§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished, before the Speaker left the chair, to receive some further explanation from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty with respect to the announcement which he had made on Friday last, to the effect that it was the intention of the present Government to extend the bounty to seamen in the navy, which had been granted by the late Government under conditions which would embrace a large portion of those who had previously served in the fleet. He for one had heard that announcement with great surprise at the time when it was made, and he regretted to be obliged to say that subsequent reflection had not removed those feelings of apprehension—he feared, he must add of disapprobation—with which he had from the very first been disposed to regard the policy which the noble Lord had declared it to be the intention of the Government to adopt. He was also sorry to have to state that he did not think his noble Friend had, in making the statement to which he alluded, treated the House with that candour which he ought to have exhibited when the novelty of the proposal which he indicated was taken into consideration. His noble Friend, in short, had refrained from giving to the House those reasons which had induced the Government to make the great change which he announced, and appeared to fight shy of all explanation upon the subject. It appeared that Her Majesty's Ministers had, on Friday last, advised the Sovereign to issue an Order in Council for the purpose of carrying into effect the alteration in question. The noble Lord had, indeed, stated that such was the case; but that circumstance seemed to prove the more strongly that the views of the Government on the point were fixed, that they had duly weighed the step which they were about to take, and must have known the reasons which had led them to its adoption. Why, then, he would ask, had not the noble Lord availed himself of the opportunity which the announcement of the change afforded to lay 984 those reasons before the House? In commenting on the speech in which that announcement was made he (Sir J. Pakington) had felt some hesitation in expressing disapprobation of a policy which the noble Lord had so entirely failed to explain; and he must confess that he could not even now understand why the noble Lord had not taken the legitimate opportunity which had presented itself to him on Friday evening to state the grounds on which that policy was based. But, be that as it might, he should entreat the House to consider whether there were any good reasons for the course which the Government had taken. If there were any such reasons, then let them be laid before the House, and he should be the last person to offer objection to the adoption of such a course. There never was an instance, however, in which it, in his opinion, behoved a Government to prove the necessity of the policy which they pursued more than in the present case, inasmuch as every legitimate prescription was opposed to its expediency, and inasmuch as it was contrary—he, of course, spoke under liability to correction —to every precedent on the subject. In the course which the late Government took in issuing a bounty to seamen they had— as he observed in the debate of Friday last—strictly adhered to precedent. Such a precedent was furnished in the last year of the last century. A similar mode of strengthening the fleet was adopted in 1803, and again in 1807. On the last mentioned occasion the issue of a bounty was, if he recollected rightly, repeated from year to year, and was in operation for a considerable time. In no one instance, however, of which he was aware, had a bounty been made retrospective, and offered to men who had previously served in the fleet. When Her Majesty's late Government, about two months ago, felt it to be their duty to strengthen the naval resources of the country by resorting to a bounty, the question with which he was now dealing was raised and forced very much upon their attention, and in referring to it again he could only repeat that which he stated on Friday last, that he never in his life entertained a more decided opinion on any subject than with respect to that of the issue of a bounty to those who were previously serving. The reasons which were pressed upon him to take such a course were chiefly that if he did not do so, great dissatisfaction would prevail in the navy, and that complaints of unfairness would arise among the men. 985 His answer was, that the question was one of public policy, that the possibility of our being hereafter enabled to resort to a bounty was at stake, and that if unreasonable dissatisfaction arose, it must be resisted and put down. And now he would ask whether the apprehensions on which the reasons to which he referred were founded had been realized? On the contrary, two months had since passed away, and no dissatisfaction had displayed itself; no complaints had been heard. His noble Friend, indeed, in making the startling announcement which he made to the House on Friday last informed them that no dissatisfaction had arisen. His noble Friend told the House that one of the reasons which influenced the Government was a wish to deal generously with the sailors. This was a very plausible statement to make, and he then told his noble Friend that no man was more disposed to do so than himself. But this generosity must not be carried to an unreasonable extent, inconsistent with public policy. It was a notorious fact that the British sailor was never treated with more generosity than of late years. Various advantages had lately been extended to him and a great increase of allowances had been given him. At the present moment the difference of pay and allowances given to continuous-service men was so considerable that they might secure to themselves pecuniary advantages much beyond those which ordinary-service men derived, even with the £10 bounty. Therefore, unless the noble Lord could show a paramount reason for making this change in the policy of the country, he could see most obvious reasons against it. It would be admitted that it was undesirable that any fresh impediment should be thrown in the way of resorting to a bounty, yet no impediment could be more formidable than was now laying down for the future, if the present precedent were established—that be the emergency what it might, no Government could hereafter resort to the bounty to induce sailors to join the navy without saddling the country with a heavy contingent expense to the extent that every man then serving should also receive the bounty.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, the House permitted great latitude of discussion on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply; but the right hon. Gentleman was even going beyond that latitude, when he replied in the House to a speech made in Committee.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had nearly concluded what he wished to say, and he would endeavour not to infringe the rule laid down by the Speaker. The only tiling he had now to remark on was the financial result which would attend this proposition. It would be seen by a reference to the Navy Estimates that the cost of the bounty proposed by the late Government was £31,000 and odd; but what would be the cost of extending the bounty in the manner proposed by the present Government? He, of course, spoke with uncertainty, but he was strongly disposed to believe that it would constitute an additional charge to the country of not less than £100,000, and that money would be positively thrown away, as the proposed bounty was never asked for, and was not required; while it established an embarrassing precedent for future Administrations. He hoped the noble Lord would no longer decline to tell the House explicity and fairly the reasons for which this course had been taken—a course that might be attended with a momentary fleeting popularity, but which was unsound in principle and most dangerous as a precedent. He should also like to know what would be the pecuniary amount of this additional charge, and in what way it was proposed to ask for the money, as it was not included in any of the Estimates on the table?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETI think that the best proof that I can give to the House that I did explain to some extent the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to come to the determination of extending the bounty is, that the right hon. Baronet has been occupied for a length of time in answering the reasons I gave. The right hon. Baronet asks why I did not at at the time enter into more detail with respect to that measure; and I will tell the right hon. Baronet frankly that the reason was that I was not on Friday last in a position to enter into all the details that I could have wished to give on the subject. I was in possession of the decision of the Government, but the Order in Council, which has since been issued, was not in my hands at that time, and I was very anxious, until the Order in Council was actually issued, not to state anything which might by any chance be mistaken. I very much regret that the right hon. Baronet has not taken the advice that I took the liberty to offer him a little while ago, and put off his questions until I bring in the Estimate, which I shall do in a very 987 few days, to carry out the arrangement. At the present moment it is impossible that I can tell him the exact amount which will be required, inasmuch as it will depend on the number of men accepting this extension of the bounty; for certain conditions are attached, and some men may accept those conditions and some may refuse them. I trust, then, that as this measure will come before the House soon, and as the right hon. Baronet will have an opportunity of discussing it upon its merits when the Estimate is laid upon the table, and the House is anxious at this advanced period to get on with the Votes, I may be excused from going on with the debate on this occasion.