CONDITION OF THE NAVY.

HC Deb 05 March 1839 vol 45 cc1263-83

Sir Edward Codrington

said, after the very able speech made by the hon. the Secretary of the Admiralty last night, he was anxious to avoid troubling the House with a repetition of the matters of detail which were then so fully explained; but, notwithstanding the ample consideration which the House then bestowed upon the state and efficiency of the British navy, there were several points of great importance which were not touched upon; and in particular, the condition of the officers and men. Such being the case, he felt himself called upon to press the subject on the attention of the House and the Government. He knew, from a life of lengthened service, what was really wanted by the officers and the men; and his object in bringing their case under the attention of the House, was, to endeavour to prevail upon the Government to do that which he believed to be but bare justice, and requisite, to banish all cause of discontent from the officers and men in our naval service. The question was one easy of arrangement—a question of regulations; and discontent existed owing to those regulations, from the admiral down to the very lowest class and portion of the service. The House should consider the position in which our navy was placed by the maintenance of what is termed the peace complements. No ship in the British navy should ever be sent to sea, without having such a complement of men, and being fitted out in every respect in such a way as to enable her to meet and be fit to contend with any exigency she may have to encounter. He would enable the House to determine, whether our ships of war are manned in such a manner as to enable them to meet such exigencies. In our naval engagements of the 1st of June and 29th of May, or Lord Howe's engagement in which he served, we had eleven men to every 18-pounder, and thirteen to 32-pounders; but at the battle of Navarino, he had only, on an average, nine and a-half men to every 32-pounder. Now, he asked the House, whether a constant diminution in the number of men to our guns was safe for the public interest, or just to the officers in command, or men who are afloat? He was unwilling to go over the same matter twice, or to go into details that might fatigue the House after the debate of last night, but he must say, that every man who is acquainted with the duty of officers in command of ships afloat, would agree with him in this, that they would prefer the oldest almost of our ships of war well manned and well found, to the newest ships, manned as they are now manned; and he would venture to say, that he would go into action with the oldest ship under those circumstances, and come out victorious. It is not a question of stores—of Whig stores or Tory stores. The navy care very little about that part of the subject. What they want is to have officers and ships' companies that are efficient; and what he meant to show was, that justice had not been done to the officers or the men. He undertook to show, that there was not a single officer in the civil service of the Government who was not allowed to retire after a term of half service, without receiving double the retired allowance which was paid to an officer of similar rank in the navy. He would not fatigue the House by entering into a detailed comparison; indeed, he formerly gave it to the House, and need not now mention names; but look at the cases of Sir R. Keats or Sir S. Hood, and other officers of long and arduous service, who had been in many actions; yet their half-pay only amounted to 766l. 10s. per annum, after fifty or sixty and more years' service. Out of their pay they contributed to Greenwich Hospital, and to a Widow's Pension. Let Gentlemen compare that with the Pension-list, and with the amount which different ladies received for pensions, and then let them say whether justice was done to seamen. He believed great disappointment had been felt in consequence of certain pensions not having been considerably reduced on the revision of the pension-list; and when they found that certain pensions were still continued without any claims whatever, and that the widows and daughters of an admiral, who had distinguished himself for his bravery, would be only allowed 120l. a-year, he thought some further revision was wanted, not only of the Pension-list itself, but also that pensions and rewards should be given to officers of the navy. But he did not complain of the amount given to others. His complaint was, that officers of the navy should be treated worse than any other class of persons who served the Government. It would appear, as though it were a luxury to run the risk of being shot at, and it had been said, "Oh! but you gain honours." He had alluded to this on a former occasion, and no doubt honours were very pretty to look at, but there was very little substance in them; and when a man was called upon to pay for them, perhaps they were not so very desirable. He thought honours ought to be given without being asked for, and certainly without being paid for. He could mention the case of an admiral who died a few years ago, and whose two daughters were obliged to go to a private charity, called the Benevolent Naval Society, and receive 25l. a-year each, to keep them from starving. He would ask, whether that was the way in which the children of an admiral ought to be treated? This was a question that had nothing to do with party—and there was no man, in or out of the House, that