The Sun.
London, England, 1822-03-19 00:00:00

111 ALT DUTY BILL

Mr HUSKISSON said, that as the Hon. and Gallant
Member(Sir J. Yorke) probably took the opportunity of an
interval in the course of public business to bring forward this
subject, he rose to move that the Order of the Day for the
bringing up of the Report on the Malt Duty Bill be read.
The Report having been brought up,
Mr. HUSKISSON begged to observe with reference to
this subject, that he had heard with surprise of the observa-
tions which had occurred in the Committee, whose Report
was then before them. He took blame to himself for not having
been present on that occasion, and he had only been apprised
of the observation to which he alluded from those sources which
were open to all • the world ; but they appeared to him so
monstrous that he could; not allow this occasion to pass
without noticing them. He alluded to the assertion that the
present reduction in the duty upon malt would not lead to a
diminution in the price of beer, and that it was therefore the
intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in this measure,
to put a bonus into the pockets of the brewer. The amount of
this bonus, if the measure were to have that operation, would
be 800,0001. ; and he never could believe that it was the in-
tention of his Right. Hon. Friend, that the benefit of this re..
mission of taxation should go into the pockets of the few, when

the many were so much in need of it.—(Hear, hear !)--Ile
could not believe that the people of England would assent to
the arrangement; and he was sure the House would uncrfere
to prevent it.—(Hear, hear !)—After such an intimation, the
price of barley being so much depressed as it was, lie hoped
that whoever had money enough to buy a barrel and a bushel
of malt,' would prefer brewineat home to taking his beer of
the public brewer.—(Hear.)—Re hoped, too, it wouldhave the
effect of inducing farmerA to brew more generally, so as to be
able to give their labourers some good wholesome beverage,
instead of paying them entirely in money wages, and sending
them to the public house to pay a high price for a bad article.
He alsb recommended it to the serious attention of NI ab,ristrates
to license a greater number of free public houses, though it might
be destructive tomany of the "—ewer's houses. Ile should be
glad to see any mode put in practice tending-to break thre com-
bination to prevent the people from having the benefit all a re-
mission of taxation intended for their rclief.—(Hear !)—These
two measures would operate in that way, but still they would
be inadequate. The intention of the Legislature was, that the
relief should be felt by the consumer - and as it appeared that
the price of beer was not to be lowered, it became their duty
to consider whether they should allow the whole benefit of the
measure to accrue to the public brewer. It was in their
power to preVent the intimation which hail Fortunately been
given in time, from being carried into effect. In conse-
quence of the great depression in the ric,e of barley--
a clear benefit would thereby result to the -brewers of from
800001. to 900,0001. 'lf then the consumer was to have
no portion of this from the hands of the brewer, he really
thought that. House ought to lay a duty upon every barrel of
beer equivalent to the amount of diminished cost effected by
the repeal of the malt duty, contingent to its remaining at its
present price._( Hear, hear. )_He suggested this seriously to
his Right Honourable Friend (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer), for if ever the public had a right to look for a diminu-
tion in the price of the necessaries of life, and particularly in
this article of beer, it was now.--( Hear, hear.)—Either the
brewers had mismanaged their affairs very much in the price
they had charged for their manufactures hitherto, or they were
makifig at this moment very inordinate profits. No one could
doubt:this who considered the diminution in the capital requir-
ed consequent upon the reduced prices of all the articles requi-
site to production. But independently of this, it was riot to be
borne, when a reduction of tax was made to the extent of a
farthing on the pot of beer, the public were not to have the
benefit in the price ; and the grower, in the increased demand,
produced by the lowering of the prices. He declared that he
had no interest in it one way or the other; but if his Right
Honourable Friend did not take it up in the light he had sug-
gested, he would himself propose a resolution, to lay such an
addition of duty on the stock of the public brewer, as should
be commensurate with the intended benefit to the people at
large. When the reduction of-a million and a half of taxes
had gone hand in hand with the reduction of the interest of
the public debt---a measure which, although perfectly fair
and Just, yet deprived many persons of some portion of
their annual means Of livelihood—it was beyond all descrip-
tion unjust that the benefit of that reduction should go,
not to the consumer, but to a class who did not deserve it.--
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CALCRAFT said, he agreed entirely'in what had fal-
len4rom the Right Hon. Gentleman, who had just`sat down ;
he had not been present when the conversation alluded to
took place, .but he perfectly agreed-with the Right Hon. Gen-
del:Min that it was monstrous that the intention of the Legis-
lature to:remove a burden from the people should be converted
into means of additional profit to a class not entitled, and
not contemplated by the Measure. He had „heard the Right
Bon. Gentleman with peculiar pleasure, because he was not
inclined to give a bonus of 800,0001. to that class of persons ;
and beiatise it would afford him an opportunity of renewing
his Motion for a reduction of the Salt Tax, at the rate of
500,0001. a year. The Right Honourable Gentleman had
opened a, plan which would not create a fund of 500,0001.
by whieh-this might be effected, but which would leave 300,0001.
over and above. He hailed this as a most fortunate prospect
for those friends of his proposition upon the subject of the
Salt Tax. Speaking on this subject, he could not help advert-
ing to the tax upon hops. There were upwards of 50,000 acres
employed in the cultivation of this article, and it produced an
amount of duty equal to 240,0001. per annum. Thus it was n
tax of 51. per acre on land, and on an ingredient forming so
essential a necessary of life, at the same time that it operated
as a monstrous burden on that part of capital employed in the
produce of this article. He thought this tax should be looked
at with a very jealous eye ; but with regard to the proposition
-of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), it would be
tantamount to a further reduction of taxation, without troubl-
ing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and without taking one
shilling from- the Sinking Fund.
Mr. .HUSKISSON begged to remind the Hon. Gentleman
that his proposition was to be contingent on the price of beer
remaining at what it now is ; and he was sure that what had
already passed would have the effect of lowering it.
Mr. CALCRAFT admitted the Right Hon. Gentleman's',
contingency, but he relied on the firmness of the brewers.
Mr. DAVENPORT expressed his concurrence and grati-
tude in the sentiments of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Huskisson.)
Mr. BUXTON said, that the proposition of the Right son.
Gentleman was no more than what he had himself suggested on
that occasion. For his own part he begged to say, that con-
nected as he was with the trade, if the brewers continued to
act upon the intimation they had given of not reducing the
price of beer, he would join in support Of the proposition of
the Right Hon. Gentleman.--(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. YORKE hoped-also, that the beer being of inferior
quality would be made a necessary contingent for the imposi-
tion of the duty.
Mr. HUSKISSON said, that although he had no objection
to propose such a clause, he could not consent to be the
taster.—(A laugh.)
After a few words from Mr. Curwen, General Gascoyne, and
Mr. Cripps, the Report was received and agreed to, and the
Bill ordered for a third reading to-morrow.
A Message from the Lords announced their Lordships' As-
sent to certain Private Bills (for which see Lords.)
Mr. PRICE presented a Petition from certain occupiers of
land, in the county of Herefordshire, complaining of Agricul-
tural Distress.

