ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Statutes which govern the distribution by the Sovereign of the several degrees of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath from 1815 inclusive, so far as the same are applicable to officers of Her Majesty's Naval and Military Forces? I may, at the same time, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government will advise Her Majesty to revise the Statutes of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, so that the same may be brought more into harmony with general sentiment so far as eligibility by rank of officers of Her Majesty's Navy and Royal Marines is concerned, when compared with officers of equivalent rank in Her Majesty's Army, for admission to the Order of the Bath; and that the present proportion of honours and 575 distinctions of the said Most Honourable Order awarded to officers of Her Majesty's Navy and Army may be reconsidered and readjusted; and further, that recommendations of officers of Her Majesty's Naval Service for honours and distinctions may be submitted to Her Majesty by the First Lord of the Admiralty, instead of through Her Majesty's Secretary of State for War?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANPerhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me at the same time to reply to both questions. If by the words "the distribution of the several degrees of the Order of the Bath," the hon. and gallant Gentleman means the allocation of the numbers available for each of the two Services, this is a matter not regulated by the Statutes, but determined by a permanent arrangement between the Departments. If, however, he means the qualifications which are held necessary in the respective Services, these, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty stated the other day, are not precisely identical in the case of Army and Navy officers, and consideration is now being given to the matter, with the view of seeing whether there is any substantial inequality, and whether the rules and practice in regard to the recommendation of officers for the Bath should be brought into closer uniformity. As regards the mode of submitting recommendations for Her Majesty's approval, I should say that those made by the First Lord of the Admiralty are not subject to any criticism of the Secretary of State for War. The Order of the Bath is necessarily placed, for the purposes of formal submission and of record, under some one responsible Minister, as regards both its Military and its Civil division. That Minister is the Secretary of State for War; but his action in respect of Naval and Civil recommendations is entirely Ministerial. I should not presume to question the propriety of any recommendation made either by the First Lord of the Treasury or by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
ADMIRAL FIELDThe right hon. Gentleman has not stated whether he will lay a copy of the Statutes on the Table of the House. I have a copy by private favour, but there is no copy in the Library.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe Statutes do not affect the question in which the hon. and gallant Member is interested. They are very voluminous and have been altered from time to time. There is, however, no reason why the Statutes should not be made public if it is desired.
ADMIRAL FIELDWhat I want is that the House may be in possession of the Statutes. That is the material point. There is no copy in the Library.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe only objection to laying them on the Table is that it will involve a lot of formality in regard to printing and circulating them, and to get the information the hon. Member wants for them would be like looking for a needle in a bundle of straw. I will put a copy in the Library.
ADMIRAL FIELDHas anyone been appointed to the distinguished post of Grand Master since the death of the Prince Consort?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANwas understood to ask for notice of that.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)Would not the difficulty be overcome by doing away with these Orders, which are only a relic of the barbarous ages?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANNo, the demand seems to be in the opposite direction.
ADMIRAL FIELDI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether in his recent statement of the proportion of naval officers eligible by rank on the Active List for the Most Honourable Order of the Bath—namely, "700 to upwards of 4,000 officers of the Army," he included officers of the Royal Marine Corps and of the various Civil branches of the Naval Service; and whether the-said proportion is in accordance with the proportion of officers of equivalent rank now subsisting between the two Services, in view of the fact that Senior Lieutenants of Her Majesty's Navy of eight years' standing now rank with Majors of of Her Majesty's Army?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHThe numbers which I gave in the answer to the hon. Member for South Antrim comprised all officers of the Navy eligible by rank for the Military Division of the Order of the Bath, and included Marine officers, Engineer officers and Medical officers. These numbers are 577 necessarily based upon the qualifications prescribed in the Statutes of the Bath, and not upon the relative rank of officers of the two Services as now existing.