did not feel ashamed that such a state of things should be allowed to continue, and who would not express his willingness to endeavour to have them remedied. Those who were in power ought to come forward boldly, and ask for a sum of money requisite for the purpose of meeting such cases. He would now refer to an Admiral's full pay; and here he had to find fault with the mode in which it was put down in the official documents. The Admiral's pay and the table money was put down as the Admiral's pay only. The table money and the Admiral's pay ought to be kept distinct. The pay of a Rear-Admiral was 1,095l. a-year, and he was certain that unless he was always living at sea, or lived in a very close manner, he must spend a great deal more. But then what had he to retire on? He had to retire on half-pay, 450l. a-year, so that he was expected to save money out of 1,095l. a-year, and to live upon 450l. per annum. Then, again, the table money was a mere pittance, and was not sufficient to enable a man to keep an open house. He thought he had stated enough to show that Admirals were not paid in proportion to the duties they were called upon to perform. He wished the House to consider the situation in which flag-officers were placed and he hoped the Admiralty would be induced to come forward and remedy those grievances. He might mention one instance, that of Captain Fitzroy, of the Beagle, who had expended no less than 7,000l. of his own money in fitting out his ship, and performing his duty in an efficient manner. He could mention a great number of instances in which officers were out of pocket, but he thought this an instance which required the attention of the Admiralty. If the Admiralty had not the means of remunerating that officer, he would urge them to come forward and state the case, and he was sure the House would not only give the money, but that the country would cheerfully consent to it, for it was not right that an officer who was desirous of doing his duty efficiently should pay for the honour of performing it. He had said that Admirals were very ill paid, whether on full or half-pay. He had documents to prove it. He now came to the class of Commanders, in whose situation there was great peculiarity. They did not rise regularly as Post Captains did, and they had no retirement. Now he could not understand what hesitation there could be in giving a retirement. Let them give those gentlemen who had no chance of rising in the service an inducement to retire, and it would be the means of clearing the list. In his opinion a proper commuted allowance should be given so as to encourage officers to emigrate and induce them to settle in Canada where they were much wanted. That would be a most beneficial thing for the Government and the country, if carried into execution, and he could not understand why it was not, as the First Lord of the Admiralty, fully agreed with him in opinion. Amongst these various complaints there was one case, that of the Lieutenants, which he had brought before the House on a former occasion, and which he would advert to now. It was well known from the quantity of Lieutenants that it was absolutely impossible to employ any considerable proportion of them. But the Lieutenants regularly rose on the half-pay list within a certain portion of time to receive instead of 5s., 6s., or 7s. a-day. It took now nearly double the time formerly required to arrive at that sum, but in consequence of many of these Lieutenants complaining, a boon was given to them to be allowed to be called Captains, but on condition that they were to have no more than 7s. a-day. There were thus several Commanders on the retired list at 7s. per day. Now, whatever the regulations of the Admiralty might be on this subject, the wording of the votes of that House was that three hundred Lieutenants should have 7s. a-day each, and he, (Sir Edward Codrington) should like to know by what right this money was withheld from them which was voted to them by the House. He had moved on a former occasion, for the production of the documents authorising this. Observations had been made on these Orders in Council. He could not understand why these Orders in Council were not produced. Why should doubts as to the construction of these regulations exist? Why should the officers of the Navy not know what they were? In order to know what they were it was necessary that the naval officer should buy every quarter one of those little blue books, which were so wretchedly printed that they could scarcely be read, and as he had not for some time past been actively employed, he really did not know any thing about it. He thought that these things should be so regulated that superior officers in the service should have it in their power to refer to these regulations, so as to be able to give information to those who might apply to them on the subject. He should be glad to have these Orders in Council put before the House, in order that it might be known what were the regulations at present existing on the subject, He would now draw the attention of the House to another class of officers who were suffering under great hardships. As an instance he would relate the case of lieutenant Keys. He believed, that that officer had recently (since attention had been drawn to the case) received the out-pension of Greenwich hospital, which amounted to 50l. per annum; but this Officer had been thirty-nine years in the service—he had been twice wounded, and he had received no pension. He had