The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-17 00:00:00

in the naval department would be surprised at the efforts
made by those who wished to effect a reduction of tha
expendituns. The Hon. Member had asserted that the
navy was in perf ct order. He, had never heard any
other statement from persons occupying the Hun. Gen-
tleman's situation. Never was it acknowledged that any
errors had been committed by the naval authorities.
But was it not a reproach to the House to have sanc-
tioned such a system of extravagance as that which the
Hon. Gentleman had exposed? The Hon. Gentleman had
stated that in 1815 there was a large fund of ships form-
ing the naval stock of the empire. If he turned to " Han-
sard," he would find repeated attempts recorded therein
as having been made by him (Mr. Hume), in 1816 to
1825, in order to put a stop to.this extravagance. Within
those years, no less than 23,000,0001. had been wasted
on the navy, But how was it that the Hon, Member
had discovered all these extravagances and misdoings?
He bad moved the naval estimates during the last two
years according to his own statement, and how was it
that he bad never before detected the faults be now laid
hare? Whence did the light break in upon him? Tte
Committee it was thatpiad brought all these wasteful pro-
ceedings under the public eye, that Committee for movs
ing the nomination of which he had been so much abused.
He must say, to the credit of the Noble Lord who sat
near him, that he deserved the utmost credit fer his
efforts and labours, but still there would be very great
difficulty before any results were attained. Every Mem.
her of the Committee, of whatever party he might be,
had also done his utmost to promote the objects of the
inquiry, and to expose the errors of the past manage^
ment of the navy. But notwithstanding the Honourable
Gentleman's admissions as to the past, he must bear to be
told that the actual management of the navy was not
a bit better than it had been. The number of ships that
were building, and the quantity of stores that was re-
quired, did not accord with the professions of economy
that had been made. With respect to one point on
which be had been somewhat unfairly subjected to blame
—namely, as to the effect produced upon honest hard-
working artiains and shipwrights by the reduction of men
which he proposed, ho must beg leave to say that he had
not been aware of the manner in which reductions of the
establishments bore on individuals affected by them. All
be had to say was that men were enticed from other oc-
cupations, and led to expect permanent work in the ser-
vice, and then the Admiralty in a sudden fit of economy
—(A laugh)—yes, a sudden fit of economy, which
contrasted strangely and even violently with their
habitual extravagance, discharged a vast number of
these shipwrights, and threw them without resource
upon the labour market. When he was told, as a reta
sun why the charges for building and repairing ships
were so heavy, that the country required a certain
force to be kept up, he must say that the mode of
keeping up that naval force, by letting the ships rot
in harbour, was most wasteful. Why net have a cer-
tain proportion always at sea in turn ? The fault lay
in the House not looking more narrowly into the esti-
mates before they were proposed in Committee of Sup-
ply. In France and Belgium the Ministers were com-
pelled to justify every item in their respective budgets
before committees of the Assemblies previous to being
permitted to propose them in the Houses of Assembly.
He had vainly tried to enforce the same system here. lie
could not understand why the estimates should not be
referred to a Committee upstairs before they were pro-
posed in Committee of Supply. He made these remarks
because he thought that by perseverance—(Hear, hear)
—he should be auk to succeed in compelling the Ministers
to take the course he pointed out. Let there be oblivion
guaranteed for the past, provided the Government en-
tered upon a new course, now the errors of former Ad-
ministrations had been discovered and admitted. There
had also been some very severe reflections made upon
him, as if he had grudged the half-pay of the naval
officers. He did not grudge any pay for past set-
vices, hut he did object to see young men entering
the navy and thrusting aside older men, who
were compelled to pass their lives in the re-
ceipt of half-pay, whilst they were burning to
be actively employed in the service which they loved.
His Hon. Friend (Mr. Ward) had stated that the service
of the navy was carried on independent of patronage.
That might be true as far as Lord Auckland was con-
cerned, and he hoped it would prove true for the future,
but certainly it was not so as regarded the past, when
patronage was certainly the governing principle. The
Hon. Secretary for the Admiralty had expressed a hope
that the House would not support his amendment; be
would, therefore, proceed to state the grounds upon
which he moved it, in order at least to enable Hon.
Members to understand what it was he proposed. Ile
had taken as the
.basis of his calculation of the number
of men required for the navy, not the favourite year
1835, but an average of the five years from 1835 to 1839
inclusive, during which period the mean number of men
employed in the navy was 31,469. The House was now
asked for 40,000, whilst in the year 1840, when the Sr
rian war was raging, there were only 34,000; and whell,
the Noble Lard, the Foreign Secretary, proposed to add
7,000 marines to the naval force, he (Mr. Hume) bad
unsuccessfully opposed him. Bat he did not desire
to bring the number of men down to the average Of
1835-39, nor yet of 1840; but simply to reduce them to
35,000. Was he rash in asking the House to descend
again to the level of the years 1835-39 ? He would
even be contented if this was effected gradually, provided
it was done; and of that the Hon. Gentlemen might be
quite persuaded the country would at length make sure.
