Lords Sitting of 30 June 1865

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Colonial Governors (Retiring Pensions) (225); Penalties Law Amendment (178).
Select Committee—Report— Harwich Harbour* (197)
Committee—Crown Suits, &c. * (187); Expiring Laws Continuance*(226); Poor Law Board Continuance*(227); Colonial Docks Loans*(231); Turnpike Acts Continuance* (232); Local Government Supplemental (No. 5) * (223); Land Debentures*(112).
Report—Crown Suits, &c* (187); Expiring Laws Continuance* (226); Poor Law Board Continuance* (227); Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act (1856) Amendment* (200); Colonial Docks Loans*(231); Turnpike Acts Continuance* (232); Local Government Supplemental (No. 5) * (223).
Third Reading—Prisons* (228); Greenwich Hospital* (179); Salmon Fishery Act (1861) Amendment*(229); Fire Brigade (Metropolis) * (215); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* (216); Ayr Burghs Election*(186); Comptroller of the Exchequer and Public Audit* (212); Inland Revenue*(221); Indemnity*(222); Compound Spirits Warehousing* (224), and passed.

COLONIAL GOVERNORS (RETIRING PENSIONS) BILL—(No. 225.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that its object was to enable the Government to grant retiring pensions to our Colonial Governors at the expiration of a stated period of service. These officials, he might observe, were public servants who had to perform arduous duties away from their own country, and often under the influence of bad climates. It had been deemed undesirable to make a charge for such a pension on any particular colony, and the proposal, therefore, was to grant retiring pensions to the Governors of Colonies in accordance with the importance of the post which each had happened to fill, based upon the general principle by which the pensions of other civil servants of the Crown were regulated.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl de Grey and Ripon.)
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of criticising the Bill, but for another purpose, which he would shortly mention. No doubt the Bill itself was in theory perfectly just. It declared that Colonial Governors who served Her Majesty for a certain time should be dealt with as public servants usually were who served their country faithfully and usefully. But the Bill had this remarkable feature—that it was in the discretion of the Minister to grant a pension or not. If the Minister considered that the public servant was not precisely a person whom he desired to reward, however valuable might have been his services, he had nothing whatever to do than to dismiss him

  965
  after nine or sixteen years' services, according to the particular circumstances of the case, as provided for under this Bill, and thereby deprive him of all chance of a pension. He (the Earl of Hardwicke), however, made those observations only by way of passing comment on the provisions of the Bill—if he had not another purpose in view he should not have risen on the present occasion. Their Lordships would remember that in the course of the last Session he had presented a petition from a highly honourable and distinguished gentleman bearing upon this subject. Being aware that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce such a Bill as the present into Parliament, this eminent gentleman ventured to express a hope that his services would be taken into consideration. He (the Earl of Hardwicke) had no hesitation in saying, after careful consideration, that this gentleman stood in a position second to none in regard to services rendered to the British Empire. The services rendered by Sir Francis Head were of the most valuable character. Sir Francis Head, in consequence of circumstances to which he would not then allude, had, however, been passed over without any substantial recognition of his services. That high-minded and honourable man had nevertheless borne this neglect and inattention with the greatest fortitude—the feeling uppermost in his mind being that, notwithstanding the services he had rendered to his Sovereign and his country, he had been a forgotten man. On the occasion to which he (the Earl of Hardwicke) had alluded Sir Francis Head thought it a fair opportunity of presenting himself to the notice of the British Legislature for the purpose (in his old age and being a poor man) of asking for some solid pecuniary remuneration under the circumstances of Her Majesty's Government being about to introduce a Bill into Parliament empowering them to grant pensions to retiring Colonial Governors. The claim of Sir Francis Head was, however, refused. Now the character of this gentleman was, after all, but little known to the public. A more independent or honourable man did not exist. He (the Earl of Hardwicke) would have the honour of showing that that same character which eminently distinguished him through his official life he maintained to the last. Sir Francis Head had requested him to read to their Lordships a short letter which would relieve Her Majesty's Government from any further
  966
  notice of his case. That letter was as follows—namely,
  "Croydon, 26th June, 1865.
  "My dear Lord Hardwicke,—Among the Royal prerogatives it was once my duty to defend, there is no one I more ardently desire to uphold than that which decrees that a reward for public services shall descend only through the Ministers of the Crown. And as Her Majesty's Government, in the exorcise of this prerogative, have expressed themselves adverse to the prayer of my memorial (printed last Session by order of both Houses of Parliament), it is clearly my duty to submit without remonstrance or complaint to their decision. I therefore request that on the introduction to the House of Lords of the 'Colonial Governors (Retiring Pensions) Bill,' you will be pleased to abstain from any further reference to my bygone services in Canada.
  "Believe me to remain yours very faithfully," F. B. HEAD."
  THE EARL OF DERBYconsidered that this measure was one of simple justice, and one which had been too long delayed. During the experience he had had in the Colonial Office many grievous cases had come under his notice of Colonial Governors being compelled to retire from office, after performing valuable services, without any pension whatsoever being granted them. As a general rule he observed that Colonial Governors retired, not only without any proper remuneration for their services, but they were placed in a much worse position than that which they occupied before they accepted office. The inflexible rule was that no outfit was provided for a Colonial Governor, who was therefore compelled to go out to the colony after incurring an expense equal to about one and a half year's salary as Governor; and if by any accident he was compelled to resign before he had served eighteen months in his new office he not only received no remuneration but he was actually at a pecuniary loss in consequence of the expenses of his outfit. The Bill unfortunately came before their Lordships at such a time as to render them unable to deal with its provisions, otherwise there were some details to which he should certainly have taken exception as hardly carrying out the principle on which the measure had been framed; but he thoroughly approved the scope of the measure, which did tardy justice to a class of men who rendered valuable services to the State. He was not aware that his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Hardwicke) intended to advert to the particular services of Sir Francis Head. He could understand the difficulty of including his case within the operation of this Bill in consequence of the short period

