SUPPLY—COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 22 May 1857)

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
asked a question as to the votes of "blood money" for pirates killed by our sailors. It was a dangerous power to entrust any naval officer with the arbitrary power of putting men to death as pirates. It was a relic of barbarous times, and unworthy of a Christian country.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, that some time since a new mode of computing the head money had been introduced. The first item in this Vote was to the Rattler and Tartar, for service in 1855. There were 1,750 pirates engaged, of whom 500 were killed and 70 taken prisoners. Under the old rule the officers and crews would have been entitled to £10,000, but under the new rule they only got £3,000. The officers and crew of the Rattler, for service from 1854 to 1856, got £10,000; 766 under the old computation they would have been entitled to £52,000.

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
objected to the principle of the Vote; it was placing too much power in the hands of an officer. The natives whom they attacked might be engaged in legitimate warfare, and it was a disgrace to a Christian country to give blood money in this manner.

§ GENERAL THOMPSON
did not believe in pirates. He desired to know what was the proof that these were pirates. Were they the great pirates or the little pirates? We being the great pirates—avowedly bearing in the China seas no other character than an organised race of pirates—was it quite clear that the men who interfered with us were not Custom-house officers? Or might they not have been some of the collections of men who had made their appearance in China in consequence of political agitation, and who wished to proclaim themselves as Bible Christians, though Her Majesty's representative put them aside as not being first-chop Unitarians? We had seen in China the strongest examples of every violation of truth, falsehoods thick as hail, and conduct which would prove to posterity that what had begun with a violation of principle and honour, would in the end come back on the offenders.

MR. VANSITTART
having had a gallant relative in command of one of the ships could assure the House that whatever doubt there might be here as to the existence, the numbers, or the destruction of the pirates, there was none amongst the Chinese themselves, as was testified by the gratitude evinced by them. His gallant relative had been offered by the native merchants at Shanghai and elsewhere five times the value of the sum in question, and he had refused it because he thought it was not consistent with his duty to accept money except from the Admiralty.

§ MR. AYRTON
believed that this payment was made under an Act of Parliament, and it would be inconsistent in the House to refuse to vote the money to which the Officers thought themselves entitled. At the same time, the Act of Parliament under which this money was voted required re-consideration. It was entirely inconsistent with the honour of this country and of its navy that sums of money should thus be voted for one of those services for which the navy was maintained. When the House voted 767 £7,000,000 for the navy in time of peace, it was not too much to expect that it would in return render the service of suppressing piracy in the Eastern seas. It must be very embarrassing to a naval officer to receive money according to the number of men he had killed.

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
believed that it was in the discretion of the Admiralty to give the money or not, and that the Act of Parliament was not imperative. The Admiralty sometimes withheld the money.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
It was not imperative upon the Admiralty to give this money when they did not think it was deserved. It was not quite fair, however, to raise the question of the desirableness of repealing the Act of Parliament upon the Vote to these officers.

§ MR. STAFFORD
was glad to see that the Admiralty had doubled the Vote for the Sailors' Homes. He was anxious to know whether the Admiralty had increased the number of Sailors' Homes, and whether they had instituted any superintendence over them, or, still better, left them to the management of the benevolent individuals, by whom they were instituted.

§ SIR GEORGE B. PECHELL
believed that the Admiralty had a discretionary power in regard to the payments for pirates. He entirely sympathized in the objections taken by the late Mr. Hume to these payments.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
wished to remind his hon. and gallant Friend of the captain who gave evidence before a Select Committee denying the existence of these pirates, and who was afterwards murdered by them. He trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would never meet with a similar fate. With regard to Sailors' Homes, the Government only contributed towards those at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Quenstown, but they had increased their contributions to all those institutions. The Government did not interfere with the management, except to aid them with their pecuniary support. No institutions could be better managed, and none could be more serviceable to the sailors. Here they found a comfortable home, with cheap board and lodging, and books and newspapers.
In reply to a question put by Admiral DUNCOMBE,

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
stated that during the last three years there had been launched from her Majesty's dockyards 768 and other private yards for the navy, nine ships of the line, nine frigates, eighteen sloops and corvettes, 182 gun-vessels and gun-boats, nine floating batteries, and 104 mortar vessels and gun-boats.

