§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONErose to move, "The Appointment of a Select Committee 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 the Naval Service." It was a lamentable fact that there was no one class of officers in Her Majesty's Navy that had not just and serious ground of complaint. He should not occupy the House by going into details on the subject, but he would run over the principal grounds of complaint on the part of the various classes of officers, that the House might perceive he did not move for a Committee on insufficient reasons. He would begin with the captains. Their complaint was, first, that their pay, both full and half-pay, was insufficient, and that the regulations under which they received the command money, granted by order of the Admiralty, had, instead of making their condition better, rendered it considerably worse than before. That command money was granted to enable the captains of men-of-war to entertain those persons whom, from the position they occupied, it was the duty of these officers periodically to entertain. But previously the pay of the officers had been so reduced that that very allowance made them worse off than they were before, for the obligation to entertain was imposed upon them, which before had not been required. By the scheme 49 captains would receive from £36 10s. to £133 6s. 8d., but there were only two captains who would receive the larger addition to their pay; 45 would be entitled to £6 1s. 8d. a year, or 4d. a day additional; and he should like to know what portion of a gentleman's dinner 4d. a day would represent? Nineteen captains would receive sums varying from £18 7s. 6d. to £85 3s. 4d. Commanders would receive 2s, 6d. per day as command money, and out of that they would have at times to entertain persons of the rank of ambassadors. The way that lieutenants in command had been treated was worthy of the Admiralty. They were to receive 2s. a day command money; but their ordinary pay was first reduced from 11s. to 10s. The only two captains entitled to the highest rate of pay of £766 10s. were Captain Elliot and Captain 1459 Fanshawe. Between 40 and 50, or nearly one-half the entire number, would receive the lowest rate of £456 5s. 6d., instead of the old pay of £700. This command money, for which the Admiralty took so much credit, was in reality a loss to many officers. He had prepared a comparison between the English, French, American, and Prussian navies. With regard to the lowest grade, it was 140 per cent in favour of the American over the English in the full pay, and of 227 per cent in the half-pay. In the French navy it was 46 per cent in the full pay—there was no half-pay in the French navy; and in the Prussian navy it was 22 per cent. Commanders in the American navy were 117; per cent better in the highest grade in the full pay, and 157 per cent in the half-pay, the Prussian 42 per cent. The American lieutenants in command had an advantage of 143 per cent, and the Prussian 47 per cent. The difference between the American lieutenants and the highest of our lieutenants was 134 per cent in favour of the American in the full pay, and 95 per cent in the half-pay; and in the lowest, the comparison was 71 per cent on the full pay, and 242 per cent on the half-pay in favour of the American. It must also be borne in mind that in the English Navy officers were subject to income tax, and that they were, likewise, obliged to incur expense in keeping their ship in creditable order. The Royal Albert had just been paid off, and the half-year's bill of her commander for paint required beyond the Admiralty supply was £67. An officer had also to furnish his mess with cabin furniture; and the comparative cost of living in this country was 30 per cent in excess of the others which he had mentioned. A Prussian officer who went to France on business for his Government was allowed 14s. a day, while if he came to England he received £1 1s. Another grievance experienced by officers was that in calculating their time for flag rank their commander's services were wholly ignored, though a great many of them had served within a few months or weeks of the requisite time. Moreover, when men reached that stage, the Admiralty were very shy of employing them. An old and valued friend of his, Admiral Trotter, an eminent officer in every respect, who had been on the Niger Expedition and rendered good service, as a commander he was senior officer of the southern division of the African station, and had eleven pennants 1460 under his orders, as a post-captain he was the commodore oil the Cape station, and only wanted three months of his time when a near relation of the First Lord was sent out in the packet, surprised him lying in Simon's Bay, and sent him home, he actually attained his flag before he reached England; of course he never got another chance of employment, and he died a Yellow Admiral after all. Thus a man might serve twenty years as a commander, might in that capacity command squadrons, and be engaged on surveying or other service of the highest importance, and yet not be allowed to count a day of it towards his flag, while another, commanding a flagship, though he never went outside Plymouth Breakwater, might serve his whole time. Those were the leading grievances of the post-captains on the active list. The captains on the reserved list, from their liability to be called out in case of emergency, came also under the head of active officers. A deliberate bargain was entered into with those gentlemen in 1852; their services were justly extolled in the public papers, some of them having fought in every action during the great war; every advantage was promised to them, their commissions were made out in precisely the same terms, and they had every reason to believe that they stood on the same footing as regarded progressive advancement with other officers in the service; but when the time came for promoting them to the 14s. list, they were told that the proposal had been drawn up for the purpose of bearing a different construction from that which was evident on the face of it. They were thus deceived and cheated out of their just rights, and they were entitled to say so, for they took the advice of an eminent counsel—Mr. Lush—who told them that he could not possibly interfere between them and the Admiralty, but that were the transaction simply one between A and B the agreement would be binding before God and man. The commanders complained that