Chapter XXIV: A Naval Study for All Time (10)

“This had frequently been the case; and he had received constant
applications complaining of this species of hardship. Two men had
lately applied to him, who, after a service of seventeen years and a
half, as petty officers, had been sent to perform that most scandalous
of all duties—harbour duty; where there was no distinction whatever
between petty officers and private men; and, who, rather than submit
to be longer disgraced, had expended 80_l._ or 90_l._ each, to obtain
their discharge. These men were entitled to pensions of 12_l._ or
14_l._, a year; and he was convinced that there was not an insurance
office in town that would not have given, at their age, for the sums
they had paid for their discharge, annuities equal to their pensions.
Instead of Greenwich being a source of advantage and reward to aged
seamen it was made a means of recruiting for the navy.

“Unless some alteration was made in this system he should feel it his
duty to move for leave to bring in a bill to limit the service of the
navy. The House, he was convinced, would see the necessity of pointing
out some term at which a seaman’s service was to be brought to a
conclusion, and at which he might have some hope of resting his frame,
after an arduous and gallant service, in the lap of domestic happiness
and retirement. In consequence of the present arrangements, men were
employed who were absolutely incapable of performing their duty, and
in his own ship he had found men who, if he had the power, he would
much rather have discharged than have suffered to remain on board. In
other instances he knew men, who had been invalided three times and
sent into harbour duty, volunteer into active service three times, in
order to avoid that disgrace, and finally die amidst the roar of
battle, when their tottering limbs were scarce able to support them to
their quarters.

“MR. ROSE could not see that any grounds whatever had been laid for
the noble lord’s motion. The statement into which he had entered
tended to censure the practice that at present existed with respect to
the discharge of seamen. He recollected that this subject had been
before under discussion in the House, and that it was then stated that
the present practice had been introduced in order to exempt the men
from the necessity of finding two substitutes, under which they before
laboured. This question, however, had no connection with the motion,
which referred entirely to the management of Greenwich Hospital. He
believed that the affairs of that department were as well and
regularly conducted as any other branch of the public service.

“LORD A. HAMILTON said he understood the noble lord complained of the
present system by which the allowance received by seamen from
Greenwich Hospital was rendered useless to them, in consequence of the
large sums which they were compelled to pay for their release.

“MR. WYNN confessed he could see no connection between the matter of
the speech and the motion itself of the noble lord. As the case,
however, to which he had called the attention of the House, was
undoubtedly hard, it was very desirable that information should be
communicated in some mode.

“The previous question was then put and carried, when LORD COCHRANE
immediately gave notice that he would, that day month, move for leave
to bring in a bill to limit the service of the navy.”

There was not, in fact, much apparent connection between my speech and the motion, because the Speaker had prohibited me from making the motion in such a way as would establish the connection. Nevertheless, that both the House and the Ministry well understood my aim, was evident from the fact, that the Secretary of the Treasury was sufficiently alarmed by the attempt which had been made, to induce him to come down to the House _after I had quitted it_, and at the last moment of its sitting, in order to defend the Admiralty from the effects of a motion which had been refused!

“MR. CROKER, before the House adjourned, rose to make a few
observations upon what had fallen from the noble lord in the early
part of the evening, when he did not happen to be present. If,
however, he had correctly understood what had fallen from that noble
lord, he begged leave to say, that the noble lord had been wholly
misinformed with respect to the sums of money taken instead of
substitutes for the navy. The fact was, that the grossest frauds
having been practised upon the poor men under pretence of providing
substitutes for them, the Admiralty had come to the resolution of
receiving a certain sum of money from them, and to find substitutes.”

Notwithstanding the want of connection, Mr. Croker perfectly understood the point to which I was coming in the end, and hence his taking the course of flatly contradicting the premises after I had quitted the House. My early connection with this gentleman has been stated in the first volume[83], as well as the fact, that believing in his sincerity as an ardent opponent of administrative abuses of all kinds, I had, during our acquaintance, without reserve, and in the belief that I had an able coadjutor, unbosomed to him my views with regard to the abuses of naval administration. Now that he was in an official position which required him to defend _all abuses_, and considering that I stood almost alone in exposing them, he was in possession _of all my plans of action_! There can, however, be no better proof of the soundness of my views, than the fact, that although he had previously been made well aware of my line of argument, he never attempted to meet me by argument, but always by _flat contradiction of my facts_. We shall presently come to some remarkable instances of this nature.

-----

Footnote 83:

Page 209.

-----

On the 2nd of June I presented to the House a petition from the inhabitants of Manchester, a petition complaining of ill usage, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, whilst peaceably assembled to petition Parliament for a reform. It is unnecessary to advert to these allegations, as they are now an historical record, but that the people of Manchester should have selected me as the exponent of their grievances, only added to the ministerial aversion with which I was regarded.

On this occasion, an attempt was made by Mr. Bathurst to procure the rejection of the petition, on the ground that the petitioners, if aggrieved, “_could seek redress in a court of law, but that the House could not afford them relief_!” There was something so heartless in such an attempt that it called up some members by no means hearty in the popular cause.