§ MR. AYRTON
complained of the item of £1,500, included in the miscellaneous services, for per centage paid to the Bank of England for transmission of money to the naval accountants at Portsmouth, Devonport, and Pembroke, to meet the payments at those stations for the naval department. He thought, considering that the country kept an average balance at its bankers of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000, it ought not to be charged anything like £1,500 for such accommodation.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, the men employed in the yards at Portsmouth, Devonport, and Pembroke, were all paid in gold and silver, which rendered it always necessary to have a large supply of coin on the spot, and that was unavoidably attended with considerable expense.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
said, as they were now, as it were, auditing the national accounts, he wished to ask for information upon a point connected with the mode of presenting the Navy Estimates before the Committee. The Votes for the financial year 1856–7 were stated in the Estimates, and the Committee was now asked to Vote the supplies for the financial year 1857–8; but the Estimates did not show what had been the expenditure for the year 1856–7. He submitted there ought to have been a column showing the balance in hand, if any, at the end of the previous year, and that until that was supplied the Committee had no means of testing the accuracy of the statements in the Estimates.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, the hon. Gentleman was probably not aware that whenever the full amount of a Vote of the previous year was not expended the balance was either paid over to the Exchequer at the end of the year or was not drawn out of it, and that every year there was what was called a finance account prepared, showing the sums not expended in the service of the year in every case where the actual expenditure did not come up to the amounts voted.

§ MR. PALK
asked what the per-centage paid to the Bank was?

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
stated that the percentage paid to the Bank of England for the transmission of money to the Naval Accountants at Portsmouth, Devonport, 769 and Pembroke was in the case of Portsmouth, 2s., and as respected the remaining two places, 4s.

§ SIR GEORGE PECHELL
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision had been arrived at as to the allowance of half-pay to the captains, commanders, lieutenants, and masters who were connected with Greenwich Hospital. The governor, the lieutenant governor, and some of the Commissioners of that Hospital received half-pay in addition to their official incomes, and he did not see why the same principle should not be extended to the subordinate officers of the establishment.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he could only repeat the answer he had given to a question which had been put to him upon this subject on a previous evening—that the case of these officers was still under the consideration of the Treasury.

§ SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTON
thought the position of the inferior officers of Greenwich Hospital was, in this respect, one of considerable hardship. The Governor of the Hospital, Sir James Gordon, who had a salary of £1,500 a year, received half-pay amounting to £760 a year. The Lieutenant Governor also received half-pay in addition to his official salary; but the captains, commanders, lieutenants, and masters were precluded from receiving half-pay.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
said, that unless the Treasury decided upon allowing the subordinate officers of Greenwich Hospital to receive their half-pay, he would take an opportunity of bringing the subject under the consideration of the House. He found that in the Estimates the full half-pay of officers of every rank was entered, while when those officers received their half-pay the amount of the income tax was deducted. He wished to know in what manner the country was credited with these deductions for income tax.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the country was credited with those deductions in the same manner as it was credited with the deductions of income tax from official salaries and from dividends.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
wished to know why the full amount of half-pay was included in the Estimates.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
replied, because the full amount stated in the Estimates 770 was payable to each officer, but a deduction was made for income tax, and that reduction was carried to the credit of the Exchequer.

§ MR. STAFFORD
wished to know whether they were to understand that this Vote was deemed sufficient by the Government to meet the charges connected with their extensive operations in the East, or whether an application was to be made by them for a supplementary Vote? If this sum was all that they would require, he must congratulate the Government on their skill in making so small a sum go so far.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, this Estimate was framed in the month of January, before a complete account of the operations in China had been received. Since that date it had been found necessary to send out a much larger force; and as soon as the Government were enabled to make up their minds as to the full extent of the exigency, they would lay on the table a supplementary Estimate to meet it.

§ MR. STAFFORD
inquired how soon that would be done?

