Commons Sitting of 14 May 1821

ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Ordnance Estimates were referred. On the Resolution, "That 43,071 l. 12 s. 8d. be granted for defraying the Salaries to the Master-General, principal Officers, Clerks, and Attendants, belonging to the Office of Ordnance, employed at the Tower and Pall-Mall, for the year 1821,"
Mr. Wardsaid, that the hon. member for Aberdeen having, on a former occasion, moved for a return of the number of clerks in the Ordnance office, had stated, that 67 individuals had been appointed to offices by the noble duke at the head of it. It was certainly true that 67 appointments had taken place; but of these only 22 had been made by the duke. Five of those 22 had been assistant clerks, and were promoted in the ordinary routine of the office.
Colonel Daviesobserved, that it appeared by the report of the commissioners of military inquiry that the patronage of each department was vested in the head; of it. He wished to know whether this was the case in the board of Ordnance. If it were, it would be a complete instance of an imperium in imperio.
Mr. Wardstated, that the Ordnance was governed by a master-general, whose will was supreme. He could, by his mere fiat, upset all the proceedings of the board. The board, however, on points in which the master-general did not interfere, was also supreme. There were four officers, holding their places by patent, who were entitled to a seat at the board, though they received no emolument from it. They had the right of appointing their own clerks.
Colonel Daviesobserved, that according to this statement the master-general was a mere puppet, who placed upon the I shoulders of others the responsibility which ought to rest upon his own.
Mr. Wardsaid, the gallant officer ought to have known that the master-general was as responsible as any other officer under the Crown. Out of five or six hundred offices, the majority were disposed of by him.
Mr. Birchthought it was not fair to compare the estimates of the present year with those of 1792. The situation of England at present was in every way different from the situation in which she stood in 1792. The country was then on the eve of war; at present, we were in a state of profound peace The hon. member next drew a comparison between the amount of the army expenses of France and England, and contended that on the face of the estimates before the House, there appeared an excess of expenditure of 5,500,000 l.
Mr. Humebegged leave to repeat the statement which he had made on a former night. He had said, that since the termination of the war there had been 67 individuals introduced into the civil part of the Ordnance, and that 6,939 l. was the amount of salaries paid to them. Of these, 60 had been appointed to offices which had become vacant, and seven to offices which had never before been instituted. When there were pensions on the civil list to the amount of 25,000 l. for storekeepers, clerks, and every other description of persons, surely the offices in question might have been filled up by some of the individuals who were thus quartered on the half-pay list. In the observations which he had made on a former evening, he had not alluded to the noble duke at the head of the Ordnance particularly, because he was well aware that many of the appointments to which he had referred had been made by his grace's predecessors. He had shown, he trusted, by the observations which he had made, that there was a waste of nearly 7,000 l. a year by such offices. He had the strongest dislike to the system which prevailed of making it more the interest of the heads of departments to augment than reduce the expenditure of their respective offices. As to the general expense of the Ordnance, it was idle to compare the present expenditure with what it was in the time of Cromwell: there was no similitude between the state of the country at the two periods. He would next advert to the enormous and most unnecessary charge of the Ordnance craft: the expense of these boats was unjustifiable; and it was impossible to ac-
700
count for their being kept up, except that they furnished employment for a number of Queenborough voters. The right hon. member had contradicted him the other night when he said that the Lord Howe transport was only 20 tons; the right hon. member said she was thirty tons: now, on reference to official documents, he found she was, as he had represented, only 20 tons. So much for the hon. member's statements; and one was an example of them all.—He next adverted to the wages of the Ordnance clerks, which had been successively raised to meet the high prices of the times, and asked, why they were not now reduced in proportion to the value of money, and the removal of the Income tax? There were, in fact, many parts of the Ordnance department which could with great public advantage be placed under the Transport board, and the business required to be done accomplished by a proper competition as elsewhere. The next matter to which he should call the attention of the House was the disregard of the Ordnance board to the recommendations made in the report of the commissioners. The latter had recommended, that to save the expense of a lieutenant-general of the Ordnance, which was 1,500 l. a year, a master-general should be appointed who would in person attend the duties, and render the lieutenant's' office unnecessary. Instead of obeying this recommendation, the board made the duke of Wellington master-general [he begged not to be understood as objecting in any manner to the distinguished individual], who could not, from the nature of his other duties, give full attendance. The board also disregarded the recommendation to get rid of the offices of clerk of the deliveries, and storekeeper at the Tower: that would effect a saving of 3,000 l. more. They had also neglected to consolidate the Tower and Westminster Ordnance establishments, or to remove the stores from that place to Woolwich—arrangements all of which would be productive not only of economy, but of convenience to the public service. It had by the same report been recommended, that only two of the Ordnance commissioners should sit in parliament, which he thought was a most desirable recommendation; but this, like all others of the same nature, was suffered to remain a dead letter. It was also very curious to look at the different establishments of messengers in the departments of this service: in some

