On the Motion of the Chancellorof the Exchequer, the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, when
§ Sir G. Clerkproposed, that 57,560l. 15s. be granted for the Salaries of Officers and Contingent Expenses of the Navy Office for the current year.
§ Mr. Humewished to know what saving had accrued from the change which he understood had been made in the Navy Board, two Commissioners having retired?
§ Sir G. Clerkexplained, that the Navy Board, which, by regulations of 1786 was divided into several committees, had been, by a late regulation, which received the sanction of the Finance Committee, altered in its constitution. Instead of being; divided into committees, each Commissioner was made responsible for some one department, and in consequence of this regulation two Commissioners had been removed. But in consequence of the important duties 932 of the two surveyors, which were entirely professional, it was deemed right to retain their services. Care would, however, be taken, that in all future appointments the rank and salary of these executive professional officers should be less, so as to have the offices filled by master-shipwrights, who could carry on these inspections and fully perform the requisite duties. He ought also to mention, that a considerable reduction had been made in the number of clerks in the Navy Office, and that further reductions were in progress.
Mr. Maberlycomplained of the amount of the Superannuations, which he said had increased instead of diminished. He strongly recommended Government to adopt some plan by which its servants might provide for their own superannuations.
Mr. Herriesreplied that Government had done so. In all the appointments which have been made since the recommendation of the Select Committee on this subject, the plan referred to by the hon. Member had been acted upon. The superannuation of all public officers who might hereafter enter the service of the country would cost it nothing. He could assure the hon. Member that the Government had the most earnest desire to carry into full effect the recommendations of the Finance Committee.
§ Mr. Humeasked whether all the officers under Government were obliged to provide for their own superannuation?
§ Mr. George Dawsonobserved, that the regulation applied to all officers who had been appointed since the passing of the Treasury Minute last year, and he had to inform the hon. Gentleman, that he should, in a few days, introduce a bill to extend it to all offices under the Crown.
Mr. Maberlyimputed all these improvements to the Finance Committee which he was sorry had not been revived. The public would know to whom the reforms were due.
§ Mr. Humerecommended that a scale of salaries to be adopted in every department of the public service should be drawn up and submitted to the House. The present system was inexplicable, it went on no principle, and required revision.
§ Mr. George Dawsonagreed in the observation of the hon. Member, and begged to inform him that a Return was preparing 933 which would shew the salary of every officer under the Crown, from the highest to the lowest. The Treasurer meant to in-traduce a bill to regulate and provide for superannuations.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, according to a Treasury Minute, all persons hereafter accepting office immediately under the Treasury, are to have a reduction made in the amount of their salaries, to form a fund to provide for their own superannuations. The bill which he meant to introduce would extend this principle to all the departments of the public service.
§ Mr. Humeobjected to the number of useless officers in the Admiralty Office. One Secretary for the Admiralty should at least be got rid of. In 1792 the expense of the three departments, Navy-office, Navy-Pay-office, and the Admiralty, was only 58,719l., and in the present year the charge was 142,000l. He noticed that there was a salary of 1000l. a-year for a superintendant of transports in profound peace. The salaries of the Surveyor of Naval Building, and of the Comptroller and Commissioner of the Navy, had been trebled nearly since 1792; and when rent and profit, and the wages of labour, as well as the price of all commodities, had fallen so very much, it was neither reasonable nor just that these salaries should be preserved at their full war amount, when they were raised to meet a depreciated currency. An estimate which exceeded the corresponding estimate in 1792 by upwards of 80,000l. was a great deal too large.
Sir B. Martinsaid, that if the salaries had increased, the number of Commissioners had been diminished since 1792, and that the public business had increased. In 1792, all the commissioners had a power of selling clerkships; the clerks in their turn received fees, and he could assure the hon. Member, that if the expense to the public was now greater than in 1792, the emoluments of the individuals were much less. The practice of selling clerkships and of taking fees had been done away. He was sure that it could be neither for the honour nor the interest of the public service to return to the system of 1792. If the question were examined in all its bearings, he was persuaded that the present Estimate, as compared with 934 that for 1792, would reflect honour on the Government.
