SUPPLY.—NAVV ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 6 April 1835)

§ Sir Edward Codrington
wished to be informed whether Mr. Dawson had authority to use the Admiralty flag for election purposes, at the late election for Devonport? That the flag had been used, and that a salute had been fired in honour of it, was unquestionable. The Admiralty flag was never hoisted in that town on ordinary occasions, but in the arsenal itself. It was very important that it should be known whether the Secretary for the Admiralty could constitute himself into the Admiralty, and hoist the Admiralty flag. He felt very strongly, as a professional man, that it was most important that the Admiralty flag should not be made an improper use of.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
begged to ask the hon. and gallant Admiral, whether from his past experience he supposed that if in any instance an officer hoisted the Admiralty flag at an inn window, it would be saluted.

§ Sir Edward Codrington
believed, if the hon. and gallant General looked to the Naval Instructions, he would find that the Navy were bound to salute that flag.

Sir John Beresford
said, that if the gallant Admiral had ever hoisted his flag out of the window of an inn, he would have found that the Navy would never think of saluting it. However the fact might be, he was quite sure of this, that Mr. Dawson had never hoisted, he might say, as improper flags as other people.

§ Sir Edward Codrington
could not allow the Question to be so slurred over, as a professional man he felt bound to express his sentiments on the subject. He had been greatly misrepresented. The question was asked whether Mr. Dawson had hoisted the Amiralty flag for election purposes. He wished to know this, and he wished also to ask, if the fact should prove to be so, whether Mr. Dawson had the authority of the Admiralty for the course he had pursued? He waited for a distinct answer.

§ Lord Ashley
said the hon. and gallant Admiral must be perfectly aware that, he had no opportunity of giving him an answer to his question. He had risen twice for that purpose, but had been unable to gain a hearing. The hon. and gallant Admiral had had the kindness to mention to him, two or three hours before, that he intended to put the question. He had had, however, no opportunity of making himself acquainted with the subject, for he had not since been enabled to leave the House. He assured him that he would inquire into the case, and when he had been enabled to ascertain the truth, the gallant Admiral should receive the fullest information. Personally, he knew nothing whatever upon the subject, because during the whole period he had been engaged in Dorsetshire on his own business.

§ Sir Edward Codrington
had merely waited for an answer. Had he known that it was the noble Lord's intention to make any reply to his question, he should not, of course, have hurried him. He thought it a very important point; and considering that the House was going to other business without any explanation having been given, he had felt it his duty to put the question. He had now to say, that he did not think such an answer as they had received at all satisfactory. The question had not arisen yesterday—it had been before the public mind for some time. "I say," (continued the hon. and gallant Member), "that yon ought to have come here prepared with an answer. I say so fearlessly—it is an important point. We are not to be trifled with; the Admiralty is not to be trifled with, nor is the Admiralty flag. I ask Sir James Graham, the Member for Cumberland.—well, then, I ask the right hon. Member for Cumberland, if he be in his place, I ask him whether, wheu he was first Lord of the Admiralty, and hoisted the Admiralty flag, it was not treated with every possible respect; and whether that respect was not paid to the Board of Admiralty composed of a certain number of Lords of the Admiralty and their Secretaries? I ask the right hon. Baronet whether, as Secretary for the Admiralty, going down into the country for electioneering purposes, he would have hoisted that flag for the purpose of procuring the degree of respect and influence in the election which belongs to the Admiralty? I repeat this as a very important point, and I say, moreover, that unless we 866 get some satisfactory information upon the subject, I shall feel it my duty to bring it specially before the House."

§ Sir George Grey
observed, that nothing was further from his wish than a desire to fight election battles over again in that House. He felt hound, however to corroborate the statement made by his hon. Colleague, having resided during the whole election within a few yards of the place from which for a period of three weeks, if he remembered light, the Admiralty Hair had hung out. He was unwilling to make any remarks on the subject, but sitting next his hon. Friend, and hearing his statement disputed, he felt bound to say that there was no doubt whatever of the fact. What the explanation might be, when the noble Lord came down prepared to make it, he knew not; but this he knew, that the fact certainly was as he had just represented it.

§ Mr. Fector
was surprised at the soreness of the hon. Gentleman opposite on so trifling a point, when some of them, particularly the hon. Member for Sandwich had been returned by menus of the Admiralty influence.

