HC Deb 05 August 1859 vol 155 cc1080-5

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1, (Power to Admiralty to raise "Royal Naval Volunteers," not to exceed 30,000 men), agreed to.

Clause 2, (Term of Service shall be five years).

MR. HENLEY

thought the words "every fifth years" had better be struck out, and the words "at the expiration of the period of his service" substituted. There was no provision in the Bill, as it stood, for the renewal of the period of five years, and unless the wording of the clause was amended some confusion might arise.

MR. CARDWELL

said, he did not think the wording of the clause gave rise to any ambiguity. Every volunteer would have the option of retiring at the end of five years' service, and of renewing his term of service for a similar period if he thoughtproper.

MR. LINDSAY

thought it would be un-advisable to make the alteration suggested.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that the Act gave the power to enrol the volunteers for five years, and they were to be called out for twenty eight days' training in each year. At the end of five years the men had the option of enrolling themselves for a second period of five years. At the end of which second period they might claim such a pension as might be decided upon.

Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 3 and 4,

Clause 5,

MR. HENLEY

said, that by this clause, whenever Her Majesty thought fit to call the volunteers into what was called "actual service," the men were liable to have the term of service extended for a period of five years from the date of being called into actual service. This give the Admiralty an arbitrary power to double the time for which the men entered, which was not likely to draw volunteers into the service. In the case of the naval coast volunteers it was provided that they should not be called out unless in circumstances of "imminent national danger." The militia were not to be called upon unless in case of "war between Her Majesty and some foreign Power." He could not help thinking that if they wanted to induce men to enter they ought to introduce the words "unless in case of war or imminent necessity," so that the men might not imagine they were liable to have their term of service extended indefinitely at the mere pleasure of the Admiralty. There was no doubt of the goodness of the scheme, if they could but get men to enter.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

agreed with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. LINDSAY

said, the men when called out would be on a footing with the seamen serving in the fleet; did the noble Lord by his proposition mean to alter the whole system of the fleet also; and if he did, what would be the advantage of paying men at sea once a week? Unless the noble Lord made the alterations which he had suggested, he would fail to induce the merchant seamen to enter the navy.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

hoped care would be taken to let the seamen understand plainly the advantages held out to them, and that for this purpose the utmost publicity should be given to the terms offered.

MR. AYRTON

said, that as by the 13th clause the Admiralty had the fullest power of framing regulations, he thought the House should not commit itself to the details laid down in the Bill, but should leave them to be worked out by the Government.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, one of the objects of the Bill was to give the men the certainty that they would not be called on to serve beyond a certain period, hence the necessity of the details of which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets complained.

MR. HENLEY

observed that the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) had advised them not to canvass the Bill very closely, but he confessed that he could not understand it at all. There were so many provisoes in it that all they could tell a man was "you are going into the Queen's service, and you must get out of it as best you can." He complained that the Bill was not clearly drawn, and as men liked to have a definite understanding as to what they were engaging in, and as the success of this measure depended entirely upon its working in the first year, they ought to take great care that it should be so framed that the men could understand it.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

said, he could see no reason at all why the men should not be paid weekly when in port.

MR. LINDSAY

thought the Bill was a miserably ill-concocted one, and it was impossible to understand it. It was much too long in the first place, and a shorter and more intelligible one would be much more likely to be successful. He was sure that the Admiralty would not get the men for the retaining fee proposed. Looking at the whole Bill, he thought it so mysterious in its provisions that they would get no men to enter the service under it. He advised the withdrawal of the Bill altogether, and draw a new one merely to regulate the raising and management of volunteers for the Sea Service

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

, to meet the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), proposed the insertion of words, under which the men would only be called out in the event of a national emergency.

MR. AYRTON

said, from his connection with the Tower Hamlets, he had had many opportunities of conversing with men employed on the Thames, who as a body had it in their power to supply a large volunteer force to the navy, and the impression on his mind was that they would not he induced to volunteer under the provisions of this Bill. He should have been better satisfied if the Bill had been drawn more generally, for he was afraid when it came to be worked, that it would not tempt anything like the requisite number of volunteers.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

admitted there were many points in the Bill which had been better left to be dealt with in the regulations that the Admiralty proposed to issue. The measure, however, had been framed principally in accordance with the Act relating to the Coast Volunteer Corps, which had worked extremely well. He submitted to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that, without a clause of the kind under consideration, the Crown would not be able to avail itself, in the event of an emergency, of the services of men who, when that emergency arose, might have served four years and eleven months, and would be in another month entitled to their discharge.

MR. HENLEY

said, the noble Lord would have to catch his hare before he cooked it. For his part, he was afraid volunteers would not be caught in that sort of drag-net clause.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

said, seamen were always suspicious, and he hoped it would be distinctly understood that if those volunteers were called out they would receive their pay weekly, and be allowed to make allotment towards the support of their wives on the very day on which they entered the service, otherwise the poor women would in many instances be forced into the workhouse.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, the men, when called into active service, would be placed on the same footing as seamen in the fleet.

MR. AYRTON

said, that Clause 13, giving power to the Executive to draw up orders as to all the terms of service, superseded the necessity for those complicated clauses by which it was sought to regulate the terms for these volunteers.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 amended by the omission of the words "in no case exceed the rate of £5 per annum" agreed to.

Clause 10, (Payment of Pensions).

In reply to Mr. LINDSAY,

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

stated that it was impossible to fix, with any degree of accuracy, the exact amount that would be annually payable for pensions. None would fall due until after ten years had elapsed, and at the end of that period the increase would be in a progressive ratio: allowing for mortality and withdrawal, it was expected that the amount of pensions annually granted would be about £60,000.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

called attention to the fact that the coast volunteers being put into the same situation as the seamen of the navy, by the regulations now existing, if a coast volunteer happened to have a rupture two days after he had joined he might be turned adrift with a gratuity of £6.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, it was precisely on that account that the Admiralty did not wish to enter more specifically into the subject of those pensions. They desired to leave themselves free to grant such pensions after short periods of service as the circumstances of particular cases might justify. He therefore proposed to omit the first proviso in the clause, in order to enlarge the discretionary power of the Admiralty.

MR. HENLEY

doubted the propriety of expunging the proviso, as the effect of its omission would be to give a statutory authority to the Admiralty to grant pensions without any limit. The question of pensions would require very careful handling in order to do justice between those men who had been in actual service all the time and those who had perhaps never been called out at all. If the proviso were struck out, some words ought to be inserted as a check to guard the interests of the Exchequer. Perhaps the introduction of the qualifying words, "with the consent of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury," would be a sufficient restraint upon the power of the Admiralty.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

accepted the suggestion.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses from 11 to 16, inclusive, were agreed to.

Clause 17.

MR. HENLEY

suggested its omission. It proposed the imposition of duties upon the masters of merchant vessels, the justice of which was questionable, and provided for penalties upon the non-performance of those duties; this would make the measure extremely unpopular in the merchant service.

MR. LINDSAY

made a similar recommendation as to a clause imposing a penalty upon a master who could not account for a volunteer who had deserted.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

promised to consider these matters, and said that it was probable these clauses would be struck out on the Report.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported.