§ SIR.JOHN PAKINGTON,in rising to move for the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the present system of promotion and retirement in the Royal Navy, and the present pay and position of the several classes of naval officers, said, Sir, it is not in any party spirit, but solely and exclusively in the belief that I may thereby improve the position of Her Majesty's naval service that I make this Motion, In fact, the spirit in which I propose it is very much that of national defence in which the noble Lord the First Minister yesterday made his very able statement with reference to fortifications, because it is certainly an element in our national defence that the officers of one of our great services should not be discontented, and should not be under the impression that their country treats them with anything like injustice. I shall not have to detain the House at any considerable length, because my proposal turns very much upon arguments which have already been advanced by myself and others in the course of the debates upon the plan of naval retirement which has been proposed by my noble Friend opposite. The first ground upon which I make this Motion is that an improved system of promotion, and retirement has become necessary to the welfare of the naval service, and that the plan lately brought forward by the Admiralty is not satisfactory. I shall not trouble the House with my own views, because I am fortified by the authority of my; noble Friend opposite (Lord C. Paget) himself. The first result of my experience at the Admiralty was that the service had reached a state of absolute stagnation of promotion which was depressing to the spirit of officers and injurious to the wel- 104 fare of the service. That has been stated by my noble Friend as broadly and as distinctly as I could state it. I have frequently asserted that I was convinced that the plan of the Board of Admiralty for promotion and retirement would not be satisfactory to the service. On Thursday evening, in the last speech which he made upon this subject, my noble Friend expressly stated that his proposal ought to go further, and that, as it stood, it could only be considered as a step in what he called the right direction. It only remains for me to guard the House against being carried away by the fact that this plan is introduced to it by one who is himself an Admiral of high and just distinction, and that, being so, it must be taken to be one not prejudical to the service. Now, my noble Friend has proposed this plan, not as an Admiral, but as Secretary to the Admiralty. I think that no one can have heard his statement upon the subject without clearly seeing that in bringing it forward he was only doing the bidding of the Board of Admiralty with which he acts, and the only fault which I am disposed to find with his conduct in this respect is that he consented to act for the Board of Admiralty in this matter, of which it is easy to see that his own judgment does not approve. I think that my noble Friend ought to have said to the Board, "It is true that I am your Secretary, but I am also a British Admiral, and have the feelings of a British sailor, and I cannot consent to be the medium of proposing to Parliament a plan which will be regarded by the great majority of the service as doing them great injustice." I will now ask the House to consider the position in which this retirement plan of the Board of Admiralty stands. It is true that it has been proposed by my noble Friend opposite, who is himself a distinguished sailor, but it has been condemned not only by two gallant Admirals who are generally in the habit of opposing the policy of Her Majesty's Government, but by two experienced and distinguished Admirals who are in the habit of supporting that policy, the hon. Members for Devonport and Southwark, nor has any man of naval rank or naval experience, who has taken part in our discussions, supported it. That is the state of feeling within these walls. What is the feeling out of doors r I mentioned to the House on Thursday evening that I had received numbers of letters from officers of all 105 ranks thanking me for my opposition to I this proposal, and entreating me to continue it. Since then almost every post has brought me similar letters, and within the last hour I have received three or four. They come from men who are entirely unknown to me, from officers of all ranks, from those who are now serving on board Her Majesty's ships, as well as from those who have long been retired, and they all lament that my noble Friend has been led by his official position to propose a plan which, upon his own showing, is insufficient and unsatisfactory, and which is condemned by naval officers as doing them great injustice and treating them with great harshness. One of the writers states that he was an officer in the navy before my noble Friend opposite was born, but did not obtain his commission sa lieutenant until my noble friend had been two years in the service. Another informs me that he served nineteen years as midshipman and mate before he obtained his lieutenant's commission. But all these services are to be disregarded by the plan of my noble Friend. Surely that is a great and manifest hardship. I think that there is also great hardship in the arrangement as to the Coastguard. I cannot approve the decision of the Government that three years' Coastguard service shall count as only one year of sea service. I am not perhaps prepared to contend that Coastguard and sea service should be put upon the same footing, but I think that the difference between three years and two would be as much as justice requires. One of my correspondents, whose name I shall be happy to give to the noble Lord in private, states that the circumstances of his case are so peculiar, that under this new system of retirement, thirty-four years' service would only count as seven years and a half. I need not multiply these proofs that the plan which has been brought forward by the Government is not only admitted by them to be partial and incomplete, but is condemned by the naval service. The Admiralty have not, in my opinion, acted wisely in pressing forward such a plan in opposition to the sense of the profession and of this House, the only man who has said a word in its favour, except the noble Lord himself, being the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring). I will only refer to the plan which I framed as the result of my experience at the Admiralty, to say that I have every reason to believe 106 that it was acceptable to the naval service, and to submit to my noble Friend and the Government, that as there are two opposite plans for the settlement of this great and important question, and as no one can deny that it ought to be settled upon some grounds of general fairness and justice and, above all, upon some comprehensive principle, so that we may reasonably expect it to be a permanent adjustment of the difficulties of the question, there is abundant reason why the whole subject should be referred to a Royal Commission. That is obviously the most prudent course to adopt. We have already two plans before us. The result of a competent Commission may be to devise some third plan combining the advantages, while getting rid of the difficulties, of both. I am fortified in this view by the fact that I am only asking the Government to grant now in the case of the navy what has once before been granted for the navy, and what has upon several occasions been granted for the army. In 1840 the Duke of Wellington was the honoured President of a Commission which sat to investigate this very question of promotion and retirement with respect to both services. I shall presently advert further to the results of that Commission, but let me also remind the House that in 1854 a Commission was appointed to consider the subject of promotion and retirement in the army. The form of that Commission, "to inquire into the several modes of promotion and retirement now authorized in our forces, and reporting whatever changes may be desirable therein," are very nearly the words in which I have framed my present Motion, and show how very closely analogous are the two cases: the grounds for an inquiry are precisely the same. But I do not rest my Motion upon this question of promotion and retirement. I wish, likewise, to repeat to the House what I stated on a former occasion, that at the present moment there is scarcely one class of officers in the Royal Navy who are not more or less in a state of discontent with their position. In the Report of the Wellington Commission of 1840 I find the following passage:—
