§ Sir George Clerkthen addressed the Committee, but in consequence of the low tone of voice in which he spoke was frequently inaudible in the gallery. He was understood to say, that had it not been for the observations which had just fallen from the hon. Member for Cumberland, he should have confined himself to a simple enumeration of the number of men and the amount of wages which would be wanted for the 1123 service of the Navy in the course of the present year. In consequence, however, of the hon. Baronet's having withdrawn his motion upon the understanding that he should state all the arrangements which had recently been made respecting the Navy, he should proceed to state the redactions which had been made in the estimates for the naval service of this year, as contrasted with the estimates for the naval service of last year. He would commence by stating that the salary of the Treasurer of the Navy was this year 1,000l. less than it was last, and was thus reduced to only half the amount of what it was in the year 1797. The Committee, he trusted, would bear in mind that the last time when any discussion took place respecting the expedience of retaining this office was in the year 1826, when a proposition was made, to increase the salary of the President of the Board of Trade to 5,000l. a-year. It was suggested that it would be better to make the salary of that officer 2,000l. a-year, and unite with it the salary of the Treasurership of the Navy, 3000l. a-year, that office being generally held, as it then was, by the President of the Board of Trade. Mr. Tierney, who had been Treasurer of the Navy, was the person who had first made that suggestion. After agreeing that 5,000l. a-year was not an over-payment for discharging the offices of President of the Board of Trade and Treasurer of the Navy, he proceeded to say, "that he could by no means concur with those who thought that, the office of Treasurer of the Navy should be abolished. It was an office of very old standing, of considerable public importance, and of great personal responsibility to the holder. He had held the office, and speaking from the recollection of twenty-three years back, he could assure the Committee that it was by no means a sinecure; on the contrary, it was one which required no inconsiderable degree of care and attention." From this opinion the honourable Member for Montrose dissented, although he did not seem to think the office useless, for he proposed, as an amendment, that an inquiry should be instituted to ascertain if any and what alteration could be made in the office and salary of the Treasurer of the Navy. He did not propose to abolish the office. His amendment led to an almost unanimous expression on the part of Parliament that the office should not be abolished, but that 1124 the salary should form part of the emoluments of the right hon. Gentleman who then held the situation of President of the Board of Trade. From these circumstances he could not help supposing, that the objections which the hon. Baronet felt to the late mode of filling up the office of Treasurer of the Navy arose from his imagining, as that office was attached to another high and responsible office, that it was in itself a sinecure. He would, therefore, remind the hon. Baronet of one or two facts, which might, perhaps, induce him to alter that opinion. In the year 1817, the Treasurer of the Navy had a salary of 4,000l. a-year, with a house and other advantages worth 700l. or 800l. a-year more. In that year the Committee of Finance presented a Report, in which they stated, that they considered the salary paid to that officer as much too large, and recommended a reduction on any future appointment to that office, so as to place it on a level, in respect to emolument, with the Paymaster of the Forces. In compliance with that Report, the emoluments of the office were reduced under the administration of Lord Goderich to 3,000l. a-year, and Government now proposed to reduce it by another 1,000l., thus leaving it at 2,000l. a-year. He assured the House, that the Treasurer of the Navy had other duties to perform besides that of paying the bills and orders drawn upon him by the Commissioners of the Navy. He had to take charge of, and was responsible for, all money paid or payable upon seamen's wills and powers. The Committee should understand, that the duties of the office had been considerably augmented, in consequence of two Acts recently passed; the first of which transferred the whole management of the out-pensioners of Greenwich Hospital to the Treasurer of the Navy, and the other imposed upon that officer additional duties relating to prizes. Last year an Act was passed for altering the constitution of Greenwich Hospital, and the business that was formerly transacted there, was now performed by five commissioners, of whom the Treasurer of the Navy was president. The Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests was another commissioner of this Board, and both he and the Treasurer of the Navy executed their duties there gratuitously. It was the intention of Government to abolish the office of Pay- 1125 master of the Navy as soon as a proper opportunity occurred, and to transfer the duties of that office to the Treasurer of the Navy, which would be an additional saving of 1,200l. a-year. Thus it appeared that in consequence of the arrangement which had been made, there was an immediate saving of 1,000l., and there would be an ultimate saving of 2,200l. In other public departments reductions to a considerable extent had been effected. Two commissioners of the Navy Board had been reduced. The reductions made with respect to the public departments in London would have been much greater had it not been for the transference from Greenwich Hospital of a great number of clerks to the office of Treasurer of the Navy. In the course of the ensuing year, however, their number would be considerably reduced, and a further saving under this head would be apparent in the next estimates. In the department, of the Dock-yards there was a saving this year in the salaries of officers of 28,000l. This saving had chiefly arisen from the reduction at Deptford dock-yard, which would no longer be used as a