SUPPLY.

HC Deb 02 April 1830 vol 23 cc1242-63

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.

Mr. Perceval

proposed that 8,933l., for defraying the Salaries of Officers in the Ordnance Departments at Woolwich during the year 1830, be granted to his Majesty.

Mr. Hume

said, he rose to offer a few observations which could no longer be of any use, since the vote upon which he proposed to touch had been already agreed to. The thrice-told tale about the Ordnance had now become very stale indeed; and from the recent vote, which decided upon the continuance of an unnecessary office, it was perfectly obvious that no reduction in this department was to be expected. He was now fighting in a cause altogether desperate; still he would trouble the House with a few words. There was one extraordinary thing to which he desired to call their attention. The expenses of the Ordnance Establishment, in 1796, were only 18,700l., while at present they amounted to 71,000l. It was also remarkable, that when there were four Lords of the Admiralty at 4,000l., there should be a Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance at 1,200l. a year, a Surveyor-general at 1,200l. a year, a principal Storekeeper at 1,200l. a year, a Clerk of the Ordnance at 1,200l. a year, and a Clerk of the Deliveries at 1,019l. a year. Government was, he thought, called on, if they had any regard to their professions, to make some reduction in this enormous expenditure. He would also, in addition to what he had before said, tell the House an extraordinary fact. In 1796 the Surveyor-general of the Ordnance had only fourteen clerks, at salaries of 2,01l.; at present there were forty-seven clerks at 14,034l. He could not see why there should be two establishments kept up—one at Pall-mall, the other at the Tower. He should be glad to know, what possible inconvenience could occur from removing the clerks from the Tower to Pall-mall? It could be done without any trouble, and with very little expense, while, by taking that course, a considerable saving would be made. Besides, it was important that all the members of any department should be together, since it materially tended to facilitate the transaction of business. On this ground, he did think, even leaving the important question of economy out of sight, that it was proper to have these different clerks under the same roof. Neither could he observe the utility of keeping up, at enormous salaries, two such officers as the Master-general and Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance, when the Lieutenant-general, by the account of Ministers the other night, did all the business, and the Master-general only assisted him. It was futile however to challenge this salary or that, when they saw a whole department in this way so mismanaged. He could see no cause whatever for laying out 6'0,000l. or 70,000l. per annum on a department which in 1797 only required 18,000l. or 19,000l. Neither could he conceive why the Government should manifest so much reluctance to accede to the recommendation of the committee which had inquired into all the facts. Notwithstanding all the additional expense imposed upon the country, the business was not better done now than it had been formerly.

Mr. Perceval

observed, that the speech of the hon. Member appeared to be entirely directed to the vote that had been carried the other night; and he thought that the hon. Gentleman must candidly admit that he had made but a rambling statement, from beginning to end. He therefore trusted that he should be excused if he did not follow him accurately and convincingly through every portion of it. The hon. Gentleman had compared the present state of the Ordnance with that of 17.96; but he must be aware that since that period an immense increase of business had been imposed upon the department. That was a ground, therefore, on which censure could not, with justice, be founded. The duty at the present time was increased,—it was trebled; and he would ask, could those who were at the head of the department prevent it from being so increased? The whole subject had been gone into with great detail by his right hon. friend (Sir H. Hardinge) in his evidence before the Finance Committee; and the expressed opinion of his right hon. friend was, that in reality a great saving had been effected. The hon. Member had compared the establishment of the Ordnance with that of the Navy; but he seemed to have forgotten that the former department, in many respects, had much to do on account of the Navy department; all which ought to be taken into consideration. The whole of the Colonial business, as far as garrisons and artillery were concerned in particular, had been thrown on the Ordnance department since the year 1823. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the duties of the chief clerk in the office of the Surveyor-general. That individual had been in the service for fifty years; his exertions had been most meritorious; his salary was not more than commensurate to his labours; and on his retirement, his allowance would be reduced to 900l. With respect to the removal of the office from the Tower to Pall-mall, that subject had not been overlooked by the Board, and a calculation had been made of the expense that would be likely to follow on such a step. The result of this calculation was, a conviction that no saving would accrue from the measure. Without considerable buildings to the right and left of the present office in Pall-mall, the thing could not be accomplished at all. If such a proposal as this were to be introduced to the House, he should like to know whether the hon. Member would support the Estimate, and pronounce an eulogium on the principle. It was proved before the Finance Committee, that the expense of the buildings at present was about 1,600l. a-year; but if the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman were attended to, it would, he believed, be necessary to increase the expense very much. With respect to the reduction of the Master-general's salary, if the hon. Gentleman would make a motion on the subject, no doubt it would be properly met.

Mr. Poulett Thomson

remarked, that in the Estimates there were four clerks at 550l. a year, and six clerks at 400l. a year in the Surveyor-general's department, in all forty-seven, and he could not conceive that there was a necessity for such a number of clerks, or for them to have such large salaries as at present.

