§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in moving for Copies of Correspondence between Flag Officers and the Admiralty relating to the last scheme of retirement, said, their Lordships were, no doubt, aware that considerable discontent existed among flag officers with reference to the scheme of retirement which had recently been adopted by the Admiralty; but he had thought it right to wait until the immediate differences at the Admiralty were for the time settled before inviting their Lordships' attention to the subject. He made every allowance 319 for the difficulty in devising any satisfactory scheme of naval retirement, for no officer liked to be put on the shelf, even with an increase of pay; but there were several points in connection with the present scheme to which he was anxious to call attention. The Order in Council of 1866, which—he being then First Lord of the Admiralty—was passed with the approval of many Members of the present Government, provided that any naval officer who had served on the Board of Admiralty should have his time at that Board counted as active service. This regulation was advantageous for the public service, considering the disinclination of many distinguished officers to join the Board, of which he had had personal experience, when it was necessary to fill two vacancies caused within ten days by death, and it was in consequence of this unwillingness that the Order held out to the profession this inducement to give the Admiralty their assistance. It being necessary in these days to have a civilian First Lord, professional assistance, whether in the form of a Board, a Council, or Assistant Secretaries—no matter what it might be called—was indispensable, and it was desirable to obtain men of standing and experience in whom the Navy had confidence for this purpose. The late Order in Council, however, set aside this regulation; and the effect would be that any naval officer joining the Board of Admiralty must either make up his mind to be shelved from active service, or must be constantly endeavouring to return to such service. The reason given for this change, that after 10 years' absence from sea an officer was not fit to command a fleet, he denied. Sir Alexander Milne had been 10 years ashore when he recommended him as a man of great sagacity and ability for the command of the North American and West Indian station at a time when American affairs were in a very delicate position; and Lord Lyons was also appointed to command a fleet after 10 years absence from sea. Under the present Order no such appointments could have been made; and it was surely unstatesmanlike and unwise to fetter the discretion of the Government, and thus to disqualify one who might be the best man in favour of a younger officer for service which, perhaps, required greater experience. He 320 complained, moreover, of the way in which the Order was passed. The scheme of 1866 was laid on the Table of the House of Commons, and, after about a fortnight, was discussed and sanctioned; but the present Order came by surprise on Parliament and the Navy; and when it was criticized in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister—so report said—rose and said it could not be meddled with, as this would compromise the Prerogative. It was not to be wondered at that when more recently the Prime Minister again came forward with his high transcendental notions of Prerogative, the House of Commons decided against him, and left him in a minority. The practical effect of the Order would be to make naval officers indisposed to join the Admiralty, for fear of losing the chance of rising in their profession. He admitted that the Order of 1866 might have been wisely modified to the extent of providing that five years at the Admiralty should count as service at sea, but no longer period. The officer at the head of a dockyard was to have his time count, and à fortiori, a Lord of the Admiralty, whose functions were more important, should be allowed a like advantage. Among those affected by the Order were Sir Michael Seymour and Sir John Hay, the latter of whom had given his time and abilities to the Admiralty, and whom he himself, when First Lord, frequently employed, although politically opposed to him. The Order, again, debarred from the distinctions of Admiral of the Fleet and Vice Admiral and Pear Admiral of the United Kingdom officers not on the active list. These purely honorary positions, with no pay attached to them, surely ought to be given to men who had rendered the greatest services, whether at present on the active list or not. It was conceded that officers in command of a ship before 1815 should be allowed to remain on the active list; but one would have imagined that these officers must have reached an acre when active service was not to be expected. It was unwise and unfair to hurt the feelings of distinguished officers by excluding them from these honorary distinctions. One or two points in the scheme would certainly have to be modified, for no Government could permanently cripple itself in the selection of officers. The number of lieutenants was 321 to be cut down to 600; but in the last Russian War we had more than 600 in active employment; while in 1860 we had 693, in 1861, 712, and in 1862, 650 in active employment. We were now cutting down our lieutenants to the lowest possible amount. No doubt, in case of emergency, assistance might be called in from the Naval Reserve; but he thought we were cutting down the number of officers to such an extent as was hardly compatible with the efficiency of the service. He would leave the matter to the consideration of the Government, hoping they would take an early opportunity of modifying at least that part of the Order which had hurt the feelings of many distinguished officers.
