HC Deb 07 May 1821 vol 5 cc541-9

On the motion, that the House should resolve itself into a committee of supply to consider further of the Navy Estimates,

Mr. Hume

rose to put a question to the hon. baronet, relative to the works in the dock-yards, particularly Sheerness. He confessed that he entertained considerable doubts both as to the necessity and the expediency of carrying them on. He wished to know whether the hon. baronet would have any objection to postpone the vote regarding them until the correspondence between the navy and the ordnance board on the subject was laid before the House, or until a committee of the House had examined into it. After reading an extract from the 3rd report of the finance committee, relative to the public works, the hon. member proceeded to detail the sums of money which had been expended on those at Sheerness. The estimates for completing the whole of them in 1814 was 824,992l. In 1818 it was stated that 433,800l. was wanting to complete them, though large sums had annually been paid for that purpose. In the estimates of 1821, though 1,147,000l. had been voted for the works at Sheerness, it was stated that a further sum of 955,421l. was wanted to finish these improvements. He asked whether it was proper, in the present state of the country, to proceed to a committee of the whole House in order to vote these sums and much larger, without previous information. He wished to know, therefore, whether there was any objection to postpone the vote until a select committee had inquired into the subject.

Sir G. Warrender

said, that the sum now required was not for the same works as were provided for last year, although 30,000l. was to be devoted to the repair of the old yard at Sheerness. He had every reason to believe that the new works, that had for five years been proceeding, would be completed by the vote he was about to propose.

Mr. Hume

said, that before the House went into the committee of supply, he should propose a resolution. The House had before it three different estimates for completing and repairing naval works without any information regarding their necessity. In times like these it was fit to get at that information. The complaint against him and his hon. friends had hitherto been, that, excepting as to the army, they had only sought to save trifling sums; but now they were called upon to consider estimates of many millions: independently of the sums already voted by parliament, no less than 1,697,545l. was required to complete the public works already begun. There were besides among them a great number of, uncertain amounts for undertakings at Kingston in Canada, in Jamaica, and at Trincomalee, which ought to be reduced to something like certainty. It ought not to be forgotten that 3,568,501l. had been already voted for these works; so that when finished they would cost the country 5,266,046l. He begged to know, then, if it was not high time to stop in this lavish and unaccounted for expenditure, until a committee, not formed of men in office, but fairly chosen from both sides, had reported that it was necessary that it should be continued. Although the works at Sheerness had been for some time commenced, he had great doubt as to the policy and propriety of completing them; for the introduction of steam vessels had enabled government to tow the largest ships of war down to Chatham. He had the authority of men of experience and science for this opinion. The hon. gentleman then moved the following resolution:—"That the sum of 1,147,000l. has been voted for the improvements in the Dockyard at Sheerness, in the last 10 years, from 1811 to 1820, both inclusive:—That the amount of the estimates for completing these works was 824,992l. in 1814, and 433,800l. in 1818; and although the large sum of 1,147,000l. has been expended, a further sum of 955,421l. is stated as necessary to complete the improvements in that yard, and which will make the total charge for one dock yard 2,102,421l:— That, therefore, under such varying and uncertain estimates, it is expedient that a committee of this House should be appointed to inquire into the past expenditure and future estimates of all works in Dock-yards."

Sir G. Cockburn

said, that if the works at Sheerness were not proceeded with, all that had been done would be lost by the encroachment of the sea. After the defence was completed, it was resolved not to continue the works until the whole had been proved. He was certainly adverse to delay.

Sir J. Yorke

would like to hear the names of some of the scientific and experienced persons who had informed the hon. member that the works at Sheerness were of no use since the introduction of steam boats. At Chatham the water was so shoal that ships of war sometimes grounded at their moorings; whereas at Sheerness there was a depth of 52 feet at low water. Since the project regarding Northfleet had been abandoned, government had wisely thought fit to restore and improve Sheerness.

Sir I. Coffin

was sure that if the hon. member inspected the works at Sheerness, he would see the necessity of completing them. The question was not whether Sheerness was or was not the best port, but whether the sums already expended should be rendered useless by delay.

Mr. Bennet

observed, that his hon. friend did not ask the House to stop the supplies: he merely said, we have been so often deceived, that we ought not to vote more money without previous information. If the former plan had failed, it was by no means improbable that the plan now proposed would also fail. If the House went honestly to work, the truth would be extracted in a committee. Several sums were asked without any estimate at all. No proposition was more fair than that of his hon. friend. He merely asked them to look before they leaped.

Mr. Hume

re-stated that his object was inquiry, and not to obstruct any important public works. He was ready to vote 50,000l. on account, during the two or three weeks that the inquiry might occupy.

