§ Order for Committee read:—House in Committee; Mr. Wilson Patten in the Chair.
§ (1.) 137,245l. Admiralty Office.
§ MR. STAPLETONsaid, that he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the subject of the infliction of corporal punishment in the Navy. When, on Friday last, the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) expressed a hope that the present Government would he able to take such steps for the preservation of discipline in the Navy as would enable them to dispense with the infliction of corporal punishment, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty stated, as a reason for believing that this could not he done, that it appeared, from the report of the Secretary to the Admiralty of the United States, that the substitution of other punishments in the American navy had not been attended with good effects. Now, as he believed that those substituted punishments consisted of attaching a rope to a sailor, and dipping him in the water, tying his knees up against his chin, and making him drag about a cannon ball attached to his leg, he did not wonder that the United States sailors objected to their infliction, and that they were not successful in promoting good discipline. He thought that when the abolition of corporal punishment had been accompanied by the substitution of others so objectionable, the experience thus gained could not be considered conclusive against the abolition of 363 corporal punishment. It was of the greatest importance that the attention of the Government should he earnestly directed to this question, for until the initiative was taken by the Navy, no amelioration could be introduced into the discipline of the merchant service. And he believed that there never was a moment when it was more important that the Government should take into consideration the possibility of finding some mode of enforcing discipline which should he less obnoxious to the feelings of the working class of the country; for the merchant service had now great difficulty in obtaining seamen, even at increased wages. When this species of punishment was first introduced into the Navy, it prevailed in schools, prisons, workhouses, and similar establishments; but in these it had long since been abolished, and, as experience proved, with the most beneficial results. It was now only retained in the two services; and the opinion of many eminent authorities was, that discipline might be preserved without it. The Government dared not enforce the infliction of flogging upon a member of the great middle class of this country, who, having been taken by conscription for the militia, had—in a moment of excitement, perhaps of intoxication—committed an act of insubordination. Were we then to have one law for the poor man entrapped into the Army, in the manner described by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), and another for the respectable man upon whom the ballot for the militia fell? This was not a purely military, but a high social question; for this punishment not only degraded those on whom it was inflicted, but all those who were liable to it. It was most important that when we gave the labouring classes a large share of political power, we should not have to deal with a brutalised population. He did not see why discipline could not be preserved on board ship by the punishment of solitary confinement, with bread and water diet. He hoped that the attention of the Government would be earnestly directed to this subject.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he would merely call the attention of the Committee to the Vote they were then discussing. He could assure the hon. Member who had just resumed his scat, that he was in favour of any mitigation in the punishments inflicted in the Navy that was possible, consistently with a due regard to the discipline of the service. He earnestly desired that every check that experience 364 showed to be useful, should be imposed on the use of corporal punishment. Persons far more competent than himself, from their professional knowledge, had given their most earnest attention to this subject, and every check to the infliction of this punishment which they could suggest and advise had been introduced, and most rigidly acted upon. Except in cases of mutiny, punishment could not be inflicted in hot blood, it being provided that an interval of twenty-four hours should elapse between the offence and the punishment. Then the amount of punishment was strictly limited, and it was provided that no more than forty-eight lashes should be inflicted in one day or for one offence. A Minute setting forth the circumstances under which it was inflicted must be sent by the commanding officer of the ship to the admiral or senior officer of the station, who transmitted it, with any remarks he might think fit to make, to the Board of Admiralty. It was then revised by one of the officers of the Board; every case which in the opinion of the commanding officer, or of the officer of the Board, demanded their attention, was brought specially before them. The return of the punishments inflicted was also brought periodically before the Admiralty. In considering the merits of any officer, the Admiralty had been for many years very much guided by the amount of the corporal punishment which he appeared to have found it necessary to use, to preserve discipline in his ship, and the preference was always given to the officer who was able to maintain order on board with the smallest number of punishments. No appearance of good order in the ship was thought to compensate for an excessive quantity of it. He must say that the experience of America, where corporal punishment had been entirely abolished, and other punishments—minor in name, but more severe in their effects, had been introduced—was not favourable to the measure recommended by the hon. Member. The punishment of death was more frequently inflicted for mutinous conduct in the French than in our Navy; and with respect to the punishment of solitary confinement, it must be recollected that where the crew was not larger than was necessary for the work to be done, the confinement of men for misconduct would involve an increase of work to those who had not misconducted themselves. All these points deserved most careful consideration, and he could assure 365 the hon. Gentleman that it was the desire, not only of the present Board of Admiralty, but had been of all the Boards of Admiralty in succession for many years past, to diminish as much as possible the infliction of corporal punishment. The infliction of it was guarded by the restrictions he had already described; and if it was possible to impose additional restrictions, without injuring the discipline of the service, no one would be more glad than he should be; but he must entreat the Committee to weigh well the dangers—he believed the fatal effect—of wholly abolishing this punishment.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he did not urge the right hon. Baronet to abolish this punishment immediately, but he wished that it should only be inflicted in the Navy, as was the case in the Army, upon the sentence of a court-martial. The right hon. Baronet said that successive Boards of Admiralty had laboured to reduce this punishment to a minimum; but had they ever taken an officer's command from him before the expiration of the usual period for which a ship remained in commission, on account of his having made an excessive use of it? He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would afford to the men serving in the Royal Navy every possible protection against the improper infliction of the lash.
§ SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, that it was quite impossible that courts-martial, as suggested by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), could be held in small vessels, where the number of officers were necessarily limited. The right hon. First Lord of the Admiralty might, he thought, safely be trusted to do all that was possible on this subject, when they recollected the steps he took, during his former administration of the naval affairs of the country, to abolish impressment, and to induce a superior class of men to volunteer in the service. He believed that although officers had not been deprived of their command for an excessive infliction of capital punishment, instances were not wanting during the last ten or twelve years in which this had been considered by the Admiralty a bar to reappointment. He congratulated the House in having the right hon. Gentleman once again at the Admiralty, where he had before conducted the business in so popular a manner; and he (Sir G. Pechell) should be ready to support him in all his reforms. He had often expressed a wish to see a naval officer at 366 the head of the Board at Charing-cross; but he found that he had made a great mistake in thinking that such an arrangement would be desirable. He complained of the mode in which the patronage of the Admiralty had been exercised, and felt quite satisfied that it would appear from the evidence given before the Chatham Election Committee, that the late Secretary of the Admiralty had done what had never been attributed before to any person who had held that high and responsible office. He perceived that there was put down in the Votes a sum of 434l. for the Vice-Admiral, and 342l. for the Rear-Admiral of the United Kingdom. The officers who now hold these situations were also Admirals of the Fleet, for which the pay was 1,149l., and he did not think it was fair that those officers should monopolise the salaries of those two civil offices. One of the gallant officers was also Major General of Marines, for which he received 1,000l. a year, which together with the other payments made to him raised his income to 2,149l. a year. It might be said that one of the salaries payable to those gallant officers was not received; but on looking to the return of sums repaid, he did not find that any sum of 776l. from the judicial department had been received into the Exchequer. He had received an assurance from the Secretary of the late Board that the blockade for the prevention of the slave trade on the coasts of Africa, Cuba, and Brazil, would be carried on with efficient vessels; and he was sure his right hon. Friend below did not require any suggestion from him to induce him to employ proper steamers and vessels in that service. Instances had occurred where a slaver, after escaping from the hands of a vessel of the old construction, was captured in two days by one of a more recent and better build.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he would request of the hon. Gentleman opposite the late Secretary of the Admiralty (Mr. Stafford) not to follow up the subject of the Chatham election, which had been referred to in a portion of the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend behind him, because, if he were not mistaken, the matter to which his hon. and gallant Friend referred was connected with a judicial investigation not yet concluded. The evidence was not yet closed or presented to the House—an inquiry was still pending affecting all concerned—and it would be most inexpedient to have any discussion 367 at present. It was natural that the hon. Gentleman should take the earliest opportunity to repel a charge of that kind; but he hoped he would postpone it to a future occasion. With respect to one of the appointments to which his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir G. Pechell) had referred, the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) would remember that the Committee of the House which sat on the Naval and Military Services reported, that whenever the office of Major General of Marines should become vacant—and he Sir J. Graham) hoped the day would he distant—no other officer should be appointed to it. When they recollected the great services of the gallant officer (Sir G. Cockburn) who now filled the office—that he was almost the only surviving companion in arms of Nelson, and had the good fortune to fight a French frigate under his observation, and receive his commendations for his conduct—he trusted they would not pain and grieve him by the way in which they spoke regarding his appointment. His hon. and gallant Friend had also referred to the Vice and Rear Admiral of the United Kingdom; but the Committee considered that those offices bore some analogy to the rank of Field Marshals in the Army, to whom, in point of number, there was no limitation, and considering also the moral effect produced by retaining these proud distinctions for officers who had acquired distinction in the service, the Committee thought it advisable that they should not be abolished.
§ SIR GEORGE PECHELLthought the right hon. Gentleman had wholly mistaken his observations. The two offices of Vice and Rear Admirals were sinecures, and what he complained of was that they should be given to Admirals of the Fleet. Let the officers of the fleet have any sum the country wished to give them—they were two distinguished officers at the head of the Navy; but those two officers to whom he referred belonged to the judicial department, and were, he believed, under the Judge of the Admiralty. With regard to the gallant officer referred to, he perfectly agreed in all that the right hon. Baronet had said respecting him. There was no occasion, however, to give to those gallant officers situations which should be distributed amongst those who were not so well off.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, as far as he was aware of the circumstances, the Vice and Rear Admirals of the United 368 Kingdom were now, as it were by accident, also Admirals of the Fleet. The appointments of Vice and Rear Admirals of the United Kingdom were made by selection, and made, he believed, almost universally from amongst the officers most distinguished in the service. With regard to the Admirals of the Fleet, they succeeded by seniority to the top of the Admirals' list; and it so happened that the Vice and Rear Admirals of the United Kingdom (SirBryan Martin and Sir George Cockburn) did, by seniority, rise to their present rank. They were aged men, but most superior officers, and such a circumstance was not likely again to occur.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had been kind enough to give him advice as to the mode in which he should act, and it was not the first time that they had on that side received advice from the opposite side of the House. It was rather singular, however, that the right hon. Baronet, who had so perfect a knowledge of the forms and usages of that House, more especially upon the subject of election petitions, had not stopped the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir G. Pechell) on his first introduction of the Chatham Election Committee. But no; while the accusation proceeded, the right hon. Baronet remained silent, and when it had been made, the right hon. Gentleman got up and declared that the proper time for making it had not arrived. It certainly struck him (Mr. Stafford), that if the proper time for making such a charge, or of entering into a defence against it, had not arrived, the right hon. Baronet would have more completely carried out his plan of going through the Estimates in a spirit of kindly forbearance, avoiding all extraneous matters, if he had not permitted such remarks as those of the hon. and gallant Admiral. He must say, that the gallant Officer was as premature in his eulogies upon the present Board, as he was in his censures upon the late Board. At all events, he would have acted much more in a spirit of fairness if he had waited to hear something more than the opening speech of counsel of the Chatham Election Committee, before he produced his allegations. Perhaps, however, he might be permitted to go beyond the advice which had been given by the right hon. Baronet, and to say, that unless the charges against the late Board should assume some palpable—lie ought rather say some less chaotic—form than they at present appeared in, 369 that he could scarcely feel called upon to at all enter into them. The Report of the Chatham Election Committee would shortly be laid upon the table of the House, and it would then of course be open to any hon. Member to make any charge against the late Board which that Report seemed to favour; when the late Board would also be quite prepared to explain the manner in which they had exercised their patronage, as well as the whole of their conduct. He wished, before sitting down, to ask a question upon the subject of Vote No. 3, relating to the appointment of Captain Warden. That gentleman, having been employed by the late Board on the steam department of the Navy, his name had been placed on the books of the Fisgard, at Woolwich, for a particular service. It appeared to him, however, that the public would regard the placing of his name where it was as a sort of delusive arrangement. Here was an officer employed on shore, and his name was still kept on the books of a flag ship at Woolwich. He thought that was a most inconvenient arrangement. He was most anxious that the services of that most meritorious officer should be retained in connexion with the steam executive of the Navy.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, the services of the officer referred to were of the most valuable kind, and he did not think they could be obtained in a more effective manner than at present. As at present advised, he was not prepared to alter the arrangement with regard to Captain Warden.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that when the charge was made by the hon. and gallant Admiral behind him, his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had observed to him that it was perfectly irregular; but the experience of his hon. Friend opposite must show him that it was more the duty of the Chairman to check the hon. and gallant Admiral than of the First Lord of the Admiralty. So far as the Board of Admiralty was concerned, there was no charge made by them against the conduct of the previous Board.
The CHAIRMANsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Sir G. Pechell) was referring to the report of a Committee which had been laid on the table that day; but if he had been aware that he was referring to the proceedings of one which was still sitting, it would have been his duty to check what was clearly irregular.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he begged to express his regret that he had misinterpreted the intentions of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGbegged to explain that it was not easy to obtain the services of an officer for a shore appointment, unless he was put on the books of some ship. Captain Warden, as well as he recollected, was actually in the command of a ship when he took this situation and abandoned that command.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, that notwithstanding what he had heard, and with the highest idea of Captain Warden's merits as an officer, he must persist in his opinion that it was most desirable to alter the mode in which the Vote on account of his services was brought before the Committee.
MR. HUMEsaid, that Commodore Lambert had just been appointed to a good-service pension; and he thought that before such a reward was conferred on him it should have been considered whether he had not by his conduct been the author of the Burmese war. He wished to know why this Vote was greater by 2,600l. than it was last year? He begged to confirm the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, respecting what had taken place in the Committee in reference to the appointments of Vice and Rear Admirals of the United Kingdom. The officers referred to were to retain their sinecure appointments; and as to the other sinecures, the money was to be laid out in good-service pensions. They should see that the money was properly applied, and it was a question whether they had a right to award 150l. to Captain Warden, the last person who had obtained a portion of that money, for services connected with the Burmese war. He wished to know when an effort would be made to bring the whole Admiralty department under one roof; and he must also complain of the apartments where the charts were kept at present in this country. The charts were kept in a garret, but in Paris they were kept in a saloon. He thought the time was come when his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) ought to turn his mind to the consideration of how far the Admiralty department might be brought under one head. The private apartments occupied by the officers of the Admiralty ought to be given up to the public service. He would remove the First Lord of the Admiralty from his situation. He would pay him 371 with great pleasure a fit and proper rent, if necessary; but he thought the time had come when his right hon. Friend ought to turn in his mind how to bring the whole Admiralty department under one roof. He (Mr. Hume) greatly admired the French system, where the whole of the revenue department was under one management. The expense was not so much a matter of consideration; efficiency was what they ought to look to. He also strongly objected to the practice of changing the Lords of the Admiralty with every change of Administration. It was a great evil both to the country and to the service. He thought, too, that it was not to the interest of the public service that the First Lord of the Treasury and the First Lord of the Admiralty should have to come down every day to form a House, and in order, as it were, to make an appearance. Reverting to the practice of changing the Lords of the Admiralty with a change of Administration, he thought it fit and proper that the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary to the Admiralty, should be changed on a change of Government, but no other member of that department. The Lords of the Admiralty ought also to be at their offices at ten o'clock every morning. The inconvenience of the present practice had been demonstrated in the case of Lord Derby's Administration. There was no man more calculated to do honour to the service of the Navy, and to promote its interests, than the Duke of Northumberland; but on his appointment to the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, on the accession to power of Lord Derby, he was obliged to have recourse to strangers in conducting the affairs of the department, instead of to the men who had acquired such a considerable amount of experience in that department under the preceding Government. He (Mr. Hume) hoped this question would be taken into consideration at a future period, and that his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) would shortly be able to devise some remedy.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he must remind his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, that before the Committee on Salaries, he (Sir J. Graham) had stated, not only on his own experience, but from declarations, in which he entirely concurred, made to him by Earl Spencer, who was a most distinguished First Lord of the Admiralty, it was his opinion, considering the duty of that Board and its 372 constitution, that it was indispensable for the public service that there should be resident at the Admiralty at all times a sufficient number of members to constitute a Board; in other words, that there ought to be at all times present there, day and night, at least two Lords of the Admiralty and the Secretary. Communications frequently arrived at the Admiralty from the outports, requiring in some cases an immediate answer, and there was great advantage to the public service in having on the premises at all times, or on the shortest possible notice, some members of the Board. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) thought the interests of the public service demanded that the Lords of the Admiralty should be at their posts before ten o'clock in the morning; but he (Sir J. Graham) would submit that, under the present system of Parliamentary Government, which required that the heads of public departments should be in attendance in that House, where they were frequently detained until one or two o'clock in the morning, it was not reasonable to expect that the Lords of the Admiralty could be at their posts at the Admiralty so early as ten o'clock in the morning if they lived at a distance from their work. Nor did he think it reasonable, considering the vicissitudes and changes of political Government, to call upon distinguished officers holding offices at the Admiralty, to come from the out ports, where many of them resided, and make permanent arrangements for an uncertain residence in town. Again, to say that the Administration was not to have any of their political friends members of the Board of Admiralty, was a condemnation of our Parliamentary representative system. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) that real efficiency was real economy, and the true political principle in the management of a public department. He thought, also, that the concentration of the service of the Board of Admiralty in one edifice would be an advantage to the public, and fulfil the dictum that economy and efficiency were identical. His hon. Friend had referred to the department of the Admiralty in France; but he (Sir J. Graham) would remind him that the Government of France was for the most part carried on in splendid buildings, and by immense establishments. He believed that in the French Board of Admiralty they had a much greater number of clerks than we had. He repeated he was favourable to 373 the idea of having the department of the Admiralty conducted in one edifice; hut before he could give any pledge to carry that into effect, his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) must make up his mind to assent to a vote for a very large sum of money.
