The Sun.
London, England, 1854-09-19 00:00:00

COST OF THE NAVY.

At the end of July the House of Commons gave a
formal order for the printing of some Special particulars
of the way in which the money voted for army and navy
is spent by their high mightinesses, the salaried servants
of the public at the Horse Guards and the Admiralty.
Accordingly, in the quietest season of the year, when few-
est people are in town, and those few least inclined to vex
themselves with 85 folio pages of figures, out come from
the Parliamentary Printing-offices what are styled "De-
tailed Accounts of Receipt and Expenditure for Navy,
Army, Commissariat and Ordnance Services for the
year, to the 31st March, 1853." Just eighteen months
after date—a year and a half after the exact time when
a merchant, or other man of business would fix as the
proper ono for the immediate balancing and publication
of such a "detailed" statement, out come these special
figures to show how the public money voted for soldiers
and sailors was disposed of. If such figures were likely
to be useful at all they would have been more useful
months ago than they can be now. Turning, however,
from this defect in the return, we find some facts which,
though published in the previous statements of public
expenditure, cannot be too often commented on. First
on the list stands out, as prominently and pointedly as
ever, the fact of how small a comparative portion of the
money voted for our naval services goes to those
who form its thew and sinew, and how large
a portion to lumber and dead weight. Thus of
six millions four hundred and ninety-two thousand
six hundred and forty-six pounds considerably less
than a quarter went for wages to seamen and marines,
whilst the victuals of the whole navy cost very little
more than half a million. In round numbers we find
that two millions more than cover the cost of pay and
food for the navy, and yet we pay six millions and a
half for that service ! Are the other four millions spent
on new steam-ships and gun-boats ? Not at all. The
backbone of the navy is of course the seamen and the
officers afloat, and we all know we have in the "Navy
List" over six hundred ships built and paid for. What
goes with the four other millions, then ? These eighteen-
months-old accounts profess to tell. " Her Majesty's
establishments at home" run off with a little 132,6471.
Then there are " her Majesty's establishments abroad"
—including, of course, highly-important places like
certain old-fashioned and utterly useless West Indian
" establishments" and establishments in all the four
quarters of the globe, very important to those who
have vested interests in keeping such establishments
out of the public pocket. These absorb 23,2631.,
besides 35,3311. for "artificers, &c." Of course
besides these artificers abroad we have large bodies o f
" artificers" at home to bnild up, and pull to pieces again
and " lengthen," and " shorten," and " cut down,"
and so forth, the various experimental ships in the various
dockyards ; all such building up and cutting down not
enabling us, nevertheless, to lift 20,000 men from Eng-
land to Turkey without buying and hiring merchant
steamers and sailing vessels, when the real work of trans-
port really bad to be done. But if the artificers and
their masters, who in the year ended March 31, 1853,
.took the sum of 666,9291. out of the public purse for
wages in the working up apparently of 782,4951. worth
of " naval stores, &c., for the building, &c., of ships,
&c."—(the very words of the description)—if, we say,
these artificers did not supply us with the needful ship
room, we all know that they had votes for Chatham and
elsewhere. Then, again, above a quarter of a million
goes for "new works, repairs, and the yards," &c. Pen-
sions, and other dead weight, of course run off with a
huge sum, and under the ingeniously contrived varieties
of title of " half pay," "reserved half pay," " military
pensions" (in the navy, be it remembered), " retirement
to officers," " allowances," and " civil pensions and al-
lowances," the grand total is swelled up to 5,622,488/. ;
and with the packet service to 6,492,6461. To show hew
completely the bulk of the above is dead-weight, we
find after the above total is made up the " Supplemen-
tary Estimate." This was a thing hooked on when war
began to loom in the distance. Though all the vast
amounts we have been enumerating were charged to
John Bull and paid by him, and despite the existence of
the long naval muster-roll of ships of war, the moment
war seemed probable a " Supplement" became requisite,
for which, of course, there appears the little supplemen-
tary bill. This comes to 213,100/. ; but being for 6,500
additional seamen and marines, it was money paid away
for value received. Six millions and a half was for a
navy for peace service—when hostilities were probable,
it was admitted to be too weak for its place, vast as was
the price we were called upon to pay for it. This is too
bad. No Englishman objects to pay handsomely for a
good English navy, but he requires—and should ever
require—a thoroughly good navy for his money, equal to
all the demands to be made upon it, even though such
demands include the upset of Cronstadt and the capture
of Sebastopol. We do not object to pay, and pay hand-
somely ; but we do object to be juggled out of our money,
to be humbugged with stale accounts, and, worst of all, to
be in doubt whether for our six, seven, or eight millions
we have fleets able to do what Nelson did, with half the
parade, for half the money.—Daily News.