Mr. Lennard

said, he wished to know whether there was any estimate of the expense that would be incurred by removing the clerks to Pall-mall; for at present the question appeared to be one of expense only? The right hon. Gentleman, in his evidence before the Finance Committee, seemed to favour the supposition that the removal itself would be expedient. He was also of opinion, that the business might be done at a less expense.

Mr. Maberly

said, there was no reason whatever—notwithstanding the assertions of hon. Members opposite, who seemed to think that these two offices possessed some repelling power—why they should be kept separate. A removal as to the Store-department had already taken place; then why not in this case also. It was in every respect improper, that two establishments, which related to the same department, and ought to be under one roof, were thus divided, Letters were continually sent to and fix because the two parts were separate. The Finance Committee, in looking at this question, had proceeded on principle; for what should they think of any other department—the Treasury, for instance—if one portion of it were carried on at the Tower and the other at Pall-mall? He, therefore, like the committee, looked upon the question as one of principle, which respected the mode of conducting public business, rather than of economy, though that was also a mutter of great importance. What, then, was the reason why the establishment so hung to the Tower? Because the officers were afraid that they would have to give up their residences without remuneration; and the same feeling prevailed at Pall-mall. Would any one pretend to say that there was not ample room for all the clerks at Pall-mall if the building was properly disposed? But if a room forty feet square was given up for a waiting-room, no wonder sufficient room could not be found.

Sir Henry Fane

said, he was unwilling to trouble the House, but he was obliged to do so by the observations of the hon. member for Dover, relative to the clerks in the Surveyor-general's office. Looking to the various duties which were to be performed, forty-seven clerks were not too much; and he could assure the House that all of them were occupied. It had been said, on a previous evening, that the only business of the Ordnance was to superintend the cutting of jackets and the contracts for pipe-clay: with respect to his own department, he begged to say that the duties were much more serious and important. The details of business connected with the barrack department were very numerous. He had to examine accounts of almost all business which could be named, and even of much which could not be named in that place. With respect to the enormous amount of salaries, all he could say was, that the gentleman to whom allusion had been made had been in the service for more than fifty years, and had always shown himself a most meritorious officer.

Mr. Hume

said, there were many general officers who had served equally long, and who did not receive a third of the pay; therefore either the one was over-rated, or the other under-rated. At the same time he was bound to say, that no department could be in better order; and as to the individual, he appeared to be as fit as possible; and if the union and consolidation which he had introduced had been adopted by the Board, he thought that the whole department would now have been in much better order. As regarded the barracks, two good clerks were sufficient to do the work, for all they had to do was to see that the barrack-masters did their duty; and they had no more to do with the stores than he had, further than to see that the returns were correct. He wished to know how many clerks there were at Pall-mall, and how many at the Tower? Then they should be able to judge whether the division of the officers or their union would he the most expensive, He likewise wished to know what was the calculation made as to the expenses of removal?

Sir Henry Fane

answered, that in his department all the clerks were at the Tower. He could assure the Committee that it would be a convenience to every member of the Board to have all the clerk brought together; but the question of expense had been looked to. The offices at the Tower were admirably suited to the purposes required; the Secretary of the hoard was the only officer that had a residence.

Mr. Hume

, would recommend then that all the gentlemen should be sent to the Tower. If the Tower could not he brought to Pall-mall, then Pall-mall must be sent to the Tower.

Mr. Perceval

observed, that according to the calculation, there would be an expense of l,560l. a year for compensation for dwellings, exclusive of 200l. a year to the Secretary, and of the loss to the Board for the rent of the house which he inhabited. The total expense would be 2,200l. besides the charge for removal. To this was to be added the expense for new buildings, for the rooms at Pall-mall were not sufficient to receive the clerks from the Tower.

Colonel Sibthorp

said, it was his intention, not having understood that the votes on the salaries of several clerks had been passed, to have divided the House on almost every one of them. He thought, in the present state of things, and looking to the great and growing distress of the time, that these clerks were too well paid, when their remuneration was compared with that of the really hard-working classes of society. Therefore it was his wish to divide the House on these votes. There was no less than 44, 138l. voted to clerks, certainly not to men the whole of whom did actual duty. Here was one clerk with 1,100l. a year, another with 1,000l. a year, whose duties were performed by deputy clerks. They drove about in their carriages, and indulged in every species of luxury, while the people were in a most deplorable state of distress. Here was 1,100l. a year voted to one clerk,—oue would suppose a private clerk, for he was never heard of at all,—and he had also perhaps half-pay. When he contrasted his situation with that of an unfortunate wretch who was sent out to Siena Leone on 90l. a year, or with that of a Lieutenant-colonel of fifty years' standing, who only received 200l., he could not avoid reprobating so unjust and unfair a system. When the report was to be brought up, he should certainly, if the hon. member for Montrose did not, oppose its being received.

