§ Sir George Clerk, in proceeding with the remaining Navy Estimates, said, that the first vote he had to propose regarded the civil departments connected with the Navy, comprising the Admiralty, Navy-pay Office, Victualling Office, &c. In this Estimate a reduction to the amount of 1,710l. had been made this year. It would have been greater but for the large establishment connected with the office of the Treasurer of the Navy; but when the out-prize, and other parts connected with that office, should be better arranged, he was sure that his right hon. friend, the Treasurer of the Navy, would be able to effect considerable reductions in that establishment. The hon. Baronet moved that the sum of 180,017l. lls. 7d. be granted for defraying the salaries of the officers and other contingent expenses of the Admiralty, of the Navy Pay Office, and the Victualling Office.
§ Mr. Humeobjected to the taking of all these votes together. They should be i taken separately. He submitted that the first vote, that of 52,216l. 5s. 1d. for the Admiralty, should be first put.
§ Lord Howickagreed with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, and could not but censure the practice of voting in one lump the expense of five different departments. Different Members might object to different portions of these expenses; for example, 717 the hon. Member for Aberdeen objected to the vote for the Admiralty, which did not appear to him too large, though he objected to the next sum. He hoped, therefore, that the votes for the different departments would be put separately.
§ Sir G. Clerksaid, if it were considered more convenient for the Committee, he would propose the votes separately. The hon. Baronet then moved that the sum of 52,216l. 5s. 1d. be granted for defraying the salaries of the Officers, and other contingencies of the Admiralty Office, for the year 1830.
§ Mr. Humewished to call the attention of the House to a portion of this Estimate which had been incidentally mentioned a few nights ago; he meant the sum of 2,960l. which was asked for the establishment of the Paymaster of the Marines. Immediately following the estimate then before the Committee there was the estimate for the Navy Pay-office, amounting to 32,033l. Is. 6d. He contended that the former office should be consolidated in the Navy Pay-office, and by that means a saving would be effected for the public, to the extent of 2,960l. Nothing was more objectionable than the maintenance of such distinct departments. The department of the Marines being essentially connected with the Navy, should come under the Paymaster of the Navy. 600l. had been struck out of the estimate last year as the charge for the Paymaster of Widows' Pensions; but the over-charge for Paymaster of Marines was continued, notwithstanding the unanimous opinion of the Committee of Finance. The Government might perhaps be afraid that the recommendation was too economical. This would furnish one reason for the dissolution of the Committee, and perhaps the composition of the Committee would supply another. He thought, upon the simple principle that there should be no division in the administration of the same species of affairs, that the half-pay of the Marines ought to be brought under the Paymaster of the Navy; and he accordingly contended that the system which put this arm of the service under the management of a separate officer was prejudicial, because it tended to keeping up two departments, when one would do. He had moved a few days before for an account of the contracts of the Navy, Army, and Ordnance, with the view of showing how the present system worked. Some few years ago it was the 718 practice for each commissary in the various departments of the Navy to draw the money for his own department; but under the direction of the Master of the Mint an end had been put to this plan, and it had been decided that one individual commissary (as for instance the commissary for Jamaica) should draw the whole sum of money required for abroad, and that all the others should receive their appointed portions from him. This he thought was at once a wise and economical regulation. Now he found from a paper he held in his hand, that there were seventy-four contracts made by the Paymaster of the Marines for supplying coals, candles, water, &c —bricklayers and materials—carpenters and materials, and God only knew what other articles beside; he would therefore ask this question—whether, since the Army was provided for by one department, (the Commissariat,) the Navy might not be managed after the same manner? Why should not all contracts for the Navy and Marines be settled and paid for at the Navy Pay-office? He wished that a statement of the separate expenditure of the Marines should be put in the Navy Estimates. He saw, from a paper in his hand, that there were 71,000l. for Officers, 245,000l. for Non-commissioned Officers and Privates, and 40,000l. for barrack and other expenses. Now, he begged to know how it came to pass, that alter the transferring of the Barrack department for the Army to the Ordnance department, these barracks for Marines should be retained under the superintendence of the Paymaster of the Marines? He was decidedly of opinion, that the Barrack, Pay, and Clothing departments ought to be consolidated; the first should be added to the Ordnance and the remainder to the Navy-office. He admitted that the gentleman who filled the office of Paymaster of Marines might be very well qualified for his situation, and he meant no reflection on him, but the situation ought, he thought, to be abolished. He hoped the House would support him in the amendment he should propose. If his Majesty's Ministers had not stated their anxiety to effect all possible reduction in the expense of the public service, he would not have thought them so blameable in not consolidating departments, when they were making the arrangement respecting the Treasurership of the Navy. He would be glad to hear the reasons that might be offered in oppo- 719 sition to his recommendation; but, if they were not satisfactory, or the vote for the officers' salary be not withdrawn, he would certainly take the sense of the Committee upon the propriety of putting down this grant.