§ SUPPLY considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETSir, in moving the supplementary Estimate for the pay of the navy, I need preface the proposal with but very few remarks. Hon. Gentlemen are, I believe, aware that from time to time there have been very strong representations made, both in this House and out of doors, as to the fact that the pay of the officers and seamen of some classes in the navy is not so generous or so adequate as it ought to be. Sir, we know that the navy have of late years had fewer opportunities for distinguishing themselves and enriching themselves with prize money than they had during the great European war; and from that circumstance, the general rewards which fall to the lot of the navy are certainly very inferior to what they used to be in the days of our forefathers. There are two sources of emolument which are almost wholly lost to the navy in modern days. The one is, as I have said, prize money; the other is the freight that was formerly received on the carriage of gold. In former times, we all took our turns on the principal foreign stations of carrying freights, by which a considerable addition was made to our incomes, but that system has now almost wholly disappeared. It is true we still get a certain amount of advantage occasionally from the capture of pirates and slavers, but, generally speaking, as appeared from the evidence taken before the Committee on Promotion and Retirement last year, the emoluments of the navy are very inferior to what they were in the days of our forefathers. This matter has not been wholly overlooked. From time to time we have made considerable additions to the pay of various classes, but still I believe I am only expressing the opinion of the Committee to which I have referred, when I say that the pay of many branches of the navy is not adequate. The Committee was not permitted by the order of reference to make any statement of that nature to the House, but every one of its members felt that this subject would again be brought under the notice of Parliament. Among the recommendations of the Committee was one for reducing the number of certain classes of officers. That recommendation we are now prepared to carry into 668 effect, and I shall refer at length to this part of our scheme presently. Meanwhile, I wish to direct attention to the first Vote I have to propose, amounting to £55,266, being a proposed addition to the pay and allowances of certain classes of officers and others, to begin on the first of July next. The first thing I have to state is, that the proposed addition will extend to that valuable and magnificent body of men —the petty officers of the navy, who, at present, are not paid so highly as the same class of men in the merchant service. It is not intended to increase the pay of flag officers, but merely to make an addition to their allowances. In the case of flag officers and commodores of the first class commanding-in-chief on foreign stations, we propose to increase the allowances by £547 10s. per annum. Flag officers, not serving under the orders of a senior officer, and in charge of separate stations or squadrons, are to have their allowances increased by £365. Flag officers serving under the orders of a senior officer are to receive when at home an increase of £182 10s., and when on foreign stations £365. Flag officers superintending dockyards are to get an addition when at home of £547, and when abroad £182 10s. Commodores of the second class are to have an increase at home of £182 10s., and abroad £365. I now come to the pay and allowances of captains. Officers in command of ships now-a-days are put to great expense. They are often in company with foreign squadrons, and I must say that the naval officers of most foreign nations are better off than ours in the way of allowances. We have carefully looked into this matter, and we propose to increase the pay and allowances of captains commanding in the way I am about to explain. There are three distinct classes of captains in command of ships, who are entitled to different rates of pay. There are likewise different rates and allowances according to the class of ship commanded. I believe the existing system in that respect is generally approved in the navy; the only question is as to the amount. We propose, then, that captains of the first class commanding sea-going ships will receive an addition to their pay and allowances, ranging from £99 to £162. The same class of captains commanding harbour ships will receive an increase of £53. Captains of the second class in seagoing ships will have an addition of from £89 to £153, and in harbour ships of £44; captains of the 669 third class in seagoing ships from £80 to £144, and in harbour ships of £34. One of the strongest points brought before us in the Committee last year was that commanders in command had insufficient pay; and, accordingly, we propose that they should receive an addition of £86 in seagoing and £63 in harbour ships; and likewise that commanders, as second in command in line-of-battle ships and large frigates, and commanders in the Coastguard, should have a similar addition of £63. It was further stated that lieutenants in command were also underpaid, and to them we mean to give an increase of £50 a year in seagoing and £27 in bar-hour ships. The senior lieutenants of rated ships and troopships without commanders and of ships commanded by commanders are also to have a rise of £27. The gunnery lieutenants will by this scheme be divided into three classes. The first class are to have £45 additional, the second £27, and the third £9. As to the other lieutenants, there was no evidence, I think, to show that their pay was inadequate. I come now to a proposal to create a new class of officers, in distinct accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. The warrant officers complained that when they had got their warrants they had nothing further to look for, and that they could not become officers in a higher grade, such us lieutenants or commanders. It appeared, therefore, to the Committee that a superior class of warrant officers ought to be created; and in carrying out that recommendation, our object is to establish a rank to be attained not by mere seniority, but by energy, activity, and meritorious service on the part of warrant officers. These new officers are to be commissioned officers, and to be styled chief gunners, boatswains, and carpenters, and are to receive £164 per annum. We propose to make twelve altogether among each of the three classes. That is a boon, the Committee will understand, not merely to the warrant officers, but generally to the seamen of the fleet from whom they are selected. We propose also to increase the pay of the warrant officers of the first class by £7, of the second by £6, and of the third by £4, in seagoing ships. In harbour ships the addition will be—first class £7, second class £12, and third class £9. I find I omitted to mention the sub-lieutenants. Their additional pay will be £24 a year. Then the inspectors of ma- 670 chinery are to have an increase of £36. In the full pay of the paymasters we propose an increase of £20; and also that effect should be given to the recommendation of the Committee, that these officers should rise in regard to half-pay by length of service, like other officers, and not, as hitherto, by classification. The assistant-paymasters in charge are to have an increase of £27, and the