HC Deb 13 June 1871 vol 206 cc2011-23
MR. T. BRASSEY

rose to call attention to the Report of a Committee on the Education of Naval Officers recently presented to Parliament, and to move— That it is expedient to adopt the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the Admiralty as to the training of Naval Cadets. He said the House had been engaged last week in a discussion with reference to the manning of the Navy, and he would venture to hope that the Motion which stood in his name, referring to the education of our naval officers, might be regarded as having some interest to the House, in connection with the manning of the Navy; because certain it was that, to provide reserves of seamen without providing competent officers to command those reserves, in case of their being called on to take active service, would be an act of neglect which would be dangerous in a great national emergency. During the last 20 years, all the circumstances of sea life in the Navy had greatly changed; for instance, steam had been universally applied as a motive power to vessels of war. Naval gunnery had become more complicated, and therefore greater accuracy in mastering the details of gun drill was necessary. The science of Naval architecture had undergone a complete revolution, as a consequence of which the Navy presented to young beginners a new feature of study in the shape of iron-clad vessels of innumerable types. All these considerations pointed to the necessity of reviewing the system of training our naval officers. Again, the general advance in the standard of education made it necessary that the Navy, as a great national service, should participate in the general progress; and in order to enable the Navy to hold its own with the other great professions, more complete and general education should be obtained by naval officers than they had the opportunity of acquiring under the existing regulations. In order that naval officers should have advantage of this superior education, it was necessary to extend the time for the admission of naval cadets into the service; and he suggested that the age of 16 was not too advanced an age for the admission of naval cadets. He thought a natural consequence of such an extension of the time would be that the young cadet would be able to participate in the inestimable advantages of a public school education. In the evidence given before the Naval Commission of 1859, Admiral Mends gave strong testimony in favour of such training; and Captain Harris, who had been in command of the St. Vincent, the principal training ship for boys at Portsmouth, stated that the age of 17 was the best age at which to admit lads into the Navy to be trained as men-of-war's men. He might add that the Commission on Military Education had recently reported that 17 was the age at which professional aptitude was most readily acquired. If the agility aloft, and the seamanlike qualities required in the blue-jackets of the Navy, could be best acquired by lads entering the service at the age of 17, á fortiori that age would not be too advanced for the admission of young men who were to be educated as naval officers. By the present system, midshipmen were expected to do duty as officers before their education was complete. Now, that involved many inconveniences. For example, Sir Charles Napier pointed out to the Commission of 1859 that, under the existing system, it was often necessary to send away a very young officer in charge of a boat manned by seamen much more experienced than himself; and this Sir Charles had always felt to be an objection, as it often led to the young officer find- ing fault with the men, and led to punishments which were very injurious to the efficiency of the service. The last Committee on the Education of Officers reported that there was a general incompatibility between the positions of an officer and a school-boy, which were attempted to be combined by our present system. This double duty made the progress of the naval cadet extremely unsatisfactory. Their duties as midshipmen prevented them from giving up the necessary time to acquire instruction. In the Channel Fleet, as was shown by a recent Return, the maximum instruction to cadets was eight hours, and the minimum instruction was two hours a-week, so that it was impossible for a boy to obtain much instruction on board ship. In foreign Navies the age of admission was fixed at a much more advanced age. In the United States Navy, the age was from 14 to 18 years; In the French, it was from 14 to 17 years; in the Russian it was from 15 to 18 years; while in ours, under the existing regulations, the age was from 12 to 13. The subsequent course of instruction was in the Britannia for two years, with one year's training in a sea-going training ship, so that at the age of 16 the midshipman began to do duty as a young officer. The Committee had reviewed the whole subject very carefully, and recommended that the period of special training in the stationary ship should be extended by one year, so that there would be three years' special training in the stationary ship, and in the last year the boys would go to sea to obtain experience in cruising. Assuming that no change could be made in the age of admission, the recommendations of the Committee were wise and judicious; but he regretted that they had not seen fit to recommend the more advanced age he had suggested, in order that young officers might not be deprived of the opportunity of pursuing their studies in the public schools of England. He thought the course of education was too exclusively mathematical, and that modern languages did not occupy a sufficiently prominent place. In the American