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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 25, 1860.

commission. This is obviously the most prudent course to
adopt. We have already two plans before us. The result of
a commission may be to devise some third plan combining
the advantages, while getting rid of the difficulties, of both.
I am fortified in this view by the fact that I am only asking
the Government to grant now in the case of the navy what
has once before been granted for the navy, and what has
upon several occasions been granted for the army. In 1840
the Duke of Wellington was the henoured president of a
commission which sat to investigate this very question of
promotion and retirement with respect to both services. I
shall presently advert further to the results of that com-
mission, but let me also remind the house that in 1854 a
commission was appointed to consider the subject of promo-
tion and retirement in the army. The form of that commis-
sion shoes how very closely analogous are the two cases ;
the grounds for an inquiry are precisely the same. But I
do not rest my motion upon this question of promotion and
retirement. I wish, likewise, to repeat to the house what
I stated on a former occasion, that at the present moment
there is scarcely one class of officers in the royal navy who
are not more or less in a state of discontent with their posi-
tion. In the report of the Wellington commission of 1840
I find the following passage :

" Carefully weighing the urgent reasons that exist for a
rigidly economical administration of the public revenues on
the one hand, and on the other the no less imperative ne-
cessity of keeping the limited naval establishment em-
ployed in time of peace, energetic and therefore useful, con-
tented and therefore efficient, we have no hesitation in
earnestly addressing our unanimous recommendation to
your Majesty, that there should be a considerable increase in
the rates of sea pay allowed .to navy lieutenants."
That commission also took into consideration the pay and
position of captains, and I find in the report a statement
which I ventured to make the other day, that the position.
of captains with respect to pay is eminently unsatisfactory
and unjust to that most important class of officers. The
report further alludes, as I did on a former evening, to the
great charges which fall upon captains from the duties of
hospitality which devolve upon them in the command of
their ships, and it recommends that certain articles of outfit
which captains had been compelled to provide for themselves
should be provided at the public cost, the officers paying a
percentage on the value. That recommendation was adopted,
and hence the system which has since prevailed in this
respect ; but with regard to the pay of captains, and with
regard likewise to many other particulars connected with
the navy, ate state of the profession twenty years ago was
very different from what it is now. At that tame the pay
of captains was on a footing which, in my opinion, was far
more just and rational than at the present moment. Cap-
tains were then divided into three classes as regarded half-
pay, in the same way as they are now divided into three
classes as regards full pay, according to seniority; but their
full pay, which now turns upon seniority, then turned upon
the rate of the ships which they commanded, and therefore
upon the expenses which they were obliged to incur. There
were then six classes of ships. A. captain in command of a
sixth rate received £3OO a-year, while a captain in command
of a first rate received as much as £BOO. The whole of
that is now changed, and the pay of a captain no longer
bears any relation to the class of his ship, and therefore to
the expenses which he is obliged to incur. I consider this
question of the pay of captains to be one of the branches of
this subject which most imperatively requires attention. In
former debate I mentioned the fact that in two instances
officers of great ability refused commands because they
could not afford to accept them. It is disgraceful that
such a state of things should exist. Perhaps the
house will permit me to read brief extracts from
letters which I have received in consequence of what
I then stated from officers of high distinction, and now
on full pay on board her Majesty's ships. I shall not men-
tion the names of the writers, but shall be happy to give
them to the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, or
to any hon. member who may express a wish to have them.
The first letter comes from an officer who is now an admi-
ral and on full pay. He entirely concurs in my view of the
retirement question, and alluding to what I stated on a
former occasion about the insufficiency of a captain's pay,
he states that between his attaining the rank of commander
and his attaining his flag, he had no less than seven com-
mands. He says :
" I question if £4,000 would repay me for what all my
ships cost me from the day I was made a commander until
I got my flag, and I had seven different fresh commands."
The writer of this letter would be regarded by the officers of
the navy generally as a fortunate man; and, without refe-
rence to his interest or his position, I doubt whether the
profession would not say he is the most brilliant and best
officer we have. He had what is usually called the good
luck to obtain seven commands between his commander's
rank and his flag. How little do the profession suppose that
these advantages, as they are termed, have been gained at a
cost to his own pocket of £4,000 The next letter comes
from an officer also of high distinction, now commanding
one of our blockships. He writes in these terms :
" I have dipped heavily into my small private means to
arrive at and keep up my position, and, unless there were a
naval war, when I would live on bare ship's allowance
rather than not serve, I could not afford to take a more
active command than that I at present hold from the feeling
that I should be unable to support my position as it ought
to be maintained in the service afloat, and at the same time
do justice to my children; and I know of raanyofficers who
are similarly circumstanced."
I shall now read a letter from an officer who is not at pre-
sent on full pay, but who was so a very short time ago, be:
cause I myself appointed him to a ship. He writes :
" In the first place, as you clearly pointed out, on a cap-
tain commissioning a ship he cannot prepare himself for sea
• to proceed to a foreign station under a sum varying from
£3OO to £4OO, depending on the class of ship he is appointed
to and the station he is ordered to ; and how is an officer
dependant on the service to obtain this sum except by bor-
rowing, and what prospect has he of repaying it with in-
terest at the end of his commission, when his full pay is
barely sufficient to provide common necessaries for himself,
to say nothing of having to entertain his officers occasion-
ally at his table ? An officer placed in such circumstances
is prevented from being as courteous as he is enjoined to
be by policy, and even by the rules of the service, to foreign
officers whom he is constantly meeting ; he cannot even re•
turn the civilities which they show him. This distressing
and undignified position I have personally experienced in
the ship you gave me a commission to. . . At this time
an American commodore and other foreign ships were at
anchor in the bay, when, of course, the usual civilities of
calling, &c., were exchanged, and I was frequently invited
to dine on board one or other of these ships, when I was at
once placed in the painful and perplexing position of accept-
ing these invitations without the means of returning them
or refusing them, and feeling ashamed to state the plain
reason that my country did not pay me sufficiently to en-
able me to return their hospitality. . . This is the posi-
tion every captain or commander commanding a ship is
more or less subject to on receiving an appointment—a
position which I feel confident the House of Commons will
never permit the captains of the English navy to be placed
in when it is fairly pointed out to them—and is a complete
corroboration of your statement in the house."
Let me read one more letter from an officer who a year ago
was on full pay as a commander. He writes :
" I can speak from experience as to the pay of a com-
mander and a lieutenant in command, having servel 41
years in the former and nearly two years in the latter rank ;
and I am quite sure, unless an officer has some private in-
come, a command is a source of expense, and not of emolu-
ment."

