The Sun.
London, England, 1829-02-28 00:00:00

Had this been done ? IC not, where was the disposition to
economy for which Government claimed credit? The
Dock-yards were on a scale which the state of the country
did 13.4 warrant. It was admitted we did not want the
number of men employed at present in them. Why, then,
retair. such a number of men ? Why keep up so many
yard., at an expense of 1.15,0001., when formerly the cost
of this brancll did not exceed 25,000/. It might be re-
duced by one half. According to the evidence Of John Bar-
row, Esq., r.vho was examined before the Finance Commit-
tee, and it must be admitted was a most competent and in-
telligent witness, the expense of superintendence in the
KiLg's yards was greatly :Move that of private establish-
ments. Whibt 550,0001. was the whole amount p .id for
labour, a sum of 155,0001. was laid to clerks ar,d superin-
tendents, being nearly in the prcoortion of one to four.
The Victualling Establishment was much ton expensive.
• We had now arrived at a time when so heavy an expen-
diture as that of this departmelat, amornating to 64,0001.,
should not be maintained. It ought to be converted into
a store branch. There was not one article provided by the

Victual:in;.! Board which could rot be provided by contract
as good and cheaper than at present. Government should
cease to be the manufteturer of any one article that could
be procured in the country in the ordinary manner. He
thought it very hard that the navy should be mixed up
with other branches of the public service, and all under
the colour of noval expenditure. He would have every
article placed under the proper account. We might thus
reduce and weed out the navy estimates so as to diminish
them by 1,500,0001. or 2,000,0001. sterling.
Sir BYAM MARTIN was quite at a loss to conjecture
when the navy estimates would be low enough to obtain
auy approbation from the Hon. Member who had last
addressed the House. The gross amount of the estimates
this sear was 5,878,000/. But deductions were to be
made from this sum on account of auperannuations, Green-
wich Hospital, transports, &c. to the amount of 2,160,0001.
leaving a balance of only 3,718,000/, really applicable to
the purposes of the navy, and to defray all the expellees
incidental to it. This included the cost of building and

repairing ships, of pay, provisions, victualling, &c. The
Hon. Member objected to the increased expellee of the civil
departments of the navy, as compared with the cost of
these branches of the public service previous to 1793. Bu:
the Hon. Member should have taken into account the im

mense increase of business in these departments.,

W'it6

respect to the etpence of superintendence, he (Sir Byam
Martin) was at a loss to imagine where Mr. Barrow
(whose evidence was referred to by the lion. Member) had
discovered the circumstances on which lie founded his

conclusions. He (Sir Ilyatri Martin) was acquainted with
a respectable firm of ship-builders, in which salaries of
SS 1/. per annum were paid to three foremen who su-
perintended 160 working men. This was exclusive of thu
exertions of the two partners, who wore themselves practi-
cal ship-builders. In the King's yards there were seven
master shipwrights, besides masters, attendant storekeepers,
timber and store receivers, timber converters, &c., receiv-

ing in wages 37,3801. annually. The conclusion to which
he came was, that the superintendents in private yards
were to the workmen in the proportion of 1 to 24, while
in the King's yards they were only as Ito 36. Mr.
. _

row included the pay of clerks in his estimate of the cost
of superintendence in his Majesty's yards. Now he (Sir
B. Martin) omitted that item of expence altogether in his
calculation, and for this reason, that the clerks in the dock-

yards had to do with ships abroad as well as with n4val
expencus at home, and were necessary to the transactions
constantly taking place in a❑ establishment where there
were 30,000 seamen. As a reason for the increased

amount payable on account of wages now, as.compare,l
with the sum paid for the same purpose in 1792, we
should consider that the price of provisions had doubled
since that period. This alone afforded a satisfactory reason
why a larger sum than formerly should be paid in wages
and for stores at present.
Mr. MABERLY said, it mattered not whether or not,
as had been stated by the Hon. and Gallant Member, the
expenses of the navy (strictly speaking) were 3,800,0001.,
and the remaining- 2,000,0001., that appeared on the esti-
mates, was for other put poses. The question for the
House to consider was—were these expenses necessary ?
Could any part, and if so what portion, of them be dimi-
nished? Let the House conic to the evidence taken before

