NAVY PROMOTION.—RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 21 March 1867 vol 186 cc293-311

MR. HANBURY - TRACY,

who had given notice to call the attention of the House to one of the recent promotions made by the present Board of Admiralty; and to move— That the promotion by the First Lord of the Admiralty of a junior Lieutenant in the Navy, without any special or distinguished service, over the heads of hundreds of meritorious Lieutenants senior to him in the Service, is prejudicial to the public interest, said: I must claim the kind indulgence of the House, feeling that I am touching on rather delicate ground, and that this subject bears somewhat of an invidious and personal a character. I can only say that nobody regrets more than I do the necessity which compels me to bring it forward; and nothing would have induced me to do it had I not felt that it is a matter which affects so vitally the best interests of the service, and is one which strikes at the root of all discipline, that having been myself a naval officer I thought that I should not be doing my duty were I to allow a promotion of so unusual and unprecedented a character, which has justly caused so much discontent throughout the service, to pass by unnoticed and unchallenged. It will be, Sir, in the recollection of the House, that about two weeks ago I asked the late First Lord of the Admiralty a Question relating to this matter. I asked him if it was true that a lieutenant, whose commission as lieutenant dated from May 22, 1861, had been promoted over the heads of 370 of his seniors; and, if so, what special grounds could be assigned for so unusual a proceeding? It is, Sir, because the answer I then received was far from satisfactory, and tended rather to increase the glaring anomalies of this promotion, and showed on what a dangerous and slippery basis Admiralty promotions rest, that I have founded this Motion. The right hon. Baronet then informed me that it was quite true this promotion had taken place; but that the officer referred to was of unimpeachable character and professional reputation, and had served from five to six years at sea. Now, Sir, I have no wish either to impeach this officer's professional character or reputation, more especially so as I believe him from personal knowledge to be a very good officer, nor do I wish to blame him in the slightest degree; but what I want to point out to the House is this, that he had no special qualification whatever to justify his promotion over so many of his seniors, nor had he ever been placed in any position in which he could have shown any. How the First Lord could have stated that he had served from five to six years at sea, I am totally at a loss to conceive; as by the fairest calculation, giving him the benefit of a few doubtful days, I find that at the outside he could only have served at sea for the brief space of four years and one month. I am sure that the right hon. Baronet had no wish to mislead or give a wrong impression to the House, and that what he then stated he firmly believed, and that it must have been based on some eroneous information he had received. I sincerely trust that if he replies to this Motion he will also be able to state that he was labouring under a wrong impression when he made this promotion, and had at that time no idea of what a glaring injustice he was perpetrating. Perhaps, Sir, before I go further, I had better state to the House on what grounds I consider this promotion most unfair and unjust. I find, Sir, that this officer, having no special qualification whatever, has been promoted over the heads of 350 lieutenants who had served at sea for a longer period than he had, and all of whom had every right to expect to be made commanders before him; that he has been promoted over 128 first lieutenants of ships in commission; over sixty gunnery lieutenants; over forty lieutenants in command of vessels; over two lieutenants who had received the Beaufort testimonial for their special qualifications on passing at the naval college; over the senior lieutenants of the ten different stations; and lastly, over a very large number of officers who have been specially recommended for their promotion by their admirals and captains. I hope that this statement, showing so clearly what a monstrous and glaring injustice has been done, is of itself a sufficient excuse for my having brought it forward. The figures which I have given I believe to be strictly accurate; and in order to render them so, I have gone most carefully over each name on the Navy List, and deducted all those who, from age and other causes, could not reasonably expect their promotion, and could not be termed effective officers. The Duke of Somerset, in his evidence before the Select Committee on Naval Promotion and Retirement in 1863, stated that he considered the dead-weight of the lieutenants' list to be about 100, and as I have deducted no less than 106, I hope the right hon. Baronet will not think that I have taken any unfair advantage of him. In the answer to my question the right hon. Baronet went on to say that it was for the benefit of the service to promote a certain number of young officers, and that promotions in the navy always are, and always must be, by selection. Now, Sir, I entirely agree with him that it is most beneficial to the service that young officers should be promoted, and young blood be occasionally infused