I referred on a former evening to the difference between the
French service and ours in this respect. France does not
allow her officers to be exposed to these painful difficulties
and trials. In the same letter I have a brief statement of
the rates of pay in the two services. A French lieutenant in
command receives 15f. a day as table money, which is equal
to 12s. 6d., and his daily pay is 7s. ; total, 19s. 6d. An
English lieutenant receives, daily pay, lls. ; light money,
ls. ; value of rations, 10d. ; total, 12s. 10d., as against 19s.
6d. A capitaine de frigate receives, daily pay, 9s. sd. ;
table money, 16s. ; total, £1 ss. sd. An English com-
mander receives, daily, 16s. 6d. ; light money and rations,
ls. 10d. ; total, 18s. 4d., as against £1 ss. sd. I state these
facts in confirmation of what I have already mentioned,
and to show the great difference which prevails between
the two services, and the great hardship inflicted on the
English commanders or lieutenants in command, who are
called on to discharge their duties to their country at a posi-
tive loss to themselves. (Hear, hear.) I will next advert
to the case of the masters. I remember that last. year my
noble friend, soon after assuming his present office, made a
charge against me on the ground that I had not dealt with
the masters. Well, my answer is that my noble friend was
one of those who prevented me, because I was turned out of
office, and was consequently unable to go on with what I
began. (Hear, hear.) Let me tell my noble friend that
I presume to think that if I had not been turned out of
office I should have dealt with the masters rather better
than he has done. Ido not charge the present Board of
Admiralty with doing nothing in regard to the masters,
because it has dealt with them, but in such an un-
satisfactory way that the complaints are not removed.
Now, if I had dealt with the case of the masters at all, I
think I should have dealt with it in a manner to quiet their
complaints. I have here a letter from a well-known master
in one of our line-of-battle ships, and he states :
" One ill effect which the late circular must produce is
the desire to avoid the regular line of service in men-of-
war, and get into small tenders, storeships, &c., —appoint-
ments which are much, more permanent and better paid.
These large ships—especially flagships—are to be avoided
in a pecuniary point of view. Could I exchange into the
smallest possible vessel bearing a master, and having charge
0,1 stores, my pay would be greatly increased."
tha;ire another letter, but I will not trouble the house with
'''''acts from it. The substance of the statement is that
es made by the Board of Admiralty with respect
ttheo the masters are not. only unsatisfactory to the masters
themselves,Vic in.
tia but are very prejudicial to her Majesty's ser-
thera is
an increased
that in consequence of these changes
masters,
assistants,
inducement to enter the service as
ment to remain in ill
bent there is no proportionate induce-
uservice. Thus you have a number of
young menentering
of the education and ni”ters' assistants, taking the benefit
trainingservice,
in the navy, and then leaving
for the merchant
they get on better than if
they had remained in the ill-requited service of the navy.
Another branch of the profession which the Admiralty
dealt was that of the paymasters, but the Board did not
the
respect to
deal with them in a way to
all these eases Ido not commit msatisfy yself With
to expression of
arty opinion as to whether these complaints are well or ill-
f'.
ef og a
nded. I only say that, if they are not weilsl; waded,
d
Jot them, after investigation, be exposed and d
Taut if they are well-founded, then let not a feeling of just
discontent be cherished in the Queen's service. With
respect to the paymasters, I know very well that the higher
classes are in receipt of considerable pay as compared with
some other officers .ip. the navy; but the complaint they

