RESOLUTI0N.

HC Deb 01 June 1875 vol 224 cc1256-93

SIR JOHN HAY

, in rising to call attention to the subject of Promotion and Retirement in the Royal Navy, said: Mr. Speaker—I ought, perhaps, to apologize to the House for venturing to intrude upon it this evening with reference to the subject which I propose to discuss when we know that my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) had a Motion which perhaps would have been of more general importance and more general interest. The subject which I venture to introduce to the House is one of no inconsiderable importance to the country. When I put my Notice on the Paper I was not aware that my hon. Friend the Member for the Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) would have placed the Amendment on the Paper which he has done, and which renders it incumbent upon me to detain the House longer than I would otherwise have done in addressing myself to this subject. The question which I propose to discuss is the present condition of Her Majesty's Navy with reference to Promotion and Retirement. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has on two occasions in the present Parliament called attention to the subject, and has stated to the House that he has found it not exactly in a satisfactory condition; and I am sure that he will forgive me if I offer to point out to the House the arrangements which I think have caused that unsatisfactory condition. I perhaps may be excused for doing so when I tell the House that the correspondence which has been addressed to me by naval officers both on the retired and active lists, and of all classes and ranks, has imposed upon me the duty which I am compelled reluctantly to undertake—I say reluctantly because I feel that the management of the Navy in the hands of my right hon. Friend is sure to receive all the consideration which his experience and love of the Service may suggest. Although he has now for a considerable time been in office, I feel that it would perhaps be unfair to him if I pushed him into a corner and asked him to declare the arrangements which he proposes to make for the advantage of the profession. I wish to strengthen his hands in making the changes which he must feel are necessary; and if the form of the Motion of which I have given Notice—namely, for the appointment of a Committee—be inconvenient at this period of the Session, or, indeed, if the appointment of a Committee should at any time be inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government, I should be the last person to urge it, after I have stated to the House and to my right hon. Friend the wishes, the hopes, and the aspirations of the noble profession of which he is at present the head. I am happy to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) in his place. The right hon. Gentleman will quite understand that in discussing this question, I wish to discuss the effect not only of the retirement in 1870 which he persuaded the House most liberally to vote, but also the various schemes of retirement which were antecedent to that of the right hon. Gentleman which was pecuniarily very liberal to the service. In 1870 certain changes were made at great expense to the public Exchequer which have neither met the anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, nor the wishes nor the hopes of the Service and the country. The right hon. Gentleman did at that time propose to the House a measure which was a very large measure and pecuniarily a very liberal measure; but I think that even he himself will have ascertained by this time that those hopes and promises, both financially and in regard to promotion which he then held out, have—I will not say signally failed—but have not met the hopes and anticipations which he shadowed forth to the country. In the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced that great measure to the House, he proposed that efficiency, economy, and contentment—three most desirable objects—should be advanced and, I may say, rendered perpetual in the naval profession. I am quite sure that if he has failed, it is because wrong calculations Were placed before him by the authorities whom he consulted, and that he had himself a most earnest desire to attain these most desirable ends. The hope which he held out with regard to this proposal was to render the service contented. He said—I quote from his most excellent speech on the 28th of February, 1870— Our third object was to render the service contented. So long as we had a large number of officers unemployed, and while some of the questions which I have mentioned were unsettled, no one can wonder at a certain uneasiness and want of contentment in parts of the service. We believe, however, that the proposal I have made to-night ought to remove these feelings; and, if that prove so, we shall have succeeded in our third object. Efficiency, economy, and contentment are, then, the main basis of our naval policy."—[3 Hansard, cxix. 938.] No more honourable effort could have been made by any statesman than the right hon. Gentleman; but so far from resulting in contentment, I believe it will be shown by hon. and gallant Members of this House who have had more recent experience of the Navy than I have, and is certainly shown by the mass of Correspondence to which I have alluded, and which I must apologize to many gentlemen for not answering, except now, in acknowledging the information they have afforded me—that the condition of naval officers at this moment is one of dismay and dissatisfaction. I do not want to put it too strongly; but I do wish to point out to the House that the present condition of the service—of every class of the service, from the sub-lieutenant to the flag officer—is, as I have endeavoured to express it, a condition of dismay and dissatisfaction. Now I cannot think that that feeling is at all unreasonable; and if the House will bear with me for a short time, I will endeavour to point out the reasons why that dissatisfaction and dismay exist. In the year 1863 a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to consider this subject; and over it my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) presided. That is the very last occasion on which this House has had an opportunity of inquiring into the method of promotion, and into the way in which economy and contentment are to be produced in the profession. Before that Committee in 1863, there had been a Commission over which the famous Duke of Wellington presided in 1848. [General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR: 1840.] I am corrected by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite. From the year 1840 to the year 1863 no examination was made on the subject of promotion and retirement in the Navy; and since 1863 no public examination, no examination by Committee or Commission, has taken place with regard to the subject. The changes which took place in 1866, when the Duke of Somerset was at the head of the Admiralty, were based upon the recommendations of the Committee of 1863. They did not go exactly in the direction of the Report of the Committee, and if they had gone more in the direction of that Report, they would have been more to the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, in 1870, made changes which were far from being in the direction of the Report of the Committee. They were in the direction of a proposal which was laid before the Committee, and which was rejected by it. The only proposition which was at all analogous to the arrangement made in 1870 was, what is called Proposition 4. Proposition 4 went under the name of the humble Member who now has the honour of addressing the House. It was put forward by me on behalf of a Committee of naval officers for examination, and having been examined by the committee, it was entirely rejected. It was submitted to a most careful analysis, which hon. Members will find in the Blue Book containing the report of the evidence of the Committee. They will find the report of Mr. Finlayson, one of the most able and accomplished actuaries who undertook to consider these matters for the Committee. He and another eminent actuary, Mr. Which, went into the matter, and proved not only to the unanimous satisfaction of the Committee, but to the unanimous satisfaction of the naval Service, that the proposals submitted to the Committee were not proposals which would result in the most satisfactory arrangements either for rapid promotion or economical administration. That Committee was a very strong Committee. My right hen. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge presided over it, and upon it were Sir Francis Baring, who had been First Lord of the Admiralty. Sir John Pakington (now Lord Hampton), who had also been First Lord of the Admiralty, and the gallant Admiral (Lord Clarence Paget), who was then Secretary to the Admiralty. Many witnesses were examined before that Committee, and amongst them many gallant officers most competent to advise the Committee upon the question. There were examined not only the Duke of Somerset, then First Lord of the Admiralty, but his private secretary (Captain Moore), Sir James Sullivan, Admiral Elliot, Sir Rodney Mundy, Sir James Hope, Lord Lauderdale, and others, who were perfectly competent to give the opinion of the profession on questions such as those submitted to the Committee. The Report of that Committee was unanimously agreed to, and it contained the lines upon which any proposal which should be made to the House or the country should be framed. It must be evident that the foundation and substance of any system of officering Her Majesty's Navy must be based upon the lieutenants' list. The lieutenants' list must be considerable. It must be so considerable that it is impossible that any person who rises to the rank of lieutenant can hope to rise to the rank beyond it. One of the most distinguished officers in the Navy (Sir James Hope) was examined before the Committee. He stated that it would be unsafe to reduce the lieutenants' list below 1,200. That seemed to the Committee to be an exaggerated proposal, and the proposal which I had the honour to make had been for 700, or little more than half. That number of 700, as proposed by me on behalf of a committee of naval officers, is about 100 more than the number provided for by the existing Order in Council. That proposal was scouted by every person who had been First Lord of the Admiralty; by officers of great knowledge and distinction, who put it at 1,000; by the Duke of Somerset, and by a number of other officers, whose names I will not at present detail to the House, but who were officers of distinction and of experience. The Committee, in consequence of the evidence given before it, reported that it would not be safe for the Navy to reduce the number of lieutenants below the number of 1,000. At this moment, we have placed upon the retired list, at an increased rate of pay, a large number of lieutenants, and other officers, who are paid a higher rate of pay than officers who are retained upon half- pay on the active list; and, although they have beseeched that they may have the credit and honour of remaining in the service, we cannot, because the pay which they receive is not a retaining pay, call upon them to serve at any moment that they might be asked. This very Session my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, with, I am sure, the approbation of the House, proposed in the Navy Estimates that a large number of seamen, about 18,000 in number, should be paid a considerable retaining fee, in order that if they are required we may call upon them to serve the country in war. In addition to the seamen, there are a number of lieutenants and sub-lieutenants in the Royal Naval Reserve who are, no doubt, quite competent to render the country good and advantageous service in the event of war, and who are retained to serve the country in case they should be required. At the same moment something like 3,000 officers are on the retired list of the Navy, and of these I am right in saying that there are from 400 to 500 of the junior ranks under 40 years of age who are paid more than those who remain on the list, who would wish to serve you, and who are paid more that they may not bother the First Lord of the Admiralty in asking for employment. The only advantage which the country gains, therefore, is that a certain number of gentlemen abstain from asking the First Lord of the Admiralty for liberty to serve the country Although they are skilled and trained men; although, at great expense to the country, they have been reared up from the age of 14 to the age of 40, they are not allowed to serve the Crown, and they are debarred from going to the First Lord of the Admiralty when war breaks out, and saying that they are ready to serve. No doubt, if an emergency occurred, they might be impelled to offer their services; but during all this time they have had the degradation—and that it is felt as a degradation the letters which I have received from many officers show—of being told that, in spite of their ability, and in spite of their service, their names shall not be printed on the active list, and that, although they are sound horses, they shall be driven into the knacker's yard. No more impolitic arrangement can be made by any country. I would venture to quote the evidence of a distinguished officer, now no more—an officer of great ability—who gave evidence before the Committee to which I have already alluded, and who was private secretary to the First Lord of the Admiralty. We know that the First Lord of the Admiralty will always select an officer of distinction to advise him in that particular position. That officer was Captain John Moore, and any Member who knew Captain Moore, and the distinguished service which he rendered, will bear me out in saying that any evidence which he gave is worthy of the attention and recognition of this House. At any rate, it was attended to and recognized by the Committee, and is crystallized in their Report. With regard to the lieutenants' lists, he says— I think it is absolutely necessary that a much larger number of lieutenants should he employed than can possibly he provided for by promotion. Captain Moore stated that with reference to the number of 1,000 lieutenants which he thought it was necessary to employ. The principal fault which I find with the present system is the enormous and growing expense which it is entailing upon the country, and the want of adjustment in the numbers of the respective lists, so that a due flow of promotion may take place at the proper time, and so that a young officer may rise to the higher rank of his profession. The Order of Council in 1870 proposed that the list of lieutenants should be reduced to 600. I thought at the time, and still think, that is too small a number. