAPTAINS; of Captains to be MAJORS; of Majors to be LIEUTENANT-COLONELS: distinguishing the Number of each Rank in each Year from 25th January 1816 to 25th January. 1821, and the Total Of the whole.—[Vide Parliamentary Papers No. 139 of 1819, arid No. 127 of 1821.]

—

First Commissions.

Cornets & Ensigns to be Lieutenants

Lieutenants to be Captains.

Captains to be Majors

Majors to be Lt. Cols.

TOTAL.

By Purchase

Without Purchase

By Purchase

Without Purchase

By Purchase

Without Purchase

By Purchase

Without Purchase

By Purchase

Without Purchase

From January 1816 to January 1817

143

134

64

143

53

45

17

13

2

11

625

From January 1817 to January 1818

105

71

70

75

56

23

17

8

6

5

436

From January 1818 to January 1819

178

89

54

59

54

24

17

8

5

5

493

From January 1819 to January 1820

78

104

62

72

56

41

21

17

4

6

462

From January 1820 to January 1821

93

110

77

93

70

52

20

11

6

5

537

597

508

327

442

289

185

92

57

24

32

2,553

Total of each Rank

1105

769

474

149

56

Total of the whole.

Viz. No.

1,329

Commissions by Purchase.

1,224

Commissions by without Do.

Total

2,553

Promotions.

It also appeared that in 1821, there were 9,037 officers on the half-pay of the

No. 18.—Abstract of the Number of OFFICERS on HALF-PAY of the ARMY, in the UNITED KINGDOM, on the 25th March 1821.—[Vide Parliamentary Paper, No. 473 of 1821.]

No.

Colonel

1

Lieutenant-Colonels

187

Majors

332

Captains; Lieutenants and Captains of Foot Guards and Captains and Lieuts

1,836

Lieutenants, and Ensigns and Lieutenants of Foot Guards

3,491

Cornets, 2nd Lieutenants and Ensigns

1,346

Paymasters

186

Adjutants

130

Quarter-Masters and Troop Quarter-Masters

483

Surgeons

333

Assistant Surgeons, Staff Assistants, Hospital Assistants and Mates

359

Veterinary Surgeons

24

Physicians

34

Superintendents General and Inspectors of Hospitals

70

Apothecaries, Purveyors, and Clerks

109

Inspecting field Officers of Militia, Assistant Quarter-Master General, Deputy Judge Advocate, &c.

28

Commissaries, Deputies and Assistants

13

Chaplains

75

Total

9,037

army, at an expense of 812,557 l. per annum.
Although there had been 2,553 steps in the army in these five years, yet only 303 officers had been brought from half

No. 19.—Return of the Number of OFFICERS who have been appointed from the HALF to FULL PAY, upon Vacancies in the Army, and not by Exchange, since the 31st December 1815—[Vide Parliamentary Paper, No. 278 of 1821.]

——

Lt. Colonels.

Majors.

Captains.

Lieutenants.

Ensigns.

Grand Total.

From Jan. 1 to Dec.31, 1816

—

—

1

16

9

26

From Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1817

1

3

4

15

9

32

From Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1818

1

1

10

20

8

40

From Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1819

29

5

4

12

10

60

From Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1820

2

2

29

94

18

145

Total of each

33

11

48

157

54

303

If all these vacancies, had been filled up from the half-pay, the sum of 214,264 l. of annuties, would have been saved, which, at 12 years purchase, is a charge to the country, equal to 2,571,170 l. By the 303 officers being, brought in from the half-pay, 29,081 l. a year had been saved, or, at 12 years purchase, 348,977 l.

No. 20.—Statement of the Number of OFFICERS of each Rank promoted in the Regular Army to REGIMENTAL RANK in the 5 Years ending the 25th January 1821; the Number of each Rank on HALF PAY, and the Number that have been called from Half to FULL PAY.

——

Ensigns and Cornets.

Lieutenants.

Captains.

Majors.

Lieutenant Colonels.

TOTAL.

Number of Officers of each Rank on Half Pay, as per Return of March 1821 (Vide No. 18)

1346

3491

1836

332

187

7192*

Number of Officers promoted to each Rank in 5 years (Vide No. 17)

1105

769

474

149

56

2553

Number of Officers of each Rank brought from the Half to the Full Pay (Vide No. 19)

54

157

48

11

33

303

* Exclusive of 130 Adjutants, some of whom are Lieutenants, and some Ensigns, which will make the number 7,332.

No. 21.—Statement of HALF PAY that would have been saved to the Public, if the 2,553 Officers had been brought from the Half to the Full Pay to fill up all Vacancies, instead of receiving First Commissions and Promotions in the 5 Years ending 25th January 1821.

OFFICERS APPOINTED AND PROMOTED BY PURCHASE.

£.

s.

d.

£.

s.

d.

597

Ensigns at

54

15

0 per annum

32,685

15

0

327

Lieutenants

73

0

0

23,871

0

0

289

Captains

127

15

0

36,919

15

0

92

Majors

173

7

6

15,950

10

0

24

Lt.-Cols.

200

15

0

4,818

0

0

1,329

Officers by Purchase

114,245

0

0

to full pay, being in the proportion of only one to eight of that number.
He did not go so far, as to recommend promotion altogether to cease; but he certainly thought that two vacancies in three should be filled up from the half-pay, until that list was much reduced. The statements he had prepared would explain these particulars.

WITHOUT PURCHASE.

508

Ensigns of Half-pay at

54

15

0 per annum

27,813

0

0

442

Lieutenants

73

0

0

32,266

0

0

185

Captains

127

15

0

23,633

15

0

57

Majors

173

7

6

9,882

7

6

32

Lt.-Cols.

200

15

0

6,424

0

0

1,224

Officers without purchase

100,019

2

6

2,553

Total

214,264

2

6

At

12 Years

Purchase make the total Value for these Annuities

£.2,571,169

10

0

No. 22.—Statement of HALF PAY saved to the Public by bringing 303 Officers from the Half to the Full Pay by Vacancies, and not by Exchange, in the 5 Years ending 25th January 1821.

54

Cornets and Ensigns at

£.54

15

0 per annum

£.2,956

10

0

157

Lieutenants

73

0

0

11,461

0

0

48

Captains

127

15

0

6,132

0

0

11

Majors

173

7

6

1,907

2

6

33

Lieutenant-Colonels

200

15

0

6,624

15

0

Annuities of

£.29,081

7

6

Which at

12 Years

Purchase, give the Value of these Annuities £.

348,976

10

0

There were 118 officers on the half-pay of the artillery; and in the last five years, 38 had been brought from half to full-pay; and 62 cadets had received first commissions. The engineers had 50 officers on half-pay, and 26 first commissions had been given in-the last six years. The lords of the Admiralty had not been very consistent; they had followed

No. 23.—Return of the Number of Gentlemen appointed to FIRST COMMISSIONS in the ROYAL MARINES; of Officers who have been brought from Half to FULL-PAY, the Number who have been Promoted, of each Rank in each year, and the Total of the whole from the 31st Dec. 1815, to the 25th March, 1821. [Vide Parl. Papers, No. 552, of 1821.]

——

Colonels Commandant

Lieutenant-Colonels.

Majors.

Captains.

First Lieutenants.

Second Lieutenants.

TOTAL in each Year.

From 1st January to 31st December, 1816

—

—

1

7

68

13

89

From 1st January to 31st December, 1817

—

—

—

4

3

1

8

From 1st January to 31st December, 1818

—

—

—

—

5

5

10

From 1st January to 31st December, 1819

2

1

—

4

3

6

16

From 1st January to 31st December, 1820

—

—

—

4

3

7

14

From 1st January to 25th March, 1821

—

—

—

1

3

2

6

Total

2

1

1

20

85

34

143

No. of Officers on Half-pay on the 25th March, 1821.

—

2

3

142

342

278

768

and 1 Assistant Surg.

In these 6 years, only one First Commission, two Lieutenants to be Captains, and one Captain to be Major.
one practice in the marines and another in the navy.
In the marines, in March last, there were 768 officers on half-pay, and 143 had, in the last five years, been brought from half to full-pay; there having been only three promotions and one first commission given in that time.
There were about 7,000 officers on the half-pay of the navy, and yet, between January 1816 and July 1821, about 341

No. 24.—An Account of the Number of GENTLEMEN appointed as LIEUTENANTS, and of OFFICERS promoted in the Royal Navy in the following Years.

In what Year.

To be Assistant Surgeons.

To be Surgeons.

To be Pursers.

To be Masters.

To be Lieutenants.

To be Commanders.

To be Captains.

To be Rear-Admirals.

To be Vice-Admirals.

To be Admirals.

TOTAL in each Year.

1816

1

15

—

6

92

34

10

—

—

—

158

1817

—

5

—

1

27

10

26

—

—

—

69

1818

1

5

—

3

62

23

16

—

—

—

110

1819

—

7

2

—

53

27

17

25

21

13

165

1820

—

11

6

1

56

17

3

—

—

—

94

1821

—

4

—

1

51

22

4

—

—

—

82

Total

2

47

8

12

341

133

76

25

21

13

678

A practice so various in the different branches of the public service, where the claims were equal, appeared to him quite unaccountable. Why should not promotion cease in the army, navy and ordnance in the same manner as it had done in the royal marines, until the half-pay lists were reduced? The facility thus afforded to the commander-in-chief and the ministers, of adding to the number of pensioners on the public, was an abuse little known in former times, and it was high time, he thought, to put an end to it.
The hon. member likewise complained of the manner in which 247 officers had been transferred from the half and full-pay to the veteran battalions, in 1820 and 1821, a circumstance which, when coupled

No. 25.—Abstract of the Number of OFFICERS brought from the Half-pay, and transferred from Full-pay to the ROYAL VETERAN BATTALIONS, and placed on FULL-PAY for Life on the Reduction of these Corps.

——

Cols.

Lt.-Cols.

Majors.

Captains.

Lieuts.

Ensigns.

Adjts.

Quarter Masters.

TOTAL.

From Full pay,*

—

1

3

20

34

7

1

2

68

Half-pay,†

8

8

2

29

96

33

1

2

179

Total of each Rank,

8

9

5

49

130

40

2

4

247

* Vide Parl. Paper 128 of 5th March, 1821.

† Vide Parl. Paper 129 of 5th March, 1821.

first comm.issions had been given, and 337 promotions made.
with the reduction of those battalions immediately afterwards, was calculated to induce the belief, that they had only been transferred to those battalions to give the ministers an excuse for placing so many officers on full pay for life, and thus to create an additional expense of 13,870 l. a year to the country, which, at 12 years purchase, amounted to 166,440 l. [Hear!]. He thought this a most objectionable proceeding, as the total actual service of some of those officers thus put on full-pay for life, did not exceed one year. The number of each rank thus pensioned would appear by the following statement: and it should be borne in mind, that 68 promotions were made in the regiments of the line to fill up the vacancies occasioned by the transfer to the veteran battalions.
Adverting to the expenditure of the military college, the hon. member remarked, that it was not included in the army estimates, but charged in the miscellaneous expenditure, which was rather surprising. It had been established in 1801,

No. 26.—Abstract of the Expense of the Royal MILITARY COLLEGE, for the Years 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819, and 1820, and Estimate for 1821.

—

1816.

1817.

1818.

1819.

1820.

Total.

Cadets.

Officers.

Cadets.

Officers.

Cadets.

Officers.

Cadets.

Officers.

Cadets.

Officers.

Cadets.

Officers.

412.

30.

412

30

330

30

320

30

290

30

1,764

150

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

Staff

7,493

6,567

6,599

6,605

6,469

33,733

Junior Department

20,692

17,588

13,778

12,303

9,181

73,542

Total

£. 28,185

24,155

20,377

18,908

15,650

107,275

Pensions

368

491

740

646

2,153

4,398

Contingencies

—

—

750

1,697

1,160

3,607

Senior Department

5,265

3,508

3,647

3,923

2,507

18,850

Total Expense in each Year

£. 33,818

28,154

25,514

25,174

21,470

134,130

No. of Cadets who have received Commissions in each of these Years

18

40

18

14

44

160

N.B. The Estimate for 290 Cadets and 15 Officers for 1821, is £.18,739.
If the Pensions to the amount of £.2,153 already granted, are calculated at 12 years purchase, they will amount to the sum of £.25,836
During that period, there had been 1764 cadets educated there, but only 160 had received commissions; so that the expenses of this establishment, divided among the number who had been admitted to the army, had been no less a sum than 720 l. each. As he conceived this to be a most intolerable abuse and unnecessary expense, he trusted it would not be long tolerated by the House. Although the expenditure had decreased from 33,818 l. in 1816 to 18,739 l. in 1821, it might still be very much reduced, if not altogether dispensed with. The staff officers alone exceeded 6,000 l. a-year to manage a few young men—surely that was enormous!
He then noticed the increase which had taken place in the superannuation list of the civil establishments. In 1792, the allowances under this head did not amount to more, than 5,000 l.; in 1816, they
at an expense of only 3,859 l. a year; yet, it would appear by the following statement, that in the five years since the peace from 1816 to 1821 it had cost, for the junior department alone, 115,280 l., and, for both departments, 134,130 l.
amounted to 17,964 l., and now they amounted to 40,179 l., being an increase of 22,233 l. since 1816. A similar increase had taken place in the barrack department. In 1792, the expense under that head was 13,350 l.; it was now 226,332 l. [Hear, hear!] of which 137,500 l. was for barracks in England, and the remaining 88,832 l. for barracks in Ireland. In 1821, the expense of the commissariat was 513,671 l.; viz. 401,569 l. for England, and 112,102 l. for Ireland, whereas in 1792, it scarcely existed. It ought not to escape the attention of parliament, that the charge for the barrack establishment in 1821 was greater than for 1818 or 1819; and that the expense of the commissariat in this year was only 15,000 l. less as compared with the years 1818 and 1819, although it was 62,000 l. less than for 1820, as appeared from the statement he held in his hand.

No. 27.—Expense of the BARRACK and COMMISSARIAT ESTABLISHMENT of the UNITED KINGDOM, for the Years 1818 to 1821.

DEPARTMENT.

1818.

