HC Deb 27 February 1882 vol 266 cc1695-6
SIR HENRY FLETCHER

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the re-organization scheme for the Royal Marines, and to the answer given on the 4th August, 1881, by the Secretary to the Admiralty— That no one who is to be benefited by the alterations to be made in the Royal Marine forces will saffer by the delay in bringing then about, why the promotions of the 3rd December 1881 of the officers filling the va- cancies of those retired by those alterations were not dated 1st July 1881, as by their not being so dated they are superseded by a large number of officers of the Army who were their juniors in length of service?

MR. TREVELYAN

Sir, in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty the words which the hon. and gallant Member has quoted applied only to the promotions of lieutenants, captains, and others, which were made for the distinct purpose of benefiting the corps of Royal Marines. The case of the officers to whom the hon. and gallant Member refers is, in the opinion of the Board, different. They were promoted in consequence of the compulsory retirement of two officers who had been passed over for promotion—an arrangement which had been made for military reasons, and not for the purpose of benefiting the corps.

In reply to Captain PRICE,

MR. TREVELYAN

said, it was not at this moment very easy to explain the difference; but it consisted in these promotions having been made in consequence of a clause in the Order of Council.

SIR HENRY FLETCHER

gave Notice that, on going into Supply on the Navy Estimates, he would call attention to that subject.