§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONErose to call attention to the subject of the Half-pay of Officers of the Navy of all ranks. The hon. and gallant Baronet said, that the changes and chances of this life were so uncertain that he could not accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, but must seize the present opportunity of bringing forward his Motion. Hon. Members must all de- 21 plore the loss of one (the late Mr. Corry) who had for so many years assisted in their deliberations, and whose great ability and experience had shed a light on naval questions which no other Member of this House could possibly supply. The Motion he had to submit to the consideration of the House had reference to the inadequacy of the half-pay of officers of the Navy. The proportion of officers on half-pay was as follows:—Captains, 63 per cent; commanders, 49 per cent; lieutenants, 33 per cent; navigating lieutenants, 35 per cent; paymasters and secretaries, 38 per cent; and surgeons, 35 per cent. It was quite clear that gentlemen in enforced retirement occupied a position of very great difficulty. Under the retirement scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), the active lists of captains and commanders respectively underwent a reduction to 150 and 200. In January, 1870, there were upon the list 292 captains and 401 commanders; now the numbers were 226 and 309. In 1868 there were 107 captains and 190 commanders employed; now there were only 85 captains and 158 commanders. Yet his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers), in moving the retirement scheme, held out the hope of more frequent employment as one of the inducements for its adoption. Then the Government proceeded to reduce the following appointments for naval officers:—The dockyards at Deptford, Woolwich, and the Cape of Good Hope, the senior officer at Ascension, the victualling yard at Plymouth, the receiving ships at Portsmouth and Plymouth, the barracks at Sheerness, the captain superintendent of packets at Southampton, the deputy controller of the Coastguard, the naval attachés at Paris and Washington, and commodores in the South Pacific, the East Indies, and Brazil. Besides, there had been a general reduction of the squadrons on foreign stations. He particularly desired to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the half-pay of commanders had not been increased since the year 1813. The number of Good Service Pensions had been reduced from 25, as settled by the Order in Council of February, 1870. The fact that those pensions were to be 25 in number induced many persons to accept the new scheme; but on the 9th of August, 1872, the right hon. Gentle- 22 man now at the head of the Admiralty reduced the number to 12. This he held to be a deliberate breach of faith. According to the retirement scheme of his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, the captains who might have arrived at the age for retirement, but who had not served the whole of the time necessary to qualify them for their flag rank, were not allowed to assume the title of rear-admiral upon reaching the top of their list. This was felt to bear hard upon such retired captains, as they were the only branch of the service who were not allowed an honorary step; and, moreover, these were officers who for the most part had served long and well in the junior ranks, but lacking interest, had not risen as fast as their younger brethren. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the difference between the half-pay of officers in America and in this country. In our Navy the first 50 captains on the list received £301 2s. 6d. a-year half-pay; the second 50 received £264 12s. 6d.; and the remainder £228 2s. 6d. In the United States Navy, however, all captains who were "awaiting orders," or, in other words, on half-pay, received £583 6s. 8d. a-year. Again, in the British Navy the first 100 commanders on the list received £182 10s. a-year, and the remainder £155 2s. 6d.; while in the United States Navy all commanders unemployed or "awaiting orders, received £479 3s. 4—d. Formerly our officers, when employed, had many opportunities of supplementing their resources by prize money, salvage, and freight money, but these now scarcely existed except in name. The appointments of captains commissioning ships were in many cases only made for two years; they were unable, in consequence, to clear off the debt which they were obliged to incur for their outfit, and which remained an incubus when they reverted to their miserable half-pay, leaving them, in point of fact, worse off than when they obtained the appointment for which they had waited so many years. Captains and commanders were excluded from the rule granting all other officers a certain amount of full-pay leave when returning from lengthened foreign service. This was unjust, especially as officers in command had to remain for some time in the vicinity of the port where their ships were paid off to sign 23 papers and clear their accounts. He would now refer to the grounds on which he asked for an increase of the half-pay of the officers of the Navy. One hundred years ago—in February, 1773—an increase of half-pay was granted to the officers of our Navy. Such great importance was attached to the circumstance that the Royal Naval Club resolved that there should be a call of all the members of the society to commemorate it, and that the healths of the several speakers on the occasion should be drunk in bumpers—namely, Lord Howe, Captain Pigott, Captain Phipps, Sir G. Saville, Colonel Barry, Lord John Cavendish, Sir Gilbert Elliott, Mr. Hawke, Mr. Grosvenor, Mr. Boscawen, Mr. Mackworth, Sir William Meredith, Sir Piercy Brett, and Mr. Dowdeswell. Moreover, the several sea officers instrumental in passing the vote of the House of Commons for augmenting the half-pay were invited to dine with the society. He only wished that there was such a phalanx of naval officers in the House now as there was then. This was exactly 100 years ago. The scale of half-pay of captains prior to the change referred to was per diem to the first 20, 10s.; to the next 30, 8s.; to the next 40, 6s.; to the remainder, 5s.; masters and commanders, 4s. The increase appeared to have been as follows:—As addition of ten captains to the 10s. list; 20 to the 8s. list; and to the remainder (including masters and commanders), 6s. The price of provisions had gone up 100 per cent. The Royal Naval Club of 100 years ago contracted for their dinners at 2s. 6d. a head in Henrietta Street, Covent Garden; the master of the Club remonstrated upon the inadequacy of the charge, and the result was that the 2s. 6d. was raised to 3s. He had gone into details far later than 100 years ago, and he would state to the House the rapid rise in the price of provisions, which had taken place within the last 15 years. In the interval between 1858 and 1872 the increase in the price of bacon had been 46 per cent; in beef 47 per cent; in bread 31 per cent; in butter 67 per cent; in cheese 40 per cent; in coals 45 per cent—but his Return was drawn up before the enormous increase in the price of coals, which at present amounted to 150 per cent—in lard 44 per cent; in mutton 29 per cent; in potatoes 81 per cent; being an average rise of 42 per 24 cent. It was true there was a slight decrease on rice, which nobody used much, and on tea and coffee. Under these circumstances it was perfectly impossible that officers could maintain the position which they ought to retain. The first class of officers in the Navy, the warrant officers, the men who were the pick of the force, had told him that they could not maintain the position which they were expected to maintain upon the pittance which they received. If they came to education, manner of living, the society of the country, the pay of the Navy rendered a man an outcast if he could not hold an income which with economy enabled him to live up to the station of the persons with whom he associated, and it was impossible for officers in the Navy, or post captains, to live upon their pay. The same lamentable state of circumstances was felt by the artificer. He had personal knowledge of the fact that great hardship was inflicted upon the officers of the Navy in consequence of the miserable pay they received, and that, too, at a time when the country was overflowing with riches, when people could afford to give £1,200 for a box at the opera, and when some hon. Members, after giving £1,000 for a picture, came down to the House and voted for the reduction of the wretched pay of a Government clerk. Whatever Government was in office—whether the present or that which was looming in the distance—he would tell the occupants of the Treasury Bench that it was their duty and their interest to see that the defenders of the country were adequately paid for their services. He warned the Ministry that, although there was no kind of fear of invasion, yet that we were entirely dependent upon foreign countries for corn, and there might be some kind of combination against us when it would be absolutely necessary for us to have a strong fleet in the Bay of Biscay to protect Falmouth Harbour. So long as he had a seat in that House—and there were some seats which were not so safe as his—he should continue to urge the grievances of the officers of the Navy upon the attention of the House and the Government until they were redressed.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid that before he replied to the question of the hon. and gallant Baronet he desired to echo the regret he had expressed at the loss which 25 the House had sustained by the death of one who had never been absent from his place when any question affecting the interests of the Royal Navy was under discussion. Opposed as he and his Colleagues were to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) in politics and on many questions of naval administration, he nevertheless could bear witness to the fact that the naval service considered that the right hon. Gentleman had mastered subjects connected with the Navy with a success seldom attained by civilians, and he (Mr. Goschen) was sure that the news of the right hon. Gentleman's death would be received with unfeigned regret throughout Her Majesty's men-of-war. With respect to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Baronet, he would not follow him into the