§ SIR EDWARD DERINGsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the position of the Engineers of the Royal Navy. Their pay was quite incommensurate with the duties they were called on to discharge. It was hardly possible to overrate the value of their services, because it was upon the ability with which they discharged their duties that the efficiency of that steam fleet which had been so much discussed the last few nights depended. A chief engineer ranked with a lieutenant in the navy, and an inspector of machinery afloat ranked with a post captain. The engineers properly claimed that they 1841 should be placed in a position not inferior to those who held corresponding rank in the service. There were several points to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. First, as to the positions of widows. By the existing regulations the widows of engineers and assistant engineers had no pension whatever, unless it happened that their husbands were killed in action or in the immediate performance of some active duty. This was a great hardship, because only 20 per cent of them ever obtained the rank of chief engineer, which only gave a title to a pension. The great majority of the engineers and assistant engineers were in this position. They might serve Her Majesty fifteen years or more, exposed, perhaps, to the perils of a dangerous climate, or what might be even worse, the atmosphere of the engine room in regions where the atmosphere was at 130 degrees or 140 degrees, and if their constitutions gave way no provision at all was made. By the evidence taken in 1863 it appeared that there was a greater mortality among officers of this class than among the other officers of the service whose duties required them to be upon deck. There was another point respecting which they had cause of complaint. The widows of assistant-surgeons, who had corresponding rank, and of warrant officers, who were of inferior rank, had pensions if their husbands died, but the widows of naval engineers were not similarly provided for. The next point affected the position of chief engineer. When an officer attained the rank of chief engineer, or rather before he received the highest rate of emolument attaching to it, he must show twenty-five years of service. He did not complain of the regulation; it might be a proper one; but he complained that a man after having served Her Majesty perhaps for twelve or fourteen years, when he obtained the rank of chief engineer, instead of being allowed to count those fourteen years, by the regulation of the service was allowed to count only four years. The special hardship was, that a man entered, perhaps, at the age of twenty-one, and, after serving twelve or fourteen years, perhaps became chief engineer at the age of thirty-five, but not being able to count the fourteen years he had served, but only four, he was obliged to serve another twenty-one years before he got to the top of the tree; so that by the time he got to the head of his profession he had reached the age fixed by law for his retire- 1842 ment. He begged to press upon the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) whether it would not be just to make the period of retirement fifty instead of sixty years of age? It was shown most conclusively by the evidence taken in 1863 that an engineer was as old a man at fifty as most men belonging to other classes of the profession at sixty. He would advert to the case of assistant-surgeons. The noble Lord called attention the other night in moving the Naval Estimates to the state of the medical profession, and mentioned the difficulty of getting medical men for the navy, and said it was necessary to offer some inducement to obtain a sufficient supply. But how stood the case of the assistant-surgeon, who had the same rank as the engineer? After the assistant-surgeon had served ten years he was made surgeon, and he was not restricted to counting only four years, but was entitled to count the whole of the ten years that he had served Her Majesty. The next point was one which could hardly affect the Estimates in any perceptible degree, yet would relieve a great deal of individual hardship. An increase of pay took place every five years. A man, therefore, of nineteen-and-a-half years' service retiring on half-pay was paid upon fifteen years only instead of upon his full period of service. This might seem a trifling matter, but it seriously affected half-pay officers. The difference between the allowance upon fifteen years' service and that upon twenty years was no less than £45 a year. If there were a proportionate increase for every year of service, or if the period were reduced to three years, little difference would be made in the Estimates, but a great boon would be conferred on those personally interested. The last point which he would press upon the noble Lord was the position of inspectors of machinery afloat. There was, perhaps, no class of officers upon whom greater responsibility rested, for upon their care and vigilance not only the efficiency, but also the very safety of the ship depended, and yet when on full pay they had a mere trifle more than the chief engineers, who were freed from responsibility—at least, while the inspectors were on board, and on half-pay they received just the same amount as chief engineers. This was, perhaps, the only instance in the army or the navy of officers getting increased rank without any substantial increase in pay. The proof that the grievances were real was the position which officers of this 1843 class occupied in the merchant navy. In the merchant navy there were 900 registered engineers, and of these only two had joined the Royal Naval Reserve. He would add that within the last year or two many engineers in the Royal Navy of five and six years' standing had left the service and entered the merchant navy; so that the Royal Navy was a nursery for officers who, when they became efficient, left it. In the case of an emergency there might be great difficulty in getting a sufficient number of engineers for the Royal Navy, and should this happen it would not be a pleasant reflection for the noble Lord, that it was in consequence of harsh and rigid regulations that a most valuable class of men had been driven from the service. A minor grievance was, that while sub-lieutenants, second masters, and assistant-surgeons were included in the official Navy List, the naval engineers were omitted, which was an invidious distinction, but it might be an oversight which could be easily remedied. The claims made by the engineers were just, and their concession would promote the efficiency of the service.