§ Sir Thomas Troubridge
really did not understand the hon. Gentleman. Surely he did not allude to the last election!—surely the hon. Member did not mean to say, that he had been returned to that House at the last election by means of the influence of the Admiralty. He had had no such influence on his side, but every possible influence fair and unfair—fair and unfair, he repeated, and he wished the phrase to be so understood—was used against him by the Lord Warden and all parties concerned with him. He was surprised—perfectly astonished—at the charge which had just been made.

§ Mr. Barlow Hoy
expressed his opinion that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite could have been very little versed in contested elections, or he would have known that it was customary on such occasions to use flags of every description. He was prepared to maintain what he said. He had not only seen common flags in every-day-use, but even the Royal standard hoisted at elections; the fact was, that they were merely considered as ornaments. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite talked of misrepresentation. He did not think the charge came with a very good grace from that side of the House. The gallant Admiral himself had been pecu- 867 liarly unlucky in the charges he had brought forward. The House could not fail to remember several instances in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been singularly unfortunate. He recollected the fate of a charge which he brought against the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, relative to something that had been said two or three years before. He remembered, too, the fate of another charge—a very serious charge—brought forward by the gallant Admiral, which, when the facts were tried, could not be substantiated—he alluded to the case of Captain Dickenson. He could not help thinking that the gallant Admiral had been much more forward in making charges than was in his ability to substantiate. The instances of which he had reminded the House, would, perhaps, induce them to form a similar opinion.

An Hon. Member
rose to order. The debate was one of a personal nature, and and wholly unconnected with the Question before the House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had stated, at a very early period of the evening, that the votes for which Government asked, connected with the Navy Estimates, were really indispensably necessary. He had received a letter from the Accountant of the Navy, the concluding paragraph of which he would take the liberty of reading, because in all probability many Gentlemen were then present who had not heard his previous statement. The Accountant said that many votes were extremely pressing, and, amongst the rest, the first payment of the wages of the artificers in his Majesty's dock and victualling yards would come due on the 10th inst., for which no supply had yet been granted. His noble Friend had promised to inquire into and answer the question relative to this circumstance with respect to the flag. It appeared to him that this question of the flag had perhaps been sufficiently discussed already; and he did submit that, considering the exigency of the public service, the matter had better be allowed to remain where it was at present.

Captain Berkeley
quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet, and he would therefore conclude with one plain and simple question relative to another subject. Had any person been appointed to supersede Sir George Cockburn on the Jamaica station?

§ Lord Ashley
replied that Sir George 868 Cockburn's successor had been appointed, but had not yet gone out.

§ Sir Edward Codrington
had not thought it necessary to notice the charges which the hon. Gentleman opposite had thought proper to bring against him, but as the hon. Gentleman had made an attack upon him, he begged to give notice that he would move for a return of the proceedings of the court-martial on Captain Dickenson. He really did not know what motive or what feeling could have induced the hon. Gentleman to bring such charges forward.

§ Mr. Hume
begged to ask the noble Lord whether any Navy bills had been refused payment at the public offices in consequence of the Navy Estimates not having been passed?

§ Lord Ashley
was understood to reply, that in consequence of the Government having no money in hand at the close of the financial year, the Admiralty had withheld their authority for the payment of certain demands until the money necessary for the purpose was at their command.

§ Mr. Hume
said, it appeared to be very extraordinary that any Navy bills should be refused payment, and he considered the objection to paying them was a mere pretext for throwing blame on the Opposition side of the House for not allowing the Estimates to be passed; but the noble Lord knew perfectly well that no obstruction had been thrown in the way, but that every indulgence had been shown by the opposition to his Majesty's Government. It was not owing to him or his friends that the delay had taken place. The difficulty had arisen from the right hon. Baronet and those who acted with him in dissolving the late Parliament. The House was bound to notice the circumstance which the noble Lord had avowed, for this was the first time during the twenty years that he had been in Parliament that the public credit had been so dishonoured.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
must say that the delay which took place in consequence of the dissolution of the late Parliament was not the cause of the delay in passing the Estimates; the main cause was, that the Government, being limited in bringing forward votes of supply to two days in the week only—Monday and Friday—amendments had on each of those days been moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite, so that it was impossible to proceed with the supplies. Even on this very 869 night an hon. Gentleman had given notice of a motion for Friday next respecting some additional allowance to East-India Officers. But that was only in pursuance of the course which had been adopted during the whole of the present Parliament—a course which he thought very inconvenient to the public service. He would deny that the slightest attempt had been made to create a prejudice against the course taken by the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House. Indeed an opportunity was taken the other night to state fairly what was the actual situation of the Government with respect to the Navy half-pay.