jumped overheard and saved a man from drowning by so doing. He was suffering from ill health at the time, and this produced such au effect upon him, that he was forced to retire from active service. At that time he received no remuneration from the Government; and he would ask the house was it right or just that such a roan should he so treated. He would next draw the attention of the House to the case of toasters of the navy. These officers, who were in general promoted from the class of acting masters had five shillings a day half-pay. If they were ordered to go to sea, they had to fit themselves out for the service at an expense nearer 200l. than 150l. end what could the House think they had in addition to their half-pay to meet this? Why 5d. per day. He would ask if this was not a disgrace to the country. He knew the value of these men—the duties they had to perform were of the most important description. It had been supposed, that in consequence of this these officers endeavoured to avoid going into active service, but if they re, fused when called upon by the Admiralty they were scratched off the list. This was a sad alternative, and he did trust the House would enable the Admiralty to bestow something on this deserving class of officers. This class of officers served for a long time as acting masters, and they were apt to remain in that situation after their merit entitled them to promotion, because they feared to be unemployed. He was obliged to state these facts, because he knew that several hon. Gentle, men were unacquainted with them, notwithstanding he had stated them before. He now came to the class of surgeons and assistant Surgeons, and he wished them to be compared with the surgeons and assistant surgeons of the army, be, cause although he knew the army was very ill treated, yet it was not quite so ill treated as the navy. The assistant surgeons in the army were entitled to more half-pay than the assistant surgeons in the navy. The surgeon in the army was entitled to retirement after twenty-five years service, but the surgeon in the navy must serve twenty-nine years and eleven months. If any hon. Gentleman would examine the lists of promotions since 1815, he would find that more than 100 medical officers of the army had since that period been promoted to the higher rank, giving an increase of half-pay, whilst only one naval surgeon had been so promoted. All the time of the assistant surgeons in the Army was taken into account in the calculations for pensions, while the assistant surgeons in the navy were entitled to reckon three years only. He had been a member of the lighthouse committee, before which there had been a question of giving to the collectors of customs the task of receiving the light duties. The observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth upon that occasion was, that they could not impose this duty upon the collectors of customs without giving them an additional remuneration. Now, when the Royal Naval Asylum had been placed in connexion with Greenwich Hospital, the duty which had previously been performed by the surgeons resident in the hospital was increased by the necessity of undertaking the medical super-intendance of more than 1,000 additional children, without one farthing additional remuneration. He had more than once strongly advocated the claims of another class of singularly ill-treated individuals—he alluded to the pursers; and he felt it requisite to call the attention of the House again to this subject. The pursers at the present day were extremely ill off, compared with what they were at the time of the peace. The half-pay of a purser of twenty years service was, at the end of the war, 5s. At present the lowest scale was 3s., and the highest 5s. They must serve from thirty-five to forty years before they arrived at the same situation as at the end of the war, which fell very hardly upon them indeed. The situation of a purser on actual service was such, that he could realize a considerable sum of money; but the number of those employed was but small. They memorialized the Admiralty for an increase of their half-pay, but were refused. The body of pursers met, and arranged, that those who were lucky enough to be employed should give a portion of their receipts to their poorer brethren who did not enjoy the same advantage. They accordingly proposed to the Admiralty that their remuneration of one-eighth on the provisions should be reduced to one-tenth, on the consideration of the remainder being applied to the purpose to which he had before alluded. At length this arrangement was entered into, and the sum tints allocated in the course of a year (three years since) amounted to 7,000l. He contended, that by this time the Government had made more money by this arrangement than they had expended by the granting of this additional 1s. per day, and he knew not why this was not divided amongst them. He hoped that some information would be given on this subject when they came to discuss the estimates, because the money was really taken out of the pay of the pursers, to be devoted to the assistance of their poorer brethren. If any doubt existed on that subject, he would refer to those words of the order, which stated that an account thereof should be kept by the Comptroller of the Navy, which sums shall be hereafter applied in raising the half-pay of the pursers of his Majesty's navy. He was sure the object of the House was to do justice to the navy, and he hoped that the case of these