others an addition according to service, giving a mean of £18. We propose to give the naval instructors an increase of from £27 to £54, the mean being £41. The chief petty officers will have a rise of £3 per annum; the first class petty officers the same; and the third class £1 10s. These are the details of the scheme which I have to submit in regard to the full pay of the navy; and here, properly, I ought to close my statement on this Vote. It may, however, be convenient that I should now advert to the items of the other Vote of £5,775 for additional charge for altering and improving the system of retirement of officers of the navy, and reducing the number on the active list. I quite admit that it is immensely inconvenient that we should have so many lists of retired officers, but after very earnest consideration of the subject, we found that there were so many circumstances and so many classes of officers to be dealt with under various Orders in Council, that any attempt to put them in one single category as retired officers was quite out of the question. All we could do was to see whether there were any officers who, by any arrangement of the Order in Council of 1860, had been damaged in their circumstances, and, if so, to endeavour to rectify the matter. This leads me to a subject often adverted to in this House. Of course, as a naval officer, I could not but sympathize with any class of naval officers really aggrieved; and I am now about to advert to a grievance which has been very loudly complained of by certain officers affected by the Order in Council of 1860. I will endeavour presently to explain that Order in Council, but what I now wish clearly and distinctly to state is, that in the scheme I am about to propose I do not interfere with or alter in any way any classes of retirements existing previous to the Order in Council of 1860. One reason why I wish to make that clear is, because there is a distinction between that Order in Council and any previous Order in Council, inasmuch as that was the first instance of any- 671 thing like compulsory retirement of captains. I will now explain what that Order in Council was. At the period when it was issued, our lists of superior officers in the navy were in a very unsatisfactory state. Promotion was almost stagnant, and our flag officers, though most gallant, were certainly not so efficient for active service as might have been wished. Consequently, it was then decided to place captains compulsorily on the retired list upon certain terms. Speaking now entirely of the half-pay active captains, I may here state that in the navy there are three classes of them. The first class receives 14s. 6d. a day, the second 12s. 6d., and the third 10s. 6d. It was then decided, when the Order in Council of 1860 was issued, that captains arriving at the age of sixty should be retired compulsorily. Now, we excluded from that Order in Council the first class of captains entirely, because they were considered to be so near their flag that it was thought that it would be a matter of injustice to cut them off from the opportunity of arriving at it; but with regard to captains of the second and third classes the retirement was compulsory. They got an increase of pay, those receiving 12s. 6d. having their pay immediately increased up to 20s., and those receiving 10s. 6d. having their pay increased to 18s.; but still they felt the arrangement as a grievance, because, as the first class captains would rise to the half-pay of rear admiral, 25s., they thought they might with equal justice rise to the same amount of pay likewise. They undoubtedly got an immediate rise in pay, but they lost the chance of a further ultimate rise. That circumstance had been often adverted to in this House, and it had been stated that the officers felt it as a grievance; and we now propose to issue an Order in Council by which captains of the second class who have not completed their sea service shall, on arriving at the age of sixty, be retired on 20s. a day, as is the case at present, but that on arriving at their flag rank they shall receive 25s. a day. That is the increase we propose with respect to them. The captains of the third class who have not completed their sea service will, on arriving at the age of sixty, be retired on 18s. a day, as now, but on arriving at the flag list they will also receive 25s. a day. This proposal only extends to captains on the captains' list before the date of the Order in Council of 1860, with regard to whom it was said that injustice had been 672 committed. In making this arrangement the Government thought that it would be unjust to withhold a boon from the commanders and lieutenants who, when retired compulsorily by the Order in Council of 1860, did not rise in pay. We propose that commanders and lieutenants, retired compulsorily under the Order in Council of 1860, are to rise in pay in their respective ranks as they would have done had they remained on the active lists of their ranks; and I trust that this will be considered satisfactory by those gallant officers. So much for the Order in Council of 1860; and now I have to propose a new scheme, with the view of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee to which I have referred—that the captains' list should be reduced to 300, and the commanders' list to 400. We propose to set about this in the following way. Those captains who have served one year at sea in their present rank, but who have not completed their term, may, on arriving at the age of fifty, with the consent of the Admiralty, and on arriving at the age of fifty-five may claim, and on arriving at the age of sixty must, under any circumstances, be retired on 20s. a day, to be increased to 25s. on arriving at the flag list. As soon, however, as the list is reduced to the number of 300, we do not propose to have the power of retiring officers at the age of fifty. With regard to the next class of captains, who have not served this one year, it is proposed that on arriving at the age of fifty they may with the consent of the Admiralty, and on arriving at the age of fifty-five they may on their claim, and on arriving at the age of sixty they must, under any circumstances, be retired at 18s. a day, which will be increased to 20s. on their arriving at the flag list. That, then, is the proposal which we have to lay before the Committee, with a view to the reduction of the captains' list from 350 to 300. And now I come to the last recommendation of the Committee— namely, that the commanders' list should be reduced from 450 to 400. The compulsory retirement of 1860 said this—that any officer who had not served within the last fifteen years should be included in that Order in Council. What we propose is that officers who have not served within ten years — which, of course, will include a greater number — shall be comprehended under that Order in Council. They will receive the rank of captains on reaching the age of sixty, or attaining fifteen 673 years' seniority as commanders without increased pay. In addition to this we propose that a limited number of commanders, on arriving at the age of forty-five, may with the consent of the Admiralty be retired, at fifty-five may claim to be retired, and at sixty must, under any circumstances, be retired upon the same terms as I have already adverted to, with pay in proportion to their length of service. There is another recommendation of the Committee which, I am sorry to