§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is the intention of the Board of Admiralty to reduce the number of warrant officers in Her Majesty's navy by taking away boatswains and carpenters from vessels with complements of 125 men and under; and if it is the intention of the Admiralty to make a considerable reduction in the complements of sea-going ships, and to ask him to state upon what principle that reduction will be regulated? It would be satisfactory to the navy to hear that there was no truth in the rumour to which the first part of his question referred. He feared that the duty would be inefficiently performed in the absence of the warrant officers, who were a most trustworthy and 1265 valuable class of men. The duty of boatswains and carpenters would have to be performed by petty officers. If these petty officers did perform the duty satisfactorily, then they were entitled to be warrant officers; and if not, then was the ship less efficient. If the want of cabin accommodation were the reason, the warrant officer would, he did not doubt, put up with smaller accommodation, and sleep in a hammock all the more comfortably with a warrant in his pocket than as a petty officer with the same responsibility and half the pay. He considered it unjust to the best seamen in the navy thus to narrow their chances of promotion. The second part of his question referred to the contemplated reduction in the crews of Her Majesty's ships. He quite agreed in the propriety of a reduction in the number of guns on board ships of war. But he must correct the noble Lord in his statement that this involved a reduction of armament; fewer guns of a more powerful character were being substituted for many guns of the old pattern, and the destructive power of the ship was increased rather than diminished. It did not, however, follow that it was necessary to reduce the number of men. An old rule was that a ship cost £1,000 a gun, but they must all acknowledge that that rule was now a fallacy, and so was the old rule that she ought to have ten men to every gun. But as it was now the custom to form Naval Brigades for service on shore in all our wars, which are more or less amphibious, it seemed necessary to have as many men as possible on board our ships of war. It was alleged that a reduction in the number of men was required for sanitary reasons; but not one assertion of that kind was to be found in the report of the Ventilation Committee, What was there recommended was a redistribution in the berthing of the crews. He perceived that the complement of the Revenge, the flag-ship of the Channel fleet was to be. reduced by eighty seamen. Now her crew was 850 men; but of that number, subtracting officers, marines, and others not seamen, only about 450 were seamen; and it was therefore proposed to take away about one-fifth of her complement of seamen. Now, the noble Lord would agree with him that it was better to have one ship well manned than two badly manned. The old saying was especially true at sea, "Many hands make light work." He could not suppose that 1266 the contemplated reduction was the result of the scarcity of men, after the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty to his constituents. He viewed it, however, with considerable alarm, and he had no doubt his apprehensions would be shared by officers on both sides of the House. He believed that Lord Fitzhardinge resigned his seat at the Admiralty rather than consent to a reduction of this kind, and that Admiral Bowles had protested in a similar manner. It would therefore be a great satisfaction if the noble Lord could assure the House that it was not in contemplation to leave Her Majesty's ships without a complement fully sufficient to man them.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that in answer to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christchurch (Admiral Walcott), he had to state that the Admiralty were fully alive to the importance of instructing the officers of the Royal Navy in steam tactics, and they had of late years desired the admirals in command of squadrons to carry out as far as possible the systems devised for that purpose. The plan proposed by Admiral Elliot had, doubtless, considerable merits, but the gallant Admiral (Admiral Walcott) had omitted to mention that there exists already a system of steam tactics contained in the signal book of the navy. It was the opinion of many eminent authorities, that if that system were still further complicated, they would rather damage than otherwise the efficiency of working squadrons under steam. He would give no opinion on this point, but he would assure the gallant Admiral that the subject would not be lost sight of by the Admiralty, and the admiral commanding in the Mediterranean had been desired to make a report, not only with regard to Admiral Elliot's system, but that of other officers. He might also state, that soon after the equinoctial gales it was intended that there should be a steam squadron in the Channel, and that the very important subject of steam tactics would not be neglected. With regard to the junction between the Mediterranean and the Channel squadrons, he was not prepared to answer the question. If such a junction could be made without interfering with the other important services that were always required in the Mediterranean, no doubt it would be very desirable. In answer to the hon. Gentleman (Sir John Hay), he might state that the only vessels 1267 from which it was proposed to take away the boatswain and the carpenter were a few vessels of the Icarus class. The hon. Member was not probably aware that to vessels containing 110 men or less only a gunner was attached, and that there was no boatswain or carpenter. All that the Admiralty were about to do was to extend that rule to vessels haying 125 men. There were only four vessels of that class in commission and only ten vessels in the navy, and the change would therefore not have any great effect in reducing the prospect of promotion of warrant officers. His belief was, that the measure was positively called for, because these vessels were so confined below that there was not room for the warrant officers' cabins. The Admiralty proposed to make a small increase in the complement of seamen in these vessels. With regard to the reduction in the complement of the larger ships, all practical seamen were perfectly aware that it was very unadvisable that Her Majesty's ships should go to sea with peace complements. The Admiralty were of the same opinion, but they thought it desirable, as an experiment, that in line-of-battle ships and large frigates a certain reduction in the number of seamen should be made. This reduction, undoubtedly, had reference to sanitary considerations. But he was bound to add that they had vessels with heavier masts and yards and 100 men less than those in the ships in which the reduction of men was to be made, and yet no complaint was heard of any difficulty in handling them. He did not, therefore, anticipate that any complaints would be made from these vessels that they were short-handed, and that the work would be done in a slovenly manner. All he said was, "Wait!" The Admiralty only intended to try the experiment with a certain number of ships. If it were found that with the reduced complement the work was too heavy, and if the sailors complained that the work was beyond their strength, no doubt the Admiralty would revert to the old practice. But he was quite sure that the large ships were at present overcrowded, and one most important reason for the reduction was, that the Admiralty had reduced, not the armament of the ship, but the number of guns, requiring, therefore, a less number of men. He might further state, that although there was a certain loss of weight of shot per broadside, yet that when they came to shell practice, which was most important 1268 where wooden ships were concerned, there had been an increase in the amount of explosive power in the shells. The explosive force of shells from modern guns was much greater than that from guns under the old system, and under all the circumstances he did not think the efficiency of the navy would be impaired by the reduction in the complements of men or of the number of guns.