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen)—I do not know whether it was because 600 was too small a number—promoted a large number of sub-lieutenants at once, and increased the number of lieutenants to 700. The number on the list now is 701. They have not been increased by my right hon. Friend, and they remain at the numbers which were considered necessary by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. In reply to a Question from me, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London made some excuse for that increase, and said it was rendered necessary by the proposal that lieutenants should under take navigating duties, and that, therefore, it was necessary to increase the numbers in order to meet that necessity, Which had not been intended when the first Order in Council was issued. Now, it seems to me that, in order to regulate and guide a self-acting scheme, which, is I believe, what my right hon. Friend desires, it would be necessary to provide for the retirement in each year of a certain number of lieutenants. If you can provide for the retirement of a certain number of lieutenants, you can regulate the entries to the profession; you can regulate the number on the upper list; you can then see how many lieutenants you can promote to be commanders, how many commanders to be captains, and how many captains to the flag list. Assuming that you are to have 700 lieutenants, it would be a fair proportion to make that 70 lieutenants should be provided for in each year, because I think it would be wrong that the average time of lieutenants on the list should exceed 10 years. I am sure that no gallant officer would consider that as an illiberal proposal as to the time which lieutenants should remain on the list. Supposing that 25 or 30 lieutenants can be promoted to the rank of commander, you would have to arrange for the retirement of 40 officers from the ranks of the lieutenants at an age at which they might hope to obtain service in the command of our mail steamers and the Merchant Navy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) has pointed out the mode in which these gentlemen could obtain employment; and I have no doubt, from the statement which he made—though I have not been able to verify it—that officers of that age and standing would find ample employment in a congenial profession. If that were done the upper ranks could easily be regulated. At present, there is no arrangement—the different ranks of the service are not adjusted to each other—and the cost to the country is enormously increasing. I wish to call attention to the present condition of Vote 15, which bears upon this question, and I would venture again to quote from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, on the 28th of February, 1870, to show how much his anticipations and calculations have been disappointed. No doubt, the calculations were made for him by others, and I do not at all mean to suggest that he had not paid proper attention to the subject. The calcula- tions would naturally fall into the hands of other persons; but, I think, he must acknowledge himself that they have misled him. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said— The House may wish to know what will be the future financial effect of these changes. In the first year, there will he an addition of £54,111. In the second year the amount of increase will he reduced to £42,499. It may he assumed that all the compulsory retirements will he in the first year, and two-thirds of the optional retirements; in the second year, there will he half of the remaining third of the optional retirements and half of further reduction to bring down the number to those proposed. In the third year, the numbers being fully reduced, the increase of charge will be diminished to £30,886. In the 4th year, instead of an increase of expense, there Will be a saving of £7,552. In the fifth year, there will be a saving of £45,990. A steady saving will then go on for twenty or twenty-five years until all the lists will be in what may be called their normal condition."—[3 Mansard, cxcix. 937.] In reference to this statement I have made allowance for the fact that the right hon. Member for the City of London added £15,000 to the Estimates in a given year for a special purpose to which will allude. In 1868–9 the Vote for Half-Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay was £700,000, this year it is £888,000, which is an increase in that time of £188,000. These figures include, not only the half-pay on the active list, but of the Marines; but the figures which I am now about to give are figures in which all the charges are omitted, except the charge for reserved or retired pay. In the year 1869–70 the charge for reserved and retired pay was £432,899; in the year 1870–71, which was the year when the right hon. Member for Pontefract introduced the present plan it was £584,812; in 1871–2 it was £602,204; in 1872–3 it was £604,056; in 1873–4, which was the year in which a large reduction was anticipated, and in which £15,000 was added to it by the right hon. Member for the City of London, it was £619,625; in the year 1874–5, in which the right hon. Gentleman anticipated a reduction of £45,990, it was £696,086; and in the year 1875–6 it amounts to £712,929. It is, therefore, now just £713,000, or very nearly £300,000, more than in the year 1869–70. I do not wish to say that the whole of that increase is injudicious. What I want to point out is that a large proportion of that increase is injudicious. It is given to men who do not want it. I do not say that their circumstances are such that they do not require it; but they would rather have a lower amount of pay and remain on. the active list than be placed on the retired list at an increased rate of pay. They complain that they are forced off the list—that they are bribed to go off the list—although they are persons who are capable of serving the country with advantage. The country is deprived of the service which they may render it; and no greater slur can be east upon a man than to kick him out of the Navy, and then when the country has need of his services to say—"Well, if you like to ask you may get employment." You say at present that you will rather employ men in the Merchant Service, and the whole profession is naturally disgusted at an arrangement of that sort. I think I have put before the House the financial operation of the so he MR. I will now speak of the commander's list. The last Board of Admiralty made a change which was inexplicable, both to the Naval Service and to anybody outside the Admiralty. The opinion of the Committee to which I have referred was that the commanders' list should not be reduced below 400. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London having, I suppose, an extremely anxious desire to carry out the Order in Council determined to take violent measures to cut down the list to the number. It is one thing for naval officers to desire that there shall be a system of retirement if that system is to conduce to more rapid promotion—if men who are incompetent, or from their age are ineffcient, or who from various other reasons may be desirable persons to get rid of are retired, and other persons are promoted to their places. But this operation involved an expenditure of £15,000 a-year to buy out 47 gentlemen about the age of 40 years, all of them anxious to serve; you simply gave them more pay to get them off the list and place them on the retired list. There are 164 commanders now serving, and 201 are on the list; and I challenge my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to state whether he has commanders enough fit to perform the duties. I am sure, however, that my right hon. Friend below me will see that we have the number necessary for the Service. You have reduced the lieutenants' list to 700 by buying out at a largely increased pay; but those who have remained are not superior to those who have gone. The 47 commanders would gladly come to my right hon. Friend and say—"Put us back upon the active list—reduce the amount of pay—take us back on the half-pay list, and give us our chance of employment and serving the country, and our chance of promotion. "Many of these gentlemen are under 40 years of age, and is it an advantage to the country that it should be deprived of their services? I have several letters from gallant gentlemen, which I would read if they would not weary the House. ["Read!"] Well, the following is one of the letters which I have received:— As yon have kindly undertaken to bring the case of commanders before Parliament—those who retired in 1873 and were not given an additional step in rank—may I ask if yon will allow me to supplement their case with that of my own, which will show how cruelly and unjustly the Admiralty have dealt with those officers who have so faithfully served them during the best years of their lives. I will first remark that I with many others accepted this retirement with the greatest reluctance and pain—as none but those who have experienced it can judge of one's feelings in having to give up a service to which one has been trained from a boy, and on which all one's hopes, pride, and devotion are fixed. This retirement was proposed not for any individual benefit, but for the immediate benefit of the Service and those who remained in it—my age (38) and the poor prospect I had of gaining promotion before 41, was the cause of my accepting it. The Admiralty was responsible for this state of things, and not the officers, and therefore being forced to retire in consequence, it is doubly hard that they should be denied what it is considered they are entitled to. My own ease is, that after 11 years service as lieutenant I was promoted commander—served for 3 years as commander of Black prince, 1st Reserve ship in the Clyde—appointed to command Ringdove in China Station in March, 1873—on 1st October accepted retirement, and was not relieved until the following 10th April, 1875. During the latter part of this time I was employed on important duties in conducting (on board the Ringdove) a diplomatic mission up the unsurveyed waters of the Poyang Lake to the city of Man-chang-fu, which is 800 miles in the interior of China; and also in protecting British interests during the rebellion in Japan. On my arrival in England I was informed that my service in the Ringdove, subsequent to the retirement (6½ months), would not be allowed to count as sea time for a step in rank; and furthermore that I should have to refund £60 out of £110 I had drawn to defray expenses of my passage to England—al-though I was kept out there this additional time on public service, and from no expressed wish of my own. I have applied on three different occasions for this time to be allowed to count, and also that my passage money home may be defrayed by the Admiralty (my case being exceptional), but have met with a refusal each time. I have, therefore, taken the liberty of stating my case to you, with the hope that you may consider it of sufficient importance to make use of to illustrate the manner in which the Admiralty have acted towards those who have served them well, but who are now (from necessity) forced to retire. I have letters from Captain Luttrell, Captain England, and other officers, and they have assured me that they are perfectly ready to serve the country; and many of them are perfectly ready to give up this additional sum, if you will only allow their names to be printed on the active list. They, no doubt, will trouble my right hon. Friend occasionally by asking him to employ them. I believe he has once a year the honour of meeting a number of officers who offer their services to him, and I believe that in that particular class it would be an advantage if he had a larger list to select from than at present exists.