say, we cannot carry out. It suggested that the lieutenants should not exceed 1,000, or, in other words, that our lieutenants' list should be kept up to 1,000. But I am sorry to say it is far short of that number. What we propose is, that the establishment of lieutenants shall not exceed 1,000, and also—not with a view to the reduction of the list, which is too small already, but as a matter which was brought before us by the Committee of last year — that if from any circumstance lieutenants should be unable to rise in the service they should, on arriving at the age of forty-five, and having seen certain service, be allowed to retire. We propose, therefore, that lieutenants of forty-five, who have had fifteen years' service, may claim to be retired with the rank of commander, under the conditions prescribed by Order in Council of 1860 — that is to say, their position as regards pay will depend, as with commanders, upon their length of service, I may state, likewise, that when they have been fifteen years on the lieutenants' list they may assume the rank of retired commanders, but that is not to carry with it any increase of pay. These are the proposals which I have to make to the Committee. There are two or three incidental matters which have been recommended by the Committee, to which I will now refer. We had evidence to the effect that the time served in the Coastguard had not received sufficient consideration. By the rules of the navy the time passed in the Coastguard counted only as one-third, and the Committee recommended that it should have a greater value. It is, therefore, proposed that in all calculations the time so passed shall count for one-half to officers retiring in future; and that, I think, will be found a considerable boon. There are various other recommendations, one of which, for instance, is that no officer should be promoted to the active flag rank who had not served three years at least in command of a bonâ fide 674 sea-going ship. That is a very proper recommendation, and will be embodied in an Order in Council. I think I have now adverted to the principal recommendations of the Committee, and I have only to add that I am quite convinced, if hon. Members will entertain these proposals, they will confer a great boon on the navy generally; and, although I do not admit that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) is right in maintaining that the officers of the navy are overpaid, I trust, if these proposals are agreed to, they will be satisfied.
§
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £55,266, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for increasing the Full Pay of the Executive Officers, Paymasters and Assistant Paymasters, Naval Instructors, &c., and Petty Officers of the Royal Navy, which will come in course of payment during the nine months ending on the 31st day of March, 1865.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he had listened with great attention to the speech of the noble Lord, and was filled with disappointment that no allusion had been made throughout the whole of that speech to a class of officers upon which the safety of the navy of England in a great measure depended, and who he had yet to learn had done anything to deprive them of the benefits which were to be conferred on their more fortunate brother officers—he alluded to the masters of the Royal Navy. That class of officers considered themselves very ill-used. In the year 1824 an Admiralty memorandum was issued authorizing the admission of second-class volunteers, and at the same time forming a new rating open to the merchant service; but instead of training those officers as seamen and navigators, every possible obstacle was, as a rule, thrown in their way, and they were sternly told that they were never to receive any higher pay than that of masters. That order remained in force seven or eight years, and brought many promising young men into the navy, but they soon retired in disgust. That was the first attempt at introducing a class of officers from the merchant service into the Royal Navy. In the Baltic campaigns of 1854 and 1855 the masters were again called into action, and before landing at Bomarsund a consultation of the masters serving in the fleet was held, and to their exertions our success was in a great measure due, as he had abundant evidence to prove. He did not wish to 675 puff unduly the services of any one class of officers, but he thought he might fairly ask, that when the services and requirements of other classes were under consideration, the services and requirements of the masters should not pass unnoticed. On the 30th of June, 1863, Her Majesty issued an Order in Council conferring upon the masters who had served fifteen years the title of staff commander, but that carried with it no additional pay or honour. It was true that under certain circumstances a staff commander might receive additional pay if there should be no warrant officer on board, but that happened so seldom that it was not worth taking into consideration. That order appeared to give rank, but by its last paragraph it placed the staff commanders, in all instances, junior to the lieutenants; and all persons must feel that a man who had served with credit for many years might naturally consider himself aggrieved to find himself suddenly placed under the command of perhaps a mere lad. Then, of all the ship's crew, the staff commanders and masters alone seemed to be disqualified from receiving marks of Royal approbation for distinguished services. In illustration he would refer to the case of Mr. William Roberts, a master in the Royal Navy, who, during the Crimean war, commanded the Cyclops when in action, and performed equally distinguished services with other commanders of steamers, but was passed over unnoticed. The difference of pay between the staff commanders and masters, and the paymasters and surgeons, formed a just ground of complaint. The staff commanders and masters received on promotion £182 per annum, while the surgeons received £273, and paymasters £249. After ten years' service the staff commanders and masters received £237, while the surgeons received £328, and paymasters £349. After twenty years' service the staff commanders and masters received £328, surgeons £401, and paymasters £600. In the half-pay the same difference existed. Now, when the noble Lord proposed to do justice to various classes in the navy, it was hard that those meritorious officers of whom he was speaking should be forgotten. If those officers were not of a meritorious and deserving class it would be far better to abolish such class altogether. The arguments used by the staff commanders and masters of the Royal Navy seemed to him to be founded on common sense, and he hoped that the 676 House of Commons on some future occasion would take their case into their consideration with a view to obtaining for them redress. They asked now that their pay should not be so disproportionate to that of the surgeons and other officers he had mentioned, that they should share in any increase of pay to be provided by the supplementary Estimate, that they should take seniority with lieutenants except when on active service, and should be as competent to receive marks of Royal approbation as any other class of officers in the navy. It appeared to him that it would be only fair play, and in accordance with the dictates of common sense, to remove the present injustice done them.