Navy it had been found that modern languages were not inferior to mathematics as a means of mental culture. He would quote Professor Mayne, of the Naval College at Portsmouth, as an authority in favour of the more careful and complete study of the French language; Captain Goodenough had also adverted to the lamentable ignorance of the French language when the French and English squadrons were exchanging international courtesies in 1865, and expressed his deep regret that so little French was known by the officers of Her Majesty's Fleet. There were other practical studies which were too little attended to; and he might instance particularly the study of steam. In the United States service they had found in the protracted war with the Southern States that great disadvantage arose in the service from the inefficiency of the numerous engineers who were taken into employment in the Navy, and from the inability of the executive officer to correct the mistakes of the engineering staff. Profiting by that experience, the American naval authorities had introduced a practical course of steam for young officers. There was, indeed, a similar course at the Naval College at Portsmouth; but that was only open to officers of a higher grade. He hoped a like provision would be made for cadets during the period of their educational training. He would further refer to the recommendation of the Committee on the Education of Officers in favour of fitting out two brigs to be attached to the vessels of instruction, because he believed that they would prove to be most valuable schools of practical instruction. Admiral Sullivan, in an able memorandum on the subject, specially adverted to the failure to teach seamanship on board the Bristol, and expressed a hope that by employing small vessels in which the young gentlemen themselves could carry out nautical evolutions, they would thereby become better practical seamen. Another great advantage from attaching these brigs to the stationary vessels would be that the young officers would learn the pilotage of our own waters, to which these vessels would be necessarily confined. In confirmation of the suggestion which he had ventured to make, he would refer to a passage in the "Autobiography of Lord Nelson," in which the great captain stated that when he was a very young officer he was allowed to go in the cutter and the deck long-boat attached to the flag-ship at Chatham, and was constantly employed in navigating the North and South Channels of the Thames, and thus became familiar with the whole pilotage from London to the North Foreland, and to Harwich, and acquired a facility and nerve in navigating in narrow waters and dangerous rocks and shoals which he found in his subsequent career of inestimable advantage. Our iron-clad vessels had tended materially to diminish the cruising experience of the young officers of the Fleet; and he hoped that it might be found practicable to employ a greater number of vessels in the Mediterranean of a class that could be navigated under sail. In the American Navy such vessels were always employed on foreign stations in time of peace. This suggestion would, he thought, prevent the recurrence of similar cases to that mentioned by Captain Goodenough, of a midshipman who, having served four years on board one ship, had never seen that ship tacked under canvass. In a paper recently read at the United Service Instition, the deficiency of the education of naval officers in the present day in practical seamanship was clearly shown; and he believed that in the Cunard service there was a regulation that no officer could take the rank of master or chief officer unless he had previously served in a sailing vessel. If in the Mediterranean it should not be deemed advisable to substitute sailing frigates, with auxiliary steam power, like the steam clipper frigate of the United States Navy, still brigs might be attached to the squadrons to give the young officers experience in cruising under sail. Many eminent witnesses, who had given evidence before the Committee on the Education of Naval Officers expressed an opinion in favour of the abolition of the special class of navigating officers. Such a change, he believed, would exert a beneficial influence upon the general knowledge of navigation in the Navy. The Report of the Committee of 1862 was not in favour of such abolition; but it was suggested that a few lieutenants should be allowed to volunteer for those duties. He could not but think that it was desirable that the experiment recommended should be tried of appointing ten officers to do navigating duties. Many eminent men in the service had given opinions in favour of abolishing the special navigating class, and Mr. Lindsay had on two occasions in able memoranda expressed a similar opinion. He would strongly urge upon the Admiralty that all the officers who had given opinions in fa- vour of the retention of the special navigating class had also most strongly recommended that a steam vessel should be employed specially to give instructions in pilotage to young officers who were qualifying to take charge of Her Majesty's ships, instead of their having to learn their profession when they were actually in charge of such ships. The Pysche despatch boat, which was recently lost on the coast of Sicily, was lost in consequence of the want of necessary experience of the navigating officer in charge of the watch. He should like, if possible, to obtain the support of the House in favour of extending the Naval College at Portsmouth, so as to make it a great naval University for the naval service, and also for the Mercantile Marine, which should be empowered to confer degrees in all branches