into the service; but I apprehend that nobody can deny that if young officers are selected and promoted over the heads of so many of their seniors, it should be only for recognised ability and merit, and not for personal feeling and political in- fluence. Promotion by selection has been so well described in the Report of the Select Committee on Navy, Army, and Ordnance Estimates in 1848, that I will, with the permission of the House, read a short extract from it— This power of selection is, indeed, a trust which must be exercised with justice and discrimination. The duty is invidious; but the faithful performance of it will ensure the constant promotion of officers in the prime of life to the highest rank in their profession. The public will be the gainers; great advantage will still be given to seniority; no injustice will be done if good service and approved merit be the rules, which shall guide the selection, and the greatest reward will be held out to signal gallantry and to exemplary conduct. I take it, Sir, that there can be no doubt that promotion by selection ought and must be based on seniority, except in cases of special merit and recognised ability, If you merely say that promotion is by selection, the floodgates are at once open to all manner of interest and jobbery. Admiral Elliot, in his evidence before the Select Committee, showed very clearly that the service never complains of selection provided it is for conspicuous ability and merit. I think that the service would admit at once the great advantage of having some young officers coming forward; and if only a portion of the promotions was left to selection, I do not think that any branch of the service would complain, provided that the selections were for recognised ability and merit. I hope it will not be thought that I am in favour of a pure seniority system; for, on the contrary, so strong am I in favour of promotion by selection based on seniority that, instead of wishing it done away with, I am inclined to go rather to the other extreme; and I do not think sufficient officers are promoted by selection for their special abilities and zealous conduct. The great advantages of such a system none who have seen the working of it can deny; and, Sir, it is one of the happiest contrasts that I know of to witness the difference displayed by our first and gunnery lieutenant in zeal and energy and that shown by officers of foreign navies, in which the service is based on the pure seniority system. On the one hand officers feel, or rather hope, that the eye of the Admiralty is upon them, and that their promotion is, to a great extent, dependant on their own individual exertion and energy; whilst, on the other hand, on the pure seniority system they know that they are certain of their promotion with- out any special exertion on their part, and have therefore no inducement to work, and, to make use of a naval phrase, "they have only to sit down and allow the wind to blow them along," and their reward is certain. I hope, Sir, that the day is far distant when we shall have recourse to this system; but, undoubtedly, unless the selections are ruled with fairness and impartiality, we shall be obliged to adopt it. The right hon. Baronet, in his answer to me the other night, implied that, having been a naval officer, I should not have asked such a question; but, Sir, I apprehend that this is the very reason why I should have done so. I naturally know the feelings and the sentiments of the rank to which I lately belonged, and I know only too well that this promotion has given rise to an amount of ill-feeling, discontent, irritation, and grumbling which it will take many years to obliterate. Can anything inure heartrending or distressing be pictured than the sight of a zealous, arduous, and energetic lieutenant—one who has striven for a long number of years to earn his promotion, perhaps as first lieutenant, perhaps as gunnery lieutenant, or perhaps in command of vessels, on hearing of such an event. He naturally says to himself, What is the use of my continuing to devote my life to the Service in the manner in which I have been working, when an officer who is so much my junior, who has never been a first or gunnery lieutenant, is promoted before me? Is not such an event sufficient of itself to dishearten him for ever, and to make hint long to leave a Service in which his claims for promotion, founded as they are on professional study, perseverance, and ability, pursued in a path of honour and integrity, are put on one side, and the prize of the profession is handed over to social and political interest? Many years ago it was notorious that such a state of things existed in the most glaring shape; but I am happy to say that wise administrators, aided by public opinion and the press, have, to a great extent, put an end to these unjust promotions. I have no hesitation, however, in saying that the right hon. Baronet has, with one stroke of his pen, succeeded in upsetting the whole of this policy, especially that pursued by the Duke of Somerset. He has succeeded, in the short space of six months, in resuscitating that feeling of grumbling which used to exist and be so rife in the Service; but which the Duke of Somerset, by distributing his patronage and promotions with a fair and impartial hand, succeeded in putting a stop to. Whatever may be said as to the Duke's policy in regard to the material of the