MOTION FOR SELECT COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 17 February 1857 vol 144 cc749-62

CAPTAIN SCOBELL rose, pursuant to notice, to move for the appointment of a "Select Committee to inquire into the Naval Administration relating to the Lists of Officers, the Patronage, the Promotions, and the Retirements and the efficiency of the Service in all its grades." The hon. and gallant Member said, that when he made a similar Motion last year, he was told that a time of war was not a proper season for such an inquiry. He felt the force of that objection; but now we were at peace, and he thought that for the investigation which he proposed no time could be more fitting than the present. This was not a party question, but one of naval administrative reform. If the Admiralty were a perfect institution no inquiry was needed; but the prevailing feeling in the navy was that they were unfairly governed. He complained of no Board of Admiralty in particular—he complained of the system. He should probably be told that there had been an inquiry into the administration of the navy in 1848, but it was an inquiry into all its branches, and not this one in particular, and all the recommendations made after that inquiry had failed. He would show that the number of naval officers on half-pay so preponderated over those on full pay, that great expense was caused, and there was little opportunity for naval officers to acquire experience in their profession. In the French and American navies there was some limit to the number of officers appointed, but in this country there was none. Again, in the army, £60,000 a year had been granted for the purpose of allowing officers to retire on full pay, while there was no such provision for the navy. There was this important difference between the army and the navy, that while the army had at its head a soldier who was not removed by a change of Government, the navy was under the direction of a political First Lord; and the consequence was that, while in the army politics had nothing to do with promotion, in the navy they had considerable influence. The Prime Minister lately declared that the army would be insulted; if its promotions issued from the Treasury bench. Last year he gave the names of certain officers in the navy who had risen from lieutenants to be post captains in from three to four years, and he also enumerated others who, having entered the service long before those who had got on so rapidly, were, from the want of family, or political interest, still continued as lieutenants. He would not repeat those names now, but would merely mention the case of the First Naval Lord himself, who gained his steps from lieutenant to post captain in less than four years, while many other veterans, who had equally served their country at the cannon's mouth, were shut out from all such promotion. He trusted that gallant officer would not beat down the claims of his brother officers. Parliamentary influence, rather than long service and experience, forced men forward in the navy, and most deserving men were allowed to remain on the lieutenants' and commanders' lists till they died, or were sent into retirement on pittances wretchedly inadequate compared with the sums paid to officers in the army of corresponding rank. About two-thirds of the lieutenants never rose above that rank, and one-half of the commanders died as such. To begin with the admirals; we had 100 of them on the active list, only fourteen of whom, however, were employed. If we wanted to employ fourteen more, our admirals were so old that we could not obtain them. That, surely, was not a proper state of things. On the active list of captains there were 389 who were liable to be called on to serve, only 112 of whom were employed, the remaining 277 being on half pay. Of active commanders we had 542, of whom 144 were employed, and 398 on half pay. Was that a satisfactory mode of conducting the service? Look at the half pay awarded to these officers. A naval captain, if he had been three years on the list of post captains, held equal rank with a colonel in the army. Now, the half pay of the first 70 of these captains was 14s. 6d. per day, or the same rate as a colonel in the line; nearly 100 more got 12s. 6d., or 2s. less than a colonel; and the remainder received but 10s. 6d. The commanders in the navy ranked with the majors in the army. The senior 150 commanders got 10s. per day, which was fair, being equal to a major's half pay; but the remaining 392 were paid but 8s. 6d. The lower down they went in the list the greater was the injustice done to the navy. We had 1,138 active lieutenants, 795 of them being employed, and marines, 343 on half pay. All captains in the army (with whom these lieutenants ranked) got 7s. per day, but only 34 out of the whole 1,138 naval lieutenants received 7s. per day, and each of the 34 had an average standing of 43 years in the service. The next 154 got but 6s. a day, the next 820 but 5s. and the remainder only 4s. There was a similar injustice as to mates. He now came to the class of naval cadets, who had been admitted more freely than before during the last two years. To neutralise that disturbing element, however, he took the fifteen years between 1842 and 1857 as the basis of his calculation. During that period 1,700 cadets had been admitted, while in the same space of time but 836 lieutenants were made from mates. It was impossible to absorb so great a number of cadets, and the consequence