  967
  he had served as Colonial Governor. He, however, entirely concurred in the estimate given by his noble Friend of the services and character of Sir Francis Head. Those services were the more valuable, inasmuch as they were rendered at a time of great and peculiar difficulty, and there could be no denying the fact that Sir Francis Head had been mainly instrumental in saving Canada—he could use no less forcible an expression—to this country. Notwithstanding such distinguished services, he must say that Sir Francis Head, upon his return to this country, did not meet with that consideration and fair dealing for the discharge of a very unpopular duty to which he was fairly and honourably entitled. But the case of that gentleman was a much harder one than even that which had been stated, because Sir Francis Head had actually sacrificed a permanent appointment to accept the Governorship of Canada; and when he returned to this country he was not only refused a retiring allowance, hut he was denied the office which he before filled, and which, if he had not resigned it, he would be entitled to hold for life. Sir Francis Head therefore now remained, he (the Earl of Derby) would not say, a discontented man, but certainly a man suffering from a strong sense that his services had not received the reward to which they were justly entitled. He confessed he thought Sir Francis Head a hardly used man. Having made those observations, he only wished to express in general terms his entire concurrence in the principle of this Bill. He believed that Parliament was at last about to award a certain amount of justice to a most deserving class of men who were generally taken from the Civil Service to discharge the responsible functions of Colonial Governor.
  LORD LYVEDENagreed that it was impossible to deal with the case of Sir Francis Head under this Bill, but he thought that the Government might propose to give him some compliment or remuneration for the gallant and worthy services which he rendered in Canada. With reference to the Bill itself, he should have been glad to see the period of service after which a Governor might retire shortened. He held that the colonies ought to pay all expenses which were properly chargeable to them, but he did not think—and the late Sir William Molesworth was of the same opinion—that the pensions, nor indeed the salaries, of Governors ought to be charged to the colonial revenues.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

PENALTIES LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 178.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to re-apportion the terms of imprisonment in cases where the fines were not paid. The relative periods of imprisonment were, for any penalty not exceeding 10 s.., seven days; exceeding 10 s. and not exceeding £1, fourteen days; exceeding £1 but not exceeding £2, one month; and exceeding £2 but not exceeding £5, two months.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he had no objection to the Bill so far as it went, but he thought their Lordships should take the whole subject into their consideration with a view to its improvement. There were certain alterations in the Bill which he thought it would be desirable to make when the Bill was in Committee.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, this was one of those Bills which were introduced on account of some particular case of hardship. One or two instances would occur in which persons were sentenced to a few days' more imprisonment than perhaps would have met the justice of the case; then the Government were memorialized, and a Bill was introduced into Parliament. He believed the magistrates throughout the country exercised the greatest discretion in apportioning the amount of the fines and the terms of imprisonment, and therefore this Bill, by depriving the magistrates of their discretion, would do more harm than good. He objected altogether to legislation on this system, and therefore hoped their Lordships would refuse to pass this Bill.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that this Bill was intended to remedy the discrepancy in the punishment of drunkenness contained in the Wine Licences and Refreshment Act, which empowered magistrates to imprison for drunken and riotous conduct, without a fine, for seven days; or, if a fine of not exceeding 40 s. were inflicted, to imprison for not exceeding three months in default of payment. The