I will go now to the next rank, the rank of captain. The present order in council has reduced the list of captains to 150. There are 164 posts for them to fill. At the present moment some of them are phantom ships; but I hope they will be replaced. There are 164 posts in which captains can be employed; and I ask if it is wise or desirable to reduce the list of captains absolutely below that number, which may be necessary to be commissioned in case of the outbreak of war. When in addition to that I find that the Committee and Commission both recommended a very considerable list of captains, in order to give a flow of promotion, it seems unreasonable to me to reduce their number to 150. It is perfectly impossible, with a list of 150 captains, that you can promote commanders in the way that it is desirable to do. The House will remember that the change which I advocate is cheaper than the present system. It is merely a transfer of names. You give a captain when you retire him the most liberal provision of £600 a-year, but if you retained his name on the active list as a rear-admiral you would only give him £450 a-year. You therefore would have the advantage of his services and save the country £150 a-year by the mere transfer of names. I will take the year 1860. In that year there were 356 captains on the active list and 377 upon the retired and reserved list, and 128 captains were employed. At the present moment there are 174 captains upon the active list, for you have not been able to reduce them to 150, and 458 upon the retired and reserved list, so that there are 622 captains in all, of whom 90 are now employed. These 458 officers are most liberlly provided for; you are giving them a large excess of pay from which the country gets no benefit. It cannot call upon these men to serve. I may be told that if the necessity arose their patriotism would cause them to come forward and offer their services; but during all these years there has been the burning sore in their hearts of having been kept out of the profession to which they wished to belong. Instead of being in a position when they come up to the Queen's levee of calling upon my right hon. Friend and placing their services at his disposal, all that they can now say, is—"We have been driven into the knacker's yard and however desirous we may be of serving we have no opportunity of doing it." I want to point out to the House the condition of the captains list. Captain William Arthur is an officer who has devoted a great deal of time attention to this subject. He is an officer on the active list, and has just returned as flag captain from China, where he has been serving. He was kind enough, on seeing the Notice which I had given, to place before me certain calculations, which he informed me had been placed in the hands of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in order that he might have an opportunity of considering them. These calculations with reference to the conditions of the captains' list show the ages of the various officers and the time at which they may be promoted. My gallant Friend was so kind as to give me a whole folio of these calculations; but I could not think of trespassing on the House with reference to this question at any length. I simply wish to point out two or three facts in reference to the captains' list, which in any consideration of this subject by my right hon. Friend are, I am sure, worthy of his attention. The list is headed by Captain Richards, and the next officer to him is the illustrous Duke, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who, I trust, by the grace and favour of his Sovereign, if not by his age, will be allowed to hoist his flag. These names will show that I have taken a fair sample as to age. There are 65 captains on the list, and I believe that they are all young and able officers. What will happen to these officers of the 65, 39 must retire before they can become admirals. Of the remainder, 26 will become rear-admirals, but their average ages will be 54, so that they can only hope for five years' service and then they must retire altogether. Of the whole of these 65 individuals you will not have the service of one as vice-admiral. That is a singular result, and I do not think it is a result which the country will desire to pay for. Among the names of the captains on this list you will find the name of Captain Morgan Singer. He is well known to many hon. Members as the great Torpedo captain—as the man who has instructed us in this particular class of gunnery—as the man, who, of all others, is teaching us, when we shall have no ships at all, how we shall be able to blow up the German or any other fleet. He can never be a rear-admiral. He may go on instructing us in this great branch of naval science; but at the age of 54, his promotion under the arrangements which now exists, will be cut off. There is another gallant and distinguished officer whom I had the honour of seeing last Thursday, and who has now sailed from this country under circumstances which have secured for him the good wishes not only of every Member of this House, but of every man, woman, and child in this country—I mean Captain Nares. Captain Nares may hoist the flag of England on the North Pole but he can never hoist his flag as an admiral. He is to to be retired when he comes back from the North Pole at £600 a-year and allowed to go about his business. Captain Arthur, whose authority is recognized by the right hon. Gentleman, shows in addition to the facts which I have stated that of the last 100 captains on the active list, 55 will be retired for age before attaining the rank of rear-admiral. That is that more than half the young officers whom you are now promoting can never be admirals, although the object of reducing the captains' list to 150 was in order that they might be constantly employed, and become full admirals after. The consequence is that you will dis charge all but 29, and that of the last 100 captains on the list 55 will go, whatever their services and claims may be. Is that wise or prudent? I would venture to say that the recommendations of the Committee of 1863 should be the guide of my right hon. Friend in making the arrangements which he has to propose. I am not going to propose my Motion in regard to the appointment of a Committee. I am well aware that in the month of June it would be absurd to ask hon. Members to engage in such an inquiry, and I have the greatest confidence in my right hon. Friend; I believe that he will consider this subject, and I believe his hands will be strengthened by this discussion. It is of the greatest consequence to the country that it should be known what can be said on behalf of the existing scheme which the right hon. Gentleman opposite with the best intentions placed before the country in that Order in Council. What I would recommend is that we should offer to every officer, no matter what his rank or standing, the opportunity of going back on the active list, if he will forego the pecuniary advantages which he at present enjoys. According to my view it would save the country £25,000 a-year. As cutting down the lists on various arbitrary principles has failed, I think we should go back to the recommendations of the Commission of 1840 which says that the upper ranks should not be limited. My right hon. Friend has 65 officers to select from; but if the recommendations of that Commission were adopted he would have a larger list to choose from consisting of young and willing officers of equal experience. I know that of the officers on the active list, even at the age at which they can serve many are not at all anxious to serve; and if he adds to the number preferred to serve, all the officers who are willing to come back from the retired list and so increase the number, the only additional trouble that he gives himself is that he has a larger number to select from and has consequently a larger number to refuse. Now, when you have to select between two men, you are sure to offend one, but when you select one out of a dozen, you do not offend all the rest. You would have a more extended field to select from, and though it might be a little more inconvenient to the First Lord, it would not be so invidious to those officers who are rejected. I wish the House clearly to understand that the results which the right hon. Member for Pontefract anticipated from the liberal scheme of retirement which he introduced have not been attained. I admit that he had the very best intentions in carrying out the views which had been indicated by many naval officers, although they had been exploded by the examination before the Committee of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge. His object was to make the flag list younger; but, in this respect, he has entirely failed. The list of 187S is older than the list of 1870. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) has more than once referred in the House to the position of Admirals of the Fleet; I have no desire to misinterpret his feelings or to think that he would do anything that would be inconvenient to those very gallant officers at the head of the Navy. My hon. Friend has suggested that these distinguished officers should be retired, in order that the flow of promotion should be accelerated. My hon. Friend is quite right if the numbers on the list are to be confined to the numbers as they are at present; but I have never concurred with that view since the report of the Committee to which I have alluded. The Admirals of the Fleet are officers of great distinction. They rank with Field Marshals in the Army; the Navy desires to see officers of that rank at its head; and with all respect to my hon. Friend, it would be an absurdity to place upon the retired list Admirals of the Fleet. We have all observed with very great satisfaction that, along with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales—whom we are all glad to see in the highest rank of the Army—two distinguished officers have been promoted to the rank of Field Marshal—General Sir John Fitzgerald and the Marquess of Tweed-dale. One of these officers, I am informed, is 89 and the other is 90 years of age, and I want to know why the Navy should be deprived of the corresponding rank. It is but very seldom that an Admiral of the Fleet has hoisted his flag. The last occasions were when Lord St. Vincent, at the age of 90, hoisted his flag on the occasion of the visit of the Allied Sovereigns to this country; and before that, Lord Howe on this anniversary—the memorable victory of the 1st of June. Except in the case of these two officers, it is a purely honorary distinction, but one which all naval officers covet, and I am sure that its abolition would cause a feeling of dissatisfaction which the hon. Member would be the last person to desire. The ages of these distinguished officers have naturally increased. The ages of the three Admirals of the Fleet were, in 1870, 246 years; in 1875 they are 248. The ages of 13 admirals were, in 1870, 844 years; in 1875, 866; the ages of 15 vice-admirals in 1870 were 888 years; in 1875, 899 years; the ages of 25 rear-admirals in 1870 were 1,291 years, and in 1875 1,355. In 1870 there were five flag officers under 50 years of age. There are now only three. These figures show that the scheme cannot be any great advantage to the profession or to the country, and it seems that, in a short time, no admiral will be promoted under the age of 54 years. I have detained the House at great length; but I must venture to ask their kind indulgence with reference to another class of officers on the retired list. The House will remember the case of the F. G. Reserve captains, who, 10 years ago had their claims introduced to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth and other Members. The right hon. Gentleman opposite did them fair and reasonable justice in the proposal which he made. There are others whom he passed over, whose wrongs he neglected, and to the remedy of which I am going to allude. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derbyshire will confirm the statement I am about to make. A few years ago my hon. and gallant Friend came to the Admiralty and got all but a promise of justice to these excellent officers. The only thing that interfered with the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend were the F. G. captains, whose wrongs had been redressed. The wrongs of the H. I. K. captains remain. These officers ask for no money. It is unfair to say that the House of Commons would not give them everything that is just and reasonable; but these officers do not ask for money. They served, many of them with great distinction as commanders, and they accepted their promotion to the retired list, many of them with great indignation. AU that they ask is that that should be done for them which was done for the reserve captains of the F. G. class, and that they may be raised pari passû to the honorary rank of rear-admiral. I cannot see any objection to that plan. These gentlemen have served long and well in all ranks, and all they ask for is, now that the F. G. captains have got their claims fairly recognized, that they should have the same opportunity of rising pari passû to the rank of rear-admiral. I would call upon my right hon. Friend to look into this case, and consider whether this boon of honorary rank, which will offend nobody, which will cost the country nothing, and which will gratify these gentlemen, should not be conceded. Then there are the retired lieutenants with the rank of commander, who are upon the M. N. list. These gentlemen—I really do not know why, because they are called captains already—would like to have the honorary rank of captain; and if this small gratification could be given to these gentlemen, it mould give them great satisfaction. I cannot conceive where the objection is to making this concession, which was conceded, and very properly and justly conceded, in the case of the reserve captains on the F. G. list. I will now refer to the case of the 93 naval chaplains, one of whom has been kind enough to write to me asking me to tell my right hon. Friend that they are extremely grieved on an altogether different subject. They are grieved with reference to the Expedition which has just now left our shores. In obedience to the general wish of the House and the country my right hon. Friend thought fit to appoint two chaplains to accompany the Expedition. One of the gentlemen whom he selected is not a Naval chaplain, and as each one of them is anxious to be employed in that service, they thought that my right hon. Friend, in bringing in an outsider, had not sufficient ground for the course which he took, and that they have suffered an indignity which requires some explanation. It is quite true that with the exception of the gallant officer at the head of the Expedition, my right hon. Friend required that the general body of officers and men should not be over 35 years of age, and that they should have certain physical qualifications which made it neces- sary to be exact in the selection of those who were to be employed. I do not know how far my right hon. Friend inquired into the ages and qualifications of the Naval chaplains. Be that as it may, I have received a letter signed by one of the reverend gentlemen, who has put before me the facts of the case. They are extremely aggrieved that of the two gentlemen who have gone, only one should be an officer of Her Majesty's Navy. My right hon. Friend will, perhaps, be kind enough to reply upon that subject, and I can assure him that a considerable amount of grievance exists upon the score. The Petition which the chaplains have placed in my hand and in the hand of my right hon. Friend also prays for certain changes rather of a pecuniary character; but as the Naval Estimates for the year have been introduced, and as the suggestions I am making are for the economy and efficiency of the Naval service and for the reduction of cost to the country, I shall not trespass upon the indulgence of the House by asking any increase of the public charge with reference to these reverend gentlemen. I have though it right to refer to that portion of the Petition which affects their honour, and to lay it before the House and my right hon. Friend. I will only allude to the case of the engineers. Had I an opportunity of bringing their case before a Committee, I should have urged the necessity of improving their position; but as my right hon. Friend lately stated in reply to a Question, that he had that subject under his consideration, it would be unfair in me to urge the matter upon the House, further than to say that there is no class of officers whom it is more desirable to encourage than the engineers of the Royal Navy. Were a war to break out, the necessity for employing a larger number of engineers would entail upon us the need of taking the engineers from the Mercantile Marine, and therefore, the engineers of the Royal Navy should be encouraged as much as possible. I trust that the consideration which my right hon. Friend has given to this subject will result in the amendment of the position of this most useful class of officers. I am anxious to say that I had intended to introduce before the Committee the position of the warrant officers of Her Majesty's Navy. I am informed by those who understand this subject that there is no great ambition on the part of petty officers to accept warrants, and I think that the position of the warrant officer is not that which you would desire it to be. The warrant officers, the boatswain, the gunner, and the carpenter of the ship, are men who have great responsibility. They are selected from the seamen of the Navy having been trained up as boys in that profession. A certain number of petty officers are promoted to be warrant officers, but a considerable number of the men abandon their engagements, and are forced out of the Navy by the feeling of the lower deck. They are engaged to serve till 28 years of age; but the younger men, who are coming after them say—"We will make your life a burden to you if you don't be off." I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that the engagement of the lads who are trained for the Navy should be raised from 10 to 15 years. If that were done, it would get over the difficulty, they would have reached an age at which they would remain in the Service, and they would become petty and warrant officers. I think that would be a reasonable and safe solution of the difficulty which exists, and I trust that my right hon. Friend will consider the necessity of making the pay of the warrant officers larger than it now is. They are a most valuable class of seamen in the Navy and may enable my right hon. Friend to reduce the number of naval cadets, because they may perform the functions of the subordinate officers, and thus aid us in the great difficulty with regard to the flow of promotion. There is another class of officers to whom I would venture to allude. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) has already called the attention of the House to the condition of the Marine officers. I confess I heard with surprise the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, when that subject was under discussion, make the proposal to delay to do that justice to the Marine officers which was asked by my hon. Friend, because a Commission was at present sitting to consider the question of the promotion of the officers of the Army. There is no Marine officer upon that Commission; there is no person representing the Admiralty upon that Commission; and I find that not a single Marine officer has been examined before that Commission. The Marines are an integral part of the Royal Navy. They have nothing to do with the Army; they are provided for in the Navy Estimates, and they serve under the Marine Mutiny Act. They are an integral and one of the most valuable parts of the Navy. The 14,000 Marines form the most formidable part of your Naval Reserve. If we are ever to have mastless ships—and that is a point upon which I give no opinion at present—but if we are to have mastless ships, I cannot conceive any persons more competent to work those mastless ships than the Marine Artillery and the Marines. Yet, what has happened? Some two or three years ago, this subject was introduced to the notice of the House. At that time the War Office thought it right to restore or create the rank of Major in the corps of Royal Engineers and in the corps of Royal Artillery. I immediately asked the right hon. Member for the City of London whether he was prepared to restore the rank of major in the Royal Marines. They had been deprived of the rank of major in order to assimilate them with the other two corps, and when it is given back to the Royal Artillery and Engineers, I want to know why it is not given back to the Marines. The Marines were deprived of their just birthright; and, because forsooth, the military authorities who, with all respect to them, have nothing to do with it, interfere in the matter and object to the restoration of the rank of major on the ground that it would be unsatisfactory to the Army, the Admiralty have not restored it. I call upon my right hon. Friend to do justice to these Marines whatever the War Office may say. I, at least, ask that they should be heard on the subject of these grievances, and should have some hopes of redress. I am confident that when in the Royal Marines, there are captains who have been 29 years captain and subaltern, the present state of matters cannot be allowed to go on. I am quite sure that if captains of 16 years standing were made majors there would be very little increase of cost, because a great many of them have already the brevet rank of lieutenant-colonel and major. I have now to thank the House for the attention with which they have heard MR. Nothing could have induced me to ad- dress the House upon this occasion except the urgency of the complaints which were addressed to MR. The officers of the Navy naturally turn to one who may be supposed to understand their case and to sympathize with them. I wish to say that I do sympathize with that noble profession, and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend sympathizes with it. I have ventured to urge upon him the necessity of expediting the consideration which he told the House he was giving to this subject. My right hon. Friend hopes to improve the position of the Service, to benefit the condition of the officers, to encourage their aspirations for advancement, and to do away with the dismay and disappointment under which they are now suffering; and I am sure he will forgive me for urging upon him the different points which I have brought under his notice. I will not propose the Motion for a Committee of which I have given Notice, but will move—

