NAVY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 14 March 1817)

§ Sir G. Warrender
rose to move, that certain sums on account be granted to his majesty for defraying the Ordinary Expenses of the Navy. He proposed to take these sums on account, as in the present stage of the public business he could not give any general view. The navy estimates would be referred to the finance committee: and, after passing through, would be presented in a connected form to the House. He should then feel it his duty to enter into general statements, and afford every opportunity for a fair and full discussion of every detail. Before it was known, however, what the committee would do, such a discussion on the estimates would be premature. After the Easter-holydays, when the alterations and reductions proposed should be completed, he would be prepared to afford every explanation. At present he would pledge the committee to nothing, but would only move, "That a sum not exceeding 1,142,838l. 11s. 4½d. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the Ordinary Establishment of the Navy for six lunar months commencing the 1st day of January 1817."

§ Sir M. W. Ridley
said, he did not approve of the system now adopted of voting money on account, as a greater sum was thus put at the disposal of ministers for one half the year, than they would afterwards be found to be entitled to; but under the present circumstances of the country he should not object to the motion before them. Though he had not succeeded in his motion on a former night for the reduction of the number of the lords of the admiralty, he trusted that subject would come under the consideration of the finance committee, and that they would give effect to that which he had proposed; If that did not happen, he should think it his duty at some future time to bring before the House the question of the propriety of at least curtailing the salaries of these officers. He had to state that he had received many statements from acting pursers, who complained of the hard situation in which they were now left. In 1816, he understood they had sent in a statement of their case to the admiralty, who ordered that they should send in their acting orders. They were accordingly sent in on the 1st of Jan. 1817, and notice was given that they were under consideration; but since that time no answer had been sent.

Admiral Hope
said, that the case had already received the most mature consideration on the part of the admiralty. According to the old system, there were as many pursers as ships; but, as many ships (perhaps 3 or 400) had been broken up, it was deemed expedient to give half-pay to those who were thus discharged, but who once had been on the regular list of pursers. But the half-pay was never extended merely to acting pursers, who were clerks, who, happening to be in ships abroad, had been temporarily appointed to act as pursers, but had never been confirmed. These persons had certainly some claim on the country; but not more than midshipmen who had acted as lieutenants, of whom there were many under the same circumstances.

§ Mr. Curwen
said, he had presented a petition from a person who had acted as a purser for two years, having been 20 years in the service, who was now left without any half-pay.

Admiral Hope
said, there were many in the same situation. The admiralty had done all that was possible for them, appointing double clerks to every ship in commission, in order to employ them.

§ Sir C. Pole
said, he believed the conduct of the admiralty had been liberal, and marked with attention to the case of these persons. He contended, that the standard of 1792 should be adopted in the formation of the estimates, and alluded to the office of assistant secretary of widows pensions as a newly-created officer. There was, he observed, an inequality between the regulations with respect to pensions in the navy and army. There was a widow of a captain Harvey, who had received a pension in 1794, which had not been increased up to this day, while the officers who lost their limbs at York Town with lord Cornwallis in the American war had their pensions raised to 250l., a year. As to the Breakwater at Plymouth, he thought at this time, when so many persons from the arsenal there were thrown out of employ, that great national work should be prosecuted with spirit. A small addition to the vote which was proposed for the purpose, would employ a great number of the poor. On the contrary, there seemed a disposition in the admiralty to slacken in the prosecution of this undertaking,

§ Mr. Croker
admitted, that the estimates of 1792 should be taken as a standard in forming those for the present peace, and that when they were departed from, the burthen of proof lay on the government. On this ground he should be perfectly ready to rest the future discussion of the estimates. The different commissions of naval inquiry and of revision had suggested some departures from the establishment of 1792, which had been adopted on the reasons assigned by them. The assistant secretary of widows pensions was not a new appointment, but the salary had been paid out of the old stores, till it was lately thought proper to bring the office under the cognizance of parliament. The pensions in the army and navy would, as he should hereafter show, be found to be equal, comparing rank and dates. As to the Breakwater, it was not to be supposed that the admiralty, by whom that work was begun, and had been brought if not to a completion, to a state which showed the practicability of it, should now grow lukewarm as to that undertaking, which they might almost call their own.

Mr. Lyttleton
said, that though the admiralty was in general sufficiently liberal, yet there was a point in the custom of that board rather deficient in that respect. There was required from every officer in the navy entitled to half pay, an oath that 1083 he received no other emolument whatever from the government; and if he could not take this oath, however small the sum he received from any other office, he was deprived of his half pay. This regulation was not established with respect to the army, and even if it had been, he should wish to see it removed, for a small office should not deprive the holder of the benefit of half pay, which was often hardly earned.

§ Sir G. Warrender
then rose to move the vote for the extraordinary service of the navy. As to the Breakwater, whatever difference of opinion there had at first been respecting this work, the importance of it was now universally acknowledged, but it was to be recollected that it was not the only great work now prosecuted by the admiralty. There were works at sheerness of great national utility, which required considerable sums. The absolute immediate necessity of the Breakwater was less, as large fleets were not now kept up. In reducing the estimates to the lowest scale advisable in the present situation of the country, it was thought proper to make a proportionate diminution in all branches of expenditure which could be spared or deferred, and the sum to be expended on the Breakwater had consequently been reduced, but not in a greater proportion than other sums annually expended on other works. It was to be considered that the repair of ships was matter of absolute necessity. He concluded by moving, "That 780,759l. 4s. 7¼d. be granted to his majesty for defraying this Extraordinary Establishment of the Navy for six lunar months, commencing the 1st of January 1817."

§ Sir C. Pole
said, he had not heard any good reason for deferring a work of such national importance.

Admiral Hope
observed, that it was not to be supposed that the sum of 40,000l., which was to be expended in this year on the Breakwater would not pay for more work on it in this year than it would have done in the last. It would probably pay for near twice as much; but it was necessary to reduce the sum expended on this work, when all others were subjected to reduction.