navy, I am certain that no First Lord of the Admiralty ever bestowed his patronage with so fair and impartial a hand, or succeeded in giving so much content and satisfaction amongst all classes and branches of the Service. It is self-evident, from the Report of the Select Committee on Navy Promotion, that they abstained from malting any recommendations or suggestions as to the manner in which officers should be promoted, solely on the ground that the system, as carried out by the Duke of Somerset, was fair and impartial, for in the Report they express themselves in the following manner:— XII. Your Committee have already stated that the Naval Officers are generally in favour of the principle of selection as applicable to the promotion of Lieutenants to be Commanders, and Commanders to be Captains. The Committee think that the system as worked by the Admiralty is fair. It was thus described by the Duke of Somerset: With regard to promotions made at the Admiralty, I go over the lists with the services of the officers; and I see also what the recommendations of the officers in command of the different stations have been; I very often receive a private letter from the Admirals in command, pointing out such and such officers as being very efficient and zealous, and who are deserving of promotion, and whose promotion would be for the good of the service. We then take an opportunity to but them, if we can, into the next hatch but, at the same time, we take them, to a certain extent, from each station, so that the officers who are serving at a distance (serving, perhaps, in the Pacific) may not see the promotion going to some other station, and not getting themselves a little share of it. We try to divide the promotions between the different stations.' The Duke of Somerset has further described in his evidence, the precautions now taken to prevent officers from being unduly passed over. While this practice continues, it may reasonably be expected that deserving officers will not be neglected, and distinguished merit will meet with its reward. Your Committee can see no reason, therefore, for recommending an alteration in the system of selection as now applied to the lower ranks; and, when well administered, your Committee entirely agree with the Report of the Commissioners on Naval and Military Inquiry, that it offers the best security which could be desired for reinforcing and reanimating the Navy to any extent which the circumstances of the country might, on an emergency, render necessary.' I have endeavoured to show to the House that this system of fairness and impartiality on which the Committee relied has broken down, and I would now ask, Sir, if in the opinion of the House some alteration should not be made, or, at any rate, some protest be entered against such an unhappy state of things. In the French navy there is a Conseil d' Avancement, whose duty it is, under certain rules, which are well established, to recommend officers for promotion; but I fear until a radical change is made in the constitution of the Admiralty, and permanent Heads of Departments are appointed, it would be useless to adopt this plan. The right hon. Baronet said the other night, that this promotion was one of a batch of five, and that he was unwilling to give an explanation about a single one without giving his reasons for the whole of these promotions. Sir, I believe that four these promotions were very fair and good promotions; but is it any reason that because a judge had made four just decisions, that he should make one unjust one? The right hon. Baronet would have us believe that four blacks make one white. I hope the House will not be deceived by a doctrine so new and unprecedented, and that they will remember that it is only about one of these promotions that I take. I am informed that it is intended to justify this promotion on the ground that a similar one was made by the Duke of Somerset. Sir, I will now say that the case they refer to was under totally different circumstances; and was an act of justice to an officer who was suffering from an Admiralty order which unintentionally had a retrospective action. But, Sir, in no case can it be shown that, even if this had been bad, that it was any excuse for its being renewed. I will not, Sir, any more take up the time of the House; but will only say that I trust the House, and the right hon. Baronet, will not think that I have brought this forward in any party or factious spirit, or with any ill will to the right hon. Baronet. I cannot believe that so good an administrator could have been guilty of so flagrant an act of injustice if he had known at the time the real state of the case. I sincerely trust that the right hon. Baronet will be able to show that this was really the state of the case, and that he had no intention of bringing back the melancholy reminiscences of former days, when personal and political influenee held such a withering sway over true ability and zeal. I have only to thank the House for the kindness with which they have heard me.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the promotion by the First Lord of the Admiralty of a junior Lieutenant in the Navy without any special or distinguished service, over the heads of hundreds of meritorious Lieutenants senior to him in the Service, is prejudicial to the public interest,"—(Mr. Hanbury-Tracy,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