Moved, "That there be laid before the House Copies of any Correspondence between Flag Officers and the Admiralty relative to the last scheme of retirement."—(The Duke of Somerset.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, there was no objection, on the part of the Admiralty, to the production of the Correspondence moved for. He should, however, ask their Lordships' indulgence whilst he offered a few words in explanation with reference to the Order which had been called in question by the noble Duke. He need hardly remind their Lordships that any great change in the great establishments of the State necessarily affected some interests and called forth a number of dissentients, nor did he deny that a considerable number of letters had been received by the Admiralty complaining of the practical result of the Order in individual cases. He admitted that the Admiralty should be prepared to show that a great change such as this in the Navy was necessary in the interests of the public service, and, at the same time, that it had been effected with as little injustice or injury to the officers affected by it as possible. Now, the facts were simply those—On the 1st January last, of 780 lieutenants, 261 were unemployed; of 401 commanders, 246 were unemployed; of 292 captains, 201 were unemployed; and of 95 flag officers, 81 were unemployed. Their Lordships would therefore see that the Order was not made before it was required. Ever since 1815 our Navy lists had been overcrowded, and it had been found necessary, by a series of shifts and contrivances, to stave 322 off the evil of that system. When, in 1860, the principle of retirement by age was first proposed and vigorously carried out by the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) himself, it was not extended to flag officers; the principle of non-service, namely — that after a certain time officers should be retired from the active list—being applied to commanders and lieutenants, but not to the higher ranks of officers. In 1864 there was a less important change, consisting in a not very large reduction in the number of officers on the active list. The Order of 1866 for the first time ruled that an admiral might be retired; but it made an exception which had been repealed by the late Order. He would now pass to the Order in Council particularly referred to by the noble Duke. The first principle which commended that Order to the approval of their Lordships was that no officer should suffer pecuniary loss by its operation. Any officer who did not wish to accept the pecuniary terms under the new Order could remain under the old Order, and would still have all the same chances of promotion and higher pay which were open to him under the previous Order. The next principle which formed the basis of the new Order was that of sea service. The great object of the Board of Admiralty was to make such arrangements by reducing the active list as would keep a sufficient staff of officers continually at sea, or find them employment whenever they applied for it. Under this Order, moreover, those officers who had borne the burden and heat of the day were in the evening of their lives sure of receiving a much higher sum as retired pay than those who had not served so long a period of their lives on active duty. In respect to what might be called non-service, the Order provided that when a lieutenant or commander had been five years from sea, a captain seven years from sea, or when 10 years had elapsed since an admiral had hauled down his flag, he must join the retired list. The number of admirals on the active list was reduced from 85 to 50. Admirals who served at the Admiralty would count their time there for 10 years exactly in the same way as any other officer; but the time would not count as sea service for the purpose of preventing a flag officer from being placed on the retired list. The most important 323 regulation was that an officer unemployed for 10 years should haul down his flag. Now, considering the continual reconstruction of the fleet; considering also that iron-clads were becoming more and more the fashion, and employment getting less; that, should war break out, the fighting would be done in a very few weeks, instead of an admiral being expected to sail over the sea for several months before anything decisive occurred, was it unwise that an admiral or captain unemployed for 10 years should not be allowed to have a command? Fifty admirals were a complement ample, but not too large; and it was intended that they should be young and active, and thoroughly fit to command a fleet, while so small amount of service as had of late years been required of flag officers would not continue to be the case. The principle of sea service was supported by high authorities, including Sir John Pakington, who, when the Order of 1866 was published, commenting on the exceptional treatment of Admiralty service, asked why the rule of making an officer either serve or retire should not be uniformly applied. He (the Earl of Camperdown) saw no reason why the Order should prevent flag officers from coming to the Admiralty. It would rather encourage them to join it for five or six years, since there would be a probability of their then obtaining a command. It was desirable, too, that officers should pass more frequently between the Admiralty and the fleet, so as to keep up a communication between them. Could there be a better way of securing Lords of the Admiralty who possessed the confidence of the Navy than the selection of an officer who had lately been at sea, and after a few years would return to active employment? As to vested rights, it was argued that the position of the officers who, under the Order of 1866, accepted service at the Admiralty ought not to be interfered with; but no Order could be passed which did not more or less interfere with existing interests. Up to 1866 the position of an admiral was unassailable—and they might have urged, as in fact they did, that after previous Orders they ought to remain on the active list. Complaints were made then as now, and the flag officers then retired were retired on half their actual pay; whereas the present Order treated them more liberally. 