“MR. WHITBREAD supported the motion, contending that to men in the
circumstances of the petitioners (some of them being now prisoners for
debt), it was a mere mockery and taunt to tell them that the courts of
law were open to them, where they might bring actions for malicious
prosecutions. It reminded him of a saying of the late Mr. Horne Tooke,
who, on being told that the courts were open to all classes, replied,
“Yes, and so is the London Tavern, if you have money enough.” As the
petition was couched in respectful terms, he thought it would be
setting a bad precedent to reject it; it was usual, even though
Parliament could not interfere, to see the magistrates did not exceed
the bounds of their jurisdiction.

“MR. WYNN observed that the House had been at all times peculiarly
jealous that no obstructions should be given to the exercise of the
right of petitioning; and as the present complaint related to an
alleged obstruction of that nature, it ought to be received.

“The petition was ordered to lie on the table.”

The circumstances which brought upon me the subsequent vengeance of the Admiralty will be found in two debates which took place in the House of Commons shortly before its prorogation—the one on the 5th, and the other on the 8th of July 1813.

As the subject matter of these debates possesses great naval interest, and as the causes which led to them are not wholly inoperative in our day, I shall adduce them at some length, not so much for my own vindication, as in the light of history teaching by example.

The subject matter of the debates being sufficiently included in the reports of the time, very little comment will suffice.

“LORD COCHRANE rose, pursuant to notice, to bring forward his motion
for increasing the remuneration and limiting the service of seamen. He
thought it was his duty to lay before the House the reasons why our
seamen preferred the _merchant foreign service_[84] to that of their
own country, to enter which they discovered a very great reluctance.

“The facts by which he meant to prove this he had compressed into one
resolution; as he was anxious that when the members of that House
retired from their Parliamentary duties, they might consider these
facts at their leisure, and satisfy themselves as to the correctness
of the statement, in order that when they met again they might have no
hesitation in adopting such propositions, the object of which would be
the redress of those grievances which were the subject of it. As he
did not conceive that any objection could be made to the mode of
proceeding he had adopted, he would not occupy the time of the House
any longer than by reading the resolution. The noble lord then read
the following resolution:—

“‘That the honour of His Majesty’s Crown, the glory and safety of the
country, do, in a great degree, depend on the maintenance, especially
in time of war, _of an efficient naval establishment_:

“‘That during the late and present war with France, splendid victories
have been gained by His Majesty’s fleets and vessels of war, over a
vast superiority in the number of guns and men, and in the weight of
metal:

“‘That these victories thus obtained were acquired by the skill and
intrepidity of the officers, and by the energy, zeal, and valour of
the crews:

“‘That during the present war with the United States of America, His
Majesty’s naval service has, in several instances, experienced defeat,
in a manner and to a degree unexpected by this House, by the
Admiralty, and by the country at large:

“‘That the cause of this lamentable effect is not any superiority
possessed by the enemy, either in skill, valour, nor the well-known
difference in the weight of metal, which heretofore has been deemed
unimportant; but arises chiefly from the decay and heartless state of
the crews of His Majesty’s ships of war compared with their former
energy and zeal; and compared, on the other hand, with the freshness
and vigour of the crews of the enemy:

“‘That it is an indisputable fact, that long and unlimited confinement
to a ship, as well as to any other particular spot, and especially
when accompanied with the diet necessarily that of ships of war, and a
deprivation of the usual recreations of men, seldom fails to produce a
rapid decay of the physical powers, the natural parent, in such cases,
of despondency of mind:

“‘That the late and present war against France (including a short
interval of peace, in which the navy was not paid off) have lasted
upwards of twenty years, and that a new naval war has recently
commenced:

“‘That the duration of the term of service in His Majesty’s navy is
absolutely without any limitation, and that there is no mode provided
for by law for the fair and impartial discharging of men therefrom;
and that, according to the present practice decay, disease, incurable
wounds, or death, can alone procure the release of any seaman of
whatever age or whatever length of service:

“‘That seamen who have become wholly unfit for active service are, in
place of being discharged and rewarded according to their merits and
their sufferings, transferred to ships on harbour duty, where they are
placed under officers wholly unacquainted with their character and
former conduct, who have no other means to estimate them but on the
scale of their remaining activity and bodily strength; where there is
no distinction made between the former petty officer and common
seamen, between youth and age, and where those worn-out and wounded
seamen who have spent the best part of their lives, or have lost their
health in the service of their country, have to perform a duty more
laborious than that of the convict felons in the dockyards—and with
this remarkable distinction, that the labours of the latter have a
known termination:

“‘That though the seamen thus transferred and thus employed have all
been invalided, they are permitted to re-enter ships of war on actual
service; and that such is the nature of the harbour duty, that many,
in order to escape from it, do so re-enter—there being no limitation
as to the number of times of their being invalided, or that of their
re-entering:

