HL Deb 02 May 1887 vol 314 cc505-19
LORD SUDELEY

, in rising to call attention to the present system of retirement in the Navy, and to the Hock which at present exists in the Lieutenants' List; and to ask, Whether the Admiralty propose to take any steps to improve the position of lieutenants? said, that he did not wish to cast any blame on the retirement scheme of 1870. In fact, he looked upon it as a settled charter which could not be altered, and which had, on the whole, worked very well. Their Lordships, doubtless, remembered the state of the retirement list of all ranks before 1870, the endless confusion that existed, the number of retirement lists with separate letters of the alphabet to each, and the perfect block of promotion. Year by year feeble attempts were made to overcome the difficulties that surrounded the question; but it was not until 1870 that any considerable attempt was really made to grapple with them. The general result had been very satisfactory, and he was glad to find that the calculations made by Mr. Childers as to cost had been fully borne out. Mr. Childers said that the cost of the executive officers (including navigating officers) on non-effective pay would rise for a few years and then gradually diminish. This had been the case. In 1870–1 the cost was £387,798; in 1875–6 the cost was £456,185; and in 1887–8 it was to be £341,540. One great principle of the scheme was that there were to be young officers on all the lists, and with that object Mr. Childers gave a high retired pay. Unless that principle was kept up, the greatest advantage of the whole scheme would disappear. He wished to call attention to the state of the lieutenants' list, because he thought the time had arrived when some special help must be given to that list, so that the wheels of the retirement scheme might be made to work smoothly. In the lieutenants' list a block which was not foreseen had arisen, and the average age was getting older year by year. If the Admiralty did not act promptly very great discontent might result, and probably so much pressure would be exercised upon the Naval Authorities that they would find it impossible to resist a large inflation of the upper lists, in order to give what was called a "flow of promotion." That there was grave discontent among the lieutenants, who were the backbone of the Service, no one could deny. The total number of lieutenants and navigating officers now authorized was 1,000. It was thought in 1870 that it would be possible to keep the number down to 600, with 200 for navigating duties, making a total of 800, but in 1879 it was found necessary to raise the number by another 200. It had not yet been found practicable to get the list up to the authorized number. There were still only 873 lieutenants, and he believed that it would be seven or eight years before the entries as naval cadets would make it possible for the full number to be reached. The annual average number of promotions was only about 23, and it was only possible for two lieutenants out of nine ever to be promoted. This constituted the great cause of complaint; because the list was below its authorized numbers it had been impossible to allow any special retirements. In 1871 there were 79 lieutenants of over 10 years' seniority; in 1879 there were 150; in 1883 there were 193; and in April, 1887, there were no less than 279, or nearly one-third of the entire list. Now, it was well known that when a lieutenant had over 10 years' seniority he had arrived at an age when—unless he had a prospect of promotion within the next two or three years—he was bound to become more or less discontented and unsettled. What was specially wanted in the Navy was that the lieutenants' list should be kept young and efficient. At present it was perfectly clear that the list during the next few years would get considerably older, with the very greatest disadvantage to the Service in general. When a lieutenant became over 12 years' seniority he knew that he could never reach the higher grades of the Service, but would, even if promoted, have to be retired either as commander or captain. It was absolutely necessary also that young men should be selected for promotion to commanders, as otherwise the age would be raised in every rank, and there would be constant expensive retirement. A pamphlet had lately been published, which he understood had been approved by nearly all the lieutenants on the list, pointing out very fairly their complaints in respect to promotion, position, and pay. He was told that it was contemplated to increase the commanders' list slightly. If that were done because of the requirements of the Service, it would be a wise course; but if it were done merely in order to facilitate promotion, much as he desired to benefit the lieutenants, the result would be most disastrous. The captains' and commanders' lists must be small, and an attempt to increase them, except for the requirements of the Service, would do away with the main features of the retirement scheme of 1870, and there would be no stop to it. In respect to promotion, the lieutenants seemed to desire that certain special regulations should be enacted in their favour, so that every man might have a certainty of promotion to commander. On this point he could not go with them, as they asked what it was impossible to concede. In framing the scheme of 1870, Mr. Childers laid this down very clearly. He stated— No lieutenant should be deemed to have a moral right to promotion; but promotion from his rank or that of commander was to be purely by selection on account of efficiency and prospective usefulness. The idea of