701
of them the same names were down as clerks and messengers. Some gentlemen had held up the Ordnance as a model of economy; but in this department no less than 93,000 l. had been lost by Mr. Hunt. The contract with Mr. William, in 1806–7, had been most improvident. One contract ministers had purchased back from the taker at the expense of 30,000 l. to the public; and yet, in the very same year, they had made another contract, equally ruinous, with the same individual. [It was here said across the table that the Whigs were at that time in office.] He did not care whether Whigs or Tories were in office: if Whigs so much the worse, seeing that they had pretended, like the present ministers, to economise, yet actually saved nothing. If the Ordnance were a model of economy, heaven defend the country from such models! It was much more like a model of profusion. He recommended the other side to attend a little more to the report of the commissioners of Military Inquiry. Though they had recommended that, excepting at Chatham and Dover, no staff engineers should be employed, no fewer than 92 were now in the service at home and abroad. He begged to know why the recommendation of the finance committee regarding gratuities had not been attended to? Till the end of the war the gratuities only amounted to 20,000 l., but now they ascended to 30,000 l. Why was not a stop put to them in 1815, instead of its being done at the present moment, when it was admitted to be proper? This was a glaring instance of want of attention to public economy. The commissioners had recommended the abolition of the barrack department, which was still kept up, though I the right hon. gentleman had been so anxious in his speech to keep it out of view. In the offices of the Tower and Westminster only, there was an excess of 47,000 l. He charged the Ordnance-office with the grossest concealment in some parts of the estimates. If not intentional, it had all the appearance and effect of intention. The vote now before the House was for the officers of the Tower and in Pall-mall: in 1796, the amount required was 18,726 l.; yet now it reached 63,000 l., being an excess of more than 44,000 l. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought a reduction of 25 per cent upon the pay and allowances was a diminution calculated to do some sort of justice to the country: it would then be 47,000 l., or double the
702
vote of 1796. The reduction ought to be made as well from the salary of the master-general as from the salaries of the minor clerks. The secret of the increase had come out in the course of these inquiries; for it appeared, that the surveyor-general had the patronage of the appointments; consequently, the number of clerks since 1796, had increased from 14 to 36. The expense had risen from 2,019 l. to 10,621 l. Ex uno disce omnes. In the same way the expenses of the office of the clerk of the Ordnance had risen from 2,229 l. to 6,000 l. If the other side of the House would grant a committee, he would undertake to show that the clerks at Chatham, Woolwich, the Tower, and Pall-mall, had not, in fact, fair employment for two hours in the day. The office of the principal store-keeper in 1796 cost 1,440 l.; now it cost no less than 5,619 l. In the office of the treasurer of the Ordnance the expenses had been trebled. His salary was formerly 560 l., and now it was 1,265 l. He challenged the other side to show a single instance in which there had not been an increase since 1796. He was quite ready to allow the merit of the secretary to the board; but it was worthy of remark that his salary also had been greatly augmented. It appeared to him that each department bore on its face direct evidence, that the numbers employed in it were too great, and that the charge which the public was obliged to meet was extreme. He should therefore propose a reduction of 25 per cent; and he wished a similar reduction to be made in all the offices under government, from the highest to the lowest. They ought to follow the example of the American congress, who had voted a considerable reduction of their allowances; or even that of the French government, who had lowered their salaries one-half, in consequence of the situation of the country No department could allow of a reduction of expense more properly than the Ordnance; and he trusted that a proper reduction would be made. There were no less than 23 door-keepers and messengers connected with the department, at an annual expense of upwards of 2,200 l. Surely some saving might be made here. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman that they could not return exactly to the estimate of 1792; but he thought that a reduction of 25

