ARMY ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 20 March 1822 vol 6 cc1215-28

The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply,

Lord Palmerston

rose to move the remainder of the Army Estimates. He would begin with the vote relative to the War office. He had made, since last year, a reduction to the amount of 8,000l. This saving was effected by the removal of 16 persons. He had reduced one salary of 1,200l., one of 1,000l., two of 800l. two of 700l., two of 450l. one of 500l. another of 400l., and several others of smaller amount. Comparing the present estimate with that of 1814, there was a diminution of 18,000l. There was still several persons employed on the arrear accounts, and whenever those accounts were brought to a close, a still greater reduction would take place. A new scale of salaries had been adopted, which, when brought into operation, would ensure a saving of from 18,000l. to 19,000l. The scale by which salaries were now regulated in the War-office, was on the same footing with that which prevailed in the other public offices. Individuals dated their period of service, as entitling them to an increase of salary, from the time at which they first entered the office. But, by the new scale, the increase of salary would depend on their standing in the particular class to which they immediately belonged. This would retard, in a considerable degree, the period at which any individual could arrive at a great amount of salary. According to this scale, no person could attain a salary of 800l. a year until he had been 45 years in the office. His lordship then moved, "that 43,185l. 15s. be granted for defraying the charge of the War-office.

Mr. Hume

said, the noble lord had made the saving amount to 8,000l.; but he could not, by adding the items, make it nearly so much; and it should be borne in mind that there had been additional pensions granted to the extent of 5,040l.; so that the saving was more apparent than real. Taking the pensions into the account, the expence was almost as great now as it had been in 1814. The superannuation system was carried, in the office of the secretary at war, to a greater extent than in any office under government. In 1798, the whole establishment stood the country in 16,000l.; whereas it was now upwards of 43,000l. With respect to the arrear accounts, he was quite satisfied that the establishment of clerks which was kept up to inspect them was of no utility whatsoever. These accounts had been left in a state of confusion, until all who could give any information about them were dead and gone; and yet the department for inspecting such accounts had cost the public from 130 to 140,000l. in the course of the last twenty years. He was prepared to show, that no office under government required a different arrangement more decidedly than that of the noble lord, who was the Alpha and Omega of that office. No person, could interfere with the noble lord in checking or controlling the system. There was one singularity in the office to which he would call the attention of the committee. There was a secretary at war with 2,480l. a year, and a deputy who received 2,500l. a year. Why had the deputy more than the principal? The first clerk received 1,400l. a year, although in 1796 his salary was but 722l. The commissioners of military inquiry, when they examined the state of the War-office, deliberately gave it as their opinion, that the additions made to the salaries of the prin- cipal clerks were granted under particular circumstances, and were, in general, to be considered merely temporary. It was quite evident, that these very high salaries were intended as a reward for great exertions in time of war, and they ought, therefore, to cease when hostile operations were no longer carried on. He would now advert to some circumstances connected with the extravagance of the office. Mr. Brown had been allowed to act as commissary for a short time, and from that department he had retired with 276l. a year. He had 1,200l. a year as clerk. But all that was not enough; 300l. a year were added as clerk to the fund for chaplains, &c. It was extraordinary, too, that each of those clerks had 7l. 15s. allowed him for newspapers. Mr. Brown was thus in receipt of 1,926l. a year altogether. There was a Mr. Edward Marshall, who had 700l. a year, and received besides 150l. for preparing estimates to be laid before the House. Now, the time required for this could not be more than two or three days; and he really thought the sum considerably too much. He should be happy to do it himself for less, and should think himself very well paid. A Mr. Wilkinson had been eighteen years in the office, and received 450l. a year. For assisting in making up the estimates he received 100l.: for regulating the army list 100l.; and for preparing the militia and yeomanry list 100l. He had, besides, some other employment connected with the army list, and appeared complained, that the salary of the deputy ed altogether in six different capacities. I secretary was greater than that of the A Mr. Merry had been 11 years a clerk, with a salary of 250l. He was, besides, private secretary to the assistant secretary. The whole duty of the department might be done by 15 persons, and for 15,000l. Contingencies were stated at 2,250l. Last year the noble lord had stated, that not one senior clerk could be spared. Yet, what had he done? He had turned out five or six senior clerks, and if half a dozen more were turned out, the business could be done as well as now. Mr. Sullivan had been ten years in the office, and he received 1,000l. Now had he, by seniority or otherwise, acquired such a salary? But it was more. A person having 1,200l. a year had been reduced, and Mr. Sullivan had his salary increased to 1,200l. a year. This was ministerial economy! He wished the noble lord to say how many young men had been lately received into the office? During the last two years, and since the pretended economy had commenced, eight or nine young men had been introduced The changes which the noble lord had made did not, in short, promote economy or the public service. He could not consent to a vote of 43,000l. when the whole duties of this department were performed for little more than half that sum in 1806.