men would not be overlooked. There was another class of persons, who were generally Secretaries to Admirals; and these men who held that important confidential situation, were treated in a most extraordinary way. It was stated, that they were noncombatants, although his own Secretary was seriously wounded in action, and the House was aware that Lord Nelson's Secretary had been killed under similar circumstances. It happened that Sir Thomas Usher was called upon to engage a very superior flotilla in the Gut of Gibraltar, to save his convoy. That gallant Officer did not consider the inferiority of his force, he looked to nothing but the safety of his convoy. In consequence of that inferiority, he ordered that every man in each ship, except the surgeon, should go to the guns. Among them was of course the purser, who received several severe wounds, and lost an eye. He got employment as a sort of compensation, but in consequence of the loss of his eye, it happened that he was run over by a carriage, which disabled him from employment, and obliged him to relinquish his situation. He (Sir E. Codrington) knew that that man was at the present moment in absolute distress, and literally starving; and he asked the House if it was fitting that such a man should be thrown upon the world without any pension, after having been disabled in the service of his country? Now, he had great doubts whether these cases could be reached by the commission for naval and military inquiry now sitting, and he intended to move for an enlargement of their powers, to enable them, if they so chose, to enter into the consideration of any other matter which might tend to the good of the service. They were good judges of what would tend to this, and he was sure, that they would not enter upon the consideration, unless they thought it would do good. Whilst on the subject of pensions, he must allude to the pensions of midshipmen. If there were two midshipmen, A. and B., and the one, after a gallant action, were suffering severely from a wound, and the other had not been wounded at all, there would be allotted to the first (A.) a pension for his wounds; but if for their gallantry, both were promoted, A. who had been wounded, would be deprived of his pension, and placed on the same footing as B. But why should a person who had earned a pension for services in the early period of his life, be afterwards, on promotion, deprived of his pension? He would not complain of the pension-list, but he thought that it would be the duty of any Government to take a per centage from the pensions on the list to supply the few that were required. He thought, therefore, that if the Admiralty came forward and stated these things to the House, they would have full liberty to carry out their designs. The subject was the cause of much discontent in the navy; parties were called upon to serve, and were puffed off for good conduct, but there were no pensions; he denied, therefore, that justice was done, or that the feelings of the country were in favour of the present system. With respect to himself, he defied any thing that might happen to him, in consequence of the line he took; he saw that injustice was done, and, therefore, nothing should deter him from doing his duty. He would also press upon the Government the necessity of sending ships to sea in a condition to do their duty, not only with credit to themselves, but also with safety and success. Officers ought not to be called upon to risk their lives unnecessarily or wantonly, and with that view the ships ought to be put into a condition for service without any unnecessary loss of time. In no case did a ship go into action well fitted, without suffering less comparative injury. An officer would carry his ship, if well fitted, into action, even against a superior force, with greater ease; there would be more dexterity, and a better understanding between the officers and men; it would be more easy to renew the action, or to go upon other service. For himself, before the battle of Navarino, and for his own credit's sake, he wrote to the Lord High Admiral, showing how the crews of the ships were comparatively divided, and how they were limited. He had shown that he had only nine and a half men to work each thirty-two pounder, where he ought to have had thirteen; and he would state boldly, that if he had to choose between five ships in the condition he would wish to see them, and as they ought to be, and eight others in an infeferior condition, he would rather take the five than the eight, and he knew that there would be less injury to those ships than with the larger number and the small complements. As in the army, the soldiers would fight better if well and closely formed, so, if they got ships well together, which they could not do if they were but half manned, they would do their duty with half the injury to the ships, and with twice the celerity. What was the use of a large vessel if they could not manage her? She would only run away with them. Upon that ground he intended to move, that, "with a due consideration to the exigencies of the State, it was important that all her Majesty's ships should have such a complement of men as would put them in a condition to meet any emergencies." With the opinions in the pamphlet which had been so often referred to last night, he fully agreed; he honoured the gallant Gentleman for putting them forth, and whether he now suffered for the statement of those opinions or not, he had done good service by giving