HC Deb 19 July 1860 vol 159 cc2203-15

House in Committee.

Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £12,000, Retirement to Officers of the Navy.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

said, he saw no necessity for retirement in the higher lists of naval officers. It was impossible for him to consent to the noble Lord's plan, which was very incomplete and full of inconsistencies. Captains, when they arrived at the head of the list, were to be placed on the list of retired officers at 20s. a day; at present those officers received 25s. a day, and the noble Lord was about to take off 5s. Now, that was not fair, nor was it satisfactory to the service, not a man of which had, to his knowledge, spoken favourably of it. The scheme would place at the disposal of the Admiralty a great many vacancies, and enable it, by a system of favouritism, to fill them up with young and inexperienced officers, to the prejudice of old and deserving officers of many times their length of service. If the period should come again when it was difficult to get an admiral under sixty years of age it might be advisable to establish a fresh retirement; but when there were plenty of qualified officers in their prime who could be appointed to the rank of admiral, he saw no reason for asking the House to vote £15,000 or £20,000 a year to carry out such a useless object. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would not persevere with his scheme.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, he was opposed to this proposal on three grounds—first, because it would cut off mates' time; secondly, because it did not allow the time an officer served in the Coastguard to count in his favour; and thirdly, because of the manner in which it dealt with commanders on the reserved list. There was no more reason why the time for which an officer served as mate—when he probably discharged very important duties—should be cut off, than there was for cutting off the time of a lieutenant or adjutant in the array from his period of service. A captain in the navy informed him that he had acted as first lieutenant of the commodore's ship on the coast of Africa while he was a mate; that another mate commanded a 20-gun corvette; and that another mate did the duty of first lieutenant of the same corvette. Thus these three officers on the coast of Africa at that period were mates, and yet not one hour of that service was to be allowed to count. Again, why should they strike off the time during which an officer was employed in the Coastguard—perhaps as irksome a service as any that an officer could have to perform, and one in which they were exposed to many casualties? He could name officers who had been maimed and wounded on those stations called the fighting stations, in which there had been skirmishes nearly as formidable as little actions. If they took the actual work a Coastguard officer was called upon to perform, it was fully as hard as that discharged by officers serving either in the Mediterranean or on board the guardships at the home ports. The officers on the reserved list derived their position from an actual bargain with the Admiralty. One of them wrote to tell him that in July, 1856, the Admiralty refused to allow him to command a merchant steamer on the ground that "officers of high rank are not supposed to accept civil engagements." The Admiralty now proposed to reduce this officer to the rank of commander. Some of these officers had served at Trafalgar and the Nile. The whole increase of pay they demanded would be but small, and yet, while the Admiralty were wasting millions of money in the malconstruction of ships and in building useless vessels, they refused these officers the miserable and paltry sum to which they were entitled by the express and deliberate bargain that the Admiralty had entered into with them. He had submitted the order in Council of 1851 to the eminent lawyer, Mr. Lush, Q.C., for his opinion. Mr. Lush stated, in answer, that the question was not one of legal cognizance, but that if the order in Council had been embodied in an Act of Parliament, or was in the nature of a contract that could be enforced in a court of law, he should have no difficulty in advising that the claims of the captains upon the reserved list were well founded. That opinion was in a remarkable manner confirmed by the hon. and learned Attorney General the other day in regard to compensation to persons whose offices were abolished, they themselves being ready still to discharge their duty. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich that this question ought to be referred to a Commission, and investigated as a whole. Great dissatisfaction existed among the officers in the navy. The naval service was in fact an underpaid service, and officers were called upon to contribute to it from their private means. Complaints had now reached a height that was prejudicial to the discipline of the navy, and the question ought to be examined by a Commission, consisting not only of professional men, but also of those who understood what a fair day's wages for a fair day's work really was.