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the present system of Retirement of Officers in Her Majesty's Navy, whilst continuously adding to the charge for ineffective Officers, has failed to give a due flow of promotion."—(Sir John Hay)

MR. HANBURY-TRACY

said, in reference to the Amendment of which he had given Notice, he might state he had paid great attention to the subject, and if the right hon. and gallant Member had moved for the appointment of a Committee in order to ascertain what steps should be taken in reference to an improved plan for promotion and retire-menthe would have supported him; but in reference to the course taken by the right hon. and gallant Member, he was sorry he could not support his Motion. The right hon. and gallant Member was prejudiced against the scheme of 1871, and therefore was unwilling to give it fair play. He (Mr. Tracy) believed that this scheme, when properly brought into operation, would prove one of the greatest benefits to the Navy, and would give fair promotion and retirement throughout all ranks of the service. The right hon. and gallant Member had stated, in somewhat exaggerated language, that the Navy was discontented and disappointed. [Sir JOHN HAY: No; dismayed and disappointed.] Well, dismayed and disappointed. But if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would cast back his eyes to the state of the Navy in 1870 he would admit that the discontent and dissatisfaction which then prevailed were infinitely greater than at present. In 1870 they had on the Navy List an enormous number of officers clamouring day after day for employment, but to whom no employment whatever could be assigned. A new kind of vessel had been introduced which required a smaller number of officers, and discontent prevailed throughout the active service. They had also large Retired Lists formed without any definite principle, lists under every letter of the alphabet, all on somewhat different schemes, and with somewhat different arrangements. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) came to the Admiralty and took up the question; he looked at the schemes of retirement of 1866 and some years previously, and saw that though aged and long-service retirements had been introduced, they had been employed very partially, there had been enormous exceptions, and there was the greatest dissatisfaction. The object of the retirement scheme of 1870, and also of the further scheme introduced by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) in 1873, was to make the Active List thoroughly efficient. No less than 350 naval officers had written to him stating distinctly that the result had been an immense boon not only to retired officers, but also to those on the Active List. Whatever else was now done must be done on the broad principles laid down in 1870. It was out of the question to ask retired officers to come back on the Active List. The result of that course would simply be that the Active List would be composed in a large measure of inefficient officers; because an officer must be inefficient if he was not kept more or less employed. In 1870 there were 89 captains employed, and 199 on half-pay unemployed. Now there were 90 employed, and only 84 on half-pay. The number of commanders employed in 1870 was 171, and on half-pay 231. At present the corresponding numbers were respectively 163 and 38. What these figures meant was that now there was a very efficient list. As to lieutenants, there were, in 1870, 509 employed and 206 on half-pay. At present there were 521 employed, and 201 on half-pay. In fact, with the exception of the captains' lists, there were now virtually the number which had been desired by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract in 1870, and it would not be difficult to get rid in a couple of months of that exception. Until the number of captains had been reduced to the extent contemplated in 1870 the promotion could not be satisfactory. In 1860 the percentage of officers employed, including flag officers, commanders, and lieutenants, was 46; in 1870 it was 50; and in 1875 the percentage had risen, through the operation of the retirement schemes, to 70. As to promotion, it had been undoubtedly going on more actively in the upper ranks since 1870 than it had been doing before. This was not the case, however, with regard to the lieutenants, and among that class there was great dissatisfaction in consequence. It was to be hoped that steps would be taken to remedy that evil. In connection with the financial part of the question, it appeared that in 1870 the full-pay, half-pay, and retired pay amounted to £1,851,000; and that in 1876 it was reduced to £1,804,000, showing a clear saving of £47,000. He sincerely hoped that, whatever was done would be done on the lines of the scheme of 1870, and he felt sure that if that were allowed fair play, it would in a short time bring efficiency and contentment to the service. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.

Amendment proposed. To leave out from the word "Navy" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "under the Order in Council of the 22nd day of February 1870, and of subsequent dates, has been inevitably hampered in its operation by the great reductions which it has been deemed necessary to make in the number of officers of all ranks; and that until the effect of those reductions has passed away, some of the special provisions of the Orders in Council require amendment or extension,"—(Mr. Hanbury Tracy,)

—instead thereof.

