| Year. | the navy | Increase. | 'Waste.' | required. |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| | /38,000\ | | | |
| 1803 | \77,600/ | 39,600 | -- | 39,600 |
| 1804 | 78,000 | 400 | 3,492 | 3,892 |
| | | |(for nine | |
| | | | months) | |
| 1805 | 90,000 | 12,000 | 4,680 | 16,680 |
| 1806 | 91,000 | 1,000 | 5,400 | 6,400 |
| 1807 | 98,600 | 7,600 | 5,460 | 13,060 |
| 1808 | 98,600 | -- | 5,460 | 5,460 |
| 1809 | 98,600 | -- | 5,460 | 5,460 |
| 1810 | 113,600 | 15,000 | 5,460 | 20,460 |
| 1811 | 113,600 | -- | 6,816 | 6,816 |
| 1812 | 113,600 | -- | 6,816 | 6,816 |
| 1813 | 108,600 | Reduction | -- | -- |
| | /86,000\ | | | |
| 1814 | \74,000/ | Do. | -- | -- |
-------------------------------------------------------

(No 'waste' is allowed for when there has been a reduction.)

It is a reasonable presumption that, except perhaps on a single
occasion, the merchant service did not furnish the men required--not
from any want of patriotism or of public spirit, but simply because
it was impossible. Even as regards the single exception the evidence
is not uncontested; and by itself, though undoubtedly strong, it
is not convincing, in view of the well-grounded presumptions the
other way. The question then that naturally arises is--If the navy
did not fill up its complements from the merchant service, how