the command money was of the same delusive nature as he had already shown it to be; they claimed to reduce their list by those who were ineffective, and they also claimed to have their mate's time counted on their retirement. Many of the commanders who obtained their promotion during the late war, when mates were serving as acting lieutenants on account of the scarcity officers, an. as such came home commanding 1461 brigs; but, although a mate's rank was equal to that of a lieutenant in the army, not a single hour of the time passed in such capacity would count, except under a recent order, and to a very limited extent. Another grievance was that while officers borne on the books of Coastguard ships would receive their time, or a portion of it, those who had hitherto served in them would be mulcted of at least two-thirds of that time. The year before last the principle had been affirmed that every day of a man's time ought to count in the civil service. But in the navy a different principle was applied, when it came to be made up, the Admiralty cut off every portion of time that they could. If a man had served two years eleven months and twenty-nine days, they would cut off the eleven months twenty-nine days, and only give him credit for two years. Again, the half-pay was deficient, and they called on the Admiralty to give them a graduated half-pay, rising every year, or at least every two years, according to their service. It was known to every hon. Gentleman who represented a dockyard town that many officers who had faithfully and gallantly spent the best part of their lives in their country's service were actually half-starving, and had not the means of educating their families, or of appearing in that society to which their education and professional position entitled them. Within the last twenty years everything, with the exception of some articles of clothing, had risen in price by some 20 or 30 per cent, while the pay of those officers was not increasing, but on the contrary, the Admiralty was now proposing to cut off part of the pay of captains. The senior lieutenants, who did the duty of commanders in ships, ought to have additional pay. The adjutant of a regiment received an addition of 3s. 6d. a day, with, he believed, an allowance for a horse; while the additional allowance to a senior lieutenant, doing duty as a commander, was only Is., out of which he had to find paint, brooms, and other articles, which were not supplied in sufficient qnantity. The cost to a post-captain of commissioning a ship was at the rate of £500 a year; and a commander could not commission a large sloop of war without sinking £1,000 of his own money. What added to this hardship was the fact that when the ships came home the mess traps were sold for whatever they might fetch, which sometimes 1462 was little or nothing. That occurred in the case of the Royal Albert a few weeks ago. The Admiralty ought to supply officers as well as captains with mess traps, such as linen and plate; and he did not believe the Admiralty would be losers by so doing, in fact, he believed he could state that the supply of those articles left a profit on the transaction. Then the instructors in gunnery did not receive sufficient. They had only 1s. a day in addition to their ordinary pay; while the three captains of the Royal Artillery who instructed the military received 9s. 6d. Officers were now required to "pass in steam," and were obliged to go to the college at Portsmouth to qualify themselves. They contended that they ought to be allowed full-pay while there for that purpose. And here he would say a word or two on the state of the college itself. The public rooms were excellent; there was a good library; and the studies were in perfect order, but the sleeping rooms were dog holes. They were wretched lofts, partitioned off by screens; the beds were anything but what they should be; and the accommodation generally was very indifferent indeed—the place is cold, damp, and uncomfortable, nothing like that which was enjoyed by the pensioners at Greenwich. An officer coming to the college from a warm climate was pretty certain to have cold or rheumatism before he left. There was also a grievance connected with leave to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. An officer in the army was entitled to a certain portion of time every year on full pay. He had likewise the advantage of a passage home in a Government vessel from the Mediterranean if such an opportunity off; but if an officer in the Navy came home after four years commission, he with the greatest difficulty got four weeks' leave; and if he fell ill he was obliged to produce a certificate to that effect. Even in the case of a death in his family, he could not at any other time get leave for more than a fortnight or so. The effect of that regulation was detrimental to the service, especially in the case of junior officers. Again, officers on Coastguard and contract vessels ought to be allowed full pay whenever they were serving. Every Gentleman who had commanded a ship must know the value of the first lieutenant; he was not only the captain's principal officer, but his friend and adviser. He was the man who carried on 1463 the duty of the ship; he was the man on whom the captain must depend in all cases of emergency. First lieutenants were very often sent out to dry nurse young gentlemen who could not be trusted by themselves. To that class of officers Sir Baldwin Walker belonged. This most valuable class ought to be entitled to brevet rank and increased pay; but such men were too often left to languish in the grade of lieutenants to the end of their lives. That was a just cause of complaint, and it was not unnatural that they should desire a choice of retirement at an early age when the Admiralty did not intend to promote them, and at a period of life when they might turn their attention to some other means of employment. He thought that was one of the most important points to which the attention of the Admiralty and the House ought to be directed. Those officers desired a fixed rate of half-pay after a certain number of years' service, and that rate ought, in justice, to be a sufficient one. They also complain that they have no servant allowed them as is the custom in the army, and he would remark that the employment of ships' boys as servants is in many respects most objectionable. In the next place, he hoped the lieutenants would be allowed to count their service as mates. It was