Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

ject of finance, moved the order of the day for resuming the debate on the subject of those resolutions; remarking, at the same time, that he thought it unnecessary to enter into the general question of the finances of the country, which, indeed, had already been fully and ably discussed, but should confine himself to a few observations on the motives that had induced him to submit these resolutions to the consideration of the House. He was convinced that if an investigation were seriously entered into, with the view of reducing the public expenditure, very important reductions might be effected in various departments. The Committee of Finance, in their last report, had calculated upon a reduction of L. 200,000 upon the expenditure for 1820, but they had not in that calculation taken into account any retrenchment of public offices. Yet he was prepared to maintain, that in every branch of those offices a considerable saving might be made. The collection of the revenue at present cost the public 7 per cent.; by reducing it to 5 per cent. L.1,200,000 would be saved. Whatever might be the merits or defects of his resolutions, he had spared no labour in making them as correct as possible; and he had been careful not to make

the several statements more favourable to his views than the strictest accuracy warranted. He had stated the money paid to the Bank as paid for managing generally; it ought to have been for managing the public debt. He had stated the number of seamen at 19,000; the number ought to have been 20,000. He had been led into a mistake, also, in calculating the expenses in the of fice of the Secretary-at-War. The expences under this head for 1796 had been stated at L. 8,000, when they ought to have been stated at L. 51,000. But still the sum voted this fourth year of peace, L. 55,000, was L. 4,000 more than it had been in 1796, which had been the third year of the war. In stating the increase of the civil list, it ought to have been stated to have increased from L. 900,000 to L. 1,030,000. He was aware that in offering any resolutions upon the subject, he exposed his statements to the charge of wanting official authority, and laid himself open, perhaps, to the imputation of interfering with the province of official men. But the state of the finances, of this country was such as to require retrenchments to be effected, not in the manner which had hitherto prevailed, but with a considerable degree of innovation.

Office, in all of which, the honourable Baronet has been guilty of numerous and important mistakes; and he proposes the consolidation of the offices of the Paymaster of the Army, Treasurer of the Navy, and Treasurer of the Ordnance into one board, to transact the business of a Bank, for the whole military expenditure, as well as of the offices of Commander-in-Chief, Se cretary at War, and Comptroller of Army Accounts. These are, no doubt, sweeping reforms, and surely ought to have been supported by correct data: the facts ought to have been accurate, though the reasoning founded on them had been fallacious. But no sound conclusion can be drawn from false premises, although a very unfair inference may be deduced from sound principles. Such we should consider that of the honourable Baronet, even had the facts be states been as well founded as we know, both from his own candid admission, and from the errors detected in the course of the debate, that they are the reverse. With regard to the last 10 resolutions, relative to the Store-keeper General's department, as they appear to be very trivial and unimportant, and did not particularly engage the attention of the House du ring the discussion, we therefore pass them over; merely noticing the Baronet's sweeping conclusion, that, from its institution, the establishment of the Store-keeper-General has been exorbitant, and is at present wasteful and extravagant, and altogether disproportionate to a time of peace and the duties to be performed in it. Euge!

The saving that could be made by reducing the expences while the establishments remained untouched, would be very trifling; but by a totally different system a very considerable saving could be made. For instance, if the patronage of offices, instead of being vested in the Government, were given to the heads of the several departments, and if greater attention were paid to the keeping of public accounts, much expence might be saved. He should not now enter more fully into the subject, but on a more convenient occasion he should prove that his inferences were correct.

Mr C. Long, after alluding to the acknowledged inaccuracies of the resolutions of the honourable Baronet, remarked, that he had institut ed a comparison of customs and excise; and the inference to be made was, that the one was extremely well collected, and the other extremely ill. To make such a comparison fair, the things compared ought to stand upon the same principle; but no fair comparison could be instituted between things so different as the customs and excise-the one amounting only to L. 10,000,000, while the other amounted to L.20,000,000. In the charges of collection, too, things were charged which had nothing to do with them-such as expences arising from navigation laws, quarantine laws, and warehousing of goods. The honourable Baronet had compared the charges of 1810 and 1819. But in 1811 the abolition of fees had been enacted, which threw large charges upon the collection of the The honourable Baronet had recommended a consolidation of the customs. Now, not less than three several acts of consolidation had passed; one in 1807, and one which had been introduced this year. The act of 1807 had been said by the

revenue.