324 Sir Frederick Grey and Admiral Eden were members of the Board which framed the Order of 1866, which did not treat individual interests as vested ones, and there was no reason why the principle laid down in that Order should not now be further extended. He had a strong personal respect for each and every one of the officers referred to, and he hoped the explanation he was prepared to give of the principles which actuated the Board of Admiralty would enable their Lordships to judge whether those principles were right or wrong. He believed that, on the whole, the Order commanded the distinct approval of the Navy. As to the number of lieutenants, there was no fair analogy between the circumstances of the Crimean War and the present time. What sized vessels would be employed 10 years hence was uncertain; but nothing like the same number of lieutenants could be employed as at the time of that war. On the noble Duke's own showing not above 100 beyond the present complement would in any event be required. If, however, it were found that 600 lieutenants were too small for the efficiency of the Navy in a time of great emergency it would be easy to increase the number; and this was better than keeping in enforced idleness a number of young officers, to whom we looked for our future captains, commanders, and admirals. The Rear Admiral and Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom clearly ought to be officers on the active list, and they were so treated, and the creation of additional good-service pensions tenable by officers in retirement would prevent any injury to officers now or hereafter on the retired list. If after the Correspondence had been laid on the Table any noble Lord called attention to the matter, it would be his duty to explain the principles on which the Admiralty had acted, and it would be for their Lordships to judge how far they were right.
EARL GREYI do not differ from my noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) as to its having been necessary to make a considerable change in the regulations for promotion and retirement in the Navy; on the contrary, I believe that it would have been expedient to make even a larger change than has been attempted by the Board of Admiralty, and, instead of merely patching up the exist- 325 ing system of appointing and promoting naval officers, to look more deeply into its inherent defects, with the view of effecting a much more complete reform, and adapting the rides of the service to the wants of the present time. Nor do I join in those complaints which my noble Friend expects to be made as to the bearing of the new regulations on the pecuniary interests of officers—they have other grounds of complaint—but I am prepared to admit that, so far as their pecuniary interests are concerned, the arrangement, on the whole, is not an unfair one. But I chiefly find fault with the measure not on account of the way in which it affects individuals, but because it seems to me injudicious as regards the public, and because the manner in which it was adopted is objectionable. Knowing, as I do, that the House is naturally anxious to proceed to other and important business, omitting all reference to other parts of the recent Order in Council, I will only offer to your Lordships some remarks on the effect of the rules now laid down with regard to the advancement and retirement of flag officers. In the advancement of officers to flag rank, there are two objects in view—first, to create a class of officers eligible for high employment, and, secondly, to confer on officers the reward they have fairly earned by their past services. I think the error into which the Admiralty has fallen has been that of not bearing in mind that in framing the regulations of the service these two objects require to be separately considered. Some years ago I would remind your Lordships that the same difficulties which have led to the promulgation of the recent Order in Council with reference to the naval service, were still more strongly felt in the Army, and that at the beginning of the Crimean War a Commission, of which I had the honour of being a Member, was appointed to consider what changes ought to be made in the rules as to promotion in the Army for the purpose of enlarging the field of selection for officers for important commands. That Commission, which included both several distinguished military officers and gentlemen who had filled high offices in the civil administration of the Army, unanimously came to the conclusion, that unless the two objects I have mentioned—that namely, of providing a sufficiently large class of 326 Officers eligible for commands to afford a proper field for selection, and that of rewarding past services—were separately considered it would be impossible to do justice both to the public on the one hand, and to the officers of the Army on the other. The Commission, therefore, advised in their Report, that in order to extend the field for the selection of officers for command, all colonels who had fulfilled certain conditions of service should be eligible for