COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. (Hansard, 18 February 1822)

§ Sir J. Newport
said, that the estimates should be laid on the table, before they proceeded to a vote of supply for the Navy.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the necessary documents would be ready in the coarse of a few days, and would be placed in the hands of members.

§ Sir G. Warrender
remarked, that the vote in question was a mere matter of course.

§ Mr. Hume
said, that with respect to the vote for the Navy, which the hon. baronet stated to be a mere vote of course, he could not agree to proceed with it until the estimates were before the House. This was the first vote of supply in the present sessions, and the House must see bow utterly impossible it was to decide on the nature and propriety of the charges contained in that vote, unless a full estimate were laid before them. In the account which had been printed, he found 456 only large items; such, for instance, as 21,000 men at 2l. 3s. 6d. per man per month, without any explanation of the manner in which they were employed. Until last year no return was made of the number of marines, amounting to 8,000 men. Why was not a similar return made now? Why were they not informed of the number of marines, the number of seamen and the number of general officers? Was it right that they should allow 25l. per day to be paid to certain general officers at the head of the marines? In drawing the attention of the House to this particular expenditure, he did not wish to strike off any fair emolument that might be due to that individual. All he contended for was, the necessity of having proper estimates before them. If they continued to vote large sums in a lump, there would be no end to the waste of the public money. On a former occasion, when he made an inquiry into a charge of 73,000l. for recruiting, the secretary at war refused to give him any information, and hurried on the committee, though it was one o'clock in the morning. It should not however be his fault, if, in future, proper information were not laid before the House. Before the Speaker left the chair, it was his intention to move for a return of the number of officers on the marine staff, the number of marines, and the total expense of that department. In voting the wages for the navy, he meant to inquire whether any additional number of secretaries had been appointed at the different naval stations, and what was the number of individuals on the naval staff. On one item he meant to take the sense of the House. He alluded to the sum of 4,000l. per annum, which was paid to sir A. Cochrane, who commanded two ships at Plymouth. A similar sum was also paid to another admiral, who commanded three ships at Portsmouth. These duties were formerly executed for 1,500l. a year. The officer who commanded a ship of war, two frigates, and a sloop, at Portsmouth, had two secretaries. Now, he could not conceive the necessity of employing that number. The hon. baronet must be aware that the committee of finance, in 1817, when speaking of the charge for the wear and tear of ships, had asked, with a strong expression of surprise, how it was possible that that charge could be so great? What was the difference between the number of seamen called for in the present year, and the 457 number voted in 1817? There was only a difference of 1,000 men. The reduction of expense on the whole naval establishment in the present year, as compared with 1817, was only 1–22nd part of the whole. In 1817, it was 1,866,000l.; it was now 1,781,000l. The sum voted for provisions was now 532,000l.; in 1817, it was 550,000l.; but at the latter period salt beef was from 10l. to 12l. a tierce, whereas it was now only about 5l. There were, of the marine force, a body of 6,000 men on shore; the vote for whose wages and sustenance ought to be placed under a specific head. In fact, the paper that had been laid on the table of the House, relative to the vote for the naval service, was a rough estimate, on which no man could come to a correct conclusion. Every charge in the present year appeared to be the same that was made in the last, except in the Ordnance. The charge for powder and ball, in the seventh year of peace was no less than 95,000l. What had the committee of Finance said on this very subject? They observed, that during war, the expenditure under the head of "Ordnance" must be very considerable; but they felt great satisfaction in stating, that in time of peace it must be considerably reduced. In that year the expense of the Ordnance was brought down to 4s. per man; but it was immediately afterwards increased to 7s. per man, and that had been the charge ever since. He could not conceive why so large a sum as 95,000l. should be paid under this head, unless the officers fired off the balls for their amusement, or threw the powder overboard. It was his intention to submit three distinct motions to the House, connected with the subjects on which he had touched. The first, for a particular account of the expense and number of the marine corps, and also of the navy, under their respective heads; the second, for a statement of the manner in which half a million was expended for provisions; and the third, for a detailed return of the expenditure of 95,000l. for powder and ball.

§ Sir G. Warrender
said, that in the committee of supply on Friday, he would give the hon. member all the information he required.

§ Sir J. Yorke
said, that if the advice of the hon. member were pursued, we might as well blow up our dock-yards and burn our ships, for in the course of a very short time we should have no seamen. It was 458 clear that the hon. member knew nothing of naval matters; or he would not attempt to destroy our naval system, root and branch.