place for shipbuilding, but only as a depot for stores for the supply of the fleet. With respect to the wages of artificers, there was this year a saving of 21,000l. as compared with last year. The sum of 450,000l., now charged for artificers' wages, included the charges for small craft, lighters, &c., which were formerly placed under the head of Ships in Ordinary. It had frequently been objected that Government maintained a greater number of artificers than was necessary. It was impossible to deny that more artificers were retained than full employment could be found for. It was the intention of Government to reduce their number; but the reduction was delayed for the present on account of the great distress which necessarily would be created in the neighbourhood of the naval arsenals by the discharge of any considerable number of men, at a time when there existed such difficulty in procuring employment. Government, however, had effected a reduction by abolishing the allowances which were granted to the artificers thirty years ago in commutation of an abuse which then existed. It was formerly the perquisite of the artificers in the dock-yards, to carry away as many chips as they could. It therefore happened that, during the last hour of their 1126 stay in the yards, they employed themselves in collecting their chips into bundles, instead of pursuing their labours. In 1801 this practice was commuted for an allowance of 6d. per day to shipwrights, and 4d. and 3d. per day to other workmen. The men had been informed that this allowance would be discontinued, and they knowing that they were only retained in employment from motives of humanity, gratefully acceded to the proposed reduction. He ought to state, however, that 450 artificers had been wholly discharges from Deptford, Under the head of stores a small increase would be apparent; but this arose from the transfer of various miscellaneous items to that head. Under the head of foreign dock-yards also there was an increase of 14,000l., which could easily be accounted for by the events of the last year. The next head under which there had been a material reduction was that of the wages of men in ordinary. The reduction there was 40,000l. In the half-pay there was this year a saving of 19,000l. It had frequently been made a subject of complaint that there existed no restriction on promotion in the navy. With a view to remedy that evil, the Admiralty had lately come to a resolution, that no promotion should take place in any rank except in proportion of one promotion for three vacancies. The admirals on foreign stations had the power of filling up vacancies occasioned by death or the dismissal of officers. With that patronage it was not intended to interfere further than this — the admiral would, in future, be allowed to fill up only one vacancy, but not those consequent upon it. For instance, if a captain died, the admiral might appoint a commander to his situation, but he could not, as at present, promote a lieutenant to be a commander, or a midshipman to be a lieutenant. He had no doubt that this restriction would soon have the effect of reducing the amount of the half-pay. There appeared to be an increase in the superannuation account, which arose from an alteration that had taken place in the mode of providing for the deficiency of funds for the support of officers' widows. It had formerly been the custom to enter on ships' books a number of names as the representatives of efficient men, and the wages which were paid to these supposed men were transferred to the fund for the payment of widows' pensions. These fictitious 1127 men, or widows' men, as they were called, were now abolished, and the whole sum required for the payment of the pensions was voted at once. This branch of our expenditure was constantly increasing. During the present year the number of widows put on the list was three times as great as that of those who died. The question whether pensions should be continued to officers' widows after their re-marriage was at present under consideration. In the sum required for provisions there was this year a material reduction. He now begged to call the attention of the Committee to the reductions which had been made in the navy estimates during the last nine years. It was frequently asserted in that House that Government had made no reduction at all. He would show what had been the reduction in salaries alone since the year 1821. Since that period there had been reduced in the Admiralty 14 officers, whose salaries amounted to 7,015l.; in the Navy Pay-office 24 officers, salaries 10,800l.; in the Navy Office, 37 officers, salaries 12,000l.; in the dockyards, 468 officers, salaries 88,630l.; in foreign yards 29 officers, salaries 36,000l.; in the Victualling Office, 48 officers, salaries 8,000l.; in the victualling yards, 37 officers, salaries 5,280l.; in the medical department, eight officers, salaries 3,600l. This reduction was equal to a third of the whole amount of the expense of the establishments on which it had been effected. It could not be said that these reductions had been confined solely to persons holding inferior situations, because the number of persons reduced was in proportion to the sum saved, namely, a third of the whole. Last year, the number of men voted for the service was 30,000l.; but in the course of last autumn, the situation of affairs in the Mediterranean rendered it necessary, in the opinion of the Government, materially to increase our force in that quarter. The consequence was, that the number of men at the present moment exceeded 32,000; but owing to recent events, orders had been sent out to recall the greater part of the additional force which had been despatched to the quarter he had alluded to. A considerable time must elapse before the men could be brought home and paid off, and therefore it was impossible to take the average number of men for the present year at less than 29,000. The wages proposed for seamen were at the same rate as those proposed in 1128 the Estimates of last year. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the first Resolution, "That 29,000 men be employed for the service of the present year, including 9,000 royal marines."