considered that the title of mate was an anomalous one—that mates might be very easily and justly called second lieutenants, or receive some more dignified title than that which they at present enjoyed. They also considered that they ought to be better paid, and he could assure the House that there was not a more valuable class of officers in the ship than the mates, and at this moment the navy was very short of them from keeping the list full of old lieutenants who ought to be paid off at a better rate of payment than now. The mess things ought to be supplied to this class of officers as well as to the others; and if that were done the great loss of mess things that now took place would be prevented. If the property of the midshipmen's messes, for example, were Government property, it would be put under regulation, and not destroyed, as at present. When a ship was paid off the system now was to break the whole of the midshipmen's mess things rather than let them fall into the hands of the Israelites. The midshipmen of the navy were appointed at too early an age, and this was a source of great evil. It led idle boys to 1464 go to sea to escape from school. So soon as their mothers could not manage them they were voted the property of the navy and put on board ship, when the confinement and want of exercise stunted their growth, and the service was ultimately put to great cost in giving them a very imperfect education. No young gentleman should be admitted into the navy till he was able to judge for himself. He could speak on that point, for he went to sea himself to get quit of school. It was absurd to hear young Lords of the Admiralty saying that these gentlemen had adopted the profession from choice, and that they must be kept to their bargain. They were unable to judge for themselves when they went to sea. The next class of officers he would refer to was the warrant officers. He had presented a petition to the Admiralty from the warrant officers, which the noble Lord thought contained some things that were reasonable. He (Sir James Elphinstone) thought the petition was very reasonable. The hope of getting warrants ought to be held out as a prize to the men before the mast; but, instead of that, there was a difficulty in finding men to take the place of warrant officers, because by doing so they forfeited their pensions and their back time, besides being involved in an expensive outfit and exposed to the risk of being dismissed the service without trial. The petition of the warrant officers contained a long list of grievances which he thought ought to be forthwith redressed. Thus they justly complained of the allowance to their widows. Those of men who had been five years in the service only received £25 a year; those of ten years, £30; those of twenty years, £35. These pensions were done away with in 1850, and restored in 1860, and the widows of warrant officers dying in the interval received no pension at all. This was accounted for by the Treasury on the ground that an increase had been made in the salaries of the officers, to enable them to assure their lives, but no office would assure them if they were going to many different foreign parts. Amongst other grievances under which these men laboured, he might add that the coastguard service was closed against them. They asked that these things might be altered, that they might have a presentation to Greenwich College School for one of their sons, and that they should not be liable to dismissal without, in the first place, trial by court- 1465 martial. He had now given the particular grievances affecting the different grades of the service, but there were general grieveances that were common to every grade of the service. It was a general complaint that retirement fell far short of the requirements of the service. That caused injustice in many respects. By the non-application of the compulsory retirement to all ranks, it failed to secure a steady flow of promotion throughout the service. Only 6 captains had been promoted to flag rank since the 1st of January, 1859. Then, by maintaining the 3 senior lists far above the requirements of the service, employment was placed beyond the reach of the many. There were only 19 flag officers employed out of 99; 127 captains, out of 347; 209 commanders, out of 438. Perhaps he should be told by the noble Lord that his proposals would entail a large expenditure upon the country; but if it were so the country would be more efficiently served. When his noble Friend undertook the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he went beyond what was required of him as Secretary to the Admiralty. It was the duty of the Admiralty to say what was required for an efficient fleet, how they were to get a class of contented and trustworthy officers and men, and not to consider the cost. He believed that when they got the Augean stable of the Admiralty cleaned out, and had a proper administration of the affairs of the navy, with officers and men well paid and provided for, they would be able to effect reductions in other departments of the navy that few were now able to calculate. In conclusion, he would only add that if the House granted him the Committee, he would pledge himself to prove every word that he had uttered.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed 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 inefficiency of the Naval Service.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he did not rise to address the House at any length at so late a period in the evening, but in seconding the Motion he wished to say a word with regard to the reserved captains. When that body was established in 1851, the bargain was that they were to be placed in the same position as though they were actively engaged, with the one exception, namely, that they were only to be called 1466 on in cases of emergency; but in 1856 they were placed, by an Order in Council, in the position of retired officers. They had not, therefore, the position which they had a right to expect. That was a point which he felt ought to be strongly pressed on Her Majesty's Government. It was most important that, where the navy was underpaid, where every officer was underpaid, as compared with the French and Russian navies, the engagements entered into with them should be fulfilled. The whole expense of carrying the engagements with those officers out would be only £3,000 a year, and were they for that sum to break their engagements with those captains?