“‘That to obtain a discharge from the navy by purchase, the sum of
80_l._ sterling is required by the Admiralty, which, together with
other expenses, amounts to twenty times the original bounty, and is
equal to all that a seaman can save with the most rigid economy during
the average period in which he is capable of service; that this sum is
demanded alike from men of all ages and of all lengths of
servitude—from those pensioned for wounds, and also from those
invalided for harbour duty; thus converting the funds of Greenwich,
and the reward of former services, into a means of recruiting the
navy:

“‘That such is the horror which seamen have of this useless
prolongation of their captivity, that those who are able, in order to
escape from it, actually return into the hands of Government all those
fruits of their toil which formerly they looked to as the means of
some little comfort in their old age:

“‘That, besides these capital grievances—tending to perpetuate the
impress service, there are others worthy the serious attention of this
House; that the petty officers and seamen on board of His Majesty’s
ships and vessels of war though absent on foreign stations for many
years, receive no wages until their return home, and are, of course,
deprived of the comforts which those wages, paid at short intervals,
would procure them; that this is now very severely felt, owing to the
recent practice of postponing declarations of war until long after the
war has been actually begun, by which means the navy is deprived,
under the name of Droits, of the first fruits and greatest proportions
of the prize-money to which they have heretofore been entitled; and
thus, and by the exactions of the Courts of Admiralty, the proportion
of captures which at last devolves to the navy is much too small to
produce those effects which formerly were so beneficial to the
country:

“‘That while their wages are withheld from them abroad, when paid at
home, which, to prevent desertion, usually takes place on the day
before they sail out again, having no opportunity to go on shore, they
are compelled to buy slops of Jews on board, or to receive them from
Government at fifteen per cent. higher than their acknowledged value;
and being paid in bank-notes they are naturally induced to exchange
them for money current in other countries, and which, it is notorious,
they do at an enormous loss:

“‘That the recovery of the pay and prize-money by the widows,
children, or relatives of seamen is rendered as difficult as possible;
and, finally, the regulations with regard to passing of the
examination requisite previous to an admission to the benefits of
Greenwich Hospital, subject the disabled seaman to so many
difficulties, and to such long delays, that, in numerous cases, he is
compelled to beg his way in the pursuit of a boon, the amount of
which, even in the event of loss of both eyes or both arms, does not
equal that of the common board-wages of a footman:

“‘That one of the best and strongest motives to meritorious conduct in
military and naval men is the prospect of promotion; while such
promotion is, at the same time, free of additional expense to the
nation; but that in the British naval service this powerful and
honourable incitement has ceased to exist, seeing that the means of
rewarding merit has been almost wholly withdrawn from naval
commanders-in-chief under whose inspection services are performed; in
fact it is a matter of perfect notoriety that it has become next to
impossible for a meritorious subordinate petty officer or seaman to
rise to the rank of lieutenant; that in scarcely any instance
promotion or employment is now to be obtained in the navy through any
other means than what is called parliamentary interest, that is to
say,—the corrupt influence of boroughs:

“‘That owing to these causes chiefly the crews of his Majesty’s ships
of war have in general become in a very considerable degree worn out
and disheartened and inadequate to the performance, with their wonted
energy and effect, of those arduous duties which belong to the naval
service; and that hence has arisen, by slow and imperceptible degrees,
the enormous augmentation of our ships and men, while the naval force
of our enemies is actually much less than in former years:

“‘That, as a remedy for this alarming national evil, it is absolutely
necessary that the grievances of the navy, some of which only have
been recited above, should be redressed; that a limitation of the
duration of service should be adopted, accompanied with the certainty
of a suitable reward, not subject to any of the effects of partiality;
and that measures should be taken to cause the comfortable situations
in the ordinary of the dockyards, the places of porters, messengers,
&c. &c., in and about the offices belonging to the sea service, the
under-wardens of the naval forests, &c., to be bestowed on meritorious
decayed petty officers and seamen, instead of being, as they now
generally are, the wages of corruption in borough elections:

“‘That this House, convinced that a decrease of energy of character
cannot be compensated by an augmentation of the number of ships, guns,
and men, which is, at the same time a grievous pecuniary burden to the
country, will, at an early period next session, institute an inquiry,
by special committee or otherwise, into the matters above stated, and
particularly with a view to dispensing suitable rewards to seamen;
that they will investigate the state of the fund of Greenwich
Hospital, and ascertain whether it is necessary to apply the Droits of
the Admiralty and the Droits of the Crown as the natural first means
of compensation to those who have acquired them by their valour, their
privations, and their sufferings.’”

“SIR FRANCIS BURDETT seconded the resolution.”