§ Mr. Humerepeated his statement, that the salaries of these officers were too large; and, in particular, he would object to giving the Superintendant of Transports 1000l. a-year.
Sir Byam Martinsaid, he ought, perhaps, to have stated, that the Superintendant of Transports performed the duty of a Commissioner of the Navy.
Mr. Maberlydid not think the salaries of the Commissioners too large, but he observed that many gentlemen held more than one appointment. The Commissioner for Hackney Coaches, for example, with a salary of 300l. a-year, was also Governor of Hull, with a salary of 180l. Aid-du-Camp to the King with another salary of 180l.; he received, in addition, a pension of 300l., with other appointments, that made up a salary of 1,290l. a year. Another Commissioner with a salary of 1750l. a-year was Lieutenant-governor of the Tower with a salary of 750l. There was one Commissioner of Taxes with 1,600l., who also received for two other situations 400l., making up 2,000l. a-year. It was wrong to make a military man give up his half pay on receiving a civil appointment, and allow a civil officer to hold three or four appointments, and receive full pay for each. In his opinion, the amount of salaries should be fixed in proportion to duties, and no person should derive any emolument from any other office than from that the duties of which he actually performed. He had never objected to giving high and responsible officers liberal salaries, but he objected to their obtaining these salaries by holding different offices, of which they could not perform the duties. He believed, too, that if a system of uniformity were introduced as to the amount of salaries, the public service would be better performed.
§ Sir H. Parnellwished to know whether it was the intention of Government to carry into effect the recommendation of the Finance Committee, with respect to the mode of keeping accounts.
§ Sir G. Clerksaid, that it was necessary to bring in a bill for that purpose, and the bill was in the course of preparation. He added, that the present Accountant-general of the Navy-office had introduced, in lieu of the old system, a very improved system of accounts, upon the basis of the double entry.
Mr. Maberlycomplained, that the old system of keeping accounts was still adhered to by the Navy-office, when a better system had been prepared and recommended, but not adopted. He wished that Mr. Abbott's plan, which was similar to that adopted by the East India Company, and by the French Government, had been followed.
§ Mr. G. Dawsondefended the conduct of the Treasury, in adopting the system recommended by Messrs. Brooksbank and Belts, and rejecting that which was recommended by the other Commissioner, Mr. Abbott. It was for the Treasury to determine between the two plans, and they adopted, upon mature consideration, that which they considered the best.
§ Sir H. Parnellsaid, it was plain that the Treasury, in this instance, had acted with too much haste. They should have let the merits of the two systems be tried before they adopted one in preference to the other. They showed too great haste in rejecting the system which included the journal. It must be admitted, he thought, that his hon. friend, who carried on an extensive business, was a better judge of accounts than the officers of the Treasury; and the opinion of his hon. friend was a sufficient condemnation of the system the Treasury had adopted. The Government should have tried the two systems before adopting either. When the Finance Committee recommended that the public accounts should be investigated by Commissioners, it was with a view of procuring information; so that the best possible system might be introduced. He thought, and so did his hon. friend, that the system which included the journal was preferable to the other, and thinking so, he must affirm, that the Treasury had acted rashly in at once adopting the system which did not include it.