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, the hon. Member had observed, that the office of Paymaster of the Marines was expensive and unnecessary; the first it confessedly was; but as to the second, it appeared from the hon. Gentleman's own admission, that these duties which, he contended, might be transferred to another department, were numerous and important. Now, his strong impression was, that there could be no more sure way of creating confusion in the public service, and imposing on the country an increased expense, than that of uniting the Marine barrack department with the Ordnance. The Paymaster of the Marines did a great deal of duty in his double capacity; for he was not only a Pay-officer, but an officer of inspection and control: he was Paymaster and Inspector-general of the Marines. Now, the hon. Member, in the first place, asked why the Marine barracks were not brought under the superintendence of the Board of Ordnance. But, in fact, there was an essential difference between the management of the Army barracks and those for Marines. In the first, there was a constant change of inmates: one regiment marched out—another supplied its place; but the other barracks were constantly occupied by Marines, and therefore the accounts must necessarily be kept in a very different manner. The attention of the House had been called to the state of these barracks at different times; and, he believed, it must be admitted on all hands, that the expenditure, under the superintendence of the Paymaster of Marines, had been diminished in as great a degree as it could have been under any other Administration. The numbers in the barracks were invariably the same, and the average amount of expenditure for the seven years previous to the appointment of the Paymaster was 16,800l., while the average for the fourteen years subsequent had been brought down to 9,400l. And after the change had taken place, Mr. Tierney rose in his place and moved a compensation to each of the officers previously engaged in the department, amounting to 300l. or 400l. a year, in consequence, as he stated, of the new system, which was so economical that the 720 country could well afford to pay the 1,000l. or 1,200l.; and so it had proved, for there was a saving of nearly one-half in the expenditure. A similar improvement had likewise taken place in another more trifling article. The average expenditure on the Infirmary, for the seven years previous to the appointment of the Paymaster, was 1,271l.; it had been since reduced to 192l. If the hon. gentleman were to abolish the office of Paymaster of the Marines, the duties of the office might go on elsewhere, but they could not be carried on without additional hands; and if there were persons unemployed in any office it would be for the hon. Gentleman to show it, that they might be at once reduced; but for himself he must say, that he did not know any office to which the addition of such important duties could be made, as those of the Paymaster of Marines, without a proportional increase of hands. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir H. Parnell) had suggested in his work the propriety of appointing a general pay-board in this country; and this, undoubtedly, might be the case; but he believed there was no more sure way of creating confusion and expense than that of mixing up heterogeneous matters for the superintendence of the same department. Besides, it would only be a change of names—if they ceased to have a Paymaster, they must have a Commissioner of Pay—if they ceased to have an Inspector, they must have a Commissioner of Inspection. The office, in fact, let it be called by what name it might, could not be dispensed with, for there was no officer to whom there was more constant reference, none who was more frequently required to appear before the Admiralty Board than the Paymaster of Marines. The hon. Member had admitted that he had nothing to allege against the present Paymaster of the Marines, indeed a more zealous and able officer was not to be found. He had filled other situations with honour, and he had been appointed to his present situation because he was admirably qualified to perform its duties. The hon. Member has stated that the office was unnecessary, but on this point they were directly at issue. He was ready to contend that the office was necessary, and even indispensable. The House had, therefore, to decide between them: and considering his long experience, and the absence of all personal interest, he thought his evidence upon the matter was entitled 721 to higher consideration than that of the hon. Gentleman. The Admiralty had done every thing that it could, consistently with prudence and sound policy, to consolidate offices; but the consolidation proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be only creative of confusion and expense.
