The Sun. — London, England, 1860-06-15 00:00:00

in the next Parliament, to prevent the reimposition of this tax on the same footing on which it was levied now. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—This subject is of so much importance, that it would not be re- spectful to my hon. friend or to the house if I were to allow you to leave the chair without saying one word with regard to what has fallen from him. There is one consideration that ought always to he borne in mind in the discussion of the mode of assessing the income-tax that is not always so vividly present to the minds of those who enter upon the discussion as it might be. lam far from mentioning it as decisive of the question, but it certainly is material to it, and it is this, that when we talk of assessing the income tax and affording a great relief to particular persons on whom we think it bears too heavily, we do not always re member that the relief of one is, in point of fact, the impo sition of additional burdens upon another. I know the case of a member of Parliament who went to his constituents. He had been assailed in some town which he canvassed on the burden of schedule D, and he said nothing could be clearer thLn the claims for relief of those who were assessed under schedule D. Ho became a county member, and he was assailed with complaints of the injustice and the unequal pressure of the tax in schedule A. He replied in like manner that nothing in his judgment could be clearer than that relief should be given to those who were assessed under schedule A. He was afterwards pressed with the claims of the fundholders (those who re ceived salaries from the Government he considered as be ' longing to schedule D), and when he was pressed with the case of the fund holders ho said he thought nothing could be more invidious than to make them an exception. Well, that was a most agreeable method of handling a very thorny question, and most conciliatory to the feelings of those various classes who have been addressed in honeyed accents by those who have a happy knack of dealing with unpleasant subjec s. Of course the end of this is that if all get relief from the existing standard the existing standard must be raised. Now, with regard to the fault of the in come-tax and its inequalities, there are certain parts of them that are common to other taxes levied in this country, though they may be mare prominent in the case of the in come-tax. There are other inequalities, some disadvan tages and evils which I myself have always strongly felt, and perhaps not more strongly than many members of this house. There is a peculiar sense, a belief of the inequality attaching to the imposition of this tax. Now I gather from what has been said by gentlemen in this debate that my hon. friend has no intention at present of moving for a Parliamentary inquiry into the subject, and I confess I think that in so doing he exercises a wise discretion. lam far from saying that it would be the duty of the Govern ment to oppose the further prosecution of the inquiry into the assessment of the income-tax, if at any time it should be the general desire of the house to institute that inquiry, and not only to institute the inquiry, but to prosecute it with an earnestness, an intention, and an exertion adequate to the extreme difficulty of the subject. But in saying that I do not feel authorised to shut the door against a general inquiry by the house. I must confess, as an individual, and I believe on the part of my colleagues, that in saying this we have done all that is in our power. The hon. baronet who appeals to me in the office I hold has said he hopes that the question will receive at the hands of the Government—and especially at the hands of the Finance Minister before he proposes another budget— an attentive sod careful consideration. Now it does happen that at a former period it became my duty, on my behalf, in the same office I have now the honour to fill, and like wise on behalf of my colleagues, to examine the question. Nor was I alone in that examination, because several mem bers of the Aberdeen Cabinet—including those who had paid the greatest attention to the subject of finance—were good enough to associate themselves with me in that in quiry for the purpose of testing and sifting it to the best of our power. (Hear.) At that period nothing could be more obvious than that it was the intention of Government if possible to come to some arrangement for the adjustment of this tax. A strong disposition had been shown by those who then formed, as now, the Opposition party, to give as sistance to the reconstruction of the tax, which I now mention, not as a matter of praise or blame, but simply as an historical fact. And while that was the case with the Conservative party generally, a very large proportion of the Liberal party were in the abstract favourable to the same opinions, therefore there was the clearest intention on the part of the Government to have proposed some p'.an, if we had found ourselves able to construct such a plan con • sistently with justice. It is very difficult to assert with confidence a negative on most subjects, and particularly on a subject of politics—most of all on the subject of taxa tion—but we did come to the conclusion that it was not practicable to forts any system for the general adjust ment of the income tax with reference to the distinction between permanent and terminable incomes without in flicting a greater amount of injustice than it would cure. I am bound to remind those who have taken part in this debate, because it is a material part of the case, that, in commencing ' the examination of it we found our selves confronted by this fact, that whereas, on the whole, those who are assessed on schedule D pay on less than their real income—l do not speak of cases of fraud, but I speak of arrangements made by the law which I think legitimatelyhave that effect—while those who are assessed on schedule D pay on the whole less than their income in almost every case, those who pay on sche dule A pay on more than their real income. And therefore I think if you were to institute a severe critical analysis, and pursue it to its furthest stage, you would find that the tax really at this moment is a heavier tax on schedule A than it is on schedule D. And that is true in reference to all the property assessed on schedule A, except one de- scription of property, with regard to which I am not quite certain, I mean with regard to the return on mines. But speaking generally on the great branches of income under schedule A, that is true. With regard to one great branch of that property, namely, house property, I must say with regard to certain glasses of it I cannot deny, and indeed must firmly contend, that if there be a special case for relief which is to be singled out from the rest, the strongest claim is the claim of the owners of a Certain species of house pro perty. I only mention that as another material—not per haps a decisive, but a material consideration to be borne in mind by those who take an interest in this question. It was my fate, in 1853, I believe, for two mortal hours to occupy the time of this house, whether fruitfully or fruitlessly I do not know, in stating in great detail the reasons that had actuated the Government, and the conclusion to which they had arrived. lam bound to say that although there was then, and there is still, a great sense of the inequality of this tax, as well as with regard to its general severity, yet on the whole since that time the public have become more impressed with a sense of the difficulty of any practical re construction of the tax than they have been at any former period, and I am disposed to think that this result is owing in the main to the labours of the select committee of this house, which was appointed under the notion that a reconstruction was practicable and easy. But the general effect of the evidence was to leave on the minds of the committee the conviction that on the contrary, if not hope less, it was difficult. And there was one, if not more than one, highly intelligent gentleman, who was a member of that committee, who entered into the examination with the firm belief of the practicability of the reconstruction, who quitted the committee with the firm conviction that such reconstruction would be wholly impracticable. Therefore, after what I have said, I am sure it would be paltering with the house and the country, if I were to pretend on the part of myself, and I believe I may say on the part of my col leagues, to say that we see our way to the proposal of a plan fcr the reconstruction of the income tax. As I said before, if that large question which was proposed was not entirely exhausted by the committee, and there were a gene ral desire on the pa-t of the house for inquiry so serious as to demand and to have a just claim on the differential atten tion of the Government—if it did not extend to a recon struction—there might be many questions more limited which might perhaps form the subject of an inquiry, with regard to which I by po means say that improvement would not be practicable. But as my hon. friend knows, there are sanguine ideas abroad on the subject, and to those sanguine ideas I should not be justified in giving any further encou• ragement than by saying that while I feel myself unable to give them any practical effect, I do not wish to stand in the way of those who, more fortunate than myself, may be able to devise a plan for the purpose. With these explanations, and thinking that my hon. friend exercised a wise discre tion in not asking the house to enter into an inquiry, I close the remarks I have to make upon this subject. Mr. IVHALLEY observed that he did not propose an in quiry on schedule D merely, but an inquiry into the whole of the schedules. Sir H. IVILLO UGHBY said there were no hopes of the reconstruction of the income tax. In fact, he believed it to be impossible, and therefore the house, if it were wise, would get rid of it as soon as it could, and in the meantime give as little of it as they could. He