Sir, the hon. Gentleman having thought it his duty to follow up the Question he asked on a former evening by a proceeding of a more formal character, I have to say that I am perfectly willing to meet it. I am bound to accept, and I do accept, the statement just made by the hon. Gentleman—that he has not brought this Question forward in a party spirit, or with a factious motive. I am further bound to believe that the hon. Gentleman is influenced solely and entirely by patriotic zeal for the interest of the naval service. Assuming that to be the case, I am only sorry the patriotic zeal of the hon. Gentleman did not equally influence him a very short time ago. The charge involved in this case is that I have promoted a lieutenant of five years and eight months' service to the rank of commander, that lieutenant being—I do not know whether this is a part of the charge—a son of the Earl of Hardwicke. [Mr. HANBURY-TRACY: I did not mention names.] Well, that is an omission which I think I ought to supply. I have to call the attention of the House and the hon. Gentleman to these facts:—The service of Lieutenant Yorke, as the hon. Gentleman has told us, was five years and eight months. The Duke of Somerset, when First Lord of the Admiralty, promoted a son of Sir James Graham from the rank of lieutenant to that of commander on five years and two months' service. He promoted a son of Sir Charles Wood, now Lord Halifax, from the rank of lieutenant to that of commander, on five years and two months' service. He promoted Lieutenant Fitzclarence, son of the Earl of Munster, from the rank of lieutenant to that of commander, on four years and eleven months' service. Therefore, whatever may have been the iniquity of my promotion of Lieutenant Yorke, in every possible respect those three promotions of the Duke of Somerset are worse. The services of the gentlemen pro- moted were shorter; and those lieutenants had no peculiar distinction beyond that which is a common one. I believe in the cases of Lieutenant Wood and Lieutenant Graham—I know nothing of Lieutenant Fitzclarence—the officers were gentlemen of unexceptionable character and good service. But, if the promotion of Lieutenant Yorke be—as the hon. Gentleman says—entirely unjust and unwarrantable, I wish to know why the promotions of those three officers, who had not seen such long service, was not also entirely unjust and unwarrantable? Sir, do not let me be mistaken. I do not complain that no Member of this side of the House should have risen to object to the promotions of the son of Sir James Graham and the son of Sir Charles Wood. Provided that their characters were good and their services honourable, as I believe to have been the case, I think it was desirable that young blood should have been introduced into the higher ranks of the navy, and, accordingly, that young officers should have been promoted. I am not the man to say that the long public services of Sir Charles Wood and Sir James Graham should have been disregarded; neither do I wish to make the least attack on those promotions. The hon. Gentleman has paid a tribute to the spirit in which the Duke of Somerset conducted his promotions. I believe, notwithstanding the eases which I have mentioned to the House, the noble Duke was guided by what he considered to be the right principle. I never heard the Duke of Somerset's promotions complained of but on one ground—namely, that he did not make a sufficient number of promotions of this kind. The fault I have found with his promotions was that in promoting lieutenants he was guided more by the priniple of seniority in the service than the interest of the navy demanded. I will not appeal to gallant Gentlemen behind me, because, from the turn this case has taken, I feel that what they might say might be attributed to party feeling; but I see a gallant Admiral on the other side (Admiral Erskine), and I ask him whether it is not perfectly true that young blood should be introduced into the higher ranks of the navy. Gentlemen are treading on dangerous ground when they are undertaking to draw a distinction between one young officer of good character and another; and I think I have reason to complain of the manner in which this promotion of Lieutenant Yorke has been brought forward for animadversion. The hon. Gentleman alluded to other promotions which I had made on the same day when I promoted Lieutenant Yorke; and he said that four honest promotions could not counterbalance this one. Will the House allow me to mention the circumstances. I was called on to promote four lieutenants? As a young officer of good character I promoted Lieutenant Yorke, but my next promotion was Lieutenant Fitzmaurice, with whom I had no acquaintance. I am not aware that I ever saw him in my life; but he had been selected for promotion by the Duke of Somerset. I believe he was deserving of it; but owing to the change of Government, his promotion did not take place, and I thought it would be a great hardship if he were deprived of it by that circumstance. As to the other three gentlemen, I do not know that I can recollect their names or where they came from; but I dived into the records of the Admiralty, and found men of the highest standing and reputation. All of them had at least ten or eleven years' service, and I do not believe that any officer in the navy wilt say that there could have been better or fairer promotions. Since then I have had the honour of making three or four more promotions, and I think the hon. Gentleman will exert himself in vain to find fault with them. In the terms of his notice, the hon. Gentleman states that the promotion of Lieutenant Yorke was made over the heads of hundreds of meritorious officers seniors to him in the service. So was the promotion of Lieutenant Graham; so was the promotion of Lieutenant Wood, so was the promotion of Lieutenant Fitzelarence. But that statement of itself is not what I complain of. What I complain of is that the hon. Gentleman; who was a navalofficer, and knows how these things are regulated [A laugh], should use language calculated to lead to an erroneous impression. I think hon. Gentlemen will do better if they restrain their mirth till they hear what I am about to say. The public are not aware of the fact, but the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact, that in every one of those eases of promotion numbers of meritorious lieutenants must be passed over. In the case of those three officers whom I selected for their service and their merits, and to whose selection the hon. Gentleman makes no objection, a number of meritorious officers were passed over. The state of the navy is such—the stag- nation in promotion is such—that it is impossible for all the lieutenants to look forward to obtaining the position of commander. It was in consequence of that, that the Duke of Somerset, only a year ago, introduced a new regulation making provision for the retirement of lieutenants after a certain age, and under certain circumstances. The language of the hon. Gentleman would really imply that everyone of those meritorious lieutenants, of whom he states there are hundreds, might have been promoted to the rank of commander; but he knows they never could have been, however carefully the seniority system might have been carried out by the Duke of Somerset or any other First Lord. I have no further answer to make to the hon. Member, and can only add, as the case has been brought forward, that I am not in the least ashamed of any one of the promotions that I have made.

ADMIRAL ERSKINE

said, it had not been his intention to take any part in that discussion; but as the Secretary of State for War had appealed to him, he must express his concurrence in the opinion stated by the right hon. Gentleman that promotion should not always be by seniority in the navy. Such a system would produce a stagnation in the service; it would not give them the best men, and, moreover, it would remove all responsibility from the heads of those who ought to bear it. One of the advantages of selection was that it admitted of the most searching inquiry into those promotions, and also imposed the heaviest responsibility on the person in-trusted with them. He feared, however, that he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the power by which that patronage ought to be exercised. Several years ago the right hon. Gentleman expressed an opinion that promotions given by flag officers to officers serving under them, which were called "haul down promotions," ought to be placed in the hands of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman had also expressed the opinion that "Board promotions," which were given for special acts of good conduct by the representation of the Board, should likewise cease and be vested in the First Lord. He could not think that the possessor of political power must necessarily be the best judge of professional merits; and of all the functions of the Board of Admiralty, that of recommending officers for promotion on account of special services was one which it was best fitted to exercise. As to the promotions made by flag officers he was very much of the opinion of the late Duke of Wellington, who, writing from Portugal in 1810, complained that he had not the power of making even a corporal, and declared that it was impossible the system then pursued could last; that it was absolutely necessary for the discipline of the army, and to stimulate men when under danger, that he should be in-trusted with the power of promotion, and expressed a wish to see adopted in that service a practice that would be in accordance with the usage of the British navy. There never was a wiser sentence written than that. The right hon. Baronet opposite, it was only fair to say, had shown no indisposition while at the Admiralty to recognise the services of officers who had received their promotion in the precise way that he had deprecated. During his term of office he had employed three flag officers—namely, first, Sir James Hope, one of the most distinguished officers in the navy; secondly, an officer whose appointment to the command of the Channel squadron everybody approved, Sir Charles Fremantle; and a third, whose selection might not command such general satisfaction, was himself. For the last he had always felt grateful to the right hon. Baronet. All those three officers had been promoted as flag lieutenants by the admiral under whom they had acted. If these promotions by commanders were more frequently allowed, they would hear very little of discontent in the navy.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had intended to justify what he had done in these cases by reference to the acts of his predecessors, he ought to have given them some notice that he meant to do so. In the case of Lieutenant Wood he was then able to offer a satisfactory answer to the right hon. Gentleman. That officer was a flag lieutenant to Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker; and it was an old rule that on striking his flag an admiral was entitled to a promotion for his flag lieutenant. That rule was felt to be open to objection. It was therefore laid down in 1864 by the Duke of Somerset, that no flag lieutenant should be promoted unless he had previously served three years. Within a few weeks of this order, Admiral Walker struck his flag, and applied for promotion for Lieutenant Wood. It turned out that the latter officer had only served two years which reckoned as sea service, and two years as flag lieutenant, and did not come quite within the rule thus laid down by the Board. It was thought rather hard that the rule should act retrospectively in his case, and accordingly he was appointed to serve in the Excellent for one year, in that way making up the prescribed time for obtaining his promotion. He had no doubt that some similar explanation might be made in the two other cases to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred as having occurred during his predecessor's tenure of office, had notice been given that they would be mentioned. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion, but rest satisfied with the discussion that had taken place.