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. ld., in regard to surgeons and engineers
ss. 2d., but the mean difference with regard to paymasters
is 13s. 11. d. 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 complaints advanced by other classes—engi-
neers, naval instructors, &c. They are all mere or less dis-
contented with their position. The argument I draw from
these statements is that such complaints ought to be inves-
tigated, 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 are much more likely to
have contented crews. (Hear, hear.) Why should the
Government refuse the commission I ask for ? If there
exist difficulties inthe service, why should they not be in-
vestigated in the way in which the difficulties inithe 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 pulelic 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
ather that, whatever magut-tye mete ancnnatious, 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 tq 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 whole 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 ef 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 Haslar. 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 he 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 our 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 consideration and 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
favour 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 hand, 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 ef 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. (Hear.)
There is no doubt that any additional consideration that
can be given to that subject will be of advantage, and, if
anything Can be done which will not involve any verylarge
expense, the Board will at least take it into their serious
consideration. My impression is that it would not
be any great increase of expense if some small allowance
for mates' sea-time were granted to 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 hon.
friend suggests would propose an increase of pay and 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 pry of all
officers in. the service. I hold that that would be an un-
wholesome proceeding. I maintain that, upon a compari-
son of the navy with the army, as a general rule, officers in
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 aro compelled to incur great
expenses in showing hospitality as incidents of their posi-
tion. But supposing that the right hon. gentleman has
this strong feeling for captains, any one would believe, that
when such cases came before hi (when he was in office he
would immediately have taken up the matter and have
adopted steps to remedy those grievances. When he alluded
to this case the other night I went back to the Admiralty,
expecting that I should find he had taken some steps while
he was at the Board. I did find a very respectful memorial
drawn
up by a captain cf a due-of-battle ship, setting forth

his expenses, and urging that his pay was inadequate to his
expeJaditure. I looked to see what the right hon. gentle-
man had done. I found that all the other members of the
then. Board of Admiralty expressed strong opinions that
the pay should be increased, but when the memorial
reached the right hon. baronet I only found the word
" read." That was all the notice he then took of a very re-
spectful memorial which was laid before him. I only want
to show that my right hon. friend when out of office, and
with full leisure to think over these matters, is bringing
forward cases withwhich heshould have dealt himself when
he was at the Admiralty. As to this very memorial, what
has the present board done ? It was unfortunately laid be•.
fore them after the estimates had been prepared, but the
Board made a minute that in the next estimates the case of
the captains should be dealt with, and at the beginning of
next year we shall be prepared to propose some allowance
for officers in command of ships. The right hon. gentleman
made a comparison between the pay of officers in the French
and English navies respectively. But again my right hon.
friend tells the house what is certainly interesting, butwhat
is not complete. The captains in the English navy get al-
lowances of plate, linen, &c., which are not granted in the
French navy, and those allowances must be taken into con-
sideration in instituting a comparison between the pay of
those respective services. The hon. member for Devonport
alluded to the time passed in the Coastguard service being
by the Admiralty proposal allowed to count as one year in
three. I would ask my hon. and gallant friend, a distin-
guished officer who had been all his life at sea, whether he
thinks that officers serving in the Coastguard are entitled to
count their time as respects superannuation exactly as if
_ . . s