“MR. CROKER thought that, when the noble lord had adopted his present
method of proceeding, he would have acted only consistent with the
courtesy of Parliament had he _given notice_[85] of his intention to
those persons whose duty it might be to take part in any discussion.
The honourable member said he would have felt obliged by any
information the noble lord might have imparted; but though wanting
such, he had come unprepared into the House to meet the noble lord’s
resolution. He should be wanting in his duty if he did not state most
positively, that, excepting the tribute of just praise, which, in the
commencement of his resolution, the noble lord had paid to the
gallantry and heroism of our own seamen, _every other part of it was
liable to the charge of being wholly unfounded in fact_, or very much
indeed exaggerated. The statements those resolutions contained were so
astonishing—true it was _less astonishing when coming from the noble
lord than from any other person_—but still even from him they were so
astonishing, that surely they ought not to have been so suddenly, and
with so little preparation, brought under the consideration of that
House. There was no one but the noble lord who conceived that the
disasters which we had experienced in the course of the present war
with the United States were not to be attributed to a superior force
on the part of the enemy, but to a decay of all ardour in our seamen
in the defence of their country. Was the crew of the _Java_ then, who
had maintained so stubborn a conquest, dispirited? Was the crew of the
_Macedonian_ disheartened and reduced by hard-usage to imbecility and
cowardice? So far was that from being the fact, that it was in the
latter part of the action the spirit of the crew of the _Macedonian_
was most conspicuous, that the spirit of her officers and her brave
commander was most conspicuous. So little broken was the spirit of
that crew which the noble lord had described as utterly heartless and
imbecile, that till the very last they met the attacks of the enemy
with loud and repeated cheers.

“Now for another fact on which the noble lord had formed his
resolution. He had stated that seamen were obliged to purchase their
discharge by no less a sum than 80_l._, no matter what was the
condition of the individual. Now he had to state most positively that
this was not the case.[86] The sum specified might, indeed, be
_required from able seamen_ who wished for their discharge; but the
sum of 40_l._ only was required from ordinary seamen; from ordinary
seamen transferred to harbour duty, only 30_l._; from persons who were
originally landsmen, not more than 20_l._ And he had to state further
that many persons transferred to harbour duty, and considered unfit
for service, were discharged without any consideration whatsoever. The
noble lord had stated formerly in the House the case of a harbour duty
man who had been obliged to pay 80_l._ for his discharge.

“When the noble lord had thought proper to make that statement, he had
answered in his place that he could not take upon him to vouch for the
individual case. He had, however, subsequently been at considerable
pains to discover the particular case alluded to by the noble lord,
and had examined every document in which he thought it could be
traced—but in vain—he could find nothing of the kind; he had then
applied to the member for Bedford to procure for him the name of the
man from the noble lord, but this had not been done, and he had never
had the pleasure of seeing the noble lord since. Now he thought that
under such circumstances the noble lord should have abstained from
receiving the statement unless he was disposed to give the name of the
individual, and thus supply the means of confuting it.

“Our seamen, said the noble lord, were heart-broken; they would indeed
be heart-broken had they heard his resolutions; that was provided
always, though, he retained so much authority with them, as would
impart to his unjust assertions, with respect to them, the power of
inflicting pain which they would once unquestionably have possessed.
They would be heart-broken if the House passed a resolution which
constituted the grossest libel that was ever put forth against them.
Formerly, said the noble lord, they were full of vigour and life under
a better system; now they were deprived of every comfort, penned up on
board of ships which were rendered prisons to them, and their health
injured by defective sustenance.

“Now he had to state an improvement in the condition of those men
whose hardships the noble lord had deplored, which would enable them
to form fair conjectures as to the justice of his statement in
general. A practice had been adopted within these few years of
granting seamen leave of absence on a plan more liberal and better
adapted to promote their comfort than any that had been previously
thought of. When a ship returned from a foreign station, all the men
who had three years pay due to them got leave of absence for three
months, for the purpose of enabling them to visit their friends; if
the individuals were Scotch or Irish the time was prolonged. This
practice was now so well understood, that every ship’s company looked
upon it as a matter of right, and he was ready to say that though ill
effects had been expected to result from it, the expectation had been
found delusive. Several officers had anticipated desertion, others a
relaxation of discipline; but, he was happy to have to state, that so
far from their expectations being answered, the men returned to their
duty with their minds refreshed—new strung, and better fitted for the
toils imposed on them by their duty; and much fewer desertions took
place since the adoption of such a system of indulgence than before
it. He stated this to show what a tissue of false promises, as well as
false inferences, were contained in the resolution of the noble lord.

“The noble lord’s resolution asserted that there was no fair system of
promotion in the navy; that everything was conducted upon a principle
of corruption. Was, then, the commission of the noble lord himself
given him upon such a principle? Did he obtain the red ribbon, which
was before him never given to an individual of his rank, through
corruption? Was it through corruption that a relative of the noble
lord’s had made his way to the top of his profession, and had been
appointed governor of Guadaloupe? Was it through corruption that the
influence of the noble lord had had considerable weight in effecting
the promotion of those persons on whose behalf he had used it? He was
aware that an answer to this last question in the affirmative might be
grounded upon the assumption that the naval acquaintance of the noble
lord were persons of little worth, and such as could owe their
promotion to nothing but corruption. But he who well knew the reverse
would not allow him even this miserable refuge. Was the promotion of
Captain Duncan the effect of corruption? Were the honours which that
gallant officer’s father had obtained the result of corruption? The
friends of the noble lord had felt the benefit of his interference,
and much was it to be wished that it had been confined to promote
their wishes, and through them the interest of the country, and had
never been mischievously exercised on such occasions as the present.
Did not the noble lord recollect, when he had left his ship, that he
had been consulted as to who was the fittest to succeed him, and that
his recommendation had been acted upon?[87] If indeed he had never
left that ship it would have been well for his own reputation, as it
would have been well for the interests of his country. Most heartily
did he wish the noble lord had stayed in her to be serviceable to the
public instead of coming here to be the reverse. The noble lord loved
to deal in generals. He talked loud about corruption, but he wished
him to state who paid and who received the wages of corruption.

“He was conscious that he had spoken with much heat, and hoped for the
indulgence of the House; but he could not say that he had not meant to
reprehend, and that with as much severity as he could use, the conduct
of the noble lord; that he did not mean to set in as strong a light as
possible the futility of those labours for six months’ duration, which
had so engrossed the noble lord, that he had been unable to attend his
parliamentary duties; and which he now imagined would enable him to
call out in triumph to his constituents, ‘Behold, if I have appeared
to desert my duty, I have only appeared to do so; I have not spent my
time in idleness. Here are the fruits of my industry; here is the
operose conclusion of my labours, and the debt you, my constituents,
suppose me to have contracted, you now find fully liquidated.’

“Now, I beg the House to recollect that these accusations of the noble
lord have not been couched in fleeting and evanescent speech, but have
been regularly arranged in a written document, which it is the wish of
the noble lord should be studied by every member in the leisure which
the cessation of parliamentary duty will allow him. The noble lord, I
contend, has taken a very unfair method of conveying his opinion; he
would have acted more fairly in making them the subject of a pamphlet.
If he had done so, I certainly have not much time for writing, but out
of respect for the noble lord, I should certainly have answered him,
and I should have been glad of the opportunity of answering him when I
could have used freely those terms which he had deserved should be
applied to him. I must express my sanguine hope that the house will
not, by adopting such motions as those moved by the noble lord,
sanction the gross libel which they contain against the navy, against
parliament, and against the country. I wish to lay aside all little
considerations to suppose that the resolutions are not meant to apply
more to the persons now engaged in the management of our naval affairs
than their predecessors; but if it be otherwise, still I wish to sink
any feeling that might be supposed to arise in my mind in consequence,
and to answer the noble lord only as the defender of that gallant body
of men who have stood so long forward as our firmest bulwark against
the vileness of our foe, and who are well entitled to the warmest
feeling of gratitude we can cherish towards them. I hope, therefore,
that if the noble lord does dare to push the House to a division, that
he will be left in a minority such as will not merely mark their
sense, but also their indignation.”

-----

Footnote 84:

The American merchant service.

Footnote 85:

I had given notice.

Footnote 86:

The truth of the matter will appear in the second debate.

Footnote 87:

For a refutation of this see chap. vii.

-----

The reader will not fail to observe the way in which the resolution was met by the Secretary of the Admiralty, Mr. Croker. In defiance of the fact that the notice required by the regulations of the House _had_ been given, Mr. Croker openly accused me of discourtesy for _not having given proper notice_! He then stated that he was “_unprepared_” to meet the resolution; whilst his next words in the same sentence were, that the facts set forth in the resolutions were _positive falsehoods, “wholly unfounded in fact!”_ This being the mode in which Mr. Croker now chose to meet all unpleasant resolutions relating to the navy when originating with myself, well knowing that _they could neither be contradicted nor controverted_!

In order to show the efficiency of our navy, Mr. Croker then instanced two of our ships, the _Java_ and the _Macedonian_, both of which were in a high state of discipline; but he did not notice the fact of one of those which had been defeated by the enemy from the inefficient state of their crews and the inadequacy of their equipment, to both which facts numbers of officers now living can testify. I do not know whether I am justified in bringing forward an anecdote which I have heard from Sir Charles Napier, who had the misfortune to command one of these miserable craft; viz. that expecting shortly to engage a United States frigate which bore down upon him, he sat down and wrote a letter to the Admiralty in case of his capture or death, informing their lordships that his frigate had been lost from inefficiency of her crew and equipment, when, to his surprise, the American sheered off, and he was in no condition to follow. I have no doubt the gallant admiral will repeat the anecdote to any one whom it may interest.

Mr. Croker stated, that so far from the Admiralty demanding 80_l._ for the discharge of a seaman, they only demanded 40_l._, and sometimes not more than 20_l._ In the course of the debates it will be shown that in some cases the seamen in reality paid 90_l._ The man who made the former statements should not have asserted that mine were _false_. Even the stale trick of “virtuous indignation,” the invariable resort of a practised orator when he has nothing better to say, was here out of place, otherwise than to indicate to the partisans of the Government the course to be pursued.

Further, Mr. Croker himself admitted the bad condition of the navy by saying, now that it suited his purpose, “_he had to state an improvement in the condition of the men_.” The instances which he adduced in proof were unfounded in fact or practice, so that my only way to meet Mr. Croker’s assertions was of necessity to imitate his example when commenting on mine, viz. to deny them _in toto_.