§ Mr. Labouchere
was anxious to ask the noble Lord whether he had any objection to mention what was the nature of the engagements which the Treasury had not discharged. He should hear with extreme regret that any Board of Admiralty would refuse to take upon itself the responsibility of preventing Navy Bills being dishonored, merely because a particular vote had not passed through a Committee of that House

§ Lord Ashley
had great pleasure in answering his hon. Friend. Although the Admiralty had thought it right to delay the payment of certain accounts, yet it had not gone to the extent of dishonouring any bill. The Board having satisfied themselves that there was not any money in hand to meet the accounts delivered, they delayed drawing out the document which would be a warrant to the Treasurer of the Navy to pay those accounts.

§ Mr. Labouchere,
under these circumstances, could not help expressing his regret that the noble Lord had not come down to the House, and stated distinctly that such an emergency existed. He was quite satisfied there would not have been the slightest obstruction placed in the way of a vote in order to meet the exigency. It was worthy of the consideration of Government, whether there should not be some new arrangement entered into, by which the financial year should be altered; because circumstances must often occur that would render it impossible for the House to pass the Estimates before the 1st of April.

Mr. Baring
said, that it was rather a novel doctrine to hear advanced in that House, that the Government should be blamed for not paying money which had not been voted by the House of Commons 870 Hon. Gentlemen had spoken of this as a matter of complaint against the noble Lord (Ashley). The fact was, the Navy Estimates were introduced by his noble Friend on the 13th of last month; and if Hon. Gentlemen would look to the Order-book, they would find that night after night one hon. Gentleman got up after another to interpose some obstruction, and then having done this, they now came forward and made it a matter of accusation against the Government, because, forsooth, they had not paid money for which no vote had been passed. He hoped that the noble Lord would always be subject to that imputation. The hon. Member for Middlesex, and others, were speaking against time for two or three hours when these Estimates were brought in, and now they complained that the money was not expended which the House had not voted. It was the duty of Government to expose to the House of Commons what that sort, of conduct had led to. If he had been in the navy department he would not have expended one sixpence until the House showed to the country whether they would or not obstruct those supplies which they now said they never wished to refuse. Of all men in that House the hon. Member for Middlesex was the last who had any right to complain, he having, night after night, upon every vote retailed the same old story which for the last thirty years the House had heard with little or no novelty, and which left no doubt upon the mind of every one that it was expressly interposed for the purpose of delaying the Supplies. He could only remind the hon. Gentleman of the expression he used when the Government wished to go into Committee for a vote. The hon. Gentleman then exclaimed, "No more money to-night!" And this the hon. Gentleman did after taking up three or four hours of the night in making statements which nobody listened to, and which had no bearing on the Question bforee the House.

§ Mr. Hume
said, that if he had acted as the right hon. Gentleman had alleged, he should only have been acting with perfect consistency. The only time in which he had deviated from his usual course had been during the present Session; and more especially upon the Navy Estimates, when he did not occupy five minutes of the time of the House. It was on the Army Estimates that he made the state- 871 ment to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded; but as to the Navy Estimates he had only to appeal to the recollection of the House to show how utterly unfounded was the allegation of the right hon. Gentleman. The observations, therefore, of the right hon. Gentleman were inapplicable, because they were untrue. But he would appeal to the House whether the very moderate and temperate speech of the right hon. Gentleman was the best mode in which to carry these Estimates. If there was any thing calculated to interfere with the passing of these votes it was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; and if it were not for the sake of the public service that, these Estimates should be carried, he could assure that right hon. Gentleman that he would, in all probability, have got just as much as he deserved, and that would have been not a farthing; and with respect to the cry—"No more money to-night!"—he begged to ask what it was o'clock at the time he uttered those words? It was one o'clock? and on the motion for another vote, his answer was, "No more money after midnight." This had been the rule of the House in former Sessions, and it had only been transgressed in order to oblige the Government. So much then for this story, got up by the right hon. Gentleman, from some old recollection floating on his mind as to something which had fallen from him. But as the right hon. Gentleman did not always recollect what fell from himself, it was not likely that he should have a better recollection of what fell from others.
Resolution agreed to.
On the Resolution that the sum of 361,713l. be granted to defray the expense of Naval Stores, &c, for the building and repairs of ships, docks, wharfs, &c.

