Lords Sitting of 17 May 1881

MINUTES.
Sat First is Parliament—The Lord Camoys, after the death of his grandfather.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment* (74).
committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Bath, &c.)* (77); Local Government (Highways) Provisional Order (York)* (78).

NAVY—WIDOWS OF SEAMEN AND MARINES—THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHrose to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what progress was being made by the Committee appointed by him to inquire respecting the pensions of seamen's and marines' widows; and whether any Report on the subject would be laid on the Table of the House? It was 18 years since this question was first brought before the Board of Admiralty, and 10 years since it was first brought under
672
the notice of the House. In 1864 a Memorial on the subject was addressed by seamen and marines to the then First Lord of the Admiralty. A favourable reply was given to it; and subsequently a Memorial of a similar kind was addressed to the late Mr. Ward Hunt when he was First Lord. He was afraid that, owing to financial reasons, any favourable suggestions which might have been made by First Lords had not been well received by the Treasury, because nothing had been done to carry out the views of the Memorialists. The subject was one of the highest importance, and its importance had increased since it was first pressed on the Admiralty. The risk of accidents to seamen and marines had increased since then; and, as he showed on a former occasion, on successive appeals there was a decrease in the amount subscribed by the public to the widows and children of the victims. He thought that seamen might fairly feel that while every attention was given by the country to the widows of soldiers and Civil servants, the same could not be said in their case. The fact of the sailor being a married man was almost wholly ignored; but great numbers of them were married men, and very many of them had large families dependent on them. The seamen had fixed their eyes on one or two items of saving which came into the hands of the Admiralty, and thought that they had a claim to those savings, as, to a certain extent, they were their own property; but in the event of the Admiralty establishing a Pension Fund they were willing to have deducted in aid of that fund a certain portion of their day's pay. One of the items of saving to which he referred was the difference between the amount paid by the Admiralty for certain articles and the allowance made to the sailor when he did not use them. Then, if a seaman had confinement for six hours, a day's pay was stopped from hum. That was another item of saving to the Admiralty. Those savings might be trifling in individual cases; but in the whole they amounted to a considerable sum. He was not asking for any increase in the seaman's pay; but as the seaman's life during peace was a much less comfortable one than the soldier's, and as the improvements in naval science and pro-

673
jectiles had increased rather than diminished his risk of accidents, it was not unreasonable that he should be treated as well as the soldier. It was stated that the old non-commissioned officers were fast disappearing from the Army, and their places being filled by young corporals and serjeants. If such a thing should come to pass in the sister Service, then the personnel of the Navy was doomed, for there was nothing on which young sailors so much depended as the petty officers. Most of these men were married, and there was no better way of attaching them to the Service than by providing for those they left behind them. Secure of that, they were ready to incur every risk. He should be the last man to stir up agitation among the sailors, for the rule among them was to refrain from all political agitation; but he thought that in again bringing this question under the notice of the First Lord and their Lordships' House, he was doing nothing beyond advocating a legitimate desire.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he could assure the House that the Admiralty were not indifferent to the question. Three months ago, when the noble Viscount brought it forward, he (the Earl of Northbrook) stated that the subject was one of considerable importance, but one requiring careful inquiry, which he was resolved it should have. He did not at that time hold out to the noble Viscount the expectation that it could be dealt with within a very short period. When the Report of the Committee upon Pensions was made, he would consider if it might properly be laid upon the Table of the House. As to the question itself, he thought it was not satisfactory that in such cases as that of the loss of H.M.S.Doterel, which happened the other day, the aid to be given to the sufferers should, to a certain extent, depend on an appeal to the public. He had already had some communication with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on that subject, and they had been in consultation with the Royal Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, with the view of establishing some system of dealing with such cases. At the same time, he must say that he did not think the noble Viscount gave quite sufficient credit to the country for the assistance that was now given in such calamities as that which
674
occurred the other day to the Doterel. According to the regulations in such cases, a gratuity of one year's pay was given to the widow of each man who lost his life; and in the case of a man who did not leave a widow, a similar gratuity might be awarded to his children or aged parents dependent upon him. Besides that, the children of sailors who met with their death in the way mentioned were educated at the expense of the Greenwich Hospital Fund—the boys at the Greenwich Hospital School, and the girls at certain private schools selected for the purpose. It was his impression that the widows and children of soldiers were not so well treated. He did not think it was well to mix the pension question up with that of the savings between the cost price of articles and the allowance made to a sailor when he did not draw them. When the noble Viscount introduced the latter subject on a previous occasion, he (the Earl of Northbrook) gave an explanation which it was not necessary for him to repeat now. He did not suppose it was suggested that the Government should undertake to pension the widows of all seamen. He thought a provision of that kind ought, as a rule, to be made by the seamen themselves out of their pay; and he was glad to be able to state to their Lordships that the seamen seemed disposed to make it. Savings banks had recently been established at the Naval ports, in addition to those on board ship; and His Royal Highness in command of the Naval Reserves had told him that a large number of the Coastguard insured their lives. He could only repeat what he had said before—that, in his opinion, there were certain funds which might properly be set apart towards providing assistance for the widows of sailors who lost their lives by drowning or other accident; but he hoped the House would allow him to say that any attempt to increase the expenses for the non-effective portion of the Navy ought to be viewed with much jealousy in "another place." Those expenses had grown from £360,000 to £560,000 within 10 years. In his opinion, all the money that could properly be saved in other branches of the Service ought to be expended on the effective or fighting portion. The question of provision for exceptional cases would, however, continue to receive his careful attention.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHthanked the noble Earl for his statement, and said, that he did not suggest that any provision should be made in respect to any other than the exceptional cases referred to.