Lord Palmerston

said, his majesty's government had certainly very little encouragement to make any reductions, considering the manner in which they were received by the hon. gentleman opposite. He admitted that he had said, in the last session, that no reduction of clerks could be made, without inconvenience to the public service; but, if he had since deferred to the wishes of parliament, it was a little unfair to charge him in one session with making no reductions, and then to turn round upon him, and accuse him of having made them in another session. With regard to the introduction of young clerks into the office, it was the only mode by which he had been enabled to make any reductions. He had discharged individuals with high salaries of 700l. and 1,000l. a year, and to meet the deficiency, he had engaged clerks at salaries of 90l. and 100l. a year. His office had undoubtedly undergone an entire change since the year 1797. In 1797, the number of clerks was small, but many of them had high salaries whereas, at present, the number of clerks was much increased, but very few of them had large salaries. The hon. member had complained, that the salary of the deputy secretary was greater than that of the secretary himself. This salary, however, would be fixed in future at 2000l. instead of 2,500l. the gentleman who now held this office had no extra allowances: he had formerly been chief examiner of Army accounts, at a salary of 1,500l. and he had the privilege of supplying the garrison of Gibraltar, which was worth 900l. a year; so that, in fact, he relinquished appointments to the amount of 2,400l., and received only 2,500l. He neither knew, nor wished to known where the hon. gentleman got his information, but his informant was not more accurate than the hon. gentleman himself. He was persuaded that in no office was the public business more efficiently discharged that in his own, and that no set of men worked harder than the clerks connected with it. He would states one proof, and a melancholy proof of this fact; namely, that since the year 1810, no fewer than 26 clerks, all of them in the prime of life, had died of pulmonary and other complaints, arising from sedentary habits. With respect to the charge for newspapers, the indulgence was by no means extended to all the clerks, but only to the higher clerks in the office. The whole charge was trifling, and quite unworthy of notice. The hon. member had accused him of being the creator of a system of pluralities. Now this was so far from being the case, that he had issued orders that no person connected with the office should engage in any other employment without his leave, and that leave be had never in a single instance granted. The hon. member had talked of the ease with which he himself could make out the estimates. Now he (lord P.) must say, that he would rather not trust him with that office [a laugh]. After the accuracy which the hon. member had displayed in the exercise of his arithmetical functions in that House, he did not think it safe to trust the estimates in his hands. The difference of a few millions more or less, though of no consequence to the hon. member, would not be so convenient when the House came to discover them in the Army Estimates. The labour of making out the estimates, so far from being a work of two or three days, occupied several months, and if any fault could be imputed to his majesty's government, it was, that the persons employed in this labour were inadequately paid. The hon. member was mistaken in supposing that Mr. Wilkinson received any allowance for making out the Army list. He was allowed to edite the list, taking upon himself the chance of profit or loss, and he received no remuneration whatever from the public. The hon. member did not appear to understand the difference between the annual and the monthly Army list. The monthly Army list cost very little; but an allowance was granted for combining and editing the annual Army list, which could not be published by any bookseller, except at a loss. The sum allowed to his private secretary was for taking the charge of all the correspondence connected with the compassionate list. The other person to whom the hon. member had alluded, received a salary of 100l. for assisting the deputy secretary at War. It was quite impossible that the manipulation of all the papers of the office could be conducted with the assistance of a great number of inferior clerks. He should like to know how many assistants the hon. gentleman himself had to arrange his own papers. The hon. member wished to know after what length of service Mr. Sullivan had been appointed to a salary of 1,000l. Mr. Sullivan had been appointed at once to that salary on his (lord P.'s) recommendation; and he was persuaded that no man who inquired into the manner in which he had discharged the duties of his office, would doubt the propriety of the recommendation. The salary of the office had been increased from 1,000l. to 1,200l. a year, because he felt, that, in fixing the salaries of the office on a permanent footing, this was only a fair allowance; but he begged to observe that the increase was only annexed to the office, and that it was not extended to Mr. Sullivan. The noble lord then went into a comparison of the present expense of the department, with the charge which had been made upon it in former years. In 1806, the vote had been 56,000l., and the number of persons employed 105; in the present year 106 persons were employed, and the vote was 44,000l. only. It was evident, therefore, that between 1806 and 1822, a considerable reduction in salaries must have taken place. The period of 1792 had been adverted to; but let the amount of duty done in that year be looked at. In 1792, the number of papers sent out of the office was 7,200, and 22 persons were employed. In the last year the number of papers sent out had been 98,792 and the number of persons employed 132; so that if the persons employed had increased in number five or six-fold, the quantity of business done had increased in a much larger degree. With respect to the management of the public accounts, be regretted that their arrear had increased so much. It had been occasioned, he really believed, by a wasteful economy, by injudiciously diminishing the strength of the office. The accounts were examined as carefully as possible, as they were taken in hand. The balance was due in some cases to the accountants, and in others to the public; but, on the whole, the balance was in favour of the public. Difficulties often occurred, from a want of vouchers which had been lost or mislaid, and from the absence of other explanatory circumstances; but while, on the one hand, government were determined to call on public accountants to settle, they, on the other, gave a liberal interpretation to every fair doubt which was occasioned by a delay in the examination.