Sir I. COFFIN said, he did not think the prospects of Here-
fordshire so gloomy as the Petitioners stated.
The Petition was laid on the table.

• MR. HUNT.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a Petition from the Town of Bris-
tol, ptaying the Howie to take the cave of Mr. Hunt into con-
sideration. The Honourable Member said, that he was sorry
to be obliged to say,
•that the representations which had been
made in the first instance respecting the hardships of Mr.
Hunt) had been borne out by subsequent investigation ; he
trnsted that the House would give the subject that attention
which it deserved.

Mr. HUME presented a Petition of a similar tendency,
from Chippenham, in Wiltshire. The Hon. Gentleman said,
that from all inquiries up to the. present hour, that he had
made respecting the case of Mr. Hunt, he was able to say that
that individual had been treated with great and unnecessary
severity.
The Petitions were ordered to lie on the Table, and to be

Mr. HUME presented a Petition from the •Proprietors of
Land in the Western District of Strathmore; in Perth, com-
plaining of Agricultural distress—Ordered to lie on the Table.
THE IRISH FIVE PER CENTS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
the question of the Engligh Navy Five per Cents. having been
disposed of, it now remained for him to state that precisely the
same arrangement was intended to be made with respect to the
Irish Navy Five per • Cents. The Right. Honourable 'Gentle-
man then gave notice that he would move on to-morrow that
the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the Irish
Navy Five per Cents.
Mr. HUME wished to know what, was intended to be done
with respect to 50,0001. Five per Cents. due to the Bank of
Ireland ? Was it intended on the part of Government to pay
them off; or was it intended to receive the usual rate of interest ?
, • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it
was intended to offer to the Bank of Ireland the same terms
which would be offered to other holders of•five per cent. Stock ;
and, should the-Bank decline accepting those terms, then, like
other dissenting parties, the Bank would be paid off. .
The, CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved
that there be laid before the House, copies of Two Treasury
Minutes, on the subject of the reduction of the Salaries of Civil
Officers. •

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER next moved
that there be laid, before the House an estimate of the sum that
may be required to pay off those Proprietors of the Navy five
per cents. who might dissent from the terms offered by Parlia-

meat. - The Right lion. Gentleman (as far as could be col-
lected, for he spoke tin a tone of voice extremely low) said that
he. wished to lay an estimate of the sum that might be necessary
to pay off the dissenting parties, before the House ; the esti-
mate would not be confined.to the exact sum that might be re-
quired, but would exceed that sum by about 100,0001. in order
to meet contingencies. The Right Hon. Gentleman (as was
understood) proceeded to say, that the sum required would be
2,600,0001.
Mr. LUSFIINGTON brought up an Account of the Esti-
mate moved for by the Chanceuer of the Exchequer.
Ordered to be referred to the Committee of Supply.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee
of Supply,
Mr. BERNAL said, that his Ron. Friend (Mr. Hume) had
on a former climbing alluded to an individual (whose name
could not be learned), who (according to the statement of his
-Honourable Friend) had received a large superannuation al-
lowance, after a very few years service. The fact was, that the
Gentleman alluded to had (patting all together) been in the
public service for a period of 30 years.
Mr. Il UAIE said, that he hactspolcen from the Returns. If
the statement he had made were erroneous, the Returns led
hire:into the error. .
Sir JOSEPH YORKE said, that he had to mention a sub-
ject which had excited acknatinbacest atpong naval officers, and
which deeply concerned the profession. The facts were these
—John Clarke Searle, Esq. Rear Admiral of the White; passed
his flag three years ago, he having been Chairman of the Victu-
alling Board ; that officer, however, as appeared from the
Gazette, had, notwithstanding having passed his flag, been ap-
pointed Rear Admiral of the White. Be (Sir J. Yorke) said,
that the cause of the retirement of that Officer from the Victu-
alling Board was in consequenca of some alleged delinquency
in the subordinite departments of the Victualling Office. It
struck him, and he believed it struck the Officers of the navy
in geneial with surprise, that the Officer in question, havin,,
filled the chair at the Victualling Board for 14 years and a hart'
—hiving been, (hiring the course of the war, so much approved
of at the Treasury as to have been highly rewarded, and to
have. had a pension of 3001. a year conferred on his lady—that
he should have been suddenly displaced, as it were, by a flash
of Royal displeasure—(A laugh.)—For his own part, he was
sure that the Gallant Officer (John Clarke Searle) was not 'ca-
pable of any thing that could in the slightest degree reflect
upon him ; but at the same time he thought that an explana-
tion was required. The Hon. Member next proceeded to state,
that on the removal of Admiral Searle from the Board; he
found that a Colonel of the Guards (Col. Stapleton) had been
appointed to his place, though it was understood that a Navy
Officer was the fittest person to fill that situation—that appoint-
ment he could not help considering a mere job ; 'it was worth
observing, there was at the Board under Colonel Stapleton a
Naval Officer at a salary of 2001. a-year.
Sir G. COCKBURN said, that on an investigation it ap-
peared that there were not those checks upon clerks in that de.
partment that were deemed necessary, and it was, under all the
circumstances, deemed expedient, that Admiral Searle should
continue at the head of the Board, but though that determina-
tion was come to, the Admiralty felt and declared that there
had been nothing in the conduct of Admiral Searle unworthy
the character of an Officer—of a good and an honest men'; and
when he was removed from the Board, the Admiralty felt it
right, in order to show the world that they considered his cha-
racter quite unimpeached, to promote him to the rank to which
he was entitled in his profession. The Gallant Officer (Sir
Joseph Yorke) said, that none but Naval Officers ought to
have been placed' at the head Of 'the Victualling Board ; now
the contrary was the fact, for a civilian was considered fitter for
the Chair. The Gallant Officer had spoken of his regard and
respect' for his profession ; he (Sir G. Cockburn) was obliged
to say, that the Gallant Officer had not shewn that tenderness
for the interest of the profession, when, during the time he was
connected with the Admiralty, he had voted in the .House
against Isis conscience, but to use his own phrase, " his stern
should be turned to the Board."

