SUPPLY—NAVAL APPOINTMENTS. (Hansard, 26 July 1850)

§ SIR G. PECHELL
rose to call the attention of the House to the case of the retired rear-admirals, and also to the judicial appointments of vice-admiral and rear-admiral of the united kingdom, lie said, that in 1845 a plan had been issued by the Admiralty relative to the retirement of captains in the Royal Navy, for the wise pur- 347 pose of infusing some young blood into the list. This plan was unattended with any compulsory regulation. In 1846 another plan was issued, which differed from the plan of 1845, inasmuch as it called on captains either to accept or refuse the retirement offered. Several captains at the top of the list were in possession of civil appointments, and they were told that if they did not accept the retirement offered, they would lose these appointments. The first case which occurred under the new regulation was that of Captain Hornby, who was comptroller of the Coast Guard, and who, on his turn arriving for becoming an admiral, had to give up that appointment. The next case to which he would allude was that of Captain Beaufort, who held the situation of hydrographer to the Admiralty. When it became this officer's turn to be made an admiral, he was told that if he did not allow himself to be placed on the retired list, he must resign his appointment at the Admiralty. He accepted the retirement offered. Now here were two cases—one that of an officer losing his situation for non-compliance, and the other that of an officer retaining his appointment by compliance. Now, there was something in this which looked like compulsion. He had now to touch on the real grievance. It pleased the late Sir Robert Peel, during the time when he held office—and it was certainly a wise act of that lamented statesman—to fill up appointments at Greenwich Hospital with naval officers. At this period a gallant officer, who had served under Lord Exmouth, Captain, now Sir Henry Hart, was appointed a Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital. Now, when it became his turn to become an admiral, he thought it wise to comply with the Admiralty regulation, and accepted the retirement so as to retain his situation. Still Sir Henry Hart thought he was acting under compulsion. The officer who next succeeded on a vacancy as Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital, Sir Watkyn Owen Pell, was allowed to retain his place, and yet to remain on the active list. This was an anomaly which Sir H. Hart could not understand. He had never looked forward to being put on the retired list, a position foreign to his feelings; but Sir Watkyn Pell had somehow battled it out with the Admiralty. Now, he apprehended, there were precedents for allowing admirals to hold civil appointments, and yet to be on the acting list. Sir Augustus Clifford, who sometimes knocked at the door 348 of that House, and discharged his duties very properly, was allowed to retain his situation of Usher of the Black Rod, and yet he was an admiral. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury had laid it down, during the discussion with Admiral Napier, that the office of Lords of the Admiralty was a civil appointment. Now, he would like to know why the Lords of the Admiralty did not impose on themselves the regulations they imposed on others. He was sure those gallant Gentlemen would do their duty to their country whenever their services were required; but why should there be a distinction drawn between holding a civil appointment at Charing-cross and a civil appointment at Greenwich? The plan of retirement was considered as a boon, but it was never expected that officers at the top of the list would accept the retirement. He hoped that, having brought forward the case of Sir Henry Hart, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would give it his consideration. He now came to the second branch of his subject. Three rewards were given to three admirals. One, the admiral of the fleet, was an appointment made by the Admiralty; the other two appointments, those of vice-admiral and rear-admiral of the united kingdom, were made by the First Lord of the Treasury, and were judicial appointments. These offices were intended for the senior admiral and the two next admirals, according to the seniority. He found, from the estimates every year, that the senior admiral held two appointments, those of admiral and vice-admiral of the fleet, and thereby an injustice was done to the gallant officer who was next in succession in point of seniority. The senior admiral was a man most distinguished in the service, and therefore he did not wish to make any invidious remarks. He would only say that, when the vice-admiral got his promotion as senior admiral, he should have been called upon to resign the inferior before he obtained the superior appointment. As it was, this double appointment operated most unjustly towards one of the most distinguished ornaments to the service, Admiral Sir Edward Codrington, by depriving him of a reward which, during a long life, he had looked forward to. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would remedy this practical injustice.

SIR F. BARING
must oppose the Motion. He was not aware that any rule existed which debarred admirals in the service from holding civil appointments. The rule no more existed in the naval than it did in the military service. He therefore had no cause to defend such appointments. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to be under the impression that officers were obliged to accept the retirement or to give up their civil appointments. These cases had occurred before he took office; but from all he had heard of Sir Henry Hart's, it appeared to him that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton was under a wrong impression. He believed the acceptance of the retirement was not compulsory on any officer. They accepted it, and it was regarded as a boon. As to the case of Admiral Hornby, he was informed that on his becoming an admiral it was intimated to him that it was inconsistent with that office to hold a captain's appointment. He had never heard any complaint from Sir Francis Beaufort. The place he held was generally held by captains, and he (Sir F. Baring) regarded any arrangement by which this gallant officer's services could be secured to the country as most beneficial. With regard to the office of admiral of the fleet, the hon. and gallant Member was under some mistake. This was an office which was not conferred out of the usual line of seniority. The vice-admiral and the rear-admiral were not appointed according to seniority, but the distinction was conferred by the Crown on the recommendation of the First Lord of the Treasury, on the ground of distinguished merits. The admiral of the fleet drew no salary as vice-admiral, and did not think lie was called upon to resign that appointment, for though he highly valued the office of admiral of the fleet, having obtained it by seniority, he still more highly valued the office of vice-admiral, having obtained it as a reward and recognition of his own merit. He need hardly assure the House that, although Sir Edward Codrington had no claim to the office on the score of seniority, he felt sure that should a vacancy occur he would receive the reward to which his high merit, during a long career in the service of his country, entitled him.

§ SIR J. DUKE
had the honour of serv- 350 ing under Sir Henry Hart during the war, and he could state to the House that this gallant officer felt hurt at the rule laid down by the Admiralty. He could not understand why the Admiralty had imposed on that gallant officer the necessity of resigning his appointment or becoming a superannuated rear-admiral. There was not a more gallant officer in the service than Sir Watkyn Owen Pell; but he could not understand how he had been allowed to receive his flag and retain his civil appointment, when the gallant officer Sir Henry Hart had not been permitted to do so. The same rule ought to have been applied to both cases.

ADMIRAL BERKELEY
said, the difference in the two cases was, that Sir Henry Hart had taken the retirement, knowing he could not rise beyond the rank of rear-admiral, and Sir Watkyn Owen Pell had not accepted it.