Sir J. Grahamsaid, he did not think the hon. Baronet had made out a satisfactory case for the recent appointment to the office of Treasurer of the Navy. The hon. Baronet said it was intended to retain both the offices of Treasurer of the Navy and the Paymaster, until an opportunity occurred for abolishing the latter. That seemed to be an admission that both the offices were useless. In his opinion, the Treasurership of the Navy might have been attached to some other office held by a privy councillor, by which the entire salary would have been saved. The recent junction of the offices of President of the Board of Trade and the Master of the Mint, afforded a precedent which might have been followed with regard to the office of Treasurer of the Navy. He did not however intend to enter at length into discussion on the point. He would take an opportunity of consulting his friends around him, and if he perceived that he was likely to be supported, he would on some future occasion, before the vote passed with respect to the Treasurer of the Navy, move the resolution of which he had given notice.
§ Sir G. Clerksaid, the aggregate amount of the Estimates was 5,595,000l., and the aggregate saving, as compared with last year, was 282,939l.
§ Mr. Humethought the whole establishment most extraordinary, and considering the changes that had been made, the Estimates appeared to him nearly the same as last year, and the deductions were upon the large items. When he considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that it was almost the unanimous opinion of the Finance Committee that the payment of the Marines and Navy, and of all the officers of both should be consolidated, the vote was brought forward in utter disregard of that Committee, The hon. Baronet had said that great deductions had taken place since the war, but he (Mr. Hume) asked, were they not to expect deductions as soon as the country was in a state of peace? Notwithstanding the great credit which Ministers took to them- 1129 selves for their economy, the Mouse was called upon to vole estimates exceeding, by 400,000l., that which was voted in 1821 and in 1822. No objections had been made on that side of the House to the artisans of the Naval Establishment, except the practice of keeping them only three days at labour, instead of during the whole week. The general complaint of that side of the House, and of the country at large, had been directed to the large amount of the Civil Establishment of the Navy. With reference to what had been said upon the subject of promotions, he would ask, why was one single promotion allowed, when they had 5,000 naval officers, and were not able to employ one third of them? Government had no sympathy whatever for the Royal Marines, not an individual of that corps was promoted, except when a general promotion took place. Government was partial to one class of officers, because this afforded then) an opportunity of promoting their friends and relations, and to support a system of corruption in that House. Every frigate carried on board an extraordinary number of young men; and consequently, numbers were pressing on the Government for promotion. They would never beat down the 6,000,000l. of pensions, unless they came to a resolution of allowing no pensions at all except to disabled persons. Could the antipathy of all classes to the system of pensions be wondered at, when in the paper he held in his hand, there appeared such names as Dundas and Bathurst palmed on the country for pensions of 500l. a year. Was not this enough to make the poor rise and say, "No more of this — we are starving?!" Admiral Shield and Admiral Cunningham had double "pensions of 450l. and 500l. each. He could show the hon. Baronet that this was the case [here Mr. Hume read the printed paper corroborating his statement]. He hoped the members would show themselves alive to such gross abuses, and not suffer another pension to be granted until a committee called each individual before them, and pronounced whether he was a fit object for a pension. Persons as fit for service as he, had two or three allowances. One of the greatest improvements that could be made in our system would be to put an end to all pensions and to all allowances. He now came to consider the vote in the Chairman's hands. In his opinion Ministers had no reason to congratulate 1130 themselves on the reductions which they had made in these Estimates. As large a sum was charged for the superintendents of the workmen as for the workmen them-selves. Nothing could be more extravagant. What he wished to ask was, whether we were at peace or at war? Let that question be distinctly answered, and he should understand what we were about. Taking it for granted, however, according to his Majesty's declaration in the Speech from the Throne, that we were at peace with all the world, he would then say that the proposed vote was much too large. Let the Committee consider what our peace establishment had been in former years. When in the Finance Committee the question of numbers was agitated, the majority determined that the Committee had nothing to do with that question; although it had been said in the, House, that the Committee was appointed for the purpose of determining that question. If his Majesty's Government would come forward and make a fair and honest exposition of the relative situation of this country to other states, and of the real prospects which existed of maintaining peace, the question might be better dealt with; but the House was kept in the dark on that subject, and yet an establishment was kept up as large as if for war: it was difficult at present to guess for what purpose. In 1821 and 1822 the number of seamen and marines voted for the service of the year was 21,000. In one subsequent year, 1,000 men were added, on the pretence of the state of South America; in another year another 1,000 men was added, on account of the Burmese war; and so the estimate went on increasing until 1827, when it amounted to 30,000 men. It was then asserted that when the causes of its increase had ceased it would be reduced. What prevented the estimate now from being carried back to the state in which it was in 1821 and 1822? Was there anything in the condition of South America to prevent it? Was there any Burmese war to prevent it? In 1792 the whole number of men voted for the naval service was only 16,471, including 4,000 marines: so that the number of seamen was little more than 12,000. At present, the num-per proposed was 29,000, being 13,000 men more than in 1792; and yet let the Committee consider what the situation of England was in 1792 with regard to other naval powers, when compared with her 1131 situation at present. In 1792 the naval power of France, of Spain, of Holland, was much more formidable than at present. The only naval power that had risen since that period was the United States of