Sir H. Hardinge

thought, that the salary of 1,100l. a year to Mr. Angell was by no means too much, considering the length and value of his services. He had been the cause of considerable saving to the public, by means of his vigilance and activity; and if he had been all these years in a mercantile house instead of the Ordnance, there could be no doubt that by this time he would have been a man of very large property. Since the war, 277 clerks had been reduced, and a saving effected to the country of 47,000l. a year.

Colonel Sibthorp

had not intended to question the respectability or abilities of these gentlemen; but he thought that the state of the country called for reduction.

Colonel Trench

said, he could bear testimony to the merits of those individuals. There never was a more admirable or efficient body of public servants. He contended also that the offices at the Tower and at Pall-mall could not be dispensed with.

Mr. Lennard

wished to see the salaries of the principal officers reduced, and not that of the clerks, who did all the duty. He regretted that the office at Pall-mall was not yet abolished.

Sir H. Hardinge

thought the discussion quite superfluous, as the vote for those offices was passed.

Mr. Maberly

was of opinion that the subject was yet open to discussion. There was not sufficient business to employ both the offices at Pall-mall and at the Tower, and they ought to be consolidated. With very little trouble the house at Pall-mall might be made to contain all the Ordnance offices. The real reason why neither of these establishments was done away with was, that the gentlemen at the Tower would not go to the office at Pall-mall, and the gentlemen at Pall-mall would not go to the Tower. He hoped another year would not pass without one or other of them being compelled to change their residence. As to Mr. Angell he was quite ready to bear his testimony to the efficiency and value of that gentleman's services. A more intelligent and able officer did not serve his Majesty. He was ready to bear the same testimony also to the conduct of Mr. Stacey, the Clerk of the Stores, and he was anxious to sec the marine store and barrack department placed under his management. There were other consolidations which he knew might, without much difficulty, be made, if that gentleman's recommendations were followed, by which a considerable saving would be effected. He could not conceive, for example, why the Marine barracks should not be placed under the same department as all the other barracks. He considered—and he supposed the gallant officer would not on that account call him illiberal—the civil department of the army to be much better paid than the military; and though he was ready and willing to admit the great merit of individuals in the former department, he thought many of them were too well paid, and that they were much too numerous. Many of them were, he thought, unnecessary and even useless. The consolidation of the two offices would make this more apparent, and would enable the Government to dispense with the services of several gentlemen: he must therefore repeat his wish that the recommendations of the Finance Committee should be attended to, and the offices consolidated.

Sir G. Clerk

having been in the Ordnance, and having still the misfortune to hold office (though this might make him a suspected witness in the estimation of the hon. member for Cumberland), felt himself called on to give his opinion. He admitted, that if they had then to form the offices in question, they might be conveniently consolidated; but at present there were two buildings for the two offices, neither of which would be sufficient for both. It would not be possible to collect all the members of both these offices either at the Tower or at Pall-mall, without erecting additional buildings. If the office were to be removed to the Tower, the whole of that must be remodelled to provide convenient offices; and what would the hon. member for Aberdeen say, if the Ministers were to ask for a sum of 30 or 40,000l. to construct the necessary buildings? By such an alteration the country might save 400l. or 500l. a year at an expense of 30,000l.

Mr. Hume

was willing to drop that subject, though he had heard no reason why the two offices should not be consolidated; but he should like to know if the sum of 14,000l., charged for the management of the Ordnance at Dublin was never to be decreased? Was that to be a permanent charge?

Colonel Peel

was as anxious as any man to reduce the salaries of officers, but he must hear some more convincing arguments than had been urged by the Gentlemen opposite, before he could vote with them. Sometimes they complained of the salaries of the inferior clerks being reduced too low, and now they say they are too high: when those hon. Gentlemen became consistent they might perhaps command his vote.

Mr. Hume

was not aware of the inconsistency alluded to by the hon. member for Norwich, though he must admit that it would be very inconsistent in him ever to expect that hon. Member to vote with him. Passing by the hon. Member and his observations, however, he wished to know if 14,000l. per annum was to be paid for ever for the inspection and taking care of a few stores at Dublin.

Mr. Perceval

could not hold out any hope of reduction in that particular. The salaries of the officers were fixed a few years ago; the office could not be dispensed with, the whole of the barracks and ordnance stores of Ireland being placed in charge of the office at Dublin. It had also a continued correspondence with the chief office in London. Unless the hon. Member were to sweep barracks and all the establishments for the army out of existence, he could not sec how these various offices of inspection and account could be dispensed with.