Carefully weighing the urgent reasons that exist for a rigidly economical administration of the public revenues on the one hand, and on the other the no less imperative necessity of keeping the limited naval establishment employed in time of peace, energetic and therefore useful, contented and therefore efficient, we have no hesitation in 107 earnestly addressing our unanimous recommendation to your Majesty, that there should be a considerable increase in the rates of sea pay allowed to navy lieutenants.That Commission also took into consideration the pay and position of captains, and I find in the Report a statement which I ventured to make the other day, that the position of captains with respect to pay is eminently unsatisfactory and unjust to that most important class of officers. The Report further alludes, as I did on a former evening, to the great charges which fall upon captains from the duties of hospitality which devolve upon them in the command of their ships, and it recommends that certain articles of outfit which captains had been compelled to provide for themselves should be provided at the public cost, the officers paying a percentage on the value. That recommendation was adopted, and hence the system which has since prevailed in this respect; but with regard to the pay of captains, and with regard likewise to many other particulars connected with the navy, the state of the profession twenty years ago was very different from what it is now. At that time the pay of captains was on a footing which, in my opinion, was far more just and rational than at the present moment. Captains were then divided into three classes as regarded half-pay, in the same way as they are now divided into three classes as regards full-pay, according to seniority; but their full-pay, which now turns upon seniority, then turned upon the rate of the ships which they commanded, and therefore upon the expenses which they were obliged to incur. There were then six classes of ships. A captain in command of a sixth rate received £300 a year, while a captain in command of a first rate received as much as £800. The whole of that is now changed, and the pay of a captain no longer hears any relation to the class of his ship, and, therefore, to the expenses which he is obliged to incur. I consider this question of the pay of captains to be one of the branches of this subject which most imperatively requires attention. In a former debate I mentioned the fact that while I was at the Admiralty, in two instances, officers of great ability refused commands because they could not afford to accept them. I am sure the House will concur with mo in thinking that it is a great injury to Her Majesty's Service that such a state of things should exist. Perhaps the House will permit me to read brief ex- 108 tracts from letters which I have received, in consequence of what I then stated, from officers of high distinction, and now on full pay on board Her Majesty's ships. I shall not mention the names of the writers, but shall be happy to give them to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, or to any other hon. Member who may express a wish to have them. The first letter comes from an officer who is now an Admiral and on full pay. He entirely concurs in my view of the retirement question, and, alluding to what I stated on a former occasion about the insufficiency of a captain's pay, he states that between his attaining the rank of commander and his attaining his flag he had no less than seven commands. He says:—I question if £4,000 would repay me for what all my ships cost me from the day I was made a commander until I got my flag, and I had seven different fresh commands.The writer of this letter would be regarded by the officers of the navy generally as a fortunate man; and, without reference to his interest or his position, I doubt whether the profession would not say he is one the most brilliant and best officers we have. He had what is usually called the good luck to obtain seven commands between his commander's rank and his flag. How little do the profession suppose that these advantages, as they are termed, have been gained at a cost to his own pocket of £4,000! The next letter comes from an officer also of high distinction, now commanding one of our blockships. He writes in these terms:—I have dipped heavily Into my small private means to arrive at and keep up my position, and unless there were a naval war, when I would live on bare ship's allowance rather than not serve, I could not afford to take a more active command than that I at present hold, from the feeling that I should be unable to support my position as it ought to be maintained in the service afloat, and at the same time do justice to my children; and I know of many officers who are similarly circumstanced.I shall now read a letter from an officer who is not at present on full pay, but who was so a very short time ago, because I myself appointed him to a ship. He writes:—In the first place, as you clearly pointed out, on a captain commissioning a ship he cannot prepare himself for sea to proceed to a foreign station under a sum varying from £300 to £400, depending on the class of ship he is appointed to and the station he is ordered to; and how is an officer dependant on the service to obtain this sum except by borrowing, and what prospect has he of repay- 109 ing it with interest at the end of his commission, when his full pay is barely sufficient to provide common necessaries for himself, to say nothing of having to entertain his officers occasionally at his table? An officer placed in such circumstances is prevented from being as courteous as he is enjoined to be by policy, and even by the rules of the service, to foreign officers whom he is constantly meeting; he cannot even return the civilities which they show him. This distressing and undignified position I have personally experienced in the ship you gave me a commission to. … At this time an American commodore and other foreign ships were at anchor in the bay, when, of course, the usual civilities of calling, &c, were exchanged, and I was frequently invited to dine on board one or other of these ships, when I was at once placed in the painful and perplexing position of accepting these invitations without the means of returning them, or refusing them, and feeling ashamed to state the plain reason that my country did not pay me sufficiently to enable me to return their hospitality. … This is the position every captain or commander commanding a. ship is more or less subject to on receiving an appointment—a position which I feel confident the House of Commons will never permit the captains of the English navy to be placed in when it is fairly pointed out to them—and is a complete corroboration of your statement in the House.Let me read one more letter from an officer who a year ago was on full pay as a commander. He writes:—I can speak from experience as to the pay of a commander and a lieutenant in command, having served four years and a half in the former and nearly two years in the latter rank: and I am quite sure, unless an officer has some private income, a command is a source of expense, and not of emolument.I referred on a former evening to the difference between the French service and ours in this respect. France does not allow her officers to be exposed to these painful difficulties and trials. In the same letter I have a brief statement of the rates of pay in the two services. A French lieutenant in command receives 15f. a day as table money, which is equal to 12s. 6d., and his daily pay is 7s.; total, 19s. 6d. An English lieutenant in command receives, daily pay, 11s.; light money, 1s.; value of rations, 10d.; total 12s. 10d., as against 19s. 6d. A capitaine de frigate receives, daily pay, 9s. 5d.; table money, 16s.; total, £1 5s. 5d. An English commander receives daily, 16s. 6d.; light money and rations 1s. 10d.; total, 18s. 4d., as against £1 5s. 5d. I state these facts in confirmation of what I have already mentioned, and to show the great difference which prevails between the two services, and the great hardship inflicted on the English commanders or lieutenants in command, who are called on to discharge 110 their duties to their country at a positive loss to themselves. I will next advert to the case of the masters. I remember that last year my noble Friend, the Secretary for the Admiralty, soon after assuming his present office, made a charge against me on the ground that I had not dealt with the masters; and the other night, again, he asked me why I had not done this and other things. Well, my answer is that my noble Friend was one of those who prevented me from doing them by turning me out of office. I was prevented from going on with what I had begun, and, therefore, I think it very hard that my noble Friend, who as it were stepped into my shoes, should recriminate upon me. But let me tell my noble Friend that I presume to think that if I had not been turned out of office I should have dealt with the masters rather better than he has done. I do not charge the present Board of Admiralty with doing nothing in regard to the masters, because it has dealt with them, but in such an unsatisfactory way that the complaints are not removed. Now, if I had dealt with the case of the masters at all, I think I should have dealt with it in a manner to quiet their complaints. I have here a letter from a well-known master in one of our line-of-battle ships, and he states:—One ill-effect which the late circular must produce is the desire to avoid the regular line of service in men of war, and get into small tenders, storeships, &c.,—appointments which are much more permanent and better paid. These large ships—especially flagships—are to be avoided in a pecuniary point of view. Could I exchange into the smallest possible vessel bearing a master, and having charge of stores, my pay would be greatly increased.I have another letter from an officer of the same rank, but I will not trouble the House with extracts from it. The substance of the statement is that the changes made by the Board of Admiralty with respect to the masters are not only unsatisfactory to the masters themselves, but are very prejudicial to Her Majesty's service in this respect, that in consequence of these changes there is an increased inducement to enter the service as masters' assistants, but there is no proportionate inducement to remain in the service. Thus you have a number of young men entering as masters' assistants, taking the benefit of the education and training in the navy, and then leaving for the merchant service, where they get on better than if they had 111 remained in the ill-requited service of the Queen. Another branch of the profession with which the Admiralty dealt was that of the paymasters; but the Board did not deal with them in a way to satisfy them. With respect to all these cases, I must beg it to be understood that I do not commit myself to the expression of any opinion as to whether these complaints are well or ill-founded. I only say that, if they are not well-founded, let them, after investigation, be exposed and disregarded; but if they are well-founded, then let not a feeling of just discontent be cherished in the Queen's service. With respect to the paymasters, I know very well that the higher classes are in receipt of considerable pay as compared with some other