§ Sir G. Clerkproceeded to move the remainder of the Navy Estimates, and commenced by moving a sum of 99,000l. for defraying the charges for repairs and improvements in his Majesty's Dock-yards. This vote had been objected to on account of the sum called for the erection of a new naval hospital in Malta. The building of that hospital had been determined upon in consequence of the increase of our naval force in that quarter, and of the; want of adequate accommodation for the sick. The naval hospital was situated in a narrow and crowded part of the town of Valetta, but had been found so inconvenient that the. Government had given it up. Since our force had been increased in that quarter all the accommodation which, could be procured for the sick, was found; inadequate. The Admirals in command on \ that station had frequently represented i this, and the Admiralty therefore found: it necessary to submit an estimate to the Treasury of 17,000l. for building a new hospital. He did not think that too much, but the hon. member for Abingdon had objected to the vote on the ground of irregularity in commencing the work before the sanction of Parliament had been obtained for the necessary expenditure. As a general rule his objection was quite correct, but the exigencies of the public service did not always allow the executive; Government to follow that rule; the Finance Committee of 1817 had indeed' recognized the necessity of the Government sometimes departing from this plan. That committee recommended, that works should not be undertaken by the subordinate departments till the consent of the Treasury had been obtained, and this recommendation had been complied with. The Estimate had been submitted to the Treasury, and it had in August last issued orders, when a large force was sent to the 1000 Mediterranean to complete the proposed work. It certainly was commenced without the sanction of Parliament, but he was sure that the inconvenience to which the sick seamen would have been exposed wanting it, would induce the Parliament cheerfully to confirm the proceedings of the Admiralty.
Mr. Maberlyobjected to voting 17,000l. for the erection of this hospital. In his opinion Government had failed to make out a case of emergency, and their conduct had evinced a total disregard of the opinion of Parliament. He thought it very strange that a sum of 17,000l. should be expended in building an hospital on a foreign station at a time of peace; and he thought it still more strange that such an expenditure should have been incurred in a most unconstitutional manner. On various occasions, in 1711, in 1764, in 1784, in 1791, and in 1817, resolutions had been passed maintaining the principle that no money should be expended by Government without first obtaining the sanction of the House. In 1818 a Treasury Minute was passed to this effect, founded on that recommendation of the Finance Committee of 1817, to which the hon. Baronet had alluded. The question with him, therefore, was, whether the conduct of the Admiralty ought not to be considered as a breach of the defined law of Parliament. The facts stated proved that there was no such emergency as the hon. Baronet spoke of. It appeared that the work had been contemplated for three or four years, and the emergency was only thought of when the sanction of Parliament was to be obtained to the proceeding. He called on the committee, therefore, to refuse the grant, because the case involved that important principle by which that House was to exercise a control over the public expenditure. If the Government were to decide on the expediency of public works, that would reduce the power of control exercised by Parliament to a mere nullity. If ever there was a violation of constitutional principles this case was such a violation. The only circumstance which would justify the proceeding was, that without the hospital the public service could not have gone on. No such case had however been made out, no immediate and urgent necessity had been she we for the work, and he therefore should feel himself bound to resist the vote.
§ Sir G. Cockburnsaid, that Government 1001 had endeavoured as long as possible to avoid the expense of erecting a new hospital at Malta. After the battle of Navarino, however, Government received the most distressing reports of the misery which our wounded sailors experienced from the situation and the inadequate accommodation of the old hospital. In one representation their sufferings were described as dreadful, and even horrible. It was at that period far from improbable that another engagement might have occurred. A large additional force was sent to the Mediterranean, to provide for the wants of which the old hospital was wholly inadequate. Government, therefore, considered it a duty to provide against such a contingency, and he did not believe that a British House of Commons would blame, the Government for what it had done.
§ Mr. Humesaid, he objected to the conduct of Government, because it was opposed to the principle that no foreign works should be executed without the consent of Parliament, unless upon cases of emergency. In confirmation of that opinion the hon. Member quoted the following Order of the Treasury on this subject, dated in 1791, and signed H. Dundas. "My Lords are of opinion that no Commander-in-chief or governor is authorised to incur any expenses for which money has not been already granted by Parliament, or which has not been previously approved of by his late Majesty, and his Majesty's order signified by this Board for that purpose. That, secondly, if any governor or Commander-in-chief shall be of opinion that any expense ought to be incurred for the good of his Majesty's ser- vice, he is previously to make a re presentation thereof to the proper office at home, which is to communicate the same to this Board that his Majesty's pleasure may be taken thereupon, and that a proper estimate may be laid before Parliament, to the end that such sums may be granted as Parliament should think necessary for that purpose."