SIR MICHAEL SEYMOUR

said, he could not help thinking that the proposal of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty fell far short of the measure that was needed for the settlement of a question that was becoming quite alarming. All classes of naval officers had a more or less reasonable claim for consideration at the hands of the noble Lord. His plan had one condition, that of age, which must be of an arbitrary and in some respects unjust character in regard to the officers affected by it. Take the case, too, of mates. In the Commission on the various services that sat twenty years ago, presided over by the late Duke of Wellington, it was agreed that mates in the navy were as fully entitled to be regarded as officers as were ensigns in the army. It was very hard that officers who had commanded gunboats in the French war as mates and acting lieutenants were not allowed to count their service as mates. He knew one instance where an officer commanded a gunboat as mate from 1809 until 1814, and he justly complained that the whole of this time was taken no notice of in his favour. A lieu- tenant must serve nine years as mate to entitle him to a certain amount of half-pay; and there was one case where a gentleman had served within a few weeks of that time, but he had been for a long time a mate. Again, as to captains' half-pay, a good deal of hardship would be imposed. Half-pay was in many cases, not a retaining fee, but a final pension, and it deserved consideration whether officers who had not served much should be entitled to rise in the amount of their half-pay. If the principle of retirement on account of age was to be introduced, it ought to be applied with impartiality to all ranks. He could not support the scheme before the Committee, and he should be glad to see a Commission or a Committee appointed to consider the whole subject of pay, pensions, and retirements.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

Sir, I am very much disappointed at the course which the Board of Admiralty has taken with regard to this retirement plan. The question has been before the House upon a previous occasion, and I never heard any question discussed in a fairer spirit, and with less approach to anything like party feeling on one side of the House or the other, the only object in view being the good of the naval service. But from neither side of the House did I hear a single speech in favour of the Government scheme. After that discussion I received innumerable letters from officers of all ranks, from flag officers down to lieutenants of long standing, thanking me for my opposition to the measure, and deprecating it as unworthy of the Admiralty and most unacceptable to the service, and I had hoped that, considering the opposition to the plan which was manifested in this House, the Government would not have persevered with it. At the head of this retirement scheme the noble Lord has placed these remarks:— There are three requisites for an efficient navy,—first, that the principal ranks should be supplied with a sufficient number of officers in the prime of life; secondly, that officers who are desirous and fit to serve should find employment; and, thirdly, that encouragement should be offered either by promotion or otherwise, to induce officers to serve willingly as long as they are efficient. I defy my noble Friend to prove that this scheme will fulfil any one of these conditions. The first is the most important; but what will this scheme do to effect that object? I know that my noble Friend will tell me that he has adopted the principle of compulsory retirement by age to a certain point, and that, therefore, so far as that goes he has followed the plan which I ventured to propose. I do not think that my noble Friend is justified in using that argument, because I entirely agree with what has just fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend, that to justify the application to the navy of the principle of compulsory retirement, which is a strong one to adopt, it ought to be applied fairly throughout the service. I contend that if you are to adopt the principle of retirement by age you must, in order to make it fair and acceptable, combine it with some other plan, which will give to officers the encouragement and the benefit of a regular flow of promotion. This plan does not do that. You tell the junior ranks of officers that at a certain age they are to be compelled to retire, but you admit that you are afraid to apply this principle to the senior ranks. The result will be that there will be no flow of promotion. The captains and flag officers will not get out of the way, and the retirement by age will be enforced upon the junior ranks without any compensation. Another objection to the plan has been adverted to already—namely, that you do not allow officers in counting their service to reckon the time served as mate, I think that that is a great injustice. I do entreat the Admiralty, if they are disposed to deal with this subject at all, to do so upon wide and comprehensive principles, and upon a plan which shall not only be beneficial but acceptable to the naval service. The service repudiate this plan; they dislike it. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET dissented.] My noble Friend thinks not. Perhaps he can give me authorities for that opinion. I can only say that I have received a great many letters from officers of rank, saying that the plan is not acceptable to them, that, on the contrary, they dislike and repudiate it. The case is one of extreme hardship. I cannot forget what Admiral Hope, an admirable man as well as an excellent officer, told me last year—perhaps as it was a private conversation I ought not to mention it, but I state it to his honour—that when visiting the north of England on the Harbour of Refuge Commission, he met at Newcastle one officer who had served with him when they were midshipmen together, but who was still a lieutenant in the navy. Perhaps such cases must happen in the service, but they are severely felt, and we ought to do all we can to make them less frequent. Again, I have had letters from officers who served as mates doing the duty, but not having the rank of lieutenants. It is very hard that such men should not be allowed to count the time during which they so served as mates. These are the things which make the proposed plan so unacceptable to the navy, and I deeply regret that the present Board of Admiralty, in their desire to force an objectionable system upon the service, should refuse a proposal which I intend to bring forward in good faith, and with no party feeling,—namely, that a well constituted Commission should be appointed to inquire into the whole subject. On Tuesday evening next I shall make that Motion, and I implore the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who must wish to do what is right by the navy, before that day comes, to consider whether we ought not to follow in the present case an example which has more than once been offered by the army, and refer to a well-constituted Commission the consideration of these difficult and complicated questions. Meanwhile I regret the course which the Government are taking. I think they are making a great mistake. Their plan is not one that ought to be adopted. I know it to be unpalatable and unacceptable to the navy, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has taken the lead in opposition to this Vote asks the Committee to divide I shall certainly deem it my duty to vote with him.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