officers in the navy; but the complaint they make has reference to their half-pay, and I own it appears to have some foundation. I have a statement showing the full-pay and half-pay of masters, chaplains, surgeons, and paymasters. Taking the mean between the full-pay and half-pay, the difference in regard to masters is 5s., in regard to chaplains 5s. 1d., in regard to surgeons and engineers 5s. 2d., but the moan difference with regard to paymasters is 13s. 11d. Consequently there appears a great discrepancy between the treatment of the paymasters, and that of the other branches of the service to which I have alluded. Believing I have laid a foundation for the Motion I have to submit to the House, I will not go into details with respect to the complaints advanced by other classes—engineers, naval instructors, &c. They are all more or loss discontented with their position. The argument I draw from these statements is, that such complaints ought to be investigated; for it cannot be to the interest of the service that discontent should continue. I entreat the House to bear in mind that brief, but most expressive sentence, in the Report of the Wellington Commission—"contented, and therefore efficient." If you want efficiency, you ought to have contentment, and you will have contentment if you do justice. Do not, however, refuse to entertain complaints when they are made. We are at present considering the subject of our national defences. One element of national defence is, that your officers, who are your instruments for defence, should be satisfied with their position; and if your officers are contented, you are much more likely to have contented crews. Why should the Government refuse the Commission I 112 ask for? If there exist difficulties in the service, why should they not be investigated in the way in which the difficulties in the sister service were investigated? I confess that I have only heard one objection to a Commission, and that was stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, who said that a Commission would be appointed by the Admiralty, and therefore he would not trust it. I do not share in any such feeling. I do not believe that the Admiralty would deal otherwise than fairly on such a question; and, if a Commission is granted, I am confident that the Admiralty will see that it is properly and honourably constituted. Indeed, there is a considerable guarantee that such would be the case, in the circumstance that the appointment of the Commission by the Admiralty, would be an important public act, performed under serious responsibility, and before the eyes of the public and the profession. As I believe, on the one hand, that the Admiralty would not for a moment be inclined to constitute such a Commission unfairly, so I believe on the other, that, whatever might be their inclinations, they would not dare to attempt any unfair proceeding. I ask the House, then, in the name of the navy, and of the country, to accede to my Motion; and if the noble Lord should not assent to it, I shall feel it to be my duty to take the sense of the House upon my proposition, which I think essential to the welfare of the naval service. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving,That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to consider the present system of promotion and retirement in the Royal Navy, and the present pay and position of the several classes of Naval Officers, and to report what changes therein are desirable, with a view to the increased efficiency of Her Majesty's Naval Service.
§ SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURsaid, that the measure which was proposed was calculated to allay the dissatisfaction which undoubtedly had grown up in the minds of all classes of persons in the navy. These inquiries had been instituted with great advantage to the service from the earliest periods of our history, and he trusted that this inquiry would not be refused now. On those grounds he had great pleasure in seconding the proposal of the right hon. Baronet. With regard to the retirement scheme of the present Board of Admiralty there was much obscurity in his mind, and 113 he was unable to discover its advantages. There was no doubt that it it held out advantages to the junior members of the service, and to them would prove beneficial; but as it had no reference to the officers of the old war, he must enter his protest against it. He entered the service at a period when masters' mates came in as volunteers from the merchant service, and whenever there was hard work to be done these masters' mates, by their gallantry, were most conspicuous; many of them still remained on the list of lieutenants, and he regretted that in the scheme of the noble Lord the services of these officers as mates would not count for increased half-pay and other allowances. He believed that the scheme would bear singularly hard upon those who had not sufficient influence or good fortune to get to sea. Then, as to their condition in respect to seniority, that should be properly and fairly considered. Again, in respect to the reserved commanders having the rank of captains, the scheme would have the effect of upsetting those commanders, and deprive them of those privileges which by existing arrangements they were now entitled to. He considered that no good reason could be shown why the proposal of the right hon. Baronet should not be agreed to. Again, the question of the half-pay required to be adjusted and considered, and he (Sir Michael Seymour) knew of no other mode of doing so than that which was now proposed. Reference had been made to the Royal Commission—and a most important one it was—which was appointed in 1840, and the object of that was to ascertain the relative situation of each rank, and whether it might be practicable and expedient to make any changes, and if so, what, in the present system. That was no party question, and he should be sorry to stand up in that House as a naval officer as a party man in any matter which he believed deeply interested the public service. It would not be necessary for him to enter into details, as that had been ably done by the right hon. Baronet, and with whom he (Sir Michael Seymour) entirely agreed. He had received similar letters to those alluded to by the right hon. Baronet from all quarters, impressing upon him the necessity of the appointment of a Commission like that which the right hon. Baronet asked for, and he trusted the Government would consent to it, as one deeply affecting the efficiency of the service.
CAPTAIN TALBOTwished to bear his 114 testimony to the feeling existing in the service that such an inquiry was wanted. There was a belief that justice was not done to all classes, and that a strict investigation was necessary. He was not prepared to attack the scheme of the noble Lord, but, at the same time, he thought it did not go far enough. He trusted that the Government would be prepared to appoint a Commission, the necessity of which had been fully substantiated by the right hon. Baronet.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETSir, I am far from complaining of the tone and manner in which the right hon. Baronet has alluded to the claims and has set forth the grievances of the various officers in the navy respecting pay, promotion, and retirement. The only thing that surprises me is that the right hon. Gentleman, feeling these grievances so poignantly, did not while he was at the Admiralty redress them. He was in office longer than the present Board have been, and all these questions must have been just as patent to him then as they are now. Why, then, did he not take steps during the time in which he held his high position to carry into effect all these schemes for the benefit of the officers of the navy? [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: I did.] The right hon. Gentleman certainly did deal with the question, but in a very partial spirit, except with regard to one class of officers—namely, the surgeons, towards whom he acted very generously. The surgeons have very properly shown great gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman, and only the other day an application was made to the Admiralty to allow the right hon. Gentleman's bust to be placed in the museum at Haslar. But why, when he was dealing with the surgeons, did the right hon. Gentleman overlook the claims of other officers? Why were not the claims of the masters, paymasters, engineers, and the chaplains considered? The right hon. Gentleman professed a great and no doubt a sincere desire to improve the position of the chaplains, and he produced a scheme which was such an utter failure that the chaplains declined to avail themselves of it, and preferred to remain under the old system of pay. That is a proof that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his earnest desire to serve the navy, can fail as well as his neighbours. I admit that the proposal which the House has had before it within the last few days would admit of enlargement. I never denied that if we could 115 deal with those excellent old officers to whom the hon. and gallant Admiral has referred in a more generous spirit it would be very desirable, and would be very agreeable to the Board of Admiralty. But oar duty is not confined to getting as much money as we can, but we have to consider what is best for the profession, and I say again, after a careful consideration and comparison with the respective offices in the sister service, that the scheme proposed by the Board of Admiralty is a fail-one. It is a curious fact that my hon. and gallant Friend who seconded this Motion admits that this scheme does offer advantages to the junior branches of the service. Why, it was exactly in favour of the junior branches of the service that this scheme was proposed. No doubt, there are men who were mates before I entered the service, and remain still in the junior branches of the navy. Those are things of other days, and I wish to say as little about them