§ SIR HENRY STRACEYsaid, not only the members of the navy, but the country generally, must be thankful to the hon. Member for having brought the question before the House in the lucid and temperate manner in which he had done. It had been remarked on a former occasion by the right hon. Member for Portsmouth that the navy was remarkable for discontent—that, in fact, it was always grumbling. He did not mean to say there was no good reason for that observation. He had always understood from all naval men with whom he had had communication that dissatisfaction was generally felt in the navy, and only the day previous a gallant officer, who was by no means undistinguished, said that dissatisfaction was felt from the quarter-deck to the forecastle, and extended even to the galley. The causes of discontent might be classed under the heads of pay, promotion, and retirement. There was a deficiency under the first and last heads, and want of a well-regulated system with regard to the second. The English navy was the greatest and most gallant navy in the world, but it was the worst paid. A lieutenant in the French navy, on active service, received 19s. 6d. a day, including command money; a lieutenant in the English navy only 12s. a day, or 62 per cent less than the French lieutenant. A commander in the French navy in command, received 25s. 5d. a day; an English commander only 19s., or 34 per cent less than the French commander. An American captain received £875 a year; an English captain £766 10s., or more than £100 less. Was there, in that, no cause for discontent? In the French navy officers were never put on half-pay until they were sixty years old, and then they retired on a handsome allowance. Our officers dreaded 1467 half-pay with its miserable emolument, insufficient to enable them to live as befitted their rank. The half-pay of an American captain was £612, that of an English captain £264 12s. 6d., or less than half. Look, then, at the inequalities in the scale of pay of different ranks in the British service. A post captain of forty years' service received 10s. 6d. a day, but the Burgeon acting in the ship under his command, although he had not served half the time, received 18s. a day. The first lieutenant of a 50 gunship when on full pay received 11s. per day, while the half-pay of the surgeon of the same ship would be 13s. 6d. per day. That scale of payment was fixed fifty years ago; and as the expense of living had since then greatly increased, the allowances to officers ought to be proportionately augmented. The Committee was likely to put an end to such inequalities as these, which gave great dissatisfaction and made officers dread a shore life. Again, captains on the reserved list bad been led to expect increase of rank concurrently with increased pay, and with subsequent advantages, such as Greenwich Hospital, &c. When these officers complained to the Admiralty, they found there was no redress, "as there was no responsibility." As an instance of an officer who had been hardly dealt with under that regulation, he would refer to the case of Captain Spencer Smythe, who had served as gallantly as any officer in the navy, and one to whom they actually owed the victory of Navarino. That officer was now on the reserved list, receiving the miserable pittance of 6d. a day above the senior commander. That gallant officer had been first lieutenant of the Dartmouth at Navarino. Before the action he gave Sir Edward Codrington a plan of the Ottoman fleet, and from that plan the allied squadron took up the position in which the battle was fought. Being one of the number selected for promotion. Captain Smythe was named commander of the Philomel, vice Viscount Ingestre, but before the commission reached Malta Captain Keith had been promoted, and the commission intended for Captain Smythe was returned to the Admiralty, and the half-pay blank, intended for another officer, was filled up with his name. Sir Edward Codrington said that the mistake of the Admiralty would be rectified. Sir Edward spoke of him in the most flattering terms at Malta for the plan he had furnished, and the Lord High Admiral noted him for promotion, 1468 but the frequent changes in the Admiralty frustrated all these hopes. Had that officer's original commission been acted on he would have received those emoluments to which his merits so signally entitled him. Many others were in similar position. The fact was that these gentlemen had been led astray. The brevet system was abandoned, and in lieu of it, and as a reward for past services, a certain number were appointed to the reserved list of captains. But they were never told they were to be deprived of rank and pay, or Greenwich out-pensions, or retiring allowances, as a proof it was not so intended. Three Greenwich out-pensions were granted to them; but they were afterwards told they were not entitled by being on the reserved list. Still more recently they were told that a recent regulation made by the Admiralty they were precluded from receiving these out-pensions. Many of these officers were only sixty years of age, while some were only fifty, and was it to be supposed that men who felt themselves as efficient as younger officers would, for 6d. a day, give up all prospect of promotion and the rank to which they were entitled by seniority. The retired captains had memoralized the Admiralty ever since 1838, but they also felt that where there was no responsibility there was no redress. He believed that the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) had formerly advocated the claims of the captains on the retired list; but since he had been in office he had been silent on the subject. The only means by which the natural discontent of these officers could be removed was by paying them on a reasonably liberal scale, and not after a rate inferior to that of all the other great naval Powers. Let the pay given by the greatest maritime Power in Europe be a pay, not to make officers discontented, but to make them satisfied to be in the service. Let promotion also be properly exercised according to a well regulated system, and not according to family connection or political favouritism; and when he mentioned political favouritism he alluded not merely to the present Board of Admiralty, but to all Boards of Admiralty. With regard to retirement, that, upon taking place after a certain age, should be accompanied by a liberal and adequate allowance, which would enable officers to live like gentlemen. He believed that, if the proposed Committee were granted, a zealous and contented navy would be the result.
§ SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that he would not be tempted to enter upon irrelevant topics. There would be ample opportunity before the Committee recently appointed to examine the subject of patronage, and he hoped that those hon. Members who had been so liberal in their assertions and accusations would go before that Committee, and show how far their accusations were true. In reference to the reserved captains harsh language had been used, and the House had been told that those parties had been cheated. Now, the House would recollect that that list was intended to meet the case of officers who had not the slightest chance of promotion, and if subsequently other officers had been introduced into it, that was never in contemplation at the early period of its formation. It was said that the contract had been broken. He wrote the contract, for the Minute was his, and the Order in Council was correctly formed upon the Minute. Something had been said about an after-thought, but he never had the slightest doubt about the construction of the Minute, and he wrote to some gentlemen, who had applied to him to be a witness in respect to their cases, stating that it was never intended to give them what they claimed, and the Admiralty came to the same decision on a perusal of the papers, and not upon his opinion at all. With regard to the Admirals on the reserved list, it was well known that great evils existed, which were corrected by the arrangement now so much complained of. The benefit to the public was, that now there were really active Admirals on the list. The Admirals who were placed on the retired list were not in the slightest degree injured, for, though they were nominally on the active list before, they were never employed, and before the alteration the list was in such a state that when he had to make his first appointment he had great difficulty in selecting an officer to take charge of the West India Station, and was obliged to send out an Admiral above seventy years after all. He believed that it would be found that from the alteration as great a benefit had accrued to the country with as little injury to individuals as had ever resulted from any arrangement made by the Admiralty. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had been told to look to the interest of the navy alone. Now, he did not think that those who were responsible for the naval service had only and exclusively to look to the interest 1470 of the navy. They had also to consider to a certain extent the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and how far the country could bear the expense to be imposed. When the House was told that the families of officers were in distress, and that the price of provisions was high, it should be borne in mind that there were other parties whose families were in great distress in consequence of the high price of provisions, and if they gave to the one they took from the other. They must consider the taxpayers as well as the officers of the navy. His own impression was that the manner in which these cases were agitated in the House of Commons by no means tended to the benefit or discipline of the service.
§ ADMIRAL WALCOTTobserved, that a complaint is not uncommonly made that naval officers were given to a habit of complaining of this grievance; therefore, he was of opinion that it would be highly advantageous that an inquiry should be instituted with the justice or groundlessness of that feeling upon their part. He thanked the hon. Member for Portsmouth for the explicit manner in which he had brought the subject before the attention of the House, but as a Committee had been agreed to for an inquiry into the administration of the navy in all its departments, he could have wished that the subject now proposed had been merged in that inquiry, and the time of the House not occupied in its consideration on the present occasion. Convince both officers and seamen that they are not only your refuge in the hour of danger, but an object of your solicitude and care in time of peace, and you will have abundance of gallant fellows to man your ships. He must now challenge "the observation made by the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring) that Admirals placed on the reserved list had no cause for complaint, they not having been employed entitling them to a place on the active list"—he considered, in many instances, their treatment had been most cruel and unjust; he boldly would say that his own wa3 a case in point, and that there were others who had been equally unfairly dealt with, but as he was not empowered to name any officer, he would throw himself upon the indulgence of the House whilst he replied to the challenge thrown out by the hon. Baronet. In the year 1823, when in command of a frigate on the Ionian station, in consequence of the barbarities perpetrated and injuries to commerce inflicted 1471 by piratical vessels and crews on the coast of Cuba, he had proceeded with orders from the naval Commander-in-Chief on that station to use all efforts for their extirpation, and in the execution of this service neither to set a value on his own life, his officers, or crew—he would not describe the barbarities to which he had adverted, the attrocities so committed in part partaking of indelicacy—under Providence he successfully fulfilled his orders; his superior officers viewed his conduct with approbation, and recommended him for admission as a Companion into the Order of the Bath; his health was so shattered in carrying out the orders with which he had been entrusted that he was necessitated to resign his ship by invaliding and return to England, and the recommendation for this distinction to his Sovereign up to this hour had never been carried out; every consecutive First Lord of the Admiralty, with the exception of the late King, Lord Ellen-borough, and Admiral Sir George Cock-burn, had rejected his fair appeals—although made in the first instance in the year 1827, and followed up by a minute of the Board of Admiralty in 1846. The reason assigned being that the number of companions were limited and that the number was complete. From the year 1823 to that of 1852 (when he was placed on the list of Reserved Admirals), he challenged a search into the Records of the Admiralty for abundant proof that no officer ever more persistently, zealously, and earnestly entreated for active employment in any description of command, and service, and upon any station. Repulse met him, and disappointment weighed heavily upon his heart, but his spirit remained unbroken—his official and personal applications to the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Portsmouth, were in vain, and he refused him employment; the same fate had awaited him upon the part of his successors at the Board, and he stood denied from the opportunity of earning for himself a distinguished name in his profession from the year 1823 up to the present hour. The late ex First Lord of the Admiralty with a cold-hearted indifference partaking of contempt, in regard to the service he had performed, declined to carry out the recommendation of the Board of Admiralty of 1846, with a poor excuse upon the plea he was ineligible for the Companionship of the Bath, his service not having been gazetted—at the period he performed that service it had not been the custom to gazette letters in 1472 time of peace; afterwards this became rescinded, and agreeably to the Statutes of the Order when first instituted in the year 1815 up to 1847, he having the decoration of a medal was entitled to the Order. In 1847 the statutes were amended making a gazette compulsory; but it was all to no purpose that he impressed this upon the late ex-First Lord of the Admiralty. After the insinuations made by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Portsmouth, he asked the House if he had not made out a just cause and ground for complaint. He would only say in conclusion that it was a wise and just policy to treat officers with strict honour and justice, as it would ensure the devotion of their best energies to the service of their country.