thought, however, the right hon. gentleman ought not to aggravate the difficulties. There was one class of persons to whom great injustice was done. He meant the long annuitants, who, by the way in which the tax was levied, their income being about to be annihi lated, were made to pay on a quarter's income which they never received. He had received numerous applications from persons who had thus been unjustly charged with the tax, to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would repay it. (Laughter.) Thehouse then went into committee of supply on THE CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. Mr. LAING moved that a vote be taken for £624,000 on account for th e civil service. He said it was by no means the wish of the Government to lay down a precedent for taking sums on account, but it was thought desireablc that the house should get through the next fortnight with the remainder of the armybaendmintsavy estimates. The amount asked. for would only them over a month, and enable them to paY en s T t a h la to ries ca 7hich would be come due in the meanwhile. from e a w ss o in u g ld be nothing therefore to preclude the house b f i r, its judgment answer to what the:hon. on the details of the vote. gentleman had said, that these estimates were in a state of expansion, he might observe that the remaining 7, would not exceed the amount stated by thnegclChancellor,No. of the Exchequer in February, and consequently the whole of these estimates would show a diminution of £350,000. Mr. W. 'WILLIAMShad a great objection to the system of voting money on account ; but under the circumstances he did not see how the government could avoid resorting to it. He wished to know how long the money now asked for would enable them to go on ? Mr. LAING—TiII the 10th or 12th of July. Mr. A. SMITH said that if the vote were carried there would, in effect, be no discussion on the misce neous esti mates. The subject, however, was one of ry great im portance, for there had lately sprung up a v y unsatisfac tory manner of transacting business at th reasury. For merly my lords sat as a board, and really the acts which were attributed to them in the minutes ; but now, he was informed, the business was done by the Secretary and the head clerk of each particular department, the Chancellor of the Exchequer being supposed to exercise a control over the whole. He considered that the Treasury ought to be re garded as a central authority, and he believed that the want of such an authority was the reason of much that took place and was objectionable. This year the Lords of the Treasury were less entitled to their salaries than ever, for ever since the withdrawal of the Reform Bill they had been active in endeavouring to prevent the house from proceeding with its business. He begged to move that the vote be reduced by £15,000. Mr. BENTINCK quite agreed u ith what had fallenfrom the hon. gentleman, and he, moreover, considered that the Government were themselves responsible for the position in which they were placed. They seemed to think that as no one would wish to economise on the army and navy esti ' mates, the only fault of which was that they were too small —(oh, oh)—it would be prudent to take them first, and to postpone the miscellaneous estimates, on which alone eco nomy would be practicable, till the end of the session. It appeared to him that the education and the civil service votes were susceptible of considerable reduction ; and if the hon. gentleman went to a division he would support him. Mr. BAXTER deprecated a division; but he hoped that the subject of discussing the miscellaneous estimates at an earlier date would engage the attention of the committee now sitting up stairs. Mr. SPOONER wished to know whether any part of the two items, £94,000 for science and art and £4,000 odd for works and repairs about the Houses of Parliament, was in cluded in the vote. He should think it his duty to move a very considerable diminution to those two estimates. Mr. H. BAILLIE asked whether an architect had been appointed in the room of Sir C. Barry, and whether any considerable works were contemplated this year in reference to the houses of Parliament. Mr. LAING said it was not now proposed to take any thing on account of the houses of Parliament, which would come on in the usual course in class 1. The present vote included an item of £12,000 out of the total.sum of £94,921, which would be asked for under the head of science and art. Mr. CHILDERS could not in the least agree with the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) in the inference which he drew the other night from the fact that the average reduction on the civil service estimates was not above £2,000 a-year. It appeared to him that it woul .1 be desirable to alter the be ginning of the financial year from the let of April to the Ist of July. (Hear, hear.) Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said the Government had only one of two courses open to them—to take a vote on account, or to spend money without the authority of the house. He quite agreed in all that had been said by the hon. gentle man opposite with reference to the manner in which the business of the Treasury was now transacted. Last year Mr. Wilson admitted before a committee that he had by himself made a very important contract, involving an out lay of £159,000, of which one of our colonies had to pay £BO,OOO. That contract had given great dissatisfaction in the colony, for it had proved to be a complete failure; and Mr. Wilson had avowed that though my lords were stated to have done this and to have dune that, no one but himself had the least share in the matter. Mr. A. SMITH then withdrew his amendment. On the vote of £444,049 for new works, improvements, and repairs in naval establishments, Sir J. PAKINGTON expressed an opinion in favour of the extension of our naval establishment at Chatham. Lord C. PAGET said the attention of the Government had been particularly directed to St. Mary's Creek, at Chatham, and they were taking measures to exclude the action of the sea from St. Mary's Island. Col. SYKES asked how it was that whilst there were to be new gas works at Deptford, for which a sum of £2,500 was proposed, he found a sum of £3OO also proposed for gas. There were similar charges for other dockyards, some of which he thought were excessive. Mr. WHITBREAD said that it was found the Govern ment could manufacture their own gas at Pembroke Dock yard at the rate of 3s. per 1,000 feet, and in other places, where they could get gas at that rate from manufacturers, he thought it was unnecessary to take steps for its nranu•- facture by the Government. (Hear.) The sum of £3OO to which the gallant colonel had alluded in the case of Dept ford was for the supply of gas until the Government works could be completed. In reply to Mr. A. SMITH, Lord C. PAGET said that there had been no new pur chase of land this year, but the great works at Keyham were in a state of gradual progress, and a small sum.of £5,000 was all that was taken this year to carry out part of the great quadrangle at Keyham. At the same time records of past outlay for the same purpose were retained on the votes. In reply to Sir J. PAKINGTON, Lord C. PAGET said that the Government had made a very fair offer for the purchase of the St. Aubyn. estate, Devonport, but they had not succeeded in obtaining it. But a sum of £51,000, referred to by the right hon. baronet, was taken for the purchase of land at Millbay, where it was thought desirable to extend the marine barracks. Mr. W. WILLIAMS asked what had given occasion to an expenditure of sums, amounting together to £150,000, for the Bermudas ? Lord C. PAGET explained that very extensive works had been in progress for some seven or eight years at the Bermudas. Sir C. NAPIER asked if it were intended to consolidate the various Admiralty offices into one general office at Whitehall ? Lord C. PAGET admitted the desirability of concen trating the offices, but the expense would be so great that the Government were not prepared with any proposal at present. In reply to Mr. CHILDERS, Lord C. PAGET stated that it was necessary, in conse quence of the war with China, to keep up a great store of coal at Trincomalee. The sums that were included in the vote for Gibraltar and Malta were absolutely necessary for the defences at those places. Mr. RICARDO asked, whether anything had yet been done to carry out any of the recommendations of the com missioners on the national defences. It would cost at least twelve millions sterling to carry out all their suggestions, and as he did not suppose the Government were prepared to ask Parliament for such a sum at present, he should like to know whether any alteration would be made in the plans for barrack accommodation in the various outports, Mr. CHILDERS thought that convicts, instead of be ing sent to Australia, might be advantageously employed at Malta and Gibraltar. Mr. LYGON asked what provision had been made for the accommodation of the coast guardsmen. Mr. WHITBREAD said the Government had inquired whether other employment could not be given to the con victs now sent to Australia, but they found that it was im possible to do so advantageously. With regard to the coast guardsmen, the present vote would enable the Government to place them in a satisfactory position is reference to cot tage accommodation. Sir J. PAKINGTON concurred with the hon, member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) that if there was a want of labour at Gibraltar convicts ought to be employed upon the Government works there instead of being sent to Australia. Lord C. PAGET reminded the right hon. gentleman that it would be necessary before permanently increasing the number of convicts at Gibraltar to build barracks for their accommodation, which would entail considerable expense. The only barracks upon which the Government were at pre sent expending large sums of money under -the recommen dations of the Commissioners on the National Defences were Fort Cumberland and the Marine Barracks at Plymouth. Mr. RICARDO asked