NAVY—COASTGUARD.—RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 25 February 1870)

SIR JOHN HAY
said, he rose to bring under the notice of the House the case of Mr. Godfrey Beatson, Civilian Chief Officer of the Coastguard, which appeared to him to be one of peculiar hardship. On the south-west coast of Scotland, including Argyleshire, Ayrshire, and Wigtonshire, the chief officers of the Coastguard were Mr. M'Kerlie and Mr. Beatson, both of whom had always distinguished themselves by their zeal and efficiency. Their duties, as those of other Coastguard officers, were under the Admiralty to train men for the Coastguard, for the Naval Reserve and for 845 other duties; under the Board of Trade to take charge of lifeboats, the rocket apparatus, and in other ways assist in saving life in cases of shipwreck; and under the Treasury to protect the Revenue. It had formerly been the practice to appoint naval officers to commands in the Coastguard; but when Lord Auckland was at the head of the Admiralty a system was commenced of appointing to those commands the officers of revenue fitters, officers of the East Indian naval service, and officers of the Mercantile Marine. He was not there to say that perhaps naval officers were not the best men to appoint. As being more competent to conduct the discipline of the coastguard and the Naval Reserve naval officers were probably the best; but, granting that, he still thought that when we had good officers who had performed the Coastguard duty well for a number of years, it was hard to supersede them before their full time. In England and Scotland there were sixteen, and in Ireland three, of those Coastguard officers who had not been in the Navy. Last June the Admiralty issued a Memorandum in which it was stated that in future all appointments in the Coastguard service would be for five years, and that no officer then in the service should retain his appointment after the 31st of March, 1874; but what was the astonishment of Mr. M'Kerlie and Mr. Beatson on getting, in January in the present year, a notification that they were not to retain their appointments after the 1st of April in the present year. He believed that other non-naval officers in England and Scotland received a similar notification; but he believed that in consequence of a remonstrance the difficulty was got over in Ireland by placing the three non-naval officers serving there on the books of a naval Coastguard ship, and thus making them naval officers. He did not know whether this was a fact. The salary received by each of the two gentlemen to whom he more particularly referred—Mr. M'Kerlie and Mr. Beatson—was £146 a year, with £9 for a house, £96 for travelling allowance, and £30 allowance for a horse, and each would receive about £100 pension. A commander in the Navy was to be appointed to do the duty of both. He was to receive £500 a year, or £350 a year more than his half-pay. The total pecuniary loss to the country by this so-called reduction, 846 so far as it regarded the station to which he alluded, would be £180 a year. The district to be traversed extended 100 miles as the crow flies; and he thought it utterly impossible that that duty could be performed by one man. It was right to say that Mr. M'Kerlie was fifty-eight years of age, so that he was within two years of the time when he would be entitled to retire on his pension; but Mr. Beatson was only forty-two years of age, and had eighteen years' good work in him. He had been brought up in the Revenue service, and from 1854 to the present time he had served in the Coastguard with a character unimpeached. In the course of his service he had been frequently instrumental in saving life, had been wounded, and had received the thanks of foreign Governments. Could not such an arrangement as had been made in Ireland be adopted in this country and Scotland? He had heard of several other cases of hardship—of men of forty-two or forty-three years of age who would be superseded under the recent Order. He hoped his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would reconsider the matter, and begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

§ MR. D. DALRYMPLE
, in seconding the Motion, said, he wished to call attention to a case similar to those mentioned by the hon. and gallant Baronet. An officer had held his appointment for nineteen or twenty years, and having received the Memorandum referred to, anticipated that be would not be disturbed for five years, but he also had received short notice to quit. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take up these cases, and that he would examine them each on its own merits, and not as a matter of favour, but of justice.

