The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-17 00:00:00

been opposed to a civilian ruling the navy. The sur-
veyor of the navy and the storekeeper were responsible
for their department, and yet they had a Lord of the
Admiralty appointed over each of them.
Dr. BOWRING did not think that the public accoants
could be satisfactorily kept unless the departments of
receipt and expenditure were svparated.
CaptainPECHELL said he would wish to bringt,efore
the House the case of the pursers of the navy, who were
a class of very meritorious and deserving officers; and
in doing so he only regretted that they had not entrusted
their case to an Hon. Member calculated to do it justice.
He held in his hand a memorial forlarded to the
Admiralty by a meeting of the pursers on the 2d April,
1841, in which they stated their grievances, some of which
were that many of these officers were from 31 to 36 years
in the service, and were none of them under 60 years of
age. He then read extracts from the report of the
Admiralty Commissioners that had been appointed to in
quire into the case of the pursers, by which it appeared
that all the recommendations of the commission in favour
of those officers were negatived or reduced by the
Board of Admiralty. By those reductions and deduc-
tions it appeared that there was a sum equal to the
amount of 4,8001. in the hands of the Admiralty to the
credit of those officers, and he hoped the Board of Ad-
miralty would be prepared to divide this sum equaTly
amongst the pursers.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. COCKBURN said these pensioner were first
put upon half-pay in 1814, and in 1842 he believed there
were about 932 of them; 100 of them received 55., 200
45., and 672, 3s. In 1834, the third-class petitioned the
Board of Admiralty to reduce the first-class from 9ths to
10ths, and in 1834, by the consent of the first-claw, this
arrangement was carded into effect ; and the third-class
had an addition made to their pay. Shortly afterwards the
Naval and Military Commission recommended that 50 of
them should be allowed a retirement pension of ss.
The Treasury acceded to the proposition of the Naval
Commission, that there should be 70 at 75.,. 100 at 65.,
and the rest, 350, at 35., thus proposing an increase of
is. 6d. a-day. The number now on the list was 4,000.
Captain PECHELL hoped that the case of the pur-
sers who had had 9,000/. taken from their -pr, fits last
year, and from whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer
received 4,8841. annually, would be reconsidered by the
Government.

After a few words from Admiral MINIMS,
Sir C. NAPIER said, much anxiety was expressed en
the subject, and he was anxious to know when the decision
of the Government would be made known.
Sir G. COCKBURN said, he could not say, as they
had not yet come to a decision.
The vote was then agreed to.
A vote of 11,6001. NI as then proposed to the Seaman's
Register:office.__

Sir C. NAPIER objected to the payment of the bounty
of 101. to seamen newly enlisted. -.Seamen were in the
habit of receiving 101., but, in the event of a proclama-
tion of war, the bounty was doubled. Now, no war
might take place, yet they were bound to pay this
gratuity, which entailed great expense on the coun-
try, and which, he thought, might be dispensed with
without injury to the service.
Mr. COLLETT was not satisfied with the explanation
of the Honourable Gentleman. The charge was a very
large one.

Mr. CORRY said the expense was owing to the fact,
that it was the first year the Bill for Registering Sea-
men had come into operation.
Captain PECHELL said that the pursers who for-
merly received an eighth now received only a tenth, by
which the Treasury had effected a saving of 4,0001.
Should not this sum be refunded to the pursers, and their
salary be increased ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that it was one of the most
unenviable duties of his office to be obliged to resist the
claims of particular classes of persons in the army, the
navy, and the ordnance. He could not agree with the
Hon. and Gallant Officer, and must oppose his views, as
if realised they would form a most dangerous precedent.
.After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the Ix-
CHEQUER and Captain PECHELL in reply, the vote was
agree) to.

—On the proposition of 39,545/. for the salaries of the
scientific department of the navy, a conversation ensued
between Sir C. Napier, Captain Pechell, and Sir
G. Cockburn, respecting the salaries of the hydrogra-
pliers, and the want of accommodation for the Greenwich
pensioners when they came up to be examined, during
which Sir G. Cockburn stated that he was sensible of this
want, and an intimation was given that some provision
should be made to shelter them from the weather.
•The sum of 231,0474 was proposed for the expense of
naval officers at home.

After some observations from Sir George Cockburn,
Captain Nebel), Sir Charles Napier, and Mr. Hawes,
the vote was agreed to.
-A vote was also agreed to of 23,019/. for captains
abroad, and 41,0001. for the naval department.
22,9512 was then vcrted fur the victualling department
abroad.

The House then resumed, and the Chairman obtained
leave to sit again on Monday next.
The Banking (Scotland) Bill then went through Com-
mittee, and the other orders of the day having ht en
disposed of, the House adjourned at One o'clock.