703
per cent might be made with great propriety. If that amount were taken from the aggregate vote, he had no objection that the Ordnance board should distribute the sum granted as they pleased—with this proviso, that they did not make the reductions amongst those who performed the duty, while they assisted those who did nothing. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving as an amendment, that, instead of the sum of 43,071 l., there be granted 27,253 l. for defraying the salary of the master-general of the Ordnance, &c.
Mr. Wardregretted the necessity he was under of troubling the committee at some length, but after the challenge thrown out to him by the hon. gentleman, he found this was unavoidable. He again insisted that the duke of Wellington, instead of making new appointments, had constantly applied himself to suppress all useless offices. The 67 appointments which the duke had been stated to have made, he had on a former night succeeded in reducing to eight or ten. The hon. member had on a former night complained of a "discrepancy" in the Ordnance accounts to the amount of 300,000 l. He did not exactly understand the word; but supposing discrepancy to be meant, he denied the existence of the supposed abuse, and maintained that the correctness of his assertion was established, by a fact admitted by the hon. gentleman himself, that of the Ordnance department being out of debt. The hon. member, in challenging his correctness, had described him to have asserted, that the board of Ordnance had uniformly paid the most implicit attention to the reports made by the several committees of finance and inquiry, and pointing out some recommendations which had not been complied with, he supposed that he had established his (Mr. W's.) want of accuracy. He denied that he had ever stated that the board of Ordnance had complied with all the reports of the committees of finance and inquiry. What he had said was, that those reports had not been rejected as a dead letter. He had never said that all the recommendations they contained had been complied with, but, on the contrary, he had pointed out various instances in which those reports had not been attended to. The hon. gentleman complained that one part of what he called the "staff-pay" had been brought into the estimates under the head of "repairs." He (Mr. Ward) had been pre-
704
pared, if no opposition had been offered to those estimates, to propose that the extra pay of clerks and overseers, in certain cases, should be separated from the expense incurred for materials. The hon. member had alluded to the extravagant praise which those connected with the Ordnance had bestowed on the reductions effected in that department since the peace. He denied that any thing of the kind had been uttered. When a reduction of one part of the establishment to half what it had previously been took place in 1817, some gentlemen in the Opposition had been pleased to say that the Ordnance department ought to be taken as a pattern to the other branches of government. He had quoted this remark; but he had never said that the Ordnance ought to be taken as a pattern by the other departments of government. When the hon. gentleman taxed him with incorrectness with respect to the measurement of a paltry boat, he felt that he had a right to retort the charge, and he would be well content that the House should judge from the result, of the comparative accuracy of the hon. gentleman and himself. On causing the boat (which had been alluded to, the Harmony) to be measured, he had found that it was of eighty-eight or ninety tons. This was rather more than he had previously said, and therefore his statement was correct. This fact the hon. gentleman did not know how to get over. But how did he meet it? Why, by going to another vessel, and naming the Lord Howe. On the former evening, while in the House, he had heard nothing of the Lord Howe. When in the lobby, the hon. gentleman had spoken of the Lord Howe, to which he replied, that of that vessel he knew nothing: but what they had differed about was the Harmony.—With respect to the hon. member's mode of conducting his Opposition in that House, he gave him credit for the utmost sincerity in what he stated. He felt that the hon. member believed religiously every thing he was pleased to state; and he was also of opinion that the hon. member swallowed as religiously every thing that he was called upon to believe. If it were not for that extraordinary maw which swallowed truth or falsehood as it happened to come before him, he would not make such mistakes as he frequently did. The errors into which the hon. member fell might be traced to three causes. And here he begged to ob-