ARMY (THANKS OF PARLIAMENT).
MOTION FOR A RETURN.
THE EARL OF POWISmoved for a
"Return of the officers of the Army who have received the thanks of Parliament by name from 1813; showing the date at which and the rank in which they would have been retired from the Army under the proposed rule of five years' non-employment, and the appointments they may have held subsequent to that date; how many officers of distinction would have been excluded from employment by the proposed five years' regulstion, and the nation thus deprived of their services."
The Return would be confined to those who were thanked as General Officers, as officers of inferior rank were not mentioned by name in the Votes of Parliament.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he would be the last person to demur to giving information to the House on any important questions relative to the Army when he considered the information really useful, whether in favour of or against the scheme of Army Organization; but he submitted that this Return would serve no purpose whatever, because the conditions under which the officers who would be included in the proposed Return served would be entirely different from the conditions under which officers would serve in the new scheme. Had the rule which would in future enforce retirement after five years' non-employment been in force in former days, it was more than probable that many, if not all, the distinguished generals referred to by his noble Friend would have been retained by employment on the active list. He would point out that the effect of keeping a large number of officers of high position on the active list would be to keep younger men out. Those who had not been employed for five years, and who were not likely to be employed for some time, should go off the list, in order that the promotion might not be blocked. He hoped the noble Earl would not press for the Return.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had heard of Returns being refused because the information which would be contained in them was difficult to be
676
arrived at, or because they would be so voluminous and expensive; but he had never before heard of their being refused because their production, in the opinion of the Minister, would not furnish cogent arguments against a system of which he approved. It was obvious that the motive of the noble Earl (the Earl of Powis) in asking for the Return was that noble Lords who were not so well acquainted with military matters as he was himself might have put before them in precise and intelligible terms the argument against this five years' rule. Upon the cogency of that argument, he (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not desire to express an opinion. In the opinion of his noble Friend behind him, it was a valuable and an effective argument; and he thought that to withhold information from the House simply because the noble Earl opposite did not agree with him was a very unusual course.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not altogether agree with the noble Marquess opposite. What his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) said was not that the argument to be founded upon the Return would not be cogent, but that no argument could be founded upon it at all. Suppose a Return was asked for which had no application to the subject, he should say that was a reason for refusing the Return. No argument of any importance could be founded upon the Return asked for. However, as it would be neither voluminous nor expensive, his noble Friend would not resist the Motion if it were pressed.
LORD DENMAN (not having heard the speech of the noble Marquess)said, that the noble Lord who made this Motion had pointed out that Viscount Hill and Viscount Hardinge could not have been employed as they were if this proposed system had existed in their time. He (Lord Denman) wished to point out the fact that the rule as to colonels retiring at the age of 58 had been re-considered; and as the Minister for War might refrain from employing a general for five years, and so dismiss him from active service, it would be an injury to the Profession if this regulation, or anything approaching to it, wore established. Lord Lynedoch was 40 years old before he joined the Array. If he had been a general on retirement, he could not have again been employed—though vigorous till 80. This

677
and other schemes for forced retirement were caused by the sudden abolition of purchase, without regard to the majority of 80 in their Lordship's House, who desired, on the Resolution of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), that a sound system of retirement should be established before the sudden revocation of the Royal Warrant. He looked upon the five years' rule of non-employment as a system of enforced retirement which was most objectionable.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.