America. According to the opinion of a most competent judge, whom he had consulted on the subject, 1,000 seamen and marines would be amply sufficient for the West-Indies (where we had now 2,347); 1,000 for South America; 685 for the Cape of Good Hope; 765 for Africa; 800 for North America; 6,750 for Home Service; 2,672 for the blockade; 600 for the Mediterranean, &c. &c. making in the whole 20,750. Why not throw in another 1,000 and reduce the proposed number to that amount? Why keep up 5,000 more marines than were necessary? The marines at present employed were 9,000; in former times they were only 4,200. At least a reduction of 4,000 might be made with great advantage. The expense of the officers nearly amounted to a third of the expense of the men; the charge for the former being 71,000l., that for the latter, 245,000l. The pay of the superior officers of the marines was enormous. That of a General was 1,728l.; that of a Lieutenant-General was 1,303l.; that of a Major-General, 1,037l. Now as all these individuals were naval officers, and had other appointments and emoluments, he would ask why might not their pay as officers of marines be reduced? He should be told that the commissions in question were given to meritorious persons; but he would repeat that those persons had other things to depend upon. As to the officers of marines, properly so called, God knew that their promotion was very slow, and that their advantages were very limited. They ap-appeared to be utterly neglected by Government, and the only prizes in their profession to which they might aspire were given to naval men, who had nothing to do with the marines. These were all matters which demanded revision and reduction. On the whole, he repeated his conviction that the number of marines might be advantageously reduced by 4,000 men. He could show from the evidence of an hon. and gallant Officer opposite to him, given before the Finance Committee, that the naval establishment in time of peace might be reduced to 21,000 or 22,000 men. That number would be 6,000 more than we had in 1792, and would be equal 1132 to what we had in 1821. He was anxious to hear what reasons could be assigned for not reducing the number to that amount. If his Majesty's Government were engaged in considering how to make further reductions, he would give them the opportunity of doing so, by merely moving as an Amendment, that the number of men proposed should be voted, not from the 1st of January, 1830, to the 1st of January, 1831, but from the 1st of January 1830, to the 30th of June 1830.
§ Sir G. Cockburnbegged, as his evidence had been referred to by the hon. Member, to say a few words. The House must recollect that the hon. Member had said the same thing last year; and he had then been answered as now, that it was an unfair mode of stating that evidence. The question put to him was, what would be a proper peace establishment for the navy? He replied, that it was almost impossible to give an answer to the question, for it depended upon so many circumstances. Being then pressed by an hon. Member on the Committee to say something on the subject, he stated that he must know the exact state of things; that if we were at perfect peace without the slightest prospect or chance of war, and no power interfering with our commerce or any chance of it, he did not think we ought to have a man-of-war on the sea. The remark was, that that was not a proper thing; and then, at the request of the Committee, he had stated what he had thought was the lowest establishment for each station. That was the manner in which the evidence had been drawn from him; and he again said that it was unfair to use it as the hon. Member had done. Looking around, the Committee could not consider the country in a state in which his answer had supposed it. War had just closed between Rio Janeiro and Buenos Ayres, which had interfered with our merchants, who were still applying for a force to protect their trade on the South American station; and although the Burmese war had indeed closed, there were rising settlements in New Holland which required a naval force to protect them. With respect to doing away with half of our Marines, he (Sir G. Cockburn) had never argued that the number of Marines now voted was absolutely required. But they constituted a most valuable corps, and it was desirable to have such a body ready for duty in case of war, instead of taking raw men, who 1133 would be sea-sick. When the war of 1793 broke out, a part of the army had been obliged to embark instead of marines, whereby the army was disorganized, and the men were so sea-sick, that if an enemy had been met with, it would have been much better to have thrown them overboard. It should be recollected that the Marines were double-handed men, and half manned the ships, as well as did duty on shore. He hoped the House would not think of reducing them, and would vote the whole number asked, which was as small as was consistent with the service of the country.
§ Sir G. Warrender, even on the principle of economy, could not concur with the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) in his proposition for reducing the Marines, although there were other points in the Estimates on which he should agree with him in voting for a reduction. With respect to the Treasurership of the Navy, after a resolution passed by the House on the 12th of February, "that it is the opinion of this House, that in all the establishments of the country, civil and military, every saving ought, to be made which can be effected," he had not expected to see that office separated from other duties, for the first time, when a new writ was moved for Radnor a few days after. When he (Sir George Warrender) first came to the House, the Treasurership of the Navy was filled by Mr. Rose, who, though he disbursed 19,000,000l. of the public money, executed also the office of Vice-president of the Board of Trade; and any person recollecting that period, must remember the activity of Mr. Rose. The duties of these two offices might easily be executed by one individual, with a saving of 3,000l. to the country. He (Sir G. Warrender) concurred with the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) in what he said with respect to the pensions to young gentlemen after three or four years' service. He could say, however, for a young friend of his (Mr. Dundas), that he had been a very efficient member of the Navy Board, and it would be proper that he should be restored on a vacancy. As to Commissioners Shield and Cunningham, they had been long in the public service, and no pensions were more properly bestowed than those they enjoyed. With respect to the vote before the Committee, he was of opinion that, on grounds of economy, and on all the other grounds assigned by the gallant officer (Sir George 1134 Cockburn), it was a wise measure to maintain a large proportion of Marines.