Mr. Herriessaid, the Government had no interest in the matter further than to select the system of keeping accounts which they deemed to be best, and that they had done in selecting the system recommended by Messrs. Brooksbank and Belts. He conceived that the Treasury had done perfectly right in choosing that system. He had long been of opinion, that uniformity in keeping all the public accounts was very desirable. They would then be easily understood by the House and the country, and the Government would be able at all times to tell how 936 the business under its control was managed. With this view the Finance Committee had recommended an inquiry into the public accounts, and the Treasury had, in consequence of that recommendation, appointed Commissioners to inquire. Mr. Abbott was named as an impartial person, well acquainted with public accounts, and Messrs. Brooksbank and Belts were accountants of well deserved reputation. It was impossible for men to have performed their duty better than did the two latter gentlemen, and though they unfortunately differed from Mr. Abbott, he would venture to say that their plan was better than his. He did not deny that Gentleman's merit, but he was bound to defend the system recommended by gentlemen, equally meritorious, and justly adopted in preference by the Treasury. At the same time, he did not mean, in any manner, to blame Mr. Abbott with reference to the public accounts; he wished to remark, that they differed from mercantile accounts, and in his opinion, those who were acquainted with the business of the Treasury were better judges of the proper methods of keeping the public accounts than merchants. He might take some credit to himself from knowing as much of those accounts as the hon. Member for Abingdon; he had had a good deal to do with public business, that hon. Member would admit, but he was not ignorant of the method followed by merchants, and therefore, when he stated that the Treasury had acted right, he thought his opinion might weigh as much with the House as the adverse opinion of the hon. Member.
§ Mr. Keith Douglasobserved, that a great improvement had been introduced by the Treasury within the last three years in the system of keeping accounts in the Navy and other public offices.
Mr. Maberlysaid, that he did not censure the individuals, he condemned the total want of system in keeping the accounts in the public offices. The universal system of keeping accounts throughout the commercial world—the system adopted in France—throughout Europe—by the East India Company—and by all merchants—should have been preferred by the Government to the fanciful system of Messrs. Brooksbank and Belts.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, when the two systems in question were laid before him, he had resolved to examine 937 them both, and adopt that which seemed best. He had after a minute examination, given the preference to the system recommended by Messrs. Brooksbank and Belts, which had been in operation in all the public offices, with the exception of the Navy-office, since the 1st of January; and he was confident that at the close of the year the experiment, as to its superior merits, would prove most satisfactory. He would add, that this system was formed on the basis of double entry, the same as the other, and he believed would in its results be found more useful.
§ Sir J. Wrottesleymaintained, that in any department where, in the system of keeping accounts, the journal was excluded, the proper and necessary check could not exist. Any private commercial establishment would be ruined in six months unless a journal were kept. By its use, the head of any department could tell every night and morning the whole sum received and expended in that department; and he could exercise an effectual control, with very little trouble on his part, over all the subordinate officers.
§ Mr. Humeagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that there would arise a fitter time than that for the discussion; but he wished then to remark, that he had for ten years pressed the Government to introduce a simple system of keeping accounts, so that they might be understood by those who were as little familiar with accounts as the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to be. At length some attention had been paid to his recommendation, but not, he contended, in the best manner. Without the journal no effective check could exist. No private establishment could keep its accounts without it; the French Government had introduced it into use, and found it an admirable means of controlling its expenses.
§ The Resolution agreed to.
§ The next Resolution, for a sum of 38,207l. to defray the Salaries of Officers and other contingencies of the Victualling-office, called up
§ Mr. Hume, who contended, that this was an unnecessary and expensive office. The Government should do every thing in this way by contract, as was the case in the Army. If the Victualling Board were to be kept up, one individual would be sufficient to manage it. At present it cost 48,000l.; and the Victualling-yards cost 61,000l. making 109,000l. for this unne- 938 cessary department. There was a Chairman with a salary of 1,200l. a year, a Deputy chairman with a salary of 1,000l. and four Commissioners each having a salary of 800l.; these officers costing the country annually 5,400l. If all the business were done by contract, he would venture to assert that 70,000l. a year might be saved in this department alone. One provision-merchant in London passed more provisions through his warehouse at an expense of 3,000l. than the Government did at the expense of 100,000l. The Government should not manufacture a single article, but should buy every thing in the market at the cheapest rate.