§ Sir H. Parnellsaid, that the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty might have urged all his present arguments against the former consolidation of the Barrack Department with the Board of Ordnance, which had been found so beneficial. Indeed no measure of economy was ever recommended which did not find Gentlemen to oppose it, in speeches similar to that the House had just heard, sitting on the Treasury benches. It was their business to persuade the House that reductions would not benefit the nation. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was not only an answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, it went to contradict the Treasury Minute of 1822, by which the consolidation of offices was recommended, its utility explained, and its applicability to all departments enforced. He was convinced that if this speech were written out, and so subjected to the examination of the Committee, that they would see reason to decide that it contained more sophistry than solid reasoning. Unless the House were to resist such sophistry, and say once for all, you must reduce your expenditure, we will give you no more than a certain sum—he was afraid no extensive reduction would ever take place. Before he gave his opinion upon totally abolishing the office, he wished to say that the present Paymaster of the Marines, whose merits he had admitted, had certainly made several reductions in his department, but this by no means proved those reductions to be sufficient. With all that Gentleman's zeal and ability, however, the reductions he was capable of making would not satisfy the public. After considering the matter well, he was convinced that the office might be done away. There were two sets of officers to two sets of barracks, and two sets of hospitals and two sets of accounts, one set of each being unnecessary. The Finance Committee was convinced that no part of the management of the public money required more immediate revision, for the present system gave no security, while it was confused and complicated. In his opinion all payments whatever should be made by a distinct department, 722 and a system of audit should be established, in which the demand should be examined before any money was paid. The system of payment by one department was adopted in France, in other countries, and had been found to answer extremely well. So far as he could understand the whole system by which thirty millions of public money were annually paid in France, it seemed to him well worthy of the imitation of Great Britain. At all events he trusted that the payment of the public money would be taken into consideration by the Government, and that the system would be simplified. He meant to support his hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen.
Mr. Maberlysaid, the question to be decided was, if that office were necessary. He contended that it was not. The Pay-office of the Navy might pay the 10,000 marines in addition to the 19,000 seamen; and the duties of inspection might be performed by the General, Lieutenant-general, Major-general, or some of the other officers of the Marines who were so highly paid. He was convinced that this department was of no advantage to the public, and that its duties might be quite as well discharged, and at less expense, if they were arranged in the manner he had proposed. With respect to the Marine barracks, and the clothing for the marines, both these departments ought to be, he thought, transferred to the Ordnance, which already provided the clothing and stores for the artillery, and had the general inspection of barracks. He felt so strongly concerning the manner in which these matters were now arranged, that he was almost disposed to call the arrangement by the odious name of a job; the whole of the expenses, both for paying the marines and separate inspection of their barracks, being, in his opinion, wholly unnecessary.
§ Sir G. Clerkdefended the propriety of the arrangements now made in the department, and contended that no alteration of the sort proposed could be anything but injurious. In his opinion, the department, as it was now constituted, was most economically managed, and considering what its duties were, he did not think that the sum of 3,000l. a-year, now paid for them, could be considered as any great charge upon the public. The duties of the office had been increased of late years, for by an order of the Lord High Admiral, the clothing department of the 723 marines was now added to its other labours. That alteration had only been effected a short time since, but during that short time it had proved to be a great public improvement. The marines had different pay and different allowances from the regular army, and great confusion would ensue if they were to be paid by the same department. He was convinced that the alteration proposed would create expense instead of saving money to the public. The hon. Member opposite had alluded to the General, Lieutenant-general, and Major-general of Marines, and had spoken as if these could be dispensed with. He begged to observe, in reply, that these offices were given as rewards to naval men who had served their country in a distinguished manner, and he was sure that the country would not grudge them these rewards. He would not consent to the alteration, because the duties of the Paymaster of Marines were now well discharged, and the consolidation or distribution proposed by the hon. Member was not likely to be profitable.
§ Lord Howickobserved, that the opposition made to the Amendment was founded on the assertion of the great labour imposed upon the Paymaster of the Marines, in discharge of that part of his duty which consisted of inspecting the marines when on shore. He could not think that objection well founded, or, if it were, it might, as it seemed to him, be easily removed. When at sea, the marines were under the same discipline and regulations as the navy. He could not understand why, when the marines were on shore at different parts of the kingdom, but especially at Portsmouth, where the greater part of the duty was performed, the inspecting officer of the neighbouring garrison could not perform the duty of inspecting the marine corps and the marine barracks. If that were done, and he saw no possible objection to it, the great point on which the defence of the office was now rested would be removed. He trusted that the hon. Member for Aberdeen would either move a resolution to consolidate the offices now, or one which should pledge the House to adopt some step of that kind in the early part of the next Session.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that his object was, to reduce the grant by one-half, and he proposed a vote which would have the effect of producing that end now, if at all. As to any resolution that pledged the House 724 for its conduct next Session, he feared little good would come of it. It was given in evidence before the Finance Committee, that there were ten or twelve clerks in the Paymaster's department unemployed which was a reproach to the chancellor of the Exchequer. Not one of them, he believed, had yet been reduced; and therefore he saw no other way of dealing with the question but for the House to compel the Ministers to make reductions by refusing to grant them money. He saw no reason, from what he had heard, to alter his opinion on the subject of the office of Paymaster. As to the business of inspection, there were now four Colonels-commandant and nine Lieutenant-colonels-commandant saddled upon the country, at an expense of 13,000l. a-year, which did not seem to him at all necessary; but at any rate, they might perform all the duties of inspection. As to the clothing, that might be transferred to the Ordnance. He was certain that no inconvenience would follow from this Motion being carried; and he should, therefore, persist in his intention of dividing the House upon it. The hon. Member then moved, as an Amendment, that the sum of 50,696l. be inserted in the grant instead of 52,126l.