  969
  cases, however, were so frequent against the same offenders that the longer term of imprisonment did not seem to be too severe; and in awarding the fine the magistrates (for whom he felt great respect) were careful to proportion the fine to the circumstances of the defendant. He felt sure that abridging the discretionary powers of the magistrates would make them more and more unwilling to act. He wished that in Committee a power might be inserted to imprison for drunkenness for twelve hours in some local Bridewell approved of by the magistrates, for which there was a Statute applicable to Ireland. Prisoners were often sent for seven days to a prison distant thirty miles in England.
  EARL GRANVILLEremarked that the House was not in Committee.
  LORD DENMANreplied that time was often saved by suggestions being made beforehand.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he could not see what objection there could be to deprive the magistrates of the power of inflicting terms of imprisonment beyond those which would be sufficient to meet the justice of the cases.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

PUBLIC MUSEUMS, &c.

  PETITIONS FOR OPENING IN EVENINGS.
  LORD EBURY,in presenting a Petition of Patrons, Presidents, and Officers of the Early Closing Association, and of Working Men of Islington, for the Opening of Public Museums, &c, in the Evenings, for the Benefit of the Working Classes, praying that the recommendation of the Committee of 1860 might be carried into effect in reference to the opening of the British Museum and other National Collections three evenings in the week betwen the hours of seven and ten o'clock, said, that the Petition was signed by two right rev. Prelates and a number of noblemen and gentlemen, who were, in fact, the authors of the early closing movement, and its prayer was that the Public Museums, such as the National Gallery and the British Museum, should be open three evenings in the week, in order that persons whose employments allowed them no other opportunities might be able to enjoy the benefits of those collections. Their Lordships, he was sure, would be among
  970
  the first to appreciate the benefits of early closing, and since Parliament had declared that it would not take any step to open these Museums on Sundays they were in duty bound to attend to the prayer of the Petitioners, and endeavour to give them an opportunity to visit the Museums in the evening. He wished to ask his noble Friend the President of the Council whether the Government, or those persons who had the requisite authority, could hold out any hope that the reasonable request of the Petitioners would be complied with.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that in the only Museum with which he was connected—the South Kensington Museum—steps had been taken to open it in the evening. Further alterations, however, in lighting and in ventilation were necessary before the experiment could be said to be successful. Large numbers of persons had partaken of this privilege, the greater portion of whom were composed of artizans and working men from all parts of the metropolis. With regard to the National Gallery, Sir Charles Eastlake had informed the Government that no answer could be given at present, as the matter was still before the Trustees. As to the British Museum, Mr. Panizzi had informed him that the subject had been frequently considered by the Trustees, that Mr. Braidwood, the late Superintendent of the Fire Brigade, had been consulted, who expressed his opinion that the risk from the gas and other lighting arrangements necessary to open the museum in the evening would be very great. Considering the valuable contents of the Museum great care and consideration ought to be exercised before any such risk was run This objection was entirely independent of the increased cost caused by the increased staff which would be necessary, which, of course, would not weigh against a commensurate advantage to the public.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, that in several foreign Museums no light was ever allowed to be used.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, as one of the Trustees of the British Museum, he was able to state that the question of opening the Museum at night had been several times under the consideration of the Trustees. The object was very desirable, but the objection with regard to the risk by fire was represented to them to be very considerable. It, however, remained to be considered whether by any means that danger could be effectually averted. Be-

  971
  sides the question of risk from fire, there was the question of expense. The object could not be carried out, as their Lordships must perceive, without a considerable increase of the Estimate. There must be a considerable addition to the present number of attendants, or the present attendants must be paid a proportionate increase for the extra labour that would be cast upon them.
  LORD EBURYthought there would be no detriment to the pictures in the National Gallery from their being shown by gaslight. The pictures in the Academy had been shown in the evening, and no complaints had been made.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that the pictures at the Academy were only shown for a portion of the year, and as the time was so short the gaslight did not prove prejudicial; but if the pictures in the National Gallery were thrown open they would be subjected to the same influences year after year, so that no decisive argument could be drawn in the one case from what had happened in the other.
  Petitions to lie on the table.