§ The order went on to state that in case of any unforeseen emergency rendering it impossible to apply to Parliament, the governor or Commander-in-chief was to transmit information to the Treasury, with the reasons for incurring the expense, but not to incur it if it could possibly be avoided. He contended, therefore, that this regulation had not been complied with, that no case of emergency had been 1002 made out, and that there had been a direct violation of the principle on which money was granted to the Crown. What made the case stronger was, that no estimate had been submitted to the Admiralty subsequent to that submitted by Lord Collingwood in 1809, so that from that time till 1830 the same state of things had existed, had been known, and yet to remedy it was called an emergency. Supposing, however, that it might be necessary to expend 16,000l. in 1809, the amount of the estimate sent by Lord Collingwood, it did not at all follow, when prices had everywhere fallen, that the same sum would be required in 1830. He admitted that the old hospital was inconvenient but he contended that the new one was not wanted. Sir Pulteney Malcolm stated the number of sick, in a despatch dated May 1829 to be 100, in a force of 6,000 persons. The increased force subsequently sent out had been again withdrawn in ordinary times, there never was a larger force than 6,000 men in the Mediterranean and he could not possibly conceive that 17,000l. ought to be expended to supply accommodation for 100 men. He had a right also to complain that this vote was not included in the Estimates of last year, it having been before that time under the consideration of the Admiralty. He hoped at least that the vote would be passed over till all the information connected with the subject was laid before it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeradmitted the general principle contended for by the hon. Member opposite; but he maintained that Government, had acted upon a case of emergency. After the explanation given by his hon. friend who had moved the vote, he did not in fact expect to hear it opposed. The hospital at Malta was found inadequate to provide for our sick when we had only 6,000 men on that station: when our force was raised to 8,000, Government felt it imperative, for the benefit of the service, to build a new hospital. The hon. member for Montrose was mistaken in saying that there was no estimate; there was an estimate transmitted in the regular course of business from the Admiralty to the Treasury. If it had been found that the hospital was too small for6000 men it was surely too small for 8,000, and the emergency which compelled the Government to make that addition to our force also compelled, it to provide an hospital.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that he believed a new hospital was wanted at Malta, and therefore he did not blame Government for having built one. But it did not appear to him that there had been that sort of sudden emergency which justified Ministers in going to such an expense without the previous sanction of Parliament. At the same time, when the question was whether our wounded seamen should be provided with a comfortable hospital; instead of being carried to a bad one, up a steep hill, which must add to their sufferings, he could not object to the vote.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, it was impossible for Government to delay any longer the building of a new hospital, after our force off that station had been increased. The estimates for it had been regularly submitted to the Treasury, which Board had not consented to the measure till the emergency arose which required a large additional force in the Mediterranean.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that it appeared to him that the House was called upon to make this grant without any satisfactory estimate having been placed before it.
§ Mr. Crokerrepeated his former statement, that all the necessary estimates had been laid before the Treasury in July last —that at that time they had been rejected, —but that, in consequence of the emergency which had rendered it necessary for us to send an increased force into the Mediterranean, it had been deemed necessary to proceed with the building of the hospital.
§ Sir G. Cockburn.— None has been drawn yet.
§ Mr. Humewas glad to hear it—but still thought that Government had made but a very lame case of it.
§ The Question was then put; but before it was carried,
§ Mr. Humesaid, that there was another item in this vote to which he felt considerable objection. After voting a million and a half for new churches, he could not see any reason why the Committee should be called upon to vote 4,000l. for the erection of a new chapel at the Dockyard at Pembroke.
Sir B. Martinexplained the circum- 1004 stances which had induced the Government to consent to the erection of this chapel at the public expense. Last year, when he went down to the dock-yard at Pembroke, the officers met him with a representation that the shipwrights were anxious to attend divine service at the established church, but were not able to do so from want of room. As there were upwards of 500 shipwrights there, and as their families amounted to upwards of 2,000 souls, the Government had deemed it only right to afford them a place for the celebration of divine worship. Only 2,000l. would be wanted for the erection of the chapel this year; 4,000l. would be the total expense of its erection, as Mr. Macintosh had contracted to erect it for that sum. If it were not built now, it would never be built at so cheap a rate at any other period, as Mr. Macintosh, who was now building some works for the Ordnance, could build at a cheaper rate now than he could at any other time.
Colonel Daviessaid, that the parish church was not more than two miles distant, and he therefore should support the hon. Member's objection to the grant.
Mr. Maberlysaid, that there had been an intention at one time to get rid of this dock-yard altogether; if so, what occasion was there to build this chapel?
§ Sir G. Clerksaid, that there were so many local advantages about this yard, that he could assure the Committee that there was no intention to abandon it.
§ Mr. Humecalled upon the Committee to consider well what they were going to do. If they determined to make a dockyard at Pembroke, they would soon be called upon to vote money for the purpose of building fortifications to protect it, for the dock-yard could not protect itself. He should therefore propose to postpone the voting of this item of 2,000l. till next year, when they would be able to discover whether this dock-yard would be continued or not. At present the House was asked for 99,000l. for a department which before the French war cost 25,000l. Was that to be borne? Part of the expense, he observed, was for the superannuation of chaplains, which he did not understand, as he never heard of superannuated bishops.
Sir B. Martinsaid, the superannuations were allowed to chaplains on the same principle precisely, that they were allowed to other persons.
§ Mr. Trantobserved, that having a great 1005 regard for the moral instruction and religious welfare of the Army and Navy, he felt himself bound to support this part of the grant.
§ The Gallery was then cleared for a division, but
§ Mr. Humeconsented to withdraw his Amendment. He had another question, however, to put to the gallant officer opposite. How was it that he came to ask the Committee this year to vote 3,000/. for works upon the lakes in Canada?
§ Sir G. Cockburnsaid, that this sum was wanted to keep up the works which were necessary for the repair of the ships we had on the lakes at the close of the American war. By the treaty then made, we had a right to keep them in repair, though we could not increase their number. It was impossible to say what the expense of these establishments might be in time of war; but it would never exceed 2,000l. or 3,000l. a-year, in time of peace. He could assure the hon. member for Aberdeen, that the American ships at Sacket's Harbour were as well taken care of as our own.
§ The Vote was then agreed to.
§ The sum of 210,000l. for the purchase of Provisions for troops and garrisons on foreign stations, and for the Convict service, was voted without any remark. 250,000l. as the charge for Transports was also voted.