was that many officers had to serve twelve, sixteen, or even twenty years before they obtained lieutenants' commissions. The excess of cadets entering the navy during the last fifteen years, as compared with the lieutenants promoted, was 964. The influx of cadets must be checked, if the pressure for promotion was to be relieved. Not more than forty or fifty per annum ought to be admitted; but last year the number entering was 116; and in the year preceding it was considerably higher. We had no fewer than 641 reserved lieutenants—disappointed men, who had entered the service with all the first freshness of boyhood, but who were now shelved in middle age, put away out of sight, and left to pine in hopeless inactivity. They ranked with captains in the army, who received 7s. per day. The first 37 got 7s.; but the next 509, who were men varying from 29 to 44 years' standing in the service, received but 6s.; the next 80 but 5s., and the remaining 90 only 4s. Two- thirds of those who went upon the lieutenants' list never got beyond it. Could any stronger proof be adduced of the necessity for revising the management of the navy list? Of course no sufficient remedy could be made while the old officers remained alive—except to put them on the same footing, in half pay, as officers of corresponding rank in the army; but as those old officers died off, the numbers on the list should be brought down to a healthy standard. The commanders retired, and reserved, were 431 in number, and ranked with majors in the army. The first 96 of them got 8s. 6d. per day, while a major got 9s. 6d. or 10s., and the remaining 245 got only 7s., being the same scale of half pay as a senior lieutenant of the navy, and a captain in the army received. Nearly half of those gallant men had medals on their breasts even when medals were not scattered broadcast as they were now, and many of them had wounds. There had lately been a large addition made to the retired and reserved captains' lists, and they now numbered 472. Most of these retired captains had been senior commanders of thirty, forty, and fifty years' standing, and all the additional half-pay which they got on being promoted was 6d. a day, making their half-pay 10s. 6d. a day, while the half-pay of officers of corresponding rank in the army and marines was 12s. 6d., 13s. 6d., and 15s. a day. From these officers I have just presented a petition. There was no such thing as full pay in the navy; while there were 165 officers in the marines who had retired on full pay. But worse than this, when these gentlemen were offered the 6d. a day extra, they were told they must give up all claims to Greenwich, and if they did not take what was offered they would have nothing at all. The reason of this injustice was, that the Admiralty was not a paternal Government. Those who were in power there had no certainty that they would not be ousted next week, and they therefore had no interest in setting these things right. As to seamen, the advice he would offer to the Government was to get as many able seamen as they could into the navy in time of peace; to man every ship with two-thirds or three-fourths of able seamen, who, when war came, might be distributed over double the number of ships. To do this a small bounty, and a slight addition of pay, must be given to able seamen, and there ought also to be, as a further inducement, a slight advance of pay at the end of every seven years. At the present moment there were on the active list 2,169 officers, from the rank of admiral down to that of lieutenant. Of these 1,065 were employed, and the rest were on half-pay. The retired and the reserved list numbered 1,711; so that out of the 3,880 admirals, captains, commanders, and lieutenants 2,815 were unemployed. It might be said that the half-pay of officers in the army was higher than that of naval officers, because officers in the army purchased their commissions; but could not they sell them as well? Officers in the marines, artillery, and engineers, about 700 in number, did not purchase, and their half-pay was much larger than that of officers in the navy of the same rank, and, moreover, having gone through the Army List, regiment by regiment, he had no hesitation in saying that one-half of the officers had not purchased their commissions. It might be objected also that Parliament was unwilling to sanction unnecessary additions to the naval estimates, but surely that would not be called an unnecessary charge which was incurred in doing justice to an ill-treated and meritorious body of public servants. He hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would not repeat the ungracious expression which he had used on a former occasion, that "he did not see any peculiar claims on the part of these old officers." No peculiar claim! Why, what claim could be greater than that of men who had spent their lives in the service? His only object in bringing this subject before the House was to increase the efficiency of the navy. By an alteration in the mode of arranging the active list, the inactive list might be reduced, and not only would money be saved, but the officers would be made more contented, they would be enabled to obtain more experience, and be of more value to the service. In the French navy the inactive list was not overloaded as in our service, for it was the practice to keep pretty nearly all the captains afloat. It might be said that the present overloaded state of our list was owing to the reduction