Mr. ELLlCE'said, that the character and conduct of Ad-
rniral Searle were deserving of the highest respect. During the
war he had discharged his duty in a manner to deserve the
thanks and the honourable rewards which he had received..:,..
When he (Mr. Ellice) had heard of his removal he called ctn
him, and his Hon. Friend explained very minutely to him the
whole of the circumstances ; lie also produced to him a letter,
stating that his services were no longer deemed necessary at the
Board, but that letter was written in terms highly honourable to
Admiral Searle. He (Mr. Ellice) was almost glad that the
subject had been brought before the House, because it gave an
opportunity to the Honourable Officer opposite (Sir G. Cock-
burn), of expressing, not only his individual sentiments, but
the general opinion of ,the Admiralty with respect to the con-
duct of Admiral Searle,. and it also enabled him to state in his
place his opinion of that Gallant Officer.
Sir ISAAC COFFIN said, that he had always considered
Admiral ,Searle a meritorious Officer. No person during the
last war could have conducted himself more to the satisfaction
of the Admiralty, or to the advantage of the service.
Mr. CROKER said, that the sole object of the Board of
Admiralty was to have the place in question filled by, a person
most competent to discharge its duties; it was on that prmciple
that Colonel Stapleton was selected without any solicitation on
his part ; and .in fact he was ignorant that his appointment
was in contemplation until it had been actually made. So far
from that appointment being in the nature of a job, as the
Gallant Officer had thought fit to state, independent of the
merits of Colonel Stapleton, there was also a view of economy
taken with respect to his appointment ; it was intended to re-
duce two Commissioners of the Navy Board, and he having
been a Commissioner, was selected, by which means the pro-
vision which he, would otherwise have been entitled to was
saved to the country. _Thus it would appear, that so far from
having in view any object of patronage, the Lords of the Ad-
miralty preferred an individual for his naNts, and with a view
to public economy. • It was necessary to add, that by acting on
the principle he had stated, a saving had been effected of 14001.
a year, whilst the business of the Department has been done
much better than it had been before. . ' • •

The House having gone into a Committee of Supply,
Sir J. OSBORN moved that a sum' of 64,8991. 18s. 6d.
should be granted for Salaries and Contingencies in the Navy
Office.

Mr. 'HUME objected to so large a grant. He did not see
now in a time of peace the use of seven Commissioners. He
could not see why so large a grant should be required, when
in 1792, the sum for the same service did not amount 12,0001.
He wished to know whether the reductions that had been made
were, all that were intended ? The present establishment was
too large, and he expected to hear whether we had arrived at
what might be considered the permanent peace establishment ?
Sir J. OSBORN said, the Commissioners at the Navy
Board were now reduced to the lowest possible number. There
were four Committees, and two Commissioners were the
smallest number, it would be allowed for each. There were
now but eight Commissioners.
Mr. CROKER observed, there were no less than five Com-
missioners reduced, two at the Ports and three at the Board.
He would state why they could not be reduced lower. The
Min. Gentleman might be aware that the Commissioners of
Naval Inquiry had advised that the business of the Navy
Board should be divides,' into Committees. The business of
the Navy Board could- not occupy less than three Committees,
and the Transport Service another. If, however, the business
of any one of these Committees was, in the course of the peace,
reduced so far as to admit of its being united with another, the
Admiralty Board would not omit the opportunity of effecting
that reduction. As to the general subject Of the Clerks, it
was true that the present saving from the reduction of Clerks
would be made up in great Measure by thesUperaininations.--:-
(Hear; hear, hear !)—The honourable Gentleman, however,
would not wish that the individuals in question should be dis-
missed without superannuation. The sUptrannuations were
granted, not upon the existing Act of Parliament, but on the
newly reduced scale. This proved the wish of the Government
to proceed with economy ; for although they had an Act of
Parliament to shelter themselves under, they chose -to proceed
on the reduced Scale which had not yet been sanctioned by Par-
liament. He should give at one view a view of the reduction
in all the Offices. ,The Establishment of the Admiralty, Pay
Office, Navy Office, and Victualling Office, was fixed last year at
317 Clerks. The Establishment now submitted was 263. The
reduction was 54 Clerks. The expende was not very easily cal-
culated, because the salaries depended upon length of service.—
But taking all the Clerks to have served 10 years, which was a
fair calculation, the expence in the last year would have been
103,0001. and now 74,0001. the saving was in effect 33,0001. He
admitted that this saving would' not at once.come into the pocket
of the public, but the expence of the retirement allowances was
not quite 20,0901. The accidents of mortality would diminish this
every day, and there was moreover this principle established, that,