The House divided: For going into a Committee, 82; For Mr. Hume's Amendment, 27.

List of the Minority.
Allan, J. Jervoise, G.
Bernal, R. Langston, J.
Benyon, B. Monck, S.
Bury, lord Milton, lord
Bright, H. Maxwell, W.
Creevey, T. Martin, J.
Crespigny, sir W. Newport, sir J.
Crompton, J. Ricardo, D.
Davies, col. Warre, J.
Denman, T. Wood, alderman
Grattan, H. Wyvil, W.
Graham, sir C. Williams, W.
Griffiths, R. TELLERS.
Gordon, R. Bennet, hon. H. G.
Harbord, hon. C. Hume, J.
Hurst, R.

The House then resolved itself into a committee of supply. On the resolution, "That 129,395l. 17s. 4d. be granted for Wages to the Officers, Ship-keepers, and Men, of Vessels in ordinary,"

Mr. Hume

said, that a large expenditure was of late years annually incurred for royal yachts. He was aware that they ought to be fitted up in a superior manner for the reception of royalty; but still he was at a loss to see what necessity there was for keeping up annually some of the officers; for instance, there was a sum of 1,300l. a year for surgeons. He understood that a surgeon was regularly kept up for each yacht, when it was well known that, for the few weeks the yachts were at sea, it would be easy to get a surgeon from some of the depots. A saving of 1,000l. a year might in this manner alone be saved.

Sir G. Cockburn

said, that when the sovereign of Great Britain went to sea, it was not to be expected that he would abandon that state which was inseparable from his dignity. He could, however, assure the committee, that no unsuitable expense was occurred in fitting up the yachts. It was true that in the establishment of surgeons, the yachts were placed on the same footing as sea-going ships; and he thought there ought to be no cavil upon that, when it was considered that the appointment was reserved for old surgeons who deserved well of their country. The difference, too, between their half and full pay was so trifling, as to render the saving hardly worth consideration, when the objects of it were kept in view.

Mr. Hume

said, that he had already disclaimed any wish to limit the proper expenditure for fitting up the yachts in a suitable manner for the reception of his majesty, but he certainly objected to this annual full pay for a few weeks' service.

On the resolution, "That 970,400l. be granted for Half-pay to Officers,"

Mr. Bennet

called the attention of the committee to the situation of two unfortunate ladies, the wives of insane officers, who were plunged into deep distress, in consequence of the regulations adopted by the Board of Admiralty. They had for many years enjoyed the half-pay of their husbands, which had, however, been suddenly reduced, and they were thus placed in a situation of comparative penury. He could see no reason why the family of an individual, who had been deprived, of his senses while serving his country, should be considered less deserving of support than the relatives of the man who had lost a limb in her defence.

Sir G. Cockburn

said, that persons suffering under the unhappy malady, were confined in a lunatic establishment supported by government at considerable expense. If lunatic officers had no family, government received their pay. If they had a family, then their friends might keep them altogether, and receive their full-pay, or receive half-pay, leaving them at the Lunatic Asylum. The two ladies in question preferred leaving their husbands at the asylum. The government could, consistently with the rule that had been long acted on, allow them to receive only their half-pay.

Mr. F. Buxton

said, he was acquainted with instances in which the regulation adverted to had produced the utmost misery. He did not think the hon. member had, exactly met the point which his hon. friend had pressed upon the consideration of the committee. The case his hon. friend put was this;—"If an officer receives a wound in. battle, no deduction is made from his half-pay; why then should a deduction be made in the case of a man who, in the course of service, is visited by insanity?" In fact, the wound received by the officers to whom allusion had been made—the mental wound—one of them having been on active service at the time he was seized by the malady with which he was afflicted—was the most severe of all human misfortunes. He had abstained from introducing the subject that night, because he meant to move for a committee in order to have it thoroughly investigated.

Mr. Croker

said, that the half-pay could only have been received by these ladies for so long a period, through some irregularity. There was this legal difficulty, which was entitled to consideration, namely, that if these officers were to recover, they might maintain an action at law against the treasurer of the navy, for the whole of the half-pay received without their authority, during the time of their insanity. The board of admiralty had, however, considered such insane officers to be dead in law, and had exercised a charitable, though not perhaps a strictly legal discretion, in granting a moiety of the half-pay to the unauthorized representatives of officers in that situation. The moral effect of conceding to the principle contended for by the hon. gentleman was also to be considered; for it would in fact be giving a premium to the relatives of persons in that unhappy situation to get rid of them.