§ MR. VERNONbegged to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was the intention of that department to make any further use of preserved meats at all for provisioning the Navy, and whether any contract had been taken for that purpose?
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, there was none of Goldner's preserved meats now in store. There was no fresh contract entered into for a further supply; and no preserved meat was now used in the Navy, except very small quantities as comforts for the sick. He might add that the necessary steps bad been taken to proceed against Goldner and his sureties for the penalty.
§ CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that in time of peace like the present, under the existing system nine-tenths of the promotions in the naval department took place from Parliamentary or family interest. The Army was represented in that House by one officer only, the Secretary at War; and why should it not be the same with the Navy? So long as the First Lord (who had the disposal of the patronage) held his situation politically, it was impossible for him to act independently altogether of his political character.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he felt it his duty to give distinctly and solemnly to the Committee a complete contradiction to the assertion of the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Scobell). He (Sir F. Baring) could assure the Committee most distinctly and solemnly that the promotions in the Navy were not made the means of political patronage, either of rewarding one side, or of gaining the other, during his tenure of office; nor were any promotions made from considerations of a political or family kind at all. SIR GEORGE PECHELL said, he believed that the right hon. Baronet who had just spoken had never used his patronage for purposes of political influence, and that a more honest man never presided at the Admiralty.
§ CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he meant nothing personal to any particular Admiralty. He meant the expressions he used to apply to all Admiralties since he was born.
§ SIR GEORGE TYLERsaid, he must defend the "good-service" pension held by Commodore Lambert, than whom, he 374 believed there was no officer in the service who more deserved the consideration of his country.
MR. HUMEsaid, he did not pass an opinion on Commodore Lambert, but he thought Government ought to be cautious not to grant a good-service pension to any one with regard to whom there could be a doubt of his worthiness.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that his hon. Friend was in error with regard to Commodore Lambert. He did not get his good-service pension for his conduct in the Burmese war, for he got it before that war took place.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would remind the Committee that when he was a Member of the Committee on Salaries, he laid on the table of the Committee a plan for forming the ungainly and unsightly buildings in Downing-street into a regular square, so as to comprise the offices of the whole of the public departments; and he now repeated his wish that his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) would turn his attention again to some such proposition.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) 34,939l., Scientific Branch.
MR. E. ELLICEsaid, it appeared strange to object to a reduction, but there was one in this Vote which he thought was not wise. In the Report on the Navy Expenditure in 1848, there was evidence that the survey of our coasts was in a most disgraceful state. Indeed, the hydrographers said, as regarded the coast of Scotland, they knew more of the coast of Otaheite. There was a diminution in this Vote by about 15,000l., and was the survey to be postponed to save so paltry a sum as that? That led him to make an observation with reference to the publication of charts. That subject was before the Committee, and it was stated that surveys were completed and sent to the Admiralty, where they remained for six or seven years without being published, and therefore useless. The hydrographer said he was responsible for the correctness of the charts, and he could not bring his mind to let anything go out of the office till he had looked at it, and that his time was taken up with his duties as harbour master; but as a new department, the tidal harbour department, was to be created, he would save three-fourths of the time now devoted to that office. The surveys, however, still remained in the office. Since 1844, thirty-seven charts had been completed and sent to the Admiralty, of which 375 only eighteen had been published. He thought something should be done to remedy this state of things. Some of these charts had been published within a month, while others remained in the office six years.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, the latter part of the observations of the hon. Member justified him in the saving he had made. It was said that there was a large accumulation of surveys made some time ago, and not yet published. Now, what was the use of a survey unless it was tested, and if it was not tested they could not publish it, and if they did not publish it it was worthless. He had already explained that this very accumulation of surveys in the hydrographer's office was the reason why he considered that until this accumulation was cleared off, the surveying might be expediently diminished. Another source of saving in this department would be the reduction of allowances to the surveying officers, which had hitherto been much beyond the due claims of the service, He should certainly do his utmost to hasten the publication of charts and the practical completion of surveys. No question, there had been great delay in these important matters. As an illustration he might mention, that when he was in the Admiralty, now, unfortunately for him, twenty-two years ago, there was one particular officer engaged in the survey of the Thames; on his (Sir J. Graham's) return to the Admiralty, after this lapse of twenty-two years, he found the same officer still engaged upon survey within the Thames.
MR. HUMEthought it was a very discreditable circumstance that any of our coasts should still remain unsurveyed. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) had alluded to a chart which had been made ton years ago, but which had not yet been published. Now, that chart had very probably cost 10,000l., and a paltry sum of 500l. more for engraving would have given it to the public. What the right hon. Gentleman ought to do would not be to stop the surveys, but to employ more persons in the hydrographic department.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that if they required Admiral Beaufort, the hydro-grapher, to authenticate a chart which he had not himself verified, he would resign his office. He (Sir J. Graham) had asked for the Vote for only six months, in order that he might have time to see whether any improvements could be introduced into the department.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he was of opinion that, considering the great importance to the commercial and maritime interests of the country, to have an increased supply of charts, additional assistance should be rendered to Admiral Beaufort, the present hydrographer, in order to enable that officer to examine and report upon additional charts. He thought that all questions connected with the harbour department should be taken from the hydrographer, and transferred to the Board of Admiralty.
MR. HUMEsaid, he had drawn the attention of a former Board of Admiralty to the charge made for the Nautical Almanack, and he would suggest that its present price of 5s. or 6s. should be reduced. He understood that the sale of that publication amounted to upwards of 13,000 copies, for which a sum of 3,600l. was received. He trusted the Admiralty would allow it to be sold at 2s. or 2s. 6d. in future; the additional sale would, he was convinced, amply compensate for the reduction in price.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member that the price of the Nautical Almanack should be as moderate as possible, and he believed a reduction in its price had taken place within the last two years.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) 134,230l. for Naval Establishments at Home.