§ Mr. Laboucherefelt considerable difficulty in voting upon this question on the spur of the moment, and without the opportunity of sufficiently investigating the Estimates. He could not go so far as the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) in contending that no pensions should be granted to public servants. He was not surprised, however, at his proposition, considering the extravagant principles acted on by the Government; though he could not concur in it. As to the example of America, he (Mr. Labouchere) had conversed with sensible men of that country who lamented the system, and he (Mr. Labouchere) had witnessed the most discreditable scenes in consequence of the adoption of that system. Individuals had retired from the public service into beggary. He disapproved of the American system with respect to pensions, which had been frequently commended by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, and was far from desiring its introduction into this country: at the same time he wished to have no pensions except such as the House might be disposed to grant. As he thought the reductions were not such as the country had a right to expect, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen.
Mr. Maberlywas desirous of noticing one point with respect to the superannuations, which amounted to 500,000l. and would entail a debt of 6,000,000l. on the country at twelve years purchase, so that we were debtors to the Pension List to that amount. He was anxious to call the attention of the House to so grave a subject, so that we might have an opportunity of reducing this enormous charge before it proved too late. He opposed the system—not individuals; but he must ask, why an individual (whose name had been mentioned), who had only served the country three or four years, stood on the Pension List at an allowance of 500l. a year for life? Would the country support that? If so, never could we anticipate, with, any prospect of its being carried seriously into effect, the permanent reduction of a single shilling of taxation. It was useless to make any further struggle for economy or retrenchment; the House might as well let Ministers do what they pleased, if it allowed these superannuations to remain untouched. He thought his hon. friend the Member for 1135 Aberdeen fully justified in the Amendment he had proposed, as to the period for which the grants were to be voted. When we came to deal with numbers, it belonged to Ministers to say in what state the country was,—whether we were at war or peace. As yet, we had had nothing but an incidental statement from the gallant officer opposite, who was not a responsible person in such matters; no Cabinet Minister had made any statement as to what was the real situation of the country; yet the House was called upon to vote 29,000 seamen and marines, in the absence of all information calculated to enable hon. Members to judge of the number actually necessary. His hon. friend only called on the House by his Amendment to suspend its vote till some Cabinet Minister came down and made out a case calling for a particular amount of force. In 1817 the Finance Committee recommended 19,000 seamen and marines as a proper force: what were the circumstances which required that 10,000 more should now be kept up? Hon. Gentlemen opposite could not make out that more than 3,000 or 4,000 additional men were necessary beyond the Estimate of 1817. Allowing the correctness of their reasoning, that addition to the force of 1817 would make 23,000, yet we were asked to-night to vote 29,000 men. If an objection were made to the Marines, the gallant officer opposite said, "Oh, we must have marines, for soldiers will be sea-sick and useless." Well, if Government chose to keep up a large force of Marines, why not make them more available to the army and reduce the army? It was said that marines did garrison duty: perhaps so; but they were not rendered so useful as they might be (assuming for argument's sake that we wanted so many of them), and no reductions were made in the army in consequence of their services. But he contended that the country could not possibly require one marine for every two sailors; and yet these were the relative proportions of the two descriptions of force. No doubt it would be said that the numbers now proposed were necessary; but he asked why require 10,000 men more than were recommended by the Finance Committee of 1817? Till that question was answered, he should be justified in voting for a reduction of the force now proposed; but without going so far, he supported his hon. friend's Amendment, which he considered an, extremely 1136 proper one, because, if adopted, it left the House an opportunity of dealing with the subject at a future time. If the men were voted for six months, there would be plenty of opportunities for Ministers to come down and make an explicit statement as to the state of the country. They might soon find themselves at liberty to speak out on the subject, and state that it was necessary our establishments should be kept up as at present; or they might soon, perhaps, see the necessity of reduction.