§ Sir G. Clerksaid, that the increase arose in the following manner. The clerks on entering the different offices connected with the Navy were distributed among them according as they belonged to the inferior or the superior departments. If they belonged to the inferior department, they received for the first three years only 90l. a year. For every year they served afterwards they received an addition of 10l. till they reached the maximum allowance of 300l. a year. Thus a clerk must have served twenty-three years before he could obtain 300l. a year in the inferior departments. A similar course was observed in the superior departments, where the maximum salary was about 500l. a year. The increase of the total sum allotted to superannuation arose from the great number of clerks who had been superannuated, but no increase had been made in the allowance of any one. The salaries were placed upon the present footing in the year 1806, at which time the clerks appeared to the House to be underpaid. The remuneration which they now received was not greater than their merits. He contended that the whole of the Victualling Board could not be given up, even supposing that the Navy were in all cases to contract for stores and provisions: it would still be wanting to superintend the distribution of stores at the different ports. He likewise pointed out the influence of the establishment at Deptford in lowering the tenders of the contractors, and stated that it had been found particularly useful in the years 1825 and 1826.
§ Sir J. Wrottesleysaid, that a large capital had been expended in building mills 939 and purchasing corn for the Government, He thought that, upon principle, such things could be best done by contract. If the contracts were improperly executed, had they not inspectors of contracts to compel their proper execution? If those inspectors passed bad flour, and that flour were afterwards complained of by the Naval officers to whom it was delivered, had not the Government the means of reprimanding and dismissing such inspectors? Had it not also the means of punishing contractors who committed frauds? Letting these matters, however, pass for the present, he would ask the hon. Baronet to inform him whether a regular mercantile book was kept on behalf of the Government, containing an account of the corn bought, the labour employed, and the flour delivered in his Majesty's yards? and whether to that account a per centage was added for the capital employed?
§ Sir G. Clerkreplied, that there was an exact debtor and creditor account kept of the corn bought and the flour manufactured, together with an account of the salary paid to the Master, and all other contingent expenses. He added, that such a question ought not to be decided merely by pounds, shillings, and pence: it concerned the health and comfort of the seamen; and as long as there was any temptation to adulterate the material of biscuit, which was the case when it was supplied by contract, it was impossible to answer either for the health or the contentment of seamen. When the biscuits were manufactured in the public establishments the seamen knew that there was no temptation to adulterate it.
§ Mr. Humesaid, it was highly wrong to insinuate that those who professed economy would run the risk of injuring the health of the seamen for the sake of a few pounds. They would do no such thing; but Government might as easily secure against adulteration when the biscuit was supplied by contract as when it was made by its own servants. It must contract for wheat; and might it not be imposed on by bad wheat as well as by bad flour or bad biscuit? What had been advanced did not convince him that the Government ought not to contract for the provisions of the Navy. The ships of the East India Company were supplied by contract, and whenever any of the provisions so supplied were found of inferior quality, the contractors were called upon to make the deficiency 940 good. It was impossible for Government to manufacture flour as cheaply at Deptford as individuals could procure it at present in the south of Ireland. That establishment was kept up as a mere pretext, and he was of opinion, that if due economy were used, this Victualling department might be reduced at least 50,000l. or 60,000l.
Mr. Maberlywas of opinion, even if meal were an exception to the general rule, that the present mode of supplying salt-meat to the navy was at once unnecessary, useless, and expensive. He had no doubt that all the manufacturing accounts of Government were losing accounts. The hon. Secretary at War had argued some time ago that we ought to keep up a manufactory for swords and cuirasses. He was certain that if the hon. Secretary were to go into the market he could purchase them at half the price which he was paying for their manufacture.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ The next Vote proposed was a grant of 137,460l. for the purpose of defraying the expense of the Salaries of Officers in the Dock-yards at home.
§ Mr. Humecomplained of the extravagant amount of this vote. Some years ago it was not more than 25,000l., now it was upwards of 130,000l. He then objected to a charge of 724l. in the Deptford yard for rent and taxes paid to the Inspecting Agent of Transports. Now he thought that we had premises enough at Deptford, without going to the expense of hiring a house at such an enormous rent for any officer.
§ Sir G. Clerkexplained, that the sum included the rent of a wharf where trans- ports were unloaded, which would not be a permanent charge.
