The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-25 00:00:00

culars had been scattered among them to make them believe
they had grievances. (Hear, hear.) He would state some
of these disadvantages, though he would not call them
grievances, which implied that something was taken away
to which men were entitled. Take the comparative flow of
promotion now and at the end of the great war. In order to
get a proper flow of promotion they must have fair promo-
tion in the upper as compared with the lower classes. In
1816 there were 4,000 lieutenants, forming 67 per cent. of
the whole list; consequently there were only 33 per cent.
of the classes to which they could rise, therefore they had
small hope of rising. In 1832 there were upwards of 3,000
lieutenants, leaving only 42 per cent. of chances of rising.
In 1848 they had 2,286 lieutenants, being 53 per cent. of
lieutenants, with 47 per cent, of the higher grades. In 1863
there were 1,177 lieutenants, being 35 per cent., and leav-
ing open to them 65 per cent. of the higher class of the ser-
vice. That was a very great improvement, though he should
be glad to see the improvement still greater. What ho
wished to show was that the various schemes adopted from
time to time had greatly improved the condition of the navy.
The disadvantage under which they laboured was that they
were obliged, whether at peace or at war, to promote officers
because they wanted young men. In time of peace officers
used to be kept in the lower ranks, and the only chance of
improving their condition was a great increase in the navy ;
but now they could not be suffered to remain in the
lower ranks, because they were so much wanted in the
higher grades, and when their fleets were F mall they had
small employments for commanders and captains. Com-
paring the naval service with the other branches of the
public service, he thought its averages were quite as good.
If his hon. friend was going to hold out to the navy
that its officers were likely to get a large increase of pay,
he was the worst friend they had. He (Lord C. Paget)
frankly told the navy that he wished them to have
good pay, but if they expected that their pay would be
increased according to the scale of his gallant friend their
hopes would be blasted. He admitted that in some ranks
the French naval officers had higher pay than ours. Let
him compare the case of the navy with the artillery. Take
two youths, one of them entering the navy, tho other the
artillery. The one who entered the navy would be educated
principally at the public expense, whereas the one in the
artillery would have to go through an expensive education
at the military academy. Tho question was what age a man
was when he was promoted. In the navy a young man was
made a lieutenant at 22, and in the artillery he was made a
first lieutenant at 23. A lieutenant in the navy cost £197
full pay, and allowing £l5 for provisions, £lB2 net, while a
first lieutenant in the artillery only received £125, includ-
ing all his allowances. He had been in communication with
the French naval attache at this court, who had communi-
cated to him several facts bearing upon this subject. A
first lieutenant in the French navy received £144 a year
when abroad, £l2B in Franoe, and £llO in the dockyards.
Ho denied then that it could be said that our officers were
worse off than the French. At the same time he admitted
that some classes of the French officers were better paid
than ours, but again the admirals were not so well paid.
As soon as a lieutenant in the French service obtained a
command, which was at a later age than in our service, he
might get £4OB, which was better than a lieutenant in our
service, who got only £234. A lieutenant in the French
navy was generally 36, 37, or 39 when he obtained a com-
mand, while the general age in our navy was 32. The
English admirals were better paid than the French admirals.
Sir J. HAY said that in the French navy all the enter-
tainments were paid for.
Lord C. PAGET did not know what might be the cha-
racter of the entertainments in the French navy, but the
admirals had to find their furniture, plate, and linen at their
own cost, but in our navy all these things might be found
on a payrcent of 5 per cent., and an officer need only take
his portmanteau on board.
Sir J. HAY observed that he must take provision on
board.