ISSUE OF ARMY COMMISSIONS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he wished to ask a Question of the noble Earl the Secretary for War respecting the preparation and issue of Army Commissions. Many complaints had been made upon the subject, but he would state some circumstances that had occurred to himself. On the 31st of May, 1865, there was delivered at his house his commission as colonel in the army, dated July, 1855. That commission bore the counter signature of General Peel, who quitted office in 1859, and therefore its preparation must have been complete six years ago. Upon the back of the commission were some pencil marks which, however necessary it might be to make during the passage of the Commission through the offices, ought not to be allowed to remain upon a document which bore upon it Her Majesty's signature. On the 1st of June he received another commission, addressed to the late Earl of Longford, who died in 1859. He scarcely knew what to do with that commission; but, upon the whole, he thought the best course would be to return it to the War Department before the financial officer called, as no doubt he would do, for the stamp duty on it. While speaking of the
  972
  stamp duty, he might mention that on the 7th of May, 1863, he had been obliged to send a remonstrance to the War Office against being called upon for stamp duty which had already been paid. In reply, he had received a letter expressing the regret of the noble Earl opposite that a mistake should have occurred. He had consulted a friend as to what he should do in respect of the commissions which had just been sent to him, and he was advised to wait a few days to see whether any more were sent. He acted on that advice; but had not long to wait, for on the 2nd of June there came to him two other commissions, one dated July, 1855, signed by General Peel, and the other dated 1857. It appeared from those circumstances that delay was the rule of the office, and therefore he wished to have some explanation of its causes. He did not desire to make any personal complaint, but simply brought the matter forward that it might receive such attention as it might deserve. Commissions lost much of their value when they were only issued years after they had been gazetted. He wished to ask, Under what Arrangements the Commissions of Officers are prepared and issued by the War Department?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he would first explain what were the existing arrangements for the issue of commissions, and would next notice the particular circumstance of the noble Earl's case, but he could only do so generally, as the noble Earl had given him no notice of his intention to introduce the particular instances he had referred to. The practice was that as soon as an officer was gazetted for promotion or appointment steps were taken for the preparation of his commission. The commission was not generally issued for some time, but was retained in case of any alteration being found to be necessary. It was not issued to the officer until the stamp duty had been paid upon it. That duty ought to be paid out of the first pay receivable by the officer; and as soon as the War Office found from the quarterly accounts that the stamp duty had been paid the commission ought to be issued. That was the present rule, and he trusted that it would be strictly adhered to in future. The noble Earl had adverted to delays which had taken place in the issue of commissions, and had referred to his own case. Such delays had arisen from two causes—slackness in the payment of the stamp duties and a pressure upon the Office. The matter had been

  973
  brought under the notice of successive Secretaries for War; and when General Peel was in office he took measures to enforce the payment of the stamp duty, and later, Sir George Lewis laid down the rules now in force for immediate payment. There had, however, arisen from various causes largo arrears in the issue of commissions, and in 1862 an Act was passed altering the mode of signing such documents. After the passing of that Act, Sir George Lewis proceeded to sign commissions, and he (Earl de Grey) followed the example; but he found that the number of unissued commissions was so large that, if extra efforts to sign them were not made, they would not be issued for several years. Last year, in October and November, he had signed about 14,000 commissions, but this unfortunate result had followed from his zeal, that with this large mass of documents all signed at one time, there came a pressure on the branch of the department which issued them, and consequently there had been a certain amount of delay in sending them out. These facts would explain how it was that the noble Earl had received several commissions about the same time. The delays, however, had now ceased, and he hoped that in future commissions would be issued within three months of the promotion and appointment being gazetted. With proper precautions there could arise no future arrears. He would, however, venture to ask the noble Earl whether he could say that his commission had not been lying in the hands of his agents—for such cases had frequently happened?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he could not conceive anything more absurd than that an officer of the army should be commissioned to do certain acts and perform certain duty without the commission having been placed in his hands before he was called upon to do those acts and discharge that duty. In the navy this was not the case; and he hoped it would cease to be the practice in the army.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsuggested that there was a part of the noble Earl's (Earl de Grey and Ripon) explanation which required to be explained. The noble Earl had stated that in some instances the commissions remained unissued from the slackness of the officers in paying the stamp duty; but almost in the same sentence he had observed that the stamp duty was deducted from the first payment made to the officer.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid,
  974
  that the deduction to which he had referred, and which, he might observe, had been adopted only recently, was made by the agent and not by the War Office,