as I can. I admit that we who—as my hon. and gallant Friend expressed it the other night—have been born with silver spoons in our mouths have had great advantages over many gallant and meritorious officers; but there are cases of comparison between very fortunate individuals on the one hand, and very unfortunate individuals on the other hand, which hardly bear upon the question before the House. The object of the Government is to produce such a scheme as at the least cost will insure a proper flow of promotion in the navy. That is the principle on which the scheme is formed, and as far as regards the retirement of officers, I believe it will fulfil its object. With regard to mates, it is not now for the first time I have to consider the claims of these officers. All I can say is that the Board of Admiralty has at this moment under consideration the question of mates and their time. There is no doubt that any additional consideration that can be given to that subject will be of advantage, and, if anything can be done which will not involve any very large addition to the public expenditure, the Board will at least take it into their serious consideration. My impression is that it would not be any very great increase of expense if some small allowance for mates' sea-time were granted to those officers who have served many years. These, however, are points of detail which can be better dealt with by the Board of Admiralty than by any Royal Commission. There can be no doubt that a Commission appointed as 116 my right hon. Friend suggests would propose an increase of pay and improvement in the position of officers; but when I show how the cases of all these officers have been dealt with in former times, how their positions have been improved by successive Boards of Admiralty, I think it will be seen that it would be much better that the Department under which these officers serve should be charged from time to time with the duty of making the requisite improvements in their position, and of making such proposals as may gradually conduce to the advantage of the service, rather than to unsettle the whole navy by appointing a Commission which cannot fail to excite hopes that must be infallibly blighted. If you appoint a Royal Commission, it will be taken throughout the navy that you are going to adopt a grand scheme to improve the position and increase the pay of every class of officers in the service. I hold that that would be an unwholesome proceeding. I maintain that, upon a comparison of the navy with the army, as a general rule, officers in the navy are as fairly paid as officers in the sister service. I will just refer to the case which my right hon. Friend has brought before the House, by which he sought to show that the pay of captains in the navy is not commensurate with their position, and that they are compelled to incur great expenses in showing hospitality as incidents of their position. But, supposing that the right hon. Gentleman has this strong feeling for captains, any one would believe that when such cases came before him when he was in office he would immediately have taken up the matter and have adopted steps to remedy those grievances. When he alluded to this case the other night I went back to the Admiralty, expecting that I should find he had taken some steps while he was at the Board. I did find a very respectful memorial drawn up by a captain of a line-of-battle ship, setting forth his expenses and urging that his pay was inadequate to his expenditure. I looked to see what the right hon. Gentleman had done. I found that all the other members of the then Board of Admiralty expressed strong opinions that the pay should be increased; but when the memorial reached the right hon. Baronet I only found the word "read." That was all the notice he then took of a very respectful memorial which was laid before him. I only want to show that my right hon. Friend when out of office and with full 117 leisure to think over these matters is bringing forward cases with which he should have dealt himself when he was at the Admiralty. As to this very memorial, what has the present Board done? It was unfortunately laid before them after the Estimates had been prepared, but the Board made a Minute that in the next Estimates the case of the captains should be deal with, and at the beginning of next year we shall be prepared to propose some increased allowance for officers in command of ship? It is a question I think of great importance to the service, and one that ought to be admitted. The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison between the pay of officers in the French and English navies respectively. But again my right hon. Friend tells the House what is certainly interesting, but what is not complete. He omitted to state that the captains in the English navy got allowances of plate, linen, &c, which are not granted in the French navy, and those allowances must be taken into consideration in instituting a comparison between the pay of those respective services. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Sir Michael Seymour) alluded to the time passed in the Coastguard service being by the Admiralty proposal allowed to count as one year in three. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend, a distinguished officer who has been all his life at sea, whether he thinks that officers serving in the Coastguard are entitled to count their time as respects superannuation and half-pay exactly as if they were serving on distant foreign stations, many of them unhealthy and very expensive? I say the idea is perfectly monstrous. It would be a gross injustice to the officers on active service; it would hold out a premium to every married officer, who would, no doubt, be very glad to live with his family, to say, "I will enter the Coastguard, where I have equal hopes of promotion, superannuation, and increased half pay. Why should I go and serve in the West Indies, or on the coast of Africa?" It would be impossible to carry out any such scheme as that. With regard to harbour and guard-ship service, I think it may very well be arranged that the time during which officers are employed in the harbour guardships should not count altogether in the same ratio as the time passed in real sea service. An hon. Member proposed to put a question to me to-day as to the actual position of the reserved captains. The position of 118 those officers, according to the Admiralty scheme, is this:—Reserved captains who have served less than 9 years will continue to receive the half-pay which they may be receiving at the time of retirement. Officers who have served over 9 years and under 12 will receive 10s. 6d. per day; those who have served over 12 and under 15 years, 12s. 6d. per day; those who have served over 15 and under 20 years, 14s. 6d. per day; and those who have served more than 20 years, 16s. 6d. per day. I beg the right hon. Member for Portsmouth's attention to this. Every reserved captain who has served at sea above 20 years will receive an addition of 6s. a-day to his half-pay. The right horn Gentleman seemed disposed to claim for these officers the same position in the Navy List as those have who are liable to go upon active service. It would, I maintain, be very unjust to officers on the active list if men nominally having the same commission but never liable to be called on to serve wore allowed to rise with them on the Navy List, and so to struggle upwards with them for their flags. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, when as First Lord he established his scheme, distinctly stated over and over again that he could not put this class of officers in the same position, as the active list; and successive Boards of Admiralty have always acted on the same principle. With regard to the Motion of my right hon. Friend, I think it far better that these cases should be dealt with by the Government as they arise. A reference to what has been done of late years will, I believe, show that it is unnecessary to have a Commission appointed to examine this question. For instance, in February, 1855, the rates of full and half-pay for masters, second masters, and masters' assistants were revised, and retirement at sixty years of age provided for. In April, 1856, the rates of captains were established; and though I do not mean to say that the changes were always advantageous, yet they are a proof that the subject was constantly engrossing the attention of the Admiralty. In January, 1856, an Order in Council was issued, increasing the pay of chaplains in the navy; in the same month a second Order was made, regulating the full and half-pay, and otherwise improving the position of masters; in May, 1859, the pay granted to the medical officers was established by a new Order in Council; and in the same month a fresh regulation 119 was made respecting the pay of the chaplains, which Order in Council was afterwards cancelled from the fact that the chaplains declined the conditions under which the advantages were offered to them. During the period to which I have referred, there were also numerous changes in relation to the retirement and pay of the Royal Marines. I quote these facts in order to show that this subject has been constantly before the Admiralty, and that as it becomes manifest that the pay or position of any class of officers requires revision their case is taken into consideration, and year after year Parliament is asked to grant considerable sums for their benefit. And this has been done not by one Government and one Board of Admiralty, but by every Government and every Board of Admiralty in succession, I think, therefore, it would be wiser to trust to the responsible department of the State to suggest such alterations as may from time to time be required to improve the position of those officers who may appear to be insufficiently paid, rather than, by calling together a commission, to open the whole subject, and thereby, in my opinion, to render the officers of every branch of