Mr. HLIAIE observed, it was not the number of AShip* at
sea, which was nearly the same as in 1792., that he object-
ed to. The Honourable Secretaiy had given his account
of the reductions ; he (Alr. Hume)) would give h 4 .version
of it. In 1792, the expence of all the offices,_ Constecfd
with the Navy, was 58,9171. ;` they were last year 14,047 th..;
this year they were reduced by 33,009 L, Which still left them
at 152,0001., instead of 58,0001. The Victualling O'fliie.was
36,0001. in 1792 ; it was now 66,0001. The whole reduc-
tion on what he might call the live establishment, taking in
half-pay, and superannuations,, &c. was only 31,0001., so that.
the saving boasted of was in the dead expence, -or thoise items,
in which no sacrifice was required ,to effect a saving. There
was a saving of 400,000 L on the ship-building. The expence
of the improvement of Dock-yards was reduced from 424,0011.
to 154,0001. It was, however the stafe'of the establishments
they had to look to, to prove the disposition-to economy. There
was one principle which the Hon. Secretary had professed to
act upon—the bringing in of individuals on the retired Lists to
fill vacancies. If the Hon. Secretary, and the heads of other
departments, really acted upon this principle, they would de-
serve greater praise than for all the reductions they had yet
performed.—(Hear !)—He did not give the same credit to the
new plan of promotion. He feared it would not be merit which
would determine promotions, but that what pervaded all de-
partments, and not less the Naval than,any other—House fit: --
Commons' interest, or Parliamentary influence, would ha el
much more to do in the matter. -As to the inconveniences said
to arise from the advancement by seniority, they might be felt
now and then, but in fact very rarely. Where, he would ask,
were there better officers than those of the Artillery, Marine...,
or Engineers, among whom promotions went entirely by s*ii-
rity ?—(Hear !)—There WAS one item in which he observed an
increase in the present Estimates—the charge for Messengers,
Sir B. MARTIN said, the number of .MessengersNavy-Office was now constantly complained of as ins.ufficiegt.
a
Sir I. COFFIN said, it was inconceivable what quantity
of business the Messengers had to do.
maSnirneTrV. Be C
inwhiclthEthSePcolGN invi bore
tr'oiieoftethsteirrio to
Navy
n (Sirtig
pefformed the duties of his office.

Mr. CROKER observed, that although the salaries in the
Admiralty Office in the year 1793 were extremely low, theper-
quisites or fees of Office were extremely high, in conseque;:cc
of which the profits of the Secretary of that Office became very
considerable, while, through the operation of the arrangemer
that had since prevailed, the profits were more equally divide,i.
between the Secretary and the other clerks. The Floncur-
able Member for Aberdeen had however stated, and appeared
to conceive, that there had been no adequate reduction in the
Clerks of the Admiralty Since 1793. But what was the fact?
. why that in 1813 the number of clerks was 55; in 1814, 52 ;
in 15, 46 • in 16, 29; in 17, 28 ; in 19, 28 ; in 20, 27; in
21, 26; 'in 22, 14. Thus the reduction in the number of Ad-
miralty Clerks had gone on from year to year, especially since
the peace, _in such a degree as should satisfy,even the Honour-
able Alen:her for Aberdeen, that the Admiralty had left -no-
thing in its power undone to produce every practicable eco-
nomy.' The fact was, that the clerks of the Admiralty had
been, since 1813, reduced from 550 to 262. The Hopurahle
Member for Aberdeen had observed upon the necessity ofse-
lecting persons to fill any vacant appointments, rather from
the Superannuation List, than from any other class of the
public servants This was no doubt corrects where the Super-
annuation List afforded competent persons. It happened Whim-
self to find a vacancy in his department which could not be sup-
plied from any class in the Superannuation List, and therefore
he applied to his Hon. Friends the Comptroller of the Navy,
to furnish him with a proper person. His Hon. Friend had
done so, and he had to observe, that he travellekolit..of his
o.wn patronage to appoint an efficient person from any other
department, although he was entitled to appoint when::: he
pleased.

Mr. -HUME said, that no doubt the Hon. Secretary or any
other public officer was deserving of any praise that could be
pronounced upon him, for his endeavours to promote the cause
of public economy ; but he begged leave to ask, with all the
reduction that was stated to have taken place id: the number of
clerks, how came it that the reduction .of public .expence in
these clerks since 1813 had only amounted to 4,1001.? The
Honourable Secretary had stated the salary and, perquisites of
his predecessor in office had amounted to 12,0001... per annum,
and if so, how came it that the . difference between the salary
and fees of the Admiralty in 1796, and at the present ;time,
should be so very insignificant ? Advertffig ro the charge for
seven Commissioners for the Victualling Board, the lion.
Member maintained• that two of these:Commissioners were
quite ,unnecessary, and therefore he would propose an Amend.,
ment for the reduction of 1,6001. from the proposed grant for
the salary.af those Commissioners._ -

Sir-J. -YORKE declared, that he could see no necessity
whatever for the support of seven Commissioners at the Vic.
tualling Office, believing that half the number would be quite
sufficient for the performance of the duty assigned to that
Board.

Sir G. COCKBURN said, that upon- an• inquiry instituted
by himself and another Lord. of the Admiralty, it appeared that
all the Commissioners of the Victualling Board were required
to conduct a minute supervision of the accounts of that depart-
ment. If the Hon. Member for Aberdeen were himself, in-
deed, acquainted with the details of that department, he would,
he (Sir G.) was assured, feel the propriety of an arrangement,
that would guard against the comparative carelessness of clerks,
by consigning the business of investigating accounts to the
more responsible offices of CommisSioners. He wopld tylvise
the Honourable Member, therefore, to abstain from the inju-
dicious economy which he appeared to have in view,-and ra-
ther let the business of the Victualling-office be conducted, by
duly qualified persons.
l'he Hon. G. BENNET thought it very extraordinary that,
as the accounts of the Victualling Board_must become less mul-
tifarious -since the war, the same number of persons or' Cc' an-
missioners should still be required to superintend or.. ..alittrrae
those accounts during. peace. _ '
Sir G. CLERK vindicated the proposed arrangement.
Sir J. YORKE declared that he could not possibly see the
necessity of having so many Commissioners paid at such a high
rate to examine mere petty accounts. A great number of Clerks
had, he understood,been dis Missed in this department, and,
therefore, he was the more at a loss to comprehend the reason
for employing such a multiplicity of-Commissioners.
Mr. BERNAL expressed his surprise that now, in the se-
venth year of peace, it should be proposed to keep seven Cent-
missioncrs at the Victualling Board, particularly after 41 clerks
had been dismissed from that Board as unnecessary and inef-
ficient; for, surely, when the clerks were so much reduced, it
could not be requisite to have so much supervision of accounts
as the Gallant Officer had alluded to, as an apology for an in-
creased number of Commissioners.