Down the number must go. Woul 1 the House believe
that the number of ships at present was 460—namely,
208 in ordinary and 252 in commission, added to which
there were 32 ships now building. Let them put an cod
to building altogether. The proportion of ships on'
ployed on foreign stations since the year 1835 had very
greatly increased. On the Pacific and south-east coast
of America station there were, in 1835, 14 ships and
2,091 men. In 1848 there were on the same station 26
ships and 5,431 men, showing an increase of 12 ships
and 3,340 men on this station. On the west coast of
Africa and tho Cape of Good Hope there were eln"..
ployed, in 1835, 13 ships, and 1,065 men. In 1848 there
were 37 ships and 4,647 men, making an increase of 24
ships and 3,582 men. On the Mediterranean stations
where, according to Sir G. Cockburn, one ship-of-the lin!
and 2 frigates w, re a safficient squadron in times of
peace, there were, in 1835, 23 ships and 6,236 men: in
1848 there were 31 ships and 8,337 men—making 11,0
increa eof 8 ships and 2,101 men. Now, he would 55°.
whether there was not on these three station an excess
of ships and men, and whether 35 ships were not capable
of doing all the duty that was required in those sees'
All he asked for was, that a reduction of 8,000 spies",
the proposed reduction of 3,000 of the Government,
should be agreed to. Now, what was the proposition which,
ho submitted to the House ? There were 59,000,000"
collected in the course of the year ; and out of that stll,
and not out of the 11,000.0001. he proposed to make
reductions. There were 41 millions expended in collect'
ing the revenue; but he was convinced that 2 millions
annually would clear the whole expense. The estimates
were characterised by most extraordinary extravagance;
and the confessions of that night could not lessen the
anxiety to diminish the expenses, for it was now admitted
that they were in a condition to call upon the
Government to have every department overhauled.--
(Hear, hear.) The cost of collecting the revenue was
its much now that 700 articles had been struck off the
list as when they were 1,100 articles on which it was
collected. He contended, and would repeat, that
2,006,0004 should cover the whole charge; but if they
employed in on 3 case nine commissioners, and in another
seven commissioners, to do the work of one, they could
not expect to have any limit to their expenditure.--
(Hear, hear.) In addition to this he would make the.
crown lands productive, and in the civil list he would
make a considerable reduction.—(Cheers.) Why should
they have three or four pensioned chancellors, with 5,0001.
a year, when one acting chancellor would suffice? Was
it not possible that by abolishing the mock sovereignty ie
Ireland they might save 100,000/. a year? And was it
not possible after the exhibitions they had had with re"
gard to the navy, ordnance, and army to make great re-
ductions in those departments? And in the colonies
again, was it not monstrous that three or four millions a
year should continue to be paid for their management
when the people of England actually needed the nee"^
series of ,life?—(Cheers.) He would ask whether out
of that 59,000,0001. it could be denied by any
person who had looked into these estimates
that a large sum might be spared?—(Hear, bear)
But if they wished to economise they must reduce tile,.
number of their men to the average to which he hell
referred, and must determine, as he hoped they would,
that this vote should be reduced to 35,000 men.
Sir F. BARING concurred with the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down, in thinking that it was a greet
misfortune that that House sometimes looked with veil
large and liberal views at the public expenditure, whilst
at other times they were inclined to throw themsolreo
into the opposite extreme, and to reduce the expenditure
below what was absolutely essential.—(Hear,
Having been a member of the Committee which bad
sat upon this subject, he was inclined to admit that
owing to irregularities or a want of system, there had "
been an expenditure which might have been saved'
Still, they must remember the circumstances of the
case. The introduction of steam, for example, Intl
the navy, had changed the whole face of war, and
.1
was necessary that this country should not be left 111
an unprotected state. In April, 1848, there were 45,94‘,
',.
men actually on the bcoks, and they proposed now that
40,000 only should be voted. It was proposed practically,
then, that there should be a reduction of 6,000 men in
the course of the year; and the Hon. Gentleman now
proposed a still further reduction of 5,000 men, makin%thi
in all nearly 11,000. He did not think, however,
the Hon. Gentleman had made out grounds for any such
reduction. The world was not quiet in 1835 or 1848'
His Hon. Friend forgot that they were compelled by
treaty to keep up a squadron on the coast of Mies'
That squadron could not be got rid of by reducing th°
number of seamen. That had been a subject of inquiry
before the Committee, and he trusted that the House
would not, from motives of economy, so far give way /i
/
to reduce the number of men with a view of getting rid
of the squadron. There was another point which his
Hon. Friend had likewise omitted to mention. We were
bound to keep up five ships in China, These squadron,
Ictirema taetdteras of tiectehisityki fnd, areliance or 2,500 e) r 3,
mustooo be
additional wet
placed to
certain extent on those who were at the head of the Go-
vernment It would be easy for him to show, by its' ci
parison with the force of other countries, that it won
not be advisable to have less hands than there were; but
a,
he was glad to be relieved from such a task, which was
always one of an invidious kind. He thought it bct
to place this matter on that which was the real constitu-
tionalo ground, viz., that of its being a question of c of%
dence, the Government of the day being the best jucler_,
of the state of affairs. The Hon. Gentleman admitted
that commerce required protection; and if he (Sir_.
Baring) did not admit it, he should be reminded of it
very often. Since he had been at the Admiralty,
had not been without applications from different parties'
asking, under the present state of affairs, not nuna
rally, for the protection of a British ship of war,
_
and
believedsince
b ehad
th eh
efirstld
the
et that
presenthe per forme, me
wasd i nt
othe
answer Hous.ea:
c 140211914 of a ga114141 citiver, whether be