705
serve, that the hon. member had made the business so personal between them, as to which was the correct person and which was not, that he must—always assuring him that he meant no offence—offer a few remarks with respect to the hon. member's ability to lead the House. The first cause of the errors into which the hon. member fell, was, that he possessed a great share of what Sterne called "honest gullibility." This was not meant offensively, for Sterne said, "far be it from me not to have my due share of honest gullibility. It is so much the worse for the happiness of that man who has not a good share of that quality." If this were a true and philosophical remark with respect to human nature he congratulated the hon. member on being one of the happiest men in that House. To prove how easily the hon. member was misguided, he had only to refer to the case of the Queen borough electors. The hon. member came down to the House and told them very gravely what somebody had told him. But it was very extraordinary, that in no part of the case he had stumbled on correctness. The hon. member had stated to the House, that a gallant officer had been in treaty with the Ordnance store-keeper at Sheerness, for his house, but that the negotiation failed, because he could not come up to the store-keeper's terms. In consequence of this statement he had written to the officer in question, sir John Gore, who sent him both a private and a public answer. In the public answer he acknowledged the receipt of his letter, informing him that an hon. member had stated in the House of Commons that he had been in treaty with the Ordnance store-keeper at Sheerness for his house, which bargain was not concluded, because he would not come up to the store-keeper's terms. This the gallant officer declared was not true, nor was there the shadow of foundation for the assertion that any negotiation had been entered into between the Ordnance store-keeper and him. The gallant officer hoped, in conclusion, that he (Mr. W.) would have the goodness to state this representation as publicly as the charge had been made. Such was the contradiction of the statement of the hon. member, who constantly adverted to his extreme correctness, and called on the House to put complete confidence in his assertions! He now came to another cause, to which some of the hon. member's misstatements might be attributed:
706
and, as he was convinced that the hon. member believed them at the moment to be true, he felt the greater degree of surprise, because he could understand a dishonest man very well when he fell into such errors, but he could not understand the hon. member, who was an honest man. He thought that many of these misstatements arose, in the second place, from the confusion which sometimes occurred in the course of the hon. member's observations. He was in the habit very frequently of confounding different things. Thus, for instance, the hon. member called "magazines" "floating batteries." [Mr. Hume denied that he had ever made such an error.] The hon. member denied the fact; but he was in the recollection of the House whether he had not stated the matter correctly. He had stated that particular officers had been allowed to retire on full pay, after a service of three or four years. He had no doubt he meant to say that they had retired on half-pay; but he had described them to have retired on whole pay. The hon. member had stated, among other things, that the Fever sham powder mills were kept up, when the fact was, that they were only used to keep stores in, and as a refinery of saltpetre He pointed out other errors into which the hon. member had fallen, and noticed his declaration, after obtaining fifty papers from the Ordnance office, that he had not yet half enough. This conduct had been, poetically described, and it had been said—
"Ward and lord Palmerston always detest him at
A dull unamusing debate on an estimate;
E'en Huskisson's best explanations he spurns,
And is constantly calling for further returns.
When papers are granted, he's never contented,
But condemns them as vague before they're presented."
Mr. Humeinquired if the lines quoted were in John Bull?
Mr. Wardsaid no; and proceeded to notice the praises bestowed on the hon. member for his industry. He was said to have done more good than any body else: but nearly all the information which he had brought before the House was to be found in the Red Book. The salaries of the officers, it was true, were not there, but they were to be found in the papers that had annually been presented to parliament. Another proof of the correctness of the hon. gentleman was found in

