Commons Sitting of 18 March 1822

MALT DUTY REPEAL BILL.
On the bringing up of the report of this bill,
Mr. Huskissonbegged to express his regret at having been absent on a former evening, when some conversation had arisen upon the subject of this bill. On that occasion it was said, that the repeal of so considerable a part of the malt duty would not lead to any diminution in the price charged by the brewers for their beer; and that when the chancellor of the exchequer thought it right to remit a great portion of a public tax, the brewers had only to put the bonus thus remitted into their own pockets. The whole amount of the malt duty was about 1,500,000 l.; and the proportion of that tax upon malt consumed by the brewers amounted to more than one half, or nearly 5-8ths of the whole consumption. Upon this estimate, then, the bonus which the brewers thought to put into their own pockets was about 800,000 l. He could not believe that, when his right hon. friend had proposed the repeal of what was considered so heavy a burthen, he intended that the relief should be intercepted by the brewers. Nor would the people, he was convinced, submit to have such a bonus arrested, and diverted from the channels into which it was intended to flow. When such an interposition was avowed, he thought the House ought to interfere and prevent the intentions of the legislature from being frustrated by the brewers? What was the state of the case? The price of barley had become depressed to such a degree as to find no parallel for the last 20 or 30 years. It was, under such circumstances, considered, that a repeal of a large portion of the malt duty would, by increase-
1188
ing the consumption, afford indirectly some relief to the barley grower, while at the same time it went directly to remit a tax which most affect the price of beer. That being their intention it was their bounden duty not to suffer it to be defeated in any quarter. It was said, that all who could provide a barrel, or buy a single bushel of malt, might brew at home with more advantage than resort to the brewer. This was very well, where the parties were in a condition to avail themselves of it; but the great bulk of the people could not brew for themselves, and therefore ought to be protected. He believed that the repeal, under any circumstances, would be attended with this good effect; that through its operation, farmers would be induced to brew at home, and give a proportion of their beer, instead of an equivalent amount in money, to their labourers. It would also well become the licensing magistrates to inquire into the prevailing system of leasing public houses: it had been carried to such an extent, that there was scarcely a free public house to be found. When such combinations existed, and by their arrangements had the power of determining when the price of beer should be raised and when it should be lowered, it would well become the magistrates to consider the propriety of withdrawing some of the licenses from houses at present possessing them, and handing them over to free houses. But, as arrangements of this nature, however essential must be tardy in their operation, the House would perhaps see the necessity of carrying into full effect the intention of the legislature; which was, that the consumer should directly have the benefit of the repeal of the tax in the reduced price of the article, and that the grower should have the advantage of the probable increase of consumption which was likely to follow under such circumstances. If the brewers avowed that, notwithstanding the repeal, the price of beer was not to be lowered, it was fortunate that the information reached the House in time to prevent the public from being affected by that determination; for they had the power of defeating the intentions of the brewers, and compelling them to abide by the principle on which the bill was founded. If, then, the price of beer was not to be lowered, upon every principle of fairness, the legislature ought to impose a duty on every barrel of beer