at the end of the last French war, but at least 1,200 officers had been added during the peace. He did not want to interfere with the arrangements of the Government, but he had pointed out a specific grievance, and he was prepared to submit to a Committee a definite plan for its remedy. The navy ought to be treated equally as well as the army, for, although in a two years' war the navy had not had the opportunity of winning many laurels, it should never be forgotten that during a twenty-two years' war that arm had kept the enemy from our shores and ruled triumphantly upon the ocean. If the Government would give an assurance that they would take the matter into their consideration he would leave it in their hands. It might, perhaps, be that the 4,000 officers for whom he pleaded were treated unjustly, as compared with the sister service, from oversight and not from intention, but, at all events, redress would not cost more than one of the largest sized transports for a single year. He felt that he had done his duty in asking for inquiry, and he hoped that the merits of the officers would weigh with the House, and not the demerits of their advocate. The grievances were great, and demanded redress.

MR. TITE

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the Naval Administration, relating to the Lists of Officers, the Patronage, the Promotions, and the Retirements, and the efficiency of the Service in all its grades.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said: My hon. and gallant Friend has repeated to-night the Motion which he made last Session. I felt it to be my duty to resist that Motion, and the House of Commons agreed with me that it would not be advisable to appoint a Committee for such a purpose. I do not see that my hon. and gallant Friend has laid before the House any additional reasons for granting inquiry, and I am therefore relieved from the necessity of troubling them with a repetition of the arguments which I felt necessary to address to them last year. My hon. and gallant Friend altogether misrepresents the state of the case when he says, that every successive Board of Admiralty think everything in the state of the navy to be perfect, and never take the trouble to make amendments. I will venture to say, that for the last fifteen years—I might go back further and say, for the last thirty years—there has been no naval administration which has omitted to take some measure or another for the improvement of the condition of officers and of the men of the navy. Every successive Board has made some step in that direction, and my hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me for saying, it is a most unjust accusation which he has made, not only against me, but against the right hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords who have preceded me, in alleging that the Admiralty have for years neglected the state of the navy. My conviction is, that the efficiency of the navy in the late war is attributable to the great improvements which have taken place, in various ways, in consequence of those improvements made by successive boards of Admiralty; and I believe that efficiency has been proved and tested in every rank, from the admiral to the common seaman. My hon. and gallant Friend repeats the charge that appointments are influenced by aristocratic and Parliamentary considerations. It is impossible to meet a general accusation of that kind, except by as general a denial. As far as I am concerned, all I can say is, that if he will be so good as to state any one case in which I have been unduly swayed by Parliamentary, family, or aristocratical influence, I will frankly meet it. I deny the truth of the charge, in the most unqualified manner which the courtesy due to my hon. Friend will allow, and I challenge him to name a single instance. My hon. and gallant Friend complains very much of the number of officers unemployed. No doubt it is perfectly true, that in the higher ranks there are more officers than can be employed. It was a subject which occupied the attention of a Commission of military and naval officers in 1840, and of a Committee of this House in 1848; and it was considered desirable that the number of officers on the lists should be considerably diminished. The course of promotions was checked, and the result has been considerably to diminish the number of officers in the higher ranks for whom employment cannot be provided, but this complaint of my hon. and gallant Friend is totally inconsistent with the complaint he generally makes of the want of adequate promotion, because if you considerably reduce the number of the higher ranks, which are obtained by promotion, the inevitable effect must be, that promotions from the lower ranks must be limited; and, if that be so, young and deserving officers are necessarily deprived of the just reward of their services. My hon. and gallant Friend complained last Session, that on the Committee of 1848 there was no naval officer. I pointed out that both branches of the service were impartially treated, and no officer of the army sat on that Committee. I am not quite clear, that officers are the fittest persons to sit upon an inquiry of the kind. But, I remember, that seven years before a Commission was appointed, consisting principally of naval and military officers, for the purpose of investigating this very question, and the recommendations which they made have been carried into execution, and it is of this my