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

MR. CHILDERS

said, he would endeavour to state to the House, as briefly as possible, what was the real history of the important question under discussion; at what point it had arrived when he deemed it to be his duty to deal with it, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had stated, in a bold and comprehensive manner; in what respects the arrangements then made might have been somewhat incomplete, but yet sound in principle, and could not be departed from without creating confusion and dismay in the Naval Service. The history of the question might be given in a very few words. Ever since the Great War of 1815 the state of the Navy with regard to promotion and employment had been one of the most difficult subjects which exercised the thought of the Board of Admiralty, or had come under the consideration of that House. There had always been complaints similar to those which had been brought forward by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that evening. As far back as the Parliament of 1833 the question had been discussed and examined at very considerable length, and the difficulties by which it was surrounded were to some extent surmounted by a scheme of promotion and retirement, more or less pointing to the state of things at which we had arrived. But what were the facts with respect to the employment and promotion of officers during those years? He had before him a statement showing the state of the case as to the years 1835, 1850, 1860, and later years, and the House would, he thought, be surprised to learn that in 1835, of the whole body of lieutenants only 2 per cent were employed; of the commanders, only 12 per cent; of the captains, only 7; and of the admirals and flag officers, only 8 per cent. In 1850, after the effect of the Commission presided over by the Duke of Wellington, which entered very fully into that question, had been fairly ascertained, the numbers increased very little. Of flag officers, no fewer than 92 per cent were unemployed; of captains, 88 per cent; of commanders, 83 per cent; and of lieutenants, 68 per cent. Shortly afterwards the Crimean War occurred, and that led, for the first time since the Great War, to a very considerable employment of officers over several years. At the end of the Crimean War, and when it was no longer possible to employ anything like so many officers, a large number of officers were placed on half-pay, and the same difficulty as before arose, aggravated by the circumstance that, instead of a steady improvement in that respect, there was a steady retrogression. In 1859, a few years afterwards, the present Lord Hampton, then First Lord of the Admiralty, took up the question with very great care, and just before he left office he prepared and brought forward a scheme for increasing employment by the retirement of officers of all ranks in the Navy. That led, in 1860, to something being done, although not on a large scale, by the Board of Admiralty, of which the Duke of Somerset was the head. The effect was, that the proportion of officers who were employed to the whole number of officers was somewhat raised. In 1860 there were unemployed, of flag officers, 84 per cent; captains, 69 per cent; commanders, 59 per cent; and lieutenants, 28 per cent. a certain improvement, but still a very far from satisfactory state of things. The scheme of 1860 was treated by the Navy as a practical settlement of the question; but a large number of naval officers, acting together matured and placed in the hands of the right hon. and gallant Baronet who made the present Motion, a scheme of considerable magnitude, the main points of which were how to provide for a larger percentage of employment for officers on the Active List, and to otherwise provide for the improvement of their position in other respects. In 1863 the right hon. and gallant Baronet, not as representing his own views only, but those of the Navy generally, first wrote a long letter on the subject to the Duke of Somerset, and then brought before Parliament, in a speech of great detail and wonderfully like the one he had delivered that night, a complete scheme for remedying the state of things in the Navy, arising from the insufficient employment of officers in proportion to the number on the Active List. The first main feature of that proposal was that there should be a compulsory age of retirement for all ranks, and an earlier age of optional retirement; the next feature was that there should be a longer minimum period of sea service for officers in their respective ranks; another was that there should be an improved scale of retired pay, another that there should be such a reduction of the numbers on the Active List as might ensure the efficiency of the officers by frequent em ployment A further proposal was that the entry of cadets should be regulated. and it was also suggested that the position of warrant officers should be improved. Then came a statement of the number of officers which ought to be reduced. It was proposed that 37 flag officers, 100 captains, 150 commanders, and 153 lieutenants should be reduced, bringing down the number to 1,313 from 1,753, the point at which they stood at the time—namely, 12 years ago. Well, a Committee had recommended a totally different course, and that the number of lieutenants, instead of being brought down, should be much increased. The Committee went on diametrically opposite lines to those which were proposed by the body of the naval officers, and which were advocated in Parliament by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. In 1866, a few weeks before the change of Government, the Duke of Somerset's Admiralty laid a scheme before Parliament for settling the matter, but both the Navy and the public regarded it as unsatisfactory. Whatever merits that scheme had, it was certainly thought by all parties to be inadequate to meet the difficulties of the case. A strong opposition was offered to it in the House, and it was only carried by a majority of 18. The Government of Lord Russell went out of office, and were succeeded by that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which continued for two and a-half years. In 1867, he (Mr. Childers) brought this matter before the consideration of Parliament on the Navy Estimates, when it was admitted that the state of promotion and employment was most unsatisfactory, and he showed that unless something was done it would become still worse. At that time he tendered his assistance to the then Admiralty, if they would devise and carry out a scheme to increase employment and promotion; but during the two and a-half years in which the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite were in power they absolutely did nothing in the matter. When the conduct of the Admiralty was entrusted to him in 1868, the question which he found it his duty to study to the bottom, on the application and complaint of the naval officers was, whether he was prepared to carry some scheme like that shadowed forth by him in 1867, which went very much on the line of the scheme of 1866. The state of promotion was, in 1870, still more unsatisfactory than before. Of flag officers no less than 85 per cent were unemployed; captains, 69 per cent; commanders, 58 per cent; and lieutenants, 34 per cent. Complaints of want of employment went up from all parts of the Service, and the unanimous wish appeared to be for shorter lists and nearly as possible continuous employment. During the years preceding the change these were the percentages—From 1828 to 1848—including the eight years after the Duke of Wellington's Commission was supposed to have settled this question—the percentages of promotion of captains to the rank of flag officers were only 1¼ per annum; of commanders, 2 2–3; lieutenants, 1½. In the year immediately preceding 1870 the percentage of captains was 2¾; commanders 6; and lieutenants 6. Such was the state of things when he set about dealing with the question. Some years ago it was not looked upon as the right—it certainly was not the expectation—of everybody to get promotion to the top of the list. In those days promotion, to a large extent, went by favour; but as years rolled on, the officers began to feel themselves on a footing of equality with each other. Officers who failed to get the promotion to which they considered themselves entitled resigned on the ground that they had as much right to promotion as those more fortunate officers who were preferred to them. From year to year that feeling grew more intense, and he maintained that the right to promotion, in the absence of evidence to prove inefficiency, was the only sound doctrine to be laid down on the subject. The result had been that there now remained no aristocratic or select class in the Navy, and that all officers considered themselves equally entitled to the promotion which they had in the first place been told that they would get. Again, the position of naval officers had materially altered of late years. Twenty or 30 years ago an officer might be on half-pay, and then, after a few weeks or months of service, again become thoroughly efficient. It was not at that time necessary to keep the officers constantly at sea. But in the present day it was absolutely essential that officers should be constantly employed on active service in order that their efficiency might be maintained. Uninter- rupted employment at sea was needed in order to render the officers thoroughly familiar with armour-plated ships, the novelties of the engines which were being yearly introduced, and, above all, with the science of gunnery. Well, when he came into office in 1868 this was pointed out to him very strongly by his naval Advisers, and the urgency of reform was pressed upon him. The only mode of remedying the difficulty was to keep the proportion of cadets entered nearer to the numbers actually required for service. On looking into the figures, he found that in the years between 1859 and 1868 between 800 and 1,000 more officers were entered than were actually required, and this involved an increased expenditure of not less than £4,000,000. Adding the number (500) of officers below the rank of lieutenant in excess of the number wanted, the redundant officers amounted altogether to about 1,500. It was absolutely necessary, in the opinion of his naval Advisers, that these lists should be reduced very largely. The right hon. Gentleman had said that one of the effects of the reduction which he (Mr. Childers) had made was that we had already got a list of admirals who were older than the list he found in 1870. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to prove that by an unfair comparison. The right hon. Gentleman compared the juniors on the former list with the whole list, and because the juniors compared with the whole list gave an average younger age than the present list, therefore the age of the admirals on the list in 1870 was younger than that of the admirals on the present list. The way to make a fair comparison was to compare the average age of all on the two lists, and the average age of the whole list now was considerably younger than the average age of all on the list in 1870. The right hon. Gentleman said that Captain Nares, who was a very popular man at this moment, and deservedly so, would retire when he came from the North Pole, and that he could never be an admiral. He (Mr. Childers) promoted Captain Nares, to the great surprise of some people, and he rejoiced that he did so, considering how well Captain Nares had turned out. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman about Captain Nares merely came to this—that Captain Nares would have to wait 10 years after his return from the North. Pole before he reached a certain position on the list. In dealing with the excess of 1,000 officers, the late Government applied the system of retirement to all ranks; they increased the rates of retired pay, and prevented inordinate entries of cadets. That was the whole policy of the Orders of 1870. In 1870 the number of flag officers was 63; the late Government thought 50 were enough. As to rear admirals, the number of them now on the list was very large, and there was no excuse whatever for increasing it. As to captains, 90, he believed, were now employed. As to the commanders, he said distinctly that the Admiralty would do a very wrong thing if they acceded to the request of officers of the Navy that the number of commanders should be increased. There were at the present moment 40 commanders on the Half Pay List, and including those in the Coastguard no less than 50. Half the commanders were, therefore, engaged in the Coastguard or were on half-pay, and it was unnecessary to increase their number. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty ought, in his opinion, to do what was intended to be done in 1870, which was that when the list of commanders was reduced the rule was laid down that instead of commanders the older lieutenants should be employed in the Coastguard. Under all the circumstances of the case, then, he maintained that to increase the number of commanders when there was not an inordinately high list would do great harm. And now he came to the present position of the Navy, consequent upon the changes which were made in 1870. In that year there were 1,483 officers on half-pay, there were now only 639—or, in other words, there was a reduction of those on half-pay and harbour pay of 844. When the late Government had to deal with the subject the total number of officers stood at 7,150, and that number had been reduced by 2,123. A more difficult task, he maintained, had never been undertaken in any reduction of the Navy, and that had been effected by retiring no less than 1,990 officers. Every branch of the Service, he might add, was in the same difficult state; but before he gave the result of the changes in the case of the executive military branch, he wished to give the House some idea of what had been done with regard to the other branches of the Service. Although the military officers were those of whom the Members of that House saw most, yet they only constituted one-third of the officers of the Navy. He found that while of the navigating officers only 64 per cent were employed in 1870, there were now 70 per cent. He found only 8 per cent per annum promoted, but now the number of promotions was 14 per cent. Of Engineer officers only 66 per cent were employed in 1870; but now there were 82 per cent employed, the promotion per cent per annum having been only ½ per cent during the previous four years, whereas it was now 2 per cent per annum. Of staff surgeons and surgeons the number employed in 1870 was 65 per cent; but now it was 80 per cent. the promotion which was 40 per cent per annum, having risen to 51. Of paymasters, the number employed per cent in 1870 was 51; in 1874, 72. The number promoted from assistant paymaster was 51 in 1870, 45 in 1874, and instead of 3 per cent promoted in 1870, 4 per cent were now promoted. Of warrant officers on full-pay the number per cent was 84 in 1870, 100 in 1874: in the first-class—36 in 1870, 36 in 1874, and would be 39. In all these grades, then, there had been a sensible improvement since the Orders of 1870, and he would undertake to say that any going back from those Orders would be received with dismay by all ranks of officers. Now, if only a single and not a double operation had to be performed there would have been sufficient to promote every year 7 captains to the rank of admiral, 15 commanders to the rank of captain, and 30 lieutenants to the rank of commander, and that would put the service in a thoroughly efficient state. Before the Orders took effect the promotions in 1866–70 upon the then numbers were as follows:—captains, 2¾ per cent; commanders, 6 per cent; and lieutenants, 6 per cent. In the four years following—1870–4, the promotions were—captains, 3½ per cent; commanders, 8 per cent; lieutenants, 4 per cent. Thus in every rank but one promotion had been more rapid; they had been perfectly successful in increasing, save in this one respect, the flow of promotion. In the four years before the Orders the promotions and retirements were as follow:—rear admirals, 27; captains, 71; commanders, 154; lieutenants, 252— total, 504. In the four years afterwards they were—rear admirals, 49; captains, 160; commanders, 318; lieutenants, 448—total, 975. It had been said that promotion at the top had been stopped; but whereas in 1875 the time on the Rear Admirals List was 5¾ years, in 1870 it was 6¾ years, and in 1865 it was 7 years. The number of officers who wished to retire was much larger than that which the right hon. Gentleman was empowered to retire. Therefore, so far from this being an enforced retirement, a large number of officers who had been refused permission to retire had grumbled at being refused. While he had been at the Admiralty there was a very small number comparatively of compulsory retirements, the larger number being voluntary. As to the expense of the system, it would be found that the amount of pay, half-pay, retired and reserved pay, and military pensions, as shown in the annual Estimates, less half the commutation, amounted in 1869–70 to £1,771,000; in 1870–1 to £1,829,000; in 1871–2 to £1,851,000; in 1872–3 to £1,795,000; in 1873–4 to £1,790,000; in 1874–5 to £1,802,000; and for 1875–6 to £1,804,000, or just £47,000 less than the amount of 1871–2. He had stated that the amount, as calculated by the Admiralty, would have been £45,000 less, and that showed how accurate the calculation of that Department had been. He believed that the state of the Service would have been ruinous if it had been left in the condition in which it was found in the Committee of 1862. He should pity his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty if he adopted the suggestion made to him to-night—namely, to let all the retired officers go back to the Navy so that he might have the choice of 1 in 12, instead of 1 in 2. A more impracticable plan was never heard of. He, on the contrary, strongly advised his right hon. Friend on no account to be induced to increase his numbers, but to keep his Lists small and his officers thoroughly employed. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should lay down the same rule as to commanders which now prevailed as to lieutenants, and to retire commanders at 45, instead of 50, because they knew that no commander of 45 could ever hope to reach his Flag. If he would do this, a satisfactory increase in the rate of promotion would be obtained. Was it known that out of 45 to 60 junior captains only five were employed? He would venture to offer another suggestion to the First Lord. Until he had got the List reduced and had worked off the inordinate numbers that were left as a legacy in 1869, he might make every year 12 commanders to be captains and 24 lieutenants to be commanders. This should, however, only be a temporary arrangement, but it would keep the Lists thoroughly healthy, and if it were carried out for five years it would have the best effects. If the right hon. Gentleman intended to absorb the navigating class, it would be proper to increase the proportion of lieutenants to commanders; but in other respects he entreated his right hon. Friend not to depart from the Order in Council of 1870. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not take amiss the suggestions which had been offered.