promotion from that rank merely to enable a good flow to be secured was absolutely rejected. So soon as there were a sufficient number on the list, the only way in which the matter could be dealt with was by allowing the optional retirement at an earlier age, of, say, from 32 to 35, to all lieutenants who found that from various causes they were not likely to obtain promotion. At present no man had the right to retire until he was 40 years of age, and although the Admiralty had obtained an Order in Council to enable them to allow officers to retire younger that power was not known in the Service. It would be far better that officers should be allowed to leave at a period when there was some prospect of their being enabled to obtain a livelihood in other professions, and it would be far more economical that you should retire men young than that you should retire men from age when captains and commanders at much higher rates. Some inducement ought to be offered to officers to accept this optional retirement, and if £100 were given in addition to the present retirement it would be found to work. A man of 32 to 35 ought to be able to retire upon about £200 a-year as a minimum. It was supposed under the present scheme that a lieutenant could retire at about £300 a-year. Although this was true under special circumstances if he held on until he was 45, no one had succeeded in obtaining so high an amount; and, as a matter of fact, the average rate of retirement was only about £150. As regarded the question of position, there could be no doubt that during the last few years there had been changes in the relative rank of officers of the civil branches which had placed them higher in many ways than the lieutenants. With respect to pay, a considerable change might be made at a very small expense. In the "Lieutenants' Pamphlet" this matter was stated very clearly. The pay of the ordinary lieutenant was the same now as it was in the year 1841—namely, 10s. a-day, the only difference being an increase of 2s. per day after ten years' service. This rate was small even in 1841; but it was absurdly small when one considered the highly-trained scientific officers of the present day. Forty-seven years ago a lieutenant had to be a thorough seaman, efficient in the command of men, and possessed of a general knowledge of gunnery, but he was not supposed to do much more. Now, he was required to be not only a thorough seaman, but a competent scientific officer, able to manage huge and unwieldy ironclads; well acquainted with engines, hydraulic gunnery, and torpedoes in all their branches; able to command a naval brigade on shore, to navigate and pilot his vessal, and to have a general knowledge of International Law. Some increase, therefore, ought to be made in the pay which was given 4o years ago. No doubt it was urged that extra allowances were given besides this 10s. a-day for definite qualifications, and this was certainly true for trained officers, principally instructors, at from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a-day. This was merely special pay for special work, and the average lieutenant's pay remained the same—namely, 10s. a-day. He found that there were 58 gunnery officers, 34 torpedo, and 137 senior lieutenants receiving these special allowances for this special work. It was sometimes urged that there was an unlimited supply of naval cadets forthcoming, and therefore there was no necessity to raise the pay of lieutenants. This was a most unfair argument to use, because a boy of 14 did not calculate what he had to look forward to. In 1841 a lieutenant was the be3t paid officer of that rank, and now in 1837 he was the worst paid. In 1841 lieutenants received 10s. a-day; in 1887, 10s., rising to 12s.; in 1841, masters received 7s. a-day; in 1887, 12s., rising to 22s.; in 1841, assistant surgeons received 7s. a-day; in 1887, Us. 6d., rising to 27s.; in 1841, chaplains received 8s. 9d.; in 1887, 12s., rising to 22s.; in 1811, naval instructors received 7s. a-day; in 1887, 12s., rising to 22s.; and in 1841, paymasters received 7s. a-day; in 1887, 12s., rising to 22s. The lieutenants asked that progressive pay should be given, as had been done in every other branch. They proposed that the extra 2s. which was now given when they had 10 years' seniority should be given at eight years instead, and a further 2s. when they had served 11 years. This increase would, he believed, only cost about £ 10,000, and if it brought with it moderate contentment it would be cheaply purchased. The lieutenants who were of 10 years' seniority had, with their junior service, actually been. 20 years in the service. Lot their Lordships think what it must be to a man to find himself with no chance of promotion before him after this service, and to have to remain a lieutenant until he was 40 years old on £216 a-year. We had at the Admiralty at the present moment a Board who were eminently fitted to deal with the subject, and Admiral Sir Anthony Hoskins, who had special charge of the Department, was one of our most able and distinguished Admirals, and one who had the interests of lieutenants most thoroughly at heart. He had consulted several great authorities on the suggestion he had made, and they all agreed. Perhaps there was no one who had given greater attention to the subject of retirement than Admiral Colomb, and had worked out the most copious statistics on the subject. He most cordially concurred in. the plan of optional retirement at an early age and increased pay. Mr. Childers allowed him to say that he also quite approved an optional retirement at an early age. There was much more that might be