1189
made by the brewer, equal to the present reduction of the malt duty upon that amount, and to be made contingent upon the present price by the brewer—for instance, if the duty now remitted was 8s. a quarter upon malt, and if that quarter made 3½ barrels of beer, be should recommend the chancellor of the exchequer to impose on the public brewer an additional duty, equal to his amount of increased profit on the barrel of beer by the present reduction of the malt duty. If there ever occurred a period when, quite independent of the present reduction in the duty, the public had a right to look for cheaper beer, this was that time. Either the brewers must have been at one time great losers, or they were now receiving a disproportionate and most inordinate profit. It was not enough for the brewers to say, that the price could not be lowered because the duty was not sufficiently reduced; they must know that the reduced expense of managing their business, in keeping their horses, and indeed in every other branch of their business, quite independent of the diminution of this tax, fully enabled them to brew at a cheaper rate than formerly. But when, to all these advantages was superadded a reduction of the duty, amounting to nearly a farthing in the pot of beer, it was high time for the public to derive the advantage intended for them by the legislature. He threw out these suggestions to the house, in the event of the brewers persevering in charging the present price, he should recommend the House to adopt a resolution for the purpose of taxing the stock of the brewer, in the proportion of the amount of the repealed malt tax. He by no means intended to renew the malt-tax as a source of revenue, but to make the partial renewal for the brewers contingent upon their attempt to maintain the present price of the article.
Mr. Calcraftentirely concurred in the suggestion. Nothing could be more monstrous, when the legislature thought fit to ease the country of a burthen, than that the brewers, or any other great class of capitalists, should interpose and divert into private sources that profit which belonged to the public at large.
Mr. F. Buxtonthought, that nothing could be more monstrous, than that the sum about to be reduced should be allowed to go into the pockets of the brewers. But it should be considered, that the brewers had on hand a large stock of beer
1190
made from malt which had paid the full duty; and therefore a reasonable time ought to be given them to dispose of it. If after that the brewers did not lower their prices, he, connected as he personally was with the subject, would freely stand forward to second the proposition of the right hon. gentleman.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
On the order of the day for going into a committee of supply.
Sir Joseph Yorkebegged to call their attention to a subject which could not be deemed irrelevant. In a case where so great a service as that of the navy was concerned, he did think it right to notice to the House the late appointment of John Clarke Searle, esq., to be a Rear-Admiral of the White. It would appear to have been formerly the custom that when a gentleman, having risen in the naval service of his country to the rank of a flag-officer, chose to fill an office in the civil department of the state, he thereby abandoned the next step in his promotion. Now, there was something curious in the way in which this gentleman had passed his flag. Nothwithstanding that he had for some time filled a civil situation, he had been considered entitled to the reward which was extended to gallant officers by promotion; and not only so, but to receive it accompanied with one of the highest marks of favour which the service could bestow. But the most painful part of the story was, that just prior to this appointment, J. C. Searle, esq., had experienced a certain share of displeasure from the board of Admiralty. In fact, it had been made known to them, that a certain share of delinquency existed in the subordinate departments of the Victualling-office, and shortly afterwards an intimation was received by capt. Searle, that he should quit the chair which be then filled. To any honourable mind, conscious of its own integrity, and still more to an individual who had filled this chair for the space of 14 years—who had received, as a reward for past services, not only his own salary attached to that situation, but a pension besides, during the continuance of the war, and whose amiable lady, for amiable he had no doubt she was, had also had settled upon her a pension of 300 l. a year, such an intimation must have been, beyond measure, painful. How surprised must such a man have been, at finding himself suddenly hurled from his