of science which were important in a nautical point of view. This proposal was originally made by some eminent Liverpool merchants and shipowners, and was favourably received by the Duke of Somerset. Such an University would seem to afford the best means of effecting a real fusion between the Mercantile Marine and the naval service, so that the former should be able to afford material aid in a naval war. The proposal could be carried out at a small expense, and the degrees being open to both services would be more highly appreciated in the Mercantile Marine. Examinations could be held in the various ports in a similar manner to that adopted by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in conferring Art degrees. It might be thought that a sufficient number of mercantile officers would not be found to undergo an expensive course of education, but there were already two vessels—one in the Thames, and another in the Mersey—for the instruction of mercantile officers, and he could say that the one in the Thames was crowded with students. He would venture to propose that a commission in the Naval Reserve in future should be given only to persons who had passed an examination in the practical part of gunnery. It should be made incumbent on those who belonged to the Reserve forces to undergo short courses of study, and if for the Naval Reserve there could be arranged a short course of gunnery on board the Excellent, it would not be an unreasonable exaction to require that every officer in the Naval Reserve should qualify himself by going through the course. The Navy of the Northern States of America had received most efficient aid during the late war from the Mercantile Marine, which furnished no less than 7,500 naval officers to the fleet. In conclusion, he would say that though he should be prepared to go further than the recommendations of the Committee as regarded changes in the naval service, yet he accepted their recommendations so far as they went, believing them to be well calculated to secure increased efficiency and skill in the officers of the Navy. He begged leave to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That it is expedient to adopt the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the Admiralty as to the training of Naval Cadets,"—(Mr. Brassey.)

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) had apologized to the House for having made an unnecessary speech; but he (Mr. Goschen) could assure him that it was quite of a contrary character, and that the naval service would not complain of the tone of his remarks. They might not agree with all his observations, or all the conclusions at which he arrived; but they would concur with him in thinking that the subject was one the importance of which could not be overrated. A week ago the House was engaged in discussing the subject of the manning of the Navy; and great as was the importance of that subject, it was almost equalled in importance by the subject of to-night—namely, the education of the officers who were to take the command of the ships. The hon. Member had spoken of the great changes which had taken place in the Navy during the last 50 years. No doubt, these changes had been exceedingly great; but the changes which had been made in the education of the naval officers, though they might not yet have been so great as was necessary, had followed the course of events, so that greater attention was now paid to the education of the officers than was paid to it 10 or 20, or 30 years ago. A most important change had taken place in this way—that the time during which naval cadets received instruction had almost doubled. A short time ago, a year and three months was all the time that was devoted to the cadets; now they were instructed for two years before they were sent to sea, after which they went for a year to sea to learn their seamanship and navigation. The hon. Member had also spoken of the early age at which cadets entered the service. This was a moot point in the Navy; and while the hon. Member was able to cite opinions in favour of the later age, a very large number of officers still adhered to the idea that the cadets should be entered very young. From the strictly educational point of view, he believed that the hon. Member was right, and that the nation would have a more highly-educated set of officers, the later they entered the service. It was very important to secure as much school training for cadets as possible before they entered the Navy, and, if it could be shown that by the entry at 16 years of age, they would be as able to secure as many and as good officers as when they entered at 13, a very strong case would have been made out in favour of the latter age. He would be unwilling, considering the short time he had been at the Admiralty, to make any declaration of opinion as to the age at which cadets should enter the Navy. The analogy drawn by the hon. Member between the Army and Navy upon that point was not conclusive, because the life which the naval cadet had to follow differed so much more from ordinary life, than the change which took place in regard to the military cadet, that he did not think they could reason from one to the other. He was informed that the boys who took to the sea very young were more likely to stick to it, and make it a profession, than those who entered later in life. And further, he would ask his hon. Friend would he propose that they should have no boys who were under 16, or would he admit boys between 13 and 16? [Mr. T. BRASSEY: Between 12 and 16.] He certainly thought that would be the preferable mode of the two. But, if so, there would be a difficulty, which would be