subject of the increased cost of the necessaries of life. The hon. and gallant Baronet had spoken of the inadequacy of the half-pay in various ranks of the service, and he admitted, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had done, that one of the weak points of the service was the large number of officers who were placed on half-pay. It was with the deepest regret that he saw commanders, when promoted to the rank of captain, remaining four, five, and six years on half-pay before they received a command. His right hon. Friend had given that subject his attention, and had instituted a policy by which the number of sufferers had been greatly decreased. The figures he was about to quote would show the beneficial result which had followed the adoption of the policy to which he referred. On the 1st of April, 1870, when the scheme came into operation, the number of officers of all ranks on half-pay was 1,258. On the 1st of April, 1872, the number had been reduced to 838, or by more than 400. That was a considerable amount of progress, and he believed it would continue, and that the time would come when the retirement scheme of his right hon. Friend would be fully appreciated by the Navy. On the 1st of April, 1870, 89 captains were employed, and199 were on half-pay, while on the 1st April, 1872, there were 87 captains employed, or only two less than in 1870, while there were 146, or 53 less than in 1870 on half-pay. With the commanders the same was the case. On the 1st April, 1870, the number of com- 26 manders employed was 171, the number on half-pay being 231; while on the 1st April, 1872, there were 156 employed and 156 on half-pay. The process was slower than he could wish, and he was not disposed to do anything to diminish the tendency of officers to retire until the point had been reached at which the numbers had been fixed by the Order in Council. He would admit that the rate of half-pay was low, and it was said that he had dealt with it in an inadequate manner by adding 2s. to the half-pay. It was assumed that the Admiralty endeavoured to find a fund for increasing the half-pay by diminishing the number of Good-Service Pensions. The Admiralty, however, went on a totally different principle. The 25 Good-Service Pensions created by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) were found to involve very great difficulties. The money was voted annually; but these Good-Service Pensions, although they might be bestowed upon an officer on full-pay, could not be held by him. It happened that through the employment of senior officers on the list not less than 15 out of 17 who were in receipt of Good-Service Pensions were on full-pay, and, consequently, the pensions could not be enjoyed by those officers, although they had them attached to their names. It might be asked why the Admiralty did not give these pensions to the officers next on the list. He had examined that question also, and had found that of the next 17 Officers distinguished for conspicuous services all but three were employed on full-pay. If the Admiralty had gone on distributing these pensions among the next 17, not less than 14 were employed and could not receive them. [Sir JAMES ELPIIINSTONE dissented.] The hon. and gallant Gentleman said "No," but if he would look at The Navy List he would find it to be so. [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE observed that what he had said was that "it was a delusion."] He (Mr. Goschen) thought that if a naval officer were on full-pay, and had a Good-Service Pension given to him which he could not enjoy, it would be indeed a delusion. The Admiralty found that there was a considerable number of officers entitled to these pensions who could not enjoy them as was intended, and there was thus a large balance every year which could not be distributed among the naval officers, The Admiralty then con- 27 sidered how best to re-arrange the matter, and accordingly took measures to change the tenure of the Good-Service Pensions. Instead of granting 25 of these pensions, which could not be enjoyed by officers on full-pay, the Admiralty granted 13 pensions, which could be thus enjoyed, and applied the balance to increase the half-pay. The position of the junior Captains was more to be pitied than any. There was no desire on the part of the Admiralty to take anything from the naval officers, and they had been actuated by entirely different motives from those assigned to them. Everything that could be done to decrease the number on half-pay would be effected by the Admiralty. Successive Boards of Admiralty had taken the same view, and it was better to attempt to deal with the question by limiting the number on half-pay than by diminishing the inducements to retire. He might state that the Good-Service Pensions were a part of the scheme of 1870, which was not optional, and they were equally open to those who selected either the old or the new regulations. He could not say that he was prepared to deal with the difficulty by increasing the half-pay; but he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he would continue to endeavour to diminish the number of those who were in the unfortunate position complained of.