them to the world. But what had provoked this pamphlet? Why, another publication, by another gentleman, the second Secretary of the Admiralty. Whether that publication had or had not the sanction of the Admiralty—though he understood that it was not sanctioned by the Admiralty—did not signify; it was published. He would not combat the statement about the number of ships in commission; yet he must say, that no officer of the Admiralty ought, when writing of a gentleman, to have used the terms which were contained in it. He called the "remarks" of a flag officer "disgraceful, impertinent, frivolous, and withal, mischievous; and in another place he designated them "springes to catch woodcocks;" and again he said, "the impudent assertion which follows, is enough to make the blood boil of every British officer and seaman." Was this fit language for the Secretary of the Admiralty to use? In the first place, also, he said, that the remarks could not be the production of a flag officer; and next he supposed that it did proceed from such a person; and then he hoped, that his "bit of bunting"—was that the way to speak of the national flag?—that "his bit of bunting may never fly at the mast-head of any of her Majesty's ships." But what the Secretary himself added, he would apply to him, and he would say emphatically, "let no such men be trusted." The Secretary said, further on, "there was a time when this flag-officer might have in- curred some danger of suffering the penalty inflicted on the gallant Admiral Vernon, for a very similar, though a much less culpable proceeding." What had the Secretary to do with these parts of the subject. The statements in his pamphlet, as to the ships, might be correct; but was he, the Secretary, to hold out such a threat as this against any flag-officer? The Secretary next referred to the case of Captain Craufurd, who first went to sea under his (Sir E. Codrington's) auspices—whom he made a lieutenant early for his services—and who, besides being the son of one distinguished officer, was the brother of another, Sir Andrew Barnard, who had highly distinguished himself. He had thus started in the service with some personal grounds for consideration, and instead of idling away his time at home, as many other officers did, he took trips into different countries, and saw their navies. Among them he saw the Russian navy. This navy had been called a "pasteboard fleet;" but he had commanded a Russian fleet; he had been in action with them, and he thought that no man would find them a "pasteboard fleet," though they were held so cheap. The publication of Captain Craufurd was known at the Admiralty—it had done him great credit, and he believed that he had obtained employment in a sloop of war much earlier than he would have done, because of that letter. He deserved real credit for the information he had given—it was his duty to do it, and he had done it ably—he had done it openly, and he had done it with judgment; and if a man were allowed to write in this way, he would like to know what harm Captain Berkeley could have done, as he had done. Was it because the Secretary had 1,500l. a-year, and the young man only 150l., that he acquired the superiority? But this gave him none in his (Sir Edward Codrington's) mind. He had never written statements himself in the papers; he had always stated in the House what he wished to make known. But the Secretary said, why were not these facts made known to his superiors? Why, Captain Craufurd did this; and if the information were kept back, as the Secretary implied, blame attached to the Admiralty. Why, two Sessions before Captain Craufurd wrote, he (Sir Edward Codrington) had said, that the Emperor of Russia had shown him his fleet; and he had told the House the real facts, though they were passed by unheeded. At all events, Captain Craufurd did but his duty in making his statements, and he had no right to be treated as he had been by this jack-in-office. It was said, that it would "be charitable to suppose that the young commander was really ignorant" of the real state of the navy, and the number of ships; and it was said, that "this silly opinion of a youthful commander may be taken for what it is worth, and no more;" and so he (Sir Edward Codrington) said of the Secretary's statement—it was to be taken for what it was worth, and no more. He recollected having read a book called "The Life of Lord Howe," a man whose life deserved to be written in a very different manner, one of the greatest admirals we had ever had, and who had rendered us as many services as almost any other; and when the Secretary of the Admiralty said, that "if young officers would take the trouble to read what their seniors and 'superiors' had seen and said," he doubted whether they would have gleaned much useful information. He had, in his notice, proceeded to call the attention of the House to the condition of the naval department—he had done so, and he would now move "That with due consideration of the exigencies of the State, it is important to the interests and honour of the country, that all her Majesty's ships in commission shall have such a complement of men as will render them efficient in any emergency; and hat an humble Address be presented to her Majesty praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to enlarge the powers of the naval and military commission now sitting, so as to embrace the subject of pensions, and every other subject which they think beneficial to the public service."