Mr. Hume

wished also to inquire, if the office of Inspector of the manufacture of gunpowder at Feversham was to be continued. He admitted that gunpowder must be had, but he doubted the utility of the means the Government employed to procure it. The inspector had a house at Feversham, the manufacture was at Waltham Abbey, the office of accounts was at Pall-mall, and the store was at the Tower. Were these the ingredients for manufacturing gunpowder?

Mr. Perceval

could give the hon. Member a satisfactory answer on this point; the office was to be done away, and arrangements to carry that into effect were in progress.

The vote of 8,933l. to defray the expense of Salaries, &c. at Woolwich, was then agreed to.

The next question was, that a sum of 87,464l. be granted to his Majesty, to defray Salaries and other expenses of the several Civil Establishments of the Ordnance at home and abroad, to which

Mr. Hume

objected, on account of it being extremely inconvenient to vote all the items included under that sum together.

Mr. Perceval

said, that the items were all set forth in the Estimates. The expense for the stations at home and abroad were kept distinct, and the total of all the stations was the sum of 87,464l., for which a vote was asked.

Mr. Hume

was aware of that, but the arrangement was inconvenient, because some Members objected to one item and some to another, and either they were compelled to forego all opposition or to vote against the whole sum, which many did not like to do. In his opinion the votes for the home and for the foreign stations should be taken separately.

Mr. Perceval

reminded the hon. Member that the present Estimates only differed from those of former years by the expense for the Irish barrack-masters having been brought under the head of Ordnance-stations. The home and foreign stations had always been placed together.

Sir John Wrottesley

gave the hon. Gentleman credit for the best intentions, but he must call his attention to the inconvenience of the arrangement. The vote was for 87,464l., and his hon. friend intended to take the sense of the House on the expense for the home station, for which the charge was 17,443l. Perhaps he only objected to a single item of that, amounting to 700l., and if he moved that the vote be reduced by that sum, all those who thought as be did would vote for granting 86,000l. and something more, and would thus be precluded from objecting to many other items, which they were perhaps desirous of opposing.

Sir Henry Hardinge

said, that the change had been made in the Estimates, he believed, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Callington, and in obedience to what was understood to be the wish of Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House.

Mr. Perceval

had no objection to divide the votes to suit the convenience of hon. Members.

Mr. Maberly

was of opinion, that the Ordnance stations should be separated from the Barrack-masters' expenses.

Mr. Hume

suggested that the hon. Member should move for a vote for each item as it was placed in the Estimate.

Mr. Perceval, instead of moving for 87,464l. would move, therefore, for 46,076l. the expense of the Ordnance stations at home, abroad, and in Ireland.

Mr. Hume

thought, that the vote was open to all the objections which had already been made to the other, and he should move as an Amendment, to substitute for this the sum of 17,430l. for the expenses at home, leaving out the stations in Ireland, and those abroad.