the navy unsettled in their minds. Each grade thinking it has a grievance would naturally bring it forward, availing itself of the opportunity thus afforded to it, as we should all of us do in the same case if we knew that a body of men were about to sit for the improvement of our condition. For that reason I believe it is most undesirable that such a Commission should be appointed. With due respect for my right hon. Friend, and for the great zeal and talent he brought to bear on the discharge of his heavy and important duties while at the head of the Admiralty, I say it is most injurious to the public service, when the man who may fill such an office comes down and tells the House of Commons that every class in the navy is discontented. I say that is holding out a positive premium to discontent. I beg leave to deny that this wide-spread dissatisfaction exists. Naval men, no doubt, like all other Englishmen, have the privilege of grumbling, and a blessed privilege it is, and that sometimes they have a good cause for their grumbling I am quite ready to admit. But Boards of Admiralty—whether that presided over by my right hon. Friend or the present one—have had these very questions relating to the pay of captains and other ranks continually before 120 them, and wherever the Board sees any class of officers whose position requires improvement, I can only say they will not fail to give the matter due attention. Under these circumstances I trust the House will not agree to the Commission for which my hon. Friend has moved.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he could not regard the speech of the noble Lord as having satisfactorily shown that the proposed Commission should not be appointed. The noble Lord had told them that post captains on the reserved list would receive certain advantages from his plan, but he did not think that the same advantages ought to be given to officers who had served in the Coastguard, fie would show the House what the services of those gentlemen really were, having received a very simple statement from one of the officers on that list of his case, and the effect of the noble Lord's scheme on his position—and he believed the case was a fair sample of many. The gentleman in question had served 16 years as a midshipman, 17 years as lieutenant in the Coastguard, and 7 years as inspecting commander of the Coastguard—making altogether 40 years' service, for which service he would receive seven years' and nine months' consideration under the new scheme. In the course of his service he had had his arm broken and been otherwise wounded in six different encounters with smugglers, his life being three times despaired of. His services as midshipman and mate were in war time, and had extended over almost as long a period as many gentlemen born with silver spoons in their mouths served to get the rank of post captains; and after all those years of service he had actually no other means of getting employment than by entering the Coastguard, for no other means was open twenty years ago to officers of that class. That was not an individual case, but on the contrary hundreds might be enumerated, and he asked whether that was not a class of officers who ought to enjoy the same advantages as those who had been more fortunate in obtaining employment in the service. He could state of his own knowledge that very great discontent did exist among all classes of officers in the navy, and that not only did it exist, but there was the strongest grounds for its existence. He thought, therefore, that such a Commission as was asked for ought to be appointed. It should be of a very wide and comprehensive 121 character, and the inquiry under it ought to commence with the warrant officers, who from the paucity of efficient midshipmen very frequently had to perform the duties of officers of that rank. He complained that by some extraordinary arrangement the Admiralty had succeeded in cutting off at least thirty years' pension from the officers' widows, and that many of the changes which had been made, so far from being an advantage, were detrimental to the interests of the warrant officers. He thought, also, that they should exercise more care than they did in introducing young and but half-educated boys into the navy. The way in which this was done was this—some influential elector in a county or borough wanted to get his son into the navy. He immediately went to the Member for his place, who got the boy sent to the Britannia, and after a short time he was drafted into the navy. He contended that many of these boys would never make really good and efficient officers. Let a boy have a good classical education at a public school, if possible, and then put him into a naval college, and at fifteen or sixteen he might enter the navy, and would learn his profession a great deal faster and better than a youngster placed in the navy under the other system would ever do. He had always remarked that well-educated young men became speedily proficient in their duty at sea, and the reason was obvious: they were much more intelligent than the great mass of boys who entered the navy uneducated and their minds totally unformed. In the same way they found that the Volunteer corps had learned their duties much more quickly than ordinary recruits did, because they were intelligent, and at once comprehended the nature and effect of the orders which they received. He thought that the time of a Commission might be most valuably employed in ascertaining the character and acquirements of the class of boys who entered the navy, with a view of becoming its future commanders and officers. The lieutenants had not the same advantages as officers in the army of the same rank; they were not allowed servants; they had no leave or any opportunity to visit their friends and families; their position altogether was inferior to the position of officers in the corresponding rank of the army. Very often they were sent to command small vessels at sea, and had duties cast upon them which were of the most arduous 122 description. A lieutenant commanding a gunboat or a vessel of that size would have a second master, and an assistant-surgeon, but at the same time he himself would have to do all the pen-and-ink work on board the ship, and there would be the same amount of that work on board that small vessel as there would be on board the Royal Albert, while he only received an addition of two shillings a day to his pay. The noble Lord said that he intended to look into the case of the post captains. It was high time that he should do so. There were now many captains and commanders who were carrying on the business of the country out of their own funds; and he did not believe that there was a single captain in our magnificent fleet who had not a private fortune who would not be glad to exchange to half-pay if he could honourably do so. The expense of entertaining not only their own officers, but those of other squadrons and of foreign navies and strangers of distinction, was so great that it must seriously diminish the private fortunes of all captains of line-of-battle ships and frigates. He thought that the introduction of a different system of mess on board ship would be attended with the greatest advantages, especially in small ships, for he never could understand why a captain in the navy should sit in solitary grandeur dining by himself in his cabin instead of being president of the mess on board his ship, in the way that colonels of regiments were presidents of the officers' mess. Not only in such cases would the general comfort of the officers be increased, and many irregularities abolished, but the tone and manner of the younger officers, he thought, would be greatly benefited by association with their seniors and their superior officers. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich had stated what were the rates of pay in the French navy. With the permission of the House, he would mention those of the American marine. In the American service a senior captain received £1,177 per annum; a captain in charge of a squadron, £1,041; all other captains, £911 9s. 2d.; commanders who had served five years, £650 5s.; those who had commanded less, £588 10s. 16d.; lieutenants after thirteen years, £468 16s. 11d.; after eleven years, £416 13s. 4d.; after nine years, £395 10s. 6d.; after seven years, £354 3s. 4d.; under seven years, £312 10s.; mates, £172 18s. 4d. Lieutenants after thirteen years service got £18 a year more than 123 post captains in the British, navy; junior lieutenants more than commanders; and mates within a few pounds as much as commanders. [Lord CLABENCE PAGET: Read the half-pay.] Captains on leave or waiting for orders, which answered to our half-pay, got for the first five years 1,900 dollars, and for the second 2,016 dollars; lieutenants received from 1,200 to 1,450 dollars. He was not, therefore, surprised at hearing the comments which had been made on the rate of pay, and he sincerely hoped that this Commission would be appointed, and that the whole subject would undergo the closest and most searching-investigation.