Mr. Bennet

said, the question he had asked was, whether persons who, like the relatives of the unfortunate ladies who had written him a statement of their case, had lost their reason in the service of their country, ought not to be placed on the footing of officers who had lost their limbs. The hon. gentleman had answered him by a legal quibble, as to whether a success- ful action might not be maintained against the treasurer of the navy, and such stuff as that. Now, he would not look to legal quibbles, but would ask, whether or not it was fitting that these unfortunate ladies should be reduced to a state of pauperism? Persons in the situation of these ladies were not in circumstances to afford the expense of sending their relatives to places of private confinement; and the consequence would be, that they must send them to the parish workhouse, where the House was aware, from the evidence given before their own committee, of the cruel treatment which lunatics were in the habit of receiving.

Mr. Croker

maintained, that he had only stated the general rule upon which the conduct of the board of admiralty was founded. If officers became insane in consequence of wounds received in battle, it was evident that they were as much entitled to pensions as if they had lost a limb in the service. It was but a few days ago, that, in consequence of an application made on behalf of an officer who had become insane and paralytic, he (Mr. C.) had examined the log-books for thirty years back, to see whether he could not find some wound which would justify the grant of a pension. He felt it necessary to state, in his own vindication, that it was mainly owing to the exertions of so humble an individual as himself, that an asylum for insane officers had been established. He had himself laid before the first lord the information which had been collected on this subject before a committee of that House seven or eight years ago, and it was in consequence of his personal exertions that this asylum was established. He stated this for the purpose of showing the looseness with which the hon. gentleman was in the habit of shooting off his arrows.

Mr. Hume

said, he had reason to know that these unfortunate ladies, who had been in the receipt of their pension for 18 years, had been plunged into the deepest distress in consequence of this small pittance of 60l. having been stopped. If ever there was a case in which the government was called upon to exercise a humane discretion, though in breach of an existing regulation, it was the present.

On the resolution, "That 1,094,589l. be granted for the building, re-building, and repairs of Ships of War, in his Majesty's and the Merchants' Yards, over and above what is proposed to be done upon the heads of Wear and Tear and Ordinary, for the year 1821,"

Sir J. Yorke

thought this the most surprising proposition of any, considering that the wages of the artificers had been reduced one-fifth, and that the consumption of timber must necessarily be much diminished.

Sir T. B. Martin

observed, that as the Admiralty had contracted for a supply of timber up to the next year, no reduction could be made in the estimate until that period had expired.

Mr. Hume

referred to the report of a committee, to show that the manufacture of ships had been carried much further than the circumstances required, and maintained that we were now building more ships than we should be able to man, if we were to go to war to-morrow. Under these circumstances, he would move that the estimate be reduced to 794,580l.

Sir G. Cockburn

admitted, that if all our ships were now in good order we should want no more; but that was not the case; the ships now building would last almost for ever; for by lying a long while in ordinary, they would acquire a firmness which nothing else would give them.

Sir J. Yorke

thought that half a million might be saved, avid doubted much the policy of continuing to build ships at Bombay.

Mr. Warre

thought that though great sacrifices ought to be made to preserve the ascendancy of the British navy, its security would not be impaired by attending to the diminished scale of expense which was now proposed.

Mr. Hume

withdrew his amendment, on the ground that if carried it would cause the violation of certain contracts, which government had entered into; but he did so only with the understanding, that the reduction proposed should take place after the fulfilment of the contracts.

On the resolution, "That 424,648l. be granted, for defraying the expenses of improvement in the dock yards,"

Mr. Hume

objected to so large a grant for this purpose, without inquiry, and stated that this was only to be part payment of a sum of two millions, 1,600,000l. of which was still to be demanded for the naval works. He thought a committee ought to be appointed to examine these charges; and concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the sum proposed be reduced to 212,324l., or one-half.

Lord Milton

said, he was disposed to vote against the whole sum, if government refused inquiry.

Mr. Warre

objected to the expense of the new tunnel at Chatham as unnecessary and excessively expensive.

Sir G. Warrender

explained, that the tunnel was intended to drain the whole dock-yard; but the hon. gentleman seemed to confound it with the saw-mills, which was a work already finished.

After a short conversation, the committee divided: For the original vote, 107; For the Amendment, 30.

List of the Minority.
Bernal, R. Martin, J.
Bennet, hon. G. Milbank, R.
Benyon, B. Robarts, W. A.
Bury, lord Roberts, col.
Brougham, H. Rice, S.
Calvert, C. Ricardo, D.
Carter, T. Rickford, W.
Crompton, S, Russell, lord J.
Denman, T. Smith, J.
Denison, J. Smith, hon. J.
Gordon, R. Whitbread, S.
Hume, J. Wyvil, M.
Hobhouse, J. C. Wilson, Thos.
Harbord, hon. H. TELLER.
Monk, J. B. Milton, lord
Maxwell, J.

The chairman reported progress, asked leave to sit again.