•
Sir G. COCKBURYbegged it to be understood, that what
he meant to say was this, that the accounts of the Victualling
Board had been heretofore too much under the direction of
subordinate clerks, and that he wished to have that businoss
transferred to more responsible individuals, especially as so
many errors had occurred through the conduct of the clerks
heretofore.

Mr. HUAIE observed then, that if the Commissioners of the
Victualling. Board had been attentive to their duty of super-
vising accounts heretofore, the clerks would not have commit-
ted so many errors; and yet it was now proposed to continue

The idle Crointuissioners in office, while the clerks were in office
-who were perhaps in some respects incapable, but who were
intliqutably attentive.
Sir GEORGE CLERK said, the House should not form
an idea that the Commissioners had neglected their duty, but
that they had had such accumulated duties to perform, during
the war, that they could not attend to them. '
Sir ISAAC COFFIN said the Commissioners were all use-
fully employed, and he could not agree to any reduction in
their number.
The 'louse then divided upon Mr. Hume's amendment--
Ayes -1. , - 30

~QES

Majority for the Ministers - -36
On strangers returning to the gallery, Mr. BnOGDEN read
the next Resolution, that the sum of 25,2651. be voted to de-
fray the expellees of Deptford Yard.
Mr. BERNAL said, that in the Estimates for ship-build-

ing, rebuilding, and repairing for the years 1791, 1792, 1793,
and 1817, 1818, 1819, there appeared a difference of nearly
:,et T,4001. In the paper laid upon the table, there was no
charge for building in merchants' yards in 1819, while there
'z.as:a•.considerable charge in the preceding year. He could
:tot find in the 'Navy Estimates the origin of this difference.
-There appeared to be this yer in the dock:yards, a great re-

duction in the quantity of timber used and the number of

workmen.employed. What he complained of, therefore, was,
chat the establishment of supervising officers continued nearly
the same. While so few artificers were employed, he could
not see the use of having as many to look after them as when
they were more numerous. Some of the sub-measurers might
be dispensed with. He understood the shipwrights complained
of haying their salary reduced from 21. 55., which they had
•during the war, to 11. 2s. 6d. Some of them, as heswas in-
formed, were put to a species of work in Chatham yard, at
which they could earn no more than 158.4 week. The ship-
v,-rights had; he thought, a right to complain of being super-
annuated on only one-third of their salary, while 'some civil
officers were superannuated on three-fourths. He wished to
receive some explanation on what were called circular sterns.
The expence of building them was four times•greater than that
of souare sterns, while ships built with the circular sterns car-
rig: as he was informed, from two to four guns less, on their
broadside. Under the head' of Chatham Dock-yard, he found
there* was a clerk of the survey receiving a salary of 2501. a
year. though he had been employed for the last ten years in
the Navy Office, his business at Chatham being done by
another person for 801. a year.
Sir G. COCKBURN -said; he admitted• the justice of the
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bernal's) observation, with respect to
• supervising officers. ' When they decided on reducing the work
in the dock yards, it became naturally a subject of inquirywitsts
reduction ought to be made in the number of supervising officers.
The necessity of reducing them was seen and admitted, but the
Hon. Gentleman knew that measures of this kind could not be
immediately carried- into effect. A reduction-, however, had
been decided on, and would be put in operation on the sane
principle as in the Victualling Office. 'With respect to circular
sterns, no plan of that kind had been yet fully decided on. It
was a mistake to suppose that they cut off any thing from the
length of the main deck. The great advantage was the addi-
tional strength they gave to the whole fabric. The Admiralty
had sent the first vessel built on this plan round Cape Horn
for trial; but since that period, it had been much improved.
.Sii B. MARTIN said, the Clerk of the Survey alluded to
-by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bernal) was a very intelligent
officer, who had been most beneficially and laboriously em-
ployed for a long time in the Nary Office, on business in which
his services were highly useful. This however would soon be
terminated, and he would therefore be returned to Chatham.
He could assure the Hon. Gentleman this officer had not been
'idle. There could not be a more diligent man. This was the
rfirst time he heard of any complaints on the part of the ship-
wrights. On the contrary, numerous letters had been received
:from them, thanking the Admiralty for the attention paid to
-thein. Not less, he was sure, than 24,000 persons had been
saved from starvation by the plan adopted in the dock yards
with respect to ship-wrights. With respect to the omission of
charge for ship-building in India in 1819, he inquired of the
clerks, and their opinion was, that such a return had not been
called for, or it would not have been omitted. He did not
wish, however, to shelter' himself under any excuse of that
kind. Whether at sea or on shore, he was willing to take
upon himself all the responsibility. that belonged to the situa-
tion. If there was any.neglect, it belonged to him alone. It
could not have been a wilful concealment of facts, for they ap-
peared in the estimates. -

Sir 3. YORKE said he was one of those who recommended
the circular stern. The Hon. Gentleman stated shortly the
.gradual improvements that took place in the stern since the
rattle of Trafalgar. The great advantage was, that it gave
more strength to the whole fabric.

Mr. BETLNAL complained that there was so great a varia-
tion between the Papers laid on the table and the Estimates
proposed ; and that, after voting a given sum for the Navy
Estimates, they were subsequently called upon to pay between
two and three hundred thousand pounds for the last few years.
He had heard that thirty or forty of the men who worked in
the dock-yard were employed as servants, in contravention of
the rules of the yard. Chips were also sold contrary to the
•. same rule.

