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.
Unworthy as was this course, it was as nothing compared with what fell
from the lips of Mr. Croker in the subsequent portion of his address to
the House; in which address he asserted that my resolutions were “gross
and scandalous libels against the honour, the valour, and the character
of the British navy”—accused me of having traduced the commander of the
_Java_ and _Macedonian_, though the names of either ships or their
commanders had never passed my lips, nor were in my thoughts—and wound
up by asserting that I had _grossly libelled Captain Broke of the
Shannon frigate_!!! though I had never mentioned the name of one or the
other in the House, and only regarded them either in or out of the House
with the highest admiration!
As this would be incredible were I not to introduce Mr. Croker’s own
words, I shall do so without abridgment. 1st, to show the impudence of
the falsehood, and 2ndly, as a really clever tribute to the gallant
Captain Broke, had it been uttered in common honesty and not to get rid
of Sir Francis Burdett’s motion; which was thus converted into a pretext
of vilifying me in such language as no modern House of Commons would for
a moment tolerate.
“Having shown, he trusted, to the satisfaction of the House, the
ignorance and unfounded statement of the noble lord, he could not
suffer the present opportunity to pass by without also showing that
the resolutions lately proposed by his Lordship were gross and
scandalous libels against the honour, the valour, and the character of
the British navy. The noble lord appeared to be peculiarly and most
unseasonably unfortunate both in his mis-statements and libels. It was
not necessary for him to tell either the noble lord or the House that
he alluded to the gallant action fought by the _Shannon_ frigate with
the _Chesapeake_ American frigate. The communication which he was
about to make to the House had not been sought for or prepared by him.
It had presented itself to him as if from a divinity to confute and
confound the noble lord’s misrepresentations and libels, and rescue
the honour of the British navy from unfounded aspersions, and raise
the glory of the British flag still higher than ever. As _he was
coming to the House the official information of that glorious
engagement was put into his hands_!! He should not trouble the House
at any length with the character of Captain Broke, who commanded the
_Shannon_. It would be sufficient for him to say that Captain Broke
was an officer no less distinguished for his indefatigable activity
and unwearied enterprise than for his skill and valour. With many
occasions of making and preserving the valuable prizes which must have
materially contributed to increase his private fortune, he had
uniformly preferred the cause of his country and the good of the
service to his own interests. Cases had even occurred, when, although
he might have fairly preserved his prizes, he rather chose to send
them, with all they contained, to the bottom of the sea than let any
opportunity slip in which his exertions and co-operation could be
useful in another quarter. The action which he fought with the
_Chesapeake_ was in every respect unexampled. It was not—and he knew
it was a bold assertion which he made—to be surpassed by any
engagement which graced the annals of Great Britain; the enemy’s ship
was superior in size, superior in weight of metal, superior in
numbers. She entered into the contest with the previous conviction of
all her superior advantages, and with a confirmed confidence of
victory resulting from that conviction. All this superiority served
but to heighten the brilliancy of Captain Broke’s achievement. What,
continued Mr. Croker, will, or rather what can, the noble lord say
now? Will he persist in still maintaining that the captures made by
the Americans have been caused by the decayed and disheartened state
of our seamen, and not by the enemy’s superiority in numbers and
weight of metal? He begged leave to assure the House, that he had not
introduced the account of the glorious victory gained by Captain Broke
as a single instance of the success of one of our frigates; but it had
come so opportunely to confound the noble lord’s statement and confute
his misrepresentations, that he felt he would be doing an act of
injustice to our gallant officers and seamen, to the House, and to the
country at large were he to pass it over unnoticed, at a moment so
peculiarly fitted and seasonable for its introduction. It was not, he
knew, the day or the hour which could enhance the value and glory of
Captain Broke’s great achievement, nor had he any occasion to
strengthen by its effects his arguments and statements against the
noble lord, for he sincerely believed there could not be any day or
hour in the course of the year in which he would not have more than
ample means of contradicting and disproving such assertions as the
noble lord had made on this occasion. Mr. Croker concluded with
observing that he trusted he had shown not only the impropriety, but
the danger of adopting the motion proposed by the honourable baronet.”
The reader may possibly inquire what this tirade could possibly have to
do with Sir Francis Burdett’s motion? or with anything that I had said?
He may wonder too that the House should have patiently listened for an
hour to an imaginary charge against me _for what I had never said_! and
the Secretary of the Navy’s refutation of a charge _which his own
ingenuity had trumped up_! In our day it could not be that gentlemen by
birth or education should have endured such claptrap, when its object
was to malign one of their own body without a shadow of foundation for
the malice displayed. The history of the period, however, so fully
details the reasons for all this, that I may be spared the trouble of
recapitulating them.