if it was proposed to spend any sum this year in addition to the present estimates, in carry ing out the views of the commissioners in regard to barrack accommodation. Lord C. PAGET believed that there would be no altera tion in the present navy estimates, but he was unable to state what course would be taken in reference to the army estimates. Sir C. NAPIER inquired what was the largest ship that could enter Sheerness basin with her guns on board, at all states of the tide. He also wished to know to what extent it was intended to lengthen the Mole at Gibraltar. Lord C. PAGET was unable to answer the first question of the gallant admiral beyond stating that at present the guns had to be taken out of large ships of war before they entered the basin at Sheerness. Dredging works were, however, being carried out in order to deepen the channel. With regard to the Mole at Gibraltar, it was originally in tended to lengthen it by 1,000 feet ; but it was now proposed to extend the length to 1,200 feet. Colonel SYKES said the charges for the coal depots ap peared to have become permanent. He hoped it was not supposed that the war with China would be permanent. Then were the estimates sent home prepared by competent parties ? Did the Admiralty place full reliance upon their being correct ? Admiral WALCOTT asked whether the Mole at Gibral tar would be sufficient in breadth for the ships that would go there, many of them being over 300 feet in length. Lord C. PAGET said the Mole would be very convenient for the purposes required. As to the coal depots, he could assure the hon. and gallant member that these estimates had gone through the process of weeding at the Admiralty, and probably there was not one of them that had not been considerably cut down before coming before the committee. There was no doubt a disposition in the colonies to ask for large sums. Ire believed the coal depots would be of use in _ . _ future years. The vote was then agreed to. The sum of 1:73,000 for medicine and medical stores was granted without any discussion. On the vote of £92,753 for defraying the expenses of light-houses, and for miscellaneous naval services, Mr. LYGON said the sailors' homes and other similar institutions had been of the greatest benefit to the men em ployed in the service, and therefore he hoped that in future years a larger sum would be placed in the estimates thanat present. £1,600 was all that was now devoted for these purposes. Admiral WALCOTT asked how it was that there was such a large increase in. the sum required for passage money. In 1850-60 £12,000 was voted ; and for 1860-61 £30,000 was required. Lord C. PAGET said the increase was in consequence of the passages out to China of the military officers and others. Colonel SYKES complained of the large sums expended in the destruction of pirates, and thought the item might be placed under some other heading. He also pointed out that the sum of .£7,7E0 16s. 11d. was a very large amount to pay as compensation fur damage done by her Majesty's ships. What did it mean ? Lord C. PAGET said with regard to the item mentioned as destruction of pirates, in former years it was called head money. In estimating the sum to be awarded, the Admi ralty took into consideration the amount of the service, and I the number of lives lost among their own men, and the strength of the enemy, and after the Admiralty had made an estimate it was submitted to the Treasury, and was again gone into. The terms seemed a little harsh, but it was more the destruction of the vesselsthan the destruction of human lives. With regard to the damages for collisions the hon. and gallant member knew that when tho Admi ralty went before a jury they were sure to give a verdict against the Admiralty. If any misfortune arose, it was by far the cheaper way to compensate the owners than to go to law. There was recently great damage done to the Has tings, and for which the Admiralty ought to claim compen sation, but they felt that they would not be able to get a jury to give them anything. (Hear, hear.) Sir C. NAPIER wished to ask the noble lord whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to recommend any change in the rule in reference to the granting of gratuities and pensions for wounds, so as to assimilate the rule to the one in force for the army. The manner in which compen sation was assessed to officers wounded in the navy was most unjust. It was a rule not to grant compensation un less the wound was equal to the loss of a limb. Now it was impossible for parents, or persons going into the navy, to know what the rule was. The sum now asked for gratui ties and compensation was ridiculously small, being only £2,000. Again, no provision was made fdr ruptured men. They were discharged from the service, and as they could not get employment, they had to go into the union work houses. How could the Admiralty expect to obtain men for the navy when they were thus treated? Lord C. PAGET said the Admiralty would be most happy to take into consideration any advantage which was , granted by warrant to the officers of the army, in order that , the navy might have a fair Share of those advantages. He would take care to bring the matter before the board. Mr. LINDSAY asked how it was that the sum of £2,340 had been awarded for damage done to a certain ship. Again, there was an item of £7,638 as loss on exchange in remitting money to India. How was that ? There were banks in London who made a large profit in transmitting money to India. He also noticed that a per tentage, which amounted to £2,400, was paid to the Bank of England and the London and County Bank for sending money to the home ports. How was that? Lord C. PAGET said with regard to the last question the Admiralty paid 2s. per cent. on money transmitted by the Bank of England to all the dockyards except Pembroke, and in that case they paid 4s. per cent. He was not aware that any other bank would do it cheaper. He thought it was a fair charge and they could not expect the Bank to do L the work for nothing. As to the loss on exchange in send ing money to India, it arose in consequence of the Admi t ralty having done an act of justice to those officers who F were on distant stations. (Hear, hear.) Formerly, officers had to di aw bills at their stations, and get them discounted, which caused a great loss and was much felt by the poorer officers. The Government had fixed a price for the rupee, and if the exchange was favourable to them they gained; • if not, there was a loss, as in the present instance. (Hear.) As to the first question, he could not answer it, as the case occurred before he was in office. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) would explain the matter. PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT IN THE NAVY. On the vote of £691,262 for half-pay, reserved half-pay, and retirement to officers of the Navy and Marines, Lord C. PAGET rose and said—l think, Sir, this vote is one on which the committee may fairly require some infor mation. It will be recollected that last year the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich, in a very eloquent speech in favour of the officers of the navy, adverted to the extreme difficulty which the Admiralty experienced in giving duo promotion and encouragement to our zealous officers in order that they might feel that justice was done to them in the service. The right hon. baronet stated what is perfectly true, that at present r romotion in the navy is almost at a stand still. (Hear.) It is absolutely sad to think of the small num ber of promotions we have been able to give during the past year, particularly promotions of commanders to be captains, and of lieutenants to be commanders. Prior to the last war there was a vast number of officers who in peace were un employed ; there was no opportunity of employing them, and a great many were put upon the retired and reserved lists. The result is that our system of half. pay for thl navy is in a complicated and most unsatisfactory condition. (Hear.) It would be well if some comprehensive scheme could be framed which would enable you to provide for officers who have served their country faithfully,toencourage young officers to remain in the service, and to hold out to all a fair hope of promotion. Unfortunately, however, this is impossible. I am prepared to show that no scheme, however comprehensive, which you could frame would ever be per manent in the navy. The navy is liable to such great fluc tuations that you cannot deal with it as you can, for example, with the civil service, where you have a fixed body of gen tlemen serving you, and where there is a known and cer tain amount of promotion. If to-morrow we could get rid of those alarms which are excited by the state of Europe, we know well that the first proceeding on the part of the House of Commons would be greatly to reduce our fleet. (Hear.) The result of that would be to throw a vast number of young officers out of employment, and those officers would necessarily cease to advance, for if you cannot give employment to your officers it is quite impossible you can promote them. Suppose, on the other hand, a great war were unfortunately to tweak out. There would then be a great increase in the navy, and you would have, so far from anything like a reduction, to draw largely from the mer chant service. It will thus be seen that the navy is liable to such great and constant fluctuations that, however desi rable it might be that you should put your lists upon a fair and proper footing, I maintain no Minister could come down to the House of Commons and submit a scheme which would do for all future years. You must deal with your navy lists according to the circumstances of the time. Where the shoe pinches there you must apply a remedy. No doubt, if one were to take a superficial view of the sub ject: one might come to the conclusion that we should at once place our lists upon such a footing t at what we call our effective lists should be compose I solely of effective of ficers. The scheme which the right hon. baronet, the mem ber for Droitwich, drew