hon. Friend complains. The Committee of 1848 recommended that there should be considerable means of retirement provided to relieve the active list of a number of officers who were never likely to be employed, and that recommendation has been acted upon ever since. An Order in Council was passed, that promotions should be made at the rate of one captain for three removed from the list, one commander for three removed, and so on, and this rule has been rigidly adhered to, except where great services have been performed. The result is, that the captains' and commanders' lists, although higher in number than the Committee recommended, are being gradually reduced. It is perfectly true, although my hon. and gallant Friend seems disposed to deny the fact, that a great number of the officers who fill the lower ranks of the service were placed there by the inordinate promotions at the end of the war, and most of them can only be considered as receiving pensions in the shape of half-pay. As many as 1,000 lieutenants were gazetted in one year, and I made a calculation that if every one had been employed, the last would have been eighty-two when sent to sea as commander. I need not say more to show the utter absurdity of supposing that they could all be employed. The naval Members of the Commission which sat in 1840 were Sir George Cockburn, Sir Thomas Hardy, and Sir Charles Adam—men well acquainted with and most devoted to the service. I have only stated what those naval officers asserted. They stated:— It would be incorrect to attribute the inactivity of these officers entirely to a voluntary relinquishment of duty on their part, as there is no doubt that very many of them would have been fully prepared to serve if opportunities had been afforded to them; but as we have shown that the proportion of the employed to the unemployed is as small as one to eleven in one class (captains); as one to ten in a second (commanders); and as one to six in the last class (lieutenants), it must be quite obvious that any full-pay employment must have been quite out of the reach of a very large number. Some of these officers may wear medals, as my hon. Friend says, for gallant actions performed as midshipmen, but to employ them all was impossible. As to the Commission that reported the long list of lieutenants, of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman complained, they said:— Our examination of the evidence in regard to the rank of 'naval lieutenant' has led to the conviction that a very large number must be considered as having obtained this commission as a provision from the public for services in an inferior station. They did not, of course, obtain lieutenancies exempted from a liability to be recalled to employment, but to many it must have been apparent that this contingency was remote, and they must have viewed the position they obtained as the ultimate station they would hold in the navy. The promotion of more than 1,000 officers to be lieutenants in one year at the close of the last war would in itself furnish a sufficient proof of this. The convenient mode of rewarding these officers and giving them a pension for life, was to make them lieutenants and to give them the half-pay of their rank, without of course a prospect of employment for the greatest portion of that number. It has been calculated that if all these lieutenants had been employed it would have taken forty years before the list would be exhausted, and those at the bottom of the list would have gone to sea as lieutenants at fifty-five years of age. But it has been proved that where an officer has been so long on shore it is neither for his benefit nor for that of the service that he should be sent to sea. The scheme for the retirement of the admirals has at least worked this beneficial change, that it has diminished the age of those officers who have attained the rank of admiral. It used to be a general complaint that officers were sent to sea of an age that rendered them incompetent to the duties of active service. What was the remedy for that state of things? Why, that a certain number of officers should be placed on the reserved list with the rank and pay of rear-admiral, thereby accelerating the promotion of captains to the rank of admiral. In 1841 the junior admiral had attained the rank of captain thirty-five years before he attained the rank of admiral. The last admiral, appointed two or three days ago, had served twenty-two years, and this is a reduction of thirteen years in the period of his attaining post rank. The second and third vacancy, which will occur, will bring us down to captains who will have attained that rank only twenty years before they attain the rank of admiral. A diminution of several years has thus been effected, and the result is that we have a number of officers on the admirals' list who are more efficient than they were twenty years ago. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the case of the retired commanders who, having held the rank of commanders, retired with the rank of captain, enjoying the half-pay of the captain's rank. Then, again, he must beg leave to refer to the Report of the Commission, who said,— With regard to retirement the commanders have some exclusive ground of complaint. They urge that there is no provision in the establishment of Greenwich Hospital for any officers of their rank, and farther that there is no retired list for the seniors of their class similar to the rank of retired rear-admiral, as opened to the captains, or to that of the retired commander, as opened to the lieutenants. For both of these grievances we should consider it expedient that redress should be afforded. The advantages of Greenwich Hospital should be opened to commanders, as they are to captains and lieutenants; and we would therefore recommend that four commanders should be added to the establishment of that institution. With respect to a rate of retired pay for commanders, we would suggest to your Majesty that the principle adopted in regard to the first 100 lieutenants should be applied to the commanders. These 100 lieutenants have the option of retirement as commanders, with the lowest rate of half-pay of that rank—namely, 8s. 6d. a day. We would recommend that a precisely similar indulgence should be extended to a limited number of the senior commanders; and we should consider that it would be fair to allow 50 of the seniors of that rank the option of receiving the retired rank of captain, with the lowest rate of half-pay allowed to a captain—namely, 10s. 6d. a day. It is not in our view to reduce the numbers entitled to the half-pay of 10s. 6d. a day as commanders by the proposed boon. We contemplate the institution of a class of 50 retired captains, with 10s. 6d. a day, to be followed by the same number of commanders—namely, 150 at 10s. a day, as are at present allowed. These are the recommendations of Sir G. Cockburn, Sir T. Hardy, and Sir C. Adam, and they were immediately carried into effect. Four commanders were added to the establishment of Greenwich Hospital, and fifty commanders retired with the rank of captain, and with the lowest rate of half-pay of a captain. In 1851 my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Baring) doubled the number of retired commanders, and created a reserved list of fifty more; thus trebling the number of retired commanders, with the rank of captain. I thought the commanders would be still more benefited by increasing the number of retirements, arid last year I added 150 to the retired list of commanders, and fifty to the reserved list. I thought it desirable, however, that the fifty should not be added at once, but the result will be that there will be 200 retired naval commanders, instead of fifty, as recommended by the Commission, and there will be 100 permanently on the reserved list of commanders. The expense of the whole will be about £11,000 per annum. My hon. and gallant Friend then comes to the new cadets who have entered the navy. I took the liberty on a previous occasion of stating that the entry of cadets has not been unduly swelled, and that the establishment of mates, midshipmen, and cadets was during the war no less than 600 below the establishment, although the number to be borne in each ship had been reduced. The number of lieutenants is not above that prescribed by the Orders in Council, but at present the complaint is that the ships have plenty of lieutenants, but not enough mates. The number of cadets is considerably short of what is wanted at this moment. It must be remembered that a great number quit the service in one way and another. It is not every boy who takes a fancy to the navy who likes the service after he has seen a little of it. The cadets who entered in 1847 were 196, of whom 83 for one reason or another are no longer in the service. I am, therefore, inclined to think that the entries in the navy have been too much restricted, and certainly if another war were to occur we should have a great deficiency of subordinate officers, without whom it is almost impossible to maintain proper order and discipline. The service cannot, however, be said to be unpopular, as I am fully convinced from the number of applications made to me, which place me in a position of considerable difficulty in deciding upon them. It does not appear to me that my hon. and gallant Friend has shown any ground for the appointment of the Committee for which he asks. The questions relative to the reserved list and the retired list were inquired into by a very competent Commission, which made recommendations, and the same subjects were referred to a Committee of this House, under the presidency of the present Duke of Somerset. The combined system recommended by the Commission and the Committee has since been fully carried out by the successive Boards of Admiralty, and the result has been the gradual diminution of the officers of the higher ranks, though not as yet to the numbers fixed by Orders in Council. I do not think any better course could be adopted for the attainment of the object which my hon. and gallant Friend seeks to effect, and it does not appear to me that his Motion is warranted by any of the grounds he has urged upon the attention of the House.