MR. R. W. DUFF

said, that Captain Fitzclarence had been flan lieutenant to Admiral Smart, who had been commander of the fleet. He had no desire to claim a monopoly of virtue for a Whig Board of Admiralty; but thought that, however satisfactory to the House might have been the reply of the right hon. Baronet in a party point of view, alleging as he did that he had made these promotions in the same way his predecessors had done, it would scarcely be equally satisfactory to the naval profession.

MR. AYRTON

said, that having served en the Committee upon Naval Promotion and Retirement for a Session, he found that, the greatest difficulties stood in the way of a class of officers on whom the wellbeing of the service much depended obtaining employment—namely, those who were promoted from the rank of lieutenant to that of commander. He had never heard anything more distressing than the statements made by officers in the navy as to the course they had been compelled to take for the purpose of obtaining their promotion, which justice had denied them on their merits. One officer said he matriculated at one of the Universities to obtain a degree, in order that he might bring himself to the notice of the Admiralty; and another officer owed his promotion to the simple fact that he could speak French. He (Mr. Ayrton) put the following question to the Duke of Somerset:— Has the practice been entirely given up of Promoting officers from the rank of lieutenant to commander for the gratification of Lords of the Admiralty and other persons of influence? The Duke of Somerset's answer was— I think so. We have now a printed form, which we send back, telling the people that they are not to interfere, and they are enabled to explain that the Admiralty do not intend to attend to their explanation. The principle, in short, which had been laid down by the Duke of Somerset was that of seniority, qualified by the passing over of those at the head of the list, who, for one reason or another, were not considered proper objects of promotion, at the same time supplementing the list by choosing officers who had special recommendations in their favour which could be quoted as sufficient reasons for their selection. That was a principle which the Committee had accepted, and it had been clearly shown that whatever might have been the abuses in the navy in former times they had been abandoned by the Duke of Somerset, and that he had put the administration of its affairs on a better footing. If the present question had been brought forward as a mere party question, he for one should have abstained from entering into the discussion. Such, however, was not the ease, and when he found the right hon. Gentleman, the late First; Lord of the Admiralty, arrogating to himself the right of making every fifth promotion in the navy according to his own will and pleasure, and irrespective of any of those special qualifications on which the Duke of Somerset had insisted, he could not refrain from protesting against such a system. The right hon. Gentleman had, indeed, informed the House that Lieutenant Yorke was the son of a noble Lord, and that he had behaved very properly in the navy. Well, nobody supposed that the right hon. Gentleman would have put a person who had been a disgrace to the service over everybody else; but he should like to know what were the special recommendations from the Admiral on the station, or otherwise, which justified Lieutenant Yorke being placed over other officers on the ground of superior merit? If any such grounds were adduced he was sure his hon. Friend (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) would be delighted to accept the statement as satisfactory, and to withdraw his Motion. The only grounds advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, however, for the appoint, merit was that Lieutenant Yorke was the son of a noble Lord, and a political friend of his own, while he laid down, as he had said before, the doctrine that having made four ordinary promotions he was entitled to make every fifth promotion without regard to seniority. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: I laid down no such doctrine,] The right hon. Gentleman had done worse; he had carried that doctrine out in practice. He must know that it was of the utmost importance that the First Lord of the Admiralty should set in that respect a good example. There could be no doubt that the tone of the promotions throughout the whole service—and the admirals had considerable patronage—must be greatly affected by any course which the head of it might think proper to pursue. He protested against the doctrine that promotion in the navy was to be regulated by personal friendship or political considerations. The instance in question was one he could not help thinking of a most pernicious character. It showed a tendency to return, notwithstanding the efforts of the Duke of Somerset, to the worst times of the navy; and it was, he thought, the duty of his hon. Friend to press his Motion to a division, and thus afford every hon. Member on both sides of the House who had a regard for the welfare of his country and of that great service in which they all felt so deep an interest, an opportunity of voting in its favour.