707
his having described a charge of 200,000 l. to be created by arrangements which only cost the country 81,000 l. The third cause of the errors of the hon. gentleman was, a talent for exaggeration. In oratory, as in poetry, it should seem that a set of terms were to be used to produce a given effect, and as one noun was to be attended by a number of other words, so one fact proving any trifling excess was to be accompanied by a series of other statements. He was ever to be represented as the person undertaking to cleanse the Augean stable, and advancing what was most inaccurate. The hon. gentleman undertook to prove all, if they would but grant him a committee. The hon. gentleman must be more correct in his statements before he could expect that the House would grant him a committee to prove those facts which he was so anxious to establish. Another instance of the hon. member's correctness would be found in what he had stated with respect to Mr. Brees, He had told the House, that Mr. Brees being a Queen borough man, a place had been created on purpose for him at Waltham Abbey. If a new person had been put into that situation, there might have been the shadow of a ground for his statement. He supposed the hon. member did not know that Mr. Brees was an old servant of the Ordnance. He entered into the service in 1787. He came in at the lowest rate as a clerk. He rose to be a clerk at that very place in 1805, and was further advanced in 1812, yet the place he now held, was said to have been the place formed to introduce that very man. Having stated these things, he would leave the committee to decide between his claims to correctness and those of the hon. gentleman. He now came to notice what had been stated on the subject of floating magazines. The hon. member could wish these blown into the air. The immediate consequence of getting rid of these at present would be, to impose upon the country the charge of building a magazine, which would cost not less than 50,000 l. and which would require an establishment that would occasion an annual charge of 1,000 l. Would it be worth while to take a course that would force them to do this, or would it be wise to blow up 100,000 l. worth of powder to save an annual expense of 1,000 l. for keeping it; which expense, it should be remembered, would only be continued for two or three years longer? He pointed
708
out mistakes into which the hon. gentleman had fallen with respect to the floating magazines. He had stated the expense of them to amount annually to 11,000 l. exclusive of repairs. Had he looked at the paper which he held in his hand, while he told the House this, he would have seen that this was not the fact. The hon. gentleman seemed to be always in a reverie about the Ordnance. It might be said of him, with a slight alteration of the words of the poet—
"The member's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,
"Glances from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;
"And, as imagination bodies forth
"The form of things unseen, the member's eye
"Turns them to shape, and gives to airy nothing"
A local habitation and a name."
He then went on to observe upon the case of capt. Dickenson, and entered into a statement of his services. He was now 70 years of age, and had been in arduous service 40 of them, and therefore, whatever might be resolved upon with respect to future superintendants, he was sure the committee could not have a wish to reduce the salary of so old and meritorious an officer. With respect to the Artillery establishment, the hon. member had stated that it was still a war establishment, although it was under 8,000 men; but this was only another instance of that confusion of mind which his statements manifested. He had also objected to the increase of clerks. An increase of clerks had constantly taken place; and when it was considered how much the establishment had been enlarged, and the stations multiplied, since 1792, it would not appear strange that such an increase had happened. He (Mr. W.) had stated on a former night, the average of the salaries of the clerks in the Ordnance department, which was not more than 226 l. and below the average of salaries in all the other departments. He would ask the hon. member, then, why it was that he quarrelled with the Ordnance, rather than with the other departments? He had quarrelled even with the very constitution of the board, and with the commssioners of inquiry, because they had not annihilated it. His wishes were not less extravagant than that of the character in the play, who exclaimed—
"Ye Gods, annihilate both space and time, And make two lovers happy l."