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
replied, that that would depend, in some degree, on the next accounts which reached this country from China. It would be more satisfactory if they deferred their calculations until they could submit an Estimate that was likely to be final.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
thought the Estimates too low, even if we were not at war with China. There might be a breach between this country and France, and looking at the preparations made by the latter Power, it was imprudent for us to maintain so small a force. Cherbourg was only fifty or sixty miles distant from England and was a perfect naval citadel. There were there already four steam basins, and there would be another completed in 1858. The railways could bring troops from all parts of France to that harbour. Any number of vessels might there come alongside and load. Troops in divisions and brigades could embark with the greatest ease; nay, as not even boats were required, cavalry regiments could march on board. The First Lord of the Admiralty had told them the other 771 night a thing which no other Lord of the Admiralty had ever told them before—that France in its naval steam power was equal to ourselves, and that she was able to bring together any number of disciplined men to man her fleets quicker than we could. We were, therefore, no longer the first naval nation in the world. Since the peace of 1815, France had been increasing her naval power, but what had we done? It was not until 1830 that a First Lord of the Admiralty thought of taking steps to man the navy. In that year the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle passed an Act empowering the Queen to issue a Proclamation, offering in some cases double and in others single bounties of £10 or £5; but that Act could never be rendered available for fear of expense, for it was so carelessly worded that the moment the Proclamation issued every seaman already in service could claim the bounty as well as recruits. He could not understand why the best ships of the British navy were not kept in commission—such vessels experienced less wear and tear in commission than in ordinary. At last, after thirty years' consideration, it was determined that all men on the coast should be exempted from the militia, and rendered fit to serve, if necessary, in the navy, and in case of emergency they were obliged to serve for two years. These men went on board ship and were regularly drilled, and he understood the measure was working remarkably well. But the principle was not, he thought, carried half far enough. Every boy, after serving his apprenticeship to the sea, should be obliged to learn the duties of a man-of-war for twelve months before he became a registered seaman, and should be so well paid for that service as to be taught to look upon it as desirable. This would place at their disposal in the event of a war a large body of disciplined seamen, and would put an end for ever to the system of impressment. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty would bring in a Bill at an early period for the facilitating the manning of the navy. At present we were totally denuded of anything like a Channel fleet. That was not a position which this country ought to be in either in peace or war. There were only two ships at Portsmouth, and one of them, he believed, was making water at a great rate.

§ MR. BENTINCK
was glad the hon. and gallant Admiral had called attention 772 to the insufficiency of our navy as a means of national defence. It appeared to him that the facts brought forward by the First Lord of the Admiralty actually told against his own Estimates. The right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had explained to the Committee the comparative strength of the English and French navies, and the means of each nation for raising a large number of seamen on an emergency. Those facts ought to determine the Committee to refrain from cutting down the Estimates, and went to show that, in the event of any difference unfortunately arising between this country and France, our navy was not in the condition it ought to be in. The comparison made by the right hon. Baronet, therefore, appeared to him to be not only conclusive against reducing the Estimates, but it was just as conclusive as to their not being large enough. So far, therefore, from regretting that the First Lord of the Admiralty would be obliged to come down to the Committee again with supplementary Estimates, he, for one, was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman must do so. It was a most remarkable fact that six months after war, all the incidents of war, and all that occasioned a great expenditure in it, were always forgotten, and an insane cry for a false economy arose, people forgetting that it was economy that had led to the enormous outlay incurred during the war. If the House had practised not an unwise economy, but a wise expenditure it would have saved the country millions of money which had been wasted. In this mercantile country he could not understand how as a matter of insurance the national defences should not be maintained on a proper footing, seeing what the consequences of a sudden invasion would be, if it only lasted for a fortnight.

§ MR. LINDSAY
differed from the two hon. Members who last spoke. They seemed to argue upon the idea that a fleet could be fitted out from France or any other country at once, and could come down suddenly on the coast of England. But no fleet sufficient to do any harm to this country could be fitted out in less than a month, and if such a fleet were being prepared in a foreign country the people in England would soon know all about it. The hon. and gallant Admiral had spoken of the difficulty of obtaining men. That might be the case at times, during a war of aggression, but during a war of defence, when the people were called upon to de- 773 fend their own shores, there would be no difficulty whatever in manning the ships. An abundant supply of men could then be got from the merchant service. He hoped the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty would follow up the course of economy, and have no more men in the service of the navy than he conceived necessary for a time of peace. To go beyond that was to do an injustice to the merchant service. He also hoped that no compulsory measures would be adopted for manning the navy, for they were sure to be defeated. Were a law passed making it compulsory on lads to serve a year in the navy, the shipowners would cease to bind apprentices, and it would be a great injustice to the lads.

§ SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTON
said, that this was a question of very great national interest. France had on its registry of seamen 139,000 men, and though they might not all be immediately available, that was a very strong fact. Such being the case, he thought it was right for this country to give its utmost attention to keeping up the personnel of the navy.

§ MR. BENTINCK
hoped the Admiralty would always keep in commission, on the home station, such a number of ships as would be able to meet any emergency.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, he was glad the Admiralty had adopted the plan of sending the young cadets on board ship to learn seamanship.

§ MR. BENTINCK
complained that a great portion of the coast of Great Britain was still without charts, although the surveys had been completed many years.