MR. BILLIE COCHRANE

said, the great argument used by the hon. Member in support of the Motion seemed to him to be that Lieutenant Yorke was the son of the Earl of Hardwicke.

MR. AYRTON

I argued entirely without reference to his being the son of anybody.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, that the appointment would never have been commented on in that House had not Lieutenant Yorke happened to be the son of the Earl of Hardwicke. Was it any objection to a young and deserving officer that he was the son of one who himself had been distinguished in the service He must protest against the course which had been taken by the hon. Gentleman by whom the subject had been brought forward. None of the appointments which had been made by the Duke of Somerset had been so questioned. When the age of many of our senior naval officers was taken into account, it was best that the younger men should obtain promotion to the higher posts in the service.

MR. CHILDERS

said, that the question at issue did not stand in altogether a satisfactory position. In meeting the charge with a mere tu quoque retort, Gentlemen opposite did not seem to attach to it the importance which it deserved. But when he made up his mind to adopt that line of defence, it was incumbent on the right hon. Baronet to give notice to the Duke of Somerset, as to those who in this House would be likely to defend his acts, that he intended to impugn particular promotions made by him. On the other hand, lie thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) was asking the House to pronounce a decision en the question before it without those papers and that information which it was desirable it should possess. He would therefore suggest to him that he should move for Returns of the services of Lieutenants Wood, Graham, Fitzclarence and Yorke, of the recommendations in favour of these officers to the Admiralty, and of the regulations under which they were promoted. He did not think it would be possible for the House to pass the Resolution to which it was invited to assent on the bare statement—he dared say correct—of his hon. Friend, even supplemented by the reply of the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington). If therefore the right hon. Gentleman who at present filled that office (Mr. Corry) would give a promise that the papers to which he referred should be laid on the table, he hoped his hon. Friend would agree to the withdrawal of his Resolution.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he wished to detain the House for a few moments, because he had taken great interest in the question of promotion in the navy, and he thought the House was in danger of being misled by the facts which had been brought out in the discussion. He was assured that the First Lord of the Admiralty would have no objection to give the papers just asked for, and when hon. Members had those in their hands they might come to a calm decision as to the merits of the appointment which was impugned. He wished, however, to allude to the advantage of promoting younger officers at certain times, so that it might not be rendered impossible that our fleets might be properly commanded. A naval officer was not promoted to be a lieutenant under the age of twenty, and it was not until after ten or fifteen years' service, or when he was about thirty-five, that he could become a commander; and if anything like the same proportion in promotion were observed, he would be fifty before he was a captain, mid seventy before he could be an admiral, so that promotion simply by seniority was not desirable in the naval profession. If, however, a lieutenant at twenty-one were sometimes made five or six years after a commander, and five or six years after that a captain, he might perhaps hope to be in a position before he reached fifty to hoist his flag. How were the Admiralty, then, to select, when there was no opportunity for distinguished service? The only course to follow was to do what had been done by his right hon. Friend in this instance, and previously by the Duke of Somerset in several instances. Captain Yorke was an officer of good service, with everything in his favour. His hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire did not assert that any other officer of Captain Yorke's standing had higher claims; but what he objected to was that the gallant officer was promoted over the heads of senior officers.

