HC Deb 08 August 1878 vol 242 cc1538-47
MR. P. A. TAYLOR,

who had the following Notice on the Paper:—To call attention to the case of certain Greenwich Pensioners, who being resident in the Colonies, their age pensions were on that account suspended from 1865 to 1876, and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, residence in the Colonies should not be any disqualification for the enjoyment of Greenwich Hospital pensions, and this House is further of opinion that some provision should be made for paying the arrears to the men whose pensions were on this ground withheld, said, he would urge the House to put a little gentle pressure upon the First Lord of the Admiralty, who, he was sure, would be glad to receive it, in order that he might give what was due to some 40 poor old fellows who had faithfully served their country. He could not but think that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty Department would not object to gentle pressure being put upon him in order that he might be the instrument of doing justice to a deserving class of men. The Admiralty excluded men who were otherwise entitled to pensions, but who were in the employment of the Government, and that exclusion afforded no ground of criticism; but what was the meaning of excluding men whose only fault—if it could be called one—was that they resided in the Colonies? They were surely, while in our Colonial Possessions, entitled to all the rights of Englishmen, and from length of service and good conduct would be awarded pensions if in this country, and therefore should receive them in the Colonies. Officers were not excluded on account of their residence in the Colonies, and he thought that no distinction should be drawn between the officers and the men in this respect. For 10 years they had from time to time brought their claims before the Admiralty; and he hoped that, being so well founded, they would be now practically recognized. He would make a very earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House to grant this very reasonable request.

CAPTAIN PRICE

supported the appeal made by the hon. Member who had just sat down on behalf of residents in the Colonies who were entitled to Greenwich pensions. On this subject he would suggest, and if he had had an opportunity would have moved— That in any alterations which it may be necessary to make in the Greenwich Hospital Age Pensions, care should be taken to deal on a footing of equality with all persons who, under existing regulations would become entitled to them on reaching the required age, and who, on entering into an agreement to serve in Her Majesty's Navy for a term of years, may reasonably be expected to have made these pensions an important factor in their calculations. An Order in Council had been made in June last to the effect that, owing to the strain on the funds of Greenwich Hospital, the number and amount of the pensions granted should be reduced, and it limited the number of aged pensioners to 7,500. He had no doubt that retrenchment was necessary, but it should not be effected at the expense of a particular class. In 1865, an Act was passed providing that a certain portion of the revenues of the Hospital should be devoted to the payment of pensions to seamen of good conduct who wore 55 years of age or upwards, and had served in the Navy a certain time. Of course, the result would be an increased strain upon the funds of Greenwich Hospital; but, he argued, the Admiralty should have made this discovery before. How was it that the discovery had only now been made? How was it a gradual retrenchment was not made, beginning some time ago, and thus avoiding the drastic measure of taking away pensions altogether, and giving the benefit of Greenwich age pensions to men not so deserving of them, perhaps, as those who had been deprived of their allowances? If that was shortsighted, what could be said of the doings of the Admiralty in 1875, when the age was actually put back from 70 years to 65, thus throwing an increased strain upon the funds? He was told that one reason for something which had been done was that men who entered the Service many years ago, and who were engaged in the Russian War, were arriving at that age which enabled them to claim their pension from Greenwich Hospital. But what were the actuaries of the Admiralty about not to have been able to foresee what was going to occur? He wished to call the attention of hon. Members to the limits proposed to be fixed by the Admiralty as to the number of the Greenwich pensions, and point out that there were anomalies in the present system which he hoped would be provided for. The point he wished particularly to raise was, whether they were willing to break faith with meritorious public servants? He thought they were not. In these days men were engaged for 10 years in the Royal Navy, and at the expiration of that period they were to be invited to enter upon a further period of 10 years. Before doing so, a man naturally looked not only to the immediate pay he received, but what he would have in the future, how he got on in the Service, and the amount of Greenwich Hospital pension to which he would be entitled. But, under the Order in Council of which he complained, he would be debarred from that Greenwich pension. The other day he asked the question, whether the Order in Council was to apply to those who had already engaged to serve, or whether it was to apply only to future engagements? and the answer he received was that the Greenwich Hospital age pensions formed no part of the agreement under which the men served. But would it be denied that these men, who had already entered upon their second period of service, made the existence of these pensions a most important factor in their calculations? It could not be said that these men did not look so far forward as to consider the pensions, or that there was any uncertainty about them if they waited until they were the necessary age. The Government sheltered themselves under the plea that these pensions were given at the discretion of the Admiralty; but the pay and pension of every servant of the Crown was given at discretion. Again, it was said that these men were so well paid, and received such high pensions, that they ought to be in a position to make proper provision for their families in the event of their death; but there being no certainty as to the amount of pension to which they were entitled, how could they be sure about making such provision? He thought there was much ground for complaint, especially on the part of second-service men, against the present system. If he were asked to suggest what ought to be done, he would first recommend the laying down of the broad and equitable principle as an unalterable rule— that, rather than break faith with men in the Public Service in this or in any other matter, the Government should ask the House to grant a certain sum of money from the Consolidated Fund, and then make any retrenchment they pleased in the future. As a matter of fact, there had been grants to Greenwich Hospital —in 1870, of £20,000; in 1871, of £11,000; and since 1872, of £4,000 a-year. Another alternative was that the dates might be put back which would mitigate the hardship of the recent Order. A third alternative was that if the funds would not allow of 9d. a-day being paid to all classes, the rate should be reduced to 6d., and the reduced pensions paid to all, instead of one class being deprived of pensions. It was not wise that men should be allowed to leave the Service at the age of 38, and that thenceforth they should be kicking their heels while we did not know whether we could lay hold of them or not. The average cost of a pensioner, taking into consideration the cost of the men to be put in their places, was 4s. 9d. a-day, and the men might be induced to remain in the Service up to the age of 45, by giving them 6d. a-day extra, which would reduce the cost of a pensioner to 4s. 3d. We ought not to give more pay than it was necessary to give to procure the right article. The way to have a contented Navy was to give the men plenty of work and good food, to maintain strict discipline, and kindness; but whatever we did, we ought most scrupulously to keep faith with the men. He could not, by the Rules of the House, press his Motion now; but when the Hospital Vote came on, he should ask the House to consider whether the whole of this retrenchment ought to fall on the men, or whether any portion of it should be borne by the officers, and with that view he should move to reduce the Hospital Vote by £1,500.