1819.

1820.

1821.

Barracks

Great Britain

99,100

123,500

241,000

137,500

Ireland

123,474

73,000

114,033

88,832

Total each Year £.

222,574

196,532

355,033

226,332

Commissariat

Great Britain

397,700

380,300

476,294

401,569

Ireland

134,249

148,532

100,077

112,102

Total each Year £.

528,949

528,832

575,371

513,671

The commissariat in Ireland had only 2,400 horses to support; and, if those horses had been put out to livery at the usual livery charge, they would not have cost the sum which had been paid for the establishment of the commissariat kept to supply them [Hear!].
He ought also particularly to notice the charge for issuing the army foreign half-pay as he considered it highly objectionable and unreasonable. The Secretary at War had appointed Mr. Disney to that department, and allowed him at first the very exorbitant commission of 3½ and since 2½ per cent, for the disbursement of 125,000 l. a-year for the last five years, amounting in that time to 17,662 l. being on an average 3,532 l. a-year:—this was extravagant, and ought to be instantly reduced., The 2½ per cent allowance for paying Foreign Artillery half-pay had ceased by minutes of council in 1816, and 2d. in the pound now allowed was found quite sufficient, whilst the noble lord allowed Mr. Disney 6d. in the pound for the same kind of duty.
Having closed his observations on the Army Establishments, he would shortly recapitulate to the House the principal motions which had been made for reductions, in that department. The grounds having been stated at length in the course of the session, why the reductions should take place, he would only then repeat the purport of each motion. It had been proposed to reduce 20,000 men of the army, the greater part to be household and colonial troops; and, if that motion had been acceded to, there would have been saved to the country in pay, &c. 753,955 l., and in the Extraordinaries 300,000 l., making a total of 1,053,955 l. He had proposed to reduce 93 regiments, of 650 men, into 75 regiments of 800 men each, which would have effected a saving
1382
of 209,042 l. In the barrack establishments of England and Ireland, he had attempted to make a reduction of 120,000 l. In the English and Irish commissariat, he had pointed out where to make a reduction of 115,000 l. And, if it were intended to abolish useless offices, surely a large part of the charge in this year of 34,462 l. for garrison establishments ought to be reduced. At Berwick-upon-Tweed, for instance, there was not a gun upon the ramparts, or any stores kept there, and yet the salaries of the governor, deputy-governor, staff, &c. amounted to 944 l. a-year. It had been proposed to reduce 12,000 l. for the first year, from that amount of garrison expense.
Propositions had likewise been made to reduce the estimate for the Military Staff, for the Commander-in-Chief's-office, for the War-office, for the Judge-Advocate-General's-office, and for many other public offices, amounting, (according to a list held in his hand,) to 151,172 l., which, added to those just mentioned, would have saved the nation no less a sum than 1,663,127 l. in the Army Estimates alone. He intreated the landed gentlemen in the House, who complained so loudly of the distresses of the country, not to undervalue the relief which would have been afforded to all classes of the community, had they given their support to these economical propositions made by several hon. members and himself in the course of the present session. If they would continue to support such extravagance, the farmers and land-owners, their constituents, must never expect to be extricated from their difficulties.
The hon. gentleman then proceeded to compare in the same manner the expenditure of the Navy in 1821 with that of 1792. The expenses of the navy in 1792,

1383
amounted to 1,985,482 l.;* in 1821, the Estimates were 6,382,786 l., being
*Vide Parliamentary Papers, No. 314, of 1821.

No. 28.—Abstract of NAVY ESTIMATES, from 1817 to 1821, inclusive.—[Vide Annual Estimates.]

ORDINARY EXPENDITURE.

1817.

1818.

1819.

1820.

1821.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

Estimate of Salaries, &c.

1.

1,243,451

1,250,508

1,256,626

1,228,009

1,225,629

Estimate of Half-pay.

2.

1,146,828

1,130,512

1,125,693

1,150,370

1,152,997

Estimate of Superann. &c

3.

89,870

99,661

100,694

102,187

105,974

£.

2,476,149

2,480,681

2,483,013

2,480,566

2,484,600

For Building Ships

1,139,271

1,230,990

1,145,430

1,142,580

1,094,580

Improving Yards

252,368

556,191

486,198

451,900

424,648

Victualling

300,000

320,000

419,319

389,500

280,908

Transport Department

261,527

178,948

284,321

245,924

231,900

£.

1,953,166

2,286,129

2,335,268

2,229,904

2,032,036

Estimate of Wages, &c.

1,556,100

1,781,000

1,709,500

1,980,875

1,866,150

Total Estimate

5,985,415

6,547,810

6,527,781

6,691,345

6,382,786

Deduct for Old Stores

671,101

309,205

334,487

263,820

163,400

£.

5,314,314

6,138,605

6,193,294

6,427,525

6,219,386

Actual Expenditure from Annual Finance Accounts

£.

6,473,062

6,521,714

6,393,552

6,387,799

—

It was for the House to consider whether in a time of peace, with so few ships in commission, and with only 14,000 sailors employed, the country ought to continue sp great an expense for that department. The great and unnecessary increase of the different civil establishments since 1792, he would now point out. The expenses of the Admiralty, navy and navy-pay offices in 1792 was 58,719 l. In 1813, a time of the greatest naval exertions, the charge was 189,227 l. and in 1821, a time of peace, the Estimates had been reduced to 185,050 l., only 4,177 l. less than in 1813, and 126,331 l. more than in 1792. The Victualling-office Establishments cost 36,536 l. in 1792, and in 1821, they were 96,456 l., being 59,920 l. more in this year than in 1792. The
4,397,304 l. more than in 1792. In would be seen by the statement he had prepared, that the annual Navy Estimates had varied little since 1817.
charge for the Dock-yard Establishments was very large. It had not been reduced in any proportion to the reduction of seamen or ships employed, nor did there appear to be that difference between a time of peace and of war, which might reasonably be expected. A statement he had prepared, would show that, in 1792, the total charge for Dock-yards at home was 25,352 l., in 1813, it was 212,142 l. and in the present year 210,745 l., being only 1,398 l. less at present, when we had only 119 ships, than in the midst of war, when we had 666 ships, in commission. If the expense for the new Dock-yard at Pembroke was added, the total charge this year for Dock-yard Establishments would be 217,156 l.

No. 29.—Charge for the DOCK YARDS at Home, for Salaries to OFFICERS, &c.

—

1792.

1813.

1817.

1819.

1820.

1821.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

Deptford

3,588

26,710

27,582

29,352

28,975

*28,732

Woolwich

4,058

30,411

32,440

30,379

30,237

29,802

Chatham

4,200

33,241

36,883

36,956

36,488

35,438

Sheerness

2,434

23,870

26,659

26,209

24,707

24,078

Portsmouth

6,126

54,250

59,969

58,281

50,468

*49,183

Plymouth

4,946

43,660

45,299

44,585

45,930

43,512

25,352

212,142

228,832

225,762

216,305

210,745

Pembroke

6,411

£.

217,156

* The Sum of £.2,060 is included in this amount for Transport Establishment at Deptford and Portsmouth.

How far it was proper to keep up the Establishments of clerks and other officers, when the number of workmen were reduced; or how far it was proper to keep a larger number of men than were required, and employ them for a few hours, only in the day, had been questioned by the Finance Committee. If there were any probability of the workmen being required in a short time, it might be well to keep them thus employed; but, with the prospect of a long peace, it appeared very objectionable. Such was the dispropor-

No. 30.—Comparative Statement of the Charge for OFFICERS SALARIES and PAY of MEN in the different DOCK YARDS in 1821.—[Vide Annual Finance Accounts.]

——

Amount of Salaries, &c., to Officers, Foremen, Measurers, &c., who receive Yearly Salaries.

Amount of Wages to Artificers, and Labourers employed in building, &c., His Majesty's Ships.

£.

s.

d.

£.

s.

d.

Deptford

27,149

18

5

18,157

0

0

Woolwich

29,802

10

0

25,022

0

0

Chatham

35,438

13

2

52,976

0

0

Sheerness

*24,078

13

0

4,754

0

0

Portsmouth

48,705

13

0

37,353

0

0

Plymouth

43,511

11

0

45,559

0

0

Pembroke

6,399

10

0

8,824

0

0

Total

215,086

8

7

192,645

0

0

Deduct Amount of Men's Wages

192,645

0

0

More for the Pay of Officers, Measurers, &c., than for the Men, exclusive of Houses, Allowances, &c.

£.22,441

8

7

* If the above Charge for the Pay of the Officers and Men in Sheerness is calculated, it appears that 95 Officers will be paid 16 s. 6d. each for 313 working days, to superintend 86 workmen, at 3s. 6d.

tion between the workmen, the operative, active and most valuable part of the Dock-yard Establishments, and the officers and clerks to superintend them, that in the Estimates for this year the total charge for wages to the former amounted only to 192,645 l., whilst the salaries of the latter were 215,086 l. or 22,441 l. more than the total sum for wages of labourers, carpenters, caulkers, &c. &c. He had prepared a table to show these particulars, and he trusted such Estimates would never again be laid before that House.
The charge for outports and foreign naval stations had also increased in an unreasonable degree. In 1792, the total charge for them was 4,508 l. In 1813 it had increased to 52,369 l. and, strange to tell, in this year the charge was 53,951 l.! Being 49,443 l. more in 1821 than in 1792, and 1,582 l. more than in 1813, a time of extended warfare:—an increase to him quite inexplicable. After an attentive examination of all these naval establishments, he had pointed out reduction's to the amount of about 251,407 l., which might be made without injury to the public service from the estimates of 1,225,629 l.
The expense for building and rebuilding ships of war, and for stores, appeared also very great for the sixth year of peace. He submitted to the serious consideration of the House, whether they were not throwing away more money on this branch of the navy than prudence warranted or necessity required. It was of vital importance to have an efficient navy; but, to have more ships than the finances of the country could afford, or than any force likely to be brought against us could require, appeared to him a waste of means. The opinion of the Finance Committee on this subject deserved attention; in their 8th Report they said, "that the amount and preparation of ships of war, must be left to the sound discretion of the government generally, and of the board, whose duty it is, more particularly to manage this most important department of the state. Always bearing in mind, that not ships, and stores, and military arrangements, are alone necessary for the safety, or for
1388
the glory of the country, in the event of war; but that finances recruited during peace, and wealth and industry, generally diffused through the nation by all practicable saving of expense, and consequent diminutions of burdens, are at least of equal importance while they mainly contribute towards the happiness and comfort of all classes of society at the present time."
If he was rightly informed, the whole navies of Europe and America, if united and brought together against us, would not equal half the number of our present navy. The improbability of that combination ever taking place was very great, and we ought not (as the committee had strongly impressed upon the House), to go on, exhausting our immediate resources, in order to be prepared for a distant and improbable contingency. The total number of ships of war of all descriptions in 1792 was 401, and with them we were able to defeat the French and Spanish navies, then much more powerful than at present. In 1792 we had 278 rated ships and 123 sloops in ordinary and at sea, and 16 rated ships building. In 1821 we had 538 rated ships, and 163 sloops in ordinary and at sea, and 30 rated ships building, being an increase of 260 rated ships, and 40 sloops built, and 14 rated ships building, more in 1821 than in 1792. This was nearly double the number and strength of 1792, and he, therefore, called upon the House to pause before, in the present state of our finances, we added to that number. The comparative numbers would be best seen by a table he had prepared of the number of ships in each of these years.

No. 31.—SHIPS of WAR in COMMISSION and in ORDINARY, in each of the following Years, as stated in Returns laid before Parliament.—[Vide for 1792, Parliamentary Return, No. 133, printed in June, 1820.]

——

1786.

1792.

1813.

1814.

1819.

1821.

Com.

Ordi.

Com.

Ordi.

Com.

Ordi.

Com.

Ordi.

Com.

Ordi.

Com.

Ordi.

Guns.

First Rates

100

—

5

1

4

*7

7

8

6

2

14

2

23

Second Rates

90 to 98

—

21

7

9

9

9

9

6

1

11

2

22

Third Rates

74 to 80

17

103

18

89

102

106

111

100

11

69

14

97

Fourth Rates

50 to 60

6

14

8

10

8

13

10

15

9

5

7

29

Fifth Rates

32 to 44

13

84

31

59

118

84

134

83

18

58

14

126

Sixth Rates

12 to 28

12

31

12

30

38

27

43

35

19

3

65

137

48

258

77

201

282

246

315

245

60

160

104

434

Sloops, Yachts, and Small Vessels

38

73

67

56

209

150

226

171

95

250

15

148

86

331

144

257

491

396

541

416

115

410

119

582

Total in each Year

417

401

887

957

525

701

* By the 8th Report, page 59, of the Finance Committee in 1818, the number of Ships (including 24 hired Vessels), is stated on 1st January, 1813, to have been 666, in Commission and 335 in Ordinary, making a total of 1,001 Vessels.

The expense that had been incurred for the repair and building of ships almost exceeded belief; it was 17,702,258 l. in the last seven years, for wear and tear, ordi-

No. 32.—An Account of the SUMS Voted for the Wear and Tear of the NAVY, for the Ordinary Repairs, for Building, Rebuilding, and Repairing SHIPS of WAR, Hulls, Masts, Yards, Rigging, and Stores for His Majesty's Dock Yards, and also in Merchants' Yards, from 1815 to 1820 inclusive.—[Vide Navy Estimates.]

——

For Wear and Tear.

For Ordinary Repairs.

For Building, Rebuilding, and Repairing Ships of War, Hulls, Masts, Yards, Rigging, and Stores.

Merchants' Yards, East Indies.