said on the subject; but he thought he had said enough to show that the lieutenants' list was in a most unsatisfactory condition. For many years the numbers would be short, and, in consequence, it would be impossible to do much either in retirement or by promotion year by year. In consequence the number of senior men would greatly increase, which would be a serious evil, not only to the lieutenants themselves, but to the Naval Service generally. The only possible alleviation at present that he could see open was a small progressive increase of pay, and a promise of optional retirement in the future. He ventured to say that this was a serious matter. The lieutenants were, as he had already said, the backbone of the Service. It was from this list that all our captains and commanders had to be selected, and whatever was hurtful to and detrimental to this body of officers must work with most disastrous effect on those who would command our ships. An officer in the Navy required special consideration. Life at sea was surrounded with perils and dangers which only those who had gone through them could tho- roughly appreciate. When one thought of the years spent in different seas under the strictest discipline, far removed from the joys and happiness of home life, continually undergoing long night watches and monotonous voyages, it was impossible for the severest critic not to have a deep feeling of sympathy for these gallant officers, and to be most anxious that any feeling of discontent as to their pay and position should be speedily removed. Of this he was quite certain—that we had now a picked body of lieutenants, men imbued with the finest sense of honour and with the deepest devotion to their duties; and if the prayer of the petition which the lieutenants had put forward in their pamphlet was not entertained, he thought it would be one of the greatest mistakes that it would be possible to make. He trusted that the noble Lord who represented the Admiralty would be able to give a satisfactory reply.

THE EARL OF BELMORE

said, he wished to say a few words on the case which had been so clearly stated by the noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Sudeley). The small increase of pay which was made three years ago was in consequence of his having brought this subject before the notice of their Lordships in 1883. He then asked that 1s. a-day extra pay might be granted to officers of eight years' standing and upwards. The noble Earl who was then First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook) was not able to do anything in that year, but in the following year he provided for an increase of 2s. a-day to all lieutenants of 10 years' standing and upwards. That increase gave great satisfaction then, but he thought the time had now arrived when something more ought to be done, and he agreed with his noble Friend that the request of the lieutenants, as far as the increase of pay was concerned, should be acceded to. He did not intend, to offer any observations upon this question of retirement or choice of cabins, as he was not an authority upon those subjects, not having had the advantage of serving in the Navy. But there was no doubt but that the position of the lieutenants was much more unfavourable now than it was, say, 20 years ago. To show this, he would mention two matters within his own observation. When he went to Australia, he found, on his arrival at Sydney, six ships on the station. Three were commanded by commanders; the other three were corvettes, commanded by post captains—one of these captains was the Commodore. He was then only about 40, having been appointed when 39.He had been posted at 26. Another, the late Admiral Hope, who had been flag lieutenant to Admiral Corry in the Baltic, had been made a captain at 32. The third, now Admiral Lyons, had become a captain at 27. But it might be said that two of those officers had had war service in the Black Sea during the Crimean War; whilst the third, as he had said, had been a flag lieutenant. He would, therefore, take another case. In 1866 the Duke of Somerset, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, brought out a new Warrant for the promotion of commanders, and 31 were, as it were, by a single stroke of the pen, promoted on June 11, who had been serving, probably, in all parts of the world. As a very near relation of his own was amongst the number, the matter had the more impressed itself on his memory. Of these 31 officers, only four were over 40 years of age; one was 51, three were 40,or between that and 50. The remaining 27 were between 30 and 40. The junior of these—not in age, but in standing—had five and a-half years' standing as a commander. Their average age was between 37 and 38. These men were made post captains. Nowadays, a lieutenant would be rather fortunate to be made a commander at 32 or 33, and 37 would not be a bad average of age for that rank. He thought that the lieutenants had a very strong case; and he felt sure that his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would give the matter his careful consideration, and do all he could for them consistently with the requirements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

LORD ELPHINSTONE (A LORD in WAITING)