§ Mr. Portmandid not intend to trouble the House at any length, but could not refrain from saying that these offices were defended in a manner in which there was more of fallacy and sophistry than he had ever before heard, and which depended on those old and worn-out excuses that might be brought forward in support of any kind of abuse. He thought it necessary that the Committee should express their opinion strongly on the subject, for if not, the Government would not come down as they ought to do next Session, and make the further reductions which were yet absolutely required. He called, therefore, on the Committee to mark their sense of this vote, and in that manner to strengthen that portion of the Government which was really favourable to the reduction of the public burthens.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerprotested against the doctrine which some Members seemed inclined to inculcate, that any particular vote of which they happened to disapprove showed the Government not to be sincere in their wish to diminish the public burthens. The question was, whether the business of the office now under discussion could be more 725 cheaply or efficiently performed? On his side of the House they answered that question in the negative; while, on the other side, it was answered in the affirmative—on consideration, at least, that the business was transferred to other departments. The consolidation of business in the manner recommended might be carried too far. If it went beyond a certain extent, he did not think it would much conduce to the advancement of public economy. As to the old and worn-out excuses which the hon. Member had spoken of, he would only observe, that it was impossible on such a subject as this to bring forward anything but old and worn-out arguments, especially after the discussions which had recently taken place upon it. He could not but think that the alterations proposed would rather complicate than simplify the business of these offices, and increase instead of diminishing their expense.
§ Lord Althorpcould not conceive how the proposed distribution of duties could complicate the business of the office, when it was recollected that at this moment the Paymaster of Marines was a Military Paymaster, an Inspector of Marines, and a contractor for their clothing, all at the same time, and that the alteration suggested was, to divide these "complicated duties" among different departments. He should vote for the Amendment.
§ Mr. Brightshould support the Amendment, for he saw no reason for keeping up such an expensive establishment for the superintendence of only 9,000 men.
§ The House then divided, when the numbers were—For the Amendment 90; Against it 130; Majority 40.
| List of the Minority. | |
| Althorp, Lord | Clive, E. B. |
| Anson, hon. G. | Davies, Colonel |
| Bankes, H. | Denison, J. E. |
| Baring, Sir T. | Dickinson, W. |
| Baring, F. | Dick, H. |
| Benett, J. | Duncombe, T. |
| Bernal, R. | Dundas, Sir R. |
| Bentinck, Lord G. | Dundas, hon. T. |
| Blake, Sir F. | Euston, Lord |
| Blandford, Marquis | Fane, J. |
| Bright, H. | Fazakerley, J. N. |
| Brownlow, C. | Fyler, T. B. |
| Buck, L. W. | Gordon, R. |
| Buxton, J. J. | Guest, J. J. |
| Calthorpe, hon. A. | Guise, Sir W. |
| Carter, J. | Harvey, D. W. |
| Cavendish, H. | Heneage, G. F. |
| Cavendish W. | Heron, Sir R. |
| Cholmeley, M. I. | Hobhouse, J. C. |
| Howick, Lord | Power, R. |
| Jephson, C. D. O. | Price, Sir R. |
| Killeen, Lord | Protheroe, E. |
| Labouchere, H. | Pryse, P. |
| Lambert, T. | Hamsden, J. C. |
| Lennard, T. | Robinson, G. R. |
| Lester, B. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Lloyd, Sir E. P. | Scott, hon. W. H. J. |
| Lumley, S. | Seymour, Colonel |
| Martin, J. | Sibthorp, Colonel |
| Maberley, J. | Smith, V. |
| Macdonald, Sir J. | Stanley, Lord |
| Marjoribanks, S. | Townshend, Lord C. |
| Mildmay, P. | Trant, W. H. |
| Monck, J. B. | Vyvyan, Sir R. |
| Nugent, Lord | Waithman, Alderman |
| O'Connell, D. | Warburton, H. |
| O'Grady, Colonel | Webb, Colonel |
| Osborne, Lord F. | Wells, J. |
| Orde, W. | Wilson, Sir R. |
| Painell, Sir H. | Winnington, Sir T. |
| Peachey, General | Whilbread, W. H. |
| Phillimore, Dr. | Whitmore, W. W. |
| Philips, G. | Wood, C. |
| Ponsonby, hon. G. | |
| Ponsonby, hon. F. | TELLER. |
| Portman, E. B. | Hume, J. |
§ On putting the Motion on the original Question,
§ Sir G. Clerkreplied, that the principal expense under this head was caused by the experiments made under the control and direction of Sir G. Brisbane.
§ Mr. Portmansaid, he had had the intention of taking the sense of the House upon making certain deductions from the salaries of Officers in the Admiralty. His plan would be, to effect a deduction of fifteen per cent from the salaries of the higher officers, ten per cent from those of a lower class, and five per cent from the lowest. He thought it fair that those officers should not be the only persons to escape the effects of the change which had taken place in the currency; but as it was the intention of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, to bring that subject under the notice of the House, he was induced to postpone the proposition for the present.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Sir George Clerkthen moved, that 32,033l. 1s. 6d. for the salaries of Officers and contingent expenses of the Navy Pay Office for the current year, be granted to his Majesty.
Mr. Vernon Smithaddressed the Committee for the purpose of moving an Amendment. He was then anxious to do so, as 727 he had been diverted from voting as he wished on Friday week by the solemn appeal made to the House by the Secretary of the Home Department. The House were then called on by the hon. Secretary not to condemn him and the Administration for one single act, but to judge them by the whole of their conduct. When placed on that footing, he had not felt himself disposed to pronounce a general condemnation, but as then refusing to grant a salary for the Treasurer of the Navy would imply no such general condemnation, he meant to propose an amendment to the effect, that a reduction of 1,200l. be made in the salary of Treasurer of the Navy. The large salary which that officer possessed could not be defended, he conceived, on the ground of any weighty responsibility to which he was exposed; for in the event of there being any default, indemnity was scarcely ever refused. Whenever a subordinate officer happened to become a defaulter, application was immediately made to that House on his behalf; and they always felt bound to let the public suffer rather than the individual. Hon. Gentlemen were sure to get up in their places, and say that the principal officer was the most worthy and honourable person in existence; and that he should not, upon any account, be allowed to suffer for the default of his subordinate; so that it was a mere pretence to say that the high salary was maintained on account of the responsibility. Again, there could be no pretext for maintaining the salary up to its present amount on account of any change made in the nature and circumstances of the office—no new duties had been attached to it. He desired to see a reduction in the present vote of 1,200l. He was perfectly ready to acknowledge that a reduction of 12,000,000l. would not afford the relief which the necessities of the country required; but he wished, by even cutting down 1,200l., to show a suffering people that some sympathy was felt for their sufferings by the body who represented them. As an Amendment, he moved that "The vote be 30,833l."
§ Sir George Warrender, though he wished to see economy, could not consent to the proposed reduction. The office of Treasurer of the Navy had always been held by a person of respectability, and it was important for the service of the country that it should so continue to be held. The Finance Committee of 1817 had re- 728 commended, that that office should be continued, while the salary attached to it had, in his opinion, been cut down in the present estimates. He was fully convinced that, without serious disadvantages, the emoluments of that office could not be diminished. Reductions of salary were perfectly distinct from the matter brought under the consideration of the House by the hon. Member for Cumberland. Whatever votes might have been given upon that question, none of them implied any pledge with respect to the present. It was likewise of importance to be remembered, that neither the right hon. Member for Liverpool, nor any other gentleman who held the office, had ever said that the salary admitted of reduction, or that the office could be dispensed with. He believed, even, that the office of Paymaster of the Navy, which it was in contemplation to abolish, would be retained, for it could not be, in fact, dispensed with. The Amendment he certainly should oppose, for he was altogether of opinion that Ministers had made all practicable reductions, and he thought they were entitled to the confidence of the House. For his part, he candidly acknowledged that he relied more upon his Majesty's Government for effecting useful reductions, than upon any amendments which might be moved in that House. Reduction was in the hands of the Government, and to them it might be safely confided. So he thought, and such he was sure was the general sentiment of the country.
Mr. Bankeswould support reduction, but not exactly in the form in which it was then proposed to the House. But for the Amendment before the Committee, he intended to have moved an amendment, the object of which would have been to carry into effect the purpose of the motion made a few evenings since by the hon. Member for Cumberland. The Government had admitted the office of Paymaster-general to be useless. He therefore wished to try the sincerity of their professions of economy by seeing whether they would consent to its abolition, and his amendment would have been, had he preceded the hon. Member, to abolish the salary of the Paymaster. It was necessary to ascertain whether offices were intended for the benefit of the public, or the advantage of the individuals who held them. The true way for his Majesty's Government to prove the sincerity of their professions with respect 729 to economy would be to shew, in questions of that nature, that they regarded the public interest more than the interest of the individual. His experience however of all discussions like the present was, that the interest of the public was looked upon as nothing, while that of the individual was looked upon as every thing. It was perfectly vain and futile to talk or think of economy so long as the interest of the public was postponed to that of every individual which might happen to be opposed to it. He hoped the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment would withdraw it, and allow him to move a resolution, the object of which would be to grant only the next half-year's salary to the Paymaster-general.