§ MR. F. A. STANLEY
said, he wished to call attention to the case of Mr. Fitz- 847 gerald, an officer of the Eastbourne district, who had served six years in the Navy, and then entered the Coastguard, with the distinct understanding that he was to serve there till he was superannuated, but whose appointment would come to an end under the new Order, although he was perfectly able and willing to continue in the service, and was only forty-one years of age. He (Mr. F. A. Stanley) thought a considerable injustice was caused where men were retired and charged on the Pension List at an age when they were still able to render valuable service to the country instead of being transferred to other Departments. The cases which had been mentioned deserved the consideration of the Admiralty

MR. GUILDERS
said, he had some reason to complain of the inconvenient course taken by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), in bringing on the question at that particular moment. His hon. and gallant Friend had joined with another member of the late Board of Admiralty in requesting him to postpone his statement on the Navy Estimates from Thursday to Monday next. After he had consented to do so, it was a little hard that his hon. and gallant Friend should interpose on Friday with a Question of this kind, which he could not answer without entering into a somewhat lengthened statement, and without going into some of the explanations which it would be his duty to give in moving the Navy Estimates. The following, however, were the facts:—The Coastguard force used to be under the Board of Customs, although a certain number of officers were selected by the Admiralty. In 1856 it was decided that the Coastguard should be no longer under the Customs, but should be transferred to the Admiralty, and from that day no civilian officer or man had been appointed to the force. The policy of the Government in making the change was that the Coastguard force, retaining its duties with respect to the protection of the Revenue and to wrecks, should be essentially our First Naval Reserve, and it had been since that time a purely naval force, except as to the Civilians whom he had described. There were in 1857 some 1,500 or 2,000 civilians in the Coastguard force and a large number of civilian officers. No civilians had since been appointed, and 848 therefore the suggestion that had been made that some civilians should be introduced from the East Indian and merchant services, so that it should not be a purely naval force, was contrary to the decision of Parliament. When the present Government came into Office last year it was their duty to look very narrowly at the state of the Coastguard force in connection with the efficiency of the Reserves; and it was found that it contained a considerable number of old men and officers, and that it still contained a considerable number of civilians. During the past year he had carefully expurgated the force from beginning to end, and at the present moment, or in the course of a few days, so far as the men were concerned, there would not be a civilian in the whole of the force. It would then consist wholly of ablebodied seamen ready for effective service at sea. Early in the year they had dealt with the duration of the appointment of the naval officers of the force, and the circular which had been alluded to was issued, in which was defined the time during which inspecting commanders should hold their offices, and stating that all the appointments were to determine at a certain date. That circular did not relate to civilian officers, who had held their offices for life, or until they were sixty years of age. Subsequently they found it necessary to deal with the civilian officers. These gentlemen were few in number, but now that there were no men of the civilian class it was considered impossible to retain them, as they had insufficient authority to carry out discipline as naval officers, and if any emergency arose they could not, like the others, go to sea with the men. The Admiralty considered the matter, and the only course that seemed desirable was to abolish altogether these offices, taking care that when they retired they should be fairly compensated. That was a perfectly legitimate and sound policy; out, unfortunately, it affected a few persons of good service and in the prime of life. He should be very sorry if the House took any step by which the great improvement in the Coastguard force should be reversed. On those grounds it was impossible for him to assent to the proposal that the Government should reverse the decision that had been come to; but he had no 849 objection to look into the cases of these gentlemen. With respect to Mr. Beatson, he had satisfied himself that he was a very efficient officer, and had done his duty, and that it would be a pity if he were lost to the public service. Mr. Beatson's case was a very remarkable one. He had been appointed, not being at the time eligible, on account of his father's services, and so anomalous was his case that it led to much correspondence and even a change in the rules. Mr. Beatson was still in the prime of life, and had shown considerable fitness for the public service. In the same way, although he had not had an opportunity of making as full inquiries, there were one or two other civilian officers whom it was proposed to retire, but whom it might be desirable to retain in the public service. He proposed to look into the case of all the officers whom it was proposed to retire at the end of the financial year, and place their names on the list of persons whom, having efficiently served, it would be desirable to re-employ when time and opportunity should serve. Any further engagement than this he declined to give.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he regretted that the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) had brought this question before the House with reference to one particular case. Such a course was more likely to injure than to benefit the persons concerned, because he admitted at the outset that the principle adopted by the Government, was a sound one. He was glad that the hon. and gallant Baronet had elicited from the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that the cases of these gentlemen would be taken into consideration, and he hoped that he would be content with that assurance, and withdraw his Motion.

SIR JOHN HAY
said, that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory. He could not accept the objurgations of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd).