The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-22 00:00:00

would not pain and grieve him by the way in which I the: f
spoke regarding his appointment. His hon. and gal lar
It
friend had also referred to the vice and rear admirals • o
f
the fleet ; but the committee consideredthat those s.f.fic
es
bore some analogy to the rank of field-marshalsm
ii ie
army ; and inasmuch as there were only those
offices at all analogous to the office of field-marshal, the
salary of one being about 4501. and that of the o tber
3501., it was thought on the whole advisable that t hose
two offices should not be abolished. (Hear, hearti ma
Sir G. PECHELL thought the °right hon. gent
had wholly mistaken his observations. The two Bic
of vice and rear-admiral were sinecures, and what :he
complained of was that they should be given toadmix,o ;
have
of the fleet. Let the officers of the fleet any 6
im
the country wished to give them—they were two -dis-
tinguished officers at the head of the. navy; but
dithoisaeitdwo
offices to which he referred belonged to the au c a-
partment, and were, he believed, under the Judge of
the Admiralty. With regard to the gallant officer re-
ferred to, he perfectly agreed in all that the right lon.
baronet had said respecting him. There was no occa-
sion, however, to give to those gallant officers situations
which should be distributed amongst those who were not
so well off.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, as far as he was aware of the
circumstances, the vice and rear-admirals of England
were now, as it were by accident, also admirals of the
fleet. The appointments of vice and rear-admirals
of England were made by selection, and made he be-
lieved almost universally from amongst the officers
most distinguished in the service. With regard to
the admirals of the fleet, they succeeded by senior-
ity to the top of the admirals' list, and it so happened
that the Vice and Rear Admirals of England, Sir Dyam
Martin and Sir George Cockburn, did, by seniority, get
to the top of the list. They were aged men, but most
superior officers, and such a circumstance was not likely
again to occur.
Mr. STAFFORD said the right hon. baronet had
given him advice as to the mode in which he should act,
and it was not the first time they had on that side re-
ceived advice from the opposite side of the house.. He
thought it would be well if the right hon. baronet had
stopped the hon. gentleman in his charge when the Chat-
ham petition committee was named. It did not strike
the right hon. gentleman while the accusation was going
on that there was anything wrong in it ; but when it
came to be a question of defence the right honourable
baronet suggested to him to postpone his answer until
the fitting time for it arrived. If it were a proper
time to bring forward a charge, it was likewise the
proper time to make the defence. The honourable
and gallant gentleman who made the charge said he had
been premature in his eulogy on the late board,
and his censure on that board might prove to be prema-
ture also ; it would have been fairer for him to wait
until they had heard something more than the open!ing
speech of the counsel for the petitioners before the Chat-
ham committee. He did not know anything of the pro-
ceedings of the committee, but he promised to take the
advice, and more than the advice, of the right hon onra-
ble baronet, and, except something was brought forward
in a less chaotic form and in a more palpable shape, he
would not defend himself from a charge which W 11.4 not
distinctly made. He begged to call attention to the fact
that a charge that should be in vote 3 was removed to
vote 1. It had reference to an officer employed on shore,
but who was kept on the books of a flag-ship, to perform
certain duties which were not strictly within the scope
of the vote No. 1. He would be glad to hear some ex-
planation with respect to this arrangement, which
affected a. most gallant and meritorious officer (Captain
Warden), and the situation he occupied in connection
with the steam executive of the navy.
Sir 3. GRAHAM said the services of the officer re-
ferred to were of the most valuable kind, and he did not
think they could be obtained in a more effective manner
than at present. As at present advised, he was not pre-
pared to alter the arrangement with regard to Captain
Warden.
Mr. OSBORNE said that when the charge was made
by the gallant admiral behind him, his right hon. friend
the First Lord of the Admiralty had observed to him
that it was perfectly irregular ' • but the experience of his
hon. friend opposite must show him that it was more
the duty of the chairman to check the hon. and gallant
admiral than of the First Lord of the Admiralty. So far
as the Board of Admiralty was concerned, there was no
charge made by them against the conduct of the previous
board.
Sir F. BARING begged to explain that it was not
easy to obtain the services of an officer for a shore ap-
pointment, unless he was put on the books of some ship.
Captain Warden, as well as he recollected, was actually
in the command of a ship when he took this situation
and abandoned that command. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME called attention to the fact that this vote
was greater by 2,600/. than it was last year. He begged
to confirm the statement of the First Lord of the Ad-
miralty, respecting what had taken place in the commit-
tee in reference to the appointment of vice and rear
admirals. The officers referred to were to retain their
sinecure appointments ; and as to the other sinecures,
the money was to be laid out in good service pensions.
They should see that the money was properly applied.
and it was a question whether they had a right to award
1501. to Captain Warden, the last person who had ob-
tained a portion of that money, for services connected
with the Burmese war. lie wished to know when an
effort would be made to bring the whole Admiralty de-
partment under one roof, and complained of the apart-
ments where the charts were kept at present in this
country. The charts were kept in a garret, but in Paris
they were kept in a saloon. (Hear, hear.) He thought
the time was come when his right hon. friend (Sir J.