considerable—that those entered at 13 might become seniors in time in the Navy to those who entered at 16, and the boys coming from the schools, and being placed under their juniors might have much to suffer, and be alienated from the service at a very early age. He would not, however, express any definite opinion upon the subject at present, but promised that it should be fully investigated, and would say that any arguments in favour of admitting cadets of greater age would receive full consideration by himself and his colleagues at the Admiralty. Great difference of opinion existed among naval men on the subject, but it was a fact that difficulty was experienced in advancing cadets in intellectual pursuits after leaving the training-ship, so that it would evidently be a gain if their studies could be prolonged before they entered the Navy. When they once went to sea they ceased to make any real progress in study. The Committee which sat on this subject recommended that the naval instructors should be abolished altogether, because the number of hours of instruction was so small as to be scarcely adequate to the cost. This brought him to another point—that the time should be extended during which cadets should be trained. Theoretically, there was a great deal to be said in favour of this plan; but on whom would the expense of an extra year's education fall? On the State, or on the parents? The naval cadets paid £70 a-year for the two years on board the Britannia; and the expense was considerable on the officers who sent their sons to training. While agreeing that an additional year's schooling would be a serious thing for the officers and for the parents of the boys generally, it was deserving of consideration whether the time of training should not be lengthened. He agreed in the suggestion regarding training brigs, for they had been found to work very successfully in the case of seamen, and he did not see why it should not be equally successful in the case of naval cadets. On the whole, he was inclined to think that if the naval instructors were really not causing that progress in education that might have been wished, it might be necessary to re-consider the whole of that portion of education, and see whether it could be possible to give a longer education before going to sea. But he must say that, in settling that point, it was a practical consideration that boys should not go to sea at a later age than was likely to give them a taste for the sea. The next point was this—Would it be desirable to substitute French to a certain extent for the higher branches of mathematics? Nothing could be more important than to increase the knowledge of French in our officers; but he did not think it would be desirable to give up mathematics—in fact, the Committee complained that mathematics were too much neglected by our naval officers already. He thought, in fact, that the time on hand was sufficient for the study of French and modern languages, and the study of mathematics also. The hon. Member next expressed a wish that after the naval cadets had become midshipmen, there should not be a want of training in navigation, and seamanship, and pilotage. It was quite desirable in every way to stimulate those studies; but he could not agree with the hon. Member's recommendation to abolish the navigating officers. There were officers in favour of their abolition, and there were officers opposed to it. His own view was, that it was obviously desirable that every lieutenant should be able to navigate a ship; but that was a very different thing from abolishing the class of navigating officers. The general view of the matter was that the navigating officers should be replaced in time of war by merchant seamen so as to liberate the fighting force; but if this were done, men would be introduced on occasions of great moment to navigate ships with which they were almost wholly unacquainted. It was desirable that those who had charge of these ships in time of war should be men who were thoroughly acquainted with all their eccentricities; and complete knowledge of ships of novel construction, such as our ships of war, could not be gained in a day. It was desirable that a navigating officer should be thoroughly well acquainted with his ship, just as it was advisable for a rider to know the character of his horse. But be this as it might, he was told that there was no more valuable class of officers than the navigating officers; and as a curious illustration of how what was undervalued in one country was valued in another, he would mention that a distinguished French officer had stated that there were two points of the English system which were most admirable, and that these were our navigation officers and our marines. Our navigating officers constituted a class of officers whom of all others in our Navy foreigners most admired; and there was this further consideration—that while the Mercantile Marine were exceedingly valuable upon all the beaten tracks, they would not be able to compete with the navigating officers in unknown waters and under exceptional circumstances. As to training, he entirely concurred in the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member, who said it was desirable to give to these navigating officers a special training for their profession. Now, no naval subject interested the Admiralty more than the education of that class of officers, and already the idea had been partly carried out; for those ships which had been employed around the coast, the Fox, Buzzard, Medina, Medusa, and Dee, which were continually moving about the Channel, had been almost entirely officered from that class, the object, of course, being to