The Hon. Grantly Berkeley

said, in rising to second the motion of the gallant Admiral, he must address a few words to the House which he trusted would not be deemed irrelevant. It had been shown by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the expenditure consequent on the present system of management in the navy was one of those by which the revenue was exceeded; therefore he would put it to the House whether some saving and benefit might not be achieved by lessening the number of ships at present in commission, and as they were all under their full com- plement of men, concentrating the crews, so as to render those vessels retained on service more effective in their duty. Undoubtedly, it might be very pleasant to the First Lord of the Admiralty by the larger number of ships to extend his own patronage; but individual ascendancy or the patronage of any board ought not to be considered when the honour of the British flag might be tarnished by the means with which that official power was Upheld. It had been acknowledged by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Wood) in his statement on the navy estimates, that for the last six months unceasing condemnation and public antipathy had attended every act of the Board of Admiralty. Now, if this had been the case, he desired no stronger proof of the fallacy of their proceedings than such public condemnation, for were all united in disapproval, it would be folly to suppose, that there was not something glaringly improper in the nature or effects of that administration. It had been asserted by some that in the event of a war breaking out it would be easy to increase the crews of the different vessels to their full complement of men; but how was this to be effected, under short notice, as regarded the ships on foreign service, in remote stations, and in distant ports, spread over the seas as our navy was known to be? What, Were the British ships to skulk in port till their reinforcement of men arrived? Were they to be bearded by an insolent enemy at the harbour's mouth, dispirited and restrained by a sense of their own Weakness? Depend upon it, weak in numbers, as they might be, a British man of war would never skulk from the presence of an enemy, and the present non-effectiveness of the crews would lead to a lamentable loss of life. The gallant Member for Sandwich (Sir T. Troubridge) seemed, during the debate of yesterday to take great umbrage, at a remark which had fallen from his (Mr. Berkeley's) relative, the Member for Bristol, and as it would grieve him much to suppose that the hon. and gallant Member, for whom he begged to say he had every respect, should for a Moment labour under an appellation, from such a quatter, unjustly bestowed, he felt disposed to withdraw the simile of a wasp's nest, as he denied the sting, and to substitute, in lieu of it, the name of a nest of drones. For, certainly, in their manning of the navy, they were not sufficiently la- borious. If, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member for Sandwich was better content with the latter appellation, he was welcome to the hive, and the first Lord of the Admiralty might reign the queen bee of it, if he pleased. The first Lord of the Admiralty, the Board, had not, as had been shown, the confidence of the country, and if as the letter to Captain Berkeley, which had been read to the House, stated, through his or their mismanagement, the British flag had suffered defeat, even in the furling of a sail, the first Lord of the Admiralty did not deserve that confidence. By the statement put forward by the Government it appeared that many of the suggestions made by Captain Berkeley, to whom he felt himself permitted to allude, from the remarks which had fallen from the gallant Admiral, had been and were about to be complied with. He trusted then that the rendering the coast guard fit for sea service would also not be forgotten. One instance more he would put to the House, as regarded his relative: suppose they were to reverse his (Captain Berkeley's) position tin the late occasion of his pamphlet, that instead of Sir John Barrow's views coinciding with those entertained by the first Lord of the Admiralty, Captain Berkeley's had done so, and Sir John Barrow's had been in the contrary direction, would Captain Berkeley then have been removed from his situation? No, he would have retained his seat. Even now, he (Mr. Berkeley) congratulated Captain Berkeley on the result of the matter, for he had at least shown that he, as he (Mr. Berkeley) trusted every individual of his family, if placed in a similar situation, would show, that he would not tamely sit and see the maintenance of abuses without raising his voice against them; or suffer himself, while sitting as a judge, to be considered in the light of a mere puppet, to dance in blind obedience at the beck of his superior. The hon. Member concluded by stating his firm belief that the motion of the gallant Admiral was calculated, by drawing the attention of the country to existing abuses, to be of essential service.

Viscount Howick

did not rise for the purpose of making any remarks upon the subject of the case of any officer, of the intention to refer to which no notice had been given, but he merely addressed the House as a member of the naval and military commission, and he begged to express his opinion that the duties which they had already to perform, were such as they could properly or conveniently get through. The appointment of that committee took place in consequence of an Address presented by this House; and their attention having been called to the situation of the different branches of her Majesty's service, their report would be given as early as possible. It was extremely improper, therefore, that they should be called upon to undertake the very general inquiry which was proposed, or that they should be called upon to consider every subject by which it might be thought that the public service would be benefited. If, indeed, such were to be required of them, he did not know when their labours would cease. He had already expressed the opinion which he entertained himself, and he thought that this statement would have still greater weight with the House when he said that he had the authority of the Duke of Wellington to say, that he also concurred in his views. The commission had met that morning, and he had taken the liberty to ask his Grace whether he might say that the subject-matters of inquiry already before the committee were sufficiently extended, and his Grace distinctly answered by expressing his decided opinion that the objects of the inquiry should not be extended. He trusted that these few Words would be sufficient to satisfy the House that however this resolution might be disposed of, which was joined in a most extraordinary and singular manner with the motion for an Address, they would, at all events, refuse to accede to the latter proposition.

Sir George Staunton,

as a friend of Sir John Barrow, to whom allusion had been made, begged to say, that that individual had been a servant of the country during thirty years, and that he thought, that the House would not consider, that they threw away any time which they might Occupy in an inquiry into his case Sit John Barrow did not publish his work in his capacity of Secretary to the Admiralty, and it must be taken therefore to contain his own individual opinions. In anything which Sir John Barrow said in that work, he was sure, that he did not wish to wound the feelings of any individual; but when charges were made by others, he thought, that he was justified in making such an answer as he could to them, and he was of opinion, that in what he had said he had done so satisfactorily, for in the state- ments made by the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Admiralty, last night, there was a distinct confirmation of what Sir John Barrow stated.