Graham) ought to turn his mind to the consideration of
how far the Admiralty department might be brought
under one head. He (Mr. Hume) greatly admired the
French system, where the whole of the revenue depart-
ment was under one management. The expense was
not so much a matter of consideration ; efficiency was
what they ought to look to. He also strongly objected
to the practice of changing the Lords of the Admiralty
with every change of administration. It was a great
evil both to the country and to the service. He thought,
too, that it was not to the interest of the public service
that the First Lord of the Treasury and the First Lord
of the Admiralty should have to come down every day
to form a house, and in order, as it were, to make an
appearance. Reverting to the practice of changing the
Lord of the Admiralty with a change of administration, he
thought it fit and proper that the First Lord of the
Admiralty; and the Secretary to the Admiralty, should
be changed on a change of Government, but no other
member of that department. The inconvenience of the
present practice had been demonstrated in the case of
Lord Derby's Administration. There was no man more
calculated to do honour to the service of the navy, and
to promote its interests, than the Duke of Northumber-
land • but on his appointment to the office of First Lord
of the Admiralty, on the accession to power of Lord
Derby, he was obliged to have recourse to strangers in
conducting the affairs of the department, instead of to
the men who had acquired such a considerable amount
of experience in that department under the preceding
Government. He (Mr. Hume) hoped this question would
be taken into consideration at a future period, and that
his right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham) would shortly be
able to devise some remedy.
Sir J. GRAHAM begged to remind his hon. friend
the member for Montrose, that before the committee on
salaries he (Sir J. Graham) had stated not only on his own
experience, but from declarations, in which he entirely
concurred, made to him by Earl Spencer, who was a
most distinguished First Lord of the Admiralty, that it
was his opinion, considering the duty of that board, and
its constitution, that it was indispensable for the public
service that there should be -resident at the Admiralty
at all times a sufficient number of members to consti-
stitute a board ; in other words, that there ought to be
at all times present there, day and night, at least two
Lords of the Admiralty and the Secretary. Communi-
cations frequentlyarrived at the Admiralty from the
outports, requiring in some cases an immediate answer,
and there was great advantage to the public service in
having on the premises at all times, or on the shortest
possible notice, some members of the board. His hon.
friend (Mr. Hume) thought the interests of the public
service demanded that °the Lords of the Admiralty
should be at their posts before ten o'clock in the
morning ; but he (Sir J. Graham) would submit that,
under the present system of parliamentary government,
which required that the heads of public departmetts
should be in attendance in that house, where they were
frequently detained until one or two o'clock in the morn-
ing, it was not reasonable to expect that the Lords of
the Admiralty could be at their posts at the Admiralty
so early as half-past nine or ten o'clock in the morning.
Nor did he think it reasonable, considering the vicissi-
tudes and changes of political Government, to call upon
distinguished officers holding offices at the Admiralty, to
come from the outports and make arrangements for their
residence in town. Again, to say that the administration
was not to have any of their political friends members of
the Board of Admiralty was a condemation of our parlia-
mentary representative system. He agreed with his
honourable friend (Mr. Hume) that real efficiency was a
sound and true Political principle in the management of
a public department, He thought also that the concen-
tration of the service of the Board of Admiralty in one
edifice would be an advantage to the public, and fulfil
the dictum that economy and efficiency were identi-
cal. His honourable friend had referred to the depart-
ment of the Admiralty in France,. but he (Sir J.
Graham would remind
hi m that the
nGovernmentsplendid ofFrance was for the most part
carried
build-
ings, and by immense establishments. Re believed that,
in the French Board of Admiralty, they had a greater
number of clerks than we had. (No, no.) Re repeated
he was favourable to the idea of having the department
of the Admiralty conducted in one edifice, but, before he
could give any pledge to carry that into effect, the house
must look very narrowly into the plans, and scrutinise
the estimates with great care.
Mr. VERNON begged to ask the First Lord of the
Admiralty whether it was the intention of that depart-
ment to make any further use of preserved meats at all
for provisioning the navy, and whether any contract had
been taken for that purpose ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said there was none of Goldner's
preserved meats now in store. There was no fresh con-
tract entered into for a further supply ; and no pre-
served meat was now used in the navy, except very small
quantities as comforts for the service. He might add,
that steps had been taken to proceed against Goldner
and his sureties for the penalty.
Captain SCOBELL complained that the officers of the
navy were suffering a great deal of disappointment, in-
asmuch as they felt that nine-tenths of the promotions in
the navy in a time of peace, under the present system,
were filled up from parliamentary or family influence.
Sir F. BARING felt it hiaiduty to give distinctly and
solemnly to the committee a complete contradiction to
the assertion of the hon. member (Captain Scobell).
(Cheers.) lie (Sir F. Baring) could assure the commit-
tee most distinctly and solemnly that the promotions in
the navy were not made the means of political patron-
age, either of rewarding one side, or of gaining the
were any pro,
other, during his tenure of office ; nor