1191
situation, by a bolt of imperial displeasure. He did not question the competency of the royal prerogative to direct this or any other dismission; but he was very sure of this, that whatever might have been the ' misconduct of the subordinate officers in the Victualling-department, Mr. Searle was a man of that character and honour, that he could not have been guilty of any part of it. But why was it, that a board, over which it was so proper that a naval person should preside, must have a civil officer in a brown coat and steel buttons? Why did they not take some naval officer with a naval uniform on his back? The appointment of the present chairman of the Victualling-board did seem to him to be the grossest job he had ever heard of. The present chairman (Mr. Stapylton) was first of all paymaster of the marines, then he was made a commissioner of the navy, and now he was chairman of the Victualling-board; and, at this very moment, at that board, he had under him a competent naval officer, with a salary of 200 l. only per annum. He trusted he had now said enough to interest the House in this case. Either the dismissal of J. C. Searle, esq. as chairman, and his subsequent naval appointment were two of the most extraordinary things in the world, or the Admiralty thought the Victualling-board no better than a set of dolts and nincompoops; and in that view, wishing to provide for some one else, had removed the late chairman, and been afterwards obliged to provide for him.
Sir G. Cockburnrose to do justice to the gallant admiral who had been named, and to prove that his hon. friend was misleading the House on subjects with which he ought to have been better acquainted. After a minute enquiry into the state of the Victualling department, he (Sir G. C.) and those associated with him in the inquiry, had found that there was not that arrangement and supervision, nor that check on the clerks, which they considered to be necessary, and thence they came to the conclusion, that it was not desirable that the late chairman should remain at the head of the Victualling-board. But it was proper at the same time to state, that nothing had transpired that at all detracted from the honour and probity of captain Searle. When, therefore, it was thought necessary to remove him from the Victualling-board, it was thought right to do it in such a way as should neither be injurious to his feelings or to
1192
his reputation. It was usual, when a flag ship was to be given, to allow an officer of a certain rank his choice, to receive that, or to retain any civil situation which he might hold. This choice had been given to captain Searle, and he had preferred retaining his civil situation. When it became necessary, for the convenience of the public, to remove him from that situation, it was thought right to put hint where he would have been had his choice been different. This was determined on, from an anxiety to prove to the world that the late enquiry, if it had demonstrated captain Searle's unfitness to preside over the Victualling-board, had proved nothing against his general character.
Mr. Ellicesaid, he had had the honour to know captain Searle for many years, and knew that nothing dishonourable could be imputed to him. He had presided during the greater part of the late war at the Victualling-board, when fleets were to be provisioned to all parts of the world, and no complaint had been made against him. But the active duties of war were very different from the duties of peace, and he who might well perform the former might be incompetent to the minute arrangements of the latter. Such was the case of the gallant admiral, and for this reason only had the late change taken place. He had called on him when he heard of the circumstance, and instead of the thunderbolt which the hon. officer had talked about, the note which removed him was couched in the kindest terms, and while it intimated that it was expedient that he should retire, thanked hint for his meritorious services. He was glad that he had had an opportunity of speaking to the character of admiral Searle and to the manner in which he had been removed.
Sir I. Coffinthought there was not a better man than captain Searle in the service, or one who had more ably per formed the duties of his station.
Mr. Crokerbegged to state, that the first inducement to put the gentleman, now at the head of the Victualling-board in the situation which he filled, grew out of the great ability with which he had filled inferior offices. He had been chosen because no other man of his rank stood so high in the estimation of his superiors: He had also been preferred in an economical point of view. Two commissioners from the navy board, of which he was one were to be provided for. By the course