—To a naval officer in the position which I have the honour to hold, there cannot, I think, he a more painful duty than that of bringing forward a scheme for the benefit of his profession. Nothing is more easy than to state plausible objections to any plan that may be proposed for bettering the situation of officers in the Navy. It is quite impossible to deal with a great service, including a variety of conflicting interests, so as to prevent the occurrence of cases of hardship. I suppose that is the reason why the right hon. Baronet opposite, who was at the head of the Admiralty a year and a half, never brought before us any scheme for improving the position of the officers of the navy. He saw a thousand difficulties in his way; and found that under any plan he might adopt cases of hardship must occur. Nevertheless, considering how poignantly he feels the present lamentable state of the navy, and what he has told us respecting the general discontent which prevails in the service, I am surprised that he remained so long at the head of the Admiralty without bringing some comprehensive scheme for all ranks before us. The plan which he left behind him at the Admiralty, which he did not submit to Parliament, but which has, at his desire, been laid on the table, would have been at once more expensive and, I believe, less advantageous to the navy than the one which I have laid before the House. We propose to limit our exertions to those ranks in which there is no flow of promotion. During the past year promotion has been almost at a standstill with respect both to commanders and to lieutenants, and we propose to apply relief where the shoe really pinches. I admit that in the event of war, when you require a large number afloat, that admirals above a certain age should retire for the benefit of the service; but that is not necessary at the present moment, and any scheme for the compulsory retirement of old admirals, such as that recommended by the right hon. Baronet opposite, would only break the hearts of distinguished officers who served us in all our great wars. Men like Lord Dundonald would certainly object very strongly to be placed upon a retired list; they would feel it to be a stigma upon them, and they would not be far wrong. But the right hon. Baronet does not propose to create a flow of promotion; he simply wants to reduce the flag list by striking off a number of old admirals. I admit that the flag list is too large; but nature will clear it, and there is no necessity for wounding the feelings of distinguished officers on the brink of the grave. Our scheme, therefore, does not touch the flag officers. The other objections which have been stated to our scheme are—first, that reserved captains are not to be put in the same position as captains on the active list; secondly, that mates' time is not to be counted; and thirdly, that Coastguard time is not to be reckoned as of the same value as sea time. I shall deal with the last objection first. Surely nobody will say that the duties, perils, and responsibilities of a Coastguard officer, especially in time of war, are to be compared for a moment with those of a seagoing officer. To give a Coastguard officer the same claim as a sea-going officer, would be to put the same value upon service performed at home, and service performed in foreign and unhealthy climates. It would interfere to a serious extent with the promotion of sea-going officers, and would cer- tainly not tend to the good of the navy. With respect to mates' time, it is all very well to say that we should allow mates' time to be counted; but how would such a system operate in practice? How would this affect the navy of the present day? I am quite aware that in old times mates were left in that position for many years; but we are not legislating for the past but for the future. The officers of the present day have served scarcely above two years as mates; so that by increasing the period of service, including mates' time, to entitle them to increased pay, which you must do if mates' time is to be held to be of the same value as lieutenants' time, you would by so much damage their position. That was what the Admiralty, dealing for the present and the future, could not, with all respect for the old officers, propose to do; and now with respect to the officers on the reserved list. I am perfectly willing to admit that the case pointed out by my gallant Friend is a hard case; but it must not be supposed that the Admiralty are cutting down any person's pay, for not a single officer will be put in a worse position than before. All that we say is, that if an officer arrives at sixty years of age, and has not served his country above a certain number of years, that officer should retire on his present pay; but that if he has served above a certain number of years, he should then have increased pay; so that all who have faithfully served their country would be benefited by the scheme. There is this distinction between the present scheme and that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—that this is principally for the benefit of the junior ranks of the navy, those who have no friends and no influence. I cannot admit that his has sufficiently kept them in view. There was one great oversight in the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman left at the Admiralty on quitting office, and that had reference to the half-pay of lieutenants on the active service list. This is one of the most expensive parts of our scheme. We propose with regard to the lieutenants on the active list—the young men of the present day—that, according to their service afloat, their half-pay should increase from 4s. to 8s. 6d. a day. These are the principal features of the scheme I have had the honour to submit to the House—the full details of which are on the table. I must deny the existence of the general discontent that has been spoken of, for I have received a great number of letters approving the scheme. These letters, however, state that the scheme does not go far enough; and I am willing to admit that; but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be persuaded to give us double the sum I will produce a better scheme. The Government, however, must deal with the question not only in reference to the officers of the navy, but in comparison with the officers in the army. I nave always been told that my gallant brethren in the navy are the worst enemies of the service in this respect—that when any measure is brought forward for the benefit of the service, they throw difficulties in its way by bringing forward individual cases of hardship. I do trust that any such remarks may not mar the success of this scheme. I do not say that hereafter it may not be enlarged upon; but I maintain that it is in the right direction, and a very great boon to the junior branches of the service, and I, therefore, earnestly hope that the House will consent to the Estimate which is under discussion.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