Colonel Davies

said, the noble lord wing blamed by his honourable friend, not for the reduction itself, but for his tenderness in making it. He had been driven into economy, although he had contended against its possibility, and it was to be observed, that most of the reduced clerks received large superannuation salaries. The criterion by which the House ought to judge was, not what had been done, but what could be done in the way of reduction.

The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, "That 26,903l. be granted for the charge of the office of the paymaster-general,"

Colonel Davies

suggested, that the whole of this department might be dispensed with. He believed the paymaster-generalship of the army to be an entirely useless office. It was merely a ministerial office, and the only duty done was the passage of money through it. The expense of the office had greatly and needlessly increased. In 1797, the entire charge of the office was 11,340l. In the present year, the salaries after deducting superannuation allowances and contingent expenses, amounted to 19,000l. The fact was too strong to require enforcing by argument, and he was bound to press it upon the committee.

Sir C. Long

said, that of all the committees of finance which had considered this subject, there was not one which had thought the office of paymaster-general useless. This office, it seemed, had escaped the diligent and accurate research of Mr. Burke, and of lord Colchester, and it was reserved for the sagacity of the hon. colonel to discover that it was altogether useless. The hon. colonel said the office was a ministerial one; now, he must think that the hon. member knew very little, if any thing, of: the nature of the office, to make such: an assertion. The business of this department could not be performed without the assistance of the paymaster-general, who had to examine and pass a great variety of accounts. Was that ministerial duty? Was the payment of the half-pay nothing? But it was said, that this was a duty which might be performed, by the Bank. Now, he, from experience, might state, that the Bank could not discharge the duty. He had to look at various accounts of officers, to see whether their affidavits were regular, whether the proper forms were gone through, and, where such forms were accidentally omitted, to decide whether the omission was of such a nature as should retard the payment of the particular individual. Of all these matters the Bank could know nothing. Besides, the paymaster-general acted as treasurer of Chelsea Hospital. Was that also a ministerial duty? Again, the paymaster had to attend to the argument of prize-money, to examine the claims made, and to see how far the party claiming was entitled. Was that also a duty which could be discharged by the Bank? If the hon. member thought it a useless office, be should have brought in a bill to abolish it altogether, and to repeal all the acts which regulated its duties. If the hon. member should have courage enough to embark in such an undertaking, he would find himself shipwrecked before he got a hundred yards from the shore. As to the office, be could assure the committee, that he had done every thing in his power to reduce its expenses, and a considerable reduction had taken place as compared with former years. In 1814, it was 85,000l.; in 1815, 57,000l; in 1816, 43,000l.; in 1817, 34,000l.; in 1818, 29,000l.; in 1819, 30,500l.; in 1820, 29,460l.; in 1821, 28,860l.; and in 1822, 