Captain Pechell

did not mean to enter at all into the question between Sir John Barrow and the Admiralty, but he must express his extreme satisfaction tit the manner in which the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Admiralty, had performed his duty last night. He did so in the most effective manner, and he Should have been glad to have had an opportunity of stating on the spot that tribute to which he considered the hon. Gentleman was entitled. Although he agreed in some of the facts which he had stated, he must at the same time say, that he had some difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman in same of his points. He regretted, that the noble Viscount, the Secretary at War, had said, that it was not the intention of the commission to take into its consideration all these matters; but he felt still greater pain when he heard, that the same opinion was entertained by his Grace the Duke of Wellington. He must concur with the gallant Admiral in what he had said, and he must express his belief, that the officers of the navy were not placed in that position to which they were entitled, The peerage was not open to them, and there was not one of them who had arrived at those honours which he was sure the country would be glad to see showered upon them. In the late installation of the Order of the Bath only four naval officers received the appointment; and the same system was observed in the selection of the governors of the various colonies. Let the House look to France and see how the Government of that country acted. It had appointed many of the naval officers to such situations, and he begged to inquire whether the consulships of Calais, of Boulogne, and of Bordeaux might not very well be filled by such persons? It would be very proper, besides, that the pages of her Majesty should be introduced into the navy as well as the army, and that a commission should be offered to one of-them for the former service in the course of every year. With respect to the pensions, he hoped, that the Government would well consider the position of naval officers. At present pensions which had been granted for good services were taken from the officers on their being appointed to any situation, even though the appoint- ment should be to a vessel in the navy. He differed from the hon. Secretary as to the opinions which he had expressed in reference to the manning of the navy, and as to the justification which he had given of the Admiralty in not increasing the complement of men to each vessel. It was said, that the complement in peace was equal to that which was given in war, but if in peace it were found necessary to detach some of the crew with the prizes taken, and the remainder were found insufficient, it was clear, that the complement was not great enough. The vessels on the coasts of Africa were called upon frequently to perform very important services in the cases of slave vessels or of piratical vessels appearing in sight, and they were, of course, compelled to send away a part of their crews on their capturing the enemy; but it was found, that the number of men then left in the vessel was insufficient for its purposes, and was in consequence compelled to accompany the prize into port, thus leaving the cruizing ground open. An instance had occurred within his own experience which showed the importance of vessels being sufficiently manned. He was the commander of a vessel on the West-India station, which was called a Jackass frigate, or a Donkey frigate, which was a ship of that class that could neither fight nor run, and on one occasion, after very great difficulty, and with considerable fatigue, he managed to bring her alongside of a piratical vessel; and although the latter had only ten guns, her complement of men far exceeded the number which were under his command. The consequence was, that in shifting the prisoners they laboured under considerable difficulties in compelling them to keep order, and he was after all obliged to accompany his prize into port. He did not blame the present Admiralty for this, but the system; he must do honour to the gallant Officer for his expressions and exertions on this subject; and he fully agreed with the gallant Admiral as to the necessity of sending ships to sea in a state of efficiency; and he did hope, that the House would support the Admiralty in their endeavours to remedy the defects which existed on this subject. The gallant Admiral had admitted, that great injustice had been done to the midshipmen, and he rejoiced, that they possessed so good an advocate. According to the return which had been made, they were paid 1s. 8d. per day, which amounted to 30l. 6s. 8d. per year. It appeared, that the pay and emoluments of the whole number employed amounted to less by 200l. than the sum required for the remuneration of the Lords of the Admiralty. He did not say, that the latter had too much pay, or that they did not care what the former received; but he contended, that the sum expended upon the large number of midshipmen employed was small in comparison with that required for the Lords of the Admiralty. The case of the midshipmen was peculiarly hard with respect to pension. The gallant Admiral had drawn the attention of the House to the case of a midshipman who, in consequence of an accident on board a steam vessel lost his leg, and had been, in consequence, allowed a pension of 60l. a-year; but when this officer had received an appointment to a guardship, this pension had been stopped the gallant Admiral had, consequently recommended him to promotion, and had in consequence remedied the injustice. He should not now go more particularly into any topics which had been alluded to, but he should reserve any further observations which he might have to make until a future opportunity.

Captain Gordon

thought, that this subject was one which it was extremly fit that the Admiralty should consider. The gallant Admiral had spoken at very considerable length upon the subject, and he certainly should not attempt to follow him in the topics to which he had referred. He had so mixed up the questions before the House, however, that he was somewhat at a loss to know how it was possible to give a distinct vote upon the subject. He agreed, that if some inquiry were made into the rate and rule of granting pensions, very considerable benefit would accrue. There were different pensions for the army and navy, and he thought, that the commission was a fit tribunal to take them into consideration. The question of the armament of ships was one of very great importance, and it was one on which differences of opinion existed, and might very fairly exist. He should not now venture to give any opinion upon that subject, or upon any other of the numerous topics which had been touched upon; but he should be ready, on the discussion of the estimates, to give his opinion upon them, so far as he felt competent. With respect to the present motion, all its object was to procure an address to be presented to her Majesty, he could not support it, and he should therefore decline giving his vote to the gallant Admiral.