Mr. Maberlywished to know whether they were to expect any large reduction in these yards as to materials and to artificers. If he understood the evidence given by a gallant Admiral before the Finance Committee rightly, we should not require to have any more ships of the line built after the year 1830, and the yards would not be wanted, except to put down some large frigates to meet those which bad been lately built by America and France. We had now 350 ships of war, a larger number than we could man within any short period after the commencement of a war. Could we, therefore, be justified in keeping up our enormous ship-building establishment 941 for ever? From the evidence given by Mr. Barrow, he thought that a very large saving, indeed, might be effected in this department, which had been as slovenly managed as any public department with which he was acquainted. From the conclusion of the war in 1815, the Admiralty had let the expense of this department go on without examination, until the year 1821. Then they found out that a reduction of 60,000l. might be made in it; but that beneficial discovery was not carried into effect till 1822. A gallant Admiral, for whom he felt sincere respect, had clearly intimated to the Finance Committee that he did not think that the Admiralty had done all which they could do in reducing the expenditure of this department, and had expressed an opinion that the Finance Committee should strengthen the hands of the Admiralty by giving an opinion to that effect. He was certain that if that gallant Admiral would apply himself to the examination of the different details of this Vote, he would be able to make a large reduction in this head of expenditure.
§ Sir G. Cockburncomplained, that the hon. member for Abingdon had misrepresented, though he believed very unintentionally, his evidence before the Finance Committee. He had said, that we had now a certain number of ships of the line, and that by 1830 all of these would be in a complete state. In stating that, he by no means meant to assert that all our naval force would by that time be complete: for it happened that we were at present short of frigates. Besides, though we had 350 ships on the list, they were not all in an efficient state. We must keep up our naval establishment to a certain amount, in reference to the amount of other nations. He did not think that the hon. member for Montrose wished to put down the dock-yards entirely. He had himself long been of opinion that the expense of the dock-yards might be reduced; indeed, he had been busily employed in effecting such a reduction. A proof of it might be seen in the single fact, that Government had within a few years reduced 500 salaried officers in the dockyards, whose salaries amounted to nearly 100,000l. a year, without at all injuring the efficiency of the yards. The state of those yards at present by no means answered the description of them at the time when Mr. Barrow gave his evidence. Many reductions had been made since that time, 942 and more were in progress. We had recently completed a new system of frigates, and had reduced this year 120,000l. in the wages, &c, of the yards. There was only one point on which he had wished to strengthen the hands of the Admiralty with greater power. He had told the committee that it was doubtful to many—it had never been doubtful to him—whether it was proper to discharge from the dock-yards in time of peace those shipwrights whose services we had employed when they were so much wanted during the war. During the present year the Admiralty had taken a very strong measure for the better regulation of these artificers. Formerly in the dock-yards every one was allowed to take as many chips away as he could carry. The consequence was, that half the time of the workmen was spent in making chips. Then the Admiralty came to the resolution of giving them an allowance in money instead of this permission, which necessarily led to much waste. Now the Admiralty had taken away this allowance, with a view of keeping more of them employed. Besides, a reduction of expense in this department might be expected in the ordinary course of nature. The old shipwrights would every day be dying off, and it was not intended to take new ones in their places. Our dock-yard establishment, even as at present constituted, was lower than it was in 1803, when Earl St. Vincent reduced it, as some thought, below its proper standard.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that he was glad to hear that we had now, in the fifteenth year of peace, made those reductions which ought to have been made immediately on the termination of the war. It was, however, a severe reflection upon preceding administrations that they had not been made sooner. He wished to know whether there was to be any reduction in the scale of allowances paid to the Commissioner of the Dock-yard at Plymouth for example, who received 1,000l. a year; he had a Secretary who received 450l.; there were two Master-attendants who received between them 950l. a Master-shipwright who had 650l. a year, and various other officers. He wished to know if all these salaries were to be kept up.
§ Sir G. Clerksaid, that no alteration would be made in the scale of those allowances. Some of the offices would be, abolished, but the salaries of those which remained would continue unaltered.