SIR MASSEY LOPES

thought that the Government had already in effect done what the first part of the Resolution asked them to do. These pensions could not be claimed as a matter of right, but were given at the discretion of the Government, as was shown by the terms of the Act of 1865, which said it should be lawful for Her Majesty in Council, from time to time, by Order in Council, to give such pensions as she thought fit, and to prescribe the conditions under which they were to be enjoyed. Therefore, the Admiralty had not gone beyond their powers, and it was within their discretion to make alterations. The fact was that the amount of the pensions had enormously increased during the last three or four years. He would remind the House that in 1877, when partly by improved arrangements, and partly by the sale of an estate, the income of the Greenwich Hospital was raised by £ 14,000 a-year, the Government thought it a fitting opportunity for removing what were considered anomalies, which were that men in the Colonies should be deprived of pensions, or that men who were otherwise employed by the Government should lose them; and these two concessions increased the demand on the Greenwich Hospital Fund by £3,000 a-year. But when the Government were asked to pay arrears for the last 10 years, he could only say, on the part of Greenwich Hospital, that the funds would not bear it. As regarded the Hospital pensions, they were not now limited to any number of men. Formerly, the men did not exceed 5,000, and the amount expended was £48,000. But in 1874–5, the number of pensioners had increased to 5,925, and the amount expended was £56,262. In 1878–9, however, the number had increased to 7,497 men, and the amount given to them to £78,231, so that the cost in four years had been increased by £22,000; and there was reason to believe that this great increase would go on at the same rate, as, according to the present system of things, the men were obliged to leave the Service after a certain term. His hon. and gallant Friend had complained of the pensions being small; but Greenwich Hospital was a charity, and it could scarcely be said that a man with a pension of 2s. 6d. a-day was a fit object to receive its benefits. Pensions to petty officers and others which averaged from £30 to £35 a-year could not be considered as unsatisfactory; at any rate, it was more than they were entitled to under the old system. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) had laid down a rule which he thought a very good one—namely, that at least £10,000 a-year should be set aside from the income of Greenwich Hospital Estates, in order to meet an emergency, and they had endeavoured to carry out that rule; but this year they were unable to do so, the surplus being only £6,000. He could only say they very much regretted to make those alterations; at the same time, he could not think the hardship was as great as had been represented.