Unpractised in oratorical arts, whether professionally or as the hired
advocate of a faction, my reply may appear tame; yet what it lacked in
eloquence it made up by facts which had been _contradicted_, because
they could not be _impugned_.
“LORD COCHRANE admitted all that could be said of the gallantry of our
seamen; but maintained that a great and a rapid decay had been
produced in their physical powers by the cause to which he had felt it
his duty to call the attention of the House. He was pleased that he
had done so in the form of a resolution which could neither be
misrepresented or misquoted without detection. It was in the
recollection of the House that he had not cast the slightest
reflection either on officers or men, collectively or individually,
although the honourable secretary had chosen to defend them in both
cases. Such a line of conduct might be best calculated to excite a
feeling of disapprobation towards him (Lord Cochrane) in the minds of
those who had not attended to the subject, but it was not an
honourable or a candid mode of proceeding to put _words into his mouth
and then argue to refute them_. He had never mentioned the name of
Captain Broke or alluded to him in the slightest degree, although the
secretary had spared no pains to defend him. Captain Broke had done
his duty; his men proved adequate to the task he had imposed upon
them; but, if his information was correct, the _Shannon_ was the only
frigate on the American station in which the captain would have been
justified in trusting to the physical strength of his crew.
“The honourable secretary seemed to flatter himself, from the exulting
manner in which he had delivered his speech, that he had also
_refuted_ those facts, which he (Lord Cochrane) did state. ‘Ford,’
says he, ‘did not pay 80_l._ for his discharge, or any other sum.’ But
does not the honourable secretary know that this man raised _four
substitutes_, and that he (W. Ford) could not procure them otherwise
than by money?[90] Was not the difficulty of getting seamen such that
the Admiralty demanded four men for the discharge of one? Under such
circumstances it was obvious that the navy was manned not by the
national bounty or the prospect of reward from the service, but out of
the funds of those who had long served their country. The noble lord
pledged himself to establish at the bar of the House every
circumstance stated in the resolutions which he had moved on a former
evening. Ford, he repeated, paid 90_l._ for his discharge—a sum equal
to all that he could have saved during eighteen years’ service! No man
of feeling could justify the continuance of such a practice.
-----
Footnote 90:
He had paid 90_l._ for them, as I had asserted.
-----
“As to the case of Farley, the honourable secretary assured the House
that he was not invalided for harbour-duty, neither had he died in the
service—facts which will not be deemed important when it is known (and
it can be proved) that this respectable petty officer, who had been in
thirteen general actions, and thirty-two years in the navy, was not
invalided until within a few days of his death; and that, unable to
return to his friends, he died on board the _Impérieuse_. Ought not
seamen to be entitled to their discharge before they are reduced to
this state? Can ships be efficient whilst men so debilitated form part
of their crews?
“It is impossible. The honourable secretary laid particular emphasis
on the case of Milton, as above all the most unfounded of his (Lord
Cochrane’s) unfounded assertions. He had discovered that Milton had
received his pension through Gawler, perhaps this was the easiest way;
but he (Lord Cochrane) knew that Milton deserved that pension, having
been wounded under his command. He was the first man who boarded the
_Tapageuse_ in the river of Bordeaux, when that ship’s corvette was
captured by the boats of the _Pallas_ alone. This led him to observe
that the lieutenant of the _Pallas_, who executed this service was not
promoted by the Admiralty until Sir Samuel Hood’s first lieutenant had
brought out another sloop, long afterwards, from the same place with
the boats of a whole squadron—nor, is it probable that he ever would
have obtained the reward of his gallant conduct, unless the Admiralty
had felt that the one could not longer be neglected if the other was
promoted. So much for impartiality! He pledged himself to prove to the
House the literal fact that Milton _had_ served seventeen years, and
_had paid_ nearly 100_l._ for his discharge. Surely such length of
service should entitle seamen to some deduction from so oppressive an
expense! This was not the case, however; neither was there any period
fixed to which they could look forward as the termination of their
compulsory confinement.
“He (Lord Cochrane) did not accuse the present Admiralty of
originating these abuses; possibly they were even ignorant of their
existence. Boards never listen to individuals, and therefore he had
adopted the present mode of calling the attention of parliament and of
the country to the state of the navy. Could any person have believed
that the Admiralty, instead of _decreasing_ the sum to be paid by
meritorious seamen after long service, actually _increase_ the amount?