1193
which had been taken, their services had been transferred to the Victualling-board, and thus a saving of 1,400 l. per annum was effected, while the business of that board was performed in a better manner.
Sir J. Yorkehad never meant to impute any delinquency to captain Searle. He only thought the board had been too hasty in removing him, and that having broken his head in the first instance, the new appointment was given him by way of a plaister.
The House having resolved itself into a committee, sir John Osborne moved, "That 64,899 l. 18 s. 6d. be granted for defraying the salaries and contingent expenses of the Navy office, for the year 1822."
Mr. Humesaid, that in 1792 the expense of this department was only 11,788 l. There were then seven commissioners of the navy; now there were eight. The reduction in this vote, as compared with what it was in the last war, was only 10,000 l. He thought it might be much reduced. Surely it was too much that, in 1822, this department should cost 64,000 l., when in 1792 it was not 12,000 l. Even in 1796 the estimate for the Navy-office was only 45,000 l. In this department a reduction might fairly be made to the extent of 20,000 l. He hoped ministers were not prepared to say that this was the final peace establishment of the navy.
Mr. Crokersaid, that the hon. member would find, on inspection, that no less than three commissioners of the Navy at the board, and two at the ports, had been reduced since last year. The reports on naval revision had recommended that the business of the various departments should be divided between three separate committees, and those three committees now consisted of only two members each. If any one of them could at a future time, be properly merged in either of the others, he pledged himself that it should be done. It was true, that the saving by the reduction of clerks was in a degree counterbalanced by the superannuation allowances; but it was not denied that those allowances ought to be given, and they had been calculated, not according to the provisions of an existing act, but of a prospective bill that was about to be introduced into parliament. This was a proof of the economical spirit with which the arrangement had been concluded. Last year there were in the Admiralty-office, Pay-office, Navy-office and
1194
Victualling-office, 317 clerks; at present, there were only 263 clerks. It was not easy to calculate the expences of them, as their salaries depended much on length of service; but, supposing that the average was ten years, the charge last year was 108,000 l., and this year only 74,000 l. The whole saving did not come home to the public, because a modicum was given to those dismissed as superannuation allowances; but if by accident vacancies occurred, those vacancies would be supplied from the individuals to whom those allowances were given. The elevation of persons from the lower to the higher offices by routine had formerly created some difficulty and much expense; in this respect a beneficial change had been effected. In the article of clerks he was persuaded that there was little hope for further reduction.
Sir B. Martinwas persuaded, that less than two members could not get through the business before each committee, and contended that the whole reduction in the navy estimates was 989,000 l. as compared with last year. He hoped that this would be borne in mind while the other side was quibbling about trifles.
Mr. Bernaldenied that any of his hon. friends had been guilty of quibbling. But for the exertions of the hon. member for Aberdeen, and a few others, one tenth of the savings now proposed would not have been made.
Mr. Humesaid, that in 1792 the offices connected with the navy cost only 58,000 l. and last year exceeded 185,000 l. The reduction this year was 33,000 l., so that the charge upon the public was still 152,000 l. The Victualling-office, in 1792, cost 36,000 l., and the present estimate was no less than 96,000 l. Comparing the whole charge for the navy, it was last year 2,484,000 l., and this year 2,453,000 l. so that the actual reduction in what he might call the live establishment was only 31,000 l., under the head of "ship building," 400,000 l. had been saved in one item: under the head of "improvements in the dock yards," the reduction was from 424,000 l. to 154,000 l., but for neither of these diminutions was any credit due to government. He highly approved of the mode of filling up vacancies from superannuated officers, and he hoped ministers would be as good as their word. If they were, he would give them full credit for the whole practical result—more credit than for any thing else they

1195
had done with regard to the navy estimates. He did not concur in the excellence of the new scheme of promotion. It would not be governed by merit in the individual, but by parliamentary and private influence. He thought promotion by seniority preferable, and referred to the artillery, engineers, and marines, where the advance of officers was so regulated, and where the best officers were to be found.
Mr. Crokersaid, the salary of the office which he now held, had been 800 l., and the fees 5,000 l. It had been supposed worth 12,000 l. in 1792. The salary had been definite, but the fees enormous. Now, the fees were more equitably distributed among all the classes in the office. The hon. member for Aberdeen had stated, that there had been no adequate reduction iń the clerks of the Admiralty, since 1793. But what was the fact? In 1813, the number of clerks was 55; in 1811, 52; in 1815, 43; in 1816, 29; in 1817, 29; in 1819, 28; in 1820, 27; in 1821, 26; in 1822, 24. The fact was, that the clerks had been, since 1813, reduced from 550 to 262. The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, "That 34,817 l. 10 s. be granted for the expence of the Victualling Office,"
Mr. Humeasked, what occasion there was for seven commissioners in this office? At least two of them could be reduced. He, therefore, moved an amendment to substitute 33,217 l., being a reduction of 1,600 l.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, that the accounts had never been minutely inspected, while one clerk checked the accounts of another. The arrangement was now newmodelled, and it had been found necessary to charge the commissioners with a more minute inspection of the accounts; and therefore, the reduction which had been contemplated, had not taken place. After a short conversation, the committee divided; for the amendment 30. Against it 66. The original resolution was then agreed to.

List of the Minority.

Blake, sir F.

Hume, J.

Bright, H.

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Bennet, hon. G.

Legh-Keck, G. A.

Crespigny, sir W. De

Leycester, R.

Crompton, S.

Monck, J. B.

Davies, col.

Moore, P.

Evans, W.

Martin, J.

Fleming, J.

Price, R.

Griffith, J. W.

Pares, T.

Gurney, R. H.

Philips, sen.

1196

Rice, T. S.

Wood, alderman

Rickford, W.

Wilkins, W.

