HC Deb 30 July 1855 vol 139 cc1526-35

On the Question for going into Committee of Supply,

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed—"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

Mr. Speaker, I am unable to accede to the appeal which has been made by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), and, according to my notice, will now move for a copy of a Minute by the Board of Admiralty, dated July 2, 1846, which relates to the opinion of the Board as to the claims of certain officers to be recommended to the gracious consideration of Her Majesty for the honour of the Bath, who had highly distinguished themselves in action against pirates. I am fully impressed with the sense of personal difficulty which I incurred when I placed this Motion on the paper and now experience in addressing this House, but I cannot permit myself to be discouraged since it embraces the case of brother officers unable to speak for themselves; in justice to them, as much as to myself, who have all been most hardly treated, I now rise to prevent individual injury from being drawn into a precedent for extended injustice in the future. Let me not be misunderstood—allow me to start fairly ahead. I neither disparage the services nor grudge the happier fortunes of the more successful of my brother officers. In singleness of purpose I lift up my voice against a decision irreconcilable with justice and opposed to sound policy; one calculated to break down an honourable spirit of ambition. At the outset I will frankly inform the House that my own name is included with those of other officers in the Minute, and I will, at the same time, express a hope that from their experience of my conduct in this House, hon. Members will as frankly give me credit when I say that had the case stood otherwise I would, with equal feeling and earnestness, have moved for the return, The circumstances are these—certain officers who had been engaged in action with pirates, have been refused recommendation by the Admiralty to their gracious Sovereign for the distinction of the honour of the Bath, on the ground that their services had not been gazetted. But why? Because the action having been fought in time of peace, it was not then the custom to insert actions in a Gazette. Shortly afterwards this rule was rescinded and a Gazette given, and the officers promoted from the rank of lieutenant to that of commander; and the case of the first officer named in the Minute for which I am about to move (and not to mince the matter, to say that officer was myself), having been brought before the Board of Admiralty then presided over, in 1827, by his late Majesty as Lord High Admiral, one by his professional experience eminently qualified to arrive at a just, impartial, and influential judgment, did, in fact, recommend that the distinction of the honour of the Bath should be conferred upon that officer as if the service had been gazetted; but the Lord High Admiral having resigned his office before the recommendation could be carried out it remained in abeyance. Nothing further occurred till the year 1845, when other brother officers performed a similar service, and the Board of Admiralty, then presided over by Lord Ellenborough, and numbering among its members Admiral Sir George Cockburn, in a Minute dated July 2, 1846, expressed their hope that four officers, who had highly distinguished themselves in actions against pirates, should be eventually recommended for the honour of the Bath, further stating, that the number of companions allotted to the navy being at that time more than complete, it was only open to the Board to have that official Minute on record. I move, therefore, for the production of that Minute to establish the fact of this claim and title to that distinction. At least, let those officers have the consolation and melancholy satisfaction of bequeathing to their families a formal and public recognition of their services. If denied other memorials, let them possess a record that the distinction which they, in the judgment of a Lord High Admiral and of another Board had earned, had been by a succeeding one withheld from them by an adherence, it might be, to the letter, but assuredly in violation of the spirit of the Statutes of the Order. It is on the spirit of the Minute of July 2, 1846, these officers rely, and its production will be regarded as a mark of the sympathy of this House and prove a lasting memorial to those meritorious officers whose cause I have risen to advocate.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words— there be laid before this House, a Copy of a Minute by the Board of Admiralty of the 2nd day of July, 1846, relating to the opinion of the Board as to the claims of certain Officers to be recommended to the gracious consideration of Her Majesty for the honour of the Bath, who had highly distinguished themselves in action against Pirates," instead thereof.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, he had received no intimation that an attempt would be made to take his Motion off the paper for to-morrow, in which many officers were deeply concerned. He hoped, however, Government would place him in such a situation as would enable him to bring forward a subject which required more setting to rights, and in which there was more injustice than in any other subject which could be brought before that House. With respect to the question now before the House, he lamented, with the hon. and gallant Officer opposite, that the system of granting honours of the Bath was such that it debarred meritorious officers from sharing honours to which they were entitled by their gallantry. The hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Admiral Walcott) and three others had been recommended by His late Majesty, while at the head of the Admiralty, for the honour of the Bath, and the expectation had been held out since by the Admiralty. The House ought to know why that expectation had not been realised. In the matter of promotion it was essential to the efficiency of the service that the utmost fairness should be maintained; but if purity of principle was necessary in the matter of promotion, how much more so was it necessary in regard to the distribution of honours? He regretted that an order of merit had not been established—the same as was the case in France. But he would rather take a lesson from an enemy, and would, therefore, point to the rewards given to merit and valour, no matter the rank of the soldier, by the Russian Government. It was extraordinary there was such backwardness shown, such delay, in doing what was right and just on the part of our; Government towards those who were dying; daily—he spoke both for officers and soldiers—in the Crimea, With reference to the promise of King William IV., he thought that it ought to be carried out fairly, and in the way intended.

