HL Deb 16 April 1883 vol 278 cc263-71
THE EARL OF BELMORE

, in rising to move— That in the opinion of this House the rates of full pay of naval lieutenants and sublieutenants should be assimilated to that of officers holding relative rank in the Army; the half pay of naval lieutenants and sub-lieutenants should be in all cases the actual half of the full pay, except when length of service entitles them lo a higher scale. said, he must apologize for bringing forward the subject for the second time in the same Session. the answers which the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty gave him on the last occasion were not encouraging; but he could not say that he was disappointed, for he bore in mind the proverb, which was said to bean Arabian one—"Blessed is lie that expects nothing, for then he will not be disappointed." He did not doubt the noble Earl's sympathy with the officers of the Royal Navy; but he knew that, as the matter would involve a considerable amount of money, the noble Earl would have, therefore, to consult another Department before action could be taken; and he knew, by long experience, that the Treasury did not indulge in sympathy. The noble Earl, on the last occasion, seemed to admit that the position of the lieutenants was not altogether satisfactory; but he said that there was no difficulty in obtaining a supply of boys to enter the Navy. He (the Earl of Belmore) did not doubt the patriotism of rich fathers; but he did not think it desirable that the supply of Naval officers should be obtained entirely from amongst the sons of rich men, who had not the same incentives to work as those who had to earn their living by their own exertions. Poor fathers were at present induced to send their sons into the Navy by the fact that they could obtain a good education for them at a low rate, and boys of an adventurous disposition were glad to leave school; but in after life they often bitterly repented having entered the Service. Besides, everyone hoped, on entering the Service, that he would eventually reach the top of the tree; but it was arithmetically impossible for a large proportion of the lieutenants ever to become commanders. All he (the Earl of Belmore) asked on the present occasion was, that in justice the pay of lieutenants and sub-lieutenants of the Navy should be increased; and he would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to take the matter into serious consideration, with the view of doing something for those officers who still laboured under much disadvantage, not only with regard to pay, but also with respect to slowness of promotion, many of them having their career cut short in the prime of life by retirement. He did not even suggest that anything should be done to interfere with the Estimates of the present year. Other officers in the Navy had had advances in their pay; and he found that in the Estimates for 1882–3 £6,560 was allowed for an increase of pay to medical officers, and £3,560 for increase of pay to engineers. A lieutenant found himself in the ward room among those officers, and, although receiving a good deal less pay than them, having considerably more expense. The responsibilities of lieutenants had very much increased since 1840, owing to the increased size of ships. Then a large ship cost £100,000 or £200,000; now it might be worth £1,000,000. In comparing the position of officers in the Navy with the position of Civil servants in the great Departments, there could be no doubt the Naval officer was the worst off, on the whole, taking the pay and retiring allowances together. He did not make any comparison between our Navy and the Navies of foreign coun- tries, because, although lieutenants in the French Navy got higher, and in the American Navy much higher pay, they received no retired pay; and, therefore, a fair comparison was not possible. The noble Earl, on the last occasion on which the subject was before the House, had said that they had provided some six or eight posts in the Coastguard for Naval officers on half-pay. That was all very well as far as it went; but he (the Earl of Belmore) thought that, if he were a Naval officer, that would hardly be any compensation to him for his career being cut short. He had in his hand an extract from a Report of a Committee appointed some time ago to inquire into the expenditure incurred through the large and growing charges for Non-Effective Services. It did not include commissioned officers; but the application might suit the case of the lieutenants well enough— And we would further point out that when increased inducements are proved to be required in order to secure the description of the service wanted, it is frequently bettor that these should be given in the shape of increased pay than in that of increased pensions; for it will often be found that at present increase to an individual or a class is much more attractive and much more appreciated than such deferred advantage in the shape of increased pension as could be given at anything like an equal cost to the public. With regard to the matter, as to what he proposed, he found that the number of sub-lieutenants on full pay, under three years' service, was 137. and that would cost £625 1s. 3d., and sub-lieutenants of over three years' standing was 53, which would cost £1,450 17s. 6d. The number of lieutenants on full pay under eight years' standing was 425, and would cost £12,280 14s. 7d.; between eight and 11 years' standing, 181, or £11,836 2s. 11d.; and over 11 years' standing, 90, or £9,855, making a total of £36,048 6s. 3d. He was aware that the plan he proposed involved some increase of expenditure; but if, as an alternative, the increase was limited to lieutenants of eight years' standing and upwards, who ranked as majors, the total cost of the scheme would not exceed £20,000 per annum. He had been careful to avoid in any way attacking the noble Earl or his administration of the Navy. He was quite aware that the matter was an old one, and that he had the sympathy, at least, of the noble Earl on behalf of the officers of the Royal Navy. It was undoubtedly an unfortunate circumstance that a large number of those officers must have their career cut short prematurely; and he, therefore, trusted that the small sum he bad mentioned would be awarded them—a sum which would greatly increase their contentment as a class. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Resolution standing in his name— Moved to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House the rates of full pay of naval lieutenants and sub-lieutenants should be assimilated to that of officers holding relative rank in the Army; the half-pay of naval lieutenants and sublieutenants should be in all cases the actual half of the full pay, except when length of service entitles them to a higher scale."—(The Marl of Belmore.)