§ Mr. Labouchereconcurred with the hon. Member for Corfe Castle, and stated that he would not vote against the ministry as to the abolition of the office of Treasurer of the Navy, because such a vote would have implied a censure on the Administration.
§ Mr. C. Woodsaid, he had voted for the motion of the hon. Member for Cumberland, for abolishing the office of Treasurer of the Navy, because he thought the Government might have made a more economical arrangement, and that it was the business of the House to compel Ministers to adopt such an arrangement. It appeared by the statements of the hon. Members opposite, that two offices were kept up while one was sufficient, and while the Paymaster, according to the admission of the Secretary to the Admiralty, did the whole business both of Treasurer and Paymaster. To him therefore it was extraordinary that the efficient office should be abolished and the inefficient retained. The responsibility of the Treasurer had been dwelt on, but in fact, when put to the proof, that turned out to be no responsibility at all. The office of Treasurer of the Navy was plainly therefore a sinecure. It had been stated too, that the Treasurer might not only do the duties of his office and attend in Parliament, but also that he had time to look after what had been called the floating and unattached business of the Government. What then was the saving proposed by the abolition of the office of Paymaster? The Treasurer received a salary of 2,000l. with a proportionate superannuation, and the Paymaster had 1,200l. also with superannuation.
§ Sir G. Clerksaid that was not the case.
§ Mr. C. Wood, in continuation. Well, 730 at least the Paymaster was to be continued till he could be otherwise pro-vided for. If his proposition were agreed to, the Treasurer should be dismissed and the Paymaster alone retained, by which 2,000l.. a year would be saved. That it had been recommended in 1817 that the office of Treasurer of the Navy should be retained was no argument with him to be put in competition with the fact, that a salary of 2,000l. a year was given for doing nothing;. The evidence before the Finance Committee shewed that the Paymaster did all the duties, and he would rather augment his salary than give the Treasurer a farthing. As the consequence of pressing his views might, however, only lead to a division among those who were friendly to economy, he would propose no additional amendment, but content himself by voting for the amendment already moved.
§ Sir George Clerksaid, that each of the Members who opposed the vote, did it on different grounds, though only the hon. Member who spoke last advocated the abolition of the office of Treasurer of the Navy. He had been already answered by the hon. Baronet (Sir George Warrender). As to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Corfe Castle, he must reply, that it had been regulated that the Treasurer of the Navy was to be made an efficient officer, and the paymastership put an end to, as soon as the meritorious officer who now held that place could be provided for. The present grant, as proposed, was only for six months; and it was the firm intention of Government to provide for the gallant officer who held the place in some other way as soon as possible.
Mr. Bankessaid, that he understood the Government, on the previous debate on this subject, to have pledged itself that the office of Paymaster should be immediately got rid of.
§ Sir G. Clerksaid, no such pledge had been given by him, or with his knowledge. He always understood that it rested upon the contingency of Government being able to find some other suitable office for the present occupier. What he had then stated was, that there would be an immediate saving of 1,000l., and that when the Paymaster could be provided for, there would be a saving of 2,200l.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanagreed entirely in the observations of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, and would certainly vote with him on the present occasion. He, for one, 731 would never agree to the keeping up of a useless office, until the individual who held it could be provided for. The Admiralty ought to be compelled to act up to its profession of economy, and compelled immediately.
Mr. F. Baringsaid, that the only argument he had heard in favour of the vote was, that the services of the gentleman who held the office of Paymaster had been active and efficient, and that it was the duty of the Government to retain him in that situation till he could be otherwise provided for. To that argument he could never agree. He had lately observed, that seventy seamen, who held trifling situations on board ships at Portsmouth, had been discharged, and he should be glad to know whether Ministers had waited until these brave men, who had fought and bled in the service of their country, were provided for, before they were sent adrift? At another place one hundred and twenty men were dismissed with a very short notice. He had, a few days before, received an account of thirty families thrown out of the employment of Government, without any notice or provision whatever. He knew no individuals who had such claims on the rewards of the country, as these seamen, who were often compelled to enter its service. It would be most unjust therefore if Ministers kept a single officer in employ for an hour more than he was wanted, while they discharged these poor seamen, and left them to starve, unprovided and unpensioned. Their services had not been limited to the Victualling or the Navy office; their duties had led them under tropical suns and amidst the ice of the poles; they had braved storms and battles, and if they were to be turned off, while a ministerial office was to be kept up to reward the services of some man who had at most never braved any other storm than that of a debate, the people might with justice cry out against the Government and the Parliament. It appeared, indeed, that while these men, who had actively served their country, might be sent to the parish for relief, one of his Majesty's servants must be made a burthen to the public, till a pension could be found to suit him. After this, let them hear no more about a desire to relieve a suffering people. After this, let there be nothing said about plans of retrenchment and economy.