honourable Baronet to have produced no benefit, because the Treasury had interfered and taken into their own hands the disposal of surcharges. But if questions of surcharges had been left to the auditors of accounts, did the honourable Baronet believe that that would have afforded the same security to the public? He should say nothing of the statements respecting the Secretary-at-War's Office, because his noble friend was present, and the honourable Baronet had acknowledged his mistake. The honourable Baronet had expressed surprise that the expences were now double what they had been in 1796. But the expences were not doubled. In 1796 they had been L. 19,000 instead of L.15,000: for there had been six paymasters instead of one, as supposed by the honourable Baronet. Since that time L.5,300 were paid yearly as retired allowances, and the extra clerks employed in the Ordnance Office made this sum L. 8,000, which left only an excess of L.3,000 over the expences of 1796. The half-pay officers in 1796 had been 3,000; they were now 9,000. In 1796 they had been paid twice in the year; now they were paid four times. It was the same with widows' pensions. Those changes had necessarily increased the expences. He should be sorry, however, to be understood to state, that no retrenchment could be made in the collection of the revenue. But a resolution had already passed the house, binding Ministers to retrenchment.

Lord Palmerston felt anxious to say a few words, both in reply to the honourable Baronet, and also to explain the regulation adopted respecting half-pay officers holding civil appointments. He had to take blame to himself for not having had his attention directed to this subject while the appropriation bill was passing

through the House, as the alteration proposed might have been introduced as an amendment upon the third reading. The Government stood pledged to make an alteration in the oath taken by half-pay officers, and the Treasury would, with the fair under. standing of the House, make an arrangement to give effect to this mea. sure. They were to give half-pay officers, holding civil appointments, a military allowance equal to and in lieu of their half-pay, and for such allowance no oath was required respecting civil officers. At present the half-pay officers swore that they held no office civil or military, &c.; the alteration proposed was, that they held no military office, except colonial offices, now allowed, which exceeded three times the rate of halfpay. As it had been suggested that it was a hardship to take such an oath, in cases where the other emoluments barely exceeded three times the pay, the following arrangement was to be adopted :The half-pay was calculated at the highest rate which it could possibly be, and this was to be considered one fourth of the income which a halfpay officer could have. But if his half-pay were really less than this sum, he was to be allowed to exceed the three times his half-pay, so far as to make up this deficiency. With respect to the resolutions of the honourable Baronet, he thought that a table of errata ought to have been laid before the house, in order to be printed. The corrections ought sure ly to proceed pari passu with the errors. He imputed no intention to the honourable Baronet of misleading the House: but from statements so full of errors, he could not think that the House could expect to find the honourable Baronet a very able assistant in conducting economy and retrenchment. The honourable Ba

ronet had complained that he had not had access to official documents; but he had not made use of those documents which were accessible to him. The honourable Baronet had compared the expence in the office of Commander-in-Chief at the present day with what it was in the year 1793. According to his statement, it did not at that time exceed the sum of L.813, exclusive of any salary to the Commander-in-Chief. Now, it was rather an unhappy comparison for the honourable Baronet to make, for there was no such office as that of Commander-in-Chief then in existence. Lord Amherst was General of the Staff at that period, and his authority extended only to the troops at home; and in his letter of service he was directed to act under the orders of the King, who was the Commander-in-Chief, or any superior officer who might be placed over him. The honourable Baronet, therefore, was mistaken in the comparison he had made, as the office of Commander-in-Chief had been created since the period to which he referred, and the care of the person who filled it not only extended to the troops at home but to those in every foreign station. He had also erred in his calculation of the expence at the date to which he referred. Instead of L.813 it was L.1230; the salary of Lord Amherst's secretary was, it was true, only 10s. per day, but then he held another situation in the War Office, which, with the fees belonging to it, produced him an income of L.800 or L.900 a-year. As a proof that the 10s. a-day were not considered a sufficient salary, distinct from the other situation which he held, he need only mention, that his retiring allowance was L.1 per day. If then these allowances were taken into consideration, the expences of Lord Amherst's office, independently of

[ocr errors]

his salary, amounted to L. 2,000 instead of L. 813, as had been stated. But this error was trifling when compared with another, to which he should refer. This was of not a less sum than L.49,000 in the War-Office. The honourable Baronet had stated, that the expence of the War-Office in 1796 amounted only to L. 8,256. Now, in this calculation, unfortunately, the honourable Baronet had omitted to notice many items and contingencies which were then charged, and which, if added to the sum he gave, would amount to L. 57,000 some odd hundred pounds, making on the whole more than L. 2000 above the sum voted for the War-Office in the present year. With respect to the expence of L.18,000 for bringing up the arrears of army accounts, he should only observe, that, according to the reports of committees of the House, this commission had already saved, by disallowances, which had been recovered, more than L.90,000 a-year upon the average of one year with another, since its formation; a sum which was more than the whole expence of the War-Office together. As to the proposition of the honourable Baronet to consolidate the offices of paymaster of the Army, treasurer of the Navy, and treasurer of the Ordnance, into a board, to transact the business of the bank for the whole military expenditure, &c. for the purpose of creating a reduction of expence, he should only say, that the abolition of those offices altogether would be a still greater saving; but he could assure the honourable Baronet, that if he regarded the speedy and correct dispatch of public business in those departments, he would find himself mistaken in thinking that they could be better done together than separately.