Total Amount each Year.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

1815

2,386,500

462,242

1,621,038

29,413

4,499,193

1816

922,350

535,589

1,499,603

65,728

3,023,270

1817

531,050

364,625

1,076,277

63,000

2,034,952

1818

559,000

310,000

1,170,990

60,000

2,099,990

1819

533,000

310,000

1,085,430

60,000

1,988,430

1820

612,953

310,000

1,062,580

80,000

2,065,533

5,544,853

2,292,456

7,515,918

358,141

15,711,378

1821

586,300

310,000

1,014,580

80,000

1,990,880

Total

6,131,153

2,602,456

8,530,498

438,141

17,702,258

nary repairs and building, as appeared by an account he had extracted from the annual estimates.
When so much had been expended in seven years of peace, we had a right to consider ourselves in possession of a very efficient navy at present, and to expect a greatly diminished expenditure in this and the ensuing years. He believed that the ships in ordinary were in better condition than they had ever been in any former peace; But the rate at which the manufacture of ships was going on, notwithstanding the numbers now on hand, appeared to him absolutely absurd. An hon. baronet (sir Joseph Yorke) had said, that we were over-manufacturing ships, and he (Mr. H.)

No. 33.—Comparative Expense for Building, Rebuilding, and Repairing SHIPS of His Majesty's NAVY, for the following Years.

*Building and Rebuilding, &c., in 1791.

£.390,994

*Building and Rebuilding, &c., in 1792.

352,040

*Building and Rebuilding, &c., in 1793.

370,228

1,113,262

† Building and Rebuilding, &c., in 1819.

1,145,430

† Building and Rebuilding, &c., in 1820.

1,142,580

† Building and Rebuilding, &c., in 1821.

1,094,580

3,382,590

More in 1819, 1820, and 1821, than in 1791, 1792, and 1793

£.2,269,328

* Vide Parliamentary Paper, No. 133 of 1820.

† Vide Annual Estimates.

When, therefore, the immense expenditure since the peace, and the great number of ships already built and in good condition, were taken into consideration, he thought the reduction proposed would appear reasonable.
The charge for improvements in the dock-yards increased the estimates very much, and appeared to him, to require minute examination. He did not question the importance of having our dockyards in the most complete order for the expediting of work and the preservation of stores, &c; but he thought these advantages might be purchased too dear if the improvements were disproportionate to the wants of the service. Many of the works had been begun, and were carrying on, upon a scale by far too large, for any service this country could ever again require. He had called upon the House, therefore, to institute an inquiry by a committee, into the state of the works now in progress, and, to consider of the propriety of completing them on the scale at present proposed, before they should vote so large a sum of money as they
entirely concurred in that opinion; he had therefore recommended a reduction of 550,000 l. on the estimate for this year. The House would be the better able, to judge of the propriety of that reduction when they knew that in the three years, 1790–1 and 2, the total sum expended for building, repairing, and stores was 1,113,262 l.; and that, in the last three years 1819, 1820, and 1821, the sum of 3,382,590 l. had been voted for the same purpose, being no less than 2,269,328 l. more, in the three last years, than in the three years preceding the French war.
had done this year; he was still satisfied that he was right in so doing. He regretted, therefore, that the House had refused inquiry into a subject which had already cost millions, and in which millions more were involved. It must be as well known to many hon. members as it was to him, that the utility of the works now carrying on at the dock-yards of Sheerness, Bermuda, and other places, as compared with their expense, was very generally questioned. He believed it would be found, on inquiry, that much money had been already thrown away on these works, and that many now proposed to be finished were quite unnecessary. The expenditure of nine or ten millions in fortifications and barracks, which had since been designated, by a committee of the House, as a waste of public money, proved the necessity of more accurate investigation when votes of this kind were proposed. He had prepared statements of the sums voted for works at the different dock-yards, abroad and at home, in the last eleven years, which amounted to 4,264,598 l.

No. 34—FOR IMPROVEMENT OF YARDS AT HOME AND ABROAD

Sums Estimated for the different DOCK YARDS belonging to Government at HOME and ABROAD, for the Years from 1811 to 1821, both inclusive.

——

1811.

1812.

1813.

1814.

1815.

1816.

1817.

1818.

1819.

1820.

1821.

Total of each Yard.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

Deptford

510

—

—

9,500

44,175

25,346

2,000

34,600

9,905

—

—

197,036

Victualling Department

—

—

—

24,000

—

20,000

—

—

27,000

—

—

Woolwich

—

1,730

16,859

29,334

29,259

10,000

15,459

31,400

16,700

12,000

12,000

174,741

Chatham

5,000

17,850

42,244

27,048

20,386

95,556

50,885

104,225

54,880

34,000

30,830

482,804

Sheerness

58,749

17,346

80,000

80,000

109,846

160,000

70,000

180,000

182,000

210,000

208,000

1,355,941

Portsmouth

24,835

19,776

5,633

39,170

17,149

10,000

1,000

1,564

6,900

6,000

5,000

205,167

Portsmouth Victualling Department

—

10,000

50,140

8,000

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Plymouth

19,099

11,420

19,467

37,562

41,811

58,230

24,024

20,502

21,131

12,400

7,236

272,882

Plymouth Sound

—

80,000

72,000

90,000

85,008

90,000

40,000

65,000

64,000

64,100

52,041

702,749

Pembroke

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

50,300

22,000

27,000

27,770

127,070

Hawlbowling Island

28,240

10,000

10,000

10,000

10,000

10,000

10,000

15,000

15,000

15,000

9,832

143,072

Pater

—

—

—

20,000

38,000

54,500

19,000

—

—

—

—

131,500

Total each Year

136,433

168,122

296,343

374,614

396,234

533,632

232,368

502,591

419,516

380,500

352,709

3,792,962

Leith

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

4,200

3,000

2,000

2,939

12,139

Admiralty Office

6,450

2,000

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

8,450

Royal Marine Barracks, Woolwich

—

—

—

—

13,625

3,600

—

—

—

—

—

17,225

142,883

170,122

296,343

374,614

409,859

537,232

232,368

506,791

422,516

382,500

355,648

3,830,776

FOREIGN YARDS.

Bermuda

42,340

20,000

10,000

20,000

20,000

40,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

252,340

Jamaica

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

15,000

15,000

15,000

45,000

Halifax

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

452

—

—

452

Kingston, Canada

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1,330

10,000

10,000

21,330

Gibraltar

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

6,500

6,500

4,000

4,000

21,000

Malta

10,000

—

—

—

—

—

—

400

400

400

—

11,200

Trincomalee

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

80,000

Antigua

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

2,500

—

—

—

2,500

Total each Year

195,223

190,122

306,343

394,614

429,859

577,232

252,368

556,191

486,198

451,900

424,648

4,264,598

Add the Sums estimated to complete the Work

1,254,897

Total Expense since 1811, on Dock Yards

£.5,519,495

By the estimates for this year, a sum of 1,679,545 l. was stated as necessary to complete the works already begun, with-
out including those at Jamaica, Kingston in Canada, Trincomalee, &c. for which no estimates could be given.

No. 35.—Estimates of SUMS wanted to complete WORKS carrying on in the different DOCK YARDS.—[Vide Navy Estimates of 1821.]

PLACE.

Total Estimate to complete Work.

Of which will be wanted in 1821

£.

£.

Woolwich

46,420

12,000

Chatham

58,330

30,830

Sheerness

955,421

208,000

Portsmouth

5,000

5,000

Plymouth

5,636

7,236

Plymouth Sound

243,223

52,041

Pembroke

27,770

27,770

Leith

2,939

2,939

Haulbowline Island

9,832

9,832

Bermuda

314,910

20,000

Jamaica

Uncertain.

15,000

Kingston m Canada

Uncertain.

10,000

Gibraltar

10,064

4,000

Trincomalee

Uncertain.

20,000

1,679,545

£.424,648

In 1821

424,648

To be expended in future Years to complete the Works

1,254,897

Of that sum 424,648 l. was already voted for this year, and 1,254,897 l. would be further required; but, if he were to judge from the usual excess of expense beyond the estimate, for any given works (those at Sheerness, for instance), he should say that three millions would not complete them. He was the more induced to propose a reference to a committee, because the accounts and estimates submitted to parliament respecting these works, differed so widely from each other. In one account; for example, the estimate in 1814, to complete the works at Sheerness, was

No. 36.—SUMS Estimated for Services at His Majesty's Dock Yard at SHEERNESS, detailed as under, and the Sums Voted in the several Years, from 1811 to 1821 inclusive. [Vide Estimates laid before the House.]

Year.

—

Estimate for completing the Works.

Sums voted to be laid out during the Year.

£.

£.

1811

Towards building a New Wharf

—

30,000

—

Towards building a New Dock

—

10,000

—

To build Artificers Lodges upon the site of the Old Navy Yard

—

10,000

—

Towards erecting a New Smithery, with Machinery

—

8,000

Carried forward £.

—

58,000

stated at 824,992 l.; and, although; upwards of a million had since that time been expended on them, there was in the amount for this year, the further sum of 955,421 l. estimated as still wanting. To prove the absolute necessity of proper estimates being laid before parliament, as the Finance Committee had recommended, before any work of magnitude was undertaken, he had prepared a comparative account of the sums estimated and expended at Sheerness alone in the last, 10 years.

Brought forward £.

—

58,000

—

To take down the Old Rigging-house, and erect Stables and Chaise-house

—

749

1812

To carry on the Wharf Wall

—

17,346

1813

To carry on the Wharf Wall and other Improvements

—

80,000

1814

Towards carrying on the Improvements to the Yard

824,992

80,000

1815

Towards carrying on the Improvements in Docks, Basin, Lea Wall, and Mast Pond, &c.

739,992

109,846

1816

Towards carrying on the Improvements including Enlargement of the Dock

635,146

160,000

1817

Towards carrying on the Improvements in Docks, Basins, Sea and Boundary Walls, and Mast Pond, and for Levelling the Surface of the yard

486,674

70,000

1818

Towards carrying on the Improvements in Docks, Basins, Sea and Boundary Walls, and Mast Pond, and for Levelling the Surface of the yard

433,800

170,000

—

Towards carrying on the Improvements to take down and rebuild Wharf and Stairs, at North part of the Yard

10,000

10,000

1819

Towards carrying on the Improvements to take down and rebuild Wharf and Stairs, at North part of the Yard

553,800

170,000

—

Towards building the Working and Store Mast-houses, and a Store-house on the entrance of Powder-Monkey Bay

80,800

12,000

1820

Towards building the Working and Smithery, Coal and Iron Stores, and Boundary, &c.

171,860

10,000

—

Towards carrying on Improvements in Docks, Basins, and Lea Walls, &c.

—

200,000

1821

Towards carrying on Improvements and Ordnance Wharf, and Small Basin

821,838

193,000

—

For building a Smithery, Coal and Iron Store, a Large Storehouse, a House for Commissioners, and other Works necessary for completing the Yard

133,583

15,000

Total laid out, including 1821

—

1,355,941

Estimate of Amount wanting in future Years to complete the Works at Sheerness alone, after the date of this Year

—

747,421

Total Expense for Sheerness

—

2,103,362

He would again appeal to the House, whether inquiry was not necessary when a sum of 2,103,362 l. was to be expended upon works at Sheerness, one of, the second-rate dock-yards; and when the total expenditure for the dock-yards, including the estimate to complete, already exceeded 5½ millions since 1811. The scale on which such works were now carrying on, compared with

No. 37.—An Account of the EXPENSE for Improvement of the DOCK YARDS in the following Years.

*For Improvements in the Yards in 1791

£.54,061

*For Improvements in the Yards in 1792

45,307

*For Improvements in the Yards in 1793

67,532

166,900

† For Improvements in the Yards in 1819

486,198

† For Improvements in the Yards in 1820

451,900

† For Improvements in the Yards in 1821

424,648

1,362,746

More in 1819, 1820, and 1821, than in 1791, 1792, and 1793

£.1,195,846

*Vide Parliamentary Paper, No. 133 of 1820. †Vide Annual Estimates.

former periods of peace, when the dockyards were, found sufficient for all purposes, would be made plain by a comparative statement of the expenditure, in the three years, before the French war, when only 166,900 l. was charged for the dockyards, whilst, in the three past years, the sums voted by parliament amounted to 1,362,746 l.
The difficulties of the country required that a stop should be put to the enormous expense, at which such works have been carried on; and he had, therefore, proposed a reduction of 357,136 l. which, added to the proposed reduction in the charge for civil establishments, and for the building of ships, amounted to 1,108,543 l. in the Navy Estimates alone. He would conclude his remarks on this department with the observation, that the Committee of Finance in 1817, expressed their expectation, that the estimates would gradually be less from year to year, whereas, by the statement he had submitted to the House, it appeared that, on the contrary, they had been increasing, and for 1821, were near 400,000 l. more than for 1817.
He should not be very minute in his

No. 38.—Comparative Statement of the ORDNANCE ESTIMATES laid before Parliament for Five Years, from 1817 to 1821, both Years inclusive.

——

1817.

1818.

1819.

1820.

1821.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

Ordinary Estimates

538,176

589,576

527,397

548,305

547,766

Extraordinary Do

211,784

244,893

220,825

280,390

271,524

Ireland

144,926

115,610

101,009

111,986

111,837

Half-Pay, Military

255,560

255,209

293,690

333,584

313,703

Superannuated, Civil

33,508

34,292

38,984

40,589

42,227

Expenses of Reduction

50,000

—

10,000

5,000

—

Unprovided of former Years

50,081

28,419

20,095

60,148

40,342

Total Estimates

1,284,035

1,267,999

1,212,000

1,380,002

1,327,000

Deduct for New and Old Stores Sold

53,000

118,000

112,000

285,000

232,000

Nett Amount of Estimate £.

1,231,035

1,149,999

1,100,000

1,095,002

1,095,000

To show the enormous scale upon which the Ordnance department was now carried on, he had only to state that the average expenditure for 1790,1791, and 1792, was
observations on the Ordnance, not that it deserved less attention than the army or navy; but because he had, by the various returns called for, and the different statements already offered to the House, sufficiently explained the extreme profusion in this department, and pointed out the necessity of a very great reduction in every branch of it. By a statement in his hand, it appeared that the Estimates had greatly increased the last two years, and unless the House interfered to check this extravagance, he knew not to what extent it might proceed. The average Estimates for 1817, 1818 and 1819, were 1,254,678 l. a year, whilst for the years 1820 and 1821, it was 1,353,501 l. being 98,823 l. a year more for the two last, than for the three former years.
493,042 l. a year; whilst, by the Annual Finance Accounts, the actual expenditure on the average of the last four years was 1,447,206 l.