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

My Lords, I am sure that no one could have stated the case on behalf of the Naval lieutenants and sub-lieutenants more clearly and fairly than the noble Earl. The noble Earl's Motion is based upon the assimilation of the pay of Naval and Military officers, and I feel a great difficulty in dealing with it, because the difficulty of making any comparison of the advantages of the two Services is so great as to be almost insuperable. In the Navy there is the great advantage that fathers who send their sons into that branch of the Service are put to much less expense in their education. The Naval officer joins the Service at the age of 13, when he goes on board the Britannia, and his cost up to the time of his joining the Service as midshipman does not exceed £70 a-year. From that period till the time he arrives at the age of 20 or 21, when he becomes a sub-lieutenant, an allowance of £50 a-year, in addition to his pay, would be sufficient for his maintenance, exclusive of outfit. In the Army, the education of the son is entirely thrown on the hands of the parents. It would not be any exaggeration to say that, comparing the two, the expense of the education of a young man destined for the Army is three times that of one who enters the Navy. That is one of the advantages the Navy has. Another advantage is that the pay of officers of the higher ranks is greater; and a third may be found in the fact that officers selected for promotion obtain that rank at an earlier age than is usual in the Army. For example, an officer in the Army would hardly obtain the rank of captain before the age of 30, -while the corresponding rank (of lieutenant) in the Navy is obtained at the age of 23 or 24. So, again, the next rank in the Navy—that of commander—has been gained during the last three years at an average age of 33; and the average age at which officers have during the same period obtained the rank of captain in the Navy is 39. The rank in the Army which corresponds with a commander and captain in the Navy is that of lieutenant colonel; and if an officer of the Army becomes a lieutenant colonel by the time he is 45 he is a fortunate man. On the other hand, promotion in the Army is more certain, and goes more by seniority, and there is the still greater advantage that in the lower ranks the officers need not remain on half-pay against their will, as is the case in the Navy; so that, as I have said, there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides; and, in my opinion, it would be very difficult to institute a comparison, such as the noble Earl has attempted, with any satisfactory result. There are, it appears to me, peculiar advantages in both Services; certainly there are, I am happy to say, sufficient in both to enable us to obtain plenty of candidates for admission both into the Army and into the Navy. I, therefore, beg to make this general protest and reservation against any such comparisons as the noble Earl has made; but, as he has made them, it is incumbent upon me to say something on the subject. First, then, as to sub-lieutenants. The age of a sub-lieutenant would usually be from 19 or 20 to 23 years of age, and his pay £91; that of a lieutenant in the Army under three years' standing is £96. But it is notorious that the mess expenses of officers in the Navy are less than in the Army, 30s. a-month in the former case covering the mess expenses except wine; and in all ranks of the Navy officers receive free rations of the value of about £18 a-year. I cannot admit that a sub-lieutenant is not very fairly remunerated, or that there is any case for an increase in the pay of that rank. Coming to the more important rank, that of lieutenant, there is this peculiarity about it—that it includes officers of a very different amount of Service, extending from the young lieutenant of 23 or 24 to old officers of 40 years and more; and there is, doubtless, some anomaly in there being one rate of pay for all. But this rate of pay, which is £182 16s. a-year, does not represent the actual pay received by officers when serving. From time to time allowances have been given to lieutenants in command of ships, which make their pay from £269 to £247; to first lieutenants, from £228 to £209; to gunnery, torpedo, and navigating lieutenants, from £246 to £209; and if, also, senior executive officers, from £292 to £227. I inquired the other day into the average pay of lieutenants now serving, and found it to be £208 a-year. When we compare these figures with the pay of the Army, we must not forget that a Naval officer reaches the relative rank of captain six years earlier than an Army officer does. On the whole, I have no belief that the junior lieutenants have any right to complain of their pay and allowances when compared with those of Army officers of the same age. The case of the senior lieutenants is different, and we should be glad to do something to improve their position; but, in my opinion, the question of promotion is a more important one to them than that of pay. The First Lord of the Admiralty is always placed in difficulty when he has to select lieutenants for promotion, although every pains are taken to make the promotions as fair as possible. There are several things to be considered by him in making promotions which those concerned are unable fully to appreciate. It is necessary to consider all the different branches of the Service, the claims from stations in different parts of the world, and those of officers who have