§ Sir George Clerksaid, if the hon. Member had but looked a few pages further in 732 the Estimates he would have seen that there was an ample vote to enable Government to reward those seamen who had served their country. It was a great mistake to suppose that seamen who had served their country were turned adrift without any provision being made for them. But if he were not mistaken, the persons to which the hon. Member had alluded, were men who had been in the Ordinary at Portsmouth, and who had been snugly housed there for many years. Many of them had pensions, however, and all who had claims would be provided for, though some of them had not served a sufficient time to entitle them to a pension.
Mr. Maberlysaid, that it appeared on all hands that the office of Treasurer of the Navy was a sinecure; and yet it was the sinecure officer that was to be preserved, and the other that was to be dismissed. The proper mode of acting was to get rid of the sinecure, and give the man who did the business an ample remuneration. This scheme of the Government was very like its other schemes which promised economy: as for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a saving in the Victualling-office; but the fact was, that there had been an increase of nearly 200l. It was said too that there would be a saving in the Navy-office of 2,900l., but he found superannuations to the amount of 4,000l. He called on the House to continue the office of Paymaster and refuse the salary of the Treasurer.
Mr. Peelobserved, that out of the five speeches that had been made against the item, four of them contained different and distinct propositions as to the two offices. This was of itself sufficient to prove that it was a matter of extreme difficulty for his Majesty's Ministers to bring forward a proposition with respect to this situation that was at all likely to produce unanimity. He denied that there was any difference in the language held by Ministers on the present, and on the former occasion. They asserted that there would be an immediate saving of 1,000l. a year, and that eventually the saving would amount to 2,200l. per annum, and they said so still. Their object was, to continue the office of Paymaster until some provision might be made by the falling in of a situation connected with the patronage of the Crown, for the person who now holds it, instead of saddling the country with a pension. He thought it would be very unjust to remove 733 a distinguished naval officer from the situation, without granting him an adequate provision. The Estimates had been for some time in the hands of the Members, and therefore it could not fairly be urged that the House was not aware that the vote was to be proposed. Neither was it just to insinuate that the Government were taking this step for the purpose of keeping up its patronage; because in this case, they were providing for an individual whose brother, his right hon. friend, the Member for Liverpool, had voted against them on this very question, the object of which vote, had it been successful, would have been to have turned the Ministers out of office. They therefore might be wrong in judgment, but was it possible to say that they were acting from any corrupt motive? He would give the House this assurance— that the office of the Paymaster of the Navy should never again appear in an Estimate. They had never contemplated its appearance there; but when the Motion was made the other night, he did expect that Parliament would make the provision for one year. If within two months an opportunity of a vacancy should occur, the Government would take advantage of it, and in preference to any political claim, would give the appointment to this officer. But it was possible that no such vacancy would occur, and he therefore trusted that the House would not compel them to turn this individual out of office without any provision whatever.
§ Lord Howicksaid, that he took a similar view of the subject to that taken by the hon. Member for Abingdon. The sum, it must be admitted, was small; but economy was not for him the most important consideration. The House had then in its power to remove one dependant on the Government from the House, and as there was already more than a sufficient number of members of Government in the House, to get rid of one would be a constitutional benefit. The effect of agreeing, to the vote would be, to confirm the Treasurer of the Navy a political officer, dependent upon the continuance of Ministers in their places, for his situation in that House. He did not so much regard the expense as the influence, and he should willingly vote for the total abolition of the office.
§ Mr. D. W. Harveycalled upon the Member for Radnor to put an end to the debate, by stating whether he were willing to hold the office of Honorary Treasurer of the Navy until the Paymaster of the Navy was otherwise provided? If he would do that, the vote would be unnecessary.
Mr. F. Lewisobserved, that he had no wish to accept of the office as a sinecure. He would rather have an office full of business. The hon. Member asked, whether he would consent to perform the duties of the office without salary? That was a question on which he as an individual could not decide. It was for the House, and not for him, to decide how the duties were to be performed, and how the person performing them was to be remunerated.
§ Mr. Humehoped that the House would not consent to any compromise, but decide the question upon principle. He did not see in what respect the King could be said to want patronage, or how he could use it to save the public purse. [Order] He supposed that the interruption must proceed from some very new and young Member, who had never heard the Minister talk of the King's patronage, and of the patronage of the Crown. His ears must be extraordinarily delicate to be offended at what he had said.