Sir B. MARTIN did not know of the abuses complained
of. Ile did not believe they existed : but every inquiry should
be made into the subject.
Mr. HUME repeated the statement made by Mr. Bernal,
-and asked if it were intended to reduce the salaries in the dock-
yards ? The salaries this year were 202,0001. ;—last year they
were 210,0001. ; whereas in 1792, it was ony 25,0001. The
carpenter received, in 1792, 3001. a-year, and now he received
ball. ; and, the increase went on in the same ratio through
every other department. The Committee of Finance recom-
.mended :great reductions in the dock-yards, particularly in the
salaries waieh were unnecessarily large. This became a mat-
-ter of the greater necessity, when the working artizans had on-
ly from 11. to 11. 10s. a-week. The scale of superannuation
:was also too high. If a clerk served thirty years, he retired
with 301. a-year ; whereas a Captain in the navy.had little
_more than half that sum ; even a master-bricklayer retired with
.1971. a-year—a sum equal to that of a Colonel. One clerk at
Chatham retired on 4501. a-year ; and a blacksmith at Dept-
`.ford on 1971-a-year. Such things should be remedied, and he
hokled they speedily would be.
Sir G. CLERK—AII the superannuations would fall un-
der the operations of the Superannuation Bill. The Board of
Admiralty were determined to act fully up to the recommenda-
tion of the Finance Committee, and put all the departments
:on the. most economical footing.
Sir. -Y. OMNANEY said a few words, which could not be
:distinctly heard.
The Resolution was then agreed to.
It was then moved, that 29,0051. les. should be :allowed for
Yard.

Mr. IL SMITH said, the office of clerk of the rope-yard was
„unnecessary, as it was intended to reduce it.
Mr. CROSIER said, the duty of the Clerk 'of the Rope-
yard be transferred to another ; and until the whole of
the. Deck-yards were revised, it would be impossible 'to shew
•the general reductions.
Sir J. YORKE said, all this was nothing more than the re-
.viewers reviewed. They heard a great deal of revision, but
.after all, nothing wag done.
rlr. CitOKER said, the Board of Revision were occupied
during the war, when prices were high, and it would be now
necessary to adapt the changes to the existing.circumstances of
the times.

Mr. T. WILSON said, there was no necessity for a general
..revision of the yards in order to do away with an unnecessary
,office. If the money now called for was not voted, it would be
covered by the extraordinaries, so that it was merely a waste of
;time to go on in this manner, until the public accounts were
.much more simplified.
Mr. DE*NNI,T Said, the dock-yard at Woolwich during the
der; 30,4111., and now, ,in the sixth year of peace, it was
29,000 and 5 That Sii ple. fact was enough to shew
tlis economy of Ministers.
Mr. AS'IELL was,satisfied enough was not done in the way
of reduction, and-he'should therefore move that the sum should
,only be 23,4551.
Mr. CROKER--The-whole of the office was not useless,
although the Hon. Comptroller gave it as an opinion that it
might be done away. The duty, however, should be performed
..by some one; and that some one should be adequately paid.
When the whole state of the yards was under the consideration
,of Government, he put it to the Hon. Member if he would de-
range the 'organization of the yard. for so small a sum as 5001. a
year, It would be impeding the progress of a wise economy.
,to proceed in the way now proposed.
. Sir B. MARTIN said his opinion 'was merely confined to
himself and not shared by others. The rope clerks at Wool-
.wich could not be put down, whatever they might De in some
-others.

The original resolution was then agreed to.
It was moved that 34,7601. 19s. 3d. be granted for Chatham
.Dock-yard.
Mr. HUME said, it was too bad that there should be an in-
t7r2ase this year over the last of 1,7001. for Chatham Dock yard
Now why was that Why had a Commissioner three clerk.
,costing the public 7501. a-year ? A full fourth could be de-
.ducted from this vote. _ _

. Mr. CROKER said., the Commissioners would next year
have more clerks,Thecause he would have is great -accession cf
.4nty. Any individual _alteration now would prejudice the,

great work of general redaction, which he pledged himself was
now going on.
The original Resolution was then agreed to.
It was moved that the sum of 52,080 L be granted for the
Yard at Sheerness.
That 48,0321. be granted for Xortsmouth Yard.
And that 42,7411. be granted for Plymouth Yard.
' Mr. BENNET made some observations, which were re-
plied' to by Sir John Osboxne.—The ~Resolution was, then
agreed to.
The next Resolution was for 9,5431. for the expenses attend-
ing the out-ports for the year 1822,
3lr. II U3IE thought that there was some mistake in the
estimates, as he found that a naval officer had been withdrawn
from Deal, whilst one was still kept up at Harwich.
CROKER replied, that Harwich was the principal re-
venue port fen the ships from the North Sea. •
Sir G. COCKBURN said that all the, revenue cruisers had
no other place to go to.
Sir J. 'VORKE thought that Sheerness was as capable of
delivering stores as Harwich.
3lr. HUME observed, that he believed the person who now
held this office at Harwich was not a naval officer, but one of the
Corporation of that place. The Hon. Gentleman proceeded to
notice the.expenses of the Leith establishment, of the Chaplain
of that place, and of the transport establishment at Cowes. He
wished particularly to know why an expence of 3681. should be
incurred by the establishment at Cowes, when one was kept up
at Portsmouth for the same purpose ? He should therefore
propose a reduction of 4251. on the item for the naval office at
Harwich, 5751. on the Leith establishment, 3681. on the Cowes
establishment, and 2001. on the Chaplain's salary. This would
leave 7,9721., and he 'should move as an amendment that that
sum should be inserted instead of the original vote.
The amendment being put from the Chair,
Mr. BATHURST made some observation in a low tone of
voice.

