The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-25 00:00:00

make has reference to their half-pay, and I own it appears
to have some foundation. I have a statement showing the
full pay and half-pay of masters, chaplains, surgeons, and
paymasters. Taking the mean between the full pay and
half pay, the difference in regard to masters is 55., in regard
to chaplains ss. id., in regard to surgeons and engineers

... _
58.2 d., but the mean difference with regard to paymasters
is 13s. 11d. Consequently there appears a great discre-

pancy between the treatment of the paymasters and that of
the other branches of the service to which I have alluded.

Believing I have laid a foundation for the motion I have
to submit to the house, I will not go into details with re-

spect to the complaint; advanced by other classes—engi-

veers, naval instructors, &c. They are all mere or less ens-

contented with their position. The argument I draw from

;hese statements is that such complaints ought to be inves-
igated, for it cannot be to the interest of the service that

discontent should continue. I entreat the house to bear in

mind that brief but most expressive sentence in the report
of the Wellington Commission—" contented, and therefore
efficient." If you want efficiency, you ought to have con-
tentment, and you have contentment if you do justice.
(Hear, hear.) Do not, however, refuse to entertain
complaints when they are made. One element of national
defence is that your officers, who are your instruments for
defence, should be satisfied with their position; and if
your officers are contented you me much more likely to
have contented crews. (Hear, hear.) Why should the
Government refuse the commission I ask for ? If there
exist difficulties in the service, why should they not be in-
vestigated in the way in which the difficulties in:the sister
service were investigated ? I confess that I have only heard
one objection to a commission, and that was stated by the
hon. and gallant member for Southwark, who said that a
commission would be appointed by the Admiralty, and there-
fore he would not trust it. Ido not share in any such feel-