On the Question being put on the Amendment,

Mr. Lawley

said, that was probably the most convenient time for him to bring a subject under the notice of the Committee, on which he had previously presented a Petition from the town of Birmingham. He wished first to express his opinion, that the plan of manufacturing arms by the Government was an injudicious one. It was a sound principle of political writers that a Government should not undertake to manufacture for itself. It never could hope to inspire its servants who were paid by a salary, with that zeal and exertion which were dictated by individual interest; and, therefore, it was at all times better that it should buy what it wanted than attempt to make it. An example of the consequence of acting on the opposite principle had lately fallen under his notice: 10,000 musket stocks, of the manufacture of the Government, had lately been sold for 5½d. a piece, which could not have cost the Government less than 5s. or 6s. a piece. If individuals were to carry on business on such a principle, they would speedily be ruined. He was prepared, as he meant to oppose the vote for the establishment for manufacturing arms, with a statement of its cost and profit, which, though very imperfect, he would submit to the Committee:—The whole charge for the establishment was 9,849l., and the work done at it was estimated at 11,240l.; making a profit, as was supposed, of 1,400l. But he was informed, by several respectable manufacturers, that they would have been happy to execute the same work for 8,000l. thus realizing not a profit, but sustaining a considerable loss. As to the establishment which it was his object to see reduced, he must say that he did think it an immense loss to the public, and when he should be in possession of those returns for which he intended to move, he pledged himself to the House to show that that loss was to an amount such as would make it the grossest dereliction of duty if the House permitted it to continue. There was no greater public abuse than the whole of that establish- ment, and he trusted that the Government, in accordance with the disposition it had recently manifested, would continue its plans and practices of retrenchment, and would put an end to that wasteful expense. The Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into that and other subjects connected with the Ordnance Department, had most correctly represented the Government establishment for the manufacture of arms as leading to outgoings, such as placed it far below what it ought to be, and what it would be, were it in any other hands. He would ask what were the objects of Government in creating such an establishment as that at Enfield? One was to produce an increased supply to meet the increased demands; but in creating that establishment they shut themselves out from the benefits of competition, and from the abundance of capital and abundance of workmen which the employment of individual manufacturers would enable them to command. As to the fears of combination, he could not but regard them as perfectly visionary; for facts had shown, that no combination could live, if the contracting party thought proper to exert that power which always resided in him. It was equally unwarrantable to suppose that the supply would not always answer the demand—it had always risen with the demand. If the Government, by forming that establishment, wished to increase the supply, there were two modes in which they might have effected that object—one was by employing workmen already engaged in the trade of manufacturing arms, the other was by bringing into it persons from other trades. The latter mode they had adopted to some extent; but he must say, without that success, as respected the country, or that advantage to the workmen, which might have been anticipated. Many had been decoyed away from their previous employments, who afterwards found it necessary to enroll themselves in the army. Thus was the public service inefficiently performed, and the manufactures of London and Birmingham discouraged. He need scarcely inform the House that a system such as that led to expostulations on the part of the manufacturers, and they obtained from Government a pledge that every practicable encouragement should be afforded to the manufacturers of Birmingham—and what ensued thereupon? nothing more than a single order for 350 rifles. As a great boon, they solicited the Government to try if they could not make as good articles as those which the workmen in the public employment were capable of executing, and from that hour to the present they received no reply. There was a fact which he had now to mention, and which had excited no small alarm—it had been ascertained that his Majesty's Government had proposed to the East India Company to have their supply of arms at Enfield instead of at Birmingham; now that was not only a direct violation of the pledge previously given, but was altogether one of the most unwise and unjust proceedings that could be adopted. It was asked, what could the advocates of the Birmingham manufacturers require, when the Government had already so many hundred thousand stand of arms fully prepared? With such a supply on hand, how could it be expected, it was asked, that any further orders could be given? In reply to that, he begged to be permitted to observe, that if money were at all to be expended for such a purpose, he thought it might as well, if not better, be applied to sustain that vigour in our manufactures—he should rather say to preserve that basis for them—upon which they might rest during their term of adversity, and from which they might arise whenever circumstances became more propitious. He did request and beseech the House not to discourage the skill and industry of their native manufacturers, and on that subject he must be permitted to make an observation—to paraphrase what was said relative to quite a different matter. He believed that there was perfect truth in the assertion that the first, second, and third duty of a Member of Parliament was—economy, economy, economy. That was their first duty; but they had another duty, at however long an interval it might be placed, and that duty was, to support and encourage the trade and manufactures of the country, and so lay a foundation for the gratitude and confidence of the people; and he had not the slightest hesitation in asserting, that to abolish the establishment at Enfield would be the first step towards obtaining the approbation and giving support to the manufacturers of Birmingham. He concluded by moving, as a further Amendment, that instead of the sum of 17,432l. for the purposes stated in the original Motion, the sum voted should be 16,778l.

Upon the Question being put,

Mr. Perceval

wished to explain, as far as he could, the principle upon which the establishment at Enfield was kept up. As must be well known to the House, it was originally founded when the supply of arms was entirely unequal to the demand. In the years 1779, 1794, and 1795, the supply of arms was most insufficient, and hence arose the necessity of Government forming an establishment for its own purposes. It was contended that the Government could not manufacture upon as cheap terms as the regular manufacturers. Now he would not discuss the general principle; but for the information of the Committee he would just mention a few facts—he would leave others to decide upon the philosophy of the matter. In the year 1812 the price of the musket—the barrel of the musket he always begged to be understood as speaking of—cost 13s. The effect of the Government establishment was, to reduce the price from that sum to 8s. 10d., and thence to 7s. 2d. In 1,246,259 muskets a saving of 98,658l. was effected. This was a stubborn fact, the reconcilement of which with the theoretical dogmas of political economists, he left to the adepts in that branch of philosophy. It had been asked, why did not Ministers leave the supply to competition, which, it was added, would ensure cheapness as well as excellence? The answer was, that arms were a peculiar manufacture, the demand for which depended so much on contingencies that no regular outlay of capital could be expected on it. The manufacture of gun barrels was exclusively confined to Birmingham, and to the neighbourhood of that town. If, therefore, the Government were to follow the advice of the hon. Member, which seemed to be only the opinion of the Birmingham manufacturers, it would place itself entirely at their mercy, and would be exposed to all the risks of their combinations. As a further proof of the utility of the present system, he would mention the case of Sir William Congreve's gun-sights. When they came into use the price of each was 8l. 5s. 8d., and by the exertions of the Government artificers to manufacture them the price was reduced to 3l. Making rifle barrels afforded another illustration of the same fact. That branch of business was esteemed a great secret confined to one or two manufacturers, and the consequence was, that the Government paid for each barrel 18s. After it undertook to manufacture them itself, the price was brought down to 8s. 6d. These were all facts, and he wished only to state facts. He must, therefore, press on the Com- mittee the propriety of keeping up the establishment at Enfield, not only as securing the present supply at a cheap rate, but as ensuring a cheap supply whenever the demand should suddenly increase. He trusted that the Committee would be of his opinion, and resist the Amendment.