26,903l. Now let the committee consider what was the increase of duties in. the office since 1792. At that time the-whole of the half-pay amounted to 231,000l., which was paid to 4,707 individuals. In the present year, the whole amount, including allowances to wounded officers, was 1,503,000l., which was to be paid to nearly 20,000 persons. This, he thought, might account for the great increase of business in the office, and no one, after looking at this increase, would say that the office was ministerial. He would defy the hon. member to discharge the duties of the half-pay alone, with fewer clerks than those now employed. As to the charge of reduction, he would plead guilty to one thing—he had not reduced the salaries of the lower clerks, but he had diminished those of the higher, and he was certain that even this would not please the gentlemen opposite, who, for some reason or other, approved of nothing which was done by gentlemen in office.

Mr. Hume

declared himself unable to see where the great reductions had been made. It was true there was a diminution of charge of 1,908l. But there were offices with salaries from 1,800l. to 800l. a year; and therefore as the higher clerks were only reduced, such a saving was in- considerable. The pay-office as it was called, paid no money. A person might carry in his pocket all the money paid by that department. They met the demand upon them with a check. The right hon. member found fault with the term ministerial, used by his gallant friend; but in the reports of the finance committees the office was styled a ministerial office, with no control over the public expenditure. He was ready to admit that it was much better ordered since the right hon. gentleman presided over its administration. With respect to the trouble arising from the half-pay affidavits, was there not a form of affidavit always given to persons applying? When payments were to be made, the office, instead of being only open from eleven to two, ought to be open from nine to four, in winter, and longer in summer. The various operations through which an applicant for payment had to pass, certainly rendered it necessary to have a number of clerks. But where existed the necessity for that tedious process of passing from one room to another, and having something to do with at least six different clerks. One active person at the Bank, conversant with powers of attorney, would discharge the whole business. With respect to the prize money and pensions at, Chelsea Hospital, that had nothing to do with the Pay office. The right hon. gentleman was, he was aware, very diligent in his attendance, but he sat there not as the paymaster-general, but as the member of a board. He wished to know whether the simplifying of the public accounts was to extend to any other office but the Treasury.

The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution "That 4,580l. be granted to defray the charge of the allowance to the Judge Advocate General, his deputy, clerks, &c."

Mr. Hume

said, he was sorry to find there was no intention to bring back the salary of the judge advocate-general to any thing like what it was formerly. When it was remembered that sir C. Morgan held that situation for so great a length of time, at a salary of 1,300l. it was evident that 2,500l. in time of peace must be extravagant. He thought, that a salary of 1,500l. would be quite sufficient; and would therefore move, that instead of 4,580l. the vote should be for 3,580l.