MR. HAYTER

said, he must beg to explain that he had certainly intended to convey to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bath (Captain Scobell) that it was the intention of the noble Lord to make the Motion at six o'clock which had just been agreed to; but he had never said, nor intended to say, that his hon. and gallant Friend had assented to the proceeding.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

said, he; should be very glad if the hon. and gallant Admiral succeeded in his Motion, but he feared that objections would be raised that would cause its defeat.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, that if there was any object in the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member (Admiral Walcott), it was to force upon the Admiralty, or upon himself as First Lord, to recommend to Her Majesty to grant the honour of the Companionship of the Bath to himself and to certain other naval officers. Now, he submitted that, inasmuch as the Sovereign was the fountain of all honour, that was a matter entirely within the province of the Crown, with which that House had no right to interfere. It had been urged very properly that it would be unconstitutional for that House to interfere and to dictate to the Government in reference to the promotion of officers, but how much more would the House be exceeding its constitutional functions if it interfered with that which was essentially the privilege of the Crown? He concurred with the hon. and gallant Officer behind him (Captain Scobell), that the grant of honours should be as pure as possible. But did the House think that the interference of Members of Parliament, either individually or collectively, could induce to that purity? His hon. and gallant Friend said that the hon. and gallant Admiral, and three other officers, had been recommended by King William IV., when Lord High Admiral, for these honours, on account of certain gallant services. Now, the House would be astonished to find that the services referred to were performed subsequent to the death of King William IV. King William died in 1837, and the first of those services performed—except that of the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Walcott) was performed in 1839.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

begged to state that he had said that William IV., when Lord High Admiral, had held out the expectation that the services of the hon. and gallant Admiral would be rewarded with the honour of the Bath, and that subsequent Boards of Admiralty, in confirming that expectation, included two or three other officers who had performed other services of a like character.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, he must maintain, however, that the House ought not to interfere to compel him to make the recommendation to the Crown. The hon. and gallant Admiral wished him to produce the Admiralty Minute to the House; but he (Sir C. Wood) did not think it would be right to produce it. He did not underrate the importance of the service of the hon. and gallant Admiral for which he claimed. That service, which undoubtedly exhibited great gallantry, was, he believed, performed so far back as the year 1823, and consisted of an attack upon certain Cuban pirates, twelve of whom were killed, a large number wounded, and several others taken and hanged. But the Admiralty, at the time, did not think the service of sufficient importance to require the bestowal of a special distinction, and it was hardly to be expected that, after so great a lapse of time, they could revise the opinion of the authorities who were in office when the service was performed. It was true that when King William IV. was Lord High Admiral, he recommended the hon. and gallant Officer to the Secretary of State for the honour of the Bath; but the Secretary of State of that day did not think it right to recommend an increase in the number of naval officers eligible to the companionship of the Bath, in order to extend that honour to the hon. and gallant Officer. A subsequent recommendation was made to another Board of Admiralty in favour of the hon. and gallant Admiral, but the Admiralty did not think fit to comply with that recommendation. The Minute to which the hon. and gallant Officer's Motion alluded, was made, it was true, by the Admiralty when Lord Ellen-borough was First Lord; but if they thought the case was one in which the honour of the Bath ought to be given, they ought to have made their recommendation to the Secretary of State. In point of fact, however, the recommendation was not made until Sir Robert Peel's Government resigned. If the Admiralty of that day had really intended it to have effect they would not have waited until they were going out of office. But by the Statutes of the Order of the Bath it was impossible that the hon. and gallant Officer could be recommended for the honour for the services in question, inasmuch as under those Statutes it was indispensable that the service for which the honour was conferred should have been mentioned in the Gazette. That was not the case with the service—gallantly performed though it had been—which the hon. and gallant Officer had rendered, and he thought it scarcely desirable, after such a period had elapsed, that the House should interfere in such a matter. He trusted, also, that under the circumstances, the House would not think it necessary that the Minute should be produced.