employment as general officers, without reference to seniority; and that, at the same time, the rules which then existed, and by which officers rose regularly by seniority to the rank of generals, should continue substantially unaltered. This unanimous recommendation of the Commission was adopted by the Government, and the effect was, that while the just expectations of officers of reward for their past services were not interfered with, an ample field was opened for the selection of officers for actual commands from those who were still in the vigour of their age. The system thus adopted in the Army on the advice of the Commission has, in my opinion, on the whole worked well, though, in consequence of some faults of detail in the scheme itself, and of still greater faults in the manner in which it was applied by the authorities to whom the discretion of acting upon it was entrusted, the stream of promotion in the Army is still less rapid than would be desirable. But in the Navy not only in the present, but in previous Orders in Council, a different principle has been adopted. Flag officers have been divided into those on the active and on the retired list; those on the active list being considered alone eligible not only for employment, but also for rising to the highest honorary posts in the profession. Officers are also placed on the one or the other of these lists, not according to their actual fitness for employment, nor yet strictly according to their claims to reward for their past services, but according to arbitrary rules, in which these two considerations are confounded together. Being on the active list does not in the least show that an officer is really fit for employment; it only shows that he has fulfilled certain conditions of service, and that he has served within a certain time. The new rules would allow an admiral to remain on the active list though he had become bedridden, and, on the other 327 hand, they would have prevented Lord Lyons from being employed in the Crimean War, in which he served with so much advantage to the country, because more than 10 years had elapsed since he was afloat. Surely an arrangement cannot be regarded as satisfactory which would have excluded from employment a man so eminently fit for it as Lord Lyons, and yet provides no security for preventing the list of those eligible for employment from being crowded with officers no longer fit for it. It is not less objectionable in its operation in determining what officers are to succeed to the highest honorary posts in the profession. The new Order in Council says that no officers shall rise to the posts of Admiral of the Fleet or Tice Admiral of the United Kingdom unless they are on the active list. But, I suppose because it was felt that this would inflict an injustice which would be quite intolerable on some officers, a proviso is added that officers who were in the actual command of ships before 1815 should remain on the active list. Those officers cannot now be loss than 80 years old. Is there airy common sense, then, in retaining them on the active list? If being Admiral of the Fleet or Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom implied that the officers holding those posts were to go to sea, it would be simply absurd to provide for allowing them to be held by men of so advanced an age; but if—as is the fact—these are merely honorary appointments, look at the injustice which will be inflicted by confining them to officers on the active list, under the rules now laid down. Sir Michael Seymour, whose services have been so long and so distinguished, including employment in two Chinese wars, will be excluded because he happens to have passed the age at which he must be placed on the retired list before a vacancy arises, and another officer with, perhaps, less than half his claims may be appointed to it, merely because he has not then attained that age. Being on the active list ought either to be taken as indicating the officers eligible for employment—and, in that case, being retained upon it, should depend not upon the past services of an officer, but on his actual fitness, periodically tested—or else it ought to be regarded as a reward for past services, and in that case officers ought not to be 328 excluded from it, and thus prevented from rising to the highest honorary posts in their profession on account of not having been employed for a certain time. My noble Friend the noble Duke has justly pointed out that the operation of the rules, as they stand, will be most injurious to the public service with reference to the Board of Admiralty. He has told your Lordships that already there is a disposition on the part of able and experienced officers whose services are needed at the Board to prefer serving afloat. Nothing then can be more unwise than to give to such officers a new motive for reluctance to serve at the Admiralty by refusing to allow their services at the Board to reckon as a qualification for the highest rewards of the profession. And I would point out to your Lordships that this is directly contrary to the policy pursued in the Army. I find that by the latest warrant regulating promotion in the Army, employment in various offices of which the duties are purely civil is allowed to reckon as well as more strictly military service in qualifying colonels to rise to be general officers. Thus, the Inspector of Clothing and the members of the Council of Military Education are allowed to reckon the time they have given to these duties as qualifying them for promotion, and most properly—you want to induce able men to accept the employment and therefore make it carry with it a due reward. The duties of naval officers on