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he came down to the House with the firm determination of opposing the right hon. Baronet. Since hearing his statement, however, he had changed his mind. He had never before heard any First Lord of the Admiralty support the claims of the officers of the navy as the right hon. Barenet had done, nor had he ever listened to a fairer and more accurate statement of their case. The right hon. Gentleman had shown that the treatment of the captains in the navy was most unfair and most injudicious. Now, it was of the utmost importance that the captains should be properly remunerated. He knew from experience how prejudicial it was to the discipline of the navy when their pay was inadequate to maintain the dignity of their position by receiving their officers at table and living in proper style. It lowered them in the eyes both of officers and men. When the captain was forced, from the smallness of his means, to order a chop and potato for dinner, there was a great quizzing at the galley, and he was called "a poor, miserable, shabby devil." His outfit too involved a very considerable expenditure. It was impossible for a captain to furnish his quarters on board ship, even in the most economical manner, for less than £300. It was quite true that the Admiralty supplied officers with linen and plate, but they charged more than a Jew's price for them. It was the first time their position had been fairly brought before the House, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having done it. He would certainly vote for the Commission with his right hon. Friend, and he hoped it would inquire not only into the position of the higher class of officers, but also into that of the warrant and petty officers and seamen, whose condition 124 undoubtedly required amelioration. He trusted also that the Commission would not neglect to inquire into the provision made for warrant officers' widows, which was quite disgraceful. The question of promotion ought also to occupy the serious attention of the Commission. It was absurd to hope that political interest would ever cease under any administration to have its effect on the disposal of patronage, but surely merit and seniority ought not to be entirely overlooked. In Prance so many officers were promoted by seniority, and so many by what was called "selection." That was a question the Commission would do well to consider. The noble and gallant Lord (Lord C. Paget) had told the House that they had better leave the matter to the Admiralty, and that he was going to do a great deal next year. But the Admiralty was a moveable body, and perhaps the noble and gallant Lord might not be in office next year to fulfil his promise. Besides, experience warned them that very antiquated notions prevailed at the Admiralty, and that a question of this kind could not be left entirely to its discretion. The noble Lord had asked why, if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) complained of so little having been done, he did not do more when he was at the Admiralty. It was only fair, however, to remember that the right hon. Gentleman effected much, and, if he had remained in office he had not the smallest doubt he would have done a great deal more. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was open to the charge brought against him by the noble Lord, of causing discontent among the officers of the navy. He had, on the contrary, endeavoured to ameliorate their position, and had left a bright example for his successors to follow, which he was sorry to say they had not done; moreover, a Member of the House who showed what real grievances those who served in the navy suffered and endeavoured to remedy those grievances contributed, not to create discontent, but to produce a better feeling throughout the service. The noble Lord's attack upon the right hon. Gentleman was both unjust and ungenerous. If the noble Lord could show that the present Board of Admiralty had been more successful in its administration than the last there would be some reason why the noble Lord should find fault with the naval administration of the right hon. Gentleman. Before the noble Lord came into office he made many most 125 severe accusations against the late Boards. He accused them of spending £5,000,000 in eleven years, either improperly or without accounting for it. The noble Lord was not able to justify that accusation before the Committee, but he had never withdrawn the charge. The noble Lord was mistaken in asserting that his (Sir Charles Napier's) speeches had caused discontent in the navy, and that he had gone about among the sailors to excite discontent. He had, on the contrary, kept away from the men, for the express purpose of averting such a charge. When the noble Lord said that corporal punishment should be done away with, he did more harm to the service than he would ever be able to do good. He should support the Motion for a Commission, and he trusted it would be composed of men who really knew the service, and who were not afraid to speak their minds to the Admiralty. If, however, the recommendations of such a Commission were only to be partially attended to, like those of the Manning Commission and the Greenwich Hospital Commission, then it would be better not to appoint a Commission at all. If the rules of fairness and justice were observed there would be no difficulty in manning the navy. With regard to the officers, if the discontent which was said to exist really did prevail, the sooner the Admiralty set to work to ameliorate their condition the better.
§ SIR FRANCIS BARINGwould not enter upon the numerous topics which had occupied the attention of the last two Speakers, but would address himself to the actual question before the House. The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was for an inquiry upon two grounds. The first, which stood at the head of the Motion, was for a Commission to consider the present system of promotion and retirement, and the pay and position of the officers. The second branch of the inquiry stood upon a different footing, and he would first take that question which in the course of his official career claimed much of his attention—namely, retirement from the service. Now, upon what ground did the right hon. Gentleman ask for an inquiry into the subject of retirement? He must regard this as much too serious a matter to be dealt with as a party question, and he confessed he was struck with the want of any good ground for the appointment of a Commission for taking the retirement of officers out of the hands of 126 the Admiralty, and vesting it in an independent authority. Was any great evil shown to exist in regard to the present state of promotion and retirement? When he (Sir Francis Baring) was at the Admiralty the list of Admirals was filled with officers incapable of going to sea, and who by their ago were, however gallant their services had been, unfit to command in time of war. It was admitted that this was no longer the case, and this was an important improvement. When he came into office it was his duty to look out for an Admiral for some service that was required. After doing his best he was obliged to choose an officer who was above seventy years of age. If war had broken out at that time, there would only have been two Admirals under sixty who could have been sent to sea. He earned a great deal of unpopularity by the measures he undertook, but ho had the consolation of feeling that, if a war now broke out, and it was necessary for the Admiralty to look out for an Admiral, there would be plenty of Admirals young and active enough to be able to do their duty and serve their country efficiently. The captains' list was at that time similarly encumbered. An officer was, however, no longer obliged to serve thirty years as a captain, and the captains' list was now amply supplied with young and efficient officers. With regard to commanders and lieutenants, a fixed number for each rank was established. It must be admitted that until the specified number was reached promotion was slow, to a certain degree. If the right hon. Gentleman, however, fairly compared the promotion of ton years under the new system with the promotion of ten years when there was no limit, he would find that the promotion of captains and commanders was much more rapid now than in the old times. Promotion was then made out of 3,000 names, while it was now made out of 1,000, so that the chance of promotion was much better than it used to be. After a considerable struggle things had just been brought to this condition—that the list had been brought down to a proper number, and for the future every vacancy would be filled up, promotion would consequently be more rapid than it had ever been before. In short, they had got into that position which had been the day, dream of successive Lords of the Admiralty for many years past. Was this then the moment for disturbing the arrangement by which the object so long sought for 127 had been accomplished, or to enter upon an inquiry which would excite hopes of a great change in the existing system of retirement that were not likely to be realized? He would remind the House that however generous their feelings towards the profession, they had a duty to perform, and would urge them not to be led away by their feelings to do that which he believed would be alike injurious to the service and to the officers themselves. What happened at the close of the great war? The consequence in some degree of the pressure put upon the House, and of those generous feelings towards the naval profession to which he had alluded, was to force on a mass of promotions, the evil effects of which even to this day were not altogether removed. In one single year 1,000 lieutenants were made and placed upon the active lists; but it was impossible to find employment for them, so that they were really in a worse position than if they had been allowed to retire from the service, and turn their abilities into some other sphere of action where they might have been profitably employed. He hoped the House would take warning by that example, and not allow their feelings of generosity to carry them too far. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich referred to three plans which had been submitted to the late Board of Admiralty, and urged that as a ground for inquiry; but he (Sir Francis Baring) confessed that up to the present moment he was not aware which of those was the ultimate plan of the right hon. Baronet, and which scheme the late Admiralty Board recommended. Certainly he could not recognize the suggestion of those three plans as any sufficient ground for appointing a Commission. The right hon. Baronet said he had reason to believe that this plan had the approbation of the navy, and he (Sir Francis Baring) took it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman's own Board approved of it. If so he should be glad to know which plan it was. The rumour, however, went that it was not quite so acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues at the Admiralty. But whether that were so or not, the right hon. Gentleman was bound to show, on moving for a Commission of inquiry that there existed some specific evil which required a remedy. The inquiry into which the right hon. Gentleman asked them to enter was a very formidable one. It was an inquiry into the promotion, retirement, 128 pay, and position of all officers in the navy. To justify such a Motion very strong grounds were necessary. No such ground had been shown, and he had heard nothing which would warrant the House in taking these questions out of the hands of the Government, who were responsible, and handing them over to a Commission. The ground of the recommendation of the mixed Commission had been cut away, for it had been proved that, with regard to naval flag officers, there was a sufficient number of young active officers now upon the list. It was said that the lieutenants were satisfied with the state of things in 1842; but if so they had materially changed their tone since he was at the head of the Admiralty in 1849—for then the state of the navy was represented to be as bad as bad could be, and he heard from all sides grumbling enough to satisfy even the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But he objected altogether to taking these subjects out of the hands of the Government, and handing them over to a Commission. He did not say that there were not questions in which it might be well to appoint Commissions of Inquiry; but, as a general rule, it was far better for the House of Commons to hold the Government responsible for the proper and efficient performance of the duties which properly belonged to it. Suppose a Commission appointed and certain recommendations made. The House would naturally insist upon those recommendations being carried into effect. Who in that case would be responsible? Certainly not the Government, for they might altogether differ from them. Nor would it be the Commission; for no responsibility could attach to them beyond the inquiry itself. The Commissioners would look only to the immediate object for which they were appointed; whereas the Government were responsible for all that they did; and would, consequently, take a broader and safer view of any question upon which they might be required to deliberate. Again, he reminded the House that these Commissions were expensive luxuries. These questions of pay, promotion, and retirement were no light matters; and he recommended the House to leave them in the hands of the Admiralty, who were responsible; and not transfer them to an irresponsible body of Commissioners, who might make recommendations which the Government might consider impolitic and unwise, and yet feel themselves bound to carry out. He 129 opposed the Motion, moreover, because, if carried, it would produce uncomfortable feeling's in the navy, and excite hopes which could never be realized. There was not a finer service in the world than the British Navy; but, amongst other privileges, it enjoyed that of unlimited grumbling; and he was not surprised at the right hon. Baronet receiving any number of letters from officers of the navy, setting forth cases of individual grievance, as arising from the present regulations. He might be sure, when it was known that he, as an ex-Lord of the Admiralty, took the lead in these questions, he would have plenty of such letters flowing in upon him. There would be many who would believe they had a grievance, because a late First Lord told them so, though they never knew it before. He had heard with great pleasure that the condition of the mates—he meant the old mates of the time of war—was before the Admiralty. He thought they had a case; and he should be glad if, upon consideration, the Admiralty found they could do anything to ameliorate their present position. He had no wish to prevent inquiry; on the contrary, he was anxious that every case of grievance, or supposed grievance, should be investigated; but that the investigation should be by the responsible authorities, and not by an irresponsible Commission.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEobserved that the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke had touched scarcely at all upon the pay and position of the officers of the navy, which really constituted the most important portion of his right hon. Friend's Motion. He gave every credit to the noble Secretary to the Admiralty for doing all he could for the navy, and if he did not do all he wished, it was because he was controlled in his good intentions. A great ground of complaint was that the navy was not treated with the same consideration as the army. Look at the immense advantage which General Officers had of being appointed to the colonelcies of regiments—but there was no corresponding benefit held out to old admirals as rewards for long and distinguished service. Then, again, military men were frequently appointed to Colonial garrisons in various parts of the world, but it very rarely happened that such appointments fell to the lot of naval officers. He might refer to many other instances showing that the navy was not treated with the same generosity as the army. He brought forward 130 a case the other day proving that the navy had, in respect to the recent war with China, been treated with great injustice as compared with the army, and he was happy to say that that injustice the noble Lord had endeavoured since to remedy. He could bear testimony to the accuracy of what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) in regard to the officers commanding ships, having himself known many officers who had been put to great expense—in some instances to expense they could ill afford—through being appointed by the Admiralty to command. It should be recollected that upon foreign stations the captains of British men-of-war were frequently placed very much in the position of the Foreign Minister, and not only had great responsibility cast upon them, but had often to incur very considerable charge, and it was a well known fact, that many well-qualified naval officers would prefer not to be appointed to ships, because of the expense to which they were in consequence put—often to the serious injury of their families. The noble Lord at the head of the Government brought forward on Monday the question of coast fortifications, and submitted the Government proposition amid the entire sympathy of the House. But he (Mr. B. Cochrane) believed that some of the money proposed to be raised—and this was a question of money—could not be better expended than in doing justice to the naval service, and thus fortifying themselves in the hearts of the people. That he believed would, after all, be found the most efficient fortification. He trusted the Motion would be pressed to a division and carried, the necessity of which he thought was sufficiently proved by the difference of opinion which had been shown during the debate to exist between two ex-First Lords of the Admiralty.
MR. LINDSAYwas also of opinion that inquiry was necessary. If they looked at the active list of admirals—not the retired or reserved list—they would find that in 1859 out of 99 admirals on the list there were only 14 employed, that out of 357 captains only 97 were employed, and ont of 514 commanders, only 173 were employed. And, if they turned back to the most active period of the late war, when all our naval force was put forward, they would find that out of 99 admirals only 18 were employed, that of 399 captains only 139 were employed, and out of 550 lieutenants, only 192 were employed. This was a matter that 131 ought to be inquired into, for he held that they had no right to bring men into the naval service unless there was a fair chance of finding employment for them. Here, however, it appeared that so little was the chance of employment that, even during the heat of war, four-fifths of the officers on the effective list were unemployed. The cost to the country of the unemployed admirals, captains, commanders, and lieutenants was, during peace, £509,000 a year; and during a period of war, £484,000 a year. And while the country was paying half a million of money annually without obtaining any service in return for the outlay, the officers were justly dissatisfied with being condemned to waste the best part of their lives in idleness. Let there be an inquiry, therefore, for the purpose of seeing if the supply could not be brought more into accordance with the demand. It was all very well to say that the matter should be left in the hands of the Admiralty; but it should be recollected that the Admiralty had already brought forward a plan which had given no satisfaction. He had that morning received a letter from a distinguished naval officer (whose name he would not mention publicly, but would communicate to the Secretary of the Admiralty privately if he wished it) asking him (Mr. Lindsay), as he knew the disabilities under which officers in the navy laboured, to support the Motion of the right hon. Baronet, and adding that the noble Lord's scheme met with the strongest condemnation in the profession. That scheme did not touch the question of a large number of officers of various ranks unemployed, and inquiry was, therefore, more necessary now than before that scheme was propounded. Then, with regard to the mates in the navy—on the part of the merchant service he wished to remark that in the event of a war the Government would have to bring in a large number of activo young officers from that service to assist in the navy. If they expected them to come they must, however, deal more liberally with them than they had hitherto done. They must not shut the door of promotion against them, but give them a fair chance with the rest of rising to the highest station in the service. He should certainly, if the House divided, vote for the Motion.