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

would say, on his honour, that his Commander in Chief (Admiral Sir Charles Rowley) did recommend him for the honour, and Lord Melville (the First Lord of the Admiralty at the time) did think him worthy of the honour. He was proceeding to comment on Sir Charles Wood's speech, when

MR. SPEAKER

said, the hon. and gallant Admiral was not entitled to reply.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he had understood the Secretary to the Treasury to state that he had informed the hon. and gallant Member for Bath of the intention of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) to move that on Tuesday the Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motion. If, therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been anxious to bring forward his Motion, it would have been very easy for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, or some of his friends who took great interest in administrative reform, to have attended at six o'clock, in order to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord. With regard to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Admiral Walcott), he did not think the First Lord of the Admiralty had correctly stated the object of that Motion, or its effect if carried. It was not intended to effect anything by compulsion, but merely to have the Minute in question laid upon the table for the satisfaction and guidance of an honourable service, and in justice to the claims and feelings of the gallant officers concerned.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, he wished to contradict most emphatically the assertion that the Secretary to the Treasury had informed him of an intention to move that the Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motion.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

said, that he believed that although according to the Statutes of the Order of the Bath an officer could not receive its honours under a certain rank, yet after he had attained that rank, he was eligible for the honour for services previously performed. He observed that in the recent distribution of the honours of the Bath many officers received the decoration whose services were not confined to the late war. He made no complaint of that, but as some of the older officers had now received the honour, it struck him that many others who were equally entitled to the honour had been forgotten. He knew one Admiral who had been mentioned in nine despatches, who had not received the honour, while younger officers had received it who had been mentioned only in one despatch. There were many officers in the army similarly situated who had rendered good service in former times, and who were aggrieved at being omitted. He had no desire to coerce the Admiralty and the Secretary for War, but he would suggest that if any revision was made by the two heads of the departments of the system of rewards for past services, the services of old officers although they had been performed some thirty years ago might be considered.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he would ask the House to consider the bearing of the Motion now under consideration, which was nothing but an appeal to the House from the Executive with regard to the distribution of honours which flowed from the Crown. Motions of that kind were very taking, especially when the subjects of them were officers distinguished for their services whom every one would be glad to see receive honours and distinctions, in addition to those which they had gained already. But it would be impossible to carry on the Government of the navy and army if it was not left to the Crown, under the advice of its Ministers, to decide who were and who were not to receive honours. What would that come to? There might be many instances in which officers might wish to bring their cases forward, and if it was understood that the decision rested with the House of Commons instead of the Crown, there would be a canvassing of Members, and proceedings of that kind which would be fatal to the interests of the service, and opposed to the proper functions of the House of Commons. He hoped with regard to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member, especially as it appeared that the Statutes of the Order of the Bath were opposed to its object, that he would be content with the acknowledgment he had obtained of his own services, and that of other officers, and withdraw the Motion.