§ SIR JOHN HAYconcurred in the regret expressed by the First Lord of the Admiralty on the loss which the House had sustained in the death of the late right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry). He had applied himself, with great satisfaction to the Navy, to the details of Admiralty administration, and if he had been present that night he might possibly have elicited from the right hon. Gentleman opposite something more than an expression of regret at the condition of the naval officers on half-pay. It was true, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen), those officers had been reduced by 400 during the last two years, and he must admit also that in view of the exigencies of the service they must always have a considerable number of officers on the half-pay list. This, however, was no excuse for allowing those who were so placed to receive the miserable pittance now paid to them. The changes introduced by the right 28 hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Childers) had not diminished the public charges, and the larger proportion of the half-pay officers had derived no benefit whatever from those changes. And it really did not seem at all desirable that these half-pay officers should not have enough to live upon. It was impossible for the officers to live on the meagre pittance which they now received. The First Lord of the Admiralty must be aware that the rate of promotion in the Navy was extremely slow. He was glad to hear—but he did not know whether the rumour was well founded—that the right hon. Gentleman intended to make the rate of promotion quicker, and to give some encouragement to those whose hopes had been blasted by waiting long for promotion.
§ MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, that having lived for half a century on terms of friendship with the late right hon. Member for Tyrone, he could not refrain from tendering to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty his thanks for the graceful tribute which he had paid to his right hon. Friend. But he could not concur in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir James Elphinstone). The right hon. Gentleman had gone into various details, but none of them met the grievances complained of. An officer on half-pay could not live on his half-pay alone; for the means of living he must depend partly on his own private resources. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to lay great stress on the fact that by a recent arrangement the number of officers on half-pay had been decreased, but that did not improve the position of those who were still on the list. This was a state of things which ought not to exist in any country. The other grievance complained of was the withdrawal of Good Service Pensions from officers on full-pay for services already rendered. And what was the course now adopted? When the services of these men were required again, the Good Service Pensions, to which everyone admitted they were entitled, were withdrawn. Was it just to deal thus with men whose full-pay was not a liberal pay, and was less than the pay of men in a similar position in the other Navies of the world? It was an act of 29 injustice, and was highly discreditable to the Government of the country, and it made Englishmen ashamed of such a course. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter, and remedy this discreditable state of things. He had intended to make a few remarks on the Navy Estimates which the right hon. Gentleman was about to bring forward; but the Rules of the House had been so frequently changed—and every one of those changes was calculated to prevent discussion—that he did not know whether he was at liberty to make such remarks. If it were clearly understood that, after the right hon. Gentleman had made his statement, the Members of the House would have full opportunity to discuss the Navy Estimates, he had no wish to trespass further on the House at present.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not wish to enter into the general question, and would only observe that no Good Service Pension had been withdrawn either in 1870 or in 1872.
§ MR. G. BENTINCKinquired if there was any officer on full-pay who was at this moment in receipt of his Good Service pension?
§ MR. CHILDERSreplied that no one had been deprived of the Good Service pension to which he was entitled before the new Regulations came into force. The hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) had quoted the totals of a Return which he (Mr. Childers) had moved for last Session, to show that no improvement had been made in the sums paid to officers. But he had omitted to give the numbers of those officers. In 1868 the sum of £1,765,000 was paid to 9,629 officers in respect of full-pay, half-pay, and retired-pay; but in 1872 the same amount was paid to 9,134 officers for those purposes; but that was not all. A vast improvement had been made by the Orders of 1870 in the proportion of officers employed to those on half-pay. A Return which had been made last Session showed that great relief had resulted to the service in consequence of the number of retirements which had occurred between 1870 and 1872. It appeared from that Return that in 1870 the number of officers in the Navy of the higher ranks was 3,585, and it was necessary that number should finally he reduced to 2,521. At the present 30 moment the number had been reduced to 2,875—about two-thirds of the necessary reduction having been already effected. His right hon. Friend had explained that that reduction was a great been to the Navy, and its beneficial effect would be felt more and more in future years. The immediate effect of the reduction was to take off the half-pay list—the most unsatisfactory list in any service—430 officers, and to reduce the total number on half-pay from 1,268 to 838.