  CLAIMS OF MR. JACKSON.—QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will consent to lay upon the table of the House the Papers in the Foreign Office relating to the claims of Mr. Jackson on the Russian Government? In making the brief statement which would explain this case, he regretted to be called on to say anything which would imply the slightest doubt of the good faith of the Russian Government in its dealings with British subjects; because he must see that in all his experience of transactions in which the Russian Government had been mixed up, either while he was residing in Russia as a public servant, or at any other time, he had found that Government to act in a most just, proper, and, he would add, liberal manner. The consequence of such a policy was that Russia was able to obtain the advantage of British capital, enterprise, and skill whenever she required such assistance. Naturally attracted by such circumstances, Mr. Jackson had entered into a contract with a Russian company for the construction of a certain length of railway, and embarked large sums in carrying out that contract. However, when the contract came to an end he found himself in a dispute with the company, from whom he demanded a sum of money which they refused to pay. Mr. Jackson had no claim, and did not pretend to have any claim, again3t the Russian Government; but, inasmuch as that Government had guaranteed the means of completing the railway, and made itself responsible for the payment of a dividend to the shareholders, no matter what might be the profits of the line as a mercantile speculation, when the company repudiated his claim he applied to the Russian Government to stop its pecuniary assistance to the line until his claim should have been inquired into and satisfied. The justness and fairness of that claim had been admitted by persons of the highest respectability and denied by none, and Lord Napier, our Minister at St. Petersburg, had made representations on the subject to the Russian Government. The reply of the latter was, that if Mr. Jackson failed to obtain justice from the

  975
  company he should go to a Court of Law. That would be a very good answer in such a case in this country; but any one acquainted with the proceedings of Courts of Justice in Russia would see that in an action at law a British subject would have very little chance in one of those courts against a powerful Russian company. Moreover, there were technical difficulties in this particular case. He thought there had been something like a denial of justice to Mr. Jackson; and believing that it was desirable to have the papers before their Lordships, he asked his noble Friend whether he would produce them?
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, it appeared to him that Mr. Jackson's claim was a private one, in which Parliament could not properly interfere, and that there would be no public advantage in laying the papers on their Lordships' table. He thought that when Mr. Jackson was entering into the contract be ought to have taken care that he would be able to make good his claim against the company. He now complained that there were certain sums of money owing to him, and he had applied to Her Majesty's Government to interfere with the Government of Russia. Her Majesty's Government bad given orders to our Ambassador at St. Petersburg to interfere so far as his good offices might go. The answer of the Russian Government appeared to him to be a reasonable one. They said they were hound to pay interest to the shareholders of the company, and that they could not do otherwise except by order of a Court of Law; and in order to make good his claim Mr. Jackson was referred to legal tribunals of the country. This seemed to him (Earl Russell) the proper course to take in questions of this nature. Under these circumstances, he must decline to produce the papers.

CAPTAINS ON THE RESERVED LIST.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CHELMSFORD,in rising to call the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to Claims of Captains on reserved half-pay under the Orders in Council of the 25th of June, 1851, and the 30th of January, 1856, said, the Order of 1851 stated among other things that, while the Lords of the Admiralty had recommended the abandonment of brevet promotion in future, they were nevertheless desirous of giving consideration to the claims of those officers who looked to their promotion as the
  976
  reward of their past services more than in the expectation of future employment. In order, at the same time, not to fill the active list with officers who could not long continue fit for service, their Lordships had determined to promote by selection a certain number of commanders to the rank of captains, who would be placed upon half-pay. Under the system of brevet promotion, for which these officers were no longer eligible, they would in the natural course of things have advanced to 12 s. 6d., 14 s. 6d., and ultimately 25 s. a day. If, however, this Order in Council were construed, as it unfortunately appeared to be, these officers would receive 10 s. 6d. a day, and be eligible for no further promotion or increase of pay, and such an arrangement it would be almost a mockery to term a reward for long and faithful services. Certainly every one of the officers who acceded to the arrangement, as set forth in the Order of Council of 1851, did so under the impression that they were eligible for service in case of emergency, and that they would still receive all the advantages which they would have derived under the system of brevet promotion. In this opinion, too, they were naturally confirmed by the form of the commission which they received, because that commission was that of a captain on the active list. When some of these officers tendered themselves for active service they were not informed that they were not eligible, but simply that the naval warfare carried on was not such as to require their services. These officers remained under the impression from 1851 to 1859 that they had forfeited none of the advantages which they would have otherwise enjoyed from being placed on the reserved half-pay list; but in 1859, in answer to an application by one of those officers for an increase of 2s. a day, which would naturally have fallen to him, he was informed that he was no longer entitled to it. That statement excited the utmost surprise and consternation among these officers, eighty-nine of whom signed a memorial on the subject. Seven additional names came in afterwards, making ninety-six, there being only 100 officers on the list. In the Order of Council of 1851, which conferred the supposed advantages which he had mentioned upon the officers in question, there was a paragraph to the effect that the number of commanders on the active list would be reduced to a number not exceeding 450, by placing on reserved half-pay