No. 39.—Statement of SUMS Voted by Parliament for the ORDNANCE of GREAT BRITAIN, in the Years 1790, 1971, and 1792 (Ireland not included.)—[Vide 21st Finance Report, Appendix.]

—

1790.

1791.

1792.

£.

£.

£.

Ordinary Estimates

219,757

221,271

221,272

Extraordinary Estimate

198,451

160,498

156,626

Sea Service

52,000

62,400

41,600

Unprovided of former Years

39,240

61,908

44,103

Total in each Year

509,448

506,077

463,601

Average of these Three Years

£.493,042

N.B. The Expense of the Armament of 1789, is not included in the Charge for 1790, and the Charge for Ireland was £.22,000.

No. 40.—Account of the Actual Disbursement for the ORDNANCE of the UNITED KINGDOM, as submitted to Parliament in the Annual Finance Reports for the following Years.

——

1817.

1818.

1819.

1820.

£.

£.

£.

£.

For Services at Home

1,248,218

1,076,940

1,177,965

1,125,434

For Services at Abroad

40,170

238,709

231,025

158,999

For Services at in Ireland

152,687

92,308

129,219

117,151

Total in each Year

1,441,075

1,407,957

1,538,209

1,401,585

Annual Average of Four Years

£.1,447,206

One extraordinary circumstance he must notice, that the actual disbursements for the Ordnance, on an average of the

No. 41.—Comparative Statement of the ESTIMATES for the ORDNANCE of the UNITED KINGDOM, Voted by Parliament in the Years 1817, 1818, 1819, and 1820, and the Amount stated to have been actually Expended in these Years.

——

1817.

1818.

1819.

1820.

TOTAL.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

Amount of Annual Estimates Voted by Parliament

1,284,035

1,267,999

1,212,000

1,380,002

5,144,036

Amount actually Expended, as per Annual Finance Account

1,441,075

1,407,957

1,538,209

1,401,585

5,788,826

More Expended than Estimated

157,040

139,958

326,209

21,583

644,790

last four years, exceeded the estimates voted by parliament to the amount of 644,790 l.
This he considered to be highly objectionable, as, in fact, it nullified the power of the House to control their expenses. If the actual disbursements were not made to agree, or nearly so, with the votes of this House, for what purpose were any Estimates submitted to it? He had asked for information on this subject from the hon. the clerk of the Ordnance (Mr. Ward), but had received no sufficient explanation. He would now notice some

No. 42.—Comparative Expenses of some of the Establishments of the ORDNANCE in 1796 and 1821, Fees included, in the TOWER and WESTMINSTER Establishments.

——

1796.

1821.

£.

£.

The Master General

1,560

3,239

Lieutenant General

1,125

1,592

Surveyor General

825

1,262

Storekeeper

964

1,522

Treasurer

585

1,265

Secretary to the Board

557

1,695

Superintendent of Shipping

200

827

The Under Secretary and Clerks under the Master General

365

1,387

Under the Surveyor General

14

Clerks

2,020

48

Clerks

10,621

Under the Clerk of the Ordnance

15

Clerks

2,230

31

Clerks

6,091

Under the Principal Storekeeper

12

Clerks

1,440

18

Clerks

5,619

Under the Clerk of Deliveries

8

Clerks

910

16

Clerks

3,857

Under the Treasurer

10

Clerks

1,203

12

Clerks

3,354

Under the Secretary to the Board

7

Clerks

833

30

Clerks

10,311

Porters and Messengers

819

1,964

It had been recommended to incorporate the Tower and Westminster establishments; and, from what he had been able to learn, he had no doubt that might be done, with advantage to the service, and with a saving of 20 or 30,000 l. a year. At Woolwich the Inspector and Royal-carriage department had increased from 2,153 l. to 4,236 l. a year. The Storekeeper's department from 1,023 l. to 3,117 l. The Artillery department from 97,501 l. to 346,973 l., being an increase of 249,471 l. since 1792. Whether so large an establishment of horse and foot artillery, of
of the large establishments and high salaries, which accounted for the great increase of the Ordnance expenses. The total expense of the Tower and Westminster establishments, for example, in 1792, fees and gratuities included, was 18,726 l. and in 1821, it was 65,804 l. being an increase of 47,078 l. He had in his hand a few of the particulars which explained this great difference.
drivers, &c. were requisite, he would not at present question; but if the 9 battalions of 8 companies each, were formed into 6 battalions of 10 companies each, as they were in 1792, the saving by the reduction of the staff of the three battalions would alone be upwards of 25,000 l. a year. He could see no objections to this reduction, if any sincere desire for economy existed. There was a charge of 26,091 l. for extra and staff allowance to officers of the royal artillery and engineers, which ought also to be much reduced.

No. 43.—Comparative Statement of the Effective Strength of the ROYAL REGIMENT of ARTILLERY, in 1792 and 1821, showing the Numbers and the Expense at each Period.

ROYAL REGIMENT OF ARTILLERY, 1792.

——

Battalions.

Companies.

Officers.

Non-Commissioned Officers and Privates.

Total No.

Total Expense.

Foot

4

40

232

2,600

2,832

81,273

6

8

Invalids

1

10

33

463

496

15,634

3

4

Total

3,328

96,907

10

0

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.

1

Surgeon General, per Annum

£.146

4

Surgeon per Annum

438

—

594

0

0

5

Total

Total

97,501

10

0

Increase of Charge for the Establishment in 1821, more than in 1792

249,471

10

0

£.346,973

0

0

ROYAL REGIMENT OF ARTILLERY, 1821.

——

Battalions.

Companies.

Officers.

Non-Commissioned Officers and Privates.

Total No.

Total Expense.

Foot

9

72

460

5,112

5,572

266,817

0

0

Horse

6

—

40

490

530

45,810

0

0

Drivers

4

—

23

407

430

24,211

0

0

6,532

Invalids

137

Total No.

6,669

MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT.

1.

Director General

8,778

0

0

1

Surgeon General

1

Assistant General

1

Resident Surgeon

1

Regimental General

10

Regimental General

1

Apothecary

15

First Assistant Surgeons

11

Second Assistant Surgeons

Increase of Pay to the above

1,357

0

0

42

Total

Total

£.346,973

0

0

The charge for, Medical establishments included in the Artillery department, had increased from 594 l. in 1792, to 10,135 l. in 1821, an increase altogether disproportionate to the increase of the men; and many: of the 42 surgeons and assistants now belonging to the artillery, might, as formerly, be dispensed with. The board, consisting of a director-general, surgeons, &c. was new since 1792, and appeared altogether unnecessary in the scattered state of the artillery, when there was a general medical board for the army kept up at so great an expense. One board was fully sufficient, and might do the duties of both. The extravagant charge for Ordnance Craft of 15,875 l. and upwards, he considered to be money entirely thrown away, to support the parliamentary patronage of that department, at Queenborough. He had, however, separately brought that before the House, and only regretted that they had not supported him in the motion he then made, which would have saved much to the country, besides doing away with the improper influence which that expenditure supported.
The system of Gratuities in the Ordnance had been carried much beyond the greatest extravagance in other departments; and, although strongly disapproved of in 1817, by the Finance Committee, had gone on progressively increasing to such an extent, that a clerk, after one years service, received a gratuity, increasing every year, until, in many cases, the amount exceeded that of the salary. These gratuities intended for extra duties and services, were begun in war, and ought to have ceased with it. In 1796, the total gratuities paid in the Ordnance were 2,324 l. In 1813, they had increased to 9,628 l. and are now 30,000 l. a year. The House would judge better of the excessive profusion in these gratuities, when they knew that in nine years of war, from 1807 to 1815 inclusive, the whole amount paid in gratuities was 49,248 l., and from 1816, to 1821, six years of peace, it was 168,226 l.

No. 44.—ORDNANCE GRATUITIES,

Amounted from 1807 to 1812 to

£8,565

Amounted from 1807 to 1813 to

9,628

Amounted from 1807 to 1814 to

10,343

Amounted from 1807 to 1815 to

20,712

£49,248

in nine years of extensive war.

And in 1816

24,966

And in 1817

27,000

Throughout the whole Ordnance department a scale of expense altogether unparalleled prevailed. He knew of no circumstances to warrant such an increase, and he had, therefore, endeavoured (though without success), to persuade the House to reduce 216,691 l. from the Estimates of this year, namely, 15,818 l. from the Tower and Westminster establishments, 139,193 l. from sundry charges in the ordinary estimates, and 77,500 l. from the extraordinaries. The more he reflected on these proposed reductions, the more he was convinced that, by economy, and proper regulations, retrenchments, even exceeding that amount, might be easily made.
In the Miscellaneous Estimates he had proposed considerable reduction, and he was confident the necessity of these retrenchments would be felt before they met again. The offices of the Secretary of State and of the Treasury required revision. The expenses of the Treasury for salaries and incidents was in 1796, 40,764 l. and it now was 68,854 l. By the orders of council of 1795, the establishment of the office of the Home, department was fixed at 15,415 l; it was this year 32,518 l. The charge of the Foreign office, by the same order, was fixed at 15,165 l. the expense, including messengers, was now 62,356 l. The Colonial office was new since the last peace, and its expense amounted to 27,818 l. this year, viz. 14,720 l. for salaries, 10,520 l, for contingencies, and 2,616 l. for pensions. In the same manner the charges of all the public offices were nearly doubled since 1792. The charge of 40,000 l. for the Board of Works required minute examination, because the manner in which business was performed by that department, he had reason to believe, was far from correct.
The general law charges of 25,000 l. with 8,000 l. for prosecutions relating to the coin, and a separate charge for law proceedings in each department of the state appeared to him enormous.—The expenses at Sierra Leone, on the African coast, in Canada, &c. were more than we could afford, or than these colonies were

1409
worth to us.—The charge of 5,135 l. for the Alien office ought to have been altogether refused.—The new establishment this year of 8,400 l. for the Insolvent Debtors Court, of which three judges received 5,000 l. in salary, &c. appeared to him an outrage, at a time when the expense of all the courts ought rather to have been reduced.
The charges under the head of Civil Contingencies were, in many instances, equally improper. Although the allowance of 850,000 l. might be deemed ample for the Civil list, various sums were charged in the Miscellaneous and Civil Contingencies, which properly belonged to the former, viz. 2,385 l. for Messengers bills in the Lord Chamberlain's department of his majesty's household, pensions to Consuls and 62,074 l. for our Ambassadors foreign at courts, presents, &c. By the Civil-list 226,950 l.. was appropriated to defray all the expenses of Ambassadors, Consuls, &c.; but, by the addition of such large sums as those, the charge to the public was increased to upwards of 300,000 l. for those appointments, a sum which he considered by far too large, under any circumstances of the country, but particularly at the present time; and he must here observe, that the manner in which all these expenses were incurred, before receiving the sanction of the House, was very objectionable. From the whole of these Miscellaneous charges and Civil Contingencies in this year, parliament might have reduced upwards of 250,000 l. without detriment to the public service.
The hon. gentleman then adverted to the great advantages which the country might gain from an improved method of collecting the revenue. He recollected that in June 1819, when the chancellor of the Exchequer came down to impose 3,000,000 l. of new taxes upon the people (for the purpose, he supposed, of alleviating their burthens), and promised that, if they were granted to him, he would have a constant sinking fund of 5,000,000 l., his hon. friend, the member for Abingdon, said, that the right hon. gentleman would not have a constant sinking fund of 1,000,000 l., even though the House should grant him taxes to the amount of
1410
10,000,000 l., as establishments would be kept up equal to whatever income might be received. He put it to the House to determine which of the two, the right hon. gentleman or his hon. friend, had been the most correct in the assertions which they respectively made. There could not be a doubt on the question; for the right hon. gentleman, instead of having a sinking fund of five millions, had admitted that in the last year there had only been a surplus of 950,000.; but, in consequence of his unpaid debt to the East India Company, the Bank of England, and other claimants, he was actually 3,300,000 l. worse than nothing. The House must be convinced, from the manner in which the motion of his hon. friend, the member for Abingdon, "For improving the mode of collecting the revenue," was received by the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues, there was no possibility of compelling them to assent to any reduction, but by refusing them the means to support their extravagance. Out of a revenue of 67,000,000 l. 4,365,000 l. was paid for the mere collection of it. He was confident that upwards of 1,050,000 l. might be easily saved out of that sum. The Receivers-General of land and assessed taxes, for example, under the present system, received 41,900 l. from a poundage upon the revenue collected, the interest upon the permanent balances left in their hands amounted, at 5 per cent, to 18,000 l. the interest for two months upon the current balances amounted to 58,000 l. a-year; so that the present annual expense of the Receivers-General was 117,900 l. A committee of that House had reported their opinion, that 44 receivers, with salaries not exceeding 600 l. a-year each, could perform the duty, as well as the present receivers with their overgrown emoluments. Calculating the salaries of the present number of 65 receivers-general upon the reduced scale for the future, the expense to the country would only amount to 39,000 l. to which, even if 3,250 l. were added for incidental expenses, there would still be a saving of 75,650 l. in this branch of the revenue alone.

No. 45.—Comparative Estimate of the EXPENSE of the RECEIVERS GENERAL of the LAND and ASSESSED TAXES in ENGLAND, now, and what the Select Committee of the House of Commons have recommended in their Report.