§ MR. TUFNELLsaid, he wished to bring before the notice of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty the subject of the wages paid to the shipwrights in Her Majesty's dockyards. Previous to the year 1833 their wages were 5s. a day; but at that time they were reduced to 4s., and at this moment they were considerably less than what was paid by private shipwrights. The advantages attached to the Government dockyards were constant employment, a pension for long services, and medical aid in cases of sickness or accident. With regard to constant employment, he believed no good workman need be under any apprehension of not being always able to command that in this country. As to the pension, he granted that was an advantage; but then it was an advantage which was as nothing when compared with the difference in wages. At forty-five years of age a person might insure to himself an annuity of 20l. a year, on attaining his sixtieth year, for 8¼d. a week, or 30l. a year for ll¼d. a week. 377 For a small increase of these weekly payments some of the insurance offices would return the whole of the premiums paid, in the event of the person dying before he had reached the age mentioned. Then, as to the advantage derived in the shape of medical aid, why the same benefit might be secured from sick clubs, which gave their members not only medical aid, but an allowance per week during the existence of their illness. At the present moment, owing to the extensive emigration which was going on, and the various means of employment that were perpetually opening up, a considerable rise in the wages both of skilled and unskilled labour had taken place. He (Mr. Tufnell) was as anxious as any one to promote efficiency with economy; but if an inquiry were instituted in the private yards, it would be found that there was scarcely one of them which could retain its shipwrights at the wages of 4s. a day. Thinking, therefore, that in Her Majesty's dockyards, above all others, they ought to have the most able and skilled workmen, he trusted his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) would take this question into his consideration; and he (Mr. Tufnell) was certain that, whatever decision his right hon. Friend came to, he would do that which he deemed to be best for the public service.
§ MR. COLLIERsaid, he believed that a permanent increase in the rate of wages was now taking place throughout the country, and it was most desirable that the Royal dockyards should be supplied with skilled labour fully equal to that employed in private yards. He concurred in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Member who preceded him, that it was necessary to raise the rate of wages, in order to secure the necessary supply of skilled labour.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMcould assure his right hon. Friend (Mr. Tufnell), and the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier), that, in the performance of their duty, the Board of Admiralty had given the most favourable consideration to this question; and although he was willing to admit that it would not be right that the persons employed in the Government dockyards should be paid less than in private yards, yet, on the other hand, it must be remembered, on the part of the public, that not one farthing more should be given than the real market rate of remuneration for labour might require Now he did not believe that there was a single vacancy in any of Her Majesty's dockyards at this moment for ship- 378 wrights; and more than that, if there were a vacancy, he was satisfied it would be immediately supplied. Were they not right then in regulating the wages by the market rate of labour? With regard to the comparative advantages: when he (Sir J. Graham) was last at the Board of Admiralty, the rate of wages was reduced from 5s. to 4s. a day; but then the shipwrights worked only five days out of six. They were now working six days in the week, and in addition to 4s. a day they were enabled to increase their wages by means of task-work; and further, in case of accident, they were allowed half wages and medical attendance, and after the lapse of twenty years were permitted to retire on a pension. And more than that, if the dockyards were justly administered, without consideration of political influence, and with reference to meritonly, promotion was open to every man in the dockyard; and from the humblest position he might rise to the highest. That advantage was one which was certainly not to he disregarded. He was therefore in favour of a firm adherence to the present system. He and his Colleagues had given their best attention to the question, but they were not prepared, under present circumstances, to add in the least degree to the existing rate of wages.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that the subject was one which must be regulated by the ordinary rules of supply and demand, and he could assure the Committee that he was at present actually inundated with applications for situations.
§ MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he ventured to submit that there was some mistake with regard to the rate of remuneration paid to the shipwrights and working men in Her Majesty's dockyards, and the market price of labour given to parties in the situation of artisans in the dockyards of private individuals. There were three classes of persons for whom he spoke, namely, the shipwrights, the joiners, and the sawyers. He had ascertained that in the Government yards the shipwrights were nominally paid 26s. a week; but from that nominal sum were deducted 1s. a week to form a superannuation fund, and 1s. a week as a contribution towards the cost of medical attendance when they met with accidents in the dockyards. With regard to the superannuation fund, it should be recollected that when they got the pension they had paid for it themselves; it was, in fact, just the same as if they had formed a benefit society and paid into it 1s. a week, or 379 2l. 12s. a year. They were, therefore, entitled to their superannuation pension in consequence of the contributions they had made to that fund. In like manner the men contributed to the cost of medical attendance; hut it was well known that unless they lived within sound of the bell at the Royal dockyards they were not allowed though they met with an accident in the yards, to have the attendance of the surgeons. So far, then, as these advantages were concerned, he apprehended they were privileges which the men had themselves paid for. As to the wages given in private dockyards, he had been informed that in the river yards of private shipbuilders they ranged from 36s. to 40s. a week, and that sometimes 42s. a week could be earned by the shipwrights in those yards. If that were so, surely it could not be said that the market price of labour was paid to the shipwrights in the Royal dockyards. Now, he thought that this was a great national question, and so thinking, it was with pain that he heard on Friday night, as well as when the late Government brought forward their Estimates, attacks made upon the sort of vessels which were sent out from the Government yards. A suggestion had been made that the ships should be built by private contract, and that suggestion had been received with cheers from some parts of the House. He begged to say, however, that he believed the Royal dockyards could turn out as