  977
  all commanders who had not served afloat or in the packet or revenue services within twenty years, or who were physically incapable of serving, and by continuing from time to time to remove such officers from the active to the reserved half-pay list. It was added that those thus placed on the latter list "shall be allowed to enjoy all the advantages they now enjoy of rising in pay and rank." He did not know whether the attention of the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) had been called to that portion of the Order in Council, but it appeared to him to be decisive with regard to the claims which he was advocating. It was but fair to state that in the year 1860 each of the captains on the reserved list who had served not less than fifteen years was to be entitled to 2s. a day additional pay, and that that afforded some evidence of the existence of a feeling that injustice had been done; but the redress given for that injustice was, at the same time, very insufficient, because the highest pay to which those officers could, under that Order in Conncil, attain was 16s. 6d., whereas if they had been treated property they would have been on the reserved list of Admirals, and have been in the receipt of 25 s. a day. But the noble Duke would, no doubt, ask what remedy was to be applied in the case. He believed that remedy was very easy. The list of which he was speaking was now closed, and it contained many officers who were advanced in life. A sum of £2,000 a year, would, therefore, so far as he could ascertain, satisfy the claims for which he was contending, and the demand, it should be borne in mind, was one which would be likely to diminish from year to year. There was no good reason, then, as far as he could see, why the noble Duke should hesitate to do that which after all was but a simple act of justice.
  THE EARL OF SHREWSBURYthanked his noble and learned Friend for having so clearly brought the claims of those deserving officers before the House. He thought a great injustice had been done them. He hoped the Admiralty—especially taking into account the small sum which would be required to satisfy their demand—would reverse its former decisions in their regard.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the subject now brought before their Lordships by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) had been a frequent subject of discussion in the other House of Parlia-
  978
  ment. The present Board of Admiralty were not responsible for the Orders in Council to which the noble and learned Lord had called attention. As regarded the terms of the commission, it was true that the commission granted to the first eleven officers who were placed upon this list were the same as those of officers upon the active list; but the error was discovered, and in all future commissions the words "on the reserve half-pay list" were added. The observations of the noble and learned Lord upon this part of the subject would, therefore, apply only to the case of the eleven officers who were first placed upon this list. The question really was, were the officers deceived by the Order in Council, or did they, when they accepted this retirement, know what they were doing? In 1856 an officer wrote to the Admiralty a letter, which had since been laid upon their Lordships' table, asking whether if he accepted reserved rank he would afterwards rise in pay. The answer of the Admiralty was clear and decisive, that he would not be entitled to any increase of half-pay. That reply was sure soon to become pretty well known throughout the service, and therefore since 1856 none of these officers could have expected that their half-pay would increase. Sir Francis Baring, who was First Lord of the Admiralty in the year 1851, when this mode of retirement was adopted, had more than once stated in his place in the House of Commons that he did not intend that the half-pay of these officers should rise; and the Board of Admiralty in 1856 put a similar interpretation upon the Order in Council. Was the present Board of Admiralty to have reversed both these decisions? It appeared to him to be impossible that they should do so. More than this—of the eighty-five officers who were on this list, fifty-two were ineligible for promotion on the active list as captains, because they had not served the necessary time as commanders. These were ample reasons for not interfering with the existing state of things. But, in order that he might not seem to treat these officers with hardness, or with anything but the most perfect fairness, he had submitted the case to the Law Officers of the Crown, from whom he received a long and carefully drawn opinion stating, that there was no foundation for the claims which were now put forward. There was, then, against this claim the decision of the Board of Admiralty in 1856; the declaration of Sir