ing. Ido not believe that the Admiralty would deal other.
wise than fairly on such a question ; and, if a commission is
granted, I am confident that the Admiralty would see that
it is properly and honourably constituted. Indeed, there is
a considerable guarantee that such would be the case in the
circumstance that the appointment of the commission by the
Admiralty would be an important public act, performed
under serious responsibility, and before the eyes of the pub-
lic and the profession. As I believe, on the one hand, that
the Admiralty would not for a moment be inclined to con-
stitute such a commission unfairly, so I believe; on the
other that, whatever might be their inclinations, they would
not dare to attempt any unfair proceeding. I ask the house,
then, in the name of the navy and of the country, to accede
to my motion; and if the noble lord should not assent to it
I shall feel it to be my duty to take the sense of the house
upon my proposition, which I think essential to the welfare
of the naval service. The right hon. gentleman concluded
by moving " than an humble address be presented to her
Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to issue
a Royal Commission to consider the present System of pro-
motion and retirement in the Royal Navy, and the present
pay and position of the several classes of naval officers, and
to report what changes therein are desirable, with a view to
the increased efficiency of her Majesty's naval service."
Sir M. SEYMOUR, in seconding the motion, said these
commissions had been appointed with great advantage to
the service from the earliest periods of our history, and he
hoped a similar inquiry would not be refused in this in-
stance. With regard to the retirement scheme of the present
Admiralty he had been unable to discover the advantages of
it. No doubt it would be beneficial to the junior officers,
but he must lift up his voice on behalf of those whose past
services, commencing with the old war, were affected by
the scheme, Many of the mates who served in the old war
were now on the lieutenants' list and were not likely to
benefit—nay, might be placed at a positive disadvantage by
the scheme. He was old enough to remember the time
when the masters' mates came in as volunteers from the
merchant navy, and at a period when there was much hard
work to be done they did good service, and were foremost in
any gallant expeditions which were undertaken. He re-
gretted, therefore, that the scheme did not allow the long
services of mates to count. (Hear, hear.) The questions of
seniority and promotion, and even the first entries into the
service were all subjects requiring consideration, and if on
these or any other points dissatisfaction was shown to exist
in the service the cause for its existence should be removed.
This was not a party question. (Hear, hear.) The navy was
sometimes described as " the right arm" of this nation's
power, and, if that were true, whatever might tend to sa-
tisfy the reasonable demands of the personnel of the service
ought to meet with encouragement. (Hear.) The letters
which had reached him from all quarters had deeply im-
pressed him with the necessity of the commission now asked
for, and he hoped the Government would not refuse to ac-
cede to the motion.
Captain TALBOT wished to bear his testimony to the
feeling existing in the service in favour of such an inquiry.
There was a belief that justice was not done to all classes,
and that a strict investigation was necessary. He was not
prepared to attack the scheme of the noble lord, but at the
same time he thought it did not go far enough. (Hear.)
He trusted that the Government would be prepared to ap-
point a commission, the necessity of which had been fully
substantiated by the right hon. baronet. (Hear.)
Lord C. PAGET—I am far from complaining of the tone
and manner in which the right hon. baronet has alluded to
the claims and has set forth the grievances of the various
officers in the navy respecting pay, promotion, and retire-
ment. The only thing that surprises me is that the right
hon. gentleman, feeling these grievances so poignantly, did
not while he was at the Admiralty redress them. He was
in office longer than the present Board have been, and all
these questions musthave been just as patent to him then as
they are now. Why, then, did he not take steps during the
time in which he held this high position to carry into effect
all these schemes for the benefit of the officers of the navy ?
The right hon. gentleman certainly did deal with the ques-
tion, but in a very partial spirit, except with regard to one
class of officers—namely, the surgeons, towards whom he
acted very generously. The surgeons have very properly
shown great gratitude to the right hon. gentleman, and
only the other day an application was made to the Admi-
ralty to allow the right hon. gentleman's bust to be placed
in the museum at Hasler. But why when he was dealing
with the surgeons did the right hon. gentleman overlook the
claims of other officers ? Why were not the claims of the
masters, paymasters, engineers, and the chaplains con-
sidered ? The right hon. gentleman professed a great and
no doubt a sincere desire to improve the position of the
chaplains, and ho produced a scheme which was such an
utter failure that the chaplains declined to avail themselves
of it, and preferred to remain under the old system of pay.
That is a proof that the right hon. gentleman can fail as
well as his neighbours. I admit that the proposal which
the house has had before it within the last few days would
admit of enlargement. I never denied that if we could
deal with those excellent old officers in a more generous
spirit it would be very desirable, and would be very agree-
able to the Board of Admiralty. But onr duty is not
confined to getting as much money as we can, .but we
have to consider what is the best for the profession, and I
say again, after a careful considerationand comparison with
the respective officers in the sister service, that the scheme
proposed by the Board of Admiralty is a fair one. It is a
curious fact that my hon. and gallant friend who seconded
this motion admits that this scheme does offer advantages
to the junior branches of the service. It was exactly in
Ifavour of the junior branches of the service that this scheme
was proposed. No doubt, there are men who were mates
before I entered the service, and remain still in the junior
branches of the navy. Those are things which relate to
other days, and I wish to say as little about them as I can.
I admit that we who—as my hon. and gallant friend ex-
pressed it the other night—have been born with silver
spoons in our mouths, have had great advantages over
many gallant and meritorious officers—(hear)—but there
are cases of comparison between very fortunate individuals
on the one hand, and very unfortunate individuals on the
other band, which hardly bear upon the question before the
house. The object of the Government is to produce such a
scheme as at the least cost will insure a proper flow of pro-
motion in the navy. As far as regards the retirement of
officers, I believe the scheme will fulfil its object. With
regard to mates, it is not now for the first time I have to
consider the claims of these officers. All I can say is that
the Board of Admiralty has at this moment under consi-
deration the question of mates and their time. (Item.)
There is no doubt that any additional consideration that
caann be y
thi
ng givencan tob et
done
e subjectwh iwhich
will
h will b
note of advantage,
involve
and
v e r
ya nida,r t
ei f
expense, :the Board will at least take it into their serials
consideration. My impression is that it eve:Alla not
be any great increase of expense if some small allowance
for mates' sea-time were granted tt those officers
who have served many years. These are points
of detail which can be better dealt with by the Board
of Admiralty than by any Royal commission. There can be
no doubt that a commission appointed as my right
and ighthon
friend suggests would propose an increase of pa
im-
provement in the position of officers ; but when I show how
the cases of all these officers have been dealt with in former
times, how their positions have been improved by succes-
sive Boards of Admiralty, I think it will be seen that it
would be much better that the department under which
these officers serve should be charged from time to time with
the duty of making the requisite improvements in their
position, and of making such proposals as may gradually
conduce to the advantage of the service rather than to un-
settle the whole navy by appointing a commission which
cannot fail to excite hopes which must be infallibly blighted.
If you appoint a Royal commission, it will be taken
throughout the navy that you are going to adopt a grand
scheme to improve the position and increase the pny of all
officers in the service. I hold that that would he an un-
wholesome proceeding. I maintain that, upon a compari-
son of the navy with the army, as a general rule, officers in I
the navy are as fairly paid as officers in the sister service.
I will just refer to the case which my right hon. friend has
brought before the house, by which he sought to show that
the pay of captains in the navy is not commensurate with
their position, and that they are compelled to incur great
expenses in showing hospitality as incidents of their posi-
tion. But supposing that the right bon. gentleman has
this strong feeling for captains, any one would believe that
when such cases came before him when he was in office he
would immediately have taken up the matter and have
a
adopted steps to remedy those grievances. When he alluded
i
t4this
up by a ease the other night I went back to the Admiralty,
Icsahpotau.ilnd
of
aline-of-battle
.h had taken some steps while
expectingh was at
that
at the Board. I did find a very respectful memorial
drawn
of-battle ship, settingforth