HC Deb 14 June 1894 vol 25 cc1083-4
ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing by the last special Statute of the Bath, dated the 26th of March, 1892, the number of Companions or Members of the Order was raised from 1,292 to 1,298, of which 366 were assigned to the Civil Division of the said most honourable Order, leaving 932 for the Military Division, he can state how many of this latter number were allocated to Her Majesty's Navy and Royal Marines; whether the said number bears the same proportion to the total number of 932 as the 700 officers of Her Majesty's Navy and Royal Marines, now eligible by rank under existing Statutes, bear to the 4,000 officers and upwards of Her Majesty's Military Forces stated to be eligible under the same Statutes; will he also inform the House of the number of officers of Her Majesty's Navy of rank equivalent to Major in the Army who are now debarred from being considered eligible for the distinction of the said most honourable Order, whilst Majors in the Army are under no such disability; and will the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty take steps to have the officers of the two Services placed on a precisely similar footing as to eligibility for these highly valued honours and distinctions?

*SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War informed the House on Thursday that consideration is being given to the qualifications which are held to be necessary in the respective services for the Order of the Bath, in order to see whether there is any substantial inequality, and whether the rules and practice should be brought into closer uniformity. If my hon. and gallant Friend will await the result of this inquiry and consideration, I think that questions such as that which he has placed upon to-day's Paper may prove unnecessary. At all events, pending the inquiry I would suggest that they might be postponed.

ADMIRAL FIELD

What is the present proportion of honours allotted to the Navy as compared with the Army?

SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

I can only repeat the request to my hon. and gallant Friend to await the result of the inquiry.

ADMIRAL FIELD

But surely the right hon. Gentleman can tell me this. He informed the House last week that 700 naval men were eligible by rank for the honour as against 4,000 military officers? What is the proportion of honours allowed to the two Services? Is it in accordance with that?

*SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWQRTH

I can only advise my hon. and gallant Friend not at present to inquire too minutely into those details.