§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he rose, agreeably to notice, to submit to the House the grounds on which he claimed for the marines and the officers and men of the navy employed in China the same pay and allowances as were given to Her Majesty's troops. He would not now touch upon the larger question of the Chinese war, which was to be debated on Thursday or Friday, but would simply point out that from the first commencement of our unfortunate wars with China the army and navy had fought side by side, and had shared the same dangers and privations, but not the same hopes and rewards. It was most important, at the beginning of the present war, that there should not exist, during its prosecution, a feeling on the part of a sister service that injustice was done them. In all our operations in China, in the capture of Chusan in 1841, and in the subsequent attacks upon Canton, Shanghai, and Ningpo in the same year, during the last war (which was commonly called the lorcha war), and in the recent 1668 disastrous affair at the mouth of the Peiho river, the seamen and marines had shared all the dangers and difficulties of the troops, and had contributed as much as they had done to the success of our arms. Both Lord Gough and the gallant Admiral opposite (Sir Michael Seymour) had borne testimony to that fact; and the latter gallant Officer had urged upon the Admiralty the necessity of placing seamen in China upon the same footing as regarded pay as Her Majesty's troops. How had they been treated? And for that treatment he did not blame the Government or the Admiralty, but the system, especially that portion of it in accordance with which the Board of Admiralty was so frequently changed. The seamen and marines who played a principal part in the capture of Canton during the late war received only their pay, while the troops received a consolidated allowance in amount nearly double their regular pay. In the year 1842 the officers of Her Majesty's forces who went to China received an allowance of £100 each, but the officers of the Royal Marines got only £5 each. A precedent had already been established for giving extra pay to sailors, because those who were engaged in the Burmese war received six months' batta. He believed the best way to prevent dissatisfaction in the fleet and to insure the good conduct of the men was to prove to them that they were treated according to the principles of justice and humanity. We were beginning a war in China which would demand the most perfect union and concord on the part of the services, and under these circumstances he would implore the Government not to negative his proposition.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to place the Officers, Marines, and Seamen of the Fleet serving in China on the same footing as Her Majesty's Troops, with respect to extra pay and allowances; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the same.
§ SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion. He did so on the ground set forth in the despatch to the Board of Admiralty to which the hon. Member had alluded. He admitted that the navy had no legal right to make the demand involved in the Motion, but, nevertheless, he trusted the House would give it their favourable consideration, 1669 as it was based upon justice. It was, always important that the seamen belonging to the fleet should have no reason for feeling that they were not sufficiently cared for or rewarded. He might add that at the close of the different wars with China, and of the Burmese war, additional pay in the shape of gratuities had been given to the seamen and marines who had served, but when at the close of the operations conducted in China under his command, he applied to the Admiralty for a similar giant, they refused to accede to his request. Even under ordinary circumstances and in time of peace, when sailors were employed away from their ships in operations in which there was likely to be any great wear and tear of their clothes, they received a compensation; and in this instance they had been engaged in garrisoning forts on the Canton river, and in conveying merchants from Canton to Hong Kong, the river being unsafe on account of the number of war junks that were upon it. During the recent operations in China he was reluctantly obliged to comply with the request of some of his best men to be discharged upon the completion of their term of service. They wished, they said, to better their condition elsewhere, and, although they were excellent seamen, he was constrained to dispense with their services. If gratuities or extra pay could not be given to the men, he would recommend that good service should be taken into consideration when calculating the term for a pension.