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he thought the right hon. Baronet had failed to make out a case against the appointment of a Committee. Although he (Mr. Lindsay) did not believe the present Board of Admiralty were less efficient than their predecessors, and although he knew that the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir C. Wood) had been indefatigable in the discharge of his duties at a period when they were of a very arduous nature, he must say he considered it most objectionable that every change of Administration should involve a change in the Lords of the Admiralty. That system led to such alterations in the plans of the departments as to occasion a large amount of unnecessary expenditure, and he thought this evil would be avoided if there was a permanent head of the Admiralty. He did not see why the Government of the navy should not be assimilated to that of the army; and if the Committee were useless for any other purpose, it could inquire into the policy of assimilating the two modes of administering the service. The Commander in Chief of the army held a permanent office; and, although he was subject to the control of the Secretary of State for War, he was mainly responsible for the efficiency of the military forces. He (Mr. Lindsay) could not imagine why a permanent officer, who might or might not be a member of the naval profession, should not be placed at the head of the Admiralty to control all matters connected with that department. Such an officer might, if the House thought fit, be subject to the control of a First Lord of the Admiralty, or of a Cabinet Minister, in the same manner as the Commander in Chief was under the control of the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) had not explained how it was, that in the midst of the late war little more than one-half the number of naval officers on the active list were actually employed. In July, 1855, there were on the active list twenty-one full admirals, of whom only one was employed; twenty-seven vice-admirals, of whom two were employed; fifty-one rear-admirals, of whom fifteen were employed. The total number of flag officers on the active list was ninety-nine, but only eighteen of them were engaged on active service. The number of captains on the active list at the same time was 399, of whom 139 were employed; commanders, 555, of whom 192 were employed; and lieutenants, 1,132, of whom 883 were employed. He feared that if during a period of war such a large number of unemployed officers remained upon the active list, they might see a similar state of things to that which existed in 1817, soon after the termination of the great continental war, when the House voted 17,000 men for the army, and there were 5,800 officers upon the active list, or one officer to every three men. He did not think the House was doing its duty to the country in paying large sums of money to officers who remained inactive, and such a state of things was calculated to excite great discontent among those officers who were unable to obtain employment afloat. The hon. and gallant mover said, he had a plan to be laid before the Committee. He (Mr. Lindsay) also had a plan, and he should like to see a Committee appointed, in order that these and other proposals might receive consideration.

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

said, that having last Session entered fully into this question, he did not think it necessary to do so on the present occasion, but he would mention one circumstance which led to great discontent among naval officers, and which produced on their minds an impression that they were not dealt with fairly and justly. That was, that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have power to distribute employment, to confer promotion, and to recommend officers to the Sovereign for distinction. He wished the Board of Admiralty, which was composed principally of naval officers, to be made responsible, together with their political chief, for the distribution of employment, for promotions, and for recommendations to the Sovereign on account of distinguished services. Without making any reflection on the present First Lord or his predecessors—who were, he believed, actuated by the purest motives in the distribution of their patronage—he contended that that patronage was too enormous to be entrusted to one man. It comprised not only the navy itself, but the marines and a large portion of the civil service. An officer who distinguished himself, and was selected for an important command, could not be placed in that command unless two or three officers, probably equally deserving, were deprived of the opportunity of employment, so that the country lost the services of three efficient officers in order to secure the services of one. He did not wish for a Committee, if the House did not think proper to appoint one; but he insisted that the naval officers of the Board of Admiralty ought to be made responsible, together with the First Lord, for the distribution of patronage. Every young officer ought to feel, on entering the service, that he had nothing to depend upon for his advancement but his own efficiency, zeal, perseverance, and courage.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

in reply said, that the Orders in Council to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred were, in his opinion, unwise. The right hon. Gentleman set up the decision of 1841 supported by that of 1848; but they ought not in 1857 to be bound by the Report of any Commission of 1841. They should remember, too, that one of the officers upon the Commission of 1841, Sir George Cockburn, left at his death a document stating that the Admiralty was too political. A man sometimes had to die before he was able to speak the truth. The right hon. Gentleman had not accounted satisfactorily for the £11,000 to which he had referred in bringing forward the Motion. He had a mass of letters from officers who had seen forty, fifty, and sixty years' service, detailing their grievances, but he would not read them, and he would now leave the matter in the hands of the House.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 97: Majority 21.