§ The house having resolved into a committee upon this bill,
§ Sir Charles Poleobjected to it, on account of the discontent excited amongst able seamen, veterans in the service, by the deductions from their pay, first for their slops, and secondly for the allotments to their wives and children; through which means it often happened, that at the end of a long voyage, for six or a dozen months, a seaman had not more than 40s, to receive; and contrasting this with the case of militia soldiers, whose wives and children were provided for by their parishes, be thought it a hardship, and one which 810 was the frequent ground of complaint. At the very moment when such seamen were called on to set out for a subsequent voyage without a shilling in their pockets, they saw volunteers, inferior seamen, and even landmen, who had never served an hour, receiving large bounties for entering on board, and were often so piqued as to desert their ships.
§ Mr. W. Poleanswered the objections of the hon. baronet, by saying the bill was adopted in compliance with the recommendation of the Committee of Naval Revision, and it was considered rather as an indulgence to seamen while fighting the battles of their country, with the admiration of all the world, to enable them to allot a part of their earnings for the maintenance of their wives and children, and save them the necessity of appealing to the parish. This bill extended the principle, and enabled them to allot part of their pay to their aged fathers, which, by law, they could not do before. The honourable admiral argued as if this allotment on the part of the seaman, were compulsory, whereas it was merely optional.
§ Sir C. Polesaid, that this bill might be very favourable to the parishes, but he did not conceive it would be favourable to the navy. He should not, however, divide the house upon it.
The bill then went through a committee, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.