§ ADMIRAL WALCOTTcordially gave his assent to this Motion. He could not understand why the reward given to soldiers should not be extended to seamen who experienced the same vicissitudes of life, were subject to the same wear and tear of the constitution, and exposed to the same privations and dangers. This distinction between the two services was calculated to engender a heartburning prejudicial to that cordiality which was essential for the proper conduct of the services, and for the success and glory of their arms. Nevertheless the fact that it had not hitherto abated by one jot the gallantry of the seamen and marines, must impress on the Government the propriety of awarding to them the same justice as was awarded to the army. He could not comprehend how a naval officer could sit at the Board of Admiralty and neglect to perform, in this respect, the duty he owed the profession to which he had the honour to belong.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he felt indebted for the manner in which the present Motion had been introduced to the House, and for the interest which the hon. Gentleman had evinced for a service to which he did not himself belong. The hon. Gentleman, in alluding in terms of warm praise to the services of the navy during the late operations in China, and during former wars in that quarter, had not quite clone justice to the Governments of the time for their treatment of the officers and men. During all the former wars in China and during the late war in India they had had extra allowances granted to them in the shape of "donation batta." It was impossible that they could have allowances granted to them except at the end of any great operation. Firstly, he should have little difficulty in showing that to pay the officers of the navy as the hon. Gentleman proposed by his Resolution would be impossible, for the extra pay and allowances received by the army for services in India and China were, in fact, field allowances—field batta money—for services away from their proper quarters. Now, no person ever pretended that the navy would have any right to claim field allowances, though they might be granted recompenses for their services, particularly when they were joined with the army in operations. But to give them field allowances would be out of the question, because they did not live in the field. Even if they were serving on shore, and were wounded, or fell into any misfortune, they had a ship to be brought back to; in fact, they had a home, which soldiers had not. No doubt they encountered equal danger with the soldier, but they could not be said to experience the same privations. So much as regards the officers; and, with respect to the men, the additional allowances which the army got were in the shape of suspensions of stoppages. The men in the army had a certain amount of pay, and certain stoppages were made from their pay for their provisions. When they served in India or China those stoppages were lessened to a certain extent, so that, in fact, they received greater pay. Now, in the navy there were no stoppages of pay, for all the sailors received their provisions without any stoppages. Therefore, on that ground sailors could not be put on the same footing as the army, and it was impracticable to carry out the wishes expressed in the Motion, because the system of the navy was totally distinct from that 1671 of the army. In reference to the Motion two questions had to be dealt with—the past and the present. It was quite certain that if the present naval expedition to China were at a future time to receive a donation it would be necessary to consider the claims of those who took part in the last operations in China; and here he would observe that no services were more appreciated at the Admiralty than those of the gallant Admiral who had seconded the Motion (Sir Michael Seymour); they could not overlook the gallant conduct of those who were engaged under his command in the last war. The Government felt that the House of Commons would always he disposed to deal generously by the navy, and to pay regard to the services the officers and men performed during the latter operations in China, commencing with what was called the Lorcha War, and terminating with the treaty of Tien-tsin. For the purpose of rewarding the officers, seamen, and marines of the fleet engaged in the operations under his gallant Friend, the Government were preparing an Estimate framed in the same spirit as former Estimates for similar services. And with regard to those now engaged in China, he was positive, without saying anything about the amount or mode of distribution, that he might give a pledge, on the part of the present or any future Government, that at the conclusion of the operations a fair reward should be proposed for the gallant officers, seamen, and marines engaged in them. It was right he should inform the House that the Admiralty were now on the eve of distributing what was called the Canton prize money, in which both the army and navy would participate; and it was only in consequence of difficulties with other departments that the money had not already been distributed. In submitting the Estimate which he would shortly lay before the House he should enter into detail as to the principle on which they asked for this sum of money, and as to the amount of donation which they proposed to give to the officers and men of the navy. Further than this he could not go at that time, except to assure the House that the gallant services of the navy in China were duly appreciated. Under the circumstances, his hon. Friend would probably not press his Motion to a division.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he was happy to feel that there existed between the officers and men of the two services the most brotherly feeling, and anything that might 1672 tend to the advantage of the navy would always be received with enthusiasm by the army. It appeared that many seamen and marines in China had been employed in garrisoning forts ashore, and, at all events, when they landed in this way they ought to receive the same pay and allowances as the soldiers. As an army officer he had risen to express a hope that the claim of the other service would be considered, and he might add that it would be more satisfaction to them to receive what they considered was their right than to receive afterwards what that House might consider them entitled to.