explained, that in what he said just now he did not refer to his own scheme, but whenever the proper time arrived he should be prepared to defend it. What he had said was, that the scheme of the present Admiralty was bad and defective, and the noble Lord threw the responsibility on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would not, the noble Lord said, consent to the expense of a good scheme. But it was the duty of the Admiralty to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they would not be induced by him to propose a bad scheme. The noble Lord then taunted him by observing that while at the Admiralty he had not proposed to deal with these questions, but it should be remembered that during the greater part of that time he devoted his attention to supply those deficiencies which he found existing in the number of ships. Nevertheless, the late Board did pay attention to this subject and produced the scheme which had been laid on the table, and which, he believed, was acceptable to the navy. It had been his intention to deal with every one of the questions alluded to by the noble Lord. He dealt with the medical officers, and was going on to deal with other rank in the service; and why was it that that intention was not carried into effect? The noble Lord forgot the pressing demand which was said to exist last year on the part of the country for a good Reform Bill, and for the sake of which the late Administration were turned out of office before he had been able to deal with that and a great many other questions which he was prepared to entertain.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in thinking he had stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to allow a larger sum, and therefore a better scheme could not be produced. What he had said was, that the Government were bound to consider the question of pounds shillings and pence, and that no doubt, with a larger sum of money, a very comprehensive scheme might be produced.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

