[Extract]
The House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. [John] Buller moved, that 28,000 seamen, including 6,665 marines, be voted for the service of the year 1776, at the rate of 4 l. per month. He spoke of the stations of the fleet; particularly that the one under admiral Shuldham, who was to command in North America, was to consist of 78 sail.
Admiral [Augustus] Keppel opposed the motion, as inadequate to a war, and too large for a peace establishment. He said that no vessels could keep the sea upon the coast of North America in the winter season; arraigned the proceedings of the first lord of the Admiralty in his conduct of the navy, which he represented to have been in a much better situation before the present noble lord came to the head of that department, then since.
Captain [James] Luttrell. When the Address, which, we are told, pledged us to nothing, passed this House, I did suppose ministry would think it politic to vote navy, army, militia, supplies, and every grant they may want, without giving time for reflection, information, or enquiry; and therefore I am not surprized at the precipitate manner in which the hon. member has brought before us a question of such great national import; but as I suspected it, I was eager to learn from the noble lord opposite to me, when he mentioned the number of land forces proposed to be employed for the present year, what the naval establishment was to consist of? His lordship carefully avoided being thus communicative, though he assured us in too general terms, that the most proper oeconomy had been, and would be, observed with respect to the navy.
... Is it by the loss to the public of the artificers' labour, while they are doing homage to this mighty lord? Is it in sending a royal yacht with his son to Lisbon, which will cost the public 1000 l. when he might have gone in a packet for 50 l. Is it in the wise regulations he has made in the navy, which we hear of in the newspapers, and by his dependants, but no where else? Or is it in that careful inspection into the state of the fleet so to prevent abuses, that the best men of war may be sold for 1,000 l. while the worst appear to have cost 40,000 l. in repair? And, Sir, as it is the custom to call up the attention of the country gentlemen upon every alarming subject, I will crave that indulgence for a minute to mark one instance out of very many where this oeconomy is not to be found. [He then entered into the abuses and misapplications that had prevailed in the naval oeconomy since 1770. He shewed, that though in the course of five years, upwards of two millions sterling had been granted by parliament for the repairs of the navy, over and above the sums annually for wear and tear, yet the navy debt had increased in the same five years, upwards of 500,000 l. He proved that the Africa, a ship of 70 guns, had been sold for 900 l. though she was in better order than twothirds of the fleet, and could have been made as good as new for 3,000 l. while there had been demanded of parliament, for the use of the Dragon man of war only, within four years, though she had never been at sea in the time, 32,973 l. being extra work over and above what she had cost under the articles of wear and tear, and ordinary; and is now laid up in Fareham Creek unfit for service without further repair. He likewise proved, that the noble lord at the head of the board was the cause of the late insurrection of the shipwrights, as he had encouraged them to petition parliament for an increase of wages, in opposition to the application of the captains of the navy for an increase of their half-pay: he himself having told their committee that the shipwrights were a set of more useful men to this nation, and much more entitled to the favour of government. He said that the task-work was the most destructive manner of building and repairing possible, that it must inevitably increase the naval expence, and ruin the fleet of this kingdom.]
Now, Sir, to return to the question immediately before us: my objection arises, as it did last year, from a persuasion of the insufficiency of the number of seamen applied for to man the ships already in commission, and those fitting for foreign service: if 6,665 marines are to be included, 1,200 of which the hon. member allows to make a part of your standing army, and are now serving under the general of your troops in America, how then can the ships in this country be fitted for war, if occasion should require it, without the assistance of these marines, who, with the few volunteers we have, can alone be trusted to man the boats, get the stores on board, guard the ships, and the men we receive from the impress traders. The hon. member has told us, that admiral Shuldham's command is to consist of 78 sail of men of war. In that case it is trifling with parliament to come with such a demand as this, when I am sure it is impossible, by any calculation, to prove them sufficient to man such a fleet as is now in commission, and fitting for foreign service; and if you except out of 28,000 seamen the 1,200 marines under the command of our general at Boston, sea officers, petty officers, and servants, the number of foremast men will not exceed 14,000; therefore these must be. ordinary grants; you may judge of the extraordinaries by what you have heard respecting the Dragon, and of which there are many more instances equally alarming.
Sir, though I am totally against a great increase of revenue for the destructive purposes it seems at present intended, it was my best hope that a large share of it would be appropriated towards the support of what is generally acknowledged to be the great strength of this nation; that when the American ports were shut up, and we had lost that trade, we might have secured the seamen out of employ, by fitting out a formidable fleet; not because I think it will prove useful on the coast of America, but as the best security against a foreign power. Sir, talking of America, a right hon. member said, there had been a fault in the navy somewhere. Will the noble lord declare that admiral Graves has ever received positive orders that he did not execute; or have they been, as I have reason to believe them, from the operations of the fleet, so artfully discretional, that if your ships should be wrecked upon that frozen coast, or any misfortune attend them, the blame may be laid on the admiral, and his reputation as an officer be sacrificed to shelter the wicked proceedings of these ministers. ー Sir, an hon. member told us, we need not be dispirited with our misfortunes in America, for that our fleets were unsuccessful at the beginning of the late war, but afterwards proved victorious. Sir, this is a position similar to that of the naval oeconomy, which I think can hardly be marked in above one instance, I mean the loss of Minorca. Where else did ill success await our naval arms? Was it in Europe; Asia, South or North America, where from the commencement to the conclusion of the war we were making captures? How then, Sir, was the ill-success that attended this country in any foreign war, to be compared to the sea of trouble we are now embarked in, but which I hope to God may calm sooner than I fear the minds of those men will do, who can tell us, in a language that is shocking to hear, they are riveted to coercion against our fellow-subjects in America.
Lord Hinchinbroke said, his brother was in such a situation, that the noble lord his father, had no other means of sending him.
Lord North said, the ships built at the end of the war, were of green wood, which not being so durable as the seasoned wood, was very bad, had lately proved very rotten, and that this circumstance had been the cause of the great expence.
Sir J. G. Griffin did not get up to oppose the number of seamen, because he thought if any operations were to be continued against the Americans, they ought to be confined to that service only. He then declared that he had hitherto supported government on principles, without regard to men; thinking it his duty as an honest man so to do, as long as the true interest of the country appeared to be consulted, and the public affairs conducted to the credit or honour of the nation; he denied that to be the case at present, and called on any of the minister's best friends to contradict him; adding, he should ill deserve to sit there any longer, if he continued to afford his support to men, the effects of whose pernicious measures had reduced us to so shameful a situation. He professed himself an advocate for the supreme legislative authority of this country over its colonies; disclaimed however on the one hand vindicating the rash and indiscreet measure of having taxed the Americans, as he did on the other, their mode of resistance. The noble lord (North) had in the last session given it as his firm opinion, that the forces then voted and the other measures the House had adopted, would put an end to all our unhappy disputes with America, even without a drop of bloodshed; yet notwithstanding we all felt so seriously the grievous effects of these ill-advised measures, the noble lord, with fatal experience against him, was determined to seek our total ruin, by persevering in the same wild and extravagant system; instead of which, he added, a tender of conciliation on terms suited to the true spirit of the British constitution ought to be preferred and held out to the Americans, which, if not successful, we ought to relinquish all connections with them: or otherwise, if practicable, to harass them with your fleets, by interrupting their trade, till at length they might perhaps be brought to sue for protection.
The Resolution was agreed to.