Mr. Peellamented that his argument had not penetrated the understanding of the hon. Member, who must be extremely pugnacious if he were disposed to quarrel with the very modest proposal of Ministers. The experiment he wished to try was, whether the office of Deputy could not be abolished—the principal being required to discharge the duties. If it should turn out that the experiment failed, he would undertake that in the estimates of next year only 2,000l. should be taken for the salary.
Mr. V. Smithsaid, that having elicited this information from the right hon. Secretary, he should beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ The Committee then divided on the original Question, when there appeared for the original Motion 155; against it 69; Majority 86.
| List of the Minority. | |
| Althorp, Lord | Blandford, Marquis |
| Beaumont, T. | Baring, F. |
| Bright, H. | Blake, Sir F. |
| Benett, J. | Buck, L.W. |
| Cavendish, W. | Monck, J. B. |
| Cavendish, H. | Maberly, J. |
| Carter, J. | Maberly, Col. |
| Cholmeley, M. | Portman, E. B. |
| Calvert, C. | Pendarvis, E. W. |
| Dick, H. | Parnell, Sir H. |
| Davies, Colonel | Poyntz, W. S. |
| Dundas, T. | Ramsden, J. |
| Dundas, Sir R. | Robinson, Sir G. |
| Denison, J. E. | Rumbold, C. E. |
| Dickinson, W. | Robarts, A. W. |
| Euston, Lord | Rowley, Sir W. |
| Fyler, T. | Stanley, Lord |
| Gordon, R. | Scott, W. |
| Guest, J. J. | Smith, V. |
| Hobhouse, J. C. | Smith, R. |
| Heneage, G. F. | Sibthorp, Colonel |
| Harvey, D. W. | Townshend, Lord C. |
| Howick, Lord | Uxbridge, Lord |
| Jephson, C. D. O. | Whitbread, W. |
| Kerr, T. R. | Warburton, H. |
| Lamb, hon. G. | Winnington, Sir T. |
| Lloyd, Sir G. | Waithman, Alderman |
| Lennard, Thos. B. | Ward, C. |
| Lambert, J. S. | TELLER. |
| Martin, J. | Hume, J. |
§ Mr. Humesaid, he saw a charge in the Estimates of 425l. for conductors of money, and he wished to know why the Government continued to send money to the out-ports by messengers, instead of obtaining money through the medium of bankers?
Mr. F. Lewissaid, that it was found the most economical to send part of the money for the payment of the navy to the outports. He would take that opportunity of stating that he was aware of the recommendation on this subject contained in the pamphlet of the hon. Bart. (Sir H. Parnell). But the statement that half a million sterling was sent to the different out-ports by such means was an error. A sum not exceeding 20,000l. was transmitted in the way mentioned, 480,000l. being sent in the most economical manner, either by waggons or by mail. The silver which was necessary could not in general be obtained on the spot, and that was transmitted from London. The only question was, as to the more economical method of making the transmission? The Bank had been consulted, and it had been found that, according to the terms it proposed, the better way would be, to transmit the money, as was done, by Government waggons, under the charge of a guard of soldiers. That was the reason why a portion of silver was so transmitted to the out-ports. As to the question relative to conductors, he would inform the hon. Member, that large sums passed between the Navy Office and the Bank of England, 736 and again large sums were sent by the mails, and it was necessary that some persons should be responsible for the money while in transitu. The person who was so responsible was called a conductor, and his services could not be performed by an ordinary messenger. The conductor did not go with the money by the mail, he only saw it safely deposited in the charge of the Post Office. The silver sent to the out-ports was placed under a military escort, and did not need a conductor.
§ Sir H. Parnellsaid, that the Committee had been given to understand that the system of sending money to the out-ports was by covered waggons, provided with a guard, and therefore he supposed that the system described by his hon. friend must be a very modern improvement. He believed that even the present method was not the most economical, for Ireland was provided with silver money without the expense of conductors and military guards.
§ Mr. Humecontended that the bankers at the outports would supply the money that was wanted. The hon. Member read several extracts from the evidence given before the Finance Committee, to shew that Sir H. Parnell was warranted in believing that money was transmitted in large sums to the out-ports. The same evidence also shewed that the Paymasters of Marines could get silver from bankers at the out-ports, without any expense, and he did not know therefore why the Navy Pay Office could not do the same.
Mr. F. Lewiswould undertake to examine the subject, and if he could find better means of conveying the money than that now employed he would adopt it.
§ Sir M. White Ridleywas disposed to give his hon. friend credit for his exertions; but he believed that the bankers at the out-ports must conduct their business on different principles from other bankers, if they could not advance what money would be required.
§ The Chairman was ordered to report progress; the House resumed; the report to be received on Tuesday.