The Poundage now Paid to 65 Receivers General, Amounts Yearly to

£.41,900

The Interest on £.367,000 of Permanent Balances left in their hands at 5 per cent

18,000

The Interest on £.367,000 of Current Balances equal to Two Months on the whole Amount of £.7,898,896

58,000

Total present Expense

117,900

Estimate for 65 Receivers General, at £.600 per Annum

39,000

Expense for Bonds, Audit, and Incidents

3,250

Total estimated future Expense

42,250

Being a Saving of

75,650

And the Patronage of 65 Sinecure Places.
Whenever the number of Recivers General should be reduced to 44, as recommended by the committee, the annual saving would be 88,250 l. a-year, instead of 75,650 l. Whilst upon this subject, he could not help observing, that he had heard with regret, that, notwithstanding the unanimous recommendation of the Committee, that this reduction should be immediately made, his majesty's government had no intention of carrying it into effect till next year, They pretended that the alteration recommended could not be carried into effect without a new act of parliament, and that it was now too late in the present session to introduce one. This was a strange argument in the mouth of those ministers who, since the report of that Committee, had brought into the House, and hurried through its several stages, the bill to increase the duke of Clarence's income. It should seem that measures of reduction alone, required the deliberate consideration of the legislature.
In the course of the session he had also shown how 40 or 50,000 l. might be saved from allowances given to the distributors of stamps, and in a manner which did not require the sanction of an act of parliament, but merely an order of the lords, of the Treasury.—Instead of 4 and
1412
6 per cent now allowed, 1½or 2 per cent would be quite sufficient, as distributors did not allow a greater percentage to their deputies, who, in general, did all the business. He was indeed prepared to show that the whole department of Stamps required much revision, the particulars of which he hoped to be able to submit to the consideration of the House in the next session. The collection of the land and assessed taxes in Scotland and Ireland, cost the country sums equally extravagant. Complaints had been made on the subject from Scotland, and he had moved for returns, which showed that these complaints were well-founded. The charge of 17,000 l. oh the collection of 509,000 l., in 1809, was this year increased to 39,000 l. In Great Britain the charge for collecting the Customs was, by the Finance Accounts 6l. 4s. 3d. per cent in 1806, and in 1820 it was 12 l. 2s. 6d. The amount of the nett produce remaining nearly the same, it was evident that the burthens of the people were increased in this instance merely to extend the patronage of ministers. The same extravagance was observable in Ireland, where, in 1806, the Customs and Excise were collected at 9l. 18 s. 1¾d. per cent, and in 1820 at 20 l. 18 s. 7¼d. per cent.

No. 46.—Comparative Statement of the AMOUNT and EXPENSE of Collecting, the CUSTOMS in GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Years ending 5th Jan. 1807, and 1821.—[From the Annual Finance Accounts.]

——

Nett Produce applicable to National Objects and to Payments into the Exchequer.

Amount of Charges of Management.

Rate per Cent. on the Nett Receipt.

Rate which those Sums properly give.

In Great Britain.

£.

£.

£.

s.

d.

£.

s.

d.

On 5th Jan., 1807,

Customs

10,553,293

655,603

6

4

3

—

On 5th Jan., 1821,

Customs

9,337,169

1,097,774

12

2

6

11

15

1½

In Ireland.

On 5th Jan., 1807,

Customs and Excise

4,369,541

351,655

9

18

1¾

On 5th Jan., 1821,

Customs and Excise

3,118,136

652,641

28

5

2C

20

18

7¼

16

13

1E.

With regard to the salaries of all Civil Officers, and contingent expenses, in Great Britain, he had to complain of similar extravagance and recommended similar reductions. There was an increase of 106,000 l. in 1819, a decrease of 58,000 l. in 1820, and of 64,000 l. in 1821, and thus 16,000 l. was all the saving that had been made in the last three years in 67 public offices of Great Britain. Upon the whole he ventured to affirm that upwards of 1,050,000 l. might be saved by a change in

No. 47.—Reductions proposed by Mr. HUME and other Members, in the ESTIMATES, this Session.

ARMY

To reduce 20,000 men, Household Troops and troops in the Colonies

753,955

Army extras, one-third of 934, 911

300,000

£1,053,955

By reducing 93 Regiments of 650 men to 75 Regiments of 800 each

211,000

By reducing Barracks (England)

80,000

By reducing Barracks (Ireland)

40,000

120,000

By reducing Commissariat, England and Ireland

115,000

Military Staff, Great Britain and Colonies

£105,943

to reduce

10,943

Military-Irish Staff

26,538

6,538

Commander in Chief's Office

14,474

4,000

War Office

51,000

10,000

Adjutant General's Office

6,844

1,500

Adjutant General's Office (Scotland)

900

351

Quartermaster General

4,692

1,500

Quartermaster in Scotland

922

622

Judge Advocate General

5,180

2,180

Judge Scotland

650

650

Comptroller's Office

12,642

4,600

Medical Staff

5,614

2,200

Public Departments (Ireland)

10,518

3,500

Volunteers and Yeomanry (England)

170,000

20,000

the mode of collecting and management of the revenue. Having thus, as shortly as he was able, stated to the House the several sums that might have been reduced from the Estimates of the several departments this year, amounting in the whole as appeared by a statement he had in his hand, to near 4½ millions, he hoped the House would support the motion he had to submit to them, to request his majesty to direct every reduction he may; find practicable in the expenditure of the state.

Volunteers and Yeomanry (Ireland)

19,023

9,000

Military College

16,915

7,244

Military Asylum

36,000

12,000

Foreign Half-pay Agency

2,025

Garrisons Abroad and at Home

34,000

12,449

Recruiting

50,000

20,000

Veteran Battalion Officers

18,870

Kilmainham and Chelsea Hospital Establishments

10,000

Retired Allowances

40,000

8,000

Total for the Army

1,663,127

Navy Establishments

£.1,225,629¼

of

£.925,629

251,407

Building Ships

1,094,540

50,000

Works in Dock Yard

424,048

357,136

1,108,543

Ordnance.—Tower Establishment

£.65,804

to reduce

15,818

Sundries Total Ordinary

547,766

139,191

Extraordinary

£.271,124

¼

77,500

216,691

In the Miscellaneous Items of

£.2,444,100

might be saved

250,000

To be saved in the Collection of the Revenue

1,050,000

Total Reduction

£4,288,361

If such recommendations were adopted, we could immediately afford to repeal some of those taxes which were most expensive in the collection, and pressed most heavily on the labouring classes; such

No. 48.—Amount of the REVENUE derived from the EXCISE in the Year ending 5th January, 1821.

——

On Salt.

On Leather.

On Soap.

On Candles.

Total.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

England

1,501,590

605,894

958,621

356,847

—

Scotland

101,876

55,906

115,794

18,900

—

Total Gross Receipts

1,603,466

661,800

1,074,415

375,747

3,715,428

England

1,450,562

540,012

835,816

293,042

—

Scotland

78,681

45,128

96,298

15,662

—.

Nett Receipt in the Exchequer

1,529,243

585,140

932,114

308,704

3,355,201

In Ireland no Duty on Salt, Soap, or Candles, appear in the Excise; on Leather Nett Produce, £.34,166.
Would not relief like this be a great boon to the people? and such a boon it was still in the power of the House to grant; for hon. members ought to recollect, that as the Appropriation bill was not yet passed, their previous votes had not finally disposed of the public money. He could not conclude without adverting to the enormous amount of the Civil List, and calling upon ministers to advise their loyal master to imitate the sovereigns on
as those on soap, candles, leather, and salt of which the gross charge to the country was 3,715,428., the nett amount received into the Exchequer was 3,355,201 l. in the last year.
the continent, who had surrendered apart of their incomes, in consideration of the distresses of their people. The situation of the country called for similar sacrifices. Some great measure of economy was necessary to relieve the distress and to support public credit. A reduction of taxation could alone give effectual relief, and support the national credit.
He would add, the more money that was left in the pockets of the people,

1417
the stronger would be the government, and the more secure the public credit [Hear, hear!] With a government disposed to lighten the burthens of the people, half the Excise and Custom officers, and half the military force at present employed would be sufficient [Hear, hear!]. If ministers, then, and their friends were sincere in their professions of economy, he would rely on their support to his motion. By adopting or rejecting the pledge which it implied, their real intentions in this respect would be ascertained [Hear, hear!]. The hon. gentleman concluded, amid cheers, by moving the following Resolution:
"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, humbly to request that, with a view of affording relief to the Country from a part of its burdens, he will be graciously pleased to direct that a minute Investigation be instituted into the Mode and Expense of the Management and Collection of the several Branches of the Revenue; that a careful Revision be made of all Salaries and Allowances, especially of those which have been increased since 1797, in order that they may be adjusted with reference to the increased Value of the Currency, and to the distressed circumstances of the Country; that a vigilant superintendence be exercised over the Expenditure of the Country, in all its Departments, in order that every Reduction may be made therein, which can be effected without detriment to to the public Interest, and in particular in the Number of the Army; and the Expense of its Establishments."
The Marquis of Tavistock,in rising to second the motion of the hon. member for Aberdeen, begged leave to offer him his sincere thanks for the constant attention which he had paid during the present session to the Estimates of the country, and to the zeal, ability, and perseverance with which he had endeavoured to effect a reduction of the public expenditure. He was persuaded that, in offering this testimony of his gratitude, he only echoed the sentiments of the people of England for the hon. member for Aberdeen, by the conduct which he had pursued during the session, had firmly rivetted himself in their confidence and esteem [Hear, hear!]. Having done this act of justice to the hon. gentleman, he must be excused for saying that he entertained those sentiments for him personally. He could not but regret the necessity the hon. member
1418
was under of bringing all these minute details of the Estimates before the House. This was a new feature in the proceedings of that House. They appeared to be deviating widely from the common and ancient usage of parliament; and he was not one of those who wished to see that House assume the functions of the executive government. At the same time; if the government did not possess the confidence of the country—if his majesty's ministers were determined to resist every proposition in favour of economy—if they showed no disposition to meet the wishes or relieve the burthens of the people, he saw no other course but that which had been taken by the hon. member for Aberdeen, with so much ability and credit to himself. That course served at least to show, if any thing were wanting to open the eyes of the country, how useless it was to attempt to strike off a single shilling from any Estimate, how ever extravagant, if ministets thought fit to lay it before them. He trusted the hon. gentleman, after the experience of this session, would not think it necessary to waste his time and constitution by attempting to make any impression upon that House. Perhaps the distresses of the country, if not the exertions of the hon. gentleman, might produce a change calculated to restore the happiness of the country. While the country continued to groan under the pressure of an enormous standing army kept up in time of peace for the avowed object of keeping the people down, under the pressure of the Customs and Excise, and four millions paid annually for the mere collection of the revenue (a larger sum than the amount of the whole interest of the national debt at the commencement of the late reign) it was quite madness, except in the event of some great calamity, to expect any thing but a majority in favour of ministers. The ties of gratitude alone, which always would, and ought to have their influence, were sufficient, independently of motives of self-interest, to secure such a majority. So long as the present system continued; he never expected to see a House of Commons that would satisfy the people. So strongly was this feeling impressed upon his mind, that he should not consider himself as acting either an honest or consistent part, if he ever again spent a single shilling to obtain a seat in that House. [A laugh]. He ought perhaps, to apologise to the House for introducing that

1419
which could only be of personal interest to himself. After resisting every proposition for retrenchment, which had been made during the session, the noble lord's friends seemed at last to be turning round, and began to talk of granting boons to the country. This was a course for which the noble lord had but little reason to thank them; since, after encouraging him to bring forward the Estimates, they were now ready to withhold from him the means of providing for them. He congratulated the noble lord, however, upon the new tone which he had himself assumed: it was certainly a change for the better; for the House must remember when the noble lord, in the plenitude of his power, reproached the people with an ignorant impatience of taxation. Among all the unjustifiable measures of the present day, none was more repugnant to the true spirit of the English constitution than the constant employment of the military, and the practice of arming one part of the community against the other upon all public occasions. Feeling as he did upon this subject, it was not without deep regret that he had heard a rumour that his majesty had been advised to encompass the metropolis with a large military force previously to the approaching coronation. Was this the way to treat the people of England? Was this the way to secure their confidence? In the name of common sense why were they to be treated as foes upon all public occasions, as if they were likely to rise up against the government? He was not prepared to contend that it had not been customary in farmer times to employ the household troops for the sake of parade on occasions of public solemnity. But whole regiments were said to be moving from Canterbury, Brighton and other parts of the country, to be stationed round London. Nor was this all, but the yeomanry cavalry were to be brought up from the country to their great inconvenience and loss at this busy season of the year. This course might, in strictness, be justified by the ordinary practice, but what he objected to was the principle of employing the military as a body of police upon all public occasions. When was it deemed necessary in former days, to protect a king of England against his subjects, on the occasion of his coronation? Lamentable, indeed, must be the condition to which ministers had reduced the coun-
1420
try, if their measures had rendered it absolutely necessary, on such an occasion, to protect the sovereign against his people. He would not believe it to be necessary; for the people of England were distinguished above all people in the world for a loyal and zealous attachment to the person of the sovereign. Notwithstanding the strong feelings which had been excited in the country by the late proceedings against her majesty, they still retained that attachment. The noble lord at the head of the home-department mistook the character of the people, if he thought it necessary, on such an occasion as the coronation, to display his vigour by marching troops from all parts of the kingdom, as if a rebellion menaced the throne, or a foreign enemy had landed on our coasts.
Mr. Bankesbelieved it to be usual, on all occasions of public solemnity, to employ a large number of troops, as a matter of parade. With regard to the other observations which had fallen from the noble lord, he thought the noble lord had assumed a tone of despondency and reproach which did not come very graciously from a member of that House, who was almost in the dawn of life. The hon. member for Aberdeen had pointed out a great number of points in which, as he contended, large savings might be made; but he appeared to have forgotten that the House had already, in most of those points, decided against him [Cheers from the Opposition.] He believed, that of those gentlemen who were now cheering, not one in ten had made himself master of the items on which the hon. member for Aberdeen had insisted, and of those who had, not one in ten really believed the proposed reductions to be practicable. It was holding out a false expectation to the country to say, that four millions might be saved. He thought it also objectionable that the hon. gentleman should have taken away the credit due to ministers for the reductions which they had made this year, as compared with the expenditure of the last. It was true he could have wished that they had advanced more rapidly in the process of reduction; but still they were entitled to credit for what they had done. Besides, the hon. gentleman, whose industry no one could doubt, must have been aware that a commission had been employed for a long while in inquiring into the department of the Customs with a view to reduction. The recom-