Sir B. MARTIN contended, that the services of a naval
officer at Harwich were absolutely necessary. He also de-
fended the other items which had been attacked by Mr. Hume.
Sir I. COFFIN observed, that the storekeeper at Harwich
had as much to do as any other storekeeper. The ships could
not get to Sheerness at all times.
Sir J. YORKE said, that his Hon. Friend was mistaken.
He must know that one tide was sufficient to waft ships from
Harwich to Sheern6s.
Sir I. COFFIN asked if the Hon. Gentleman had ever heard
of an easterly wind lasting for six weeks together, which pre-
vented the ships from moving at all. If the /lon. Gentleman
had not, he (Sir I. Coffin) had.
Mr. BERNAL said, that there was no chaplain at Dept-
ford or Woolwich.

Mr. CRORER replied; thatarcallowance was made to the
clergymen of those places.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the original Re-
solution carried without a division.

The next Resolution was for 31,8381. for defraying the sala-
ries of officers of the Foreign Dock-yards.
Mr. HUME asked why so large a sum was asked for that
service, if the establishment had been reduced. It appeared to
him that the money voted last year had been entirely thrown
away. The naval establishment had been withdrawn. He
would ask also why an Admiral had been withdrawn from
India, whilst they were continued at Portsmouth and Ply-
mouth ? If an Admiral were to be kept anywhere, he con-
tended that it ought to be in India. He was satisfied that the
East India Company would be content to bear the expence.
Sir J. YORKE concurred with Mr. Hume in thinking it
indispensable that an Admiral should be kept up on the Indian
station. There was another point also on which he thought
explanation due, he meant respecting the withdrawal of the
same officer from the Windward Isles.

Mr. CROICER said, that it had been found to be the gene-
ral practice that no Admiral should be continued there.
Commodore had been sent out in 1798, who had returned after
two year's stay ; and the East India Company had then been
consulted, and thought the further continuance of that officer
on that station unnecessary.
Resolution agreed to.
The next Resolution was for 40,7671. for defraying the sala-
ries of the Officers of the Victualling Yards for the year 1822.
The Resolution was agreed to, after some remarks from Mr.
BERNAL and Sir B. MARTIN.

The next Resolution was for 63,6741. for the Medical Esta-
blishment, for the year 1822.
Mr. HUIVIE asked whether the expellee of this establishment
was to remain the same as it had been during the war ? ,
Mr. CROKER shewed that a great saving had taken place.
The Resolution was then carried.
The next Resolution was, for 6,6551. 4s. 7d. for the establish-
ment of the Naval College.
Mr. HUME objected to the expense which this establishment
caused to the country. He thought that the plan of superin-
tendence might be considerably improved, and that there was
no occasion for the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and quan-
tity of clerks at present engaged.
Sir J. YORKE said, that there were now left but a few
offices for the acceptance of retired Naval Officers. Every thing
had been taken away from them. He implored his Hon. Friend
not to lay his pruning-knife to this branch.
Sir G. COCKBURN defended the establishment. The
Governor, he observed, was 'lever absent. Of all the reduc-
tions proposed by the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, he should
certainly oppose this. There were 70 young men educated on
this establishment, who would, he trusted, prove an honour to
their profession.
Sir I. COFFIN eulogised the effect of education, and as-
serted the necessity of the establishment.
Sir M. RIDLE Y differed from the Hon. Member for Aber-
deen on this point. The Governor, he observed, had not only
to intrust the youths in naval tactics, but also to examine them
in mathematics.

After a• few words from Sir F. thstmANEY, the Resolution
was carried.

The next Resolution was for 121,4811. for the wages of the
officers and men belonging to the ships in ordinary.—Agreed to.
£7,778 for victualling the ships in ordinary.—Agreed
£68,000 for the expense of harbouring, mooring, and rigging.
Agreed to.
The question that the sum of 300,0001. be granted to his Ma-
jesty for Ordinary Repairs of his Majesty's Ships, Docks, &c.
in the several yards, was then proposed by Mr. 13110GDEN'.
Sir J. YORKE said, that in this very enormous sum he per-
ceived that a place was given to tar, and he begged to inform
the House that a new mode of ejecting tar into the sides of
ships had been lately adopced, with what success it was not for
him to state. The practice, however, had been discontinued
by the same wisdom which originally prescribed it, and he
wished to know froin the great physician who had recommend-
ed the practice so strenuously during the last year, why it had
been. discontinued ?

Sir B. MARTIN.—The practice had been discontinued in
consequence of an order from the Admiralty. Some 'danger
was supposed to have arisen from the practice alluded to by his
Gallant Friend ; but he still thought that these apprehensions
were idle feirs, and that the result of an investigation would
establish speedily the utility of the practice.
Mr. HUME regretted that the investigation had been so
long deferred, since it might have preserved those vessels about
whose safety very serious apprehensions were entertained. He
trusted that those fears would prove as idle as the Honourable
Member who last addressed the House seemed to consider them,
but he was informed that the sides of the vessels had been so
saturated with gaseous tar, that they were rendered quite in-
flammable.

The question was then put and carried.
The next Resolution was £964,000 for the Half-pay of Naval
Officers.

Mr.RUME said he could not allow this vote to pass with-
out some observation upon the promotion which had taken
place since the war. It was thought right at the close of the
war to promote 1000 Midshipmen to the rank of Lieutenant;
but there were 98 Midshipmen promoted in the following year,
and various numbers in the succeeding years making in all
428. There were also of other ranks promoted 797, as would
be seen by a papep which he held in his hand, and which was
a Return of the Number of Midshipmen promoted to be Lieu-
tenants in the Navy, of Lieutenants to be Commanders, of
Commanders to be Post Captains, of Captains to be Rear-Ad-
mirals, of Rear-Admirals to be Vice-Admirals, Vice-Admi-
rals to be Admirals, and the total number of the whole, from
Ist January 1816 to Ist January 1822, and which he read to
the House as follows :

1515 1"5 LE9I ct O 3
to
9°

Midshipmen to be Lieu- 1 y 8 36 64 56 57 117 428
tenants
Lieutenants to be Corn- t
33 10 23 30 17 60 173
manders )
Commanders to be Post
11 26 16 17 3 18 91
Captains
Post Captains to be 1 25 19 44
Rear-Admirals ' j
Rear-Admirals to bet 25 14 39
Vice-Admirals 1
Vice-Admirals to be 1 14 8 22
Admirals j
' Total Number pro 1 1 142 172 103 167 77 1 236 1 797
moted in each year )