§ MR. FERRANDsaid, he wished to bring under the notice of the Committee the claims of the warrant officers. He had received an address, signed by a large number of warrant officers, complaining of the stinted amount of their salaries, and of the small increase proposed to be made to their pay. They also commented upon the manner in which the Lords of the Admiralty proposed to create twelve new warrant officers of each class.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETWe propose to create twelve chief warrant officers, twelve chief boatswains, and twelve chief carpenters; making altogether an addition of thirty-six chief warrant officers.
§ MR. FERRANDsaid, he was then to understand that there would be thirty-six new creations in a body of 1,200 warrant officers. What the warrant officers wished brought under the notice of the House was that they desired an increase of pay for increased services. They complained that at present an officer of twenty years in the first class received no more pay than one just promoted to that grade. They further complained of the maximum retiring pension, and prayed for increased pay instead, and also an increase in the widows' pensions of the first class, the present practice being that the widow who had been longest in the first class received no more than the widow of the third-class officer who had been promoted to a warrant officer. They requested him to place their claims before the Committee with due respect, believing that they were so moderate and reasonable that their justice would be admitted. He was delighted to hear the noble Lord say he had arrived at the conclusion that an increase of pay should be given to the officers of the navy, on account of the large increase of pay that had taken place 677 in the merchant service. Unless some such step were taken by the noble Lord it would be impossible to maintain the Royal Navy in a proper state of efficiency.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he must congratulate the noble Lord on having introduced this proposal to raise the amount of the allowances to officers, for the condition of naval officers up to the present time had been so impoverished that it was absolutely necessary that the House should take some means for making the service more remunerative. He did not concur with him, however, in thinking that the distribution of the additional £60,000 was the best that could be adopted. The scale of pay to the officers of the navy was a matter which must emanate from the Ministers of the Crown. It was not a constitutional course for an independent Member to move an increase of pay; but he concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Devonshire (Sir Lawrence Palk), with respect to the pay of the masters. The case of the masters had been inquired into by the Admiralty, and had been before a Committee of that House; and though the justice of their claim could not be denied, no allowance was made to them in the present arrangement. It would have been more satisfactory if the particulars of the pay and allowances to flag officers had been set out on the paper which was in the hands of hon. Members, The increase in the table allowances to flag officers on foreign stations would not in all cases be sufficient; and instead of being fixed at £547, it would have been better to apportion the amount of the addition to the expenditure on the particular station. There were three very expensive and at the same time very important stations—the Mediterranean, the East Indies, and the West Indies and North America. It must be for the interest of the country that the best men should be sent to those stations; and yet he knew that certain officers had been requested to accept those commands, and had declined to do so because the pay and allowances were insufficient. He had made that statement on a former occasion, and had been met with a contradiction. Technically he was wrong. He supposed there had been no case in which any one of those commands had been refused by an officer after receipt of the official letter offering him the command; but the custom was for the First Lord to ascertain through his private secretary the wishes of an officer whom he desired to appoint to a com- 678 mand, and it was to refusals made in answer to private letters that he alluded on the former occasion. The command in the Mediterranean was one usually held by an Admiral or a Vice Admiral. Some time ago, to his own knowledge, two Vice Admirals were asked privately whether they would take that command, and both refused to do so. A Rear Admiral, who was now a Vice Admiral, subsequently accepted the command, after four flag officers had declined it. The command in the East Indies and China had been declined in the same way. Sir James Hope, who had just returned from the command, told a Committee that he had been spending nearly £7,000 a year during the whole time he was on the East India station. His pay and allowances from the Admiralty amounted to £2,500, in addition to which he had the East India allowance of £3,000 a year—making £5,500, and as he was a man of considerable private fortune he was able to spend more. Vice Admiral Kuper, who succeeded him in that command, lost the £3,000, the East India allowance, so that he had only £2,500 a year to support the position which it had cost his predecessor nearly £7,000 a year to maintain. The additional allowance of £547 was not enough in such a case as that. On the West India and North American command the pay and emoluments of the Admiral in command amounted in the year 1834 to £14,000. They were now only £3,000, and a commander-in-chief on that station who had not a private fortune could not perform his duty in a manner acceptable to the country, and calculated to uphold good relations with the officers of foreign nations. The Governor of Malta had a salary of £5,000 a year, with allowances which brought his official income up to nearly £6,000, and yet, though his emoluments were greater, his position was no higher than that of the Commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean. The Governor of Gibraltar also had pay and allowances far exceeding those of the commander-in-chief. The discrepancy was still more marked in the East. He thought that instead of making a fixed allowance without reference to the station on which the admirals were to be employed, it would have been better if the Admiralty had taken into consideration the nature of the employment, and apportioned the allowance with reference to the demands likely to be made upon the officer. He hoped that during 679 the recess the Admiralty would consider the matter, and before the next Estimate was laid on the table would be ready with a plan which would give admirals commanding fleets a rate of pay commensurate with the duties they had to perform, with the demands on their means, and calculated according to the importance of the stations on which their flags were hoisted. With regard to the home ports, the commander-in-chief at Portsmouth ought certainly to have some addition to his pay. He had much greater demands on his means than the commanders at Plymouth and the Nore. The nearness of Portsmouth to town and to the neighbourhood in which the Court usually was, threw upon the commander-in-chief expenses which had often been felt to be a heavy tax. The estimated increase of £365 per annum for the commodores must be a mistake, because the five commodores already appeared to have 10s. per day, so that the increase would only be £182 10s. The increase to the captains appeared very considerable on paper, but in reality no one would get it. A captain must be in the first-class and must command a first-class ship; but there were only two first-class ships afloat which had not admirals on board, and these were commanded by second-class captains. He did not agree that this mode of paying captains would be agreeable to the service. Officers desired that their pay and command money should all be made into pay; for, though it was quite true that no one could command a ship without spending far more than the command money, yet a captain liked to feel that he was spending the money out of his own pocket, and not a sum of money intrusted to him to be filtered through his fingers for the public service. He regretted that the Admiralty had not considered the question of ships' bands, small though it might be. The bandsmen were paid as men, but the bandmaster was not paid. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: He is rated.] Yes, but he was sure his noble Friend, who was very fond of music, and who had an excellent band on board the Princess Royal, had not got the services of his bandmaster for the ship's rating. When a ship was commissioned the captain had to put his hand into his pocket for about £300 for instruments, he had to put the band into uniform, and to find some £40 a year for the bandmaster. And all this was only for about three years, when the instruments were dispersed and the band broken up, 680 again to go through the same process in other ships. He hoped that some plan would be devised for the organization of bands, by which captains would be relieved from this heavy expense. He should be glad to hear how the gunnery lieutenants were to be divided into classes. If the first class was to be attained only through an examination so stringent that no one would pass it, then the advantages of this new plan were not likely to be very generally enjoyed. With regard to the increased pay to engineers, he believed there were only two chief engineers at present in a position to receive. Turning to the explanatory statement as to retired pay, he was glad to find that some few of the captains were at last to receive that consideration which was their due, and the plan for reducing the list would probably turn out to be a very fair one. He was also glad to hear that the case of the commanders and lieutenants was under the consideration of the Admiralty, while he regretted to find that no provision was made for any increase of half-pay. He would, in conclusion, appeal to his noble Friend to endeavour to procure during the recess the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of the pay of the navy, for he might be assured no Estimate such as that before the House could give complete satisfaction, seeing that whole classes of officers were overlooked. He could not, he might add, think that the proposal to give only half-time to officers serving in the Coastguard would be looked upon with favour, and he would suggest that, as had been recommended by a Committee of the House, the time should be raised to two-thirds. He would only say, further, that he concurred in much that had fallen from the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) with respect to warrant officers.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the Question before the Committee was the Vote of £55,256. He wished to know what necessity existed for the proposed increase of pay at a time when we were in a state of profound peace? As to the bands on board ship which had been mentioned, he believed they were totally unknown before the battles of the Nile and Trafalgar. All the increase was proposed to be for the officers, there was none for the hard-working sailor.
MR. CORRYsaid, it had been the constant effort of the various Departments for many years to make the Estimates as intelligible as possible, but that he never 681 saw Estimates which were less intelligible than those before the Committee. If it had not been for the lucid explanation of the "Explanatory Statement," which they had heard from the Secretary of the Admiralty, it would have been almost impossible to understand it, and in some respects it was inaccurate as well as obscure. He was not, however, disposed to "look a gift horse in the mouth," especially when he recollected that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty had not, in the memorandum of last year, held out much encouragement that any increase would be made in the enrolments of certain classes of officers. He quite concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand), and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), in almost everything which had fallen from them with respect to the warrant officers, and also with respect to i the emoluments of flag officers, both at home and abroad. Indeed, he considered it to be one of the greatest defects of the present scheme that it did not increase the allowances of the flag officers commanding in chief at the home ports, as well as those of flag officers on foreign stations. He had, on a previous occasion, stated that he knew a home port in which he believed no officer could hold a command without having a considerable private fortune. The station he had in his mind was Portsmouth, where the admiral was required, frequently by introductions from the Admiralty, to entertain foreigners and other persons of distinction, The same might be said in a lesser degree of Devonport, but Sheerness was a place to which nobody would go unless he was obliged, and which everyone left as soon as possible. He might state that he had, in order to test the accuracy of his own views on the subject, written to four distinguished admirals, friends of his, who; had held commands in chief both at home and abroad, and that the answers which he had received were as follows. One of those officers said—
Speaking from my own experience (on a foreign station), I spent more than the naval pay and allowances every year of the whole period of my command. The Portsmouth command is very expensive, from the increasing number of persons of rank and position— foreigners and others—who look for some notice from the commander-in-chief, and who, in many instances, are introduced by letter or otherwise to him. I endeavoured to keep expenditure within reasonable limits, but during the year when I had the pay and allowances of vice-admiral, my naval receipts 682 were £2,697 18s. 11d., and my expenditure £3,384 3s., 0½d., or.