He wished that the present first lord would look into his father’s
papers, who had it in contemplation to have made many alterations and
improvements in naval affairs, with which he was well acquainted.
Probably had he remained in office the seamen would have had no cause
now to lament the continuance of those evils of which he (Lord
Cochrane) was desirous to inform the House, with a view that they
might investigate the subject.
“Here the noble lord read an extract from a letter he had received
that morning from a seaman’s wife, the mother of a family, and whose
husband was compelled to pay 60_l._ for a discharge, which left their
children without bread. She owed 7_l._ to her doctor, who had written
to Mr. Croker, stating her extraordinary exertions for her family’s
support as the cause of her illness. The husband after a long service
had but 17_l._ remaining; and he was obliged to go down to Plymouth
before he could get his discharge. Was this the situation in which
British sailors should be placed? He was in the judgment of the whole
navy, and he would prove his facts at the bar. If the honourable
secretary had any feelings they ought to wring his breast, and prevent
him from daring to defend such abuses. He would not detain the House
longer than to say that the army was now a model on which to form the
navy—so much had circumstances changed. Their service was limited, and
officers who did gallant acts were rewarded by promotion and brevet.
He named Lieutenant Johnson, who served under his command in the
Basque Roads, as an instance to prove the unwillingness of the
Admiralty to do justice unless by favour.”
“MR. CROKER would not permit the noble lord to _lead the House away!_
by stating that his material facts had not been _disproved_. He (Mr.
Croker) had _contradicted_ his main assertions. The noble lord had not
got _rid of that_; and if he would give him further opportunities he
would give him _an equally satisfactory answer_!
“LORD COCHRANE admitted that the honourable secretary had
_contradicted_ his assertions, but he defied him to _disprove one
word_ contained in his resolution. As the feelings of his brother
officers might be excited by the statement of the honourable secretary
who had stood forward in their defence, though they had not been
attacked, he would again add, that he had not even thought
disrespectfully of any individual to whom the honourable secretary had
alluded. He admired the gallant conduct of Captain Broke, and asserted
that if the Admiralty did their duty no 38-gun frigate of ours need
shrink from a contest with the Americans.
“LORD COCHRANE repelled with scorn the accusation made against him of
endeavouring to excite dissatisfaction in the navy.”
The end of Mr. Croker’s attack on me was fully answered, viz. that of
averting the attention of the House from Sir Francis Burdett’s motion,
which fell to the ground.
So far I have vindicated myself, I will now appeal to authorities far
more reliable than Mr. Croker.
“You may guess my surprise and disappointment on viewing forty-five of
the most filthy creatures that ever were embarked, sent as part of our
complement.”—(_Letter of Lord St. Vincent to Admiral Markham, quoted
by Brenton._)
If such men were sent as part of the complement of the ship of the
commander-in-chief, the public may judge of the description furnished to
private ships of war. Captain Brenton when confirming the above opinion
of Lord St. Vincent, shall describe them.
“I can vouch for the correctness of the above picture of the men who
used to infest our ships. Their personal appearance, in spite of every
attention, was most miserable, particularly the importations at
Plymouth. I remember being ordered on a survey of _some of them in
1811_; and so truly wretched and unlike men did they appear, that I
took portraits of them, which I gave to Captain Nash, of the _Salvador
del Mundo._ _My wonder is that more of our ships were not taken by the
Americans in the late struggle, when it is considered how shamefully
they were manned_”!!—(_Brenton’s St. Vincent_, vol. ii. p. 246.)
Yet for speaking of them in 1813, after our ships were everywhere beaten
by the Americans, I was denounced by Mr. Croker as wanting in veracity!
My arguments all pointed to the reorganisation of a noble service whose
cause of failure was solely attributable to a want of proper ships,
well-trained men, and an armament capable of contending with a nation
which, in this respect, had gone ahead of us.
This is not the place to enter into a description of our disasters in
the American war, or it would be easy for me to show their origin in the
abuses embodied in my resolutions. Nor is it to be wondered at that
seamen who were so ill treated, and who suffered so much in former wars,
should have recounted their sufferings to their descendants, now arrived
at manhood. Which of them, who could obtain a better livelihood, would
be likely, after such a description of the miseries of naval life, to
enter on board an English man-of-war? It was no wonder they preferred
the American service.
Had Mr. Croker been candid, he would, when speaking of the victory of
the _Shannon_, have adduced the fact, which must have been known to the
Admiralty that one-third of the _Chesapeake’s_ crew _were British
seamen_, driven from their own national service by ill-treatment. A man
in Captain Broke’s frigate found his own brother amongst the enemy’s
wounded!