Viscount Ingestrie

only rose to express his concurrence in the opinions of the gallant Admiral with respect to the propriety of an inquiry into those matters in which the navy were interested, and especially pensions, and he hoped that because it was said, that the commission could not undertake the investigation, there would be no reason given why the matter should not be referred to the Board of Admiralty.

Sir Charles Adam

said, that, with respect to the observation made by the noble Viscount (Viscount Howick) on the subject of the commission, he might state at once that the most complete inquiry had been made into the several means of promotion and retirement of officers of the army and navy. As to any further duties being placed upon that commission, he was gratified to hear the opinion expressed by the noble Viscount, backed as it was by that of his Grace, the Duke of Wellington, and he believed, that no further inquiry was necessary to carry the desired object into effect. With regard to many of the topics alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport, he conceived that their further consideration had much better be postponed until to-morrow, when the whole subject would again be under discussion. But, at the same time, he conceived that as the commission had not yet published its report, it would be premature to enter into the inquiry which was proposed at all. As to the peace complements, to which allusion had been made, he thought it was requisite to keep up a sufficient number of men for the protection of commerce, and also for the carrying into effect any treaty which might be entered into. It had been said, "Let there be fewer ships and more men;" but he said, "Have as many ships as can be properly managed." The system which had been adopted having given very general satisfaction to the country, he could only regret that anything should have occurred which should have justified Captain Berkeley in putting before the public that pamphlet which hi had written, the effect of which was hi retirement from the Board. He sincerely regretted that that should have been the result of the publication of the pamphlet for there was no man who sat at the Board who performed his duties better or more ably. But at the same time he could not stand there and admit that the statements contained in that pamphlet were true. With regard to the complaint made by the hon. Member for Brighton that members of the naval profession were not advanced to office, he begged to state, that it was made without much foundation, for there were at present several examples of naval officers being employed in situations of great importance and responsibility.

Mr. Hume

protested against any further pensions being granted, although he concurred with the hon. and Gallant Admiral, Sir E. Codrington, that a great many persons received pensions disproportioned to their services, while there were many persons in the army and navy who did not receive adequate remuneration. In the returns of the last year, it would be found that upwards of 11,000,000l. was paid for the services, effective and non-effective, of those in the army and navy. 7,158,000l. was paid for the whole efficient service of the army and navy, while 4,114,000l. was paid for pensions. That was a singular fact. He considered that the whole question of pensions required revision. There were too many who received pensions and did not deserve them. The House of Commons last night was in a very extraordinary state. Talk of Tory Houses—talk of unreformed Houses—he had never witnessed such symptoms of extravagance in all his life as were manifested last night. Ever since he had been in the House, it had been his good fortune or rather his had fortune to attack the public departments for having the estimates too large, but last night the Minister was put on his defence because the estimates were not higher. That was quite a novelty. He had never expected to hear it said, "we have never made any reduction, we have gone on increasing year after year," and the House, will it be believed, was in raptures with that statement. After that he would say no more.

Sir E. Codrington

in reply, only asked for pensions for those who had been severely wounded, and who were entitled to them for their services. A complaint had been made that he had not brought this subject on when the estimates were moved, but he begged leave to say he would; grasp every opportunity for advocating the r cause of the navy—it was a duty he had prescribed to himself, and he was determined to pursue it. He felt justified in having called the attention of the House to the subject on the present occasion. Although he never wished to go into battle again, yet he would be glad to do so if he could take all the Ministers with him, and he should also like to have the hon. Member for Kilkenny. They would then, perhaps, alter their tone, and would say that seamen were very ill paid. It was all very well for men to sit in that House and to say that pensions ought not to be granted. He agreed that pensions ought not to be given to men who had large stipends, but pensions ought to be given to those who fought for their country, and who deserved them. With regard to the two publications that had been alluded to, it ought to be recollected that Captain Berkeley's pamphlet was consequent upon Sir John Barrow's. He thought Captain Berkeley was perfectly justified in having put forth those opinions. Capt. Berkeley was an excellent officer, and made an excellent member of the Admiralty, and he was sorry that the Admiralty had been deprived of his services.

Motion negatived.