MR. WHITBEEADsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and who was known to have paid great attention to all these subjects, complained of the excess 132 of officers in high position, and said that we admitted officers into the service whom we could not employ. But the answer was obvious; that it was necessary that in ordinary times we should have a large margin of such officers, because if a war broke out, and we were called on suddenly to man a large fleet, these were the officers whom we could not extemporize. We could easily fill up the lower ranks, but we could not produce on an emergency a number of experienced naval officers. The grounds which had been urged on behalf of this Motion were two. One was the grievances of the captains of line-of-battle ships, and other officers in command who were not allowed adequate table money; and the other, that mates' time was not counted for their promotion. He had certainly expected that the right hon. Baronet would have stated somewhat broader grounds for the appointment of a Commission that was to inquire into so many different points; but he had heard no adequate grounds stated. The right hon. Baronet made no attack upon the system of promotion—he confined himself to broad assertions that discontent which he knew—though the present Board did not—existed throughout the service, and to the two grievances before mentioned. Now, what was the reply of his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty? He stated that the question of the mates' time was still under consideration, and that no decision had been come to by the Board. And then with regard to the table-money question, the rule now so much complained of was, that captains should be paid according to their standing, and not according to the size of their ships; and the origin of the rule was this:—In 1856 it was necessary to appoint officers of the highest standing to small vessels, there being then a probability that the best men would be wanted in those commands. The rule in question was therefore established, on the representation of a large number of officers, who said it was manifestly unfair that when appointed to a fifth-rate they should not have the pay to which by their position in the service they were entitled. Since then, however, a memorial had been presented to the Admiralty on the subject of table money. The right hon. Gentleman was in office at the time, but he could not find that anything was done. In February, however, the present Board decided that the subject should be taken into consideration when the next Estimates were 133 prepared, which was the earliest moment at which they could bring forward a Vote, unles they were to prepare a Supplemental Estimate for every case that came before them. The right hon. Gentleman said the Admiralty ought to entertain all serious complaints. He believed that this had been done. The changes made in the position of the paymasters, the engineers, and the chaplains were all founded on memorials presented by those officers, but in this case the officers who complained had not manfully set forth their grievances. The right hon. Gentleman had, indeed, taken letters from his pocket and read them anonymously; but he did not call these serious complaints, and it must be remembered that the language of the right hon. Gentleman on former occasions had been well calculated to elicit such complaints. One hon. Gentleman said, that many officers of the navy complained that if it were not for the duty they owed the country they would not take the situations offered them. He believed that was a very usual mode of complaint in all services; but practically they found it all ended in this—that they did take the situations; and, therefore, the grievances were not practically so important as might be supposed. He agreed with every word that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth had stated with respect to Commissions. Commissions had not the fear of Parliament before their eyes, and were very apt to recommend the expenditure of vast sums of money, and in fact they generally found that the Reports of Commissions did end in that way. And so, if a Commission were appointed in this matter, it would produce one of two results—either it would cause a large increase of the Estimates, or it would create, what the right hon. Baronet so much deprecated, universal discontent throughout the service. Now, was the navy underpaid? Compare it with the army. A captain in the navy of the first class received £700 a year, a lieutenant colonel of the army about half that sum. Did they find it difficult to induce young gentlemen to enter the navy? It was but the other day they were discussing a Motion which was based on the assumption that there was a great pressure to get into the navy. He was not at all sure that they would be going upon a right principle if they made the navy looked upon as merely a lucrative profession; but he would ask whether even now a poor man's 134 son found it as difficult to enter and support himself in the navy as in the army? Before the right hon. Gentleman made himself the organ of these complaints, he should have made further inquiry as to what was being done, and what was the relative position of the army and navy in respect of pay. He hoped the House would not agree to the appointment of a Commission, which, instead of remedying a small grievance, would only lead to general discontent.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman said that he had not complained of the system of promotion in the navy. The reason why he had not referred to that question was, that promotion and retirement were, in fact, the same question, the one depending on the other; so that in demanding an improvement in the mode of retirement he was really dealing directly with the subject of promotion. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring) had asked—and asked in a tone which showed, he thought, the question an embarrassing one—what were the great evils into which the Commission was to inquire? The answer was supplied by the Secretary to the Admiralty, who had told the House in plain terms what the evil was—namely, a stagnation of promotion to such an extent as to create a serious and a discouraging effect upon the whole naval service. The right hon. Baronet had been First Lord of the Admiralty, and would be the last man to deny that this was a serious matter. Then the right hon. Gentleman, alluding to his scheme of retirement, said the number of promotions had been as high under the present system as under the check system. But the right hon. Baronet did not go on, as he should have done, to give the reason for this. The reason was that the check system, as it was called, had been broken up by Board promotions, which exceeded the restriction of promotion in other ways. The right hon. Gentleman also said that we had arrived at a desirable state of things as regarded promotion. The captains' list might be reduced to the prescribed number no doubt; but the commanders' list was not. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: It will be by the retirements under the new scheme.] But how long would it remain reduced? It was that miserable hand-to-mouth system that he objected to. No system would answer but a self-acting system, permanent in its operation, and not a mere temporary contrivance. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the 135 House could not deal with the question in a generous spirit; but he (Sir John Pakington) only asked for a Commission of inquiry, and did not ask the House to deal with the subject at all at present. The right hon. Gentleman further asked a question which would have surprised him coming from the youngest Member of the House, but which, coming from a right hon. Member who had been First Lord of the Admiralty, was quite incomprehensible—he asked why the Admiralty could not deal with this question, and added, "What was a Government for?" But had the right hon. Gentleman never before heard of Commissions of inquiry? Only the previous evening the House was engaged in considering the recommendations of a Commission upon the subject of fortifications. Again, in 1854 a Commission with similar objects was appointed for the army. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman object to these Commissions and ask what the Government was for? When the right hon. Gentleman could only find such excuses for his vote, it proved that there were no strong arguments to be found against the present Motion. The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to ridicule the letters he (Sir John Pakington) had read; but those letters came from officers of the highest character and station, and were quoted by him as the strongest evidence he could adduce in support of his Motion. He would notice one or two points in the speeches of his noble Friend (Lord Clarence Paget), and the Junior Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Whitbread). He regretted the noble Lord should have departed from his usual courtesy in repeating an attack upon a point which had been previously explained. The noble Lord had asked why he (Sir John Pakington) had not dealt with this question when he was at the Admiralty. The answer was, that he did so as far as he could. He had dealt with the surgeons and the chaplains. He admitted the warrant respecting chaplains had not been successful; but the explanation was that it was based upon the assumption that chaplains of men-of-war, like other officers, adopted the naval service as their profession, but he found that those gentlemen after serving afloat for a few years generally desired to obtain a living or a curacy on shore. The noble Lord had also referred to the captains' memorial having been marked by him with the word "read" only. That was true; but it was no argument against his state 136 ment that he intended to deal with that memorial. Another reason that was urged against the appointment of a Commission was, that improvements had been effected by successive Boards; but that was a reason for a Commission, because so many anomalies and inconveniences had been introduced by the action of different Boards, acting upon various and conflicting views, that a complete consideration of the whole subject was necessary. He could assure the House that he was contemplating while in office the very step which he asked the Government to adopt now. When the change of Government occurred he had not made up his mind whether it would be better to deal with the subject seriatim or to appoint a Commission. He made this Motion from no party motive, but solely from a desire to promote the welfare and efficiency of the navy, and therefore he hoped the House would assent to his proposition.
§
Motion made, and Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to consider the present system of promotion and retirement in the Royal Navy, and the present pay and position of the several classes of Naval Officers, and to report what changes therein are desirable, with a view to the increased efficiency of Her Majesty's Naval Service.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 89: Majority 33.