Mr. Littleton

hoped the Committee would support the Amendment, and thereby express its reprobation of the erroneous, and unjustifiable, and extravagant policy pursued by the Government, with respect to the supply of an article which should be left to the free competition of skill and capital. He admitted the general merit of the Ordnance Department, but in this instance he thought it acted on improper principles. This was confirmed by an admission made before the Finance Committee, that during the war we had been obliged to bring arms from abroad. When the hon. member, the Secretary to the Ordnance, attempted to justify his policy by the fact that the price of arms had fallen since 1812, the date of the Government establishment at Enfield, he seemed to forget the far greater fall of prices which had taken place within the same period in all kinds of manufactures and articles of commerce. Had the supply of arms been, as it ought to be, left to competition, their price would be much lower, and the public be considerably a gainer. This would appear the more manifest if the price of commodities now, as compared with that in 1790, be considered. Bolt-locks, to take one manufacture in the iron trade for an example, which sold in 1790 for 2s. 6d., were now sold wholesale for 1¼d.; a lock and key might be obtained for 1½d. or1¼d., and so with other articles. Then, as to supply, the fact that one manufacturer alone threw off a musket a minute during a war demand, rendered a formal refutation of the hon. Secretary for the Ordnance's argument on that score unnecessary. There was one point which the hon. member for Warwickshire, (Mr. Lawley) had referred to,. which he knew created great alarm at Birmingham, he meant the proposed sale and demolition of the Proof-house, which was taken as a sign that the Government contemplated henceforward supplying all its wants by its own servants. If that were the case, he should think it had broken its contract with the people of Birmingham. He hoped the Committee would support the Amendment, and thus shew that it was opposed to the policy of Government being a manufacturer.

Mr. Perceval

admitted the great general reduction of price mentioned by the hon. Member, but the fall in the price of gun-barrels was so coincident with the establishment of the Government manufacture, it taking place very shortly before 1812, that he could have no doubt that it ought to be attributed to that establishment. The Government reduced the prices of the contractors by proving to them that it could manufacture cheaper than they charged.

Mr. Alderman Thompson

thought the hon. member for Warwickshire had made out a case which demanded the support of the Committee. He saw no reason why the Government should keep up its establishments at Enfield and Lewisham, to the injury of the good understanding between the Government and the manufacturers. The trade at Birmingham in this branch had been very dull since 1815, and when there was a little improvement in 1818, the Order of Council, prohibiting the exportation of arms, interposed and put a stop to it. He was of opinion that the Government could always buy cheaper than it could make, and therefore he should certainly vote for the Amendment.

Mr. Maberly

said, that Government would always find it better to depend on public competition for what they wanted than to manufacture on their own account. This vote, therefore, concerned a great principle in the management of public affairs. He was fully persuaded that such establishments as those at Enfield and Lewisham,—if all they cost were laid before the public—would be found very expensive. He should like to see the real outgoings of such establishments compared to the value of the work performed at them, and he believed, if such accounts were laid before the House, of all the articles manufactured by the Government, it would be found that they cost five, six, or even some of them twenty times as much as they could be bought for ready made. The Government establishments had their store-keepers, their chapels, their chaplains, their surgeons, their inspectors and sub-inspectors, all of whom had retiring allowances, and ought to be included in the cost of the manufacture. From these charges the private manufacturer was quite exempt, and to him, therefore, it seemed beyond all doubt a most unwise policy in the Government to be a manufacturer.

Mr. Whitmore

entirely concurred in the opinion of his hon. friend. He was persuaded that the Government establishments did not promote but retard improvements. The way for the Government to proceed if it wished to convince the House of the utility of its establishments was, to produce the accounts of their cost, and of the value of their produce as suggested by his hon. friend who spoke last.

Sir H. Hardinge

said, there were only four articles manufactured by the Government, and these chiefly with a view of putting down that competition which, during the war, had raised prices upon the Treasury. It had a manufactory of small-arms, by which it had reduced the price of that article very much. It manufactured gunpowder, and had saved by that, 300,000l. during the war. The Ordnance Department was also obliged to manufacture brass cannon for its own use, because that article was not made for general consumption. The Ordnance, in point of fact, did not interfere with the manufacturer. It might sell eight or ten thousand stand of arms every year, which had been partly used, but rather than do so it incurred a loss: the barrels of the muskets were shortened and repaired, and they were then transferred to the naval service. It would be impossible to send articles of that bulky description to Birmingham to be repaired, and for that purpose, if for no other, an establishment was necessary. He would recommend the hon. member for Warwickshire to seek a conference with the Master-general of the Ordnance, who would most probably be able to satisfy him that he had formed very erroneous opinions on this subject.