up, and upon which he bestowed so much care, goes further in that direction than the one which I have now th© honour to submit to the committee, but there aro many defects in his plan which doubtless I shall have to point out in the course of this debate. I think, however, that one of the principal objections to his scheme is, that it is very expensive, and that it could not be perma nent. If the right hon. gentleman could show that his scheme was equally applicable to a time of peace and a time of war—because that is the important point—no doubt he would prove it to possess at least one great advantage ; but inasmuch as it is very expensive, and does not offer that advantage, I think it ought not to be adopted. There is another reason why I should be sorry to seo it carried into effect. It would hurt the feelings, I might almost say break the hearts, of many old and valuable officers who served their country during those wars in which it gained its greatest glory. (Hear, hear.) I allude, of course, to the proposal of the right hon. baronet that admirals who are above a certain age should be placed en the retired list. Sir J. PAKINGTON—On a supplementary list. Lord C. PAGET—They are not to remain on the active fist. Sir J. PAKINGTON—Yea, they are. Lord C. PAGET—WeII, at all events, the old admirals are dealt with in the scheme. (A. laugh.) I maintain, how ever, that there is no necessity for doing so. If, indeed, it were necessary by some means or other that you should in crease your list of admirals and bring in younger men some change might fairly be adopted; but the present system gives you plenty of young admirals. (Hear, hear.) There is no lack of such admirals now; many old officers will, no doubt, shortly follow their forefathers, and among those who are coming up there are plenty young and active enough to discharge satisfactorily all the duties of flag officers. I say, therefore, there is no necessity for dealing with the admirals at all. Where does the shoe pinch in the navy ? The evil is that we have no means of promoting lieutenants to be commanders, and commanders to be cap tains. During the time the present Government have been in office, notwithstanding the vast number of officers who are now employed, and who have been employed for some years past, the First Lord has been able to promote only three commanders to be captains. One has been promoted in consequence of a death vacancy, and three have been promoted by the Board, maki g seven in all. During the same period tha First Lard has promoted four lieutenants to be commanders,three have been promoted inconsequence of death vacancies, and two more in consequence of haul down vacancies of admirals, making a total of nine promo. tions, irrespective of promotions for distinguished services. In addition there were seven Board promotions, making a total of 16 lieutenants who have been made commanders. Considering the vast body of officers in the service, it is ob vious that under the present system the prosrect of ad vancement which is pre:.ented to them is of a very melan choly and unsatisfactory character. (Hear, hear.) In order to remedy as far as possible this state of things, we pro pose to lighten the lists of captains, commaudor.3, and lieu tenants by the retirement of certain officers, in order to make way for the promotion of others. Tho principle we propose to adopt is by no means a new one In the service —it is that of compulsory retirement. The term, I admit, is an ugly one. It is always painful to compel men to go on a retired list—(hear, hear)—and I should have been very glad if it could have been avoided. In dcab ing with these retired lists, however, nothing but compul- soiy retirement would effect the object we have in view. The various features of our proposal will be found set forth in a printed document which 13. - ae, I believe, been is.•ned te- day. First, then, as to captains, the arrangement we pro pose is as follows :—" All captains who have attained, or shall hereafter attaia the age of GO, without having served in their present rank, to be placed on a reserved list, and re ceive pay as follows —lf on 10s. Gd. half-pay list, when re tired, 18s. per dims ; if on 12s. 6d., 20s. ; if on 14s. 6d., 20s. ; such officers to assume the rank and•title of rear-ad miral at the time they would have obtainel their flag by seniority had they remained on the active list." These offi cers, recollect, have never served at all in their present rank and are, therefore, I think, liberally dealt with. It will be observed, however, that there is one class of captains on ,whom it would be unfair to impose this arrangement,— those officers, I mean, who are on the 14s. 6d. half-pay list, and may therefore be regarded as on the high road to their flag. That class of officers will not be affected by this pro posal, unless by their own desire. We propose to deal with commanders in much the same way as with captains. All commanders of the age of GO are to be placed on a retired list, with the rank of retired captain, and to receive half-pay according to their length of sea service, on the scale that I will s ate to the house. We desire, you will observe, to adopt the principle that half-pay shall increase according to the length of service. (Hear.) That is a totally new, and I think beneficial, feature in the half-pay system of the navy. At present each rank receives half-pay altogether irrespective of service. The officer who lives on shore is paid at the same rate as the one who has been engaged in active service afloat , or abroad for years and years. The general principle we seek tointroduce will, I think, meet with general approval, and will confer a great boon on the service. Moreover, all com manders on the active list who have not been employed either afloat, in the Coastguard, or as mail or transport agents, within a period of 15 years, are to be placed on a re tired list, and to receive retired pay according to their amount of sea service, on the same scale as other comman ders, such officers being permitted to assume the rank of retirsd captaiu on reaching the age of 60, but without further addition to their retired pay. The scale of pay will be as follows :—Pay per diem—Under nine years' service, half pay they may be receiving at the time when retired ; above nine years' and less than 12 years' service, 10s. 6d. ; above 12 years' and less than 15 years' service, 12s. 6d. ; above 15 years' and less than 20 years' service, 14s. 6d. ; above 20 years' service, 16s. 6d. Officers after 20 years' service in these ranks, or who are physically incapable of service, are to be eligible for this retirement, with the rank of retired captain, irrespective of age, at the discretion of the Board of Admiralty. Time served in the Coastguard en shore will count as sea time in the scale of reserved pay in the proportion of three years in tho Coastguard as one of sea service; while time served as mail or transport agents afloat will count in proportion, to three years' agents' time as two of sea service. Lieutenants are to retire, the same way as commanders, when they attain the age of 60, with the rank of retired captain, and to receive pay according to their sea service, on the following scale :—Pay per diem.— Under six years' service, half-pay they may be receiving at the time when retired ; above six years' and not less than nine years' service, 7s. ; above nine years' and not less than 12 years' service, Bs. 6d. ; above 12 years' and not less than 15 years' service, 10s. ; above 15 years', Ils. 6d. ; officers, after 20 years' service in this rank, or who are physically incapable of service to be eligible for retirement. 'We pro pose that no further additions shall be made from the active list to the present retired list for commanders and lieuten ants. Provision is also made in our scheme for an improve ment in the half-pay of lieutenant on the active list. Of commanders we have, unfortunately, always too many seeking for service, but there is a difficulty in regard to lieutenants on the active list. They are constantly on duty and render, I need hardly say, very valuable service to the country. After a great number of years' service, however, many of them find they have no prospect of promotion, and when they go on shore they return to the same half. pay as those who have not served at all. 'We propose that an en couragement should be held out to lieutenants to serve in the shape of an increase of half-pay, according to their in crease of service, and we trust that that will induce them to apply for employment. (Hear.) The effect of this pro posal, should it be adopted by the house, will be at once to remove eight captains, 64 commanders, and 179 lieutenants from the active list, and to give us the opportunity of be stowing immediate promotion on a number of officers, which will be a great boon to the service. (Hear.) lam afraid we cannot expect that the house will consent to our con ferring promotion to the extent of the retirement. But should the proposal be agreed to, we expect that those lists which are now overburdened by the numbers established by orders in Council will be reduced, so that we shall be released from the unfortunate and heartbreaking necessity of promoting only one in three. (Hear.) Our proposal will leave vacancies for the immediate promotion, should it be deemed desirable, of three commanders to the rank of captain, and 18 lieutenants to the rank of commanders, and what is far more important for the future efficiency of the service, will hereafter admit of a promotion for every va cancy. (Hear.) These are the details of the scheme which I have very imperfectly put before the committee. I do not see the right hon. baronet the member for Portsmouth in his place, but I wish to introduce a few observations to him and to those who advocate the cause of officers on the reserved list. The Admiralty have considered very fully the claims of those officers. We cannot admit them to be the same as the claims of officers on the active list, inasmuch as they never can be called on for active service. Although