attained professional qualifications in gunnery and torpedo management. Moreover, the interests of the Service require that a certain number of young officers shall be promoted. The old practice which allowed Admirals abroad to promote young officers as flag lieutenants having been abolished, it is more than ever necessary that the Admiralty should select a certain number of young officers for promotion. For these reasons, there is no doubt that the position of senior lieutenants cannot altogether be regarded as satisfactory. But how it is to be remedied is another question. Something has been done during the las few years. The annual number of lieutenants promoted to the rank of commander has been increased from 20 to 25. We have also given to the senior lieutenants six appointments in the Coastguard, which affords more employment to those officers. I can assure your Lordships that the Admiralty are by no means insensible to the position of the senior lieutenants, and that they sympathize with them deeply, and will beg lad to do anything which is reasonable in the way of bettering their position in the Service. As to the question of half-pay, I do not think the young Naval officers have any hardship to complain of. A junior lieutenant receives as half-pay not much less than an officer of the Army of about the same age receives as full pay, and the number of senior lieutenants on half-pay is very limited. The real hardship in respect to half-pay is felt when a lieutenant just promoted to commander is put on half-pay for three or four years, and when a captain just promoted has to wait even longer before he gets a ship. This is also disadvantageous to the Service, and the Admiralty propose to allow a limited number—say, five—in each year, of captains and commanders, to receive full pay while studying at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich. I think that it will be found that this arrangement will better meet the real hardships of the Service in regard to half-pay than the suggestions of the noble Earl. I hope that after the explanation I have given the noble Earl will not press his Motion.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, in spite of the numerous details with which the noble Earl has just favoured us, I think there will still be left on the minds of your Lordships an impression that there is in respect of this service—as I fear there is in respect of other services—an increase of that terrible evil which it is hard to see how to remove—namely, that a certain number of officers are thrust aside too soon from the service of their country, and forbidden to follow to the end the Profession to which they are brought up. In order to furnish young men for the higher branches of their Profession, it is necessary that they should be put in a position practically to follow it early in life. It is a serious thing as affecting the Military Service, and most of all as affecting the Naval Service, to see many men in the prime of their powers, and when their abilities have just become perfect through practice in the service of the country, compelled to lead an idle and a discontented life. The noble Earl says the sub-lieutenants and lieutenants are more eager for promotion than for increased pay. That is very probable; but he will see on reflection that the question of pay is not entirely irrelevant to the position of these officers. It is, no doubt, painful to be left at the bottom of the-ladder, when you want to be at the top; but your position at the bottom of the ladder is all the harder when you are without the means of support which your station requires. I am afraid that the noble Earl's statement does not amount to much more than those assurances of official sympathy which, of course, it is the Minister's duty to give, but which will be of little use in the future. Nevertheless, I do not advise my noble Friend to press his Motion on this subject. In addition to the consideration that it involves a financial matter, which does not rest specially with this House, there is the further consideration that it is not in our power, or in the power of the other House of Parliament, to force the Government to give attention to this question. But, if it sanctions the Motion, it is in the power of both Houses of Parliament to make a discontented class. Therefore, I think the Government have some reason to complain—at least, their position is one of considerable difficulty—if they do not see their way to amend the position of any particular class in Her Majesty's Service, and yet one of the Houses of Parliament, by sanctioning a statement of grievances, should give to that class a ground for feeling and thinking that it is ill-used. For these reasons I think my noble Friend will consult the interests of the Public Service by not pressing his Motion.

THE EARL OF BELMORE

said, that, after the appeal just made to him, he certainly would not trouble their Lordships by pressing his Motion to a division; but he did not regret having brought the matter before their Lordships, as he knew that the only way of getting a grievance redressed by the Government or by Parliament was by constantly keeping the subject before them. The noble Earl said, that the average at which officers in the Army became captains was 30. This rather surprised him. He had, unfortunately, not got the calculation with him; but as ho found officers became majors at 32, he thought 30 too high an average ago for becoming captains.

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.