said, he must, in the first place, take the opportunity of thanking his noble Friend. (Lord Sudeley) for having so fully and so courteously explained the question he intended putting. He was not surprised at his calling attention to the subject, for it was one in which he knew his noble Friend took a deep interest, and he also remembered the very active and prominent part he took in the other House of Parliament when the question of naval retirement was under discussion in 1870 and 1873. The Admiralty were keenly alive to the matter. The problem how to insure a steady and an uniform flow of promotion through the various ranks of the Naval Service was one that successive Boards of Admiralty had for many years been endeavouring to solve. And he could assure his noble Friend that the present Board were as anxious to find a solution as he was himself. He would endeavour to show the causes which had led to the present state of the lieutenant's list. It was unnecessary to refer to the earlier schemes of retirement, or to any anterior to that of 1870, when Mr. Childers, then First Lord of the Admiralty, re-organized the list and introduced his retirement scheme, which, with slight modifications, was the present scheme of naval retirement. Mr. Childers's object was to reduce the list, first, by a compulsory age retirement, and, secondly, by giving such an increase to the retiring pension as would not only induce officers to retire but would make them contented to do so. Two hundred and seventy officers accepted that retirement. Three years afterwards, in 1873, Mr. Goschen, who succeeded Mr. Childers as First Lord, still further increased the retiring pension, as it was found that officers were not retiring as quickly as it was hoped and expected that they would do. About 170 officers accepted the new retirement. Under the scheme of 1870, Mr. Childers desired that the numbers should be only sufficient for the actual requirements of the Service with reference to employment and not as outlets for promotion. He therefore fixed the number of admirals at 60, captains at 150, commanders at 200, and lieutenants at 600. But, fully recognizing the difficulty, or rather the absolute impossibility, of passing 600 lieutenants into a list of only 200 commanders, he increased the retiring allowance, and gave what was considered an adequate and a liberal compensation for loss of promotion. He saw, in fact, that it was quite out of the question to hope to pass every young officer who entered the Service through the various grades until he became an admiral. He therefore said, in effect—"If I am unable to promote you, I will at any rate give you a fair money compensation when you retire." He spoke in the presence of a noble Earl opposite who was a Lord of the Admiralty at that time. He would correct him if he was wrong, but he said that the very essence of the retirement scheme of 1870 was that, where an officer could not be promoted—and it was perfectly clear that all could not be promoted—they should be liberally compensated on retirement. In 1875 the number of admirals was increased to 68, of captains to 175, of commanders to 225; and in 1879 the lieutenants' list was increased to 800. Now, if a difficulty existed in 1870, when 600 lieutenants had to be squeezed into a list of 200 commanders, that difficulty was the greater when 800 lieutenants had to be squeezed into a list of 225 commanders. In the same year—1879—it was determined that the masters or navigating line should be abolished, and that the duties of navigating should be undertaken by the lieutenants. The navigating line was gradually to die out, and the number of lieutenants was gradually to increase until it reached its maximum of 1,000, which it would do in about six years. Anyone who had followed him through the figures he had given would readily understand the cause of the present state of the lieutenants' lists, and the limited possibilities of those officers rising to the rank of commander. The noble Lord opposite had referred in terms of well-merited praise to lieutenants as a class. He echoed every word. He yielded to no one in his admiration of their zeal and ability, and of the way they had set themselves to keep pace with the altered conditions of the Service and of the requirements of the times; and he sympathized with them in the difficulty they experienced in obtaining that promotion which they naturally looked to as their reward. He said more. He said that the Admiralty sympathized, and sympathized deeply, especially with the senior and deserving officers for whom no promotion was to be found. The commanders' list stood at present at 225. The Admiralty, finding that they could usefully employ a larger number of commanders, proposed to increase that number by the addition of seven yearly, until the maximum of 270 was reached, and they were in communication with the Treasury upon the subject. This addition to the commanders' list would, to a certain extent, benefit the lieutenants. At present two out of nine obtained commander's rank. If the proposed change were carried out, two out of seven would obtain their promotion. In former times the number was about one in every 15. The noble Lord opposite proposed that lieutenants should be allowed to claim their retirement after 10 years' service as lieutenants. Under the existing regulations a lieutenant might claim his retirement with the rank of commander at the age of 40; but, were his noble Friend's suggestion carried out, a lieutenant would be entitled to claim his retirement at the age of from 30 to 35, at the very time when his services could be least dispensed with, and his experience was most valuable, and irrespective of the requirements of the Service at the time. At the present moment there were 875 lieutenants on the active list; and if this suggestion were carried out no less than 243, or more than one-fourth, could claim their retirement. Take this case. There were 88 lieutenants serving in the Mediterranean, 19 of whom were over 10 years' seniority; therefore, nearly