§ SIR FRANCIS BARINGexplained, that he had not the intention of applying to the gallant officer one word that referred to any charge against him. All he said was that it was only the officers who had not served their time who were a whit the worse for the new arrangement.
§ SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURsaid, he should have been glad if the Motion could have been avoided. But the dissatisfaction which prevailed among various classes of officers rendered it necessary that the subject should be thoroughly investigated. The scheme of retirement adopted last year by the Admiralty was of such diminutive proportions that but little advantage had been derived from it, though he owned that it had led to the promotion of some very able and deserving officers. A Royal Commission some years back pronounced the officers of the navy more inefficient than those of any other service, and he feared there was still too much truth in the statement. In several recent instances a disposition had been manifested by officers to retire from active service, and an unfortunate degree of apathy and indifference pervaded the body of naval officers. It would be necessary, also, for the Committee to inquire what constituted "sea-service," as it was sometimes interpreted in a manner that did great injustice to deserving officers. He acknowledged the desire which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth had manifested when in office to treat naval officers with due consideration, but believed that the prospective advantages which officers on the retired list were led to expect had not been conferred on them. He should cordially support the Motion for a Committee.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONBefore I 1473 touch upon the subject of the Motion before the House, I must be allowed to express the deep regret with which I have heard the gallant Admiral, the Member for Christchurch (Admiral Walcott), led away for the moment by the warmth of his feelings, impute to me that while I held office [Admiral WALCOTT: Not at all] I treated him with neglect and contempt. [Admiral WALCOTT: So you did.] I can assure the gallant Admiral that I was never led for a single moment to regard his services and professional character with any feelings but those of sincere respect. The gallant Admiral, I am sorry to say, takes great offence with me, and this evening he has told the House very candidly the reason—namely, that I did not recommend him for the honour of a Companionship of the Bath. [Admiral WALCOTT: Not that you did not recommend, but that you did not follow out the recommendation.] The statement of the gallant Admiral is one which we should not expect to hear publicly made, and I am sure the House will feel that in justice to myself I ought to give some explanation. The gallant Admiral added, that not only did I refuse, but that I made the refusal with unkindness, and without a conciliatory word. All I can say is that if the gallant Admiral, when the warmth of his feelings has subsided, will only refer to the letters which I wrote, I am sure he will feel that I did convey the refusal, which I was sorry to be obliged to make, in the kindest and most conciliatory language which I could use. And the simple reason which occasioned the refusal was this—that his case did not come within the rules of the Order. I, therefore, had no option in the matter, and had no power to recommend. [Admiral WALCOTT: I think I have shown that it did come within the Order.] Having made this explanation I will turn for a few moments to the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth. I feel some regret that the discussion should have turned so much on the particular case of the reserved captains. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring), told us that when he was First Lord he drew up the minute and originated the Order in Council referring to the reserved captains, and, that being the case, he knew better than any one what was the object of it. At the same time, I think a matter of this kind must be decided, not by the intention of the Minister, but by the wording of the Order itself. I have given some 1474 attention to the wording of that Order, and that being the case, it is only fair to repeat what I stated last year, that I think it sufficiently ambiguous to enable the Admiralty to shelter themselves under it; but that a strict and fair construction of it is in favour of the claim of those officers, and I am sorry the present Board do not seem disposed to take a generous view of their case. The Motion is very much the same in substance as one which I made last year. The hon. Member moves for a Committee; I moved for a Commission. I retain the opinion that some inquiry ought to be granted. I think it is a great evil, and I am sure my noble Friend, the Secretary to the Admiralty, will not deny that it is a great evil that officers of the British Navy should be discontented. I know not how far the noble Lord, the Secretary of the Admiralty thinks, as he once said, that naval officers always are discontented, and always are grumbling. I do not think that one of their characteristics, and I deem it a great national evil that any officer of the service should have any just cause of complaint. At the present moment we are particularly called upon to have regard to their claims, as the condition of the navy, in respect to discipline, is not what it ought to be. I shall probably revert on a future occasion to that subject; but of this I am satisfied—that, before we can hope to have the discipline of the navy in a satisfactory state, we must take care that the officers are justly dealt with, and that they have good grounds to be content with their position. There are two reasons why inquiry is more called for now even than when I moved for a Commission last year. The present Board of Admiralty have taken into their consideration much that was said last year with regard to the unsatisfactory pay of the navy, and especially the pay of the captains. I stated last year some painful cases which had come under my own observation, where captains had been compelled to refuse command of ships through being unable to afford to accept them. The Board of Admiralty have since drawn up a new scale of pay, and unfortunately the result is that it gives a small boon to some classes, while it leaves other classes worse off than they were. I think that is an additional ground for inquiry. The other reason is of the same nature. The present Board have adopted a new system of promotions and retirements, and that has failed likewise to give satisfaction to the service. I am sure the Board of 1475 Admiralty can have no wish to have these feelings of dissatisfaction existing, and we cannot have a stronger proof that the condition of the navy is not what it ought to be than when an officer in the position of the lion, and gallant Member for Devon-port (Sir Michael Seymour), fresh from active service, comes forward to support the statement of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and to pledge his important opinion in favour of inquiry. I hope the Government will take these facts into their serious consideration. All that is asked is to extend to the navy the same description of inquiry which has twice been given within the last few years to the army. If the causes of dissatisfaction on the part of naval officers are groundless, the Admiralty will be fortified with arguments for resisting future Motions which they do not now possess. If, on the other hand, the naval officers can establish the justice of their demands the national feeling will surely require that those demands should be conceded.