Sir J. Wrottesley

said, that this plan of preventing combination would be ineffectual, as on a sudden emergency of war, the workmen would themselves combine against their employers in these Government factories. The observations made on the prices of articles, as compared with the prices in 1812, must be fallacious, because that price was altogether an artificial one. Nothing was better proved by experience than the fact that the Government could not manufacture as cheaply as it could buy. Besides, Government manufactures discouraged trade, and damped the ardour of enterprise in individuals. By the latest version which had been given of the utility of the manufactory at Enfield, it seemed to be kept up in order to shorten soldiers old muskets for the use of the Navy. Now this was, in his opinion, an idle recommendation of that establishment, for water-carriage cost so little that these muskets might be sent to Birmingham for a mere trifle. Prices there were so low, that the public would, he believed, be benefitted by the sending. At present, in that place one dozen curry-combs, thirteen to the dozen, might be bought for 1s. The mere circumstance of fuel being at Birmingham, when it must be brought several hundred miles to the Government manufactory, was decisive as to the advantages of Government, employing the private manufacturer living on the spot. He contended too upon principle, that it was wrong in the Government, which obtained its means from the people, to set about competing with its own subjects, beating down, because its own resources were unfailing, the prices which individuals ought to obtain. As to the utility of the Government having a proof-house in its own establishment, the proof-house at Birmingham was as complete as possible, and was conducted on the safest principles. He should support the Amendment of the hon. member for Warwickshire.

Mr. Lawley

stated, that he already had had a conference with the Duke of Wellington, in company with a deputation from the gun-makers, but no benefit had resulted from it; and he was afraid that none would result from any appeal to the Government as long as it held to the opinion that it was able to manufacture cheaper than individuals.

Mr. Perceval

did not contend that the Government could manufacture cheaper than individuals; but at a cheaper rate than they charged the Government. The establishments were useful, therefore, in keeping down the prices of the private manufacturers. As to sending muskets to be repaired at Birmingham, the expense of carriage would be more than the expense of cutting them down.

Mr. Hume

did not support this Amendment out of any regard to a particular place; but on the broad principle that the Government ought to buy at the cheapest market. He did not object to these establishments that they were merely useless; but they entailed an endless expense for retiring allowances, and superannuations for clerks, and quartered an army of assistants and supernumeraries on the public.

Sir Ronald Ferguson

was in favour of Government keeping the manufacture of arms under its own eye. He had seen, while in the field, quantities of arms made at Birmingham rejected as useless. The soldier too was obliged to keep his arms in order after he received them, and he had known a private put to the expense of 10s. or 12s. to keep a Birmingham musket in repair. It was necessary, therefore, for the Government to keep up its establishment at Enfield, to ensure the supply of a superior article as well as keep down the price.

Mr. Attwood

thought it was more likely that the arms the gallant General had seen rejected had been manufactured at En-field than at Birmingham. He should like to see the vouchers for the 98,000l., which the hon. Member said the Government had saved in the manufacture of muskets.

Mr. Perceval

.—That was effected by reducing the price, and bringing about an alteration in the mode of making the contracts.

Mr. Attwood

.—That saving was made by expending about half a million of capital, raised by taxes on the people, so that the people paid to enable the Government to compete with themselves, and drive down their proper rewards; they derived no benefit from the Government plan.

Sir Ronald Ferguson

explained, that at the period he alluded to, muskets were not manufactured at Enfield, and those he spoke of had the Birmingham mark.

Mr. Attwood

admitted, that at the breaking out of the war the manufacturers of Birmingham were not so expert as they afterwards became.

Mr. Littleton

also observed, that since the period the hon. and gallant General alluded to, a proof-house had been established at Birmingham, and the whole manufacture was as well carried on as possible.

The Committee then divided, when the numbers were, for the Amendment 40; Against it 80;—Majority 40.

The vote for the sum of 17,432l. for the expense of Salaries, &c. of the Civil Establishments of the Ordnance on the Home station was then agreed to.

The next vote was, "That a sum, not exceeding 28,744l, be granted to his Majesty for defraying the Salaries of the Civil Establishments of the Ordnance in Ireland during 1830."

Mr. Jephson

inquired whether the offices of Naval and Ordnance storekeepers in the neighbourhood of Cork might not be consolidated. There was one at Cove, and another at Ballyncollig, ten miles from Cork, and one, he thought, might be spared.

Mr. Perceval

replied, that such a consolidation would be impossible, as the duties of the respective offices were essentially different. One belonged to the Naval department, and the other to the Ordnance.