He objected also to the principle of the promotions which took
place at the late Coronation; it was not the principle which.had
been acted upon on former occasions. He was prepared to shew
the House that Commanders .had beenyromoted who were low

down upon the list, in preference to others higher up. This
was quite unnecessary, and under the circumstances, too, of
what could only be regarded as a pageant. It was impossible
that talking about thei present distresses of the country could
produce any relief, while expenses were so needlessly increased.
,He knew that in' these promotions there was a Parliamentary
influence exerted of both sides of the House, and he hoped
Ministers would look with more wisdom to the situation of the
country, and resist it altogether. Ile then contrasted the List
of the PlomotiOns 'Since the last "War, with that of the period
of the peace in 1792, and asserted that promotion, as conducted
at present, was too much for the sake of patronage;
' Sir G. COCKBURN said, that the Hon. Member was
quite deceiied in supposing that Parliamintary interference had
the slightest influence upon ,that promotion. The officers se-
lected were those who had been employed since the peace, and
their seryice during the war had been combined with their sub.!
sequent exertions.
Mr. ELLICE was compelled, on, this occasion, to dissent
from his Friend, the Hon. Member for Aberdeen. This attack
upon the half-pay of young, generous men, who had passed a
very considerable portion of their lives in the service, was one
which never would receive his approbation, and sure he was that
it would not obtain the sanction of the house.--(Hear !)—This
was a bad economy that, after ten years passed in the service,
would leave men, educated to a profession, without one single
shilling to reward their services. Of all the branches of the
service to which the Hon. Member's principles of economy had
applied, this was the one to which least of all they were appli-
cable. He thought, on the contrary, that the Navy had been
'reduced beyond all policy.
Sir I. COFFIN—In confirmation of whavhad fallen from
the Hon. Member for Coventry, he had to state, that his own
nephew was ten years a midshipman, and he had never ven-
tured to solicit promotion for him.
Sir J. YORKE said that he was sorry to
,perceive that his
gallant Friend was so encumbered by his modesty as not to so-
licit promotion for his nephew.—(Laughter.)
Mr. BENNET defended the conduct of his friend (Mr.
Hume), who, as he said, simply made a charge which he pro-
mised to prove at a not distant period—that promotion was not
fairly distributed.
Mr. ELLICE said a few words in explanation.
Mr. HUME said that they had only been employed during
the night in an attempt to reduce the Civil Establishment. He
still complained that the number promoted was greater than the
necessities of the country required.
Sir G. COCKBURN explained, that when a Flag Officer
returned from his station he was permitted to promote a Mid-
shipman to the rank of a Lieutenant. ,
A sum not exceeding 140,4951. 18s. 7d. was then voted to his
Majesty for defraying the expenses of Superannuations, Pen-
sions, and Allowances.
A sum not exceeding 1,5001. was voted to his Majesty for
paying a Bounty to Chaplains.
A sum not exceeding 7,0001. was voted to his Majesty to
pay the Widows and Orphans on the Compassionate List.

A sum not exceeding 205,0001. to make good the deficiency
in the funds of the Charity for the relief of the Widows of
Commission and 'Warrant Officers of the Royal Navy was
then proposed to be granted to his Majesty.
Mr. HUME inquired how the addition of 73,0001. had arisen
to the sum voted last year for a similar purpose ?
Sir S. OSBORNE, in reply, said, that it was created by a
deficiency in the funds, and by greater demands upon the
Charity.
3lr. lIUME asked what became of the allowances which
were deducted from the officers' pay for the increase of the
fund ? The difference was very great, and ought to be inves-
tigated.
Mr. CROKER said that these contributions were extremely
small. The whole sum amounted to 105,0001., and these con-
tributions did not exceed 25,0001. The difference had arisen
because all the stock accumulated during the war had been
sold out, the last 35,0001. having been disposed of last year, to
reduce the expense upon the country. They were now com-
pelled to call upon Parliament for the entire sum.
Mr. HUME contended that some scale ought to be formed
to prevent an extravagant application of the public money to
those who were not in need of assistance of this description.
Mr. CROKER,—There was a scale formed which he thought
a just one, restraining the grant of eleemosynary aid to those
who derived double the amount to which they would have been
entitled as officers' widows from some other source.

Mr. BANKES said, that these grants were in the nature of
benevolences, and that they should not be given to those who
could live without them.

The Resolution was then put and carried.
£126,772 for the Superannuation of the Clerks. ,
Mr. IiUME expressed his wish, that the Military Asylum
would be reduced in the same manner as the Navy Asylum.
Mr. CROKER said, that the civil establishment of the
Naval Asylum had alone been reduced. The Naval part was
still continued as full as ever.

£720,000 for Ships Building and Repairing in Merchants'
Yards.

.£154,200 for the Dock yards' alterations and improvement.
Mr. HUNiE moved, that the Chairman should report pro-
gress, as he felt that the grant for Sheerness could not be hastily
gone through.
The Resolution was withdrawn.
FIVE PER CENT. STOCKHOLDERS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged leave,
before the Chairman reported progress, to vote the sum of
2,700,0001. to pay, off and discharge such' holders of Navy Five
per Cent. Stock as had signified their dissent upon the question
of receiving Four per Cent. Stock. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man accordingly reposed a grant of that sum.
Mr. lIIJME wished to know from what fund the amount
was to be taken ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, it would
be taken out of the general revenue of the country, and pro-
vided for when the question came again before the House.—
The resolution was then agreed to.
Mr. BROGDEN having reported progress, the House re-
sumed, the Report was received, and the Committee ordered
to sit again on Wednesday.
Mr. NVALLACE stated that no discussion would take place
on the Warehousing Bill before the holidays.
The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the House
adjourned at One o'Clock.