The Solicitor General

observed, that office of judge advocate general was a patent place, and had been on its present footing ever since the Revolution. The duties had considerably increased since that period, and though in the time of sir C. Morgan no addition had been made to the salary, it was not because there was no reason for doing so, but because the large fortune of the individual rendered any addition a matter of no importance to him. But, to consider the question on its fair merits, the office was of the utmost consequence to the army. The lives, fortune, and character of military officers were, in a measure dependant upon the manner in which its duties were fulfilled. The hon. gentleman had said, that those duties were diminished since the peace; but the fact was, that the number of reports made to the advocate general had increased in a three-fold degree since the year 1811. In the course of the last year no less than 400 general courts-martial had taken place. The judge advocate general had to read all the proceedings, and to decide whether the evidence was legal, and according to the practice of courts of law. He had also to advise the commander-in-chief, and the secretary at war upon important occasions, and to afford his advice to officers stationed in the different colonies, upon various topics connected with the administration of military jurisprudence. If he discharged the duties of his office faithfully, not a single day could pass over him, many hours of which must not have been employed. No person could say, that the salary fixed by the administration of Mr. Grenville and Mr. Fox was too much. It was also to be considered, that the duties of the judge advocate for Ireland were now annexed to this office, and that no increase of salary attended this additional labour. The office of judge advocate for Scotland had been also abolished, and its duties were transferred to the judge advocate-general. All this had occurred since 1807, when the present rate of salary was fixed.

Mr. Hume

contended, that this was not a patent place, but an office from which the person holding it might be removed at the pleasure of the Crown. The learned gentleman had said, that the rules observed in courts of law were also observed at courts martial. He could as soon be persuaded that black was white, as that the duties of this office were as great in time of peace, as they had been in a period of war.

The Speaker

said, that as he had had the honour of holding the situation of judge advocate during a period of more than seven years, he might, perhaps, be permitted to trespass for a few moments upon the attention of the committee. He was not one who estimated the importance of an office by the salary attached to it; and, therefore, had the question been confined simply to a reduction of salary, he should have remained silent. It was utterly impossible to measure the difficulties of an office by the salary annexed to it—to take the dimensions of its responsibility by the 1,500l. or 2,000l. a year which fell to the lot of the person who held an office. But he was anxious that, to whatever decision the committee came, they should be guided by no counterfeit representations. Much had been said of the consequent diminution of duty by the change from war to peace. He could assure the committee, that the difficulties of that office depended in a very slight degree upon the number of court: martial. The hon. member for Aberdeen had, he thought, mistaken the spirit o the remark of the learned gentleman when he said that this was a paten office. The object of the learned gentleman was, not to spew, that it was therefore beyond the control of parliament, but simply to prove that it was at office of great difficulty, of extensive practice, and that the duties attendant upon it induced his majesty cautiously to consider the talents and the character of the individual to whom it was entrusted. I was not an ordinary office; it was on which gave to its possessor the privilege of demanding a private audience of hi majesty, on all those delicate proceeding which so frequently occurred before courts martial, and the publication c which might be attended with serious consequences. While he had the honour of filling that situation he had endeavoured to make all proceedings before courts-martial resemble each other inform, and to model all their investigations upon the strict rules of evidence. It was perfectly true, that these courts so admirably constituted for the particular end which they had in view, could not regulate their proceedings by the rules and practice of the superior courts; but it was the duty of the judge advocate to revise and reinvestigate these proceedings and to reduce them all to the strict rules of law; and whenever such a case came before him, he had invariably advised the Crown to decide according to the rule of law. With the assistance of a very valuable coadjutor he sifted the evidence, and ascertained whether it was legal or illegal, and upon that decision he invariably advised the Crown in the course to be pursued towards the accused. With respect to the duties of the office, he could say further, that during the first two years which he had filled this situation, he had not been absent from his office for the space of five weeks altogether, and at no one period for a single fortnight. There did not pass a single day during which he had not held conferences strictly confidential with the commander-in-chief, and with the secretary at war. It was superfluous to add, that the station was one of difficulty, delicacy, and continual occupation, and that it demanded great integrity because its possessor must secure the confidence of the army. If the committee deemed 1,500l. a year a fair remuneration for the conscientious discharge of those duties, they would vote for the amendment. But he once more protested against the formation of such a decision, upon the mere assertion that the duties of that office nearly ceased at the conclusion of the war.

