Star.
London, England, 1818-03-18 00:00:00

would really be less than the present half-pay allow-
ance. Not ohe of them would make the exchange.
The old plan of rewarding
.Pursers, while it profited
them but little, was expensive to the country. The
lowest rate of a Purser's half-pay was 3s. a day,
which was more than the most of those who had ships
before received ; the higher rates were four and five
shillings a day. There were no complaints from any
one Purser of this arrangement. But with this libe •
rality the Admiralty had made a provision for eco-
nomy, and had determined that no more Pursers
should be made till they were reduced to the number
of those who would have had ships under the old
system. The Honourable Gentleman had next men-
tioned Midshipmen who had been promoted to be Of
called Purser's Clerks. This statement was a bun-
dle of blunders, and if he had not known from whom
it came, he should have attributed it to one of his own
countrymen, and the genial influence of the day.—
A Midshipman could not be promoted to be a Clerk,
for the situation of Clerk was inferior to that of Mid-
shipman—secondly, there was no such office as Pur-
ser's Clerk. There were, indeed, persons denomi-
nated Captains' Clerks, who were not officers, and
who had nothing to do with Pursers ; but who kept
the Captain's accounts, were appointed and might be
dismissed by him, and were the private servants of
the Captain, except that an allowance was made
for them by the public. It was true that, as they
were the only persons in civil employ connected with
ships, it was usual to select the Pursers from the
most deserving of them ; but they could have no more
claim to half-pay than the amanuensis of any Mem-
ber of that House. He complained of the Honour-
! able Gentleman, that with a zeal meritorious in its
origin, but mischievous in its effect, he chose to at•
tack a Board of Admiralty, which had laboured with
lanxiety, diligence, and success, fur the good of the
service—which, in five or six years, had done more
for the benefit of the Navy, and thence of the nation,
than ever had been done in 25 or 26 years before.
Mr. MONEY thought the Honourable Gentleman
had misapprehended his Honourable Friend. With-
out wishing to disparage the Army, whose great
achievements were so justly the theme of our exulta-
tion, it must be well known, that unless the Navy
had performed those essential parts of the service
which had made way for the Army, the latter could
never have achieved those triumphs. The Honour-
able Gentleman then briefly adverted to the glorious
naval victories of the last war, and the severe duties
of blockading, capturing forts, &c. down to the bom-
bardment of Algiers ; and inferred, that it must be
impossible not to admit that their compensations had
been greatly inferior to those of the Army, while no
war had been so little productive to them in the fruit-
ful source of prize-money ; and when the prizes were
at last condemned, the profits were chiefly swallowed
up by the Agents, and the charges for law. The
Honourable Gentleman concluded with passing a high
eulogium on the conduct of the Navy before Algiers.
Mr. HUSKISSON thought the Honourable Gen-
tleman who spoke last must have persuaded himself
that the House had never before heard of the achieve-
ments of the British Navy, or that they had been
forgotten. But the naval men knew, though they
were not in England, that the Houses of Parliament
and• the country-recognized their services with feel-
I hags of pride, triumph, and gratitude, and had given
them marks of their munificence and generosity, as
oto the grant of 100,0001. for the victory of Algiers.
But they had never looked to any other reward than
prize-money, and he was surprized at the Honour-
able Gentleman's statement on this point ; for if the
accounts could be procured, it would be seen that
there was no war, nor any three wars together, in
the annals of the country, that had been su produc.
tive in prize-money as the last. He would maintain
that nothing was more false, unfounded, and mis-
chievous, than exciting a jealousy between the two
branches of service, by comparisons between the
half-pay, and asserting one was greater than the other.
It was the Naval prize-money that afforded, in time
of war, the prospect of independence and wealth,
while, in the Army, the prize-money was next to
nothing. Could the Honourable Gentleman resist an
appeal for the increase of half-pay to the Army, if he
were now to carry his point in behalf of the Navy ?
He concluded with observing, that it must be seen
what little ground there was for the assumed grie-
vances and that it was in vain for Gentlemen who
made these charges to disclaim partiality, when they
were brought forward, Session after Session, without
any
,just foundation.
Mr. FORBES, in reply to the Honourable Secre-
tary, observed, that he (Mr. Croker) must of course
be better acquainted with these things than he was,
as he was paid for knowing them—(Cries of Order!)
He might, however, have saved himself the trouble
of the statements he had made, as they were all to,
be found in a pamphlet which was generally known, I
entitled ‘, Observations on the Claims-of the Navy
but only 20001. or 3000/. would make up all the dif-I
ference that was asked in equalizing the pensions for
the wounded, and this was refused. He denied hav-
ing made any invidious comparison between the two
Services ; and insisted that nothing was more common
than for a Midshipman to become a Captain's Clerk,
and afterwards a Purser, though lie might not have
expressed himself correctly in calling it promotion.
He would not then call them Officers, but they were
Gentlemen, and well educated. He knew that it was
not at all uncommon for a Gentleman to give his
opinion in that House on the bringing up of a report;
he had exercised this right, and he should continue
to exercise it on any occasion he might think proper,
as long as he should have the honour of a seat in that
House, notwithstanding the haughty tone of the Ho-
nourable Gentleman (hear, hear,) and Session after
Session he would inquire into the case of the Officers
who had been wounded, until it should be ascertained
what were the jact rights of these meritorious men.
The Honourable Gentleman then alluded to the case
of a Lieutenant who was in Greenwich Hospital,
with the loss of a leg, a thigh, and an eye, and who
only received a pension of 911. ss. for the loss of a
limb, on account of his being in the Hospital ; while
he was entitled to 1821. 10s. for the loss of his limb
and eye. But a wounded Officer who held a situa-
tion in Chelsea Hospital was not thereby deterred
from receiving his proper pension. There was the
case of Colonel Bedford, at Chelsea, and Sir T. Thomp-
son, also' at Greenwich, who received 7001. a-year.
But if the poor Lieutenant was to be deprived of,
half his pension, it would be better for him not
to be in the Hospital. He. had no objection to .ad-