§ MR. EYKYNsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in case the late Board of Admiralty came to the conclusion that the Chaplains of Her Majesty's Navy had a right to be placed on the same footing as those of the Army in regard to pay and position, the present Board intended to give effect to that conclusion?
§ MR. CHILDERSreplied, that in 1867 the late Board of Admiralty received a letter from a chaplain, pointing out that that Board had done something for the benefit of the other civilian officers of the navy, but nothing for them; and as they had no representative at Whitehall they could not memorialise. This led to inquiries, from which it appeared that the chaplains who were not naval instructors, received less full pay than army chaplains, but more half-pay, except after twenty years' service. About half the chaplains were naval instructors, and then their pay, as well as their half-pay, was much more than that of army chaplains. The late Board, in April, 1868, proposed to the Treasury to adopt the army scale, mainly on the ground that difficulty was experienced in obtaining properly qualified chaplains. This proposal was repeated in May, 1868, but the Treasury did not adopt it. He was not aware that the late Board came to the conclusion that navy chaplains had a right to be placed on the same footing as army chaplains; and, indeed, he could not imagine how such a right could be established. He should give due weight to their opinion on the subject of the proper scale of paying this or any other class of officers; but he was bound to tell his hon. Friend that so far from finding a difficulty in securing chaplains on the present scale of pay, he had received a great number of applications for these appointments, which he was wholly unable to comply with.