The committee divided: For the Amendment, 18. Against it, 124.

List of the Minority.
Barrett, S. M.	Monck, J. B.
Creevey, T.	Palmer, C. F.
Chamberlayne, W.	Palmer, col.
Crespigny, sir W. De	Robarts, A.
Ellice, E.	Robarts, col.
Fergusson, sir R.	Bickford, W.
Hume, Joseph	Whitbread, S.
Hobhouse J. C.	TELLER.
James, W.	Bennet, hon. H. G.
Lushington, Dr.

On the resolution, "That 13,662l. 1s. 7d. be granted for the charge of the Royal Military College,"

Mr. Hume

asked, what was the reason for keeping up so large a staff at that establishment? There were a governor, a lieutenant-governor, a major, four captains, and so on; in short, the whole staff cost the country 6,000l. a-year, and merely for superintending the education of a few young men. Though there were now 290 cadets at the college, the whole number admitted into the army between 1816 and 1820 was 160. 'These young men had cost the country 115,280l., being at the rate of 720l. for each cadet. During the last year, out of the 290, there were 44 cadets who had got commissions; but the remaining 246 were still unprovided for. Now, he would ask, what reason there was for educating more than they could provide with commissions? By the routine of the college, one fourth of the number of cadets left it, every year; so that of the 70 thus 1eaying it, as only 44 were provided for, the expense of educating the remaining 36 was thrown away. Why, then, was not the number of admissions to the college limited to the number of commissions which could be given? He observed a nice little item of 2s. 6d. per day for the 290 gentlemen cadets. Why was this sum granted? He supposed for ho other reason than to put them under military law. The hon. member pointed out the impropriety of having 29 different professors to superintend the education of these 290 young gentlemen. The salaries of the governor and deputy-governor might be reduced without any detriment to the establishment. He should Move for the reduction of this vote by 5,000l., which would leave it 8,661l. 1s. 7d. He would not point out the particulars on which this reduction ought to be made, but would leave it entirely to the noble lord's discretion.

Lord Palmerston

said, the hon. member had acted most fairly in his opposition to this grant, for his argument did not so much tend to say that the establishment was too great a charge upon the public as to break it down by degrees altogether. The question, therefore, was, whether, as it was necessary to keep up a standing army, there should or should not, exist a place in which the officers of it could be properly qualified. He would not argue the necessity of professional instruction for military men, because it was evident, that unless the army was officered by gentlemen who knew the theory and practice of the art which they professed, the bravery of our soldiers would be quite ineffectual. If, then, it was necessary to have a college at all, the staff now employed on it was not too large. The students, from their particular age, being scarcely men, and no longer boys, were peullarly difficult to manage, and would become quite unmanageable, unless there Were some military men of rank and experience, to control them. The noble ford then contended that the admissions to the college were not more numerous than they ought to be; and defended the college, by a reference to a similar institution in the United States; that land of freedom, which, young as it was, could not exist without a standing army. What proportion did the committee think the number of the cadets in America bore to the standing army of that country? As 272, to 5,000; while in England it was 290 to 60,000.

After a short conversation, the committee divided: For the Amendment, 26. Against it, 75. The original resolution was then agreed to.

List of the Minority.
Bankes, H.	Lambton, J. G.
Barrett, S. B. M.	Aishington, Dr.
Bernal, R	Macdonald, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.	Normanby, vis.
Benett, J.	Palmer, E.
Birch, J.	Ricardo, D.
Blake, sir F.	Robarts, A.
Bright, H.	Robinson, sir G.
Bruce, R.	Webbe, E.
Crespigny, sir W. De	Whitbread, S.
Hobhouse, J. C.	Wilson, sir H. W.
Hume, J.	TELLER.
James, W.	Monck, J. B.
Jervoise, G. P.