§ Vote then agreed to.
§ The following Resolutions were also agreed to:—458,720l. for the Wages of Artificers and Labourers employed in the King's yards at home. 680,000l. for Timber and other materials. 75,000l. for Piloting and contingent expenses.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that, although this country was subject to great expense in order to suppress the Slave-trade, he thought it would be unwise to abandon that object suddenly. The subject, however, was under the consideration of Government.
§ The following items were also voted without opposition:—66,494l., for the Salaries of Officers and Contingent Expenses of Foreign Yards. 61,038l., for the salaries Officers and Contingent Expenses of the victualling-yards. 64,026l. 6s. 7d., to defray the expense of the Salaries of Officers on the Naval Medical Establishment for 1830. 845l. 8s. 3d. to defray the Salaries and Expenses of the Officers of the Naval College, and the School for Naval Architecture, for 1830, induced
§ Mr. Humeto say, that he approved of this Vote. He was glad to find that the young men now paid for their education. Formerly this establishment stood the country in 3,245l. a year, and it was now reduced to 845l. He thought that the Military College ought to be placed on the same footing.
105,000l. to defray the Salaries and Allowances of the Officers and Men on board Vessels in ordinary for 1830, and 27,870l. for defraying the expense of the Packet Service, for 1830, were all voted i without remark.
§ Sir G. Clerk, in moving for a sum of 854,000l. for defraying the Half-pay of Naval Officers, observed, that a regulation had lately been made, by which promotion in the Navy would be retarded, and by that means a great saving would be effected under this head.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the regulation alluded to must be of very recent date, for he understood that two promotions had lately been granted at Plymouth, by the flag-officer, Lord Northesk.
§ Sir G. Cockburnobserved, that the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty thought it was but fair towards those individuals to grant them that promotion 944 which they had been serving for three years to obtain.
§ The Vote for 296,063l. for Superannuations and Pensions to Naval Officers, led
Mr. Stanleyto observe, that there was in one page a superannuation allowance of 456l. to Mr. W. Shield, and in the next page 500l. as a pension to Mr. W. Shield in the character of a Commissioner. He wished for some explanation.
§ Sir G. Clerkanswered, that this gentleman had served for a long time at Plymouth, at Woolwich, and Chatham, as Commissioner. His superannuation allowance was calculated on the time he had served, and the salary he had received in the civil office. Mr. Shield was upwards of seventy years of age, and had been for a long period in the active service of the Navy. His superannuation allowance amounted to 466l. or about 25s. a day. His pension was his half-pay.
§ Mr. Humesaid, nothing could be more preposterous than that an officer, living in a dock-yard, and possessing every comfort, should receive a salary of greater amount than if he were employed in serving his country abroad.
Sir Byam Martinsaid, this individual received his superannuation allowance under an Act of Parliament—his half-pay was granted for forty years' service.
§ Sir G. Cockburnobserved, that it was not correct to say that those individuals got double what they would have done had they continued actively employed in the Navy. Had they remained in the naval service, they would now have been Admirals, with much larger allowances. Mr. Shield had been forty years in the naval service before he entered the civil service, in which he had been twenty years, and he was now nearly seventy years of age.
1,500l. to defray the Salaries of Chaplains in the naval service; and 270,000l; towards defraying the expense of the Out-pensioners of Greenwich Hospital were also voted.
§ Mr. J. E. Denisoncomplained, that by the existing Act of Parliament, a marine, who entered the service at twenty years of age, was entitled to claim his discharge and pension after he had served twenty-one years. Thus a perfectly healthy man of forty-one might claim a salary of 18l., 25l., 26l. or 27l., according to circumstances. When such a man returned to his native village, he found his old com- 945 panions scarcely receiving for their laborious exertions as large an income as his retired allowance.
§ Sir G. Cockburnsaid, the statement was true. A marine might obtain his discharge and a pension after twenty-one years service; but the pensions were under consideration. Some alteration would probably take place in the Act of Parliament to which the hon. Member had alluded.