1421
mendations of this committee had already effected a considerable saving to the public, which was likely to be followed up by more; so that no indisposition could be imputed to government to promote the objects of economy. Still, however, he thought it would not be right, under the present circumstances of the country, to rely upon the promises of any men, or set of men, and therefore he was of opinion, that the House ought to address his majesty, praying for the adoption of such measures as, in their judgment, the situation of the country appeared to require. If the House should concur with him in the views he had taken of the subject, the hon. gentleman would probably relinquish his own motion, in order to meet the general feeling. He would therefore conclude with moving, as an amendment, "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, to assure his majesty, that we have regarded with satisfaction the measures which have been taken by his majesty's commands for a general revision of the department of the Customs in Great Britain; and to intreat his majesty to give directions that a similar investigation may be extended to all the other branches of the revenue, in order to render its collection more economical, and its management more efficient; that, for the purpose of affording a further relief to the country, his majesty will be pleased to order a minute inquiry into the several departments of the civil government, as well with a view to reducing the number of persons employed, in those departments, which, from the great increase of business, were augmented during the late war, as with reference to the increased salaries granted to individuals since the year 1797, either in consideration of the additional labour thrown upon them during that period, or of the diminished value of money:—and further, that his majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that every possible saving which can be made, without detriment to the public interest, shall be effected in those more extended establishments which the country is obliged to maintain for the safety and defence of the united kingdom and its dependencies; and more especially in the military expenditure, by a reduction in the numbers of the army, and by a constant and vigilant superintendence over that and all the other departments connected with the application of the ample supplies granted by this House."
Mr. Goochwas anxious to beat testimony, as chairman of the agricultural committee, to the spirit of economy and retrenchment which pervaded their inquiries. He preferred the address proposed by the hon. member for Corfe Castle to that proposed by the hon. member for Aberdeen, because the latter was expressed in atone of censure against ministers, which he did not think they deserved. He was of opinion at the same time, that ministers ought to have commenced the reductions earlier: they had taken the subject up now, and he was sure they had done so with sincerity. The address which attached censure to ministers, could only be considered as a party question; and as he would rather have the present ministers in place than their opponents, he would resist the motion.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that in rising to trouble the House upon the present occasion, lie hoped they would allow him to indulge in a few preliminary observations in explanation of the general view which he meant to take of the course pursued by the gentlemen opposite: and he should in the first place consider himself to be one of those visionary politicians whom he wished to decry, if in throwing himself upon the candour of the House, for that constitutional confidence which as a member of his majesty's government he hoped he deserved at their hands, be should for a moment be considered as denying the right to call upon administration for an explanation of what his majesty's government had already done, or meant hereafter to do, in the reduction of the public expenditure. Still, however, in stating the conduct of the administration to which he had the honour of belonging, he should deservedly incur the charge of being a great hypocrite, if he said that he expected from some of the gentlemen opposite any candour in their estimate either of what had been done, or was in progress of being done, by his majesty's government. He did not mean to impute individually to those who contended, he hoped in an honourable struggle, in opposition to the measures of government, any particular want of candour: but the fact was, that they were, as a party, so accustomed to look with a jaundiced eye at every thing which was done at his side of the house, that if he and those with whom he acted were to wait either for their praise or even

1423
their justice, they would have to wait long enough for the exhaustion of all human patience. The noble marquis opposite had talked of the power which he said that he wielded from his influence in that House. Now, he could assure the noble marquis, that he felt chiefly indebted for what he was pleased to call his power to another source—he felt indebted for all the power he possessed to the noble marquis opposite and his party; for it was they who had rivetted his power by satisfying the public by their own conduct that it could not be safely intrusted to their hands. The noble marquis opposite and his party had satisfied the public of that fact long ere now; they had shown it when they had to float in the ordinary tide of public events—a tide far less rapid than that in which the administration of which he was but an humble member had to steer the vessel of the state, and when it was exposed to storms less terrific than those which the present government had to encounter. If it were not for that experience which the gentlemen opposite had as a party afforded the country, his power, and that of the administration of which he was but an humble instrument, would have long since been wrested from them. If he perceived any tincture of despair in the mind of the noble marquis —a despair, too, which seemed to increase in proportion as the noble marquis receded from the business of that House— he could assure the noble marquis that he attributed that tone of despondency not so much to his own feelings as to the influence of his party and the practice of the school which he followed. There was something not a little remarkable in the mode of proceeding adopted by the gentlemen opposite. When that House listened not to their foreboding voice, the noble marquis and his friends relinquished their parliamentary attendance, and in a languishing tone supposed the ruin of the country. If, however, at any moment of their career, the gentlemen opposite succeeded in having their voices listened to by parliament,—if they could be allowed to labour in the vineyard—then indeed the country was safe, and the gentlemen opposite were as insensible to the supposed abuses, the existence of which they now so vehemently proclaimed, as any other class of men in the community. Thus far his allusion applied to the noble marquis and his friends of the party. But there was another class
1424
of gentlemen on the benches opposite, to which he was uniformly opposed, and from whom he could never expect to receive any quarter. He meant that class of projectors, who took their stand upon ground peculiarly their own, who derided all practical retrenchment as inadequate and inefficient, who ridiculed all reasonable attempts to meet the public wishes, —a class which must, from the nature of the position which they took, be always in advance of any government not ready to go along with them in attempting to realize expectations which they must themselves know to be impracticable. These gentlemen placed themselves far above the reach of conviction; they were always therefore in advance of the government, and could never be reached by the adoption of a practical course. He had great respect for the hon. member for Aberdeen: he admired his industry, but unless the hon. gentleman were the Deity instead of being but a laborious individual, it was physically impossible that he could have exercised a sober or sound judgment upon the mass of complicated details which he had in his speech presented to the consideration of the House. The hon. gentleman was like one of the great philosophers of the modern school, who showed that nothing was so easy as to pull down an edifice, to attack a constitution, to cry down any administration, by bringing to bear against them in the public eye a great mass of details which had a showy appearance, but which, it was impossible for any human intellect to comprehend at one view, or indeed to enter upon hastily, without becoming involved in the greatest confusion. It was very easy to bring down to that House a mass of papers so composed, and upon them to found a charge of not practically keeping pace with the imaginary reflections of the bearer of them. In what he said, he did not wish to undervalue the labours of the hon. gentleman; they did him great credit as an individual, and no doubt, in course of time, he would be come a valuable acquisition to that House. Indeed, he looked forward to his exertions with a different feeling than the noble marquis opposite seemed to do; for he hoped to see the hon. gentleman resume his labours, as he had promised next session, instead of attending to the jaundiced recommendation, and yielding to the hypochondriac disposition of the noble marquis, which must, if acted upon, be so prejudicial to the

1425
best interests of the country. He believed that notwithstanding the heavy gloom which oppressed the political prospects of the noble marquis, the progressive proceedings of his majesty's government in reducing the public expenditure, would satisfy every reasonable individual in that House and the country, and that the public would not be led away by loud assertions to expect, impossibilities, or ascribe, either to the agency of his majesty's ministers, or parliament, evils which it was beyond the reach of either to remedy. The people, he had no doubt, would respect parliament and confide in the wisdom of their deliberations, in preference to the declarations of impractical reductions. He must say this on the behalf of the people of England, that he could not name one moment in their history of late times, in which the country was more tranquil than it was at present. In all the parts some time ago disturbed, there was now a repose and calmness; there was, he believed, more good humour and undivided comfort and happiness now prevailing throughout the country, than could be remembered almost at any former period. He denied that any precautions were necessary to ensure public respect for the sovereign of the country: the manner in which the king had been received by his people, wherever he had shown himself, sufficiently contradicted the idea that any precautions were necessary. He could assure the noble marquis, that on the day when the sovereign entered into the great convenant with his people, according to the solemn forms prescribed by the constitution, his majesty would find in the affections of his people, all the protection and reverence which his person required on such an occasion; and he must protest against the noble marquis's interpretation from the ordinary circumstances which attended the arrangements for a coronation—a spectacle which always in some degree partook of military array—that there was even any ground in the military preparations alluded to for supposing that they were intended for the protection of his majesty, rather than as a part of the formal arrangements required by the nature of the ceremony.—On the subject of the address of the hon, member—he had no hesitation in saying, that he agreed to its principle: indeed, so far as the principle went, he saw no difference between the original address and the amended one. But he thought it due to the intentions of
1426
his majesty's government to call on the members of the agricultural committee in particular, to say whether there was any part of the report of that committee the necessity of which ministers pressed more strongly for adoption, or to which they wished to give so strong and decided a colour as that which urged the necessity of adopting a sound, constitutional, and practical economy in the public expenditure. Having expressed his opinion that the principle of both addresses was the same, he should now state his reasons why he selected one of them in preference to the other, and more especially taking one of them with the commentary of the hon. member's speech in proposing it. The avowed object of the hon. member was economy; but in proposing his address he showed himself to be in his heart at war with the present government, and anxious to impress the public mind with the notion that he and the party to which he belonged could alone secure adequate retrenchment for the country. Therefore the hon. member must allow him to say, that the tone he had assumed, and the sentiments avowed by those under whose auspices he acted, and who, whether in retirement or in active service, maintained alike the same spirit of hostility to his majesty's present ministers—he must allow him to say, that such a temper and feeling, connected with the original address, must be considered, as making it rather an attack upon the government in the shape of political hostility, than an appeal to them upon points of retrenchment. Entertaining this view of the motives which dictated the original address, he preferred adhering to what he must consider to be the sound address which incited, and pressed, and aroused the House to pursue such retrenchments as might appear practicable. With respect to what government had already done in the way of retrenchment, he was not prepared to speak in detail; but he could safely affirm, that they had taken the necessary steps for every real retrenchment. Every successive year since the peace ministers had gone on adopting the utmost principles of reduction. He knew, indeed, there were some who thought it extremely easy to effect retrenchments at first sight—who, like the hon. member opposite, could reduce fancied savings to paper, and take the estimates of 1792 as the criterion of the public expenditure. Upon that assump-

1427
tion, it was easy enough to say that the military expenditure of 1792 was 2 millions and a half, and that now it was 8 millions; and who could from thence at sight infer that there ought to be a saving effected of at least 2 or 3 millions? Such sweeping and wholesale reformers might indeed be astonished at the comparatively slow progress of practical retrenchment; but if the hon. member would assist in the committees of his majesty's government to consider the public reductions, he would soon be taught to go at a slower pace than he travelled in that House. He would become a more cautious practical reformer than he was at present. But the government took a surer and steadier course, and proceeded with practical wisdom in their reductions, so as to render them steadily and permanently beneficial to the public. The hon. gentleman hardly seemed disposed to give the government credit for any reduction last year, much less for those economical arrangements which had been flowing in a constant stream of reduction since the peace. The House knew that the estimates for the present year were 18,022,000 l. and for the last year they were 19,673,000 l. showing a present reduction of 1,670,000 l. Yet, with this reduction on the face of the estimates, the hon. member would have the House believe that there had been no retrenchment whatever. He had been kind enough, however, to set the government a task for next year, and promised them his assistance in solving it. It was clear from what had fallen from the hon. member, that the secrets of the agricultural committee had not been as well kept as they ought to have been; but he had already alluded to the disposition shown by the members of his Majesty's government in that committee to be foremost in recommending the work of retrenchment. The hon. member, no doubt hearing that, determined to have the start of them; he therefore lost not a moment in making a harlequin leap, so as to distance all the advances which ministers could possibly make in the way of retrenchment. In doing so, Mr. Grimaldi never made a more happy effort. He was at once prepared to yield the victory to the hon. member for Aberdeen upon his own position; for he should indeed be an absolute mountebank if he could concur with the hon. member in holding out next year to the country a saving of 4 millions. He could, however, assure the House, that no effort
1428
which his majesty's government could reasonably make, consistently with the public service, would on their part be spared to carry into effect economy in every branch of the public departments. After all, could the House doubt the deep and paramount interest which his majesty's ministers must feel in carrying into effect the most extended system of practical retrenchment? No set of men had a greater interest in cultivating the public good opinion. The noble marquis was greatly in error if he supposed that ministers kept their places by the force of selfish patronage, or owed their influence to any other source than the general confidence of the country. He never would, as a minister of the Crown, endeavour to satisfy any excited feelings of the country, by deluding the people with a show of impractical retrenchment: he would never consent to break down the government which his sovereign intrusted to his charge, by risking its safety to seek popularity. These were the principles on which his majesty's government wished always to be judged: they desired to call for the opinion of parliament, not upon their words, but their acts. And they were prepared to labour during the recess in preparing for parliament at its next meeting, that plan of retrenchment which could alone be safe, because it was the result of a practical survey of the state of the establishments of the country.
Lord Miltonthought that until parliament had received proofs of the noble lord's economy, they were justified in judging from what he had done of what he professed to do. The noble lord had stated, that he pressed economy in the Agricultural committee; but the object of its report seemed to be to divert the agricultural mind of the country from the real causes of the distress to other objects. The price of labour had already fallen, but the fall was no relief to the agriculturist; for the farmer, by paying less in wages, might be certain that he must pay more in poor-rates. As he considered both addresses to amount to the same thing, he would vote for treat which was likely to unite the greatest number of suffrages. Gentlemen opposite had been lavish of their praises on the exertions of his hon. friend, though they took care never to give him their support; however, when the praise came from them, it proved that the encomiums were not undeserved. He was sure that the exertions