..... _
they were serving on distant foreign stations, many o
them unhealthy and very expensive ? I say the idea is
perfectly monstrous. It would be unjust to the officers on
active service ; it would hold out a premium to every mar •
rued officer, who would, no doubt, be very glad to live with
his family. to say, " I will enter the Coastguard, where I
have equal hopes of promotion, superannuation, and in-
creased half-pay. Why should I go and serve in the
West Indies, or on the coast of Africa ?" It would be im-
possible to carry out any such scheme as that. With re-
gard to harbour and guardship service, I think it may very
well be arranged that the time during which officers are
employed in the harbour guardships should net count alto-
gether in the same ratio as the time passed in real sea ser-
vice. An hon. member proposed to put a question to me
to-day se to the actual position. of the reserved captains. The
position of these officers, according to the Admiralty scheme,
is this :—Reserved captains who have served less than nine
years will continue to receive the half-pay which they may
be receiving at the time of retirement. Officers who have
served over nine years and under 12 will receive 108 6d per
day ; those who have served over 12 and under 15 years,
12s 6d per day ; those who have served over 15 and under
20 years, 14s 6d per day; and those who have served more
than 20 years, 16s 6d per day. I beg the hon. member for
Portsmouth's attention to this. Every reserved cap'ain
who has served at sea above 20 years will receive an addi-
tion of 6s a-day to his half-pay. The hon. gentleman
seemed disposed to claim for those officers the same position
in the Navy List as those have who are liable to go upon
active service. It would, I maintain, be very unjust to
officers on the active list if men nominally having the same
commission but never liable to,be called on to serve were
allowed to rise with them on the Navy List, and so to strug-
gle upwards with them for their flags. The right hon. baro-
net the member for Portsmouth, when as First Lord he
esiablished this scheme, distinctly stated over and over again
that he could not put this class of officers in the same posi-
tion as the active list ; and successive Boards of Admiralty
have always acted on the same principle. With regard to
the motion of my right hon. friend, I think it far better
that these cases should be dealt with by the Government as
they arise. A reference to what has been done of late years
will, I believe, show that it is unnecessary to have a commis-
sion appointed to examine this question. [The noble lord
then enumerated the various changes made between Feb.,
1855, and the present time by different Boards of Admiralty
in the pay and retirement of masters, commanders, cap-
-1 tains, engineers, marines, medical officers, chaplains, and
. other grades and branches of the service.] He continued
—I quote this to show that this subject has been constantly
before the Admiralty, and that as it becomes manifest that
the pay or position of any class of officers requires revision
their case is taken into consideration, and year after year
Parliament is asked to grant considerable sums for their
benefit. I think, therefore, it would be wiser to trust to the
responsible department of the State to suggest such altera-
tions as may from time to time be required to improve the
position of those officers who may appear to be insuffici-
ently paid, rather than by calling together a commission to
open the whole subject, and thereby, in my opinion, to ren •
der the officers of every branch of the navy unsettled in
their minds. Each grade thinking that it has a grievance
would naturally lering it forward, availing itself of the op-
portunity thus afforded toit, as we should all of us do in the
same case if we knew that a body of men were about to sit
for the improvement of our condition. For that reason I
believe it is most undesirable that such a commission
should be appointed. With due respect for my right hon.
friend, and for the great zeal and talent he brought to 'sear
on the discharge of his heavy and important duties while at
the head of the Admiralty, I say it is most injurious to the
public service, when the luau who may fill such an office
comes down and tells the House of Commons that every
class in the navy is discontented. I say that is holding out
a positive premium to discontent. (Hear.) I beg leave to
deny that this wide-spread dissatisfaction exists. Naval
men, no doubt, like all other Englishmen, have the privi-
lege of grumbling, and a blessed privilege it is—(a laugh)
—and that sometimes they have a good cause for their
grumbling lam quite ready to admit. But Boards of Ad-
miralty—whether that presided over by my right hon. friend
or the present one—have had these very questions relating
to the pay of captains and other ranks continually before
them, and wherever the Board sees any class of officers
whose position requires improvement, I can only say they
will not fail to give the matter due attention. Under these
circumstances I trust the house will not agree to the corn •
mission for which my hon. friend has moved. (Hear.)
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE could not regard the speech of
the noble lord as having satisfactorily proved that the pro-
posed commission ought not to be appointed. The noble
lord said that post capping on the reserved list would re-
ceive great advantages under his plan. He would state to
the house the services of ono of those officers, and the effect
of the noble lord's plan upon his position, as the case was a
very fair sample of many. The officer in question had
served 16 years as a midshipman and mate, 17 years as a
lieutenant in the Coastguard and Coast Blockade, and seven
years as an inspecting commander of the Coastguard. For
that aggregate service of 40 years he won* receive only
seven years and nine months' consideration under the noble
lord's scheme. Yet this officer had been in six different en-
counters with smugglers, had been three times left for dead,
and had an arm broken. He had served as midshipman and
mate for nearly as long a period as gentlemen born with a
silver spoon in their mouth took to attain the rank of post
captain. In his opinion, the time had come when a com-
mittee ought to be appointed to inquire into the position of
the navy, because there was in that service very general and
well-founded discontent. Such a commission ought to be of
very wide and comprehensive character, and the inquiry held
under it ought to commence with the warrant officers, who,
from the paucity of efficient midshipmen, very frequently
had to perform the duties of officers of that rank. Boys
were at present admitted into the navy too early and almost
without any education, and, in consequence, much time
elapsed before they were of any use as officers. Such a
commission as that now asked for might properly inquire
into this part of the subject and recommend such alterations
as would remofe the evils which attended the present state
of things. Lieutenants did not occupy so good a position as
officers of the same rank in the army. They were allowed
no servants, and gotno leave of absence tovisit their friends,
and when appointed to the command of gunboats, although
they had to prepare returns similar in proportion to those
made out for the Royal Albert, they received an addition of
only ls. 6d. or 2s. to their pay. The noble lord said that he
intended to look into the case of the-post captains. It was
high time that he should do. There were now many cap-
tains and commanders who were carrying on the business of
the country out of their own funds ; and he did not believe
there was a single captain in our magnificent fleet who had
not a private fortune who would not be glad to escape from
his position if he could do so with honour. The expense of
entertaining not only their own officers, but those of other
squadrons, and of foreign navies, and strangers of dis-
tinction, was so great that it . must seriously diminish the
private fortunes of all captains of line-of-battle ships and
frigates. He could never see why a captain in the navy
should dine by himself, and believed that the system of
messing adopted in the army might with advantage be in-
troduced into the sister service. The right hon. baronet the
member for Droitwich had stated what were the rates of
pay in the French navy. With the permission of the house
he would mention those of the American marine. In the
American service a senior captain received £1,177 per an-
num ; a captain in charge of a squadron, £1,041; all other
captains, £9ll 9s. 2d. ; commanders who had served five
years, £650 ss. ; those who had commanded less, £5BB 10s.
10d. ; lieutenants after 13 years, £468 16s. 11d. ; after 11
years, £ll6 13s. 4d. ; after 9 years, £395 10s. fid. ; after 7
years, £354 3s. 4d. ; under 7 years,
£312 10s. ; mates, £172
18s. 4d. Lieutenants after 13 years' service got £lB a year
more than post captains in the British navy ; junior lieute-
nants more than commanders ; and mates within a few
pounds as much as commanders. I,Lord C. Paget—Read
the half-pay.] Captains on leave or waiting for orders,
which answered to our half-pay, got for the first
five years 1,900 dollars, and for the second, 2,016 dollars ;
lieutenants received from 1,200 dollars to 1,450 dollars. He
suppzrted the motion of the right hon. baronet, and hoped
that the commission, if agreed to, would receive wide
powers to investigate the question of pay and promotion.
Sir C. NAPIER said he came down to the house with
the firm determination of opposing the right hon. baronet.
(A laugh.) Since hearing his statement, however, he had
changed his mind. lie bad never before heard any First
Lord of the Admiralty support the claims of the officers of
the navy as the right hon. baronet had done, nor had he
ever listened to a fairer and more accurate statement of
their case. It was of the utmost importance that the cap-
tains should be properly remunerated. He knew from ex-
perience how prejudicial it was to the discipline of the navy
when their pay was inadequate to maintain the dignity of
their position by receiving their officers at table and living
in proper style. It lowered diem ill Lll9 eyes bot 4 of officers