observed, that though it was said that nobody approved the noble Lord's scheme, there was, he believed, a great deal to be approved in it. He thought the increase of the half-pay according to the sea service of the officers a very good arrangement. The scheme applied a remedy where the shoe pinched. The case was so difficult a one that it was almost impossible to suggest a plan which should work equally in war or peace, still more in a time of transition from war to peace. He was not very fond of the limit of age, but in this instance, as he understood it, the limit was not one of age only, but of age combined with service. With regard to captains, the object of removing all captains above 60 from the active list was to reduce them to 350, in order that the course of promotion might be clear. But they were at that number already, and this being all that was wanted, he thought they might leave the list alone until some pressing inconvenience arose. With regard to the Coastguard it ought not to be made, as it were, a degraded service. The principle ought to be, that every branch of the service should be treated as if it were a part of the whole, and that all classes of employés should be dealt with alike. Generally speaking, however, he thought the scheme a good one, though it was not difficult to pick holes in it.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

said, the noble Lord had given no sufficient reason why the mate's time should not count in the same way as a commander was allowed to count his lieutenant's time.

MR. WARRE

asked, why the memorial of the captains on the reserved list had not received the assent of the Admiralty?

MR. CONINGHAM

said, he thought that true economy was to do justice to the service; and he was of opinion that, considering the onerous duties which devolved upon the Coast-guard officers, scant justice was done to them in the new arrangement.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, the reserved captains had never served in that rank, but had been promoted at once from commander to captain. They were allowed to claim their time equally with other captains.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

observed that in the Civil Service every day of a man's service counted, and he could not see why the same rule should not prevail in the naval service.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £33,000, Naval Operations in China.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

complained that upon the last Vote he and others had cried "No," but nevertheless the Chairman had passed on to the next item.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had put the Question twice, and upon the second occasion no cry of "No" was raised, and therefore he declared the Vote agreed to.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE moved that the Chairman report Progress.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

suggested to the hon. Gentleman that he might make any remarks he might wish to address to the House on the bringing up of the Report.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

complained that the sum proposed to be voted was not an adequate reward for the services performed, for it would amount to only about £2 to each man, though they had been engaged two years in this service. He understood that a distinct understanding would be come to with the troops about to be engaged in the coming operations in China. He hoped the navy would be put on an equal footing with the army in any such arrangement.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he had stated to the House the other night that the army on service in China received certain advantages over the army serving in other parts of the world. The troops serving in China had a better allowance of provisions, and they also had less "stoppages" than their colleagues elsewhere. He believed the advantages enjoyed by men so engaged were equivalent to a money value of 2d. per day, and he proposed to give the seamen and Marines on that service a similar sum for one year, irrespective of the Canton booty.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

said, he wish- ed to give notice that in consequence of an unfair advantage having, as he considered, been taken when the last Vote was put, he should divide the House on the bringing up of the Report.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he did not think that there was the least intention of unfairness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, but the hon. and gallant Admiral, and several other Members, had distinctly said "No," when the question was put a first time, however it might have been when the question was put a second time. That raised the point why the Question should be put a second time—a matter which should be put beyond the possibility of dispute. He thought that when the Question was put a second time it ought to have been put more distinctly.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

I think in all such matters it is desirable the rules of the House should be strictly adhered to. It is not sufficient for hon. Gentlemen to cry "No "to call for a division; but, unless those who differ from the Speaker's or the Chairman's decision declare that the "Ayes" or the "Noes" have it, a division is not called for. Although this may not be a distinction that would strike everybody it is a distinction established by the rules of the House, and ought to be observed. My hon. and gallant Friend, I recollect perfectly, did not say, "The Noes have it," and it is not enough to say "No," to challenge a division.

THE CHAIRMAN

The practice, as far as my experience goes, is frequent. The Speaker constantly puts the Question twice and even thrice. If he has any doubt as to the sense of the House, he puts the Question a second time, and if he is still doubtful as to whether it is the desire of that House to take a division, he puts the Question a third time; and if it does not receive a distinct challenge from any one Gentleman, the practice is to declare that "the Ayes" or the "Noes" have it. Following that example, as is my duty, I consider that I have consulted the pleasure of the Committee by putting the Question a second time; because the only hon. Member who challenged, when I put the Question the first time, was the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

When the Report is brought up I shall take very good care to comply with the practice of the House.

Vote agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.