Mr Calcraft thought, that notwith.

standing the disposition to criticize severely every motion of an economical kind, notwithstanding all the address of the right honourable gentleman (Mr C. Long), with the official information which he possessed on the subject, he had left the main point untouched. He had indeed alÎuded to some parts of the resolutions where he sought to point out errors in the calculations; but with the main principle of them he had not attempted to grapple. He had not touched upon that part which complained of the immense sum of L. 5,500,000 for the collection of the revenue. This was indeed the keystone of their popularity and consequence in the country. As long as they had L.5,500,000 to give away, so long would they be popular with a certain part of the public, and so long would their administration be praised. They did not, therefore, pretend to grapple with this part of the resolutions. With respect to the argument of the Noble Lord (Palmerston) on the subject of the office of Commander-in-Chief, he saw nothing in it against the resolutions of his honourable friend. His honourable friend had said, that the expense in 1793 was only L. 813; and the Noble Lord added that it was about L.2,000. This was the usual accuracy of the other (the Ministerial) side, in small matters. He differed from the Noble Lord in thinking that the resolution of his honourable friend implied that there was a Commander-in-Chief at the period to which he had alluded. The Noble Lord had told the house, how well his own department was managed, and that the comparison of the honourable Baronet was in this instance quite erroneous: but his honourable friend had, with the candour which belonged to him, acknowledged his mistake on the subject, and corrected it as soon as he could. It should also be re

collected, that at the period referred to (1793) there was no Commanderin-Chief, and that the expence of that office at present might be put as a set-off against the expence of the of fice of Secretary-at-War at the former period. But it was said, "Where is the necessity of these resolutions now? Have you not already a reso lution for economy and reform in the public expenditure? Are not Ministers pledged to this resolution?" He should say, he cared not for such a resolution. He gave no credit for it; he had seen no one overt act of economy in the right honourable gentleman, which could make him think that there was any real benefit to be expected from the resolution to which he had alluded. If any economy were really intended, why not move the resolution in the shape of an address to the Throne? This would be adding dignity to it, and giving to the public some ground of hope.

Sir T. B. Martin was so convinced that the resolutions of the honourable Baronet were erroneously drawn, that, if they were put, he should move four others, which he begged he might then be allowed to read. -First, that the resolutions of the honourable Baronet did not contain a full statement of all the expences of the different branches to which they referred at former periods: Secondly, that the apparent increase of expence in many of the public depart ments connected with the navy was occasioned by the introduction into the estimates of many services, which though before in existence, were not included therein; by the increased duties which were to be performed, in consequence of increased conquests and colonial acquisitions; and by the improvements which had been made for the greater facility of dispatching business in many depart

ments: Thirdly, that a great increase had been made to the salaries of several of the Officers in the dock-yards and other places, to remove the abuses which had crept in, in consequence of their being allowed to pay themselves by fees, allowances, &c. And, fourthly, that the fortyseven resolutions, proposed by the honourable Baronet, were brought in without stating the causes of the increase which they had mentioned; and, therefore, that the comparisons made in them of the expences of the present with some former years were calculated to mislead the public.

Colonel Davies compared the expences incurred in the war department in the year 1796, with those which are incurred in it at the present period. In 1796, the salary of the Secretary-at-War, and the nineteen clerks who acted under him, amounted to L.16,070. In 1806, the number of clerks had increased from 19 to 112, and their salaries from L.16,070 to L.29,970. In 1816, there were 147 clerks, and their salaries amounted to L. 47,937. He wished the House would contrast the expenditure which we were now incurring, in the fifth year of peace, with that which we had incurred in the year 1796, when the nation was involved in an arduous and difficult contest; it was strange that at that period nineteen clerks were found sufficient to transact all the business at the War-Office, and that now 147 should be found scarcely sufficient for the same purpose. The honourable gentleman then spoke of the impolicy of keeping up a large standing army in a time of peace, especially as it was to cost the country, in its present financial difficulties, no less a sum than L. 10,000,000 annually. Under these circumstances, he should certainly vote in favour of

« ПредишнаНапред »