no doubt the right hon. member for Portsmouth never did intend that those officers should rise in the list, nevertheless, as it was not perhaps fairly put before them that they would never rise on the list, pan passe with the active officers, it has been a great grievance. They say that they accepted the offer which was made to them with the distinct under standing that they would rise as on the active list. There is no documents to show one way or other. The fact is it was never adverted to when the arrangement was made. I find on looking over the names that there are many officers on that list of good service. The Board have therefore decided to recommend that under the system they shall be included —that is to say, that officers on the reserved list shall rise in half-pay too, whereby those who have served faithfully will benefit largely. There is but one subject more upon which I have to remark, and that is the scheme of the right hon. baronet opposite, the First Lord of the Admiralty under the late Government. Of course the Board of Admi ralty have considered that scheme, but in the proposal that the patronage shall be solely in the hands of the First Lord the Board do not concur. (Cheers.) They thi k these Board promotions most invaluable to the service, and in value' le for this reason, that they are the only promotions which are not governed by the numbers already on the list. If an officer has gone through such distinguished service that it is a matter of justice he should be promoted, there is a Board meeting, and, on all the members concurring in the view of its propriety, the Board have the power to make the promotion, even though the numbers be above the scale fixed by the Order in Council. (Hear, hear.)• I should be very loth and very sorry to see that done away (an Hon. Member—" So would the service ")—because it is most important that officers should feel that if they dis tinguished themselves by faithful service, and particularly in action before an enemy, the Board have power to pro mote them, even though the numbers are completed. (Hear, hear.) I will read a list of the officers promoted last year by the Board, which I hope will induce the right hon. baronet to entirely agree with me that these Board promo tions ought not to be abolished. (Hear.) There is Captain Tumour, prou_soted for services in the Naval Brigade in India. This officer was at Delhi and throughout the terrible scenes of the Indian war. Would the right hon. baronet say that, if the lists were complete, such an officer ought not to be promoted ? There is Captain Viscount Gilford, for services and severe wounds in China. He had his arms shattered and bullets through his body, and I be lieve went through tortures in consequence. He was three or four times under fire. Then there is Capt. Grandy. That is an annual promotion given to the Coastguard, and a very proper promotion too. Of commanders there is Com mander T. Jones, senior Lieutenant in Japan, and in action in China. There is another Commander Jones,—no rela tion—Commander W. H. Jones, for service before Nan kin. He also navigated the Yang-tse-Kiang, and was at the Peiho action. There is Commander Anderson, for ser vice in the Royal yacht. That is an annual promotion, and I do not believe any one will object to it. There is Com mander Hobson, for Attic discoveries under Capt. M'Clin tock. There is Commander Balfour, as senior Lieutenant in command of the gunboats in the Peiho. There is Com mander Winthrop, an annual promotion in the Coastguard. I am sure the committee will agree, after hearing that list, that these promotions are most valuable to the service. (Hear.) I believe that I have now dealt with every point, and all I can say is that I shall be happy to answer any questions which may be put to me. (Cheers.) Sir J. PAKINGTON said,—lt is impossible to overrate the importance to the naval service, and, therefore, the ins . portance to the public interest, of the subject which the noble lord has now submitted to our consideration. As it is one to which it was my duty to give considerable attention during the time that I was connected with the Admiralty, I am sure the committee will indulge me while I address to them not only some observations upon what has fallen from my noble friend, tut upon the more general subject of the condition of the various classes of officers of the royal navy, I can take no exception whatever to the frank and fair tone in which my noble friend has now addressed, as he always does address us. But I am sorry to say that I heard the s►atement with great disappointment; and I am bound to say that I think the plan whichhas now been submitted does not bear out or correspond with the observations with which my noble friend commenced his speech. My noble friend commenced by stating most fairly and truly that the pre- sent state of the navy with regard to promotions, is as un- satisfactory as possible. (Hear, hear.) The expression of m y noble friend war,, that promotion is at a standstill ! and be then proceeded to give a proof of the accuracy of his statewant by mentioning the number of promotions which the present hosed I4Ve neon able to make in the past year, from the rank of commander to that of capta,in, 4 0 from the rank of lieutenant to that of commander. lam Sony to say that in cenk,cquometo of bcing out if ton I diti llot see the printed plan until my noble friend was kind enough to hand it to me, and I was not aware until to-day that the subject was to be brought bofpre the horse. In the few ob servations, therefore, which I shall make I shall have to speak principally from memory, and I cannot recollect ae, curately how many promotions of these two classes the late Board of Admiralty were able to make. But I think lam ' right when I state that the number of promotions at 9, ..,.. .:3 disposal during the year that I held office was even lessthan • that mentioned to us to-night. My noble friend adverted to the unsatisfactory state of the lists of retired officers and re served officers until the navy has become a mass of confu sion;' but he did not go on to state, as he might, that the real cause of all this confusion and complication is that successive Boards of Admiralty have from time to time been content to adopt mere stopgaps to meet the emer gency of the moment, and have never had the courage to deal with the subject upon broad and permanent prin ciples. (Hear, hear.) lam convinced that the navy never will lse satisfied, and never ought to be satisfied, until this miserable hand-to-mouth system is abandoned. My noble friend tells us that, owing to great fluctuations in the navy, by which I presume he means the alternations of periods of war and peace, a permanent system is impossible ; but in the same breath—almost in the same sentence —my noble friend tells us that a comprehensive system is desirable. Now, in my opinion, a comprehensive system ought to be a permanent system, and I dispute altogether the dictum of my noble friend that a permanent system is impossible. (Cheers.) I admit that a period of war may require a mode differing from that which is required in a period of puce, but I do not for a moment admit that that is any reason why a permanent system is impossible. (Hear.) The dura tion of periods of peace is usually much longer than that of periods of war, and it is the duty of this house and of the Admiralty, in addressing themselves to this important sub ject, to make the nearest approach they can to a permanent Sc stem which shall meet the requirements of the navy dur ing an average of years. (Hear.) My noble friend says that my scheme was expensive and not permanent, but I must beg leave to differ from him. The scheme which I ventured to propose was in its nature permanent, that is to say, it was self-acting, and not like that of my noble friend's, only meant to meet the pressing ern rgency of the moment. One objection mentioned by my noble friend has frequently been advertedt o before, and I heard his observations cheered from some quarters of the house. I allude to the effect which he said it would have on tho feelings of flag officers. This is a very difficult and delicate part of the question. No man would shrink more anxiously than I should from inflicting pain on those most distinguished men—one of whom I see before me (Sir C. Napier) ; but, on the other hand, let me say as broadly, that we must deal with this matter for the public interest, and for the general interest of the naval service. (Hear.) Provided we do not inflict any hardship on the gallant admirals at the head of the list, of which they would have fair reason to complain, I don't think they ought to allow their feelings unnecessarily to stand in the way of an improvement which may be for the good of the service and the welfare of their brother offi cers. (Hear.) In dealing with this complicated question I feel it is an advantage to have one of the admirals who would be effected by the scheme, here in his place in this house, ready to state their ease if lat all misstate it. My noble friend—unintentionally of course— did not accurately describe the manner in which I proposed to deal with these admirals. He first said that I proposed to put them on a retired list ; and when I corrected him, he said I meant to put them on a supernumerary list. There may be something at the head of the paper containing ray plan which might appear vs though there was to be a supernumerary list ; but my noble friend will find it is not so if he looks at the end of the revised plan. At page 35 I proposed as follows : " 1. Active Flag List, to be divided into two lists, to be called First and Second Flag Lists. First list, to consist of all flag officers on the active list who have completed 70 years of age; second list to eGnsist of 15 admirals, 24 vice admirals, and 36 rear-admirals. 2. As officers on second list complete 70 years they are to be transferred to first list, and each vacancy so created to be filled by promotion from active list of captains. 