and men. When the captain was forced, from the smallness
of his means, to order a chop and potato for dinner, there
was a great quizzing at the galley, and he was called " a

poor, miserable, shabby devil." (A laugh.) It was impossi-
ble for a captain to furnish his quarters on board ship, even

in the most economical manner, for less than £3OO. It

was quite true that the Admiralty supplied officers with
linen and plate, but they charged more than a Jew's price

for them. - He would certainly vote for the commission

with his right hon. friend, and he hoped it would inquire
not only into the :position of the higher class of officers,

but also into that of the warrant and petty officers and sea-
men, whose condition undoubtedly required amelioration.
He trusted also that the commission would not neglect

to inquire into the provision made for warrant offi-
.

cers' widows, which was quite disgraceful. (Hear, hear.)
It was absurd to hope that political interest would ever cease
under any administration to have its effect on the disposal,
of patronage, but surely merit and seniority ought not to
be entirely overlooked. In France so many officers were
promoted by seniority, and so many by what was called
" selection." That was a question the commission would do
well to consider. The noble and gallantlord (Lord C.Paget)
had told the house that they had better leave the matter to

he Admiralty, and that he was going to do a great deal

next year. But the Admiralty was a moveable body, and
perhaps the noble snd gallant lord might not be in office
next year to fulfil his promise. (A laugh.) Besides, experi-
ence warned them that very antiquated notions prevailed at
the Admiralty, and that a question of this kind could not
be left entirely to its discretion. The noble lord had asked
why, if the right hon. gentleman complained of so little
having been done, he did not do more when he was at the
Admiralty. It was only fair, however, to remember that the
right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) effected mach, and,