good vessels as any private yard, assuming that they were well managed. He did not mean to say that they were well managed—he was now merely speaking for the artisans. The way to ensure good work was to have good workmen; and to secure good workmen, they should be fairly paid for their services. Even if we did not lose the men who were at present in the national dockyards, we might rely upon it that the more skilful workmen would be very cautious how they offered themselves to work in those yards in preference to the private yards. The consequence of such a state of things as that would be, that we should have more unskilful than skilled workmen, and instead of remedying the evil complained of—that of turning out improper work—we should have worse vessels because we had worse workmen. He begged to submit to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, then, whether it was not most desirable that they should ascertain whether his statement was correct or not. As to the ship-joiners, they were a superior 380 class of workmen. In private yards they earned as much as from 30s. to 36s. a week. They finished the work, but did a great deal of hard labour besides. But in the Royal dockyards they received 21s. a week only. The third class of men to which he had referred, were sawyers. They worked in pairs, and in the Royal dockyards they received 35s. a week the pair, or 17s. 6d. each. Whereas if they went into a common carpenter's yard, or any private timber yard, to saw deal or other soft wood, they earned as much as 30s. a week each. Recently meetings of the artisans in the Government shipyards had been held to consider the propriety of emigrating to the Colonies: and this was a spirit likely to be fostered unless fair inducements were held out for them to continue in this country. It might be said that few or none had left the yards; but the reason of that was, that after having contributed for a considerable time to the superannuation fund, the most prudent and provident were unwilling to forego the advantages to which they would hereafter be entitled from that fund. Many of them had wives and families. With regard to their pay, it might be said that they were comparatively better paid than workmen in the country; but then they were very heavily taxed at Woolwich and Deptford—they were obliged to pay high rent and local rates—living, as they were compelled to do, within the sound of the dockyard bell, in order that they might be ready in case of fire; and, generally, they were more heavily burdened than workmen at Plymouth or Milford. As a reformer, he had been exceedingly surprised at a suggestion made by a reform Government that these men should be deprived of the elective franchise. Such a measure could not be justified on any ground of policy. Besides, if it were adopted, the best men would be lost to the public, for they certainly could not be expected to remain in a service where their rights and privileges were taken away. These men knew the value of these rights and privileges; moreover, they knew how to use them. He (Mr. M. Chambers) was an instance of their privileges having been used independently of Government influence. Under all the circumstances, he sincerely hoped that the case of the dockyard artificers would be seriously considered before the project was entertained of depriving them of the franchise; for he was certain that the best class of men would not enter if they found they were to be liable to the penalty of disfranchisement.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must admire the candour of the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he said he was an instance of the way in which the dockyard artificers exercised their right of franchise. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee what had been the expenses of his election? He (Mr. Hume) had never, during the whole of his political life, had the patronage of the appointment of a single dockyard carpenter, nor had he ever sat for a dockyard; hut he knew that the principle upon which such establishments should he conducted was that of supply and demand. He contended that the efficiency of the dockyards could only be restored by the franchise being taken away. As to the objections which had been made to building ships by contract, he feared the hon. and learned Member had not enjoyed many opportunities of seeing what was going on in the large private building yards. There he would not find ships cut in two, and made to undergo all sorts of metamorphoses, regardless of cost.
§ MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, that this was the first time he had ever heard a First Lord of the Admiralty condemned because the Estimates were not sufficiently high. There were men in the public dockyards such as wore not to be found in other dockyards; but there was not one of the dockyards which did not require reorganisation. If any one were able to perforin that task it was the present First Lord of the Admiralty, with whom he had no political connexion, but of whom he said so from the high admiration he had of the right hon. Baronet's administrative powers. A great deal had been done by the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) to put. a stop to mismanagement in the dockyards, and waste arising from want of skill. There were, however, workmen in the public dockyards who did not do more than two-thirds of the work done by the same class in private dockyards.
§ VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, there was a strong feeling among the artisans in the dockyards that they were not overpaid, but underpaid; and he was sure that no more injudicious proposition could be made than to disfranchise them.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the House of Commons was not the proper place to regulate the rate of wages; but, if it were, the Members for the dockyard? were certainly not the persons to regulate the scale. He did not believe that the system of jobbing would ever be put an 382 end to as long as the men had the franchise. The whole of the extravagance in the dockyards arose from the men being promoted, not by merit, but by parliamentary influence.
§ MR. PHINNsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty to the fact, that when persons were called from the dockyards to serve for an hour or two as jurymen, a proportionate sum was deducted from their pay.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he had not been aware of the fact before. He would make inquiry as to the practice in private yards, and be guided accordingly.
SIR F. BARINGsaid, he was aware he was open to the objection that he sat for a dockyard; but he might be allowed to say what he thought to be the right principle in the case. The wages of public departments could not rise and fall like those paid in private concerns; hut, at the fame time, if there was a permanent rise, or a permanent fall, in the wages of private establishments, those of the public yards must follow. As to disfranchisement, if attempts were made to deprive the men employed in the dockyards of their electoral privileges, his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty would find him (Sir F. Baring) joining the chorus of the Members for the dockyards. Disfranchisement, in his opinion, was perfectly unnecessary, because the taking away of the right of voting would not destroy the system of patronage.
§ COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, he felt it his duty again to call the attention of the Committee to the case of the assistant-surgeons in the Royal Navy. In the year 1850 the House, upon his Motion, adopted a Resolution declaring that the accommodation provided for these valuable officers was insufficient to secure the full benefit of their services. This Resolution was carried in hostility to the views of the Board of Admiralty, whose feelings were displayed in the memorandum or order of the 17th July, 1850, which was issued in consequence of the Resolution of the House. On one or two occasions he had given notice of a Motion to bring the question again under the notice of the House; but he received from the light hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), then at the head of the Admiralty, an assurance that he was disposed to carry out the Resolution of the House in a fair spirit. But he had since learned that the assistant-surgeons had been refused ac- 383 commodation, even when they were eligible for it, according to the terms of the memorandum. He knew, further, of some cases where, superior authorities having stepped in, these gentlemen had cabins provided for them. He had not had an opportunity of testing the late Board of Admiralty, but he was anxious to ascertain the views of the present Board in carrying out the Resolution of the House. The terms of the memorandum he conceived to be rather offensive; for it said the assistant-surgeons were only "to be allowed cabins when the accommodation on board will admit." He had received a return from the ships on the Mediterranean station relative to twelve assistant-surgeons, all of whom had passed for the higher rank of surgeon. But of the twelve only five had received cabins; and out of the five, only two had received the little advantages, such as servants, &c, enjoyed by the officers in the ward room. The treatment of these gentlemen was producing its natural fruits, for the êlite of the candidates from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dublin, and London shunned the service. In one or two of the colleges, he believed, they had come to a resolution that they would not enter the naval service until this, which they considered a moral degradation, was removed. At the present time he believed there were very few candidates for assistant surgeoncies in the Navy. A short period back there were only five, he was told; and he doubted whether they at the present time amounted to ten. At all events, in the Army the candidates were reckoned by hundreds, whilst in the Navy they could only be counted by units. Under these circumstances, he would ask the House whether it was desirable to continue a system which was unjust to the men, and injurious to the efficiency of Her Majesty's service? If the present treatment was persisted in, the result would be that the Navy would not have a single properly-qualified candidate to fill any vacancy as assistant-surgeon in the Royal Navy. In the event of a sudden war, where would the Government obtain assistant-surgeons when such was their treatment? How could Government expect candidates for medical situations in the Navy when for three years they must remain in the cockpit, where study was next to impossible? He believed the state of things would be similar to that which existed in 1809, as described in a lecture lately delivered by Sir George Ballingall at Edinburgh. In 384 the evidence of Mr. Guthrie, which was quoted by the lecturer, it was stated, that at that period qualified assistant-surgeons could not be obtained, and that, instead of raising the price, the Admiralty deteriorated the article, and took medical officers of an inferior description, who acted solely under a warrant similar to that of a boatswain. As an illustration of the working of this system, Mr. Guthrie mentioned that a man who was violently drunk having been fastened down while lying on his back, had an emetic administered to him in that position, and the surgeon, not knowing, or not remembering, that the position of his patient ought to be changed, death took place within two hours. Was it desirable to risk a repetition of such scenes by disgusting young men with the service? He had further to complain of the injustice of dividing the assistant-sugeons into two sections, and would like to know by what authority it was done. The question was also a seaman's question. Jack was a fighting man—he would fight to the last for his Queen and country—he would shake hands with the enemy when the contest was over. But then he naturally said, if he was wounded in defending his Queen and his country, he had a right to have the services of the best qualified medical men that the country could supply.
ADMIRAL BERKELEYsaid, he was one of the Board of Admiralty in 1850, when the hon. and gallant officer (Colonel Boldero) thought fit to bring before the House the case of the assistant-surgeons, and he thought upon mature consideration he would almost regret having done so. [Colonel BOLDERO: Not at all.] How would the hon. and gallant Member like, if he were colonel of a regiment, to have the discipline of that regiment regulated by a naval officer? The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the Board of Admiralty had evaded the question, and not carried the Resolution which the House had agreed to. But when that Resolution was affirmed, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, said that in consequence of the majority being so small, and every naval officer voting with the minority, he should bow to the decision of the House only to this extent, that where cabins could be formed, not trenching on the comforts of the men, and not interfering with the efficiency of the ships, in such vessels a cabin should be built for the assistant-surgeons. Such was the direction which the right hon. Baronet 385 gave to the Surveyor of the Navy, and a cabin had been built in every ship fitting out since, where accommodation for the men was amply provided. By the course which the hon. and gallant Officer was taking, he was endeavouring to cause the greatest dissatisfaction throughout the Navy, by endeavouring to place the assistant-surgeons above their superior officers, the mates. Those men were obliged to study quite as much as the assistant-surgeons to obtain certificates of merit, and they desired to keep quiet in the gunroom. He believed the gun-room was quite as quiet as the ward-room In the ward-room every young officer was a fiddler or a fluter; but they could not practise in the gunroom, because when they were there they had to study navigation. As to the youngsters, they could not interfere with the studies of the assistant-surgeons, because they only used the gunroom to take their meals, and were in the school-room the rest of their time. He was sorry to say that the assistant-surgeons' cabin had been a source of great mischief in many ships, being turned to purposes of conviviality rather than to purposes of study. The assistant-surgeons were remarkably well off, wore well paid, and, as to not having any candidates, fifty four had entered the service within the last few months.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was not aware before that every naval officer in the House voted in the minority on a former occasion, and he regretted they should have shown so little consideration for the service. The question was, ought they, or not, to obtain as able and efficient medical men for the Navy as for other branches of the service? At present it was the last place they went to. They came to the Navy if they could find employment nowhere else. In the Army and in the Indian service they were treated as gentlemen; but in the Navy the steam-officers had cabins allotted to them, whilst it was denied to the assistant-surgeons, and the best men were thus driven from entering it. He appealed to the right hon Baronet the present First Lord of the Admiralty whether men brought up as gentlemen, and not admitted under twenty-two years of age, ought to be placed with young men very often much inferior in age, and, as the gallant Admiral said, addicted to the fiddle or flu flute, and having no place to retire to? He approved highly of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Col. Boldero) had said. 386 and he hoped he would persevere until justice was done to this important class.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, no Board of Admiralty could be more disposed to promote the comfort of every rank in the service than the present Board. If his recollection was right, the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Boldero) carried his Resolution, in 1850, by surprise; the division was taken first, and the discussion afterwards; in a thin House, forty-eight voted for and forty against it; and that was at a time when the Navy Estimates were not so popular as they were now. He was sorry the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had taken a course now different to what he took on that occasion. The hon. Member said then it was a question of details which should be left to the consideration of the Admiralty. In fact, the whole question was a question for the Board of Admiralty. It was a question of space, with which naval men were alone competent to deal. Since 1809 he was confident there was no class of men whose comforts were more attended to than assistant-surgeons. He found that in 1840 a Commission sat and inquired into this very circumstance, and the Commissioners included men whose opinion, he was sure, would be received with deference by the hon and gallant Member (Col. Boldero)—the Duke of Wellington, the Duke of Richmond, Lord Melbourne, Lord Hill, Sir George Cockburn, Lord Hardinge, and Sir Hussey Vivian. They considered the possibility of removing the medical officers from the cock-pit to mess with the lieutenants, and they said in their report—
On full consideration we find practical difficulties in the way of making any arrangements to accomplish this in a satisfactory and uniform manner in all classes of ships. The accommodation afforded of late years to this class of officers is so improved as to render the removal less essential, and we are, therefore, not prepared to make any representation in this respect.In 1846, orders were given that every ship above a sixth-rate should have a cabin fitted up, in which, if they preferred, the mates, assistant-surgeons, second masters, and passed clerks might mess together, instead of messing with the midshipmen. The hon and gallant Member said nothing had been done on the Resolution of 1850, and that the order for giving those cabins, when the accommodation and space on board would admit, was an insult. He thought, when the hon. and gallant Member looked at it dispassionately, he would see that was the language of compliment, 387 and not the language of insult. By a return in May, 1851, it appeared the greater number of assistant-surgeons had these cabins, and the order was carried out whenever space would admit of erecting them. He was the last man to offer an insult to a profession in which were many distinguished and scientific men; and, to sum up in the words of the hon. Member for Montrose, this was a question of detail which must be left to the Admiralty.
§ COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, he must beg to explain, in reply to the charge of the hon and gallant Member for Gloucester (Adm. Berkeley), that nothing was further from his thoughts than to endeavour to create dissatisfaction in the Navy; he had taken up the question solely as a matter of public duty.
§ CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he was astonished how the Board of Admiralty had found it practicable to find cabins for so many assistant-surgeons as they had done. Cabins were impediments to clearing for action, and the more there were the greater would be the difficulty. There were other classes—such as the mates, who would be our future admirals—struggling upwards, who had claims for cabins as well as the assistant-surgeons, who were, no doubt, a very respectable class of men; but it must be considered that a ship was like that House—if all were to have seats, there would be no room for them.
§ Vote agreed to; as was also—
§ (4.) 22,764l. Naval Establishments Abroad.
§ (5.) 683,648l., Wages to Artificers at Home.
MR. HUMEwished to ask whether the dockyard battalions, the raising of which had cost 70,000l., were capable of working great guns? It had been stated that they could not do anything of the kind.
ADMIRAL BERKELEYsaid, that was quite a mistake. They had been trained to work great guns, and could manage them very well.
§ Vote agreed to; as was also—
§ (6.) 35,566l., Wages to Artificers Abroad.
§ (7.) 1,023,011l., Naval Stores, &c.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must call attention to the waste which had been occasioned by entering into contracts for a greater quantity of stores than were wanted, particularly timber, and to abuses which prevailed in the measurement and delivery of coals.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that the reduction of the stores had been made the 388 subject of an accusation against his former administration of the Admiralty; but On returning to office he found that the standard of the principal articles remained as he had fixed it. There had been a great increase in the price of stores; and in the single article of copper the additional expense was 60,000l. Iron, also, had risen 70 or 80 per cent within the last two years, and timber was much dearer. The increase in the estimates upon these three articles was 140,000.
§ Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
§ (8.) 256,948l. New Works, Improvements, &c.
§ (9.) 26,000l. Medicines and Medical Stores.
§ (10.) 57,427l. Miscellaneous Services.
§ (11.) 687,575l. Half-Pay.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must again express a hope that steps would be taken to limit promotion. Nothing could be more farcical than the way in which we went on promoting admirals. We had in the Army men sent out as commanders-in-chief who were of no use; and in India, out of three commanders-in-chief, not one had gone to the seat of war.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that a limit had already been fixed to the number of admirals in active service, and that, whatever might be the case in the Army, an admiral could not help being at the seat of war when his ship was engaged with the enemy.
§ CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that 95 cadets had entered the service last year, instead of 75, the number prescribed by the Admiralty regulation. The number of cadets admitted into the service during the last eleven years had amounted to 1,433, while there had been only 595 mates promoted to lieutenancies; and the number of cadets admitted this year exceeded that of any former year, and amounted to more than 100. The consequence of this was that there were between 300 and 400 mates, who had passed their examination for lieutenancies waiting for promotion, whereas there had been only 52 vacant lieutenancies during the past year. He thought, therefore, that it would be absolutely necessary to reduce the number of cadets admitted into the Navy.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer that it was necessary to check the number of those admitted into the service; but the evil complained of had been, to a 389 great extaet, cured by recent regulations. The Admiralty regulation limited the number of cadets admitted; but there had been what he considered a very proper indulgence extended to captains, on their first appointment, of nominating cadets, and the excess alluded to had arisen from this cause. As far as the Admiralty, however, was concerned, the regulation was enforced that the number should not exceed 75. The number of mates who had passed their examination and were waiting for promotion was 210, and not 300, as stated by the hon. and gallant Officer.
§ Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
§ (12.) 483,134l. Military Pensions and Allowances.
§ (13.) 148,394l. Civil Pensions Allowances.
§ (14.) 152,950l. Army and Ordnance Department.
§ In reply to questions by Sir FRANCIS BARING and Mr. HUME,
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that in framing the Votes he had endeavoured to leave an ample margin, so as fully to cover the expenses of the year. He wished to explain the cause of the increase in this Vote, which, strictly speaking, ought to have been included in the Army and Ordnance Estimates. One-fifth part of the British Army was on shipboard, at sea, every year, and it was right to consider what was due to the health and comfort of the soldiers under those circumstances. Hitherto there had been provision made of berths under hatches for only two-thirds of the entire number on board, while one-third were obliged to remain on deck at all times, without reference to climate or weather. That was an arrangement so unjust, and he might say so cruel to the soldier, that it commanded the attention of the Government. The question had been referred to a commission of officers, who decided that due provision should be made for the accommodation under hatches of every soldier on board, and hence arose some increase on this Vote for the present year. He (Sir J. Graham) greatly misunderstood the feeling of that House and of the country if any sum was ever voted with more satisfaction than the charge for this provision would be.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIPFEsaid, he begged to express his great gratification at the statement of the right hon. Baronet. A crying evil had existed, which he hoped would now be cured. It was also a matter 390 of some complaint on the part of the officers, that sailors received one-third more provision on shipboard than soldiers, and that the latter had not enough to eat. He wished to ask whether any increase had taken place in the provisions allowed to soldiers at sea?
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, it had been decided that the allowances of each sailor should be increased from ¾ to 1lb. of meat per day, and that a corresponding addition should be made to the rations of the soldier. The soldier, however, did not undergo the same amount of labour as the sailor, and it was therefore right that the latter should receive a larger allowance.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ House resumed.