3. Officers on first list to be as eli gible for all honours and all employments as they are now, the principle and object of the proposed arrangement being solely that officers who have completed 70 years should nu longer impede promotion; and that there should be flag officers of each rank of an age at which they are likely to be effective." My noble friend will admit, therefore, that I proposed neither a retired list nor a supernumerary list. 1 did not propose to remove those distinguished men from the active list ; but I said, as distinctly as words could say, that they should be as open to all honours and employments as now. All I proposed to call on them to do was one thing—that when they arrived at threescore years and ten they should admit the fact, and when they had passed that age, that they should no longer check the promotion of their junior officers. I appeal to truth and common sense whether there is anything in this of which they have a right to complain, which treats them with disrespect, which disregards their services, or to which theyought to take the slightest excep tion ? (Hear, hear.) Looking to the extreme difficulty of the question and the necessity of maintaining promotion, I cannot imagine that they should not acknowledge the fair ness of no longer continuing to impede promotion when they have arrived at that age. My noble friend proposes, and rightly proposes, as I think, compulsoryretiremeßt. I quite accept the explanation he gave; and after the plan which I proposed it is almost unnecessary to say that, how ever painful it maybe in exceptional cases, I agree with him that we cannot deal with the subject without adopting the principle of compulsory retirement; but I say distinctly that you will have no satisfaction in the navy—you will not deal as you ought with this important subject—unless you deal with all ranks. You must adopt fair and sound princi ples, and when you have adopted them youanust apply them to the admirals as well as the lowest officers in the navy. There should be no suspicion of favouritism, no ground for complaint of dealing with officers of different ranks in a dif ferent way; if there is, public opinion will not support you, and the opinion of the naval service will not support you. I object to the plan of my noble friend, because it is insuffi cient, because it does not meet the evil, because it will create objections in the navy not of a fanciful character, not argu ing from matters of feeling merely, and because it deals dif ferently with different ranks, and applies one rule to one rank and another rule to another. I object to your not applying your rule to admirals, because I am convinced that you will therefore be doing injustice to the captains. Your first rule with regard to captains is that at 60 years of age all captains are to retire who have not served at all as cap tains. To commanders you apply a totally different rule. You say that all are to retire who are now 60, and all here after are to retire as they become 60. There is no limit applied to them as to whether they have served as com manders or not. That is unfair, and it originates in the timidity of the Admiralty in not having dealt with the question in a bolder spirit. By not dealing with flag offi csrs you act unfairly to the captains. Officers will arrive at 60 who ought to become flag officers,and who would be come flag officers if the plan were applied justly to all ranks, and they will have to retire because the admirals are not got out of the way by s niority as they advance in years. This inequality will apply most unfairly, for the same rea son, to commanders. I am very glad that the Admiralty have so far followed the plan which I prepared as to have adopted the principle of compulsory retirement; but they ought to have applied it more equally and more boldly. If you had applied the principle of retirement at 60 to all cap tains, then ycu would have given a fair chance of promotion to all commanders, but you apply that principle to only a small fraction of the captains, those who have never served as captains. The retirement on the captains' list will there fore be much slower than on the commanders', and it will stop the commanders' promollon. I will now advert to an other part of the noble lord's speech, and with more plea. sure, because I can speak of it in different language. I agree with what the noble lord proposes to do in regard to increased half-pay according to service, and also in regard to allowing the half-pay of ac i ive lieutenants to be increased in the same way. I think that it is quite right. I think also it would be a fair matter for consideration whether the time served as mate should not be allowed to count. You will do very great injustice if, in computing their time, you exclude the whole period during which they served in the rank of mates. I don't say that in every instance the who'e of that time should be allowed, but I repeat, you will do great injustice if you do not allow some part of it. I therefore hope the noble lord will take this matter into consideration. I will now allude to the subject of Board promotion, and I am obliged to tell my noble friend that I have not changed my mind on that subject. Speaking, as I "do, with only brief experience at the Admiralty, I don't presume to speak of the somadness of my own judgment, but I deem it my duty to state frankly and openly the con clusion at which I have arrived—that, on the whole, the system of Board promotions does not work well for the public service. I will read to the committee an extract from a memorandum I added to my scheme of retirement just before I quitted office. It was in these words " AS I am going out ef office, and can no longer be open to the suspicion of wishing to increase my own patronage, I must say that I still think it would be for the advantage of the public service to do away with Board promotions. I do not mean, in expressing this opinion, to imply the slight est suspicion of, or reflections upon, the gentlemen who bOw, or at any other time, constitute the Board of Admiralty. I only mean that I think such patronage ought to be exercised under the strongest possible responsibility; and I have no faith in aggregate bodies ever acting under that sense of responsibility which is felt by individuals, If Board promo tions are retained, they should not be allowed to swell the lists, and should only be made in anticipation of vacancies." If hon, members who take an interest in this question will refer to the earliE r pages of this memorandum they will find statements bearing on the change when Board promotions were first introduced. The practical result has been that the aggregate amount of promotions has greatly increased. I adhere to the opinion I then expressed—that whoever may constitute these boards there is not the same sense of re. sponsibility in the aggregate body that there is in the indi.- vidual Minister, open to question and censure lu tb;:s house. Therefore, although I express my 4 111101 1 With the respect due to gentlemen of profos.,lonal PrperienCe, I dee on the broad public principle just "stated, adhere to my opinion that is for the interest of the public service to concentrate 'respon sibility in all rnattere of promotion and do away with it as res,eisde all aggregate bodies. I may be told of the ease of Lord Ouildford and officers who stand in the same position. I say no doubt they arc entitled to every consideration, but in one of the very veto passed to-night you find the name of Lord Q4 l lOOl/ most properly selected for a very hand some pension, Therefore, I would rather refer to that case as supporting my view of the subject. It may be right to give him reward by pension and promotion too. I cannot say how that may be but you must remember that you cannot promote hip without keeping back some other officer. There is another branch of this subject to which the noble lord did not allude; he did not give his opinion upon the ques tion of haul-down promotion. Ls this memorandum I have condemned such promotion; and I adhere to that view. I say haul -down promotions ci 9 Aot keno* the public service; _At they create very sore feeling. It is all a matter of chance luck, or favour, who may obtain these haul-down promo tions. (Hear, hear.) lam glad that observation is cheered by a gallant admiral opposite who is so contnetei t a ji. , 2q:e ; for he is just one of those distiw;uished nice who are likely to benefit by the continuance of that system. lam not aware that I need detain the commiaee by longer observal ions on the statement the noble lord has made; but I would beg leave before sitting down to ask the attention of the Admi ralty and the committee to some other points connected with the present position of the different classes of officers in the navy. I ant sorry to say my belief is that there is scarcely one rank of officers in the Royal navy which is not at present dissatisfied more or less with their position. (" Hear," from Sir C. Napier.) I don't know what is the meaning of the gallant admiral's cheer. If he means that the different classes of naval officers who complain of their position do so without reason, I will say no man is less disposed than I am to yield to any unreason able claim ; but, on the other hand, I think the gallant admiral will agree with me that it is one of the greatest possible misfortunes in our naval service to have large classes of men aggrieved by well-founded complaints. The question is whether the complaints they snake are well founded or no.. The captains of the Royal navy are not contented with their present position, and I submit to the house, I submit to the Admiralty, I submit to the gallant admiral, that, knowing what we do of what was passing lately in the fleet, knowing the unfortunate dangers which have existed and to which I hope the attention of the Ad miralty has been gravely directed, this is not a moment when your officers ought to be dissatisfied. Have the captains in the Royal Navy any grounds of complaint or not ? There are several respects in which they allege they have grounds of complaint. In the important respect of pay they are not in the position in