1429
which called forth such eulogy, could not be lost as to their effect on the government. He trusted that the address would be found to be something more than empty words. He suspected something would proceed from it, and that when they met again next session, the anxiety for economy would not be diminished. He did not wish to see the agricultural capitalists remunerated by a higher price of corn than at present; the rise in the value of the currency made the present price as high as it ought to be. He would be glad if relief could be extended to the agriculturists by any other means; but he feared no relief could be extended to them but from economy. The country was brought to such a state, that if the strictest economy was not adopted, many of the land-owners must be swept off the face of the earth. The intermediate landowners must have their comforts diminished, and the small land-owners must be reduced to the state of the labourers who worked on their farms. A few years, or perhaps a few months, would show whether this opinion was well or ill-founded.
The Marquis of Titchfieldsaid, that, unwilling as he was to offer himself to the notice of the House, and little as he was in the habit of doing so, yet as he was prevented by other duties from attending on former occasions when the expenditure of the country had been discussed, he was anxious not to miss this opportunity,— the last probably the session would afford, —of endeavouring to describe in a few words the great importance he attached to that subject [Hear!]. And he should break through his repugnance to trouble the House with the less difficulty, because, as he would freely confess, he was desponding enough to think the situation of the country so threatening, that almost no financial disasters were too great to anticipate, and that it was impossible to say how soon the period might come when remonstrance upon the subject of expenditure might be too late. Thinking, then, as he did, that, although the country might yet be saved, it could only be saved by an early change of system in that respect, he considered himself bound, even in the humble situation he had the honour to fill in that House, not to be backward in expressing and explaining his opinions. He certainly regretted not having been present on former nights when the estimates were before the House; although if
1430
he had been present, he would have generally found great difficulty in determining how to vote—no difficulty in determining that the peace establishment of the country should be conducted on a scale far below the present; no difficulty in deciding that by a rigid revisal of ail civil offices, and by a reduction of the army, not merely to what might be desirable for the security and convenience of all our distant possessions, but to what the country could afford, some millions might be saved to the people; but he would have found difficulty, inasmuch as many of the questions were questions of fact, upon which there could be no certainty in judging without a particular and accurate acquaintance with the department of which the establishments were under investigation. But, little as he could have gone along with the hon. member for Aberdeen in all the various motions upon which he thought fit to take the sense of the House, he must nevertheless follow the example of the noble lord who seconded the motion, and endeavour to express the great gratitude he felt, as a member of parliament and as a member of the community, towards that hon. member, for the persevering industry and ardent public spirit with which he had employed himself in the service of his country in the great work of economical reform. He might depend upon it, that the line he had adopted was that by which in these times a man could best serve his country. Other members might make motions upon European politics, and enter into theoretical controversies with the despots of the Holy Alliance with very laudable objects indeed, but he feared to very little other purpose than that which he admitted to be a very meritorious one, of calling forth, as that subject frequently did, very splendid eloquence from both sides of the House. But this sort of discussion was of a nature to confer a real lasting and practical benefit upon the country, and by benefitting this country, to benefit the world; for he was sure that it was for the interest of the whole world that this country should be always great and powerful. Such motions as the one then before the House, often repeated in all their various forms, not only contributed to deter those in power from abusing the trust reposed in them, but, what was of far more consequence, they tended to make the people of England acquainted with the real state of their affairs, and to keep ever before

1431
their eyes this great truth, that the resources of a country, when once impaired, like the private fortune of an individual, could only be restored by the simple but at the same time grand and certain receipt of unsparing and comprehensive retrenchment [Hear, hear!].
He very much preferred the motion then before the House as a mode of discussing the subject of the expenditure to the more usual one of discussing the various items in the committee; for there the gentlemen in office possessed an immense advantage, since it was very easy for them to find excuses, perhaps very plausible excuses, for a certain quantum of extravagance in each department, and in this way they make out, or rather seem to make out, a claim to the whole amount they require. But in the address proposed by the hon. member for Aberdeen the question was put upon its proper footing; for the gist and spirit of it was, that the circumstances of the country made it necessary that the ministers should be limited to a certain sum with which they must provide for the business of the state as well as they could. The question of our expenditure was never more important than at the present crisis; for he thought most politicians, however sanguine, must by this time be convinced that, under such a weight of taxation, not only the country had no chance of recovering its former prosperity, but that it was very likely soon to become actually incapable of raising the amount. But, even if the country could go on from hand to mouth, as it was doing, could any one be satisfied with such a state of things? Could this country continue to exist as a first-rate power, unless it could emerge from its present helpless situation? And when was it to begin its course to prosperity? Here we were as ill off as ever in the seventh year of peace, and to all appearance without a chance of improvement; because, taxed as we were to the full amount of what we could bear, there was of course no surplus wealth in the country, and therefore there were no materials for accumulation. The noble lord, after observing that upon a subject connected, however remotely with political economy he was anxious to manifest all that diffidence which he certainly felt, proceeded to remark, that no truth could be more indisputable than this, that a country could Only become rich by being so lightened of taxation, that the taxes should be paid
1432
out of its superabundance, and not extorted from it in spite of its necessities. In our embarrassed situation war would be dreadful to contemplate, and upon the present scale of expense there seemed no prospect of our ever being able to meet it much better than we were this year. He really believed that, unless parliament interfered, and with more spirit than the hon. member for Corfe Castle seemed inclined to do, we should continue in our present state of exhaustion till some war overtook us, without our having made a single step towards prosperity; and then he would ask what was to become of the country? [Hear, hear!] If in such a state we were to be forced into a war, one of two evils would probably happen to us—either we should be soon compelled to yield, at least to abandon our pretensions, or if from the weakness of our enemy and not our own strength we should avoid a dishonourable peace, we should then find ourselves burthened with such accumulated loans, that the utmost exertions of the country would barely suffice to pay the interest of the debt, and we should then remain without any establishment at all, left to the mercy of the first invader, and inviting attack from the first power that should find resources to second its ambition. Towards meeting and removing such an extent of difficulty, economy, in the proper acceptation of the terra, highly as it is to be recommended, and rigidly as it ought to be enforced, cannot do much. For by economy, properly speaking, is meant the doing the business of the state as cheaply as possible. Now, if an independent and spirited House of Commons was to effect this to the utmost extent, some hundred thousands might be saved; but to relieve us, to give us real relief, we must cut off not by hundred thousands, but by millions. And such a diminution can only be brought about by a reduction of the army. To him the policy of keeping up the present amount of military force was quite incomprehensible. The noble lord, the organ of the administration in that House, and the noble Secretary at War, had said, that the force kept up was no more than necessary to guard against the dangers incident to sudden war. Perhaps the noble lords were right in saying that such a force was required in order to put every part of our distant possessions in a state of complete security. This proposition might be perfectly true, at least he would

1433
admit it for the sake of confining himself to what ought to be the paramount consideration with the government and with the House, namely, the security of our finances. To what purpose was it to be prepared for war in a military point of view, if we were utterly destitute of the resources to enable us to carry it on? Of what use was it to guard against the effects of a sudden attack, if we were sure to suffer the same evils from a protracted aggression? By a sudden war, a very unlikely event, with a diminished force we might lose a colony or two—a small loss and of no consequence in any point of view—of no consequence if our resources were good, for then we should easily recover the colony—and equally of no consequence if our resources were disordered, for then we should lose it at any rate, if not by surprise, by our inability to continue the struggle. The question is, said the noble lord, whether you will risk the loss of some colonies, or whether you will endanger your financial credit— whether it is worth while to oppress every part of the community to make yourself completely secure against what is not likely to befall you, and what, if it does befall you, will not, by your over precautions, be more successfully met? This country is to stand and to command the respect of the world, not by its numerous garrisons scattered over the globe, but by its well-known power of supporting those numerous armies which, during the late war, were in activity by our means, of affording the vast subsidies we were then so lavish of, and, above all, of sending forth those mighty naval armaments which have been the astonishment of Europe; and inasmuch as our expenditure during peace takes off from our ability to furnish such a display, in so much are we weaker instead of stronger. The strength of England consists in the reputation she enjoys of being able to undertake a war, and in showing, by her repaired and increasing resources, to surrounding nations, that, in the event of insult and injustice, she has the means as well as the inclination to chastise the aggressor with signal and fearful vengeance. But instead of acting upon these principles, we pursue the shortsighted policy of taking very expensive precautions against a small chance of a small loss, easy to be repaired, at the price of incurring a great chance of a great loss not to be repaired—the shaking of the national credit upon which our power de-
1434
pends. And to what purpose do we Contemplate such a prospect? For no other, it might well be suspected, than to indulge his majesty's ministers with the parade and patronage of an army, as disproportionate to the means as it is inconsistent with the constitution of the country [Hear, hear!].
As for the details of the military establishment, he would not enter into them, partly because at that late hour he could not presume to trespass upon the time and patience of the House at sufficient length to enable him to do so, and partly, because by so doing he should be in some measure abandoning the high ground upon which he thought the opponents of the present system of expenditure ought to stand, and upon which, if they did stand, they were inexpugnable, namely, that the country could not, from financial considerations, prudently maintain its present establishments, whether in other points of view they were desirable or not. He would not trouble the House much farther; but before he sat down, he must explain why he preferred the original motion to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Corfe Castle. In taking that course, he was not acting in obedience to any party feelings, at least he hoped not. Certainly he was not conscious of having any thing to do with party, and on this occasion he had especially endeavoured to act strictly with reference to the real merits of the case. He trusted the hon. member for Corfe Castle would forgive him, but he must say, he could not help viewing his accession to the cause, to the cause of reform in any sense of the word, with considerable suspicion. [A laugh.] The very circumstance of the trifling difference between the address he had proposed and that to which it was an amendment was a strong argument against it. For if its object was bonâ fide to procure for the country a reduction of its establishments, and if no other object was at bottom, where was its superiority over the original address? But it showed upon the face of it, that it was designed merely to extricate his majesty's ministers from a painful situation, and to secure to them certain votes upon which they could not otherwise have relied. From this circumstance it naturally arose, indeed necessarily followed, that the amended address was deficient in the spirit with which the professed object of it ought to be sought; and on account of that deficiency he had

1435
no faith in its effecting the amount of saving which ought to be the result of an address to the throne from the House of Commons, and which in his conscience he believed it was in the power of the government to bring about. If the motion of the hon. member for Aberdeen were carried by such a majority as accomplished the repeal of the agricultural horse-tax, he thought it not too much to hope, notwithstanding the ridicule with which the noble lord (Londonderry) treated such a motion, that we might obtain a reduction to the amount of four millions at least. But otherwise he feared no very considerable and sweeping reductions could be calculated upon. He was far from meaning to doubt that reductions would take place: on the contrary, he felt sure that by the next session material retrenchments would be made. The question was entirely one of degree. Some retrenchments' would be made every now and then, when the country gentlemen in the habit of supporting the present administration, stimulated by the failure of rents, should become irresistibly clamorous; and this he considered a fair ground of hope, for he would venture to predict with confidence, that next year, when gentlemen should be receiving 5,000 l. where they had before received 10,000 l., they would find out and impress upon his majesty's ministers that 249,000 men were not absolutely necessary in a time of profound peace. At one time an expense would be cut off, because the tax that supplied it had been removed: at another time a Saving would be effected where the extravagance had become glaring and notorious. Of one particular saving, for instance, we might be sure, at least he trusted so. It would not again probably in the next session, be found necessary by his majesty's ministers, for their security in power, to spend the money and risk the quiet of the country in the sacrifice of a royal victim [Hear!]. We should not again, he trusted, have to witness the disgusting spectacle of a powerful administration condescending to court favour by despising justice, and to earn their continuance in office by conspiring against an individual, whose previous persecutions and sufferings might, if there had been nothing else in her favour, have entitled her to the forbearance of her enemies. For let his majesty's ministers reflect, that if it cost them no pain to blast their own character and to tarnish, as far as upon them depends, the character
1436
of their country, let them at least bear this in mind, that, upon the score of finance as well as of morals, their stability would not be increased nor their popularity advanced by spending the money of this moral people in putting perjury to auction in the markets of Milan. But he dared not trust himself upon this subject; for he confessed the respect he entertained for some individuals in office made him anxious to refrain from giving to those transactions that black character which the reprobation of the empire had affixed to them. Those events had made a deep impression upon his mind, because he thought the honour of parliament, from its conduct on that occasion, had received an incurable wound, and because he thought that, although the rankling effects of that wound might, perhaps, never end but with the present constitution of the House of Commons itself, they might be in some degree mitigated, by such a display of spirit as the presenting the un-amended address would evince. And so strongly did he feel for that House the necessity of showing that it was not the absolute tool of any party that might have places and pensions to distribute, that, if he could foresee no other good effect from the success of that motion, it should have his cordial support. [The noble lord sat down amid loud cheering.]
Mr. Wilmotpreferred the amended address, because it contained no censure upon government, as having neglected all economy. He also vindicated the late contest, and contended that the expenses which it had brought on the nation, were necessary for the preservation of its honour and independence.
Mr. Creeveyexpressed his surprise that gentlemen opposite, who, at the commencement of the career of his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, affected not to notice him, were now ready to allow that he had considerable merit. Finding themselves hardly pushed, they had been obliged to call in the hon. member for Corfe Castle, who had given them all the assistance in his power. He had been engaged in bringing up the rear of the ministers, and he had succeeded extremely well. The hon. member for Aberdeen, whose strenuous exertions for the reduction of expense were well known, submitted a proposition of great importance to the House; and then came the hon. member for Corfe Castle with his proposition, which neutralized the one originally submitted to the House.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that the noble marquis (Titchfield) had taken too gloomy a view of the state of the country. When he spoke of its helpless and hopeless state, he ought to have recollected that his own friends and relations the other night wished government to interfere with the proceedings of other powers, and would have probably, by such interference, involved us in a war with them. Their desire of interference must therefore have not been sincere, or else they did not believe the country to be in so helpless a state as they pretended. He would deny that the expense of collecting the revenue exceeded four millions, and must protest against the assertion of the hon. member for Aberdeen, that his majesty's ministers had declared that they had reduced the establishments of the country so low, that they were not susceptible of any farther reduction. In opposition to the declaration of the hon. member, that there had been no retrenchment in the present year, he compared the sums voted in the present year with the sums voted in the last year, to show that there was a reduction of 1,770,000 l. As to the reduction of four millions proposed by the hon. member for Aberdeen, it was a proposition which the hon. member himself could not seriously expect would be acceded to. He must protest against the comparison of the year 1792 with the present year. In 1792 all places were paid by fees, perquisites, and emoluments, for which salaries had been substituted, which made the expenditure appear greater. The remission of those fees was, in fact, a remission to the public of an equal amount of taxes. It was unfair to compare the navy expenditure with the same period. It should have been compared with 1783, 1784, and 1785, when the amount would be found nearly the same. The hon. gentleman proceeded to comment upon the system of measures pursued by the hon. member for Aberdeen, whom he accused of having submitted garbled accounts to the House. That economy was necessary, he willingly admitted, but be could not go the length which a noble lord had gone, who had argued that no inconvenience could result from the withdrawal of the naval force from two or three of our foreign colonies. He could not help hoping that hon. members on his own side of the House, would place as much confidence in the assertions of ministers, as the gen-
1438
tlemen on the other side placed in the assertions of the hon. member for Aberdeen, to whom they seemed willing to commit the task of destroying the army and navy of the country in such manner as his own intuitive wisdom should think fit.
Mr. Abercrombyobserved that the taunting tone of the noble lord opposite generally proceeded from what he considered to be the feelings of those who supported him; but never was there a greater dissonance than that which now existed between them. The noble lord was fully aware, that one or other of the questions must be carried; and he would put it even to the hon. member for Corfe-castle himself, whether, if such an amendment had not been moved, the noble lord would not have met the original resolution with the previous question. The noble lord said, that he was friendly to economy in every department; but if the House gave him credit for that assertion, where was the necessity for either of the resolutions? The fact was, that the noble lord was afraid to put the previous question. The noble lord did not now rely with equal confidence on his former majorities, and was obliged to conform to what he found was the disposition of the House. There was, however, very little difference between the two motions. The principal difference was, that the motion of the hon. member for Corfe-castle was introduced with a speech laudatory of what ministers had already done towards reduction. Ministers, by supporting the amendment, showed that they felt themselves in a new situation. They were evidently in a state of repentance, conscious that they could not go on as they had hitherto done. He could not otherwise account for the juggle of the proposed amendment, than by supposing that either the hon. member for Aberdeen had not kept his secret with respect to the nature of his motion, or that the secrets of the agricultural committee had been suffered to transpire. A silent but virtual change was going on in the constitution of the country—a change which was wholly attributable to the weakness of the executive government. He meant that sort of change by which ministers ceased to introduce great public measures on their own responsibility; but left them to be effected by committees of that House, under the shelter of which they screened themselves. Such a practice could not be too much reprobated. As a decided