Robinson, sir G.

Williams, sen.

Smith, W.

Whitmore, W.

Smith, R.

TELLER.

Sykes, D.

Bernal, R.

On the resolution, "That 25,269 l. 6s. 2d. be granted for the salaries of the officers and contingent expences of Deptford yard, for the year 1822,"
Mr. Bernalcalled for an explanation of the difference which appeared between the sums voted for the navy in the years 1817, 1818, 1819, and the sums actually expended. In those years, the sum actually expended, had, taking all the items, exceeded the sum voted, by more than a million sterling. He did not mean from that to infer, that there had been any thing improper in the management, but it was a proof of the confused state in which the accounts were kept. Another thing was, the expence of superintending the naval dock-yard and arsenals. If the number of clerks was reduced, he could not see why the number of those overseers might not be reduced also. Of these overseers there was a numerous class, called sub-measurers, who received 180 l. a year, for taking charge of companies of about 25 artificers each; and, as if this superintendance was not enough, the work done by the artificers had again to be measured by measurers. Now, he could see no use for these two classes of persons, who were just, in fact, one set of clerks paid for being a check upon another. While this establishment of overseers had been kept up, both in numbers and in salaries, the number of artificers had not only been diminished, but their wages had been reduced from 2l. 5s. to 1l. 2s. 6d. The men complained not only of this, but that they were not paid according to any fixed rate, some of them being occupied in pulling to pieces old useless timbers, by which they earned only about 15 s. a week. Another division, with which there was room for finding fault, was, the scale of superannuations. Was it just, that a civil officer who had a salary of 200 l. a year, should retire with full three-fourths of that salary, while the artificers, who were at least as useful, worked far harder, and earned only about 60 l. a year, should have no more allowance than 20 l.? Was it fair that they who had salaries out of which they might be expected to save something, should retire upon three-fourths of their salaries, while

1197
they who could barely live upon their incomes were allowed only one-third? There was one other matter to which he wished to call the attention of the committee, and that was, the putting of circular sterns to the ships—an operation which occasioned considerable expence, while it diminished the capacity of the ship for carrying guns. The circular stern, he understood, cost four times as much as the square stern, while there were differences of opinion as to which was the best. There was one other case which required explanation: a clerk, who had a salary of 250 l. at Chatham dockyard, had been brought up to the Navy-office, and employed on the accounts at 10 s. per day. He had been so three years ago, and he had not yet returned to Chatham, although he had been in the receipt of his salary there all the while. There could not be a more striking instance of inconsiderate expenditure.
Sir G. Cockburnwould assure the hon. member, that the points to which he had called the attention of the committee, had already come under the notice of the commissioners; and one of the chief objects of their last survey had been, how they were to reduce the overseers. That principle had been recognized, and would be acted on without delay. With regard to the circular sterns, they had been decided on, in consequence of their superior strength. The first vessel that had been so fitted, had been sent round Cape Horn, where she had been found to resist the sea much better than the square sterned vessels.
Sir B. Martinsaid, that with respect to the clerk who had been taken from the dock-yard to assist in the Navy Pay-office, there was not a more active or meritorious officer in the service. He was, however, to be returned to the dockyard. He had not heard any of the complaints on the part of the artisans, to which the hon. member had alluded. On the contrary, he had had letters of thanks from the men, for the manner in which they had been treated; for, though they did not now earn as much as formerly, yet they were all kept up; and if the reduction were carried on with respect to them, not fewer than 24,000 men, would be exposed to starvation. As to the difference in the estimates, he was not now prepared with those accounts to explain them, but he was satisfied they could be satisfactorily explained.
Mr. Humesaid, that in many departments of the dock-yards, the saving had been really nothing. The charge in the present year was 202,000 l.; last year it had been 210,000 l.: while in 1792, the whole charge had been but 25,000 l. A master carpenter, who in 1792 had been paid 200 l. a year, now received 650 l. The pay of the master shipwrights had risen in an equal degree. A storekeeper, standing in 1792 at 200 l. a year, now took 600 l. One clerk after thirty years' service in Portsmouth yard had retired upon an allowance of 300 l. a year. Why, a post-captain did not get so much. A master artisan retired upon 190 l. a year. A lieutenant in the navy took less. A clerk of the check at Chatham had been superannuated upon 450 l. a year; another from Portsmouth upon a like allowance; and a blacksmith from Deptford at 195 l. Such allowances were excessive, and ought to be reformed.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that the subject would certainly come within the scope of the chancellor of the exchequer's bill. The board of Admiralty was prepared to act up fully to the recommendations of the committee of finance, and to place the whole of the dock-yards upon a more economical, and, he trusted, not a less efficient footing.
On the resolution, "That 9,540 l. 18 s. 5d. be granted for the salaries and contingent expenses of the out-ports for 1822,"
Mr. Humewished to know why a naval officer had been removed from Deal, where there was much to do, to Harwich, a port where there was comparatively nothing?
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, that he was not, in fact, an officer of the navy, but a store keeper, who got the title of a naval officer from his employment. He was useful in Harwich for supplying with stores the cruizers for the north sea.
Sir J. Yorkebelieved there was more in this appointment than met the eye. With Sheerness so near, there was no necessity for the delivery of stores at Harwich. Perhaps the appointment could be explained better by the fact that Harwich had the honor of returning; as one of its representatives, a chancellor of the exchequer.
Mr. Humesaid, he understood this officer was one of the corporation of Harwich. He agreed that there was a strong suspicion of parliamentary influence being