afford to them an opportunity of acquiring the requisite experience. The Admiralty would keep an eye on the education of navigating officers, and if he attached great importance to their existence, it must not be supposed on that account he did not think progress ought to be made in the education of the active lieutenants and sub-lieutenants; on the contrary, he felt everything should be done that could be done to qualify them for the performance of their functions with greater efficiency than at present. At present, however, he was not prepared to say it would be wise to amalgamate the two classes, and do away with the class of navigating officers. With regard to the question of age he was open to conviction, but did not think the hon. Member had adduced sufficient evidence to show that any change ought to be made in that particular. As to attaching a training brig to the Britannia, and lengthening the time of training, he thought the hon. Member had made out a stronger case, and it was a subject worthy of much consideration. He also admitted that great force existed in the remarks respecting the abolition of naval instructors on board the ships of the Navy. He could assure the hon. Member that all the points he had urged would receive the careful attention of the Admiralty; and he therefore hoped the Motion would not be pressed to a division.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he must congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey), upon the excellent statement he had made to the House, and, at the same time, was glad to find the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord giving a prudent answer to the speech. For several years he had been in favour of admitting officers into the Navy at a later age than that now fixed. He thought the age should be 16. No doubt it was held by high authorities that youths took to the sea more readily and became more of amphibious animals if admitted at an earlier age, and that later on they were apt to become disgusted with their profession. On the other hand, it was of great importance that they should be able to go to Eton or Harrow, and enjoy the benefits of a public school education up to 15 or 16, instead of being taken from private educational training at 12. A distinguished relative of his own, Lord Dundonald, one of the most conspicuous examples of a naval officer who ever flew a flag, never went to sea till he was 18; and though one instance of that kind was not sufficient to prove the rule, it showed that a late age for entering the Navy was no disadvantage. As to naval instructors, he could not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, when he intimated that it might be advantageous that there should no longer be instructors on board the ships of the Navy, for he did not gather from the Report of the Committee that they made an absolute recommendation for the discontinuance of this class of officers, and, for his part, he was entirely adverse to any such proposal. He was well aware that many naval officers had been trained without the advantage of naval instructors on board the ships in which they served—in fact, he was himself for three years on board a ship in which there was no such instructor; but in those days, the young naval officers were the protegés of the captains, and he personally had the good fortune to serve under a commander of great ability, who, taking an interest in the youngsters, devoted much of his time to their instruction. That was, however, no part of the commander's duty, and as it was impossible to calculate upon circumstances of exceptional good fortune in every case, it would be unfair to young naval officers in the present day to expect them to become efficient unless they had the assistance of competent instructors. He had heard with pleasure the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the navigating officers. It was a question upon which, in his opinion, it would be desirable to leave well alone. The lieutenant on board a ship might be equally skilful and competent as a navigator, but the navigating officer ought, in addition, to be sufficiently familial with our coast to be able to take his ship safely into harbour without the assistance of a pilot in the darkest night of winter. It would, therefore, be a pity to abolish this class of officers.

CAPTAIN EGERTON

said, he thought it almost impossible to fix too early an age for boys to commence their training as naval officers, so long as it was not fixed lower than 12 years; but, at the same time, he thought no impediment should be put in the way of officers entering up to the age of 15 or 16 years. With regard to the education of naval officers, he feared there was a tendency in the present day to give that education too theoretical a character to the neglect of the practical branches of their profession. For instance, out of 400 lieutenants on the active list, he found that only three or four had obtained first-class certificates at the Naval College. Agreeing with the hon. and gallant Baronet who had last spoken (Sir John Hay), as to the advisability of continuing the services of navigating officers in the Navy, he thought greater opportunities than they now enjoy should be afforded to these meritorious officers of obtaining the prizes of the profession. On behalf of the service, he begged to thank the hon. Member for Hastings for having so ably called attention to this naval question.

MR. T. BRASSEY

said, that after the promise of the First Lord of the Admiralty, that the matter under discussion should receive consideration, he would not press his Motion to a division.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.