ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.— (Hansard, 14 March 1823)

Mr. Ward
said, that before he moved the Ordnance Estimates in the order in which they were usually voted, he should merely observe, that there was a diminution of expenditure in every item except one, in which there was an increase of 776l. beyond the sum voted last year. He should confine himself, at present, to stating the several items, with the amount of diminution. In the ordinaries the sum was 460,334l., being 13,102l. less than the sum voted last year. The extraordinaries were 269,464l., being 23,279l. less than last year. Under the head of unprovided, there was a small increase of 776l. Under the head of superannuated military, the sum was 318,152l., being 1,599l. less than last year; under that of superannuated civil, the sum was 50,074l., being 1,478l. less than last year. For Ireland, the sum was 90,313l., being 6,316l. less than last year. The whole sum required, was 1,109,000l., being 45,000l. less than last year. From this sum there were to be deducted 38,000l. small savings upon various items of the extraordinaries for 1820 and 1821, and 91,000l. for the presumed sale of old stores, land, &c., making a total of 129,000l., being 85,000l. more than the credit for last year; and the sum to be voted this year was, therefore, 130,000l. less than the total of last year. He then moved, "That 48,027l. be granted for the expense of the Establishments at the Tower and Pall-mall."

§ Mr. Hume
declared, that a reduction of 4 per cent upon the whole cost of the ordnance department was not such as the country had a right to expect. With re- 598 spect to the grant before the House, he objected that arrangements, so long since recommended by the commissioners of military inquiry, had not yet been carried into execution. As for the board of ordnance, he looked upon it to be quite as great a fallacy as the sinking fund; nor did he see any symptoms of a return to the standard of 1796. What could be the use of separating the two establishments of the Tower and Pall-mall, when a considerable saving might be effected by uniting them? Why should twenty persons be employed as porters, doorkeepers, or messengers? He objected to the great freedom used in giving gratuities, often equal to the amount of the salaries received.

§ Mr. Hume
objected to the unnecessary expense of the establishments at Waltham Abbey and Faversham, which had cost the country 150,000l. in the last ten years, and where little or no gunpowder had been manufactured. The inspector of gunpowder had been appointed since the peace, and lived at Faversham, where no gunpowder whatever was made.

Mr. Ward
said, it was true that the manufacture of gunpowder was no longer carried on at Faversham; but that establishment was continued because there were facilities at Faversham, which there were not at Waltham Abbey. The reason why the inspector lived at Faversham was, that there was a house at that establishment, and not at Waltham Abbey. With regard to the laboratory, be thought that the House would not object to the trifling expense of that establishment, while there was a prospect of accomplishing the ingenious projects which his hon. friend (sir W. Congreve) had conceived, of regenerating damaged gunpowder, in all cases in which it had not come into contact with sea-water.

§ Mr. Hume
said, it appeared to be the system that, in every place, the clerks and officers should get palaces, without regard to the expense which they cost; and, unless the house should compel them to sell off the whole of these unnecessary palaces, such would continue to be the system. He had in his hand a list of no fewer than 485 of these houses.

§ Mr. Hume
said, he would not repeat the objections he had offered last year to this item of charge: but should move, as an amendment, that the sum be reduced 15,000l.

Mr. Ward
adverted to the inexpediency of lessening the number of such a corps of officers as the artillery, who were obliged to go through a regular course of education and science to qualify them for their profession. He had the authority of the duke of Wellington against any reduction of officers.

§ Mr. Hume
said, he attached no importance to what the duke of Wellington might say on such a subject. The noble duke had said, that there was not a man more than was necessary for the service; and yet, notwithstanding this declaration, he had discharged to the right and left. He would not give a fig for such authority. He did not propose, by the present reduction, to deprive the regiment of either men or science. He merely proposed to effect a saving, by a different mode of brigading.

Mr. Ward
said, the noble duke had stated, that he could not do with a man less on the then estimates; but had added, that he had prospective views of reduction. These views he had since carried into effect.

List of the Minority.
Bennet, hon. H. G.	Lambton, J. G.
Bernal, R.	Leader, W.
Blake, sir F.	Monck, J. B.
Browne, D.	Poyntz, W. S.
Caulfield, hon. H.	Robarts, G. J.
De Crespigmy, sir W.	Robinson, sir G.
Denison, W. J.	Scott, J.
Duncannon, visc.	Smith, W.
Evans, W.	Warre, J. A.
Farquharson, A.	Webb, E.
Guise, sir W.	Whitmore, W. W.
Hume, J.	Williams, T. P.
Hobhouse, J. C.	Williams, W.
James, W.	Wyvill, M.
Jervoise, G. P.	TELLER.
Lamb, hon. G.	Ricardo, D.