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

THE SUN,'4.I.-FLONA/N, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 15, 1860.

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 £7,780 16s. 11d. was a very large amount to
pay as compensation for 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
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 the 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 for 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 X 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
the work for nothing. As to the loss on exchange in send-
ing money to India, it arose in consequence of the Admi-
ralty having done an act of justice to those officers who
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 due
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 rromotion 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 tin navy
is in a coraplicated 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, to encourage
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 wo could get rid
of those alarms which are excited by the stato 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 break 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 composel 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 the honour to submit to the committee,
but there are many defects in his plan which doubtless I
ehall 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 timeof 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 see 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 on the retired list.
Sir J, PAKINGTON—On a supplementary list.
Lord C. PAGET--They are not to remain on the active
list.

Sir J. PAKINGTON—Yes, 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, making seven in all. During the
same period the 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 offiders in the service, it is ob-
vious that under the present system the prospect of ad-
vancement which is presented to them is of a very melon-

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, commanders, and lieu-
tenants by the retirement of certain officers, in order to
make way for the promotion of others. The principle we
propose to adopt is by no means a new one in the service

—it is that of compulsory retirement. The terra, I adroit,
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 deal-
ing with these retired lists, however, nothing but compul-
sory retirement would effect the object we have in view.
The various features of our proposal will be found set forth
iu it printed document which has, I believe, been issued to.

day. First, then, as to captains, the arrangement we pro-
pose is as follows :—" All captains who have attained, or
shall hereafter attain the age of 60, without having served
in their present rank, to be placed on a reserved list, and re-
ceive pay as follows :—lf on 108. 6cl. half-pay list, when re-
tired, 18s, per diem ; 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 obtained 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. ed. 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 60 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 sate 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
retired 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
yeaa:s' 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 on shore
will count as sea time in the scale of reserved pay in the
proportion of three years in the 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', 1 ls. 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
bo 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.) Those 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, pars passu 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 thst 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 lk these
Board promotions most invaluable to the service, and in-
valuas 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,
bear.) 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, promoted 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 througt 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 Cora-
anander Hobson, for Artie 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,
teat 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 im •
,-portance to the public interest, of the ',abject which the
moble lord has now submitted to our consideration. As i

:is one to which it was my duty to give considerable attention
Auring the time that I was connected with the Admiralty, I

tm sure the committee will indulge me while I address to
t hem not only some observations upon what has fallen from
n iy noble friend, but upon the more general subject of the
o ondition 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 lam sorry to say that I heard the
,statement with great disappointment, and I am bound to
say that I think the plan which has now been submitted does
.not bear out or correspond with the observations with which

my noble friend commenced his speech. My noble friend

I commenced by stating most fairly and truly that the pre-
I ;sent state of the navy with regard to promotions, is as un-
-1 matisfactory as possible. (Hear, hear.) The expression of
I my noble friend was that promotion is at a standstill, and
he then proceeded to give a proof of the accuracy of his
1 statement by mentioning the number of promotions which
the present Board have been able to make in the past year,
from the rank of commander to that of captain, and from
. the rank of lieutenant to that of commander. I am sorry
to say that in consequence of being out of town I did not see
the printed plan until my noble friend was kind enough to
1 :hand it to me, and I was not aware until to-day that the
) 'subject was to be brought before the house. In the few ob-
servations, therefore, which I shall make I shall have to
' . speak principally from memory, and I cannot recollect ac •
' ~ curately how many promotions of these two classes the late
' ,; • ' Board of Admiralty were able to make. But I think I am
,;right when I state that the number of promotions At DIY

disposal during the year that I held office was even fess than
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 ho 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 be 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 made
differing from that which-is required in a period of peace,
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
s.7stem 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 ena,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 the 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 case 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 my plan which might
appear us 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 ct.nsist 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 no
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. I 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, compulsoryretiremeut. 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 may be 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 you must 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 becaule it deals dif-
ferently with different ranks, and applies ono 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-
cers 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 seniority as they advance in years.
This inequality will apply most unfairly, for the same rea-
son, to commanders. lam 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 you 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' promotion. 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 litoguage. I
agree with what the noble lord proposes to do in regard to
increased halt-pay according to service, and also in regard
to allowing the half-pay of ac, 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
whole of that time should be allowed, but I repeat, you
will do great injustice if you do not allow soma 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 toll my noble friend that I
have not changed my mind on that subject. Speaking, as
I do, with only brief experience at the Atimiralty, I don't
presume to speak of the soundness 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 rf 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 now,
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 earlier 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 in this house.
Therefore, although I express my opinion with the respect
due to gentlemen of professional experience, I do, on the
broad public principle just stated, adhere to my opinion that it
is for the interest of the public service to concentrate respon-
sibility in all matters of promotion and do away with it as
regards all aggregate bodies. I may be told of the case of
Lord Guildford and officers who stand in the same position.
I say no doubt they are entitled to every consideration, but
in one of the very votes passed to-night you find the name
of Lord Guildford 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 him 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. I this memorandum I have
condemned such promotion; and I adhere to that view. I

saY haul -don), prout9tiow do sot benefit the public service;

and they create very sore feeling. It is all a matter of chance
luck, or favotlrf who may obtain these haul-down promo-
tions. (Hear, hear.) lam glad that observation is cheered by
a gallant admiral opposite who is so competent a judge ; for
he is just one of thoie distinguished men who are likely to
benefit by the continuance of that system. lam not aware
that I need detain the committee b longer observat 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. lam 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 make 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 pessing
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 l.)rd 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 commissioning of a
ship was estimated at about £6OO. The writer had com-
. missioned four ships which cost him £1,700, and that many
would say was cheaply done.] Will the committee allow
me to mention one or two cases which happened to myself
when I was First Lord 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 he 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 aro 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 like those 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 ;
but I 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 c6m 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 that
satisfaction to the service which is so desirable. In making
these observations I trust I have said nothing of which the
noble lord can complain. I assure him I have no motive
whatever but the good of the navy service. No man can
hold, even for a short period, the office I had the honour to
fill without admiring and taking a sincere 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 th3ught 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 tho ground,

however, of the want of promotion in the navy no great
complaint could be made, as the returns showed. The only
proper system of advancement in the navy was that of pro-
motion and retirement; but as regarded the scheme which
the noble lord had proposed he thought it would be a psi-
tive disadvantage rather than an advantage to some officers,
and he recommended him to withdraw it for the present, in
order to enable both naval officers and civilians to take it
into consideration. It was not decent or respectful to the
committee to ask them to grant a large sum of money to
carry out a plan the papers relating to which had just been
laid before the house. He could not agree with the right
hon. baronet opposite, that the plan should be referred 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:
. _ _

~Admiral WALCOTT concurred in thinking that sufli-
-1 dent time hai not been allowed for the consideration of the
proposal. Ile assumed that, if it were pressed, a better
opportunity would be given for its discussion. The noble
lord prop lsed 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
tQ bis 01N1; Me) as an iilliAtrii49ll p 411Z1400114 Qth,Orei