ORDER FOR COMMITTEE DISCHARGED. (Hansard, 12 March 1861)

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he rose to move "That the order (5th of March) for the appointment of a Select Committee," be discharged. The House seemed so fully agreed as to the inexpediency of appointing a Committee to inquire into the pay of officers, that it was hardly necessary for him to repeat the reasons which could he alleged against such a course. It was evident that if the Committee were to resolve to recommend an increase of pay for naval officers, an application would then be made to increase the pay of sailors, and an increase in the pay of the Navy would lead to an increase in the pay of the Army and then of all the civil branches under Government. Thus the House would be launching upon a sea of additional expenditure, the end of which could not be foreseen. No doubt, these officers might deserve upon their merits greater remuneration than the state of the finances could afford, but it must be remembered that part of the reward which the gallant defenders of the country receive for their devotion to the public service consists in the estimation in which they are held in their position in society, and in the respect which individually attaches to them. Knowing the opinion which the great majority of the House entertained with regard to the vote come to the other evening, it was unnecessary for him to urge more arguments in support of the Resolution he now moved. He quite agreed that it was an exceptional case to reverse upon one night a decision come to on another; but, in a matter involving such grave consequences to the public interest, the House was justified in discharging the order which had been made. With regard to the other part of the inquiry, respecting promotion and retirement, the Committee just nominated to inquire respecting the Admiralty could extend their investigation to that matter if the House thought fit.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, that on the previous evening the hardships of the naval service were so well understood that the Government could not keep a House to defeat his Motion. Now, however, the noble Lord had mustered his forces and fell back upon a constitutional principle, which he had not previously urged against this Committee. lie should submit to the dictum of the House, because, as a private Member, he had no power to oppose it; but at the same he did not see how the Committee which was to be appointed could inquire into questions of rank 1886 and retirement without to some extent dealing with that of pay. The inquiry into the constitution of the Admiralty had been brought before the House in a most extraordinary manner. He, in common with many others, thought that an inquiry of so important a character ought to have been mentioned to the House upon the first day of the Session. So far was that from being the case, however, that it was not until his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) placed his notice upon the paper, that the Motion of the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for the East Riding (Admiral Duncombe), of which he had given notice last year, was brought forward. Had not that delay taken place the inquiry might have been commenced early in the Session. The Committee would then have had the advantage of the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker, who had now been conveyed from the country in a rather doubtful manner. He should do his duty as far as he could as a Member of this Committee: but he did not believe that constituted as it was it would have the confidence of the country. He was glad to hear that Members were to be added to it, and he should claim the right of proposing those Members. The Committee for which he had moved and which he had carried had been merged in that of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the East Riding, and he, therefore, claimed the right to name four Members of the Committee.

§ MAJOR EDWARDS
had voted in the majority the other evening for the Committee of the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, and although that vote was about to be rescinded he saw no reason to regret the course he then took. Although this was essentially a naval question, it, nevertheless, materially concerned every Member of the House of Commons, involving as it most assuredly did an act of gross injustice towards a distinguished body of officers in Her Majesty's service. He alluded particularly to the 100 captains on the Reserved List, whose commissions were identical with those on the Active List, and whose post rank was given them for distinguished services, with this understanding, simply, that although they were still liable to be called upon to serve their country at any time they would not be required except on some great emergency; not so the commissions of commanders retired with rank of captain. In their commis- 1887 sions it was distinctly stated that they were to receive the lowest half-pay of captains. These gallant officers on the Eeserved List took their post-rank as a boon for meritorious services, never consenting to relinquish their claims to the emoluments of the profession or to sacrifice the pay of their respective ranks as they rose by seniority to their flag. It was to advocate the cause of these officers that he rose at that late hour of the night, and he could truly say that if justice were denied to men who deserved so well at the hands of their countrymen—many of whom had fought and bled for their Queen and country long before most of the present Board of Admiralty were born—it would shake the confidence of the service in all future Boards of Admiralty, and paralyze the zeal of its officers, he would vote for the Committee of the noble Viscount, in the hope that it would devote special attention to the case of the 100 gallant post-captains upon the Eeserved List, with whom faith had been broken, and who had, in fact, been so basely betrayed by the Admiralty.

§ MR. CLAY
said, that the majority obtained by the hon. and gallant Baronet the other evening arose from the fact, not as he appeared to suppose, that the Government could not get a sufficient number of Gentlemen to vote against a popular Motion, but that a large number of Members left the House because they thought it unlikely that the hon. and gallant Baronet would divide, and impossible that he should find a majority to support him. So strongly was the unconstitutional nature of his proposal, to refer the question of paying the navy to a Committee, felt by a great number of Gentlemen on that side of the House that it was decided that a Motion should be made to discharge the order, and, with the sanction of many of his friends, it was his intention to have proposed such a Motion. That intention he only abandoned on the previous evening when he found that the noble Lord had undertaken the task. Had the matter remained in his hands he should, with the concurrence of his friends, have moved the discharge of the whole order, and not of only a portion of it.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
said, that as one of the majority the other evening he thought that the hon. Members who voted for the Committee of the hon. and gallant Baronet were justified in that course by the language of the Government. The grievances of the navy were not denied, and no 1888 hope was held out that they would he redressed.

CAPTAIN TALBOT
said, he was sure the officers of the navy would be disappointed if the House were to rescind the Resolution at which it arrived the other evening. He trusted that, at all events, the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth would be allowed to nominate four additional Members to serve on the Committee.

ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE
said, he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not press the second Resolution of which he had given notice, because, if he did, the House might lose the services of two of the most efficient Members of the Committee.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he would accede to the proposal now before he House on the understanding that the noble Lord was acting in good faith with respect to his second Resolution. Unless he received an assurance to that effect he would not consent to the present Motion.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he also would ask for a clear intimation from the noble Lord of his intention?

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he did not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by asking whether he was acting in good faith. The right hon. Gentleman had not condescended to explain. It was his intention to move the second Resolution of which he had given notice, and he hoped that both the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord would support the Motion.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he would beg leave to apologize to the noble Lord for having used the words "good faith." It was far from his wish to give offence to the noble Lord. All he had meant to say was that he felt some doubt from certain expressions used by the noble Lord, as well as from the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for the East Riding, whether the noble Lord might not have been persuaded to abandon his second Resolution.