if he had remained in office, would have done a great des'
more. He did not think that the right hon. gentlemanwas
open to the charge brought against him by the noble lord,
of causing discontent among the officers of the navy. He
had, on the contrary, endeavoured to ameliorate their
position, and had left a bright exempla for his successors
to follow, which he was sorry to say they had not done.
The noble lord's attack upon the right hon. gentleman was
both unjust and ungenerous. If the noble lord
could show that the present Board of Admiralty
had been more successful in its administration than the
last there would be some reason why the noble lord should
find fault with the naval administration of the right
hon. gentleman. Before the noble lord came into office he
made many most severe accusations against the late Boards.
He accused them of spending £5,000,000 in 11 years, either
improperly or without accounting for it. The noble lord
was not able to justify that accusation before the committee,
but he had never withdrawn the charge. The noble lord
was mistaken in asserting that his speeches had caused dis-
content in the navy, and that he had gone about among
the sailors to excite discontent. He had, on the contrary,
kept away from the men, for the express purpose of avert-
ing such a charge. When the noble lord said that corporal
punishment should be done away with, he did more harm
to the service than he would ever be able to do good. He
should support the motion for a commission, and he trusted
it would be composed of men who really knew the service,
and who were not afraid to speak their minds to the Admi-
ralty. If, however, the recommendations of such a com-
mission were only to be partially attended to, like those of
the Manning Commission and the Greenwich Hospital
Commission, then it would be better not to appoint a com-
mission at all. if the rules of fairness and justice were
observed there would be no difficulty in manning the navy.
With regard to the officers, if the discontent which was said
to exist really did prevail, the sooner the Admiralty set to
work to ameliorate their condition the better.
Sir F. T. BARING would not enter upon the numerous
topics which had occupied the attention of the last two
speakers, but would address himself to the actual question
before the house. The motion of the right hon. gentleman
was for an inquiry upon two grounds. The first, which
stood at the head of the motion, was for a commission to
consider the present system of promotion and retirement,
and the pay and position of the officers. The second branch
of the inquiry stood upon a different footing, and he would
first take that question which in the course of his official
career claimed much of his attention—namely, retirement
from the service. Now, upon what ground did the right
hon. gentleman ask for an inquiry into the subject of re-
tirement ? He must regard this as much too serious a
matter to be dealt with as a party question—(hear, hear)—
and he confessed he was struck with the want of any good
ground for the appointment of a commission for taking the
retirement of officers out of the hands of the Admiralty, and
vesting it in an independent authority. Was any great
evil shown to exist in regard to the present state of promo-
tion and retirement? When he (Sir F. Baring) was at the
Admiralty the list of admirals was filled with officers in-
capable of going to sea, and who by their age were, however
gallant their services had been, unfit to command in time
of war. It was admitted that this was no longer the case,
and this was an important improvement. When he came
into office it was his duty to look out for an admiral for
some service that was required. After doing his best he was
obliged to choose an officer who was above seventy years of
age. If war had broken out at that time there would only
have been two admirals under sixty who could have been
Bent to eca. (Hear.) He earned a great deal of unpopularity
by the measures he undertook, but he had the consolation
of feeling that, if a war now broke out, and it was necessary
for the Admiralty to look oat for an admiral there would be
plenty of admirals young and active enough to be able to
do their duty and serve their country efficiently. The cap-
tains' list was also similarly encumbered. An officer was,
however, no longer obliged to serve thirteen years as a cap-
tain, and the captains' list was now similarly supplied with
young and efficient officers. With regard to commanders
and lieutenants, a fixed number for each rank was estab-
lished. It must be admitted that until the specified number
was reached promotion was slow, to a certain degree. If
the right hon. gentleman, however, fairly compared the
promotion of ten years under the new system with the pro-
motion of ten years when there was no limit, he would
find that the promotion of captains and commanders was
much more rapid now than in the old times, Promotion
was then made out of 3,000 names, while it was now made
out of 1,000, so that the chance of promotion was much
better than it used to be. After a considerable struggle
things had just been brought to this condition—that the
list had been brought down to a proper number, and for the
future every vacancy would be filled up. Promotion would
consequently be more rapid than it had ever been before ;
and at such a moment nothing could be more impolitic than
to institute an inquiry. He was therefore not inclined to
support the motion for a commission, the effect of which
would be to raise expectations of a great change in the
system of retirement. What happened at the close of the
last war ? Such a mass of promotions was then poured upon
the officers in the navy that the service had suffered ever
since. He hoped the house would take warning by that
example, and not allow their feelings of generosity to carry
them too far. The right hon. Bart. the member for Droit-
with had alluded to his plan of promotion and retirement.
Why, the right hon. gentleman had put forth three sepa-
rate schemes, and the house ought to be informed which of
them received the approval of the late Board of Admiralty.
It was rumoured that the plans of the right hon. gentleman,
however acceptable to the navy, did not afford much satis-
faction to his own colleagues in the Admiralty ; but, whe-
ther that was so or not, the right hon. gen: leman was bound
to show, on moving for a commission of inquiry, that
there existed some evil which required a remedy. The
house was asked to authorize an inquiry into the pay and
position of all the officers in the navy. That was a very
formidable task to undertake. The Wellington Commis-
sion of 1840 had been cited as a precedent. Circum-
stances had changed since 1840 ; but the Wellington
Commission was not 'very fortunate in its recommenda-
tions, because when he went to the Admiralty in 1849 he
found the state of the Navy List as bad as it could be. He
objected to intrust to a commission a duty which properly
belonged to the Government. A commission was a very
expensive luxury ; it was not responsible either to
Parliament or the country, whereas the Government were
bound noConly to inquire into the grievances which might
exist in the naval service, but to carry into effect whatever
measures of redress might be necessary. He opposed the
motion, moreover, because, if carried, it would produce un-
comfortable feelings in the navy and excite hopes which
could never be realised. There was not a finer service in the
world than the English navy ; but among its other privi-
leges, it enjoyed that of grumbling at its supposed griev-
ances, and he was not astonished that the right hon. baro-
net the member for Dioitwich had received letters from so
many officers detailing cases of hardship and injustice.
With regard to the old mates, he heard with great pleasure
the statement of the noble lord that their case was under
the consideration of the Admiralty. In like manner he
wished all the other cases which had been mentioned to be
inquired into ; but let the inquiry be conducted by the Ad-
miralty. He did not desire to see the Admiralty relieved
from responsibility by the appointment of a commission.
Mr. COCHRANE observed that the right hon. baronet
had said a great deal on the question of retirement, but had
touched very little upon the other subject involved in the
motion,—the pay and position of the officers. lie believed
the noble lord was most anxious to serve the navy, and if
he did not do all that was desired, it was because he was
trammelled by office. The noble lord had made a compari-
son between the navy and the army, but it must be admit-
ted that the navy, was not treated with the same liberality
as the army. The old officers in the army had an immense
advantage in appointments to colonelcies, bat nothing si-
milar to that was given to old admirals, and, taking the
posts of governors in different parts of the world, very few
were held by naval men, and a great many were held by
military men. There were other instances in which the
navy was not treated with the same generosity as the army,
bnd with respect to officers commanding ships he could
bear testimony to the accuracy of the observation that they
were put is great expense by their appointment. He trusted
that the motion for the commission would be carried.
Mr. LINDSAY conceived the proposed inquiry to be ne-
cessary.' On referring to the active list in 1859 it would be
foundthaotnolyutlo7f39w9earde employed.miralsonly 11,44iwsewreaseammplaotyteedr,woeullt
of 357 captains only 97 were employed, and out of 504 com-
mandersworthy of inquiry, for the country had no right to bring
into the service men in active life unless there was some fair
chance of employiaent for them. Let there be an inquiry,
therefore, for the purpose of seeing if the supply could
not be brought more in accordance with the demand, II