Mr. Croker’s allusion to my own career as an instance of promotion apart from political corruption, was amusing; the inference being that nothing but actual deeds could possibly command promotion! His adducing the case of promotion by the exercise of my influence, was pure invention, the rule of the Admiralty being that _no man, whatever his deserts, should be promoted on my recommendation_. In the first volume I gave the instances of Lieut. Parker, my first lieutenant in the _Speedy_, and Lieut. Haswell in the _Pallas_[88], for neither of whom could I obtain promotion till, from my presence in the House of Commons, it was no longer deemed politic to withhold it. Even then, in the case of poor Parker, a mock promotion was given which proved his ruin and that of his family, who were afterwards plunged in the lowest depths of poverty.

-----

Footnote 88:

See vol. i. p. 150.

-----

Claptrap of this nature was considered a sufficient reply to my resolutions, which embraced the whole subject of the abuses of naval administration. The object was to mislead the House, ignorant as it was of facts, and to throw doubt on my statements, though these had been carefully based on the clearest evidence.

The oratorical display of Mr. Croker was met by my excellent colleague Sir Francis Burdett. As no opportunity has occurred in the course of this work whereby the reader may judge of the comprehensive nature of his parliamentary efforts over any to which I could make pretension, I will adduce the speech of the honourable baronet on this occasion.

“SIR FRANCIS BURDETT said that the honourable secretary had indulged
in a warmth and severity of animadversion which the occasion by no
means justified. His noble friend had asserted much, and the
honourable gentleman had _denied_ much, and that on a very important
subject; _but it remained to be seen who was in error_. He was willing
to admit that the late period of the session rendered the motion
inexpedient; but he conceived that if his noble friend was induced to
withdraw it, he would feel himself in duty bound to bring it forward
at an early period of the ensuing session, when, of course, the
present strong objections to it would be removed.

“The honourable member had taxed his noble friend with exaggeration,
but it was impossible to conceive anything more exaggerated _than the
whole of the honourable gentleman’s speech_. He had stated his noble
friend to have described our seamen as having wholly lost the energy
and valour which had once distinguished them. Now, his noble friend
had never so described them. He had stated that their spirits were
_depressed_ by long confinement and various other hardships, but he
had never stated that their hearts were subdued, or that when brought
into action they did not forget everything, but that they had their
own character and the character of their country to support.

“The honourable baronet then proceeded to contend that as it was not
denied that in some cases the sum of 80_l._ was taken for the
discharge of a seaman, his noble friend’s assertion on that head _had
not been refuted_, and went on to remark on the impropriety of the
harbour-duty men being mixed with convicts (“No, no,” from the
Treasury benches). He knew nothing of the matter, and therefore would
support the inquiry, because the facts stated were of the last
importance, and it ought to be generally known whether they were
correct or incorrect. He hoped his noble friend would not withdraw his
resolutions without giving notice that he would bring them again under
the consideration of the House at an early period of next session.”

“LORD COCHRANE replied. He said he was not displeased at the warmth
with which his proposition had been met. It certainly would be
injurious to no one except to the feelings of certain members of that
House. The honourable secretary had met his statements with individual
instances of gallantry. The existence of these he had not denied. But
he asserted that the physical power of our seamen was decreasing
partly from the length of the war and partly from the system of
harbour-duty established in 1803, from which service decayed seamen
re-entered the navy. He had heard that the system was about to be
changed; and he should be happy to learn from the honourable secretary
that such was the fact.

“The honourable secretary had challenged him to show him an instance
of a petty officer having purchased his discharge from such service.
He would name a William Ford, who had served with him in the
_Impérieuse_, who had done so, Nelson, his coxswain, and a person of
the name of Farley, who had been returned to him and died on board
completely worn out in the service. These were facts which he was
prepared to prove at the bar, as he was all those which had been
denied with so much warmth by the honourable secretary.

“To show further that the crews of British ships of war were unequal
to themselves heretofore, he would relate what was the opinion of a
person not at all likely to be disaffected to the order of things—he
was the son of a bishop, who had taken an American privateer, the crew
of which consisted of only 130 men; and he had declared publicly, that
_he would rather have them than the whole of his own crew, consisting
of 240_. If the honourable secretary doubted this fact, he might
inquire, and he would easily verify it. The noble lord had heard that
the sailors taken prisoners by the Americans had been found running
away into the back settlements; that forty of them had been brought
back by force, and that from the manifestations of this propensity the
exchange of prisoners had been broken off.

“The lateness of the period at which he had brought forward his
resolution had been complained of. He did intend to bring in a bill to
limit the term of service, but circumstances had prevented him; but he
would carry his intention into effect in the next session. With
respect to parliamentary influence, the honourable secretary had asked
whether _he had found it of service to himself in his profession_? He
certainly had not, because _he had never prostituted his vote for that
purpose; but he knew others who had found that influence of great
avail_!! When he again brought forward the subject he should prove all
the facts he had adduced, and he hoped so much ignorance of important
facts would not then be found to prevail. He had chosen the present
form of his motion in order to put his statements on record in a way
not susceptible of misrepresentation.”