1199
connected with this situation. Deal, from whence the officer had been taken, sent no member to parliament. He was determined to propose a reduction from this vote. There were two officers at Leith. There was a chaplain at Pembreke, with 400 l. a year; and there was a transport establishment at Cowes, which cost 368 l. a year, independent of that at Portsmouth. One of these establishments he, thought quite sufficient. He should propose the reduction of the establishment at Harwich, of the officers at Leith, of the establishment at Cowes; and, he should propose a reduction of the chaplain's salary. The total of the reductions was 1,568 l., and he moved an amendment, reducing the vote by this sum.
After a short conversation, the original resolution was agreed to, without a division. On the resolution, "That 964,000 l. be granted for half-pay to naval officers,"
Mr. Humecomplained of the number of promotions which had taken place since the peace. At the close of the war, 1,000 midshipmen had been promoted, as it was understood, for war services, and promotion had gone on increasing ever since. Since the year 1816, upwards of 428 midshipmen, and 130 lieutenants had been promoted, and the promotion of post captains, rear admirals and vice admirals, had gone on in proportion. The total of promotions since the peace, was 797. He objected also to the principle of the promotions which took place at the late coronation. He was prepared to show, that commanders had been promoted who were low down upon the list, in preference to others higher up. This was quite unnecessary, and under the circumstances, too, of what could only be regarded as a pageant. It was impossible that talking about the present distresses of the country could produce any relief, while expenses were so needlessly increased. He knew that in these promotions there was a parliamentary influence exerted on both sides of the House, and he hoped ministers would resist it altogether. He then contrasted the number of officers on half-pay at the close of the war and. at present, and stated that the number had been increased for the sake of the patronage.
Sir G. Cockburnvindicated the principle on which the promotions were conducted, and stated that at the coronation, the commanders who were employed, were
1200
selected without any regard to family influence, but solely on the ground of length of service.
Mr. Elliceasked, whether the country was reduced to such a state of distress that a young man, on his return home after 15 or 16 years of arduous service abroad, was to be told it had no longer the power to remunerate him? He had heard with great pain several of his hon. friend's motions that evening. To the reductions which his hon. friend had proposed in the civil expenditure, he did not object; but he could not support the retrenchments which he wished to make in this department. The navy was already reduced much lower than sound policy warranted.
Mr. Bennetcontended, that his hon. friend had not objected to a system of fair promotion, but to a system of excessive promotion that was founded on n principle of favoritism.
The resolution was agreed to. The chairman then reported progress and asked leave to sit again.