Mr. Peelsaid, that he always felt pleasure in communicating any information he could, consistently with the proper performance of his public duty as a Minister of the Crown. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down wished Government to make out a case for the increase in the number of men in the naval service in 1830, as compared with the number in 1817. It would be admitted that it might not be consistent with the interests of the country for Ministers to state in detail the particular reasons of a given increase in a particular year. Was it not obvious that there might exist reasons connected with our naval power, which would justify an increase in that department, and at the same time dictate silence on the subject? However, so far as his duty permitted, he would give the information required. The hon. Member took the year 1817, and asked why in 1830 should our naval force amount to 29,000 men, when in 1817 it was fixed at 19,000? This question imposed upon Government the task of accounting for an increase of 10,000 men. In 1830 we had 3,000 marines more than in 1817. The House had discussed the policy of keeping up an effective establishment of marines, and it appeared to be admitted that there was something so peculiar in the constitution and character of that force, that it was necessary to keep it up in its present state, if we wished to have an effective Navy. The Marines at present amounted to 9,000 men, of whom 4,500 were afloat, and 4,500 on shore. These divisions alternately replaced each other, and each thus became qualified for the full discharge of the peculiar duties of such a force. The 4,500 who remained at home were occupied in mixed naval and military duties; and it appeared that even those who were ashore were only two nights out of three in bed; so that their duties were not trifling. He felt the full force of observing principles of econo- 1137 my in time of peace as far as was consistent with the public safety; but he asked, whether we were not adopting a large and wise economy, and adding to the chances of continued peace, by keeping the naval power of the country in a good and effective state? Without saying any thing of the jealousy of other powers, and giving them full credit for peaceful intentions, he declared it to be his opinion, that the consciousness of a country's strength would be to rivals and opponents the best incentive to peace. We were called upon to adopt a decided tone in our foreign policy: how could we do so, except we were prepared to act, as well as to speak if necessary? There was a peculiar reason why, even in reference to the maintenance of peace, we should keep up our navy, and be prepared to make vigorous demonstrations if necessary. If a country were called upon suddenly to build and man ships for war, it was admitted that two years must pass (and those the most valuable and important years in a naval contest), before she would be able to defend herself with effect from a vigorous adversary, or to attack an opponent with advantage. Under the head of Marines, he had accounted for an increase of 3,000 men in our naval force of the present year as compared with 1817. He might here observe, that since 1817 events had occurred in the Mediterranean which were not foreseen at that period, and which consequently were not then provided for. He would add, that our naval force must partly depend upon that of other powers: and that last summer Russia had six sail of the line, France six or seven, and England eight sail of the line in the Mediterranean. Surely our proportion was not too much for a great maritime power to maintain under such circumstances. It was not too much when it was considered that Russia had assumed a belligerent aspect towards Turkey. But Government had taken the earliest opportunity of reducing its force, as far as it could consistently with the public interest and safety. In the last summer (although the Government had asked for only 30,000 men for the navy) it was necessary to employ 32,000. Thus the actual reduction of men in the present Estimate was not merely a reduction to 29,000 from a previous force of 30,000, but from 32,000, giving an actual reduction of 3,000 men in the department of the navy. The squadron in the Mediter- 1138 ranean would account for an addition of 5,300 men as compared to the force of 1817; 5,300 being employed in the Mediterranean in the summer more than at the beginning of the year. Adding this increased force of 5,300 to the 3,000 marines, he accounted for an increase of 8,300 in 1830 above the estimate of 1817. Then came the whole of the coast-blockade, which did not exist in 1817. It was perfectly true, that the coast-blockade was not to be considered as merely belonging to the navy—it was a guard against smuggling, and was prepared to perform a double service should it be required: in any exigency the men of the coast-blockade would man our ships. The coast-blockade accounted for an increase of 2,200 men; which, added to the preceding items, gave an addition of 10,500 (so accounted for) to the force of 1817. It only remained to mention the Packet-service; which was, however, merely a transfer from the Post-office to the Admiralty. It accounted for an increase of 700 men in the navy. We had thus an increase in the present year, as compared with 1817, of 11,200 men fully and satisfactorily accounted for; and Government might have fairly added to the navy by that amount; but so great an increase had not been made; a reduction of 1,200 men was made in some other respects, so that the total increase of 1830 upon 1827, amounted in the naval department to 10,000 men: the difference between 29,000 at the present, and 19,000 at the former period. Looking at the events of the last two years, at the station which we ought to hold as a maritime power, at the occurrences in the Mediterranean, at the dissensions in South America, which might by possibility affect our colonies, seeing the collisions between South American vessels and our own, looking at the war between Brazil and Buenos Ayres, at the fact of the new States of America not always adhering very scrupulously to the legitimate laws of warfare, of which they were partly ignorant, to which they were, perhaps, partially indifferent, looking at the nature of the warfare carried on there, considering all these things, it did seem necessary to have a strong naval force to control excesses in one quarter and observe the issue of events in another. If Gentlemen were aware of the repeated complaints made at the Admiralty, they would think that an increase in the navy was less to be deprecated than a 1139 decrease, which would not afford sufficient protection to our trade and commerce. All these circumstances made out a prima facie case for an increase of our naval force. He should not go further into matters of detail, as his hon. friend only proposed a vote for the number of men upon that occasion. Neither did he wish to fight a by-battle upon other matters, as had been done by hon. Gentlemen opposite. When the question came on as to the office of Treasurer of the Navy, he should be able to show that no censure could