“MR. CROKER replied that the Government had at all times been very
watchful over the harbour-duty, but that it had not taken _any new
steps_[89] since the suggestions of the noble lord. He had never heard
of any disposition in the seamen, taken by the Americans, to run away
to the back settlements; nor of forty men being brought back by force.
The exchange of prisoners was broken off in consequence of some wrong
done to the British seamen, and not in consequence of any fault of
theirs.”

The resolution was then negatived without a division.

-----

Footnote 89:

He had just said there was a great improvement in the condition of the
seamen.

-----

Astonished at the result of the debate, which, by negativing my resolutions without a division, amounted to a decision of the House that the naval administration of the country required neither amendment nor even investigation, and that the platitudes of the Secretary of the Admiralty formed a sufficient answer to the subjects sought to be inquired into, it was determined by the few independent members of the House that the subject should be renewed during the present session, notwithstanding that the prorogation of Parliament was at hand.

Accordingly, Sir Francis Burdett gave notice of a motion respecting seamen’s wages and prize money, this being the form in which the renewed debate, on the 8th of July, took place.

“SIR FRANCIS BURDETT called the attention of the House to the motion,
of which he had yesterday given notice, respecting the difficulties
which presented themselves to the obtaining by the relatives of
deceased seamen and marines the proper information and the means of
recovering the wages and prize-money due to them on the ships’ books.
The bonds required of the clerks in the navy pay office, to prevent
them from giving the necessary information, which might be applied
for, were, in his opinion, more calculated to produce fraud and
mischief than to be of any real utility. They would, in fact, be
subject to become the instruments of collusion between the persons in
possession of the means and information, and persons desirous of
converting those means to their own fraudulent views and emolument.

“If these bonds were of real benefit, and operated, as it had been
represented, to prevent imposition, he would ask, why were they not
introduced into other branches of the navy department where the clerks
were as well acquainted with the sums respectively due as in the
pay-office? He could not discover any satisfactory or solid reason for
continuing the practice or confining it to one particular office. It
seemed to him that the best mode both of preventing frauds and of
giving to the relatives of deceased seamen fair and easy opportunities
of ascertaining the amount of what was due to them on the ships’
books, would be to publish the names of such seamen and marines every
six months in the _Gazette_, with the sums due to them respectively at
the time of their death. He concluded with moving ‘That every six
calendar months a list be published in the _Gazette_ of the unclaimed
wages and prize-money due to deceased seamen and marines upon the
books of His Majesty’s ships of war, expressing the places where they
were born.’”

“MR. CROKER said that the honourable baronet had made no statement to
justify the House in agreeing either to the propositions he had
advanced in his speech, or to the motion which he had made. He could
not perceive any ground stated by the honourable baronet for
convincing the House that the practice of which he complained ought to
be altered, and a new system introduced. Was it not right that the
lower clerks should be prevented from disclosing that information
which was in other places _at all times to be had_? Was the Treasurer
of the Navy, the Secretary of the Admiralty, or the Comptroller of the
Navy more obscure than any one of the petty clerks who had entered
into the bonds of which the noble lord had complained? Was it not
their duty to supply the information when duly applied for; and was
there any charge preferred, or any case made out, of their having
refused to do so?”

This mode of meeting the case showed, beyond a doubt, the justice of the complaint and the necessity for the acquiescence of the House in the motion of the honourable baronet. Sir Francis complained that bonds were taken of the clerks, subjecting their securities to penalties and themselves to dismissal if they gave information of any matters within their respective departments. Mr. Croker not only admitted but justified this, on the ground that it was the duty of the Secretary of the Admiralty and the Comptroller of the Navy to supply the information “_when duly applied for_.”

Before commencing his attack on me, Mr. Croker curtly informed Sir Francis that “if he wished to know what became of the wages and prize-money which remained due to the seamen, he would tell him. It was _carried to the chest at Greenwich_. The interest was employed in paying the pensions of meritorious seamen, and the capital was preserved untouched for the claimants whenever they might appear.”

Had this been in reality the case, Mr. Croker would _gladly have proved the fact to the House_, as an answer to my previous motion for all papers relating to Greenwich. In place of so doing, he made it convenient—as has been shown in a former chapter—to stay away from the House during the debate on that motion, which it was “his duty” to meet. After I had quitted the House, he then appeared in his place and said that my statements were without any foundation in fact, though he had not listened to them! and could only have heard them at second-hand from those whose interest it was to misrepresent what I had said. Imagine a secretary of the treasury pursuing the same course and adopting the same language in the present day, and the reader will have little difficulty in arriving at the motives or the accuracy of Mr. Croker’s imaginary statements, in reply to one who made the Navy his _entire study_, and was practically acquainted with everything relating to its administration.

The preceding reply was all that was vouchsafed to the honourable baronet, Mr. Croker converting the subject into a lengthened attack on me, a course which the House permitted without question. As the speech of the Secretary of the Navy admitted of easy refutation, and as—amongst civilised persons in modern times—it tells far more against himself than against me, Mr. Croker shall enjoy the benefit of it with posterity.