£686 4s. 1½d., more. I have carefully rejected payments unconnected with the necessities of my position, and I limited myself to one pair of carriage horses.Another admiral, who had held command both at home and abroad, said —You surprise me by telling me that the proposed addition to the table money of commanders-in-chief does not include any advantage to those serving at the ports at home, as I apprehend those are the very officers whose tables are necessarily the most expensive, although in India the article of consumption cost more.And he then goes on to say that his expenses at a home port so greatly exceeded his naval pay and allowances that if he had been without private means he could not have retained the command. Another officer said—I think the intended increase of table money on foreign stations very necessary, and by no means too much; but if it be required there, it is much more called for at the ports, where it is impossible to get out of the way by going to sea, and where you are continually called on to exercise hospitality which is unavoidable, and more especially so at Portsmouth and Plymouth. While in command abroad my expenses during my three years exceeded my pay and allowances by £1,200.He then added that his expenses while commanding at a home port exceeded his pay and allowances by a considerably larger amount. A fourth admiral wrote—I object altogether to the principle on which our commanders-in-chief are paid, and the most remarkable inconsistency is at Portsmouth. I was very unexpectedly nominated to that command, and although my duties, as well as what was expected of me, were precisely the same as if I had been a full admiral, and Royal and other personages were constantly sent to partake of my hospitality, yet, because I was only a vice-admiral nearly £500 a year, including allowances, was cut off my salary, and the result was that at the termination of my command, I was several thousand pounds out of pocket.He hoped that the several points urged in the course of the discussion would be taken into consideration by his noble Friend, and that among others he would not overlook the inadequate remuneration given to the commanders-in-chief of the home ports. He thought, too, that the full pay of lieutenants and commanders ought to be in some degree proportioned to their half-pay. This would be only in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners of Naval and Military Inquiry in 1860, which was to the effect that, as an inducement to officers to seek active service, the amount of their full pay ought to be fixed in relation to that of their half-pay, but under the present arrangement, a lieutenant (unless entitled to an exceptional allow- 683 ance) of nine or ten years sea service, and on the half-pay list of 9s. a day, would receive no higher an amount of full pay than a lieutenant just promoted to that rank, and on the half-pay of 4s. a day. His noble Friend had stated that all the meritorious officers of long standing were either in command, or serving as first, or as gunnery lieutenants; but he (Mr. Corry) thought that was a very invidious remark, and he believed that there were many excellent officers of long standing who were not serving in any of those capacities. But even if it were otherwise, it would not meet his argument, because he thought that, in addition to their special allowances, first lieutenants and gunnery lieutenants ought also to receive full pay, having some relation to the position they had earned, by service on the half-pay list. In the case of captains their command money varied according to the complements of their ships, but the amount of their pay depended on their position on the half-pay list, and he thought that lieutenants had a special claim to be treated on the same principle, because while captains rose to the higher rates of half-pay by seniority, they did so by actual service at sea. He was glad to hear that the Admiralty had at last consented to do an act of justice to the captains affected by the Order in Council of 1860, and he hoped that the same spirit would guide the Admiralty in dealing with the various grievances which had been pointed out in the course of this discussion.
§ MR. C. P. BERKELEYsaid, he must complain that a small class of officers would receive no increase of pay by one of the arrangements proposed; but would, on the contrary, rather be deprived of a portion of what was already allotted to them. He alluded to the captains in the harbour ships, the Excellent, the Britannia, and the gunnery ships. At present the captain of the Excellent received £800 a year, and the captains of the Britannia and other harbour ships £700. It was, however, proposed that the salary of the former should vary from £691 to £819, and the latter from £591 to £719, so that although it was possible for them to receive an increase of £19, it was also possible that they might be deprived of £109. He regarded the arrangement proposed, with reference to captains on the retired and reserved lists, as a most extravagant one. It would really give some colour to the statement which had been made, that there 684 was no service where an officer could do so little and get so much, or do so much and get so little.
§ MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, he approved generally of the proposals of the Government, but regretted that they did not go far enough. He could not understand how the noble Lord had overlooked the case of the masters, and hoped that their services would still be recognized by the making of some addition to their pay. If a system of age retirement was adopted at all it ought to be fully carried out, and not confined to a single rank, so that while a captain should be retired at sixty an admiral might remain on the active list till he was a hundred. It would no doubt cost a considerable sum so to extend the system, but he believed that the money would be well spent. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) said that if money was given to one service it ought to be given to all; but that argument would not apply until the pay of the navy had been raised to an equality with those of the army and the Civil Service, to both of which it was at present inferior.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished it to be distinctly understood that, although he should agree to the Vote, he did not approve the scheme which had been brought before the House, which he regarded as totally inadequate, delusive in itself, and, in fact, a complete and perfect sham. Since he had been in the House he had never seen a more awkwardly framed paper than that which had been laid upon the table to explain it, and nothing could more dispose him to regret the retirement of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) from the Admiralty than the appearance of such a wretched attempt at exposition. When he, three years ago, carried against the Government the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the claims of the navy, he was told that he had done a most unconstitutional act; but on the 9th of February, 1773, Viscount Howe presented a petition from captains in the navy, praying for a reasonable increase of their half-pay; and it was, by a majority of 154 to 45, referred to a Committee. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had always contended that this question ought to be dealt with by the appointment of a Royal Commission; and the incongruities of this scheme were so numerous and so important, that such an inquiry could not long be refused. It was quite impossible that flag officers on foreign sta- 685 tions should exist upon their pay even with the addition which it was now proposed to make to it, and it was not seemly that officers should be called upon to contribute from their private means to the service of the State, A gallant admiral who had held the command of the China station told him that he could not exist upon less than £3,500 a year, and that to live like those with whom he associated would have cost him £5,000. There was not a clerk in any commercial establishment in China who was not better paid than a post captain, and there was not a man who went there who might not with prudence amass a largo fortune in a few years. It would not be unfair that a trifling percentage should be levied upon the trade in those, seas to remunerate the officers who wasted their lives and spent their fortunes in its protection. The