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that if the Government had power to give a general increase of pay to the navy so valuable a body of men as the engineers should not be excluded from the advantage. But the truth was that admitting the moderation of the hon. Baronet's tone, and sharing his appreciation of the services of the engineers, nothing was so difficult to meet in that House as claims advanced on behalf of a single class of officers without reference to other classes of officers of equal merit and importance, when the position of each must be governed by a general standard applicable to all. When an hon. Member sought to improve the position of a particular class of officers he usually ignored other classes, but the Government was bound to take a wider view, and to consider other classes; and in considering the case of the engineers they could not overlook surgeons, masters, and other classes in the navy. Many of the demands made by the engineers in their Memorial to the Admiralty of the 1st of January were not founded upon a fair comparison of their pay, work, and position, with that of other officers of their rank in the service. As to a man not reaching the top of his profession until he was advanced in years, that was the rule in most employments; but a well-conducted man might become a chief engineer at the age of thirty-three. An engineer receives 1844 half a guinea a day under five years' service; in five years 11s. 6d. a day, and so on up to the higher grades—a rate of payment and of advance proportionate to those of corresponding ranks in the service. The hon. Baronet asked why was there not an increase of pay every year; but if the pay of engineers was to rise annually, so must that of other classes of officers; and the system in the navy was to regulate increase in pay by periods of years. The hon. Baronet had omitted to state that engineers had extra allowances when they were in charge of engines, and on a line-of-battle ship the allowance was as high as 3s. a day extra pay. Engineers were only like other classes in not being allowed to count the whole of their time as juniors for increased half-pay. Officers in the navy did not count their service for half-pay until they had attained a position in which they were considered to be thoroughly acquainted with their duties. In the junior classes of the service they were supposed to be learning their business. [Sir EDWARD DERING: Assistant-surgeons.] They were an exception, because their education was long and expensive, and they were professionally competent when they entered the service. There was no difficulty in getting engineers, although the pay was better in the merchant service; but there was difficulty in getting surgeons, because of their prospects in private practice, and it was therefore their duty to propose an increase in the pay of the surgeons. Such considerations ought not always to regulate the action of Government, because there might be individual cases of inadequate payment. Regarding the Memorial from the engineers, which came before the Admiralty only on the 1st of January, it was not wise or politic for a department of the navy to appeal to Parliament for a redress of grievances, when they had gone to the heads of their department to ask for an improvement of their position. He must say that he did not think that these things could be properly dealt with in that House. There were, no doubt, some points of their case which were peculiar, such, for instance, as the nature of their business confining them to a narrow space in a very high temperature; but when their position was compared with that of other officers in the navy, he did not think there was any case for consideration. One thing in their favour was, that whilst officers of almost every class in our service were for a considerable portion of their time upon half- 1845 pay, engineers were almost continuously on full pay. He could give no promise whatever to the engineers, but could simply say that their Memorial was under the consideration of the Admiralty.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he congratulated the engineers on obtaining so able an advocate as the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Dering), who had so fairly and comprehensively explained their case to the House. He (Mr. Otway) complained of the difficulty that existed in the way of obtaining justice from the Admiralty. The only response it was possible to obtain when re-presentations were made of grievances or other matters was that they were "under consideration." This matter had, however, been already considered in the House. The Duke of Somerset stated before a Committee that the subject was under consideration then as it was now. But when would the consideration be brought to any result? It was the complaint of every branch of the service that the Admiralty was always considering the case, but no advantage ever came of it. He was bound to press upon the attention of the House the most important matter concerning the widows of a class of officers who were exposed to unusual dangers, and among whom the mortality was very high. The engineers were confined in an atmosphere the temperature of which ranged from 60 to 145 degrees, while enduring other hardships which it was not necessary for him to recapitulate. Yet the widows of these men were not allowed any pension. He hoped the noble Lord would give the House some satisfactory explanation of the matter.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the engineers were not the only class of men whose widows did not receive a pension. Nothing was allowed to the widows of assistant-paymasters, second paymasters, and other officers of a corresponding rank with the engineers.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, that the engineers were as reluctant as the noble Lord could wish to have their claims brought before the House; but the difficulty was, where else were they to go? They came to the House because it was absurd to go to the Admiralty for redress of grievances. He was much disappointed at hearing the noble Lord's speech, which amounted to this, that the thing would hang on until the end of the Session, and would then be indefinitely postponed, thus holding out no hope to these unfortunate people. He must say that he considered 1846 that the claim of the widows to pensions was one that deserved the serious consideration of the Admiralty. He did not understand the different classes and ranks, but he considered it was an extraordinary, anomaly that the widows should have no pensions except in the cases of husbands killed in action or dying of wounds received in action. A man who died of fever or dysentery contracted on an unhealthy station, such as the China Sea, equally lost his life in the service of his country. He hoped the noble Lord would urge the Board to look into the question, with the desire not to put it off, but to see what could be done in the matter.
§ Motion agreed to.