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

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
my 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, 40 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 41111011 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 Q4llOOl/ 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 ci9 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 desirable. In making
these observations I trust I have said 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 had proposed he t
3...tought it would be a posi-
tive disadvantage rather tha'
~. 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 wnsideralffion. It was not decent or respectful to the
cummitt'lo to ask them to grant a large sum
had moneyt
to
been
car.. 4 out a plan the papers relating to which
laid before the house. He could not 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
itnhot
Choi:kg
iicinegratthi
oant
proposal. He assumed that, if it were pressed, a better
c i e Admiralnt lll aVIAnLo Ct
been° r T
a cl
loon: eu dr r feodr
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.