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET—I can quite understand and appreciate the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, and the hon. and gallant Member for Devon-port advocating the claims of every class in the navy. I can quite understand the sympathy of other hon. Members when they hear appeals on behalf of the noble and gallant service. But that a Minister who has known the difficulties under which the Admiralty labour with the very limited means at their disposal—who knows that if these things are taken into consideration in the way he is encouraging the House to take them into their consideration, the Marines and the Army cannot be left out—who is perfectly aware that it is impossible to give that higher pay which I, as a naval man, must feel they ought to receive—who has had an opportunity, when First Lord of the Admiralty, to have rectified what was wrong—when such a man comes down day after day to foment discontent in the navy—[Cries of "No, no!"]—I say discontent in every class in the service, from the officers to the ships' crews—it is a lamentable fact indeed. The present Board of Admiralty has been constantly occupied in endeavouring to improve the pay of every class in the navy. What have we done? I do not blame my hon. Friend, because he has not studied what has been done. But when he talks of giving command money to captains, and, in truth, reducing their pay instead 1476 of increasing it, if he had read carefully the papers on the table he could not have fallen into that mistake. Officers in command of line-of-battle ships will receive an average of about £100 more pay than they do at present; officers in command of large frigates will receive an average of £70 a year; while commanders and lieutenants will receive command pay, the former of 2s. 6d. a day, the latter 2s. I shall not ask the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington) to look at the papers, because I fear his object is to show that we are endeavouring to damage the navy rather than doing what we can to improve the position of its officers.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONSir, I emphatically deny that I am actuated by any such motives as those which the noble Lord has imputed to me. The noble Lord is not entitled to impute motives to any hon. Gentleman who may choose to address the House upon a subject of great public importance. I appeal to you, Sir, whether the imputation of motives is not disorderly?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETIt is not my intention to impute to the right hon. Baronet that he knowingly does injustice to the present Board of Admiralty, but I say that the necessary effect of his continual harangues about the wrongs of the navy, is to foment discontent in every rank of the service. Let me put a practical question to the House. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth in his able speech touched upon the case of every class of officer in the navy. Here, then, you are asked to deal with between 5,000 and 6,000 commissioned officers, exclusive of warrant officers. Considering the view which the hon. and gallant Member takes of the pay of officers of the navy, he will, I think, admit that an average of £10 a year to each officer would be but a paltry addition to their pay; yet that addition would at once amount to an increase of £50,000 or £60,000 a year in our Estimates. Is the House prepared to sanction so considerable an addition to the Estimates for the navy? Last year we increased the retired pay of almost all classes in the navy; we gave increased pay to masters, paymasters, and engineers; we gave pensions to the widows of warrant officers amounting in all to a permanent increase in the Voves of upwards of £40,000 a year; and we endeavoured in various other ways to benefit the service. 1477 I am willing to admit that we have not done all I could wish, but that is because the Admiralty, with all its desire to improve the position of every branch of the service, has been obliged on the ground of expense to stay its hand. The present Motion may be divided into two parts. One has reference to the question of promotion. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth will have an opportunity of bringing the subject of promotion before a Committee which, I hope, will be nominated in a few days. It is unnecessary, therefore, to dwell upon that point on the present occasion, further than to invite the hon. Baronet to defer that portion of his Motion to the consideration of the proposed Committee on the Administration of the Navy. The other part of the Motion deals with the position of the several classes of officers in the navy. I want the House to consider, if we are to appoint a Committee to hear pathetic stories about the wrongs of individuals—wrongs which, no doubt, exist in the navy as in other services—and to listen to the tale of every unfortunate officer in the navy, what will be the result. The result will inevitably be that the Committee will make a report recommending a considerable increase of pay throughout the navy. Is the House prepared for that? As a naval officer I could not be expected to offer much opposition to it; but I must say, occupying the position which I do, that I would hesitate before urging such a recommendation upon the House. I have been told that I should not consider myself as the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Navy; but what would the House say to me if I did not look to the general interests of the country, instead of simply endeavouring to improve the position of my brother officers, without reference to the pockets of the taxpayers. Day by day I am obliged to decline the memorials and appeals of officers for increase of pay. Some remarks were made by an hon. Gentleman opposite with respect to political influence. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to name a case in which an officer has been promoted through political influence since the Duke of Somerset became First Lord of the Admiralty.