709
The salary of the treasurer was another point which the hon. member had dwelt upon. He said, that salary had been raised from 500 l. to.1,200 l. "but that was not instantaneouly done; it had been recommended by a report of commissioners. He had now gone through most of the objections which had been stated, and would not trespass longer on the time of the committee.
Colonel Daviessupported the statements of his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen; and denied that the right hon. gentleman's speech was an answer to them. He had gone much upon the argumentum ad hominem, and had seized upon some desultory expressions not connected with the substance of his statements, while he had avoided all close encounter with the facts and arguments to which he was bound to make out a satisfactory reply. He had charged his hon. friend with indulging in reveries; but he believed the House to be of opinion that his hon. friend dealt in solid substantial stuff, and that nothing could be less like "airy nothings" than the statements which he was in the habit of making. It was said that his hon. friend had a capacious swallow, but he was convinced that he would make the ministers swallow a pill which they would find very hard of digestion. The hon. member then attacked some of the appointments in the Ordnance department, and contended that they were contrary to the regulations of the board. The right hon. gentleman, instead of elucidating this subject, had involved it in greater obscurity. He then made a comparison between the Ordnance service and its expense in the years 1796 and the present time, and contended that the increase was unjustifiable. He also objected to the increased allowances, and particularly to that of the master-general of the Ordnance. The treasurer's office was, he said, quite useless, and ought to be abolished. He was convinced that in the different offices, a saving of three or four millions in the annual expenditure might be made.
Sir U. Burghasserted, that instead of 67 appointments which were said to have been made in this office by the duke of Wellington, he could assure the hon. member, that there had "been only 12 or 13 made by his grace since he entered upon his office.
Mr. Maberlyhoped the hon. gentleman would direct his attention to the charge of the store department; the whole of
710
which might advantageously be transferred to the Ordnance department; and thereby a great saving be effected. The whole of the store department of London might be done away with. When he said this, he was anxious at the same time to bear testimony to the excellent management of the store department at Woolwich.
Mr. Humeallowed that he was not competent to vie with the right hon. gentleman in wit and eloquence and poetry but still thought it unfair that the hon. gentleman should have dwelt so long on his dulness of intellect and gullibility. This was, however, a proof that the right hon. gentleman was unable to answer the statements which he had made. The fact was, that in 1796, the civil department of the Ordnance at the Tower and Westminster cost only 18,000 l.; and that the vote now required was 63,000 l. He should persist in dividing the committee on his amendment.
The committee divided: For the amendment 78; Against it, 134. Majority, 56.

List of the Minority.

Anson, hon. G.

Johnstone, col.

Barnard, vis.

Lambton, J. G.

Barrett, S. M.

Lennard, T. B.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Langston, J. H.

Benyon, Ben.

Maberly, W. L.

Brougham, H.

Macdonald, J.

Bright, H.

Martin, J.

Buxton, T. F.

Maxwell, W.

Boughey, sir J. F.

Milbank, M.

Calcraft, J.

Monck, J. B.

Calthorpe, hon. F.

Moore, P.

Calvert, C.

Marjoribanks, S.

Coffin, sir I.

Newport, right hon. sir J.

Coke, T. W.

Colburne, N. R.

O'Callaghan, J.

Concannon, Lucius

Ossulston, lord

Crespigny, sir W. D.

Palmer, C. F.

Creevey, Thomas

Powlett, hon. W.

Chetwynd, G.

Price, Robert

Corbett, Panton

Ramsden, J. C.

Denison, W. J.

Ricardo, David

Duncannon, viscount

Robarts, G.

Ebrington, viscount

Robarts, A.

Evans, Wm.

Robinson, sir G.

Fergusson, sir R.

Rumbold, Charles

Gordon, R.

Russell, lord J.

Graham, Sandford

Russell, lord W.

Griffith, J. W.

Smith, hon. R.

Gipps, G.

Smith, J.

Haldimand, W.

Smith, W.

Hamilton, lord A.

Sefton, lord

Harbord, hon. E.

Tavistock, marq. of

Heron, sir R.

Taylor, M. A.

Hornby, Ed.

Tierney, right hon. G.

Hume, Jos.

Townshend, lord C

Hurst, Robert

Tremayne, J. H.

James, W,

Wharton, J.

711

Whitbread, S. C.

Whitmore, W.

Williams,

Williams, T. P

TELLER,

Wilson, sir R.

Davies, T. H.

Winnington, sir E

PAIRED-OFF,

Wood, ald.

Bernal, R.