Lord C. PAGET.—No such thing. He begged his hon.
and gallant friend not to try to prove too much. There
were cases in which our officers were not so well paid as in
the French navy, but if these figures were quoted, they
must follow the figures' through. (Hear, hear.) He did
not wish to complete the comparison, for he could not help
feeling the odiousness of such comparisons. He alluded to
these points not because he did not hope to see the navy
improved, but because he would not be a party to coming
to that house and saying that the navy were miserably ill-
paid. What had the Government done for the navy ?
They had improved the pay and the position of whole
classes in the navy by the sum of £120,000 a year, and if
it were desired he would enter into particulars—he held a
paper in his hand containing the details, and he hoped that
some honourable member would move for its production.
All classes had been benefited in a small degree. This was
in addition to the scheme of retirement of 1860. If
honourable members referred to page 23 of the Duke of
Somerset's memorandum they would see that the charges
for the retired and reserved lists in 1860 was £386,000 ; but
in 1861 it was £120,000. That was due to the order in
council giving power of retirement. The house had
granted, in three years and a half, at the instigation of the
Admiralty, £150,000 a year dead weight to the coun-
try. Was it fair for his honourable and gallant friend
to charge km and the Admiralty with neglecting the
interests of the navy, and to instigate the officers to
discontent by issuing elongated shells, which pierced the
sides of the Warrior and all our ships. (Laughter.) If
his honourable and gallant friend had c ,me forward and
made known any grievances under which the navy suf-
fered, he or any other officer would have beon well re-
ceived at the Admiralty. The hon. member for Daven-
port (Mr. Ferrand) said that officers could not go to the
Admiralty. (Hear, hear.) Why the authorities at the Ad-
miralty would be delighted to see and to serve them. The
retired officers laboured under the idea that when they ac-
cepted that position they were entitled to an increase of pay.
The right hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth (Sir
F. Baring) was at the head of the Admiralty when the alte-
ration was made, and he was not a man to countenance any-
thing involving bad faith. He was surprised to hear any
hon. gentleman say that the noble lord at the head of the
Government was trying to shelve this question by the
course he had pursued. and he hoped that idea would not be
shared in by the house. The navy, at any rate, would not
believe it, but would rest sure that after what the noble lord
said there would be an inquiry into the alleged disadvan-
tages under which the navy laboured, which would be con-
ducted with fairness and justice. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that the speech they had just
heard had been directed rather to details, on which the
house was not asked to pronounce an opinion, than to the
broad principles submitted in the motion. He must con-
gratulate the hon. member for Wakefield on having at last
elicited from a reluctant Government a distinct admission
that he was practically justified in the course he had taken.
His hon. an d gallant friend was not open to the censure
passed upon him by the Prime Minister, but the course he
had taken reflected honour and credit upon him ; and as an
officer of the Royal navy he could not have taken a more
honourable, dignified, and natural course than to speak in
person on behalf of his brother officers, and to ask for the
redress of the grievances of which they had long com-
plained. Nor was the honourable member open to the
objection taken to his motion on the ground of its al-
leged vagueness. If he had encumbered his motion
with those details which had been referred to,
nobody would have been more ready than the noble
viscount to say that such details were only to be dealt
with by the executive. He was desirous to call attention
to the history of the question, which dated from the time
that he was called upon to administer the Admiralty,
when he found the service in a most unsatisfactory condi-
tion. During his short tenure of office he recommended
the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider how
they might improve the manning of the navy ; and it
would be admitted, en all hands, that the results of the
inquiry had been most satisfactory. Finding the state of
the service in regard to promotion and retirement moat un-
satisfactory, ho prepared a plan of promotion which was
adopted by the Cabinet, and which, if he had stayed in
office a few months longer, would have been carried into
effect. It was founded on the broad principle of the motion,
that of retirement by age applicable to all ranks of the ser-
vice. He left a memorandum with the present First Lord
of the Admiralty, imploring him not to regard it in any
rash light, but to look at it as-an endeavour to improve the
service ; but the noble duke did not see fit to carry out that
plan or any plan founded on the same principle, In the
following year, 1860, as the government was unwilling to
act as an executive, he moved for the appointment of a
Royal Commission on promotion and retirement ; but on a
division the motion was rejected. In 1861 the hon. mem-
ber for Portsmouth moved for a committee, and the Prime
Minister resisted the motion—(hear, and cheers)—divided
against it, and was beaten—(hear)—but now he approved of
a committee. (Hear.) The course of tho government had
been inconsistent and injudicious; and he must say that
the position of the government was more extraordinary
than the position of any government since he had been a
member of that house. (Hear, hear.) They seemed to
be afraid of bringing forward any measure—(hear, hear)—
they seemed to be afraid of grappling with any difficult sub-
ject. The administration of the criminal law had fallen
into a state so feeble and unsatisfactory that the whole
country cried out against it ; and the executive, instead of
improving that administration, said, "Let us have a com-
mission." Now that they found the naval service was not
disposed to be trifled with any longer, and that the service
was supported by a strong feeling in the house, they changed
their tactics, and said, "Let us have a committee." A

select oommittee was the worse means of dealing with the
question, which ought to be taken up by the executive, or,
in default, by a Royal commission. He supported tho mo•
tion for a committee two years ago, because the Govern-
ment had refused a commission, and had refused everything
else, saying that there was no necessity for either inquiry
or improvement. On this occasion, the day after the hon.
member for Wakefield gave notice of his motion, there was
laid on the table a memorandum of the Duke of Somerset,
which admitted that there were undoubtedly many ques-
tions connected with the pay and position of naval officers
deserving further consideration. This was the first time the
admission had been made by the present Admiralty ; but
this memorandum and the speech of the noble lord were
inconsistent, for two years he raised the point that it was
unconstitutional to refer the question of the pay of the navy
to a committee of the house. (Hear.) lie wished tg
guardhimself against being supposed to agree with the hon. mem-
ber ler Wakefield in all the 4043 Qf his plan, but he en,