  979
  Francis Baring; the usage and practice of the service, according to which, if this demand was conceded, fifty-two officers who were ineligible for the rank of captain would go on rising through that rank, whereas if they had remained on the active list they would not have so risen; and, besides all these, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown that there was no foundation for these claims. He did not think that he could be accused of having acted unfairly to these officers by adhering to all these opinions and decisions. It would, of course have been more agreeable to him to say, "This is only a small matter, let us give this boon;" but he could not overlook the circumstance that a few thousands spent upon one list and a few thousands upon another would grow into a large sum of money, and that it was constantly necessary, and would continue to be necessary, to incur additional expense in providing new means of retirement for old officers. He hoped that in future no such misunderstanding as this would arise. There ought to be only two lists, "the active" and "the retired." The Admiralty had, he believed, taken the best course that could be adopted. They had closed these lists, and therefore the number of officers upon them would gradually decrease, and the lists themselves would eventually disappear. In conclusion, the noble Duke said, that upon looking over the list of eighty-five officers he found that eighteen or twenty of them received under the Warrant of 1860 a higher rate of pay than they would have been entitled to if they had remained upon the active list.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he thought his noble and learned Friend fully justified in bringing the case forward, but admitted that the noble Duke had stated the real difficulty of the case. The only excuse that could be made was that under various Governments and different Boards of Admiralty, according to the feelings of the time, these lists had been created, and when looked upon with reference to the services of officers upon them, no doubt cases of great injustice were shown. The only means by which justice could be done was by breaking up the separate lists and amalgamating them. If that amalgamation did not take place the injustice so much complained of could not be remedied. On the list of 1851 there were officers who had probably seen more service than any who were not on
  980
  the active list, and yet they were only receiving 10 s. 6d. a day, while other officers were receiving 16 s., 20 s., and even 25 s. a day. He thought the condition of the lists generally inflicted great injustice, not only upon the officers, but upon the country generally. The country required young and active men for its service, and if the service was carried on on the present system young and active men would never reach a high rank. The present system had resulted in a deadlock, owing to the old (and he said it without the least disrespect), useless gentlemen who blocked the way of the younger men to promotion. Those old gentlemen, who had long served their country with honour, were now unfit on account of their age to serve it any longer, and some steps should be taken to enable them to retire, and so enable the younger men to rise in the service. He did not blame the present Government for the deadlock which existed, as it had arisen naturally from the system into which the service had fallen, but he hoped that the noble Duke opposite would endeavour to provide for the more rapid advancement of the younger officers.

  WARRANT OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty had been kind enough to allow him to put a Question in reference to Warrant Officers of which he had given notice. The noble Duke had made a great many alterations in the service, and the consequence was that a great number of new ranks had been created, which had caused a constant anxiety for change of rank. They also caused greater difficulty in governing the navy and maintaining its discipline. Among other ranks the Government had created that of warrant officers in chief; and no sooner had the rank been created than dissatisfaction arose. There were 1,200 warrant officers in the service, and from these the Admiralty had selected fourteen carpenters, fourteen gunners, and twenty-seven boatswains, and created them warrant officers in chief. Now the gunners and carpenters did not understand this disparity and were dissatisfied that there were not twenty-seven from each class promoted, that number of men having been selected from the boatswains. They also thought that instead of the men intended for promotion being selected from

  981
  the whole number, they ought to rise by seniority, the same as the officers rose upon the flag list. The question he wished to ask was, Whether the Admiralty intended to equalize the number of gunners and of carpenters to that of boatswains who had been raised to the chief rank—namely, twenty-seven of them; and also, whether it was intended that the harbour duty officers should participate in this promotion, and if not upon what principle they were passed over?
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that in the first instance twelve gunners, twelve boatswains, and twelve carpenters had been promoted from the sea service list of warrant officers. Simultaneously with these promotions, but quite separate from them, promotion was given to certain warrant officers employed in the dockyards. Boatswains were employed in the dockyards as superintendents, and it was thought desirable that men in their position should have the rank of chief boatswain, but without the increase of pay which the same class of warrant officers on sea service were to receive with their promotions. It was not intended to confer this rank on warrant officers employed in harbour service.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.