which officers of their rank and fulfilling their important duties ought to be. The noble lord is conversant with the change which took place some few years ago as regards the pay of captains in the Royal navy. A few years ago I believe they were paid according to the class of ship they commanded. That is no longer the case. They are now paid according to their seniority in the service. What is the result ? There are three classes of pay. No less than 20 captains are commanding line-of-battle ships on the lowest class pay and I believe it to be the fact beyond all question that captains in the Royal navy occupy their high position at a pecuniary loss to themselves. (Hear, hear.) This can not be right. I hold in my hand a letter from an officer of great distinction--it is a private letter. I have no objection to communicate in regard to it with the noble lord, but I trust the committee will allow me to read an extract from it. It comes from an officer of very high reputation as a captain who happens to be a man of independent for tune and to whom a pecuniary loss in the service of the country is not of that importance it must be to others. [The right hon. baronet proceeded to read an extract from the letter to the effect, that a captain working out his three years in a ship would find ,himself considerably out of pocket. In fact he was paying for his own services. The consequence was, that a great many officers of this rank were never able to take employment; and the country in the hour of need lost the services of some of her best men. The average expense attending the eommissioniEg of a ship was estimated at about £6OO. The writer had com missioned four ships which cost him £l,; Gil, Led many would say was cheaply done.] :it the committee allow me to mention one or two ~ees which happened to myself when I was First Loi d of the Admiralty. At that time, about a year ago, we were anxious to get up as speedily as possible a Channel fleet. I sent for an officer with whom I had no personal acquaintance whatever; I only knew him to be an officer of the highest distinction. I offered him a line-of-battle ship. He requested 24 hours to consider. Next day he came back ; thanked me for the offer, and said he should be proud to hold such a command, but that he could not afford to undertake it. I will give the house another instance of the same kind, also a captain in the nay, who happened to be a friend and connexion of my own. He was an officer of high reputation, and I intended to offer him a ship. I believe he became acquainted with that intention, for ho called on my private secretary, and through him sent me a request that I would not make him the offer, because he had, not yet recovered from the debts he had contracted in fitting out a former ship as commander ; and in consequence of these debts he could not afford to take command of a ship as Captain. (Hear, hear.) Now, this must be a false and erroneous state of things, and cannot be for the interest of the public service. Let the house re member the diplomatic duties captains of ships are often called upon to fulfil on foreign stations; and the hospitality they are required to extend to the officers of foreign vessels according to rules of the service which no one desires to see broken through. (Hear.) lam speaking in the presence of naval men who know the truth of what I say ; and I ask, can it be for the good of the service that officers should be exposed to such pecuniary loss in the discharge of their duties, that unless they are possessed of private means they cannot afford to take the command of a man-of-war ? But how is it with foreign nations ? Is it the case with France ? Not at all. All officers in command of ships in the French navy have ad vantages that are not given to officers in the British service. In the first place their cabins are furnished ; but a more important advantage is this—in the French navy there is a regular system of table money on a scale proportionate to the rank of the officer, and, I believe, also to the class of vessel. There is also one scale of table money for the home ports, and another for foreign ports. This prevents the oc currence of instances likethose I have mentioned, of officers whose services the country requires, and who ought to be afloat preserving that discipline which I am afraid is now impaired. (Hear, hear.) It is most painful and distressing when an officer comes to the First Lord of the Admiralty and says, " I should be proud to hold a command, but it is too expensive, I cannot afford it." My noble friend is in a position to know the fact ; he is the man of all others to whom, on account of his knowledge and experience, the navy looks for some remedy of the evils complained of. The lieutenants have also complained much of their position; but I have great hopes that the proposals of the noble lord, especially the suggestion I took the liberty to make—that their mates' time should be counted, and the increased rate of pay, will give satisfaction. But lam sorry to say, that the masters, the paymasters, the engineers, and the naval instructors are all making complaints, more or less well founded ; they all desire to be improved in their positions. I will not go into these complaints, as I do not wish to detain the committee longer. But I am distinctly of opinion that it will be for the good of the service and the country if these matters are looked into. Anything like ill-founded and unreasonable complaints should be disre garded and set aside, but all well -founded complaints should be fairly and justly met. It is difficult to enter into the whole of the retirement question ; I do not wish to put the scheme I ventured to propose into comparison with that of the noble lord, further than that it may con duce to the pubic good. I do not wish to carry any comparison of the kind beyond the fairest reasonable limit ; butl cannot help thinking the best course for the Admiralty and the country would be to refer the whole question to a commission. If the Admiralty is willing to deal with it, it is no doubt competent to do so. But it is a large question ; taking the operation of the retirement pay and allowances, and all the complaints m :de by various ranks of naval offi cers, this course appears to me the most desirable. I would suggest to the Government whether an inquiry into the whose question by a corn petent commission might not be satisfactory to the service. As far as I can judge of the scheme of the noble lord at the moment, I think his plan is timid and unsatisfactory, that it is not likely to give t! oat satisfaction to the service which is so d es i ra bl e. I n making these observations I trust I h ave sa id nothing which the noble lord can complain. I assure him J nave no motive whatever but the good of the navy service. No man can hold, even for a short period, the office f had the honour to fill without admiring and taking a F. , incere interest in that noble service. I shall heartily thank the Admiralty for adopting any scheme that may really be for its benefit ; and I shall be very glad to hear that the Government is pre pared to refer the whole question to a commission. Sir C. NAPIER felt persuaded that the naval officers would feel obliged to the right hon. gentleman for the clear manner in which he had stated their grievances, and he could say that there was no exaggeration whatever in the statements made. He thought that they had reason to complain that the plan of his noble friend was not laid before them in sufficient time to enable them to form a correct and deliberate judgment upon it. (Hear.) He did not want to see the system of selection done away with altogether, but to see it conducted on better and fairer principles. The noble lord had spoken in such a man ner of the patronage of the First Lord and of other patronage that he felt persuaded the house did not under stand what he meant. Now it was impossible, constituted as the Board of Admiralty was, to make promotions in the navy apart from political influence and considerations. There was no denying that promotion was owing to political influence, but the First Lord of the Admiralty was not, to be blamed for this more than another. On the rfround, however, of the want of promotion in the tow / no great complaint could be made, as the returns showed. The only proper system of advancement in the na7y was that of pro. motion and retirement ; but as regar''Aed the scheme which the noble lord h a d proposed he t 3. ..tought it would be a posi tive disadv an t age ra th er t h a' ~. an advantage to some officers , and he recommended hi 74t to withdraw it for the present , in order to enable got naval officers and civilians to take it into wnsid era l ffion. It was not decent or respectful to the cum m i tt'lo to ask them to g r a n t a large sum had money t to been ca r .. 