§ Sir Thomas Troubridge
said, this was the most important vote of the whole Estimates, and required more discussion than it could now undergo. He must protest against the system which had gone on so many years of building new ships, and never using the ships we already possessed. It was an absurdity to keep up a naval force in order to cope with the whole world. It would be impossible to reduce the Estimates if they persisted in such a system. There were fifty or sixty vessels now building, while there were already too many ships in ordinary. He begged the House to give its attention to 872 this subject, and to insist upon the old ships not being suffered to rot for want of use, while new ones were constantly being built.

§ Lord Ashley
said, that it was most important that there should be no delay in passing this vote. He could assure the hon. and gallant Officer that there were at present fewer ships in ordinary than ever there had been before. In 1793, the number of line-of-battle ships in ordinary was 141; at the present time there were only 120, while in the year 1821 there were 160. The number of shipwrights employed in the dockyards in 1793 was 3,184; in 1821, 4,300, while the number now was only 2,560. Of the shipwrights, the number employed in 1793, in constructing new ships, was 1027, while the number at present so employed was 785.

§ Mr. George F. Young,
in allusion to a subject to which he had referred on a former evening, hoped that the noble Lord opposite would pledge himself that Government would not build any more ships upon Captain Symonds's plan, until it was first ascertained by actual experiment that the plan was a good one. He objected, too, to the expensive mode in which every new surveyor of the navy was permitted to new-model ships on any plan which he might choose to adopt. He hoped that a uniform and fixed plan might be adopted.

§ Sir James Graham
observed that, as the hon. Gentleman wished for a categorical answer, he would give it. He was not prepared for the discussion, but he happened to have in his hand a letter which he had received that day from Captain Cosby, who was with the experimental fleet in the Mediterranean. The letter stated that the writer had great pleasure in saying that the experiment had been most successful. In a fleet consisting of several vessels, in which the Endymion was the fastest sailing frigate, every day there had been signals given for the rate of sailing for the fleet, either together or alone, and the Vernon (the vessel built on Captain Symonds's plan) astonished them all, as she walked away from the other vessels as if they had been merchant ships. The manner in which she left them behind was like magic.

§ Mr. Aaron Chapman
hoped that the Government would never forget that the Navy was the best defence of the empire.

§ Mr. George F. Young
said, that if he had been aware of this discussion, he would have produced statements directly in the teeth of that read by the right hon. Baronet. He understood that ships built upon that plan sailed well in smooth water, but that in a heavy sea they were very uneasy.

§ Sir James Graham
said, that from the Revolution downwards there never had been so few ships in ordinary as at the present moment; but it was impossible that new ships should not be built to replace those which, in the course of time decayed.

§ Sir Edward Codrington
approved of Captain Symonds's plan, and denied that his ships did not sail well in a heavy sea.

§ Sir Thomas Troubridge
had one other question to ask—with regard to the Chaplains in the Navy. He understood that there were a great number of chaplains on half-pay who were anxious to get employment, but still that new chaplains had been put upon the establishment. He begged to know if this was the case?

§ Lord Ashley
said, that the question came so seldom before him that he was not prepared to answer it: but there was a return moved for by the hon. Member for Middlesex, which would shortly be on the Table, and which would show the exact state of the case.

Mr. Secretary Goulburn
stated that the Government had exerted itself to reduce the number of convicts in the dock-yards, and the number was much less than it had been for several years.

§ Mr. George F. Young
remarked, that the understanding was, that convicts should not be employed in the dock-yards. The system, when formerly alluded to in the House, had been universally reprobated, and the right hon. Baronet, then First Lord of the Admiralty, promised that the system should be discontinued.

§ Sir James Graham
observed, that he had stated last year, when the subject was alluded to, that the Admiralty had discontinued the employment of convicts at Sheerness and Woolwich, and it was determined to proceed in reducing the number employed in the other yards. Of 874 course it was inexpedient to send out those convicts to the Colonies who had served a portion of their time. In addition he would only observe, that he had not contemplated the entire abolition of convict labour, but that convicts should only be employed in that description of work which it was difficult to get labourers to perform.

§ Mr. Hume
asked whether all persons who were now sentenced to be transported for seven years were sent out to the Colonies? It was an advantage to get rid of them, and their services would be valuable in the Colonies.

Mr. Secretary Goulburn
replied, that the number of convicts sent out last year was upwards of 6,000. This was a much larger number than had been sentenced during that period, consequently the number of convicts in the hulks and dock-yards had been reduced.