the Finance Committee in ISt2S, as regarded our naval
establishments. It was so clear that no one could misun-
derstand it, and, he might add, it was equally candid. It
appeared to him that a great reduction ought to take place
in the amount of men attached to the navy. In the pre-
sent settled state of things, when we were more tranquil
and to all appearance had a greater prospect of continued
repose than usual, why, he asked, did we keep a force of
30,000 seamen, when 20,000 appear amply sufficient.--
If we were really in a tranquil state, if we enjoyed not
merely peace but a likeliireod of its continuance, we
ought not to have such a number of seamen. If, as the
gallant officer (Sir George Cockburn) said, when giving
evidence before the Finance Committee, 20,000 sea-
men were sufficient in time of peace for this country,
and if, as the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) as-
sured the House, we were in a state of profound peace,
then we had 10,000 men too many in our navy,_
It appeared that a large reduction should be made in the
public offices connected with the navy. The expense of
time Navy Pay-office ought to be diminished. A consoli-
dation would be desirable in several departments. It was
stated that we had as many ships as could he required, and
that the men in the yards; were reduced to five (Lye' work.
A reductmon, and of a more de: idtd nature than this, should
have taiien place long ago. Ships were built unnecessarily,
and trill kept up at a large cost. We had a right to expect
a large reduction in time Navy. lie deprecated the practice
of re taining shipwrights whom we might or might not
hilapen to want twenty or thirty years hence. Government
could always comm aid a euppy of workmen from private
yards whenever their services should be required—at least
:inch was time natural presureetion. More yards were also
kept up than were at all necessary : there should be a eon-
eieeruble reduction in the number. Ships we had in abun-
titutce, and when the large ships, at present on the stocks,
were finished, there should be a. reduction in stores and
other things. We should also reduce the number of men
eampioyed in the yards. He did anticipate that next
year there %smi,' be large and extensive reductions in the
Naval department. With respect to the proportion exist-
ing in the King's yards, between the persons engaged in
the ',thee:hag department, he could not suppose the Gal-
lant Admiral (Sir 13. Martin) correct in hie statement.
Mr. Barrow, who gave evidence upon that point was no
inadequate authority; be took his evidence borne to cor-
rect it, and time result of his testimony was, that we had a
very large tuperaliundance of everseets and directors in our
yards, not only as compared e nth private yards but in men-
parisoe with other nations. The irresistible conclusion
from this gentleman's evidence was, that the cost of super-
intendence in his Majesty's yards was much larger than it
ought to be, and that a great saving might be made in
that as well as in other branches of the public service.
Sir GEORGE COCKIIURN felt desirous of making
an abservatiun or two with respect to what he had stuted
lest year, when examined before the committee. It was
only on condition that he sheuld be allowed to consider time
stare of peace ae being without any chance of interruption,
and that there were no piracies to be suppreesed,—in short,
nothing to endanger public tranquillity, ur cell for naval
exertion,—it Was only upon these provisos, that, in obe-
dience to what appeared to be the express wish of the
committee, he had stated what might be sufficient to keep
up the appearance of an effective foveae in foreign stations.
The establishment in time West Indies had been reduced,
and the Admiral removed off that station, when immedi-
ately a complaint was made by the merchants that the
I trade.of this country was endangered by daring pirates in
those seas, which rendered it necessary the force should
be re-established. It was sail there was no necessity for us
as a nation to keep the police of the sea; yet all must feel
is was highly beneficial to British trade to do so, and we
must thereby be gainers in the end. 13y the reduction of
the British force off Lisbon, it was intended and expected
we should have been able to meet in part the wishes of
the advocates of further retrenchment ; but that was found
inexpedient, because the force off Lisbon was found re-
quisite in the Mediterranean Sea, where two powerful
flepte, those of France and Russia, continued to cruise.
liilottvithatanding the deference he was desirous to pay to
the recommendation of the Finance Committee, he would
assure their Chairman, whom he saw opposite, that we
bail not one ship now more than we wanted. In fact, if
war broke out, there were not enough of either frigates or
sesallee vessels of war. He felt with the Committee, that
,
the number of superintendents hoth in the Dock-yards and
she department in London was too great. Thole situa-
tions had been narrowly inspected, and should be still
further examined, and though it could not he done in a
iaoment, yet he pledged himself a reduction was in con-
templation and shonld be effected, so as tq circtnneeribe the
number within the proper bounds. Ile must again eh-
serve the Marines were not too many ; they were a most
desirable force, and very difficeit to raise on a sudden. Be-
sides, at present, they were employed on shore, on garri-
;en duty, and so far rendered regular troops of the line
unnecessary to that amount of force. The principal port
for fitting out in future was to be Sheerness, to which
place the Commissioner was to be removed from Chatham,
which port, with that of Woolwich, was to be confined to
building vessels of war.
Sir H. PARNELL could not, after even what had been
said, conceive there actually existed a necessity for so great
a naval force as that now proposed to be kept, up, wore