be justly cast upon Government, notwithstanding the motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland, He trusted that the hon. Baronet would persist in his vote of censure upon Ministers, of which he had twice given notice, in order that they might take the sense of the House upon it. It would then be seen if Government deserved public reprobation for making an immediate saving of 1,000l. a-year, by separating the offices of President of the Board of Trade and Treasurer of the Navy, and for arranging a prospective saving by these means of 2,200l., by doing away with the contingent salary of Paymaster of the Navy. He could not refer to the alteration without regretting the opportunity that gave rise to it. It increased the attachment and regret which he felt for his right hon. friend the late President of the Board of Trade, when he recollected that it was by his assiduous attention to the discharge of his public duties and labours that his health became unfortunately reduced to that state which rendered it impossible for him to continue longer in office. A man of his experience, activity, and talents, found himself by the labour of the two offices of President of the Board of Trade and Treasurer of the Navy, such a victim to over-exertion and anxiety, arising out of his attention to the duties of them, that he was obliged to press upon his colleagues, against the will of every one of them, the necessity of his retirement. He could not conceive a more powerful proof of the necessity of separating those two offices, as Government had done. Nothing could have been more easy for Ministers than to fill up the offices as before. If they had done so, there would not have been one word of complaint, but they separated the offices because the joint labour was too great, and because they wished to effect a public saving. He hoped when the House came 1140 to take into consideration the hon. Baronet's motion, that it would take a liberal and enlarged view of the subject, that it would recollect what had been the consequence, within the last few years, of subjecting public men to excessive labour and exertion. As a proof of the spirit of economy which actuated the Government, he should mention that the Comptrollership of Army Accounts had become vacant by death, and, instead of showing a wish to appoint any body to the office, Ministers allowed it to remain vacant, thus effecting a considerable saving for the public. He might also take this occasion to state a circumstance which reflected infinite honour upon the present Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. That noble person, taking into consideration the amount of the salary of his high office (27,000l.), and that it had been raised since 1797, as he assumed, in consequence of the increased price of articles of consumption and the diminished value of money, of his own accord submitted a proposition to Government to reduce his allowance from 27,000l. to 20,000l. a-year, making a reduction of 7,000l. per annum upon the salary of one office alone. [hear, hear.] Under such circumstances he trusted, when the House came to dispose of the vote of censure upon Government to be proposed, and which had been twice postponed, by the hon. Baronet, that they would bear in mind the reductions that had been made, the whole course of policy adopted by Ministers, and above all, that they would not forget, whatever was the amount of expenditure of the present year, that Government had manifested no disposition to retain any part of the expenditure connected with patronage.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed disposed to taunt him for postponing his motion: he would shortly state his reasons for its postponement. When he first heard of the appointment of Mr. F. Lewis, he was forcibly struck by the discrepancy between the resolution proposed and carried by Ministers, as an amendment on his own motion, and their conduct in disposing of the Treasurership of the Navy. The resolution of Ministers was, "that it is the opinion of this House that in every establishment of the State every saving-ought to be made consistently with the due performance of the public service, and without the violation of existing engagements;" this was agreed to on the 12th of 1141 February, and on the 15th the appointment of Mr. F. Lewis took place. It was clear that there were no "existing engagements" between Government and the right hon. Member for Radnorshire, for he was in his place on the 12th of February (which he could not have been if he had been newly appointed treasurer of the Navy,) and voted on the Motion. As to the public service, he denied that it would be benefitted by the change. The question was, could not a public saving have been effected by adding the Treasurership of the Navy to the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to that of first Commissioner of Woods and Forests, or to the Vice-presidency of the Board of Trade? Again, he said the right hon. Secretary taunted him with postponing his motion on the subject; he assured the right hon. Gentleman (notwithstanding the explanation offered on the subject) he pledged himself that the sense of the House should be taken on the question. The right hon. Gentleman might be justified in calling on him to bring forward his motion, but he should not have called it "a vote of censure" upon Ministers. What he promised to do was, to bring forward a resolution condemnatory of the mode in which the office of Treasurer of the Navy had recently been filled up. He did not say that he was prepared to propose a vote of censure. The right hon. Gentleman would permit him to judge when he should move a vote of censure on Ministers. Perhaps the time was near, but whenever he thought fit to do so, he should not take the right hon. Gentleman's advice as to the time or mode of doing it. Considering that the Bosphorus and Dardanelles were in the possession of Russia,—that France was arming in the Mediterranean and the Channel, that the fate of the ministry of Prince Polignac was now upon the balance, that it was supposed to be tottering to its fall, and that it was a cabinet which was generally supposed (right or wrong) to have emanated from the influence of the British Government,—viewing all these circumstances, and looking at our foreign policy and relations, he was not prepared to vote for a reduction of men in the navy; but was nevertheless for voting the present estimates only for six months, by which time he hoped that, according to the favourite phrase, all the clouds that now overhung 1142 the horizon might be dissipated, and when the real nature of our foreign policy, now studiously concealed, might perhaps be explained. Perhaps the hon. Baronet opposite would answer these simple questions. It had been stated that since June 1821, 150,000l. had been saved upon salaries; but he now asked the hon. Member what had been the amount of superannuations since that period? And with respect to the superannuation, allowances granted to two sons of Cabinet Ministers, he asked whether they had not been made on account of offices from which the holders were re-moveable at pleasure?