1439
friend to economy, he should support the original motion.
Sir C Longobserved, that there was a marked inconsistency in the conduct of gentlemen on the other side. The hon. member who spoke last deprecated any resort to committees on great public questions, while the hon. member for Aberdeen asked only for committees on the various subjects to which he called the attention of the House, and offered to prove all his statements before such committees. The right hon. gentleman went on to show that very great benefits had accrued to the country by the commission which had been appointed to inquire into the collection of the customs. They had done every thing in their power to limit the expenditure in that department, as far as was consistent with the safety of the country.
Mr. Maberlywas not disposed to detain the House long, more especially after the very able exposition of the state of the country by the noble member for Blechingley, which completely coincided with his view of the subject. The hon. member for Corfe-castle had talked of delusion; but that hon. member himself was the great deluder. All that he (Mr. M.) wished for on the ground of economy was founded on the delusion of the hon. member for Corfe-castle, in the fourth Report of the Finance Committee. In that report it was stated, that the country ought to be governed at an expense of 17,380,000 l. This report was drawn up by that hon. member; yet, whenever an attempt was made to bring the estimates down to the sum stated in that report, the hon. member had always voted against it. By economy only could they meet the difficulties by which they were surrounded; but where was economy to be looked for, when it was found that we had this year exceeded the estimates of 1818 by 671,000 l.? From the various calculations which had been laid before the House, it appeared that there was an increased expenditure of 17 millions since 1792.
Mr. Humerose to reply. He said, that to the general assertions of the noble marquis opposite, that he was a visionary in his plans of reduction, he would only answer, that they were deserving of that epithet who, like the noble lord and his friends, had made sweeping charges and assertions to the House which were not borne out by facts. He had taken his statements almost universally from official
1440
papers before the House, when such could be found, and not one of them, had been disproved: none of them had been fairly met as they might have been if incorrect; they stood uncontradicted, except by that general kind of ridicule and denial which the noble marquis so often tried, but he would take leave to inform him he so seldom succeeded in. It was easy to talk of pulling down a government, and destroying an army and a navy; but he (Mr. H.) contended the plans of reduction recommended by him, were the most likely to save the country. The noble marquis might fancy he (Mr. H.) had taken a harlequin leap in proposing an approximation to the establishments of 1792; but, ere long, it would be seen what proficiency the noble marquis and his friends would make in the leap in following him—for follow him they must in retrenchment, and in wholesale retrenchment too, to the extent at least soon of the four millions recommended by him, and to double that amount before much time elapsed, if he was not much mistaken. The noble marquis had asserted, that the principle of reduction had been carried on as rapidly as possible since the peace: but the estimates from 1817 to this date, gave the negative direct to that assertion. The speech of the noble marquis required no other remark. He must next express his surprise at the speech of the right hon. member (Mr. Huskisson) who took upon him to state that garbled accounts had been submitted by him (Mr. H.) to the House, and also to deny the statement of the noble marquis (Tavistock), that the expense of collecting the revenue exceeded four millions sterling in the last year. Now he would assure the right hon. member, that he had not willingly submitted any garbled accounts, he denied the charge altogether, and it would have been better if the right hon. member had produced the entire statements to correct those he (Mr. H.) had made during the past three months. It should be recollected that the statements had not been submitted for the first time this night, they were merely an abstract of what he had before stated in detail, and sufficient time had been given to refute them if they were able to do so. The right hon. member's assertions were of a piece, with the contradiction to the noble marquis's (Tavistock) statement, about the charges of collection of the revenue, as he (Mr. Hume) held in his hand the official state-

1441
ment in the Finance Accounts, which showed the expense of collecting the revenue in the past year to be 4,136,642 l. exclusive of 142,136 l. for quarantine and other expenses. So much for the accuracy of the right hon. gentleman. With respect to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Corfe-castle, he could easily account for its being so nearly an echo of his own motion, by stating to the House, that he had given a copy of his intended motion, two days ago, to the secretary of the treasury (Mr. Arbuthnot), and there was little doubt of the manner it had come to the hon. member for Corfe-castle. He had perhaps been rather soft in doing so; but he had erred on the side of candid dealing. In fact, there was little difference between the amendment and the address; the chief alteration made by the hon. member was, to approve of the conduct of ministers for the reductions said to have been made in the establishment of the Customs. Now to convince the House how ill-founded that praise was, it appeared, by the official return of that department which he held in his hand, that in the last year, no fewer than an increase of 205 persons had been made to the establishment. There was, indeed, a decrease of contingent charges; but the House, to judge of the fact, would observe, that in 1819 there had been an increase in salaries of 4,998 l., and in 1820 a decrease of 2,634 l. It was perfectly true that in the Customs of England, there had been an actual decrease of contingent charges of 100,203 l. although of that amount only 2,634 l. were in salaries, and we could not estimate the actual decrease without knowing how much increase had taken place in the superannuation list in the same time. On the whole of the salaries and contingent charges of the public offices in Great Britain for the last year, there was only a decrease of 64,774 l.; so that if the Customs had decreased, other departments had increased. This was all the boasted reduction in Great Britain; but in Ireland there had been an increase of 35,408 l. with a decrease of only 19,837 l. being an actual increase in Ireland of 15,571 l. This was the extent of economy and reduction, and, on this, the House were called upon to congratulate the country ! One point to which he had called the attention of the House, and it had not been contradicted, was this, that since 1808 there had been an increase of about
1442
1,200,000 l. in the charge for the management of the Customs and Excise, &c. Now he would ask, was a decrease of 2,634 l. to be set off as economy, for which the ministers were to be praised, against so great an increase as he had stated Ministers had on this as on former occasions declared that they had observed the greatest economy, although the public expenditure had gone on increasing every year since the year 1817; and he was confident that no efficient reduction would be made until that House did their duty, and refused the means of being extravagant. He left it with the House to mark by its decision their opinion of the past, and their expectation for the future. These were all the observations that appeared necessary to show the kind of argument used by the ministers; and, he considered that those who voted for the amendment to his resolution, would be giving their support to the assertions of his majesty's ministers, that they had already carried economy to the extent the public service would admit, assertions, he declared, that were altogether unfounded.
The House divided: For Mr. Hume's Motion, 94; Against it, 174. Mr. Bankes's Amendment was then put, and agreed to.

List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.

MAJORITY.

Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.

Cockburne, sir G.

Apsley, lord

Clive, lord

Alexander, J.

Clive, hon. R.

Ancram, lord

Clive, H.

Beresford, lord G.

Courtenay, T. P.

Bathurst, rt. hon. B.

Courtenay, W.

Burgh, sir U.

Cranborne, visct.

Blake, R,

Cheere, E. M.

Bent, John

Clerk, sir G.

Barry, J. M.

Cumming, G.

Blair, J. H.

Claughton, T.

Blair, J.

Cust, hon. E.

Baillie, John

Cust, hon. P.

Beckett, J.

Cust, hon. W.

Bradshaw, R. H.

Crosbie, J.

Browne, D.

Cole, sir L.

Brandling, C.

Cholmeley, sir M.

Bourne, W. S.

Chichester, A.

Bankes, G.

Clements, hon. J.

Broadhead, T. H.

Congreve, sir W.

Binning, lord

Dawkins, H.

Brecknock, lord

Don, sir A.

Brownlow, C.

Doveton, G.

Bernard, lord

Dundas, rt. hn. W.

Bentinck, lord F.

Drake, T. T.

Brogden, J.

Dalrymple, R.

Calvert, John

Douglas, W. R. K.

Calthorpe, hon. H.

Dowdeswell, J.

1443

Dawson, G.

Osborne, sir John

Dodson, John

Pole, rt. hon. W.

Dunally, lord

Palmerston, lord

Ellison, Cuthbert

Phipps, hon. E.

Fane, John

Peel, rt. hon. R.

Fane, Vere

Peel, W.

Fane, Thos.

Powell, E. W.

French, Arthur

Pakenham, hon. H.

Fleming, John

Pearse, J.

Fleming, J.

Penruddock, J. H.

Forester, F.

Pennant, G.

Fynes, Henry

Prendergast, J. T.

Grant, rt. hon. C.

Pringle, sir W.

Gifford, sir R.

Robinson, hon. F.

Goulburn, Henry

Robertson, A.

Gossett, W.

Ricketts, C. M.

Greville, hon. sir C.

Russell, J. W.

Gordon, hon. W.

Smith, J. A.

Gascoigne, general

Stopford, lord

Huskisson, rt. hn. W.

Scott, hon. J.

Harding, sir H.

Scott, S. C.

Hulse, sir C.

Sumner, G. H.

Hawkins, sir C.

Somerset, lord G.

Harvey, sir E.

Somerset, lord R.

Holford, G. P.

Stuart, A.

Holmes, W.

Strutt, J. H.

Hotham, lord

Sotheron, admiral

Hill, sir G.

Twiss, Horace

Hart, general

Tremayne, J. H.

Irving, John

Tulk, C.

Kingsborough, lord

Thynne, lord J.

Lascelles, visc.

Taylor, sir H.

Legh, T.

Thomson, W.

Lygon, hon. H.

Ure, M.

Lindsay, lord

Upton, hon. A.

Lindsay, hon. H.

Vansittart, rt. hon. N.

Lewis, T. F.

Vernon, George

Lennox, lord G.

Valletort, vise.

Londonderry, marq. of

Wallace, rt. hon. T.

Long, rt. hon. sir C.

Ward, R.

Lowther, J.

Warrender, sir G.

Lowther, J. H.

Wells, John

Marjoribanks, sir J.

Wilson, T.

Martin, sir B.

Wilson, sir Henry

Martin, R.

Wrottesley, H.

Mansfield, John

Woad, col.

Metcalf, H.

Wodehouse, hon. J.

Manners, lord C.

Wodehouse, Ed.

Macdonald, R.

Ward, J. W.

Money, W. T.

Wigram, W.

Manning, W.

Westenra, hon. H.

Macnaghton, E. A.

Wilmot, R.

Munday, Geo.

Wilbraham, Ed.,

Musgrave, sir P,

Wortley, J. S.

Maginnis, Rich.

Walpole, lord

Mitchell, John

Williams, R.

Morland, sir S. B.

Wemyss, J.

Nolan, M.

TELLERS.

Nicholl, rt. hn. sir G.

Bankes, Henry

Owen, sir John

Gooch, T. S.

MINORITY.

Abercromby hon. J.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Allen, J. H.

Bernal, R.

Baring, A.

Birch, J.

Barnard, lord

Brougham, H.

Becher, W. W.

Bright, H.

1444

Burdett, sir F.

Maberly, J.

Byng, G.

Maberly, W. L.

Burrell, sir C.

Macdonald, J.

Burrell, W.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Benett, J.

Martin, J.

Calcraft, J.

Maxwell, J.

Calvert, N.

Milbank, M.

Calvert, C.

Milton, visct.

Carter, J.

Monck, J. B.

Cavendish, lord G.

Moore, Peter

Cavendish, H.

Marryat, Jos.

Cavendish, C.

Neville, hon. R.

Clifford, capt.

Newman, R. W.

Coke, T. W.

Nugent, lord

Crespigny, sir W. De

Ossulston, lord

Creevey, T.

Palmer, C. F.

Denison, W. J.

Pierse, H.

Denman, T.

Philips, G. jun.

Dundas, hon. T.

Powlett, hon. W.

Duncannon, vise.

Price, R.

Ebrington, lord

Robarts, A.

Ellice, E.

Robarts, G.

Evans, W.

Robinson, sir G.

Fergusson, sir R.

Rowley, sir W.

Fiizgerald, lord W.

Rumbold, C.

Fitzroy, lord C.

Rice, T. S.

Farrand, R.

Smith, J.

Grattan, J.

Smith, W.

Gordon, R.

Smythe, J. H.

Grenfell, Pascoe

Scarlett, J.

Guise, sir W.

Scudamore, R.

Haldimand, W.

Sefton, earl of

Harbord, hon. Ed.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Heathcote, G. J.

Titchfield, marq.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Warre, J. A.

Honywood, W. P.

Western, C. C.

Hughes, W. L.

Whitbread, S. C.

Hurst, R.

Williams, W.

Hutchinson, hon. C.

Williams, O.

James, W.

Wilson, sir R.

Lemon, sir W.

TELLERS.

Lloyd, J. M.

Hume, J.

Lester, B. L.

Tavistock, Marq. of

Langston, G.