flag in the East Indies was in exactly the same position. At present India enjoyed peace, unrestricted commerce, and other blessings, for which the Indian community was not called upon to pay one farthing, while the British taxpayer had to find the money, and the British officer was called upon to expend health, and even his private resources. The next subject was as to the lieutenants The service might get on without admirals or captains, but not without lieutenants, who were the real executive officers, and therefore were entitled to consideration. It was alleged that the pay of lieutenants for the first two or three years after appointment was adequate, but that certainly would not be the case upon the China, East India, and Pacific stations. The main body of the lieutenants, who could not look for promotion under an average of ten years, remained at the same rate of pay; and as sometimes lieutenants at the age of thirty unfortunately married, it was hard to conceive how they could manage to live upon £182 a year. The recommendation in respect to those officers was an increase of pay every three years. Coming to the warrant officers, who, next to the lieutenants, were most important to the service, he found that their number was 1,200, and the Admiralty proposition was to give to 12 warrant officers of each class a trifling increase of pay. Thus, 36 warrant officers out of 1,200 were to receive 5d. a day additional with the rank of chief of their class. He had to complain that there was not an equal treatment of warrant officers in the navy with non-commissioned officers in the army. Thus in the recent 686 New Zealand war a sergeant in the army and a captain's coxswain in the navy, a petty officer, each obtained the Victoria Cross. The sergeant soon after was appointed to an ensigncy, and the coxswain was offered a warrant, which he from prudential reasons declined, as his acceptance of the offer would have placed him in a worse position. From his own experience upon the Commission for Manning the Navy in 1860, he could say that the opinion of the Commission was that the status of the warrant officers ought to be improved. How was it possible that the men who were the backbone of the navy could be expected in time of war to exert themselves to recruit our navy when no encouragement was held out to them? With respect to the engineers, the complaint of the inspectors of machinery who had sometimes a large amount of horse-power and many engineers under their supervision, was that they only received a guinea a day, while men of the same standing in the commercial marine received £1,000 or £1,200 a year. In conclusion, he would only repeat that he wished to guard himself from approving the paper before the House until a Royal Commission could be obtained to decide upon the merits of the question, instead of the Admiralty, taking advantage of a few observations of a Committee not appointed to consider the subject, adopting their own notions upon it.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he thought it scarcely consistent that in bringing forward so large a scheme as the present he should be taunted with wishing to stifle all the fair claims of the navy. He should be extremely happy if ever it fell to his lot to propose an increase of the pay of the navy, but at present he was doing all that lay in his power. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), through misreading the paper which he had made the subject of comment, fell into two unintentional mistakes. The commanders of the second class, it was true, received 10s. a day, which had reference to their captain's commandment, but; they also got £1 a day table money.
§ SIR JOHN HAYbegged to ask whether he was to understand that they received both allowances?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETYes; £1 abroad, and 10s. at home. The additional allowance, moreover, to first lieutenants of ships commanded by commanders was 1s. 6d. a day, and not 6d., as had been represented. His hon. And 687 gallant Friend, he knew, was trusting to the statements of a very clever friend who prompted him on these occasions, but when he looked into the matter he would find that he had been misled. He admitted to his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone that Portsmouth was a very expensive station, but it must be borne in mind that flag officers in command at home were relieved from the necessity of keeping up double establishments, which formed the great tax upon officers engaged in active service abroad. He wished his right hon. Friend had not attributed to him an invidious remark with regard to lieutenants. As a matter of fact, more than half the lieutenants now employed were receiving extra allowances, either as senior lieutenants or as gunnery lieutenants, and that be thought was a very fair proportion. The invaluable class of officers on whose behalf the hon. Baronet the Member for Devonshire (Sir Lawrence Palk) had spoken, were not included in the present scheme, but questions affecting their rank and position had been very recently dealt with. It was an old moot point in the navy, whether the rank of master ought to be maintained or done away with, and the discussion attained such dimensions that the Admiralty appointed a Committee to take evidence and report. The masters themselves, with few exceptions, were in favour, not of an increase of pay, but of rank; but some grievance having been brought forward as to the widows' pensions, they were increased by a subsequent Order in Council, and likewise fifteen out-pensions were given to these officers in Greenwich Hospital. The rank of staff captain and that of staff commander had likewise been created; but the main difficulty remained, and, for all he could see, must continue, and that was that the officer of the watch must always be in command on deck. In all social matters masters took rank according to the dates of their commissions. There was nothing in the regulations that he knew of to prevent staff commanders from being decorated with the Companionship of the Bath, but these were points affecting the prerogative of the Sovereign, and not properly falling under the cognizance of that House. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Berkeley) complained that officers on the retired list were paid higher than officers of the same rank on the active list. That, however, was always the case. The Admiralty were obliged to give officers 688 some inducement to retire, and thus it happened that retired captains who could not be called upon for service were in certain cases receiving more than officers on the active list.
§ MR. C. P. BERKELEYsaid, that the noble Lord had either misunderstood him, or was not acquainted with the real state of the case. It was proposed that these particular captains when they became retired rear-admirals should receive the same pay as the active rear-admirals—namely, 25s. a day. That was far more than they ever applied for, and was unjust to all the officers on the active list. He should move for the reduction of the sum voted for retirement,
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the officers who had been placed on the retired list under the Order in Council of 1860 were the second and third class of captains. They received by the present proposal as much as rear-admirals on the active list, but the latter could rise to the rank of vice and full admiral with corresponding rise in pay which they were debarred from.