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEremarked that those gentlemen who had been removed from the half-pay list were no longer receiving half-pay.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that was true; but they were receiving a far larger amount of retiring pay, which was a great been to the whole service. The fact was that we had at that time a fearfully redundant list, and that it must be worked off, not in the interest of economy, because, as the hon. and gallant Baronet had shown, the charge was as great as ever, but in the interest of the service. The service was impaired every year from the circumstance that a large proportion of officers were kept two, three, four, and even five years in idleness, and this was at a time when mechanical improvement was going on at such a rate that no man could be absent from the service for any length of time without finding himself far behind in knowledge, and his efficiency being greatly impaired. There was only one way to remedy this—a determined and vigorous reduction in numbers. This he (Mr. Childers) had done much to effect. The effect of the Orders in Council of 1870 had been that whereas in the two years that preceded them only 492 officers had been promoted, in the two years that had succeeded them no less than 649 promotions had been made, and that while in the two previous years only 220 officers had retired or been pensioned, in the following two years no less than 1,299 had retired or been pensioned. But the hon. Baronet complained of the few promotions to flag rank. In reality they had been as many as before; but it so happened that for the first 16 months after the Orders were passed not a single flag officer had died, although the average was four or five per year, and therefore all the promotions were due to the retirements 31 brought about by the Orders in Council referred to. He would not enter into the general question; but on these points he had felt it his duty to add his testimony to that of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty.
§ ADMIRAL ERSKINEsaid, there was one point which had not been adverted to, and to which he wished to call attention. He had supported at every stage the abolition of purchase in the Army. Under the present system, he regretted to say that the door of the Navy was shut to all but the sons of wealthy men or rich men themselves. He could not conceive a more impolitic system than that which kept men, who ought to be able to live among their equals, in a state in which, when they went to sea, they were incapable of carrying on the duties which in many cases required great judgment and discretion. But, in addition to that objection, in no other public Department was the variation in the pay of a public servant so great. His own case afforded a very good illustration of that variation. Thus, 30 years ago, when he was receiving £180 per annum as half-pay, being suddenly appointed captain of a ship, he obtained £600 per annum for three years, at the end of which time his income was again reduced to the smaller sum. Again, 10 or 12 years ago, he was in receipt of £1,500 per annum, as Rear Admiral commanding a division of the Channel Fleet, and at 24 hours' notice he was compelled to haul down his flag—the notice being 27 days short of what a domestic servant was entitled to—when his professional income was reduced to£450 per annum. In his opinion this excessive variation in the income of our naval officers was most unfair and most unjust. He thought the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) was wrong in the statement he had made with regard to officers on full-pay receiving Good Service Pensions.
§ MR. GOSCHENrose to remove the misconception which appeared to prevail with regard to the effect of the Orders in Council of 1870 and 1872, as to officers on full-pay receiving Good Service Pensions. Previous to 1870, officers both on full and on half-pay had been able to draw Good Service Pensions; but the Order of that date added to the Good Service Pensions, and changed their tenure and allowed the pen- 32 sion to be taken into retirement, but directed that in future they were not to be held by officers on full-pay. That Order, however, was not retrospective in its effect. The Order of 1872 restored prospectively to officers on full-pay the power of enjoying Good Service Pensions, but the effect of that Order also was not retrospective.
§ MR. RYLANDSremarked that the public, as well as half-pay officers, was interested in this question. Between 1859 and 1863, while the Duke of Somerset was First Lord of the Admiralty, the number of cadets appointed in the Navy was preposterously large, and the result had been that great difficulty had been experienced in providing places for them. He (Mr. Rylands) thought there ought to be a considerable and speedy reduction in the number of officers. If the naval interests of the country were to be intrusted to officers who had not sufficient knowledge or experience of their duties, the result could not fail to be disastrous. The taxpayers of the country had a right to expect that public money would not be given where there was no justification for an increase in the public charges. If the question was carried to a vote he should resist the claims of the officers.
§ In reply to Mr. R. W. DUFF,
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had already stated that in future the Good Service Pensions might be held by officers in full service.