§ SIR HENRY STRACEYI did not apply that remark exclusively to the present Board of Admiralty. I referred to all preceding Boards quite as much as to the present.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETI accept the retraction of the hon. Gentleman.
§ SIR HENRY STRACEYNo, I retract nothing; I merely explain.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETI am glad, at all events, that the hon. Gentleman did not apply his observation particularly to the present Board of Admiralty, because I know that political influence has really nothing to do with promotion in the navy. The hour is so late that I shall not discuss all the complaints which were made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth. I shall simply say that in what we have done during the last two years, in the addition we have made to the pay of several classes of officers, and in our proposal to give command pay to commanders and lieutenants, we have given an earnest of our desire to improve the position of every branch of the service. Of course, as may be supposed, I feel a deep interest in the welfare of naval officers; but I must confess that I think many of the complaints we hear are unreasonable. If you appoint a Committee to examine into those complaints great demands will be made upon you. The appointment of a Committee will be an intimation to every officer to bring forward his claims, and the result will be the presentation of a report which it will be impossible to carry into effect. The recommendations of the Committee will be rejected, and you will break the hearts of many officers. Such are the reasons which induce me to entreat the House not to agree to the Motion now before us.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the very excited speech which the House had just heard from his noble Friend rendered it necessary that some remarks should be made upon it. He had listened with the greatest surprise to the declaration made by his noble Friend of his views on the subject of Ministerial or rather ex-Ministerial responsibility. According to that declaration it would seem that any hon. Gentleman who had ever been in office was bound in all time coming to hold his tongue whenever any question was brought before the House affecting the particular department with which he had been connected. Remembering what the conduct and language of his noble Friend had been before he entered upon office, he could only hope that his noble Friend would not act in his own case upon the principles which he had laid down to-night. When his noble Friend was out of office there 1479 was no man more outspoken or more severe in his comments upon the management of the Admiralty, and he trusted the House was not to understand that if ever his noble Friend should chance to be out of office his tongue was to be hermetically sealed. His noble Friend had asked the House whether it was prepared to sanction on increased expenditure of £50,000 or £60,000 a year upon the navy? He thought that if the House appointed a Committee of Inquiry, and if that Committee found that injustice was to be done to the officers of the navy, the House would not hesitate to rectify that injustice, even though it were to cost £50,000 or £60,000 a-year. The noble Lord had himself acknowledged that the officers of the navy were underpaid, and that their position was in many respects undeserved.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETI said nothing about their position. I simply expressed the opinion that they were underpaid.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would accept the language of his noble Friend that the officers of the navy were underpaid. When the Secretary of the Admiralty made a statement of that kind he had no right to resist inquiry. His noble Friend might, without inconsistency, have risen in his place, and declaring upon his responsibility as a naval officer, and as the organ of the Admiralty in that House, that the officers of the navy were not underpaid, and that their claims were not well founded, have called upon the House to reject the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth; but since he had chosen, as a naval officer and as a responsible member of the Government, to admit all that had been said in favour of that Motion, he had no right to throw any obstacle in the way of its adoption.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONSir, the noble Lord has totally misrepresented the argument of my noble Friend. What my noble Friend said was, that he was sorry to see a distinguished Member of this House, like the right hon. Baronet opposite, who had occupied the responsible situation of First Lord of the Admiralty—not having, when in office, carried into operation the opinions he now proclaims—waiting till he was out of office in order to express them strongly, and knowing, as he must do, that unless those opinions were shared by those who have the power to carry them out, he was running the risk of creating dissatisfaction in the service, 1480 which it was desirable to avoid. My noble Friend stated that in his opinion the officers of the navy were underpaid. I should be disposed to generalize that assertion, and I should not be going too far if I were to say that all the services of the country were underpaid. I am convinced that if you were to measure simply the rewards alloted in this country to public servants by the services performed and the merits of the officers, you might go through the army and navy, and the civil service, and you would find that all had claims to an increase of pay. You might appoint a Committee and go through all the establishments of the country to see whether each officer and each clerk received as much as the generosity of the country would be disposed to allow him if the funds would permit it; the result would be a great increase in the expenditure of the country in every department. This Motion is confined to the navy, but you could not confine the principle to that service only. You must extend it to the army, and if you extend it to the army you must in justice extend it to the civil service. I would, therefore, warn the House against going blindfold into an inquiry of which they cannot foresee the consequences.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to correct a misapprehension of his noble Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty. What he (Sir James Elphinstone) said was that it was the duty of the Admiralty to come to the House and tell them what was required to render the navy efficient, and that it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money that was necessary. He would only further remark that the pay of a tide-waiter was just the same as that of a commander of the navy.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 97: Majority 5.
§ House adjourned at half-after One o'clock.