the Board of Admiralty are far more important and arduous than those of the officers I have mentioned, and ought not to be differently regarded. I cannot conclude without adding a few words on the manner in which this measure has been adopted. My noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) has told us that notwithstanding the objections that have been taken to this Order in Council it has been accepted with satisfaction by the great majority of naval officers. I do not know where my noble Friend has got this information, certainly all that I have been able to obtain has been of a very opposite character. I am told that the oldest officers in the service have said that there never was a time within their recollection in which there prevailed among their brother officers so general a feeling of dissatisfaction and of insecurity. This arose even less from 329 the faults in the Order itself—great as they were — than from the manner in which it was adopted. My noble Friend the noble Duke has pointed out to you that before the Order in Council of 1866 was passed, the scheme of retirement to which it was to give effect was laid before the House of Commons, and, after full opportunity had been given of considering it in all its details, a vote in approval of it was obtained, and that it was not until this had been done, and till all who felt themselves aggrieved by it had thus been enabled to urge their objections to it, that it was formally submitted to Her Majesty in Council and passed. The Order of the present year, on the contrary, was actually passed before any authentic statement of its provisions was given to the public, so that no opportunity whatever was given of discussing them while this might still have been of use. My noble Friend has pointed out that this mode of proceeding is open to great objections; but there is one most important circumstance connected with it which he has not mentioned, and which renders it still more deserving of censure. Your Lordships are aware what is the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. You know that it is composed of a First Lord, who for many years has always been a civilian, and of Junior Lords, two or three of whom are naval officers. Technically, all the members of the Board have equal power, and every determination it comes to must be sanctioned by a majority of those present. It has, however, always been understood that the First Lord being a Cabinet Minister, and representing the Government, has a right to expect that the junior members of the Board, though entitled freely to express their opinion on every question that may arise, should, as a general rule, defer to his judgment. But while the supreme authority, and the responsibility which this authority carries with it, rests with the First Lord, the professional members of the Board are justly regarded as having a certain responsibility for its measures. It is their duty to take care that no measures injuriously affecting their brother officers or the general interests of the profession shall be hastily adopted, and while, in all ordinary cases after having stated their own opinions, they properly defer to that of their Chief, on questions of the highest 330 importance, they ought rather to resign, than become parties to decisions to which they entertain strong and insurmountable objections. It would not be difficult to mention cases in which this view of the position of the Junior Lords of the Admiralty has been acted upon—a remarkable one occurs to my mind of a distinguished admiral who left the Board, because he could not carry an increase in the crews assigned to the several classes of ships of war which he believed to be indispensable. In this respect the position of the Junior Lords of the Admiralty does not differ from that of the subordinate members of all other Departments of the Government. An Under Secretary of State, for instance, does not hesitate in all ordinary cases to carry into effect the orders of his superior, though they may not be in accordance with his own opinion; but it is his duty to resign when the Government adopts any measure of very high importance in which he feels he cannot honestly concur. This was once my own case when I felt myself compelled to resign the Office of Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, though my own father was at the head of the Government, because it decided not to adopt so large a measure as I believed to be necessary for the abolition of colonial slavery. In all the Departments of the State a necessary and a proper check is thus imposed on the Ministers at their head, without interfering with their legitimate authority; but with regard to this Order in Council on naval promotions and retirement this check has been virtually set aside, unless the statements made in the other House of Parliament and in the newspapers are erroneous. It appears from these statements that the new scheme of retirement was never brought before the Board of Admiralty at all; that it was not till after it had been formally sanctioned by Her Majesty that one, at least, of the naval Lords was aware of its provisions, and that a strong disapproval of some of these provisions has since been expressed by more than one of them. The passing of an Order in Council so deeply affecting the interests of the Navy in a manner which has deprived the Naval Lords of the Admiralty of their legitimate opportunity of bringing forward their objections to it, has necessarily created in the minds of their brother 331 officers who look to them for protection from measures unfairly affecting them, a strong feeling of dissatisfaction and of insecurity for the future.
§ Motion agreed to.