LORD CHARLES BERESFORD

said, he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). His plan had been excellent in theory; but, in practice, it had failed to give satisfaction to the Navy. There was great discontent in the Service in consequence of the scheme of the right hon Gentleman. Twenty years ago there was discontent because the List was larger than it ought to have been. The discontent was greatly lessened by the chance of a man getting promotion when he got service; but the List was now so much reduced that, no matter how much a young officer might distinguish himself, he got nothing by it. They promoted from the top of the tree, and there was therefore no inducement for young officers to work. It would be well for the good of the Service if they were to promote one-third from seniority and two-thirds by selection through all ranks. When there were only seven promotions a-year, what could the Admiralty do? The scheme of the right hon. Member for Pontefract was excellent in theory, but in practice he did not think it good, though it was at first received with favour. The result showed that there were three classes of men who took advantage of the scheme—those who disliked the profession, those who saw no chance of promotion, and those whose health failed. That left those who liked their profession and those who were strong in health. If the right hon. Gentleman had made his scheme compulsory there would have been a rapid flow of promotion, and the Navy would have been benefited; but that had not been done. As far as the executive line went, he could only see one way of getting over the difficulty, and that was by increasing the rear admiral List. No doubt that would occasion complaint in that one branch; but it would be better to do so than to have complaint throughout all branches of the Service, and there would be this advantage connected with the course—the Admiralty would have a larger number to select from. He thought the assistant paymasters ought to receive promotion after eight years' service. All naval officers would be exceedingly sorry if the navigating class were done away with. Their duties required the greatest possible practice. The old masters, who had been brought up from boyhood as navigators, were much better than we should get under the present system, one of the best proofs of it being the few men-of-war compared with the merchantmen that were lost in the Channel. But if the masters were to be done away with, it was better that it should be done at once than that they should be allowed to drag on with officers who had much greater advantages. Then, as for the engineers, they were a class of officers who really did want to have something done for them. Their duties were much more important than they used to be, because nearly every part of the ship was under the engineer-in-chief and his staff. As they had no chance of promotion whatever, some progressive rate of of pay for them would be but fair. All naval men would allow that the warrant officers were some of the most valuable men in the ship. Men lost by becoming warrant officers and therefore for the last 25 years we had not nearly so good a class as we might have had. [Mr. CHILDERS said, he had increased their their pay.] Yes, but not so much as it ought to have been. The question as to promotion and retirement was one of money. It was to be hoped that next Session the First Lord of the Admiralty would ask for more money, not so much for the sake of the naval officers as for the sake of the country, because the discontent in regard to promotion was very great indeed.

MR. HUNT

said, that the debate had been a very instructive one, and though he had given great consideration to the subject he was not sorry that the debate had taken place, as by means of it they had had the opportunity of learning the views of the gallant Officers who had addressed them. He stated, in moving the Navy Estimates, that he thought that the stagnation of promotion was very disadvantageous to the Service. While he would have been unable to agree to the proposition of his right hon. and gallant Friend, as it was originally presented to them, he could not but assent to it in its altered form. That was to say he acknowledged that the present system of retirement had failed to bring about a due flow of promotion. It seemed to him impossible to resist that conclusion. Before dealing with the main question he would touch upon one or two points which were not immediately connected with it. As to appointing an "outsider" as chaplain to the Arctic Expedition, he could assure the chaplains in the Service that he had not intended to cast any slight whatever upon them. Originally, a regular naval chaplain had been chosen, but the medical officers had refused to pass him. The number of volunteers for the post had been extremely small, and many considerations had to be kept in view in making the choice. It had been thought desirable to get a man without a family. It had been necessary to consider whether his theological opinions were such as would not give rise to bickerings, and whether he was of a genial temperament and disposition. No doubt, there were many men suitable for the post at present at foreign stations; but it had been thought undesirable to bring one home and at great expense replace him. Moreover, it had not been decided to have a chaplain at all until the arrangements were very far advanced. The choice which had been made seemed to him very satisfactory, and under an Order in Council it had been perfectly competent for him to make the appointment. His right hon. and gallant Friend had alluded to the question of the Marines. The difficulty of dealing with that question arose from circumstances outside of the Admiralty. A few months ago, when he pressed the Treasury on the subject, the answer he got was, that it was impossible to deal with it till a conclusion had been come to with reference to the labours of the Commission which had been considering the subject of promotion and retirement in the Army. His right hon. and gallant Friend asked why the question of the stagnation of promotion in the Marines should not be submitted to that Commission. Well, there was no officer of the Marines on that tribunal, and he had reason to think that the Marines would be satisfied if an officer of that corps were placed on the Commission; but he found that a reluctance existed on the part of the military authorities, after the Commission had been appointed, either to increase the number of its members or to enlarge the scope of its inquiry. He therefore hoped that that highly valuable corps would not think that he in any way disregarded the grievances under which they suffered; and it was his earnest wish, as soon as circumstances would allow of it, to see if he could not induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enable him to do something for their benefit. As to the general question of the effect of the Order of 1870 on the flow of promotion in the Navy, the right hon. Member for Pontefact (Mr. Childers) had given them an interesting statement of the reasons which had actuated him in proposing that measure. He had described the evils resulting from the overcrowding of the List, principally arising from the entry of too many cadets, and also the necessity there had been of adopting a drastic measure to get rid of the difficulties with which the Admiralty had to contend. He had no reason to dissent from the general view which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had put before the House on the subject. He felt it to be desirable to stop the accumulation of the service at the fountain head, and not to permit a greater admission of boys than was likely to be wanted. He had previously stated that he thought it desirable that there should be an entry of more cadets now than was necessary before it was determined to do away with the navigating class of officers. But with that qualification he believed that the numbers suggested by the right hon. Gentleman were not very far out. He also agreed with his views as regarded the necessity of finding as much employment for officers as they could, if they wanted to keep the List effective. It was true that the promotion of officers no longer went by favour; but he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that all officers were now equally entitled to promotion. [Mr. CHILDERS explained that what he had said was that all officers now considered themselves equally entitled to promotion.] He agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Charles Beresford) that if they wanted to stimulate the zeal of officers they must lead them to look for promotion as their reward. It was impossible that all officers could be promoted. There must be a certain number who, either from want of natural ability or want of attention to their duties, or from other causes, must be content to see others pass over their heads; and if promotion was to be entirely by seniority, he believed the greater part of the energy of the Service would disappear, and the List would by no means be an efficient one. Of course, it was no doubt mortifying to an officer against whom there was no record of any particular fault to see others put over him; but it was necessary that selection should be made for promotion in order to stimulate officers to the zealous discharge of their duties. His right hon. Friend had given some figures showing the flow of promotion since 1870. He also had been furnished with calculations showing that while in the promotions to flag rank greater quickness was anticipated, in the lower rank this was not the case, and that the expectations of his right hon. Friend in 1873 were by no means likely to be fulfilled. Looking forward, in fact, to the next nine years, the careful estimates with which he had been furnished fully bore out the statement that the present system had failed to give a quick flow of promotion. For example, according to the best calculations he could procure, the captains' List would not be brought down to 150 till the year 1885. His right hon. Friend had made several suggestions which would receive from him the most attentive consideration—many of them had already been discussed by him and his Colleagues with the greatest care and attention. He hoped, however, he would excuse him if he did not enter more into detail on the present occasion. He saw signs of dissatisfaction in the Service, because nothing had yet been done to cure the stagnation in the flow of pro- motion. The question was, however, one of extreme difficulty, and being new to his present office, he felt that it would be extremely wrong in him to deal with it in a hurried way. The Treasury had to be consulted in the matter, as it was one which must necessarily involve considerable additions to the Estimates. He mentioned that, because he was unable to say whether he should be in a position to lay a scheme before the House during the present Session or not; but if the Admiralty could devise any such scheme in time to lay it before the Treasury, and could obtain their assent to it there might be a chance of bringing it before the House this year. He could not, at the same time, make any positive statement on the subject; but he hoped at an early period of next Session to be able to call the attention of the House to the subject, and to submit to it a proposal with respect to it. In the meantime, he hoped the Service would not think that he was not fully alive to the evils which arose from the existing state of things. He had no hesitation, he might add, in accepting the Motion of his right hon. and gallant Friend behind him, as it was now worded, but he could not assent to the Amendment.

MR. GOSCHEN

, wishing to have Party feeling excluded from the consideration of this question, suggested that both the Amendment and the original Resolution—which was, in fact, a Vote of Censure upon the last Board of Admiralty—should be withdrawn. The right hon. and gallant Baronet might well be content with the debate, and the pledges that had been given by the Government.

MR. A. E. EGERTON

said, it had not originally been the intention of the Government to adopt the Resolution of the right hon. and gallant Baronet; but they had submitted to him a modification of it, which they would be willing to receive. Under these circumstances, they had no difficulty in acting upen the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

SIR JOHN HAY

consented to withdraw his Resolution on the assurance of the First Lord of the Admiralty that he would himself deal with the question.

Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at half after One o'clock.