Mr. Peelsaid, he had never presumed to advise the hon. Baronet on the subject of his Motion. The hon. Baronet twice gave notice of his intention to move a resolution condemnatory of the mode in which Government had filled up the office of Treasurer of the Navy; and after hearing the explanation offered to-night in reference to that transaction, the hon. Baronet still persisted in his resolution, and pledged himself to bring the question before the House: let the hon. Baronet do so. He repeated, he gave the hon. Baronet no advice on the subject: he only expressed a hope that the hon. Baronet would persevere in proposing a resolution "condemnatory of Government." The hon. Baronet appeared to draw a distinction without a difference between a "condemnatory resolution" and a "vote of censure" upon the Government. For his own part he could see no difference. He had already expressed a hope that the hon. Baronet would bring forward his resolution, which had certainly been twice postponed, and was now glad to hear that the hon. Baronet intended to do so. In saying this he was far from attempting to dictate to him, he would not even presume to advise the hon. Baronet; he only expressed a hope that the motion would be brought forward, in order to obtain the opinion of the House on the subject of the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, it would be destructive to the commerce of the country if our naval force were further reduced. He knew it to be a fact, that British merchant ships had more than once owed their safety to the protection of French men-of-war. It was disgraceful to the country.
§ Sir R. Wilsonbegged to slate his reasons for voting against the Amendment. While Spain was carrying on war against South America, he could not vote for reducing our seamen, because it would peril our commerce. Again, while Russia had a force of thirteen sail in the Black Sea, and of twelve sail in the Levant, and France was fitting out an expedition, he thought our Naval power would not bear reduction.
§ Sir John Wrottesleycontended, that the hon. Baronet opposite had not made out his case. He could not conceive any necessity for such a large force of Marines, for he knew that between 1790 and 1793 fifty regiments of the line had been embarked in the Navy, and he also knew that they had behaved in the most gallant manner. Sir G. Cockburn had only stated that Marines accustomed to the sea were better than land soldiers.
§ Sir G. Clerksaid that, with respect to the questions that had been put to him by the hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) opposite, he begged to observe, that the annuities and allowances of reduced officers were regulated by act of Parliament. As to the commissioners of the Navy and Victualling Boards, they could not properly be said to hold their offices for life. They were appointed by warrant, though it was not customary to remove them; and they were entitled to retire on a superannuation allowance of three-fourths of the salary of 1,000l. a year.
Mr. George Lambsaid, that he could not have voted for the proposition of reducing the number of men, nor could he support the proposition that the vote should be taken for six months only, because he was unwilling, under existing circumstances, to give foreign nations an idea that we thought of nothing but reducing our force.
§ The House divided. For the Amendment 47; Against it 148.—Majority for the original Motion 101.
| The following is a list of the Minority. | |
| Bernal, R | Davenport, E. |
| Benett, J. | Davies, Colonel |
| Baring, Sir T. | Ebrington, Lord |
| Baring, B. | Euston, Lord |
| Buck, L. W. | Fazakerly, J. N. |
| Carter, H. | Fyler, T. B. |
| Calvert, C. | Guise, Sir W. |
| Denison, W. J. | Gordon, R. |
| Dawson, A. | Graham, Sir J. |
| Duncombe, T. | Hobhouse, J. Cam |
| Honywood, W. P. | Rickford, W. |
| Heron, Sir R. | Robarts, A. W. |
| Ingilby, Sir W. | Robinson, Sir G. |
| Jephson, C. D. | Sibthorp, Col. |
| Labouchere, H. | Townshend, Lord C. |
| Martin, J. | Wrottesley, Sir J. |
| Macdonald, Sir J. | Webb, Col. |
| Maberly, J. | Whitmore, W. W. |
| Monck, J. B. | Warburton, H. |
| Morpeth, Lord | Wood, C. |
| O'Connell, D. | Wood, Ald. |
| Philips, G. | Whitbread, W. |
| Palmer, C. F. | |
| Pallmer, N. | TELLER. |
| Protheroe, E. | Hume, J. |
§ Sir George Clerkthen proposed the following Resolution—That 980,200l. should be granted for wages, for the said 29,000 men, at the rate of 2l. 12s. a man, a month.
§ Sir G. Clerkunderstood that, as the number of men had been voted, the hon. Member could have no objection to pay their wages. He assured the hon. Member that to delay this Resolution would be an inconvenience to the public service.
§ The Resolution was then agreed to, and the House resumed.