LORD HOTHAM

said, he concurred with the noble Lord that it was not desirable for the House of Commons to take into their hands a prerogative which at present rested with the Crown. He wished, however, to suggest with regard to the new Order of Merit that the rules should be drawn up so that the cases might be intelligibly known in which rewards would be conferred. In the case of a large army, some generals of division might recommend officers by wholesale; others might only recommend those officers who had performed signal and special services; while others might say that, where all had distinguished themselves, they did not think it right to mention any particularly. The result of that system was, that officers were subjected to great injustice, for officers frequently put forward claims to rewards of various kinds, on the ground that they had been mentioned in official despatches. He knew that great heartburning had been occasioned, because, in the distinctions which had been bestowed, the claims of officers who had behaved most meritoriously during the late war, and who had been almost constantly employed ever since, had not received the attention they deserved. He hoped, as a new Order of Merit was about to be established, that the distinctions would be bestowed in such a manner that the public might fully understand the grounds upon which they were conferred.

SIR GEORGE TYLER

said, he thought the First Lord of the Admiralty had insinuated that his hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Walcott) and others were not entitled to the Order of the Bath. Now the fact was that his hon. and gallant Friend had been recommended for the Order, and in 1834, in answer to a letter which he had written to the Government, he had received the following reply—

"FROM THE RIGHT HON. SPRING RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE WAR DEPARTMENT, TO CAPTAIN WALCOTT, R.N.

"Downing Street, Oct. 31, 1834.
My Dear Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th September, and can assure you that every disposition has existed on my part to further your claim to the third-class of the Order of the Bath, strengthened as it is by the strong recommendation and the high testimony borne in your favour by his Majesty when Lord High Admiral. The determination, however, to which his Majesty has come, to diminish the number of the naval companions of the Bath, precludes the possibility of your name being submitted at the present moment for the distinction, and I can only hope that some future opportunity may occur of placing you in that position for which you have been deemed by his Majesty so highly eligible.
"T. SPRING RICE."
His hon. and gallant Friend did not come there to ask for the Order which everybody knew he was entitled to. At the same time his hon. and gallant Friend felt, that when the Order was extended his case ought to have been taken into consideration. He trusted the claim of his hon. and gallant Friend would not be overlooked.

COLONEL NORTH

said, he hoped that the new Order of Merit would include those officers who had distinguished themselves in the Peninsular war, and who had been excluded from the Order of the Bath. Although it was the fashion to sneer at Peninsular officers, there were many of them now who had shed their blood in the service of their country who had received no such decoration as the Order of the Bath. There was the present Military Secretary at the War Office, Major General Yorke, who had received the war medal for the Peninsula with ten clasps, and the Waterloo medal, and had served in America and at the Cape; there was the officer at the head of the Quartermaster General's Department, General Freeth, who had received the Peninsular war medal and two clasps; there was General Lovell, a most distinguished cavalry officer, who had received the Peninsular war medal with eleven clasps; and Colonel Derinzy, who had received the war medal with nine clasps, and the gold medal for Toulouse; none of these had received the decoration of the Bath. Many of the best Peninsular officers had been thus passed over. Why had none of them been made field-marshals? We had one or two honorary field-marshals; but look at the case of that officer who commanded the cavalry through the greater part of the Peninsular war, and who took the fortress of Bhurtpore, which was called the Gibraltar of India, who had on two occasions received the thanks of that House in person for his services, besides being raised to the peerage, who was the senior Grand Cross of the Bath, and the second general on the list. Was not he entitled to the rank of field-marshal? for such were the services of General Viscount Combermere. He hoped that in any Order of Merit, those who had served in the Peninsula, and had received no honours, would be included.

MR. ALCOCK

said, as the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Scobell) with regard to promotion in the navy was postponed, he wished to make an observation on one point, and that was with regard to death vacancies in the navy. The Report of the Commission on the army and navy which sat in 1840, stated that death vacancies in the navy was an equivalent for the system of promotion in the army. He would beg to point out that that was not the case, there were several cases recently in the Black Sea and the Baltic in which promotion did not go by seniority in the case of death vacancies. It was not therefore true, as stated by the Report of 1840, that the death vacancies went by seniority. He hoped the Admiralty would give their attention to that point, and recollect that no officer in the navy under the rank of post captain could get his promotion by seniority, as in the army.

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

said, he would not detain the House any longer with the subject; and, although he would not withdraw his Motion, he would consent to its being negatived. He would, in conclusion, tell the Admiralty, that they might break his heart, but they should not break his spirit.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.