~~

was all very well to say that the matter should be left to the
Admiralty, but it should be recollected that the Admiralty
had brought forward a plan which had given no satisfaction.
He had that morning received a letter from a distinguished
naval officer, who asked him to support the present motion,
and stated that he had not heard one naval officer speak of
the plan of the Secretary to the Admiralty except in terms

of the strongest condemnation. Reference had been made
to the mates in the merchant sorvice. In periods of war the

country would be obliged to depend on the assistance of
active young officers from the merchant service ; but they
must be dealt with liberally, and be allowed a fair chance of
rising to the highest positions. He should certainly, if the
house divided, vote in favour of the motion.
Mr. WHITBREAD said the hon. gentleman had referred
to the excess in the retired list of officers as though it were
a great evil, and declared that officers had been taken into
the service whom we could not employ. But it was always
necessary to have in ordinary times a large margin of expe-
rienced captains and higher officers, because it was impos-
sible to create such officers when they were wanted again

and again, as was the case in time of war. The main
grounds urged in favour of the motion were, first, the
grievance of captains of line-of-battle ships and others in
command not having an adequate allowance of table money;
and, secondly, the grievance of the mates on the supposi-
tion that their time was not to count. Now, he had ex-
pected from the right hon. gentleman some other grounds
for the appointment of a commission which was to inquire
into so many different points ; but no such statement was
forthcoming. The right hon. gentleman made no attack

on the system of promotion, and confined himself princi-
pally to broad assertions of the discontent which he said
existed throughout the service, but of which the Admiralty

were not aware, and of the two grievances before men-
tioned. His noble friend's reply was, in the first place
that the question of counting the mates' time was still
under consideration. With regard to the table money
question, the rule now so much complained of was that
captains should be paid according to their statiding, and
not according to the size of their ships ; and the origin of
the rule was this :—ln 1556 it was necessary to appoint
officers of the highest standing to small vessels, there being
then a probability that the best men would be wanted in
those commands. The rule in question was therefore
established, on the representation of a large number of offi-
cers, who said it was manifestly unfair that when appointed
to a fifth-rate they should not have the pay to which by
their position in the service they were entitled. Since then,
however, a memorial had been presented to the Admiralty.
The right hon. gentleman was in office at the time, but
he could not find that anything was done. In February,
however, the present Board had decided that the
subject should be taken into consideration when the next
estimates were prepared, which was the earliest moment at
which they could bring forward a vote. The right hon. gen-
tleman said the Admiralty ought to entertain all serious
complaints. He believed that this had been done. The
changes made in the position of the paymasters, the engi-
neers, and the chaplains were all preceded by memorials ;
but in this case the officers who complained had not man-
fully set forth their grievances. The right hon. gentleman
had, indeed, taken letters from his pocket and read them
anonymously, but he did not call these serious complaints,
and it must be remembered that the language of the right
hon. gentleman on former occasions had been well calcu-
.lated to elicit such complaints. (Hear, hear.) It was said
that if it were not from feelings of duty cfficers would not
take the commands which were offered to them. But some-
how they did take them, and therefore the grievance was
not of such a practical character as the house was led to
suppose. He concurred with the right hon. baronet (Sir
F. Baring) in his objections to this motion. A commission
had not the fear of Parliament before its eyes, and generally
ended in recommending a largo expenditure. That would
be the result in the present instance, or else it would end by
creating that which the right hon. gentleman so much de-
precated—universal discontent throughout the service.
(Hear, hear.) Comparing it with the army, he de-
nied that the navy was underpaid, and the real test of this
was that no difficulty arose in finding gentlemen to enter
the service. He was not at all sure that they would be
going upon a right principle if they made the navy looked
upon as merely a lucrative profession; but he would ask
whether even now a poor man's son found it as difficult to
enter and support himself in the navy as in the army ? Be-
fore the right hon. gentleman made himself the organ of
these frivolous complaints, as some of them were, he should
have made further inquiry as to what was being done, and
what was the relative position of the army and navy in re-
spect of pay. He hoped the house would not agree to the
appointment of a commission, which, instead of remedying
a small grievance, would only lead to general discontent.
(Hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON said the reason why he had not
referred to the question of promotion was, that promotion
and retirement were, in fact, the same question, the one
depending on the other ; so that in demanding an improve-
ment in the mode of retirement he was really dealing di-
rectly with the subject of promotion. The right hon. baro-
net (Sir F. Baring) had asked what was the great evils
into which the commission was to inquire ? The Secretary
to the Admiralty had told the house in plain terms what
the evil was—namely, a stagnation of promotion to such an
extent as to create a serious and a discouraging effect upon
the whole naval service. The right hon. baronet had been
First Lord of the Admiralty, and would be the last man to
deny that this was a serious matter. Then the right hon.
gentleman, alluding to his scheme of retirement, said the
number of promotions had been as high under the present
system as under the check system. But the right hon.
baronet did not go on, as he should have done, to give the,
reason for this. The reason was that the check system, as
it was called, had been broken up by board promotions,
which exceeded the restriction of promotion in other ways.
The right hon. gentleman also said that we had arrived at
a desirable state of things as regarded promotion. The
captains' list might be reduced to the prescribed number
no doubt; but the commanders' list was not.
Lord C. PAGET—It will be by the retirements.
Sir J. PAKINGTON continued—But how long would it