On resolution, "That 20,163 l. 3s.4d. The granted for the pay of the Civil Establishments of the Office of Ordnance at the Out-ports and Stations, and also for Rents, Taxes, &c. in Great Britain, Guernsey, and Jersey, for the year 1821,"
Mr. Humesaid, that if this included Woolwich, he should object to some of the items. He then went through several details, in order to show that many situations were kept up which were not at all necessary. Among others, he objected to the continuance of fire-masters, to the; office of inspector of the royal powder 'manufactory, to the inspector of artillery, and of the brass foundery; all of which, be contended, might be dispensed with. There was also an inspector and deputy Inspector of the carriage department: now, at least, the salary of the deputy-inspector might be saved. As to the storekeeper at Chatham, he could not but think that his salary was too large, when he recollected that a major-general had only 480 l.a year, and that other officers of rank in the army received such small incomes. He objected to the keeping up of such a large establishment of clerks; and also to the large establishment kept up at Sheerness. He would repeat his objection to giving houses to six officers there, five of whom resided at Queenborough. Most of these officers let their houses, and were residing at Queenbrough. The houses of such as did not reside at Sheerness should, he maintained, be sold for the public benefit. Indeed, for any necessity there was at the present moment for its continuance, he thought that the whole of the establishment at Sheerness might be laid down altogether. Why did not the right hon. member lay before the House the report of the Board of Inquiry into the conduct pf the officers at Sheerness, who had been in the habit of using the coals belonging to the public? The fact Was, that these men were freemen of Queenborough. Mr. Hodges had been turned out of his situation for haying reported upon some malversations which had taken place. This was' the return which he had received for his honest exertions. The hon. member insisted that the whole of the establishments at the different
712
outports were too large. With the view of reducing them he should move, that 25 l. per cent, be deducted from the sum proposed; and that instead of 20,163 l. 3s. 4d. the sum should be 15,122 l. 7s. 6d.
Mr. Wardsaid, it was the intention of government to cut down that establishment at Sheerness as soon as the stores were removed to Chatham. With respect to the six officers who had houses at Sheerness, it was not the fact that five of them resided at Queenborough, and let their houses at the former place. He had again to complain of the manner in which the hon. member brought forward his statements. He had now represented the store-keeper as holding a useless office. But he had, in fact, stores to the value of 1,000,000 l. under his charge; and could that be said to be an office of little importance? Anonymous letters were often sent imputing the most groundless charges to officers of great merit. He had seen a most malignant letter against a meritorious officer, which, having been neglected as it deserved by the government, had been afterwards transmitted to the hon. member for Aberdeen.
Sir W. Congreveassured the House that he was certainly not a sinecure holder in the Ordnance department. He had been held out as a pluralist, when, in fact, both his offices in the Ordnance department only amounted to 25 l s. per day. One office was superintendant of military machines at the repository, for which be received 5s. per day; and if the hon. member wished to see of what utility this department was, he was welcome to inspect it any day if he would take the trouble of going to Woolwich. The repository at Woolwich was not only of great national utility, but was also an object of national praise. It was a school in which was taught the art of passing artillery over rivers, canals, narrow roads, ravines, precipices, and such other matters as did not come within ordinary field practice. He had in this branch of the department perfected what his father had begun, and, in fact, had spent more than double the salary allowed him upon it. The other office which he held, was superintendant of the laboratory, the duty of which was to prepare the ammunition for the navy, ordnance, and small arms, of which there must at all times be a sufficient supply. It was also necessary in that department to prove the powder, and to inspect what was returned from ships, in order to ascer-

713
tain if it could be again made serviceable. He owed it to himself and the House to give this explanation of the duties in which he was engaged.
Mr. J. Smithbore testimony to the great services rendered to the country by the exertions of the hon. baronet. He, for one, could not consent to a reduction of one shilling in that hon. member's allowance. If the suggestions of the hon. baronet had been attended to, a great step would have been taken to check, if not entirely to put an end to forgeries upon the Bank.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, that the naval service had been highly benefited by the improvements made by the hon. baronet.
Mr. Humesaid, that while he admitted the services of the hon. baronet, he must persist in saying that other departments were greatly overpaid. Formerly, the store-keeper was paymaster; now the, very few men were at Woolwich, there was a paymaster and two clerks receiving 758 l.
Mr. J. Smithsaid, that there were three situations in which it would be harsh, and even cruel, to make any reduction.
Mr. Humesaid, that in order to remove that objection, he would deduct the amount of those situations from his amendment, and move that only 4,295 l. be deducted.
The committee divided: For the Amendment, 53; Against it, 110. The House then resumed.