one-fourth could insist upon retirement. Under the Order in Council of 1870 lieutenants could retire at any time, with the consent of the Admiralty, no matter what their seniority might be. The Admiralty were the best judges as to the present requirements of the Service, and they were and must be the sole judges as to the prospective requirements of the Service. To them, and to them alone, must be left the option of consent or non-consent to the application of an officer wishing to retire at an age under that fixed by the Order in Council of 1870. The Admiralty had no wish to compel any officer to serve against his will, nor was it to the interests of the Service that any reluctant or discontented officer should be retained whose services could properly be dispensed with, but so long as the lieutenants' list was below the proper strength and there were no officers available on half-pay, as was the case as present, they were bound to refuse applications to retire before the age established by the Order in Council of 1870, save in very exceptional cases. With regard to the suggestion that lieutenants should receive an increase of 2s. a-day after eight years' seniority, with a further increase of 2s. after 12 years' seniority, instead of as, at present, 2s. after 10 years, he must remind his noble Friend that the actual amount received by a very large proportion of the lieutenants was greater now than at any former time, and that out of 875 lieutenants no less than 337 were in receipt of additional pay, varying from 1s. a-day to a possible 8s. as first lieutenant and gunnery lieutenant of a rated ship. He could only repeat that the Admiralty were fully alive to the matter. They were desirous of taking such steps as were feasible to improve the position of the lieutenants without departure from the principles laid down by the Order in Council of 1870, and they were giving the matter their fullest, their serious, and their most earnest consideration.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, he was at the Admiralty in 1870 and was familiar with the terms of the Order in Council of that year. This question of promotion and retirement was a question which had always been occupying the attention of the Admiralty, and would continue to occupy their attention so long as the Admiralty existed. When in 1868 Mr. Childers had this question of promotion and retirement brought under his notice the evils of the system had reached a very high pitch. The condition of things then was altogether different from that which now prevailed. The references that evening had been confined to one rank of officers; but with regard to the other ranks there had been an enormous block on the captains' list, and the same remark applied to other classes of officers. The principle which Mr. Childers applied consistently to every rank in the Navy was this. In the first place, he reduced the number; in the next place, he laid down the principle that in future establishments of each rank should be in proportion to the number of officers whom it was found impossible to employ, and not in reference to the number of other lists. He believed that principle to be a most important one, and he trusted that the Admiralty would never give it up. But beyond that Mr. Childers recognized that it would be impossible to promote all the officers of the various ranks, and therefore for the first time he instituted a very large and liberal scale of retirement. He would undertake to say that the scale of retirement in the Navy would compare very favourably indeed with that of any other Service either in this country or any other. It was quite true that it was perfectly impossible to promote 1,000 lieutenants with a list of some 250 commanders, and therefore their Lordships must at once recognize the absolutely certain fact that a large number of lieutenants never could be promoted, and by no scheme that ingenuity could devise would it be possible to effect that object. Well, then, what wore the Admiralty to do? It must give them an adequate retiring allowance. That was a matter which rested entirely with the Admiralty, and their Lordships must look to the Admiralty to do that which was right. With regard to the proposed addition to the list of commanders, he did not, of course, profess to be able to judge how much employment there was for the commanders; but he hoped the Admiralty would exercise a very diligent scrutiny in this regard and take care not to create more commanders than they could find employment for, because that could only add eventually to the numbers of the discontented. It would be useless and prejudicial to the Service to make an addition to the commanders' list simply as a sort of sop to the lieutenants in the hope that by promoting a few just now they might allay the discontent owing to the necessary want of employment. His noble Friend had spoken of the inadequate pay of the lieutenants; but he omitted, to notice certain allowances which they received, and it must not be supposed that the pay was on the same footing as in 1841. Again, the proposition that a lieutenant should have an absolute option of retiring at the age of 32, as suggested by his noble Friend (Lord Sudeley)—considering that for five years, from 13 to 18, the country educated naval officers, and that at the latter ago their services really commenced—was surely one that was not advanced in a serious manner; at all events, he did not believe it was one which the country was likely to accept. He thought that there was no Naval Service in the world in which the officers were treated more liberally than the British.

VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH

said, he could not agree that an adequate scheme of retirement would meet the necessity of the case. An officer who was still a lieutenant at the age of 35 was placed in an entirely false position, for he could not find any possible pursuit on shore. In the interests of the Service it was not so much a question of money as of early promotion or of the officer being allowed to retire at an age when he might find some employment on shore. He remembered Lord Palmerston saying that the great object of the Military and Naval Services was promotion and not pay, and he hoped the Admiralty would give their j attention, not so much to the subject of | increased remuneration of officers as to their early promotion when lieutenants. He would now take the opportunity to ask the Question standing in his name with regard to interpreters. The number of officers qualified as interpreters was very much below that which was found in almost any other Navy in the world. There were about 90 officers of various ranks who are qualified so to act. Out of those not above 16 or 18 were qualified in French, only four in German, and about two in Italian. All the rest were officers qualified in Eastern languages which might or might not be extremely useful, but certainly not so much in the Naval Service as a thorough knowledge of the leading European languages. In the German Service there was hardly an officer who was not a thorough English and French scholar, and the same might be said with regard to Russia. Every Russian officer not only spoke excellent English, but was also thoroughly conversant with French, and most with German. He therefore wished to know whether the Admiralty would give further encouragement to the junior classes of Naval officers to qualify themselves to act as interpreters.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

said, he wished to express his entire concurrence in the expressions which had been, made use of with regard to the high merits of the large class of lieutenants. There was no branch of the gallant and distinguished service which deserved more encouragement than the lieutenants of the Navy. It had constantly been a subject of great regret to successive First Lords of the Admiralty that they were unable to grant promotion to a great many of this class, whose claims they thoroughly acknowledged. He approved of the policy which the noble Lord opposite had told them the Admi- ralty were about to follow. If it could be done with a duo regard to the interests of the public service, he thought it was wise to increase the number of commanders and thereby give additional promotion to lieutenants. It would not be to the advantage of the Service if the commanders' list was to be largely increased without additional employment being found for them; but, owing to the amalgamation of the navigating officers with the lieutenants, and the increase in the number of small vessels, he believed that such employment might be found. He thought that the Admiralty were right in effecting the change gradually. The responsibility must naturally rest upon the Admiralty, and he could entirely confirm what had been said with regard to Sir A. Hoskins, to whose particular branch this question referred, and in whose hands this matter was placed. For this reason he, for his own part, felt great confidence in the view which the Admiralty had taken of this matter, and he trusted that the proposals which the noble Lord had told them were about to be made would receive the assent of all the authorities concerned, because they would give considerable encouragement to the older lieutenants on the list, by holding out a greater prospect of promotion, which they wanted more than increased pay or speedier retirement from the Service.

LORD ELPHINSTONE

said, that he always received his instructions from the Admiralty before he answered Questions which were placed on the Paper, and his answer to the Question of the noble Viscount (Viscount Sidmouth) was that the Admiralty fully appreciated the desirability of the junior officers acquiring a knowledge of foreign languages, and their attention had been called to the matter in connection with the Britannia course of instruction, but the Admiralty did not propose to hold out any hope of further pecuniary inducement.