The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-09 00:00:00

over to our-successors, that having found when we went
into office 26 line of battle ships-12 in the Channel and 14
in the Mediterranean—we left behind us 40, which number
will be increased to 50 by the end of the present year, I
heard from• him too, with the greatest pleasure, that the
present Government intend to ad opt the whole of the esti-
mates of the late Government, unusually large as thoy un-
doubtedly are. (Hear.) In fact, the house and the country
must rather begin to wonder why the late change of Go-
vernment took place. (A laugh.) There are two subjects of
paramount importance in the public mind just now—our
foreign relations, and our national defences. We have had
the most distinct assurance from the Premier that, with
regard to our foreign relations, the present Govern-
ment are content "to walk in the path chalked out
for them by their predecessors." (Hear, hear.) They have
adopted our policy, and they make no complaint of it. And
with regard to our national defences, I have the double sa-
tisfaction, as a member of the late Government and as an
Englishman, of hearing from the noble lord fo-night that our
estimates are accepted and our plans approved. (Hear, hear.)
I confess, therefore, I am at a loss to know why we forfeited
the confidence of the House of Commons—but having for..
feited it, it is satisfactory to have the compliment paid us of
being told that our successors can do no better than tread
in our steps, with regard to these two subjects of paramount
importance. (Hear, hear.) The first statement made by the
noble lord was that the Government had determined to place
three superior line-of-battle ships in stations round the
coast. I should like to have some further explanation on
that point. I presume they are to be deducted from the
Channel fleet.

Lord C. PAGET—No, they are three ships which are
ready to be cou.missioned, but are not yet in commission.

Sir J. PAKINGTON—In that case I think the measure
may be a very prudent one. (Hear, hear.) The noblelord
next alluded to the course taken by the late Admiralty with
regard to the medical officers and chaplains, and he seemed
to make some complaint of our not having remedied the
grievances urged by the piasters and paymasters.
He cannot be aware of the attention which was paid by the
late Board of Admiralty to the complaints of the latter
classes of officers. It is true that we had' arrived at no final
decision on the question, but we had recognised their fair
claim to have their complaints considered, and I left in the
hands of the Duke of Somerset a written memorandum, ex-
plaining the views of the late Board of Admiralty on the
subject, and showing that it was their full intention to deal
with the complaints of these officers. I wish to prevent the
existence of an impression which would be as erroneous as
it would be unfair towards the late Board of Admiralty, that
they had declined to entertain the complaints of the masters
and paymasters. It was merely the want of opportunity,
arising from the change of Government, which prevented
us from dealing with the complaints of these classes of offi-
cers in the same spirit in which we had dealt with the com-
plaints of the surgeons and chaplains. I will now advert to
what fell from the noble lord with reference to a most im-
portant subject, upon which I wish that,he had afforded us
more information—the intentions of the Government with
regard to an