“He was happy to see the noble lord opposite in his place (Lord
Cochrane), as he would give him the opportunity of making amends for
the mis-statement of which he had been guilty on a former evening. He
could now flatly contradict the noble lord’s assertions in point of
fact, as he had before contradicted them in point of principle. The
first case was that of William Ford. The noble lord had stated that
William Ford had paid 80_l._ for his discharge from harbour-duty. He
had not paid 80_l._ nor any other sum for his discharge. The fact was
directly contrary. William Ford was an able seaman on board the
_Impérieuse_, the very ship commanded by, and which exposed the
ignorance of, the noble lord. Ford’s wife wrote a letter to him
requesting her husband’s release on providing proper substitutes. It
was attended to by the Admiralty and Ford was discharged, having never
been invalided, and having been favoured by those very arrangements on
which the noble lord had founded this charge.

“The next case stated by the noble lord was that of J. Milton, his
coxswain. The assertion made by the noble lord was, that John Milton,
after being invalided for harbour-duty, and a Greenwich pensioner, had
also paid 80_l._ for his discharge.

“Now, what would the House think of the veracity of the noble lord
when he could prove beyond a possibility of doubt that J. Milton was
neither a harbour-duty man nor a Greenwich pensioner? He had also
received a letter from J. Milton’s wife requesting the Board to
discharge her husband upon the usual provision of substitutes being
made. A compliance with the prayer of the letter took place, and her
husband was discharged. He surely, after such misrepresentations,
would not be thought to go too far in maintaining that the noble
lord’s assertions should have little or no weight, since it was so
very clearly proved that he was ignorant of what passed in his own
ship. John Milton, however, after having been discharged, contrived,
through the means of Gawler, whose frauds he himself had detected, to
obtain upon a false certificate _a pension of 12l. a year from
Greenwich_. The fraud was discovered, and the pension was withdrawn.

“But the noble lord did not seem satisfied with exposing his own
ignorance, where he had the best opportunities of being informed; he
went much farther, he exposed his own faults and condemned himself.
The noble lord declared he had discharged sixty men belonging to the
_Pallas_ in consequence of their incapacity, and risked all the
responsibility of the measure at the hazard of a court-martial. If the
noble lord did so, he would tell the noble lord he had done that which
he ought not to have done—he had falsified the books of the ship
entrusted to his honour and care. (Hear, hear.) For the books which he
had signed with his own hand contradicted his positive assertion. The
fact was, that fifteen men only were discharged from the _Pallas_
within the period mentioned by the noble lord; no such entry there
appeared; and he could not have exchanged them for supernumeraries,
because from these books it was seen that only twenty-nine
supernumeraries had been taken on board.”

When I said that Ford had been obliged to pay 80_l._ for his discharge, instead of the representation being false the amount was much _understated_. He had been compelled to find _four substitutes, which cost ninety pounds!_ and was then, as a matter of course, discharged without further personal payment. The case of Milton was a matter of veracity between myself and Mr. Croker. I offered to prove to the House that Milton _had paid nearly 100l._ for _substitutes_, which Mr. Croker construed into paying _nothing_, for his discharge, an offer which Mr. Croker did not accept, though he admitted the substitutes! which had been provided—a fact which he did not attempt to disprove otherwise than by his own perverted statements. As Mr. Croker himself said “_he had contradicted_ my main assertion; how _did I get rid of that_?” Not anticipating an attack on myself, I had not come to the House prepared with documents, so that the only way in which I could possibly have got rid of Mr. Croker’s “_contradictions_” would have been to imitate his example, viz. to convert myself into a bully for the sake of outbullying him, a resource from which I was, as a gentleman, averse. My reply, presently to be adduced, will, I have no doubt, be sufficiently satisfactory to the reader.

Again, Mr. Croker appealed to the House whether my veracity was to be depended upon, for having stated that Milton was a Greenwich pensioner, and in the same breath himself stated that _he was one!_ though through, as he alleged, a false certificate obtained from another man, about which, if true, I could have known nothing except from Admiralty investigations, which were kept secret. All I could have known was, that when Milton’s case was brought under my notice he _was_ a Greenwich pensioner, which Mr. Croker, when appealing to the House not to trust my veracity, confirmed by stating “_that he had a pension of 12l. a year from Greenwich_!”

Mr. Croker’s explanation with regard to Farley was even less to his credit. My complaint to the House had been that Farley, a man useless from hard service, had been returned to me on board the _Impérieuse_, and that he had died completely worn out. As an instance of my want of veracity, Mr. Croker assured the House that “he was not invalided for harbour-duty, neither _died in the service_.” The fact was, that the man was not invalided at all till within a few days of his death, when, unable to return to his friends, I retained him on board from a motive of humanity after his discharge, and he _died on board the Impérieuse_. Mr. Croker spoke truth when he said he “was not invalided for harbour-duty, and that he did not die in the service;” but he most unwarrantably concealed truth when he suppressed the circumstances under which the man _really died_, which were more disgraceful to the nation than invaliding a worn out man for harbour-duty.