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he could not allow that batta money donations were at all to be compared with field allowances. Batta money was originally a grant of money made by the East India Company to officers and men serving in their army. Considering that this was the origin of the grant, it was still more unjust that officers of the army should get a grant of batta money, but that seamen and marines on board ship should receive none. They wondered and complained that men were not to be found to enter the navy; but how was it to be wondered at, when it appeared that the men were paid differently from those serving in the army? It appeared that the Admiralty were going to reconsider the question of compensation two years alter the services which it was to reward. Now, compensation deferred for two years was no compensation at all. Sailors lilted to receive at once what they earned. The Admiralty were always "going to do" something. They delayed in everything. Why half the sailors engaged in the Canton operations were dispersed over the world—many were dead, and not one-third of them would ever get the grant; and those who did get it would have forgotten what it was for. The Admiralty had better mend their manners and treat the men properly. There ought to be no difference between the soldier and the sailor. He did not believe that this matter would ever have been taken up if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) had not brought it forward. What had the Admiralty done for his (Sir Charles Napier's) gallant relative, Admiral Hope, on account of his brilliant though unsuccessful operations? Nothing whatever. Nor had they done anything for the sailors under him. The services performed by them were of the most gallant description. Even when they were unsuccessful, and they 1673 were recalled to their ships, what did they do? Instead of at once returning to their ships, they in the face of enormous difficulties exclaimed, "Let us try another chance." But as yet, the men had received no recompense whatever, and he had been told of an unfortunate fellow who had lost an arm there, who had a pension of £16, limited to one year only. That was a new plan, which he had never heard of before. He hoped the statement was untrue, but he had it on excellent authority. In the face of such facts as these, no one need wonder that men did not enter the navy. They were not sufficiently well treated; and, as an additional instance of this, he hoped shortly to bring before the House the nefarious manner in which the funds of Greenwich Hospital had for the last seventy or eighty years been diverted from their proper channels. He hoped that his noble Friend would stir the Admiralty up to bring about a change in this state of things, and also to put both arms of the service on an equal footing.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he thought that as we had now been in a normal state of war with China for twenty years, with very little present prospect of a change, it was high time that the Admiralty should be prepared with a plan for putting the sailors employed in this war on a proper footing as to their pay and allowances. From the nature of the country the navy must always play a considerable part in our wars with China. The men were obliged to be away from their ships in the boats for a long time, and anybody who had seen, as he had, the discomforts and hardships which they had to undergo would agree that it was absolutely necessary they should have batta issued to them in the same way as the army. They had to perform very heavy work in the day time with a burning sun over their heads, and at night with the thermometer down to 35° or 40°. In the day they were burnt up or eaten by mosquitoes, and at night they were nearly frozen to death. It must be remembered too, that the seaman was a skilled artificer, ready to put his hand to anything. If the Admiralty would produce some practical plan for doing the navy justice in this respect, it would be more creditable to them, and more profitable to the country, than squabbling about cutting down the half-pay of their officers.
§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he did not wish to give any opinion upon the question brought forward because it was not 1674 in his department. But it should be recollected that the question was one which required very great care to decide upon, inasmuch, as the troops did not, as a matter of course and in all places, obtain the Indian allowances when in China. For instance, at one time they had a garrison of British troops in Canton, together with Native troops; and the Europeans, being brigaded together with the Indian soldiers, received the Indian allowances. But a few miles off, at Hong Kong, there being no Native troops there, the British troops only received Hong Kong or Colonial pay, which was less than the Indian allowances. The gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier) spoke of the impropriety of allowing sailors to reflect that they were not receiving as much pay as soldiers in the army. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: Additional pay.] The word "additional" was very important. The ordinary pay which the army received was not very much more than half that given to the navy.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERClothing?
§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, sailors got clothing at first.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERFor the last six months.
§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, a very large deduction was made from the soldier for his food, whereas he believed the rations were free rations on board ship.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEobserved that the illustrations of the right hon. Gentleman did not much affect the question—Hong Kong being, as it were, an English colony. With the hope, however, that a full and ample amount of recompense would be granted, he was willing to withdraw the Motion, reserving to himself the right of renewing the question before the close of the Session, unless upon the Estimates an ample amount for the past, and a guarantee for the future, were given.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.