4 out a plan the papers relating to which laid before th e h ouse . H e cou ld no t agree with just h the . right hon. baronet opposite, that the plan shoUld be refew•ed to a commission, because that commission would be appointed by the Admiralty, and would probably only do what the Admiralty wished. He would recommend the noble lord to withdraw his scheme. It was unwise and unfair to put such a scheme before the country. of the i t n ho t C h o i:k g i i ci n e g ra t t h i o a n t proposal. He assumed that , if it were pressed, a bett er c i e Admiralnt l ll a V I A n L o C t been ° r T a c l l o o n : e u d r r f e o d r opportunity would be given for its discussion. The noble lord proposed to remove the admirals above seventy years of age, but at the same time to give them increase of p ty, pen sions, and employment. If so, what was the meaning of removing them ? Was it fair or just, with men who had been in active service from 1794 to 1815, to treat them as when they were on the verge of death ? He only alluded to his own case, as an illustration of numerous others. Ha was made a post-captain in 1S 2, after thirteen years' service ; and yet the Order of the Bath had never been given to him, though he obtained the approval of his commanding officer. Though he had been recom mended for that honour in 1840, the successive First Lords of the Mmralty had passed him over. Other officers who had had gazettes had received the honour. No one had more energetically sought employment than he had done for 30 years ; he went to first lord after first lord--sometimes he was too low on the list, sometimes too high : the fact was he had no interest, he had entered the service without it, and had got all his steps without it. Though he had offered himself for any service, in any part of the world, he never got anything but a cold curt answer, enough to break his heart. The test ought not to be whether an officer had had service, but whether he had sought for it. (Hear, hear.) He believed the rule at the Admiralty was, if any one ven tured to run counter to the noble lord he got notice to quit. (A laugh.) At present admirals only attained that rank in about 18 or 19 years ; out of the 100 only 3 were now em ployed, and the consequence of this system was that men were removed from the list of post-captains, where they might be usefully employed, and made admirals when there was no necessity for it. The lieutenants of our service were a standing proverb; unless they had an opportunity of dis• tinguishing themselves it was morally impossible for them to become commanders. They had given rank to the medi cal officers ; and the result was that a lieutenant might see a medical officer rise above him. The navy wanted nothing but justice. He had only referred to his own case knowing that there were hundreds of others in the same position. Sir G. SEYMOUR considered that an improved scheme of half-pay and retiring allowances was much needed, and he accepted with gratitude any proposition for that purpose. At the same time he regretted that the scheme of the noble lord was so limited, and considered that such an inquiry as had been suggested by the right h.on, baronet would be of advantage, and give satisfaction to the service. He entirely concurred with the statement of the right hon. baronet as to the insufficient remuneration of the captains, and he also thought the medical officers had specialclaims to attention. He hoped the scheme of the Government would as far as it went be carried out, and could not understand how officers could complain that it wasa hardship or injustice to be re moved from one class to another. Mr. HENLEY thought the debate calculated to attract a good deal of attention. The noble lord said no rule could be laid down to meet the case that had arisen, but that it should be dealt with where the shoe pinched. He could not help thinking that some general rule should be laid down. They saw that the sum paid for non-effective officers was nearly the same as that; paid to effective officers —about £900,000 in each ease. They saw that the num ber of men voted now was 80,000, and previously it was but 40,000, yet he said there was great difficulty in promoting the petty officers. That he (Mr. Henley) could scarcely understand. Then as to the promotion of lieutenants and commanders; how did the noble lord propose to carry out his scheme ? They were told that captains declined ships, because by accepting them they would incur loss. All this tended to show that the subject must be generally dealt with, and not upon the principle laid down by the noble lord—of easing where the shoe pinched. He did not know whether it was possible to alter the proportion between the effective and the non-effective list—but thought there were ample reasons for dealing with the subject comprehensively as a whole, instead of partially, in reference to particular ranks only. Lord C. PAGET—The number of officers on half-pay was not due to the present day, but was the result of past wrong. You could not kill off the old officers, and they must remain on the list. (Hear, and laughter.) No com prehensive scheme would affect the old captains and ad mirals of the last war. The right honourable gentleman had said if they dealt with the captains and commanders, the scheme should also provide for the compulsory re tirement of the admirals likewise. In the first place the admirals stood upon a different footing from that of the lower ranks of officers—their rank was gene rally the reward of distinguished service, and they were mostly aged men, whose feelings would be unneces sarily wounded were they subjected to such a rule. He did not think that the scheme was of sufficient import anoe to be examined by a commission. It was merely a small boon to officers of a low grade who were felt to have been hardly treated; and, if adopted, it would also cause a flow of promotion, which it was admitted would be very de sirable. He did not think that any advantage would arise to the service from counting mates' time, because if that were done the time would have to be lengthened, and it would make no difference in the end. The grievance of captains in command of line-of-battle ships had been stated with so much force that he had almost himself joined in the cheers of the hon. and gallant members. No doubt there might be cases in which the present rule worked hardly to individuals, but how was it possible to frame a general scheme which should not inflict hardship in individual cases ? The inconveniences complained of arose from the number of junior captains who happened to be in command of line-of-batt'e ships; but it should not be forgotten that the Government had latterly done a great deal for captains. Formerly a captain was put to a great expense in his fit out ; but he had nothing now to take on board but his port manteau. No doubt the French captains were allowed table money; but the fact was, our service costs the coun try a great deal of money, and the Government were not able to do all that they would otherwise be quite willing to do. He hoped the house would at once agree to the scheme, for the service was very anxious to have the point settled. Sir J. PAK INGTON thought that the noble lord could not expect the house at once to commit itself to the recep tion of the scheme. He had himself only seen it that morn ing, and its reception by the committee had certainly not been a very gratifying one. (Hear.) Sir C. NAPIER hoped the noble lord would withdraw his plan, otherwise he should feel it his duty to oppose it, and to divide the house upon it. Admiral DUNCOMBE regarded himself bound to sup port the gallant admiral who had just spoken. Sir C. WOOD said that when the rule was to pay cap tains in proportion to the rates of the ships they com manded, the Admiralty could not put an experienced officer in command of a frigate because it would be equivalent to a reduction of his pay. They had therefore altered the rule, and made the pay dependent upon the standing of the officer. Sir C. NA I'IER said the change was a bad one, and he hoped that it would be reversed. He begged to propose that the chairman report progress. Lord C. PAGET said that after the opinions which had been expressed he would beg to move that the vote be re • duced by the sum of £12,000, with a view of postponing the consiieration of the subject. He hoped the committee would allow him to pass the reduced estimate. Sir C. NA I'IER said that under these circumstances he would withdraw his motion. Sir J. PAKINGTON had no objection whatever to the course proposed by the noble lord, and he sincerely hoped the scheme would never again be submitted to the house. The vote of £679,262 was then agreed to, as was also a vote of £448,000 for the pay of lieutenants. The house resumed. P HcENTX PARK. BILL. This bill was read 'a second time. The Caledonitul and Crinan. Canals Bill passed through committee, ar.d was reported to the house. THE I nJSBAND AND WIFE RELATION LAW BILL (SCOTLAND). This bill was read a second time. NUISANCES REMOVAL, &c., BILL. The debate on this bill was adjourned until Monday week at 12 o'clock. DIVORCE BILL. On the order for the second reading, Mr. P. lIENNESSY opposed the bill. The debate was adjourned until Monday next. METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT BILL. On the order for the adjourned debate, Sir J. SHELLEY suggested that the bill should be re ferred to a committee nominated by the committee of selec tion. Mr. TITS concurred in the suggestion, which was agreed to. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL. This bill passed through committee, on the understand ing that the discussion should take place on the third reading. LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT. Sir J. SHELLEY obtained leave to bring. in a bill to amend the above act. The house adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock. BIRTH se CurunEur.—On the 14th inst., at Eaton-square, Mrs. Cuthbert, of a son. SPOONEII.—On the 14th inst., at 2, Gloucester place, Hyde park-gardens, the Wife of Isaac Spooner, Esq. r of a son. vysE.—On the 13th inst., at Stoke-place, Mrs. Richard Howard Vyse, of a son. MARRIAGES. CHARLEswohTn—Tunon.—On the 12th inst., at Romford parish church, Jesse Thomas Charlesworth, Esq., of Harewood-square to Harriet Ann, younger daughter of Samuel Tudor, ELq., of Gidea Hall, Essex. BUTLER— CLIFFORD.—On the 12th inst., at All Saint's, Kni ghtsbridge, the Hon. James Fitzwalter Butler, eldest son of the Itig,ht Hon. Lord Dunboyne, to Marion, only daughter of Colonel Morgan Clifford, M.P., of 1, Queen's gate, Hyde -park. DEATHS. BARER.—On the 14th inst., at Heathcote.street, Gray's inn -road, the Rev. Thomas 1 3agnall Baker, aged 64. Cltructt.—On the 12th inst., at Woolwich, T. Church Esq., aged 63. ELLisoN.—On the 13th inst., at Whitehall Gardens, Cuth bert Ellison, Esq., of Hebburn Hall, in the county of Durham, aged 77. GOODPELLOW.—On the 14th inst., at 19, Fitzroy-square, Lieut.• General Samuel Goodfellow, 11.E.1.C.'s Bombay Engineers. JAMES.—On the 9th inst., at Venice, G. P. James, her Bri tannic Majesty's Consul-General for the Austrian ports of the Adriatic, aged 60. Lorrnox : Printed and Publieled by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct or the Savoy, in, the e county of Micylleaor, Friday, June 15, 1860, I