remain reduced ? (Hear, hear.) It was that miserable hand-
to-mouth system that he objected to. No system would
answer but a self-acting system, permanent in its operation,
and not a mere temporary contrivance. The right hon.
gentleman also said that the house could not deal with the
question in a generous spirit ; but he (Sir J. Pakington)
only asked for a commission of inquiry, and did not ask the
house to deal with the subject at all at present. The right
hon. gentleman further asked why the Admiralty could not
deal with this question, and added, " What was a Govern-
ment for ?" But had the right hon. gentleman never before
heard of commissions of inquiry? (Hear, hear.) Only the
previous evening the house was engaged in considering the
recommendations of a commission upon the subject of for-
tifications. Again, in 1854, a commission with similar ob-
jects was appointed for the army. When the right hon.
gentleman could only find such excuses for his vote, it
proved that there were no strong arguments
,to be found
against the present motion. The right hon. gentleman had
attempted to ridicule the letters he (Sir J. Pakington) had
read, but those letters came from officers of the highest
character and station, and were quoted by him as the
strongest evidence he could adduce in support of his mo-
tion. He would notice one or two points in the speeches of
his noble friend, and the Junior Lord of the Admiralty (Mr.
Whitbread). He regretted that the noble lord should have
departed from his usual courtesy in repeating an attack upon
a point which had been previously explained. The noble
lord had asked why he (Sir J. Pakington) had not dealt
with this question when he was at the Admiralty. The
answer was, that he did so as far as he could. (Hear.) He
had dealt with the surgeons and the chaplains. He ad-
mitted the warrant respecting chaplains had not been suc-
cessful, but the explanation was that it was based upon the
assumption that chaplains of men-of-war, like other officers,
adopted the naval service as their profession, but he found
that those gentlemen after serving afloat for a few years
generally desired to obtain a living or a curacy on shore.
The noble lord had also referred to the captains' memorial
having been, marked by him with the word "read" only.
That was true ; but it was no argument against his state-
ment that he intended to deal with that memorial. Another
reason that was urged against the appointment of a commis-
sion was, that improvements had been effected by successive
boards, but that was a reason for a commission, because so
many anomalies and inconveniences had been introduced by
the action of different boarda, acting upon various and con-
flicting views, that a complete consideration of the whole
subject was necessary. (Hear.) He could assure the house
that he was contemplating while in of&:e the very step
which he asked the Government to adopt now. When the
change of Governnient occurred he had not made up his
mind whether it would be better to deal with the subject
seriatim or to appoint a commission. He made this motion
from no party motive, but solely from a desire to promote
the welfare and efficiency of the navy, and therefore he
hoped the house would assent to his proposition.
The house then divided. The numbers were :
Ayes
Nees
Majority against the motion —33
PACKET AND TELEGRAPHIC CONTRACTS.
Mr. DUNLOP, in rising to move resolutions with the
viewof bringing packet and telegraphic contracts under the
more effectual control of the house, took occasion to refer to
the recommendations of the committee which had been ap-
pointed to inquire into the subject and to the importance
of the considerations which the question involved, inasmuch
as no less a sum than £1,000,000 a year was now wended
under the head of packet, contracts alone. Now, it might
be contended that a sufficient check for the provident
expenditure of so large a sum was to be found in the
fact that the various items were set down in the esti-
mates which annually came before the house; but then it
should be borne in mind that the votes taken for contracts
furnished no intimation as to their renewal in those instances
in which they were renewed, while in the case of new con-
tracts. —which did not frequently come into active operation
for a year and a-half or two years after they had been en-
tered into—the votes were not laid before the house until
the services had begun, the eontraetors having, in the mean
time, gone on building vessels and making the other neces-
the performance of new engagements,
sary preparations for
so that it was almost impossible for the house to exercise
with respect to votes so submitted to its notice a fair and
deliberate control. (Hear, hear.) suchas oAte,t, in-
deed, was that the case N.v4a oil__y those instancea
*CV t 44% go,me aiieged misconduct on the