MR. CHILDERS

wished to say a few words on this subject, as he was principally responsible for the Act of 1865. He contended that its operation had been beneficial. The great object of it was to bring about a state of things which should make the seamen who received pensions more comfortable at the homes of their friends than they experienced at Greenwich Hospital. Hav- ing introduced the Act referred to, and also the Act of 1870, he had paid particular attention to the financial aspect of this question. From the first, they appropriated in pensions and on the school, the whole income of the Hospital Estates, barring a surplus of £10,000 a-year, which should be set aside for a time of war, when the strain on the Hospital funds might be very heavy indeed. But little by little there had been a tendency to bring fresh burdens on the Hospital. First, the Merchant Service had obtained grants, then the age for the higher pension had been reduced from 70 to 65, then the children of officers were supported at private establishments; and then pensioners in the Colonies were admitted to the Greenwich allowance; although, under the former system, no seaman resident in the Colonies ever dreamt of being admitted to the benefits of the Hospital. They were not, therefore, entitled to the pension which took the place of those benefits. The Government, however, had thought fit, of their great bounty, to extend that advantage to seamen in the Colonies; and, having granted that boon, there would be some difficulty in refusing the arrears. The success of the Artillery and Engineer officers in India with respect to their arrears was a precedent difficult to resist. He would, however, earnestly hope that the Admiralty would adhere to the financial scheme originally laid down.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that the pensioners in the Colonies had a strong claim on the Admiralty for the arrears which appeared to be due. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) had done good service to these persons and to the Navy by bringing the subject before the House. With regard to the question which his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Price) had brought forward, he waited with some interest the statement on the part of the Admiralty. He always understood that in consequence of the loss of the pension fund by the sale of the Estates, as there was a constant increment in their value, it had been recognized in the debates that the Consolidated Fund must be fairly chargeable for any increase of the pensions. Though the Greenwich Hospital might in days gone by have been considered as a charitable institution, yet these were pensions and not charitable payments. He thought his hon. and gallant Friend was perfectly justified in contending that every boy who entered the Navy for the future should be made aware that he entered it under fresh regulations, and that every person now in the Navy ought to have that which he had a fair right to expect and which he saw his comrades obtaining, unless he had been told that he was not to obtain it. Therefore, the clearest intimation ought to be given to the parents of boys entering at 14 that they were to expect a different scale of pensions. He quite agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend that whatever charge might be thrown on the Consolidated Fund faith ought to be kept with the seaman.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he would give his earnest support to the case of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. He contended that good faith should be kept with the sailors who had entered the Service under certain regulations.

MR. RAMSAY

hoped that the system of pensions would not give a certain number of seamen advantages over others. Any such system would prove very undesirable, and would promote ill-feeling among the men.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he cordially concurred in the observations which had fallen both from his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) and his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Captain Price), that good faith should be kept with the sailor and the public servant, and that any sacrifice which was necessary ought to be made in order to keep good faith. He did not admit, however, that good faith had not been kept with the sailor in this case. His right hon. Friend pointed out that these Greenwich Hospital pensions were a substitute for admission into the Hospital. Every man had not a right to enter, but the men who applied were received at the discretion of the authorities of Greenwich Hospital. In lieu of that admission, the Act provided that it should be lawful for Her Majesty, "from time to time," by Order in Council, to appoint such pensions as She might think fit, &c. Now, if words meant anything, the words "from time to time" meant that the pensions granted should be, from time to time, revised by the Admiralty. The real fact was that there was a fund intrusted to the Admiralty for distribution under certain regulations which they were bound to lay down from time to time. Any person allowed a certain portion of that fund was entitled to it for the rest of his life; it could not be taken from him without a breach of faith. The Admiralty had recommended Her Majesty's Government to pass an Order in Council limiting the number of persons who were entited to pensions to the maximum number which had yet been reached—a course which had been proved to be necessary by the very large number of pensioners. Seeing that the fund was being drawn upon so largely, it had been thought right to limit the number to 7,500 persons. As he read the Act of Parliament, no seaman in the Navy had an actual right to any pension. A pension might be granted, and every seaman had a right to expect that the trustees of the fund would divide it properly. Who, then, were the persons entitled to pensions? A pension, it should he remembered, was not a reward for good conduct or for superior intelligence. It was a gratuity out of the funds which the nation possessed to seamen who had served their country well and who had reached an age when such a gratuity became desirable or necessary to them. Of course, no one who had not a good character could receive a pension. It might, however, be his misfortune and not his fault that he had not become a petty officer. Then came the question whether such a man might not, on the whole, be better entitled to an increase of his means of subsistence than other men who were receiving more money per week? In his judgment, the Admiralty had acted rightly, on the whole, in distributing this limited fund among a large number of men whose naval pensions were small, instead of giving it to men who were comparatively well off. He thought they were bound to distribute it to meet the necessities of the greatest number. As to the payment of arrears, that would simply be equivalent to taking the money from somebody else. His own opinion was that these men had been treated with great liberality. The pensions which now existed were a substitute for the eligibility to go into Greenwich Hospital. It was clear that a man residing at Melbourne or in New Zealand would not leave his friends and come over here in order that his claims for admission to Greenwich Hospital might be considered. Reference had been made to the heavy sums which the House was asked to vote annually for pensions, and he confessed that in proposing those Votes he felt a certain amount of alarm lest Parliament should say that they were becoming too onerous.