Mr. Hume

saw no reason why stores of all kinds might not be kept by the same person, provided only the premises would permit. The Finance Committee had recommended the principle of consolidation. By the Returns it appeared that there were ninety-eight Ordnance stations; forty-six in Great Britain, seventeen in Ireland, and thirty-five abroad. The committee not having local knowledge of all these places, could not decide on the propriety of keeping up one in preference to another; but it recommended that the Government should endeavour to diminish the number of stations. He saw, from the Estimates, that there were three or four storekeepers kept in the same place, one looking after a few barrels of powder, and another watching over a few casks of beef, and both rejoicing at the folly of Government in keeping them there, at comfortable salaries, doing nothing. He should like to know what attention had been paid to the recommendation of the Finance Committee by the Ordnance Office, and how many stations had been diminished.

Sir H. Hardinge

denied that the Finance Committee had come to any definitive resolution on the subject, though he knew that the Committee adopted consolidation as a principle, and recommended it generally. Both the Duke of Wellington and himself had explained before that Committee, that the charge of the Ordnance and the Naval Stores at the same station could not be placed under the same person. The Ordnance and the Barrack departments had been consolidated, but it would be impossible to have the Naval and Ordnance stores, at Cork for example, under the same management. The question had been discussed at great length in the Finance Committee; consolidation had been carried into effect as far as possible, and he saw no utility in renewing the discussion at that time.

Mr. Maberly

admitted that the Finance Committee had not come to any resolution on the subject, but he reminded the gallant officer, that it recommended the reductions of stations generally. For his own part he saw no reason why the Ordnance and Naval stores might not be placed under the care of one person, and if the gallant Admiral would confer with the gallant General, if the Ordnance would give up its patronage in one place, and the Admiralty its patronage in another, he had no doubt a great many useless places might be done away, and a great saving effected.

Mr. Robert Gordon

thought, in opposition to the gallant General, that the Committee of that House was the proper time and place to discuss the subject. There was a storekeeper at Cork, another at Cove, and a third at Ballyncollig, four miles from Cork, and he should like to know why the stores at these three places might not be taken charge of by the same person, even supposing that it would not be convenient to have them collected on the same spot.

Sir Henry Hardinge

did not mean to imply that a Committee of Supply could not discuss the question, but to state, that as it had been discussed in the Finance Committee, and as there were great doubts how far the Ordnance Department could take charge of stores for the Navy, he did not suppose the Committee of Supply could discuss it with advantage. As to the three storekeepers mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, there were large buildings at Ballyncollig, which required the care of a responsible person. Cork was an important station, whence troops were embarked for the West Indies, and being four miles distant from Ballyncollig, required a storekeeper and other officers. Again, Cove was eight miles from Cork, and these stores were kept for the men-of-war which frequented that port. If Ballyncollig could be moved to Cork, and Cork carried down to Cove, one storekeeper might serve, but while there were stores and buildings at the three places to be taken care of, he did not see how that could be done by one person. He would only further observe, that by the evidence given before the Finance Committee, it appeared that the number of storekeepers in 1828 only exceeded by three the number in 1792.

Mr. Hume

observed, that the Finance Committee being informed that there were ninety-eight stations came to this resolution, "That the number of stations appears great, but this Committee is not competent to give an opinion how far any of them can be reduced; they therefore recommend the Ordnance Department to institute an inquiry, in order to see what reductions can be made." He wished to know, whether or not that recommendation had been attended to.

Mr. Perceval

said, two deputy storekeepers had been reduced, and the work of reduction was going on.

Mr. Hume

would next remind the Ordnance Department, that Enfield and Waltham Abbey were close to each other, and yet there were separate storekeepers, and deputy storekeepers at each. The one at Waltham Abbey had a salary of 625l., his deputy had 304l. a-year. The storekeeper at Enfield had 350l. a-year, his deputy had 200l. These storekeepers, he understood, lived within a few yards of each other. In his opinion, one person might supply the place of all these four.

Mr. Perceval

explained, that the individual who was storekeeper at Waltham Abbey was, for many years, at Ballyncollig, and had a right to some situation. He was a gentleman of great merit, and yet he would not undertake by himself to be wholly responsible for the works at Waltham Abbey. His services were valuable, but if he retired he would be entitled to the whole of his salary. The storekeeper of Enfield certainly lived at Waltham Abbey, but he did not sec any difference which that made, when his services were necessary, as he could assure the hon. Member they were, to that establishment.

Mr. Hume

repeated his statement, that reductions ought to be made, but as he would, above all things, avoid granting superannuations, he would not press for them.

After some controversy relative to the distance of the station of Ballyncollig from Cork, the vote was agreed to.

A sum, not exceeding 41,388l. was granted to defray the Salaries of the Barrack-masters and Serjeants at home, abroad, and in Ireland.

A sum, not exceeding 5,390l., was also granted to defray the Salaries of Master-gunners, in Great Britain, Guernsey, Jersey, and in Ireland.

The Report brought up, and ordered to be received on Monday.