MR. HANBURY-TRACY

said, there were several officers of the same standing who had stronger claims than Captain Yorke.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, they were not those distinguished claims which would call for the attention of the authorities. He believed, if the papers which the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had asked for were laid upon the table, the House would agree that if young officers were to be selected for promotion, the Duke of Somerset and the right hon. Gentleman were justified by usage in the choice they had made. There was no feeling of jealousy in the profession with regard to the promotion of men like Lieutenants Graham and Wood when no other officers of their rank and standing had any higher claims. The son of an old and distinguished Admiral like Lord Hardwicke, who had also been a former colleague of the right hon. Gentleman, had a similar claim. As regarded the case of Lieutenant Wood, he (Sir John Hay) found in an official paper a statement that the sea time in the Excellent was not allowed to count, as Lieutenant Wood did not pass in the time allowed, which was eighteen months, though no blame was to be attached to Lieutenant Wood, who received his promotion with perfect fairness on account of the merits of the nobleman whose son he was.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that the gallant officer had not served his time when flag lieutenant, and was promoted according to the ordinary regulations on account of the distinguished man whose son he was. He was happy to bear the highest testimony to the characters of both Commander Wood and Commander Yorke, who had both been midshipmen of his. Commander Wood was promoted a year before Commander Yorke, but no exception was taken to it; and when the papers were laid upon the table, it would be seen that his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) had made a promotion which, under existing circumstances, was exceedingly fair.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that the question assumed a character of very considerable gravity. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) defended his conduct by saying that the course he had pursued was parallel to that followed by former First Lords of the Admiralty; and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) expressed an opinion that this question would never have been heard of if the gentleman whose name was brought forward to-night had not been the son of the Earl of Hardwicke. That was as much as to say that the hon. Member for Montgomery had taken up the question solely as a political partizan. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who last spoke laid down a principle as to promotion in the navy which merited the most serious consideration of the House. The hon. and gallant Member stated—and if the House passed over the statement in silence it might be thought that the House accepted it—that the sons of gentlemen of distinction on one side of polities or the other might on that ground be carried, without offence, over the heads of their seniors in service and of equal merits. That was an announcement of an exceedingly grave character. He confessed, with all deference to feelings audibly expressed in some quarters of the House, and after hearing the able statement of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Pontefract appeared to him a wise one. He did not mean to say that the statements of the hon. Member (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy), and of the right hon. Baronet, were not perfect, good, and valid as far as they went; but the effect of producing papers would be that, not only the attention of the Members now present, but also of the whole House, would be drawn to the subject, and to the broad declaration of a Gentleman holding office in connection with the Admiralty with respect to the principle on which those promotions should be made. It was most desirable that all the facts of the case should be laid before the House, and then, however reluctant to enter into questions of this kind, he should not decline to give a judgment. It would be well to defer pronouncing a formal opinion until the subject was fully in possession of the House.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he wished to say one word in explanation in consequence of the misapprehension of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who seemed to be under the impression that he (Sir John Pakington) defended Lieutenant Yorke's promotion, on the ground that the Duke of Somerset made three similar promotions. What he (Sir John Pakington) had said was, that Lieutenant Yorke's promotion was consistent with the interests of the naval service; but that that appointment had been made the subject of attack, while the appointments of the Duke of Somerset of a similar kind had been left unnoticed.

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE

said, he must enter his protest against the doctrines laid down for regulating naval promotion which they had heard that night. While they were endeavouring to clear the navy from political appointments, and to do that justice to it which it had never yet received, it had been broadly stated that because an officer was the son of an admiral, and the son of a Lord, therefore he was to be promoted. He hoped the hon. Member would take the sense of the House upon this question.

MR. HANBURY - TRACY

said, he would ask for leave to withdraw the Motion, on the ground that the papers to be produced might strengthen his case, and on a future day he would call attention to the question.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.