CAPTAIN TALBOTsaid, he thought it had been shown by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) that admirals who were formerly in the receipt of batta and prize money, &c., were now placed in an inferior position to that which they formerly occupied. Their position was also inferior to that of the admirals in other services. He lamented that the noble Lord had not proposed some increase of pay for the masters. The noble Lord said he looked upon them as an invaluable class of officers, but it was extraordinary that in raising the rank of those officers he did not place them in a position to enjoy the rank that was given to them. He trusted that the Admiralty would give their best consideration to this subject, and also to the recommendation of the Select Committee of last year, that the pay of a lieutenant on full pay should be increased with length of service. Look at the position in which lieutenants on full pay were now placed. The noble Lord said that if an officer had a love or zeal for the service he would become a gunnery lieutenant or first lieutenant. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: I said they can get up to it.] But the number of gunnery lieutenants and first lieutenants was limited. The consequence of the full pay not increasing with length of service was, that senior lieutenants of long service would in very many instances be receiving 689 less emolument than junior gunnery lieutenants of very little service. Take an instance from a ship commanded by a captain with no commander. The first lieutenant with eleven years' service and the army rank of major received 10s. a day pay and an allowance of 2s. 6d., making his total emolument 12s. 6d. The second lieutenant with eight years' service and the rank of major was receiving 10s. a day and no allowances; while the gunnery lieutenant with two years' service and the rank of captain was receiving 10s. pay, and allowances varying according to class, and amounting altogether either to 11s. 6d., 12s. 6d., or 13s. 6d. In another ease of a ship commanded by a captain with a commander, the gunnery lieutenant with the army rank of captain and only three years' service was receiving 13s. 6d. a day against an officer of nine years' standing and with the rank of major, but who only received 10s. a day. These instances showed that long service and rank were not considered in regard to emolument. The injustice. however, would be at once removed if the pay increased with service, as recommended in the scheme of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay). He had received many communications on this subject. which he would assure the noble Lord was regarded with great interest by the lieutenants in the service. With respect to the active list, he considered it highly desirable that it should be reduced. If they expected officers to retire they must offer some inducement for them to do so; and the sum now proposed, among so large a number of officers, was totally insufficient for the purpose. The warrant officers of the navy were a most valuable class. Their services were most valuable, and their position should be made as good as possible. That was the goal to which sailors were encouraged to look, and he had over and over again known blue jackets to refuse a warrant when offered to them because they knew their position would not be improved. The pittance which was now offered to thirty-six warrant officers out of 1,200 was almost worthy of ridicule. There was another point which was viewed with great interest in the service — he meant the question of leave. When an officer came home, after being perhaps four years on an unhealthy foreign station, it was not too much that he should be allowed a few months' leave on full pay—he would say one month for every year of foreign service. That was already the case with 690 regard to seamen. They had six weeks or two months' leave, and it was essential to the happiness of officers that they should know a little of shore life. These questions were regarded with great interest in the service; and, acting in a spirit of fairness, he believed the intention of the Committee was to benefit the position of naval officers.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had no objection to the Vote, but was decidedly opposed to the mode in which it was proposed to apply it. The masters were a most valuable class, whose claims he had repeatedly urged on the attention of the Government; but although he had always been promised that their case would be considered, they were now passed over entirely. Paymasters, who had charge only of accounts and provisions, received double the pay of masters, who were responsible for the safe navigation of the ship; yet the former were by this scheme to receive additional pay, while the latter were passed over in silence. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress, in order that the scheme might be reconsidered, and he hoped when next it I was produced they would find it embraced the case of the masters and other points that had been urged in the course of the debate.
MR. CORRYbegged to explain that his meaning, when he spoke, was that all classes of lieutenants should be paid according to their service.
§ COLONEL EDWARDSconsidered that the reserved captains had been treated with great injustice, and he hoped they would yet be placed in the position they deserved.
§ MR. FERRANDsaid, there were many widows of warrant officers living in the poorhouse of Devonport Union. If those persons had the pensions which they enjoyed formerly restored to them, that disgrace would be removed from the country.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEhoped that some explanation would be afforded in regard to the case of the reserved captains referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Beverley (Colonel Edwards).
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the case of those officers had been disposed of. The boon had been granted to them.
§ COLONEL EDWARDSmust say he was under a very different impression to that. He did not understand that redress had been given to those reserved captains, otherwise he should not have alluded to their case. Perhaps the noble Lord would 691 state what were the further advantages which had been conceded to them.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could only repeat that they had granted them the boon. The officers now in question were those who retired under the Order in Council of 1860.
§ COLONEL EDWARDSdid not know what the list was called, but he referred to a meritorious class of officers who were put upon the reserved list a few years ago, and not allowed to rise to their flag as other officers did. They were excluded from attaining the rank which they otherwise would have attained in consideration of some paltry remuneration that they would never have accepted if the matter had been fairly left to them.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped that, as they had been discussing this question for several hours, they would now come to a vote upon it.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress if a pledge were given that justice would be done to the masters.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the "F.G." list had not been dealt with at all, and formed a question that must be raised again. The grievance of the lieutenants in respect to leave, demanded attention. Those officers asked for a month's leave in every year, which was a small boon. They were now practically isolated from their friends, even when on the home station.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,— (Mr. Lindsay,)—put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,776, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the additional Charge for altering and improving the system of Retirement of Officers of the Royal Navy, and reducing the number of Officers on the Active List of the Navy, which will come in course of payment during the nine months ending on the 31st day of March, 1865.
§ MR. C. P. BERKELEYsaid, that if the Admiralty would examine that matter, and take into consideration the other officers who were nearly in the same position as those concerned in this Vote, it would see that it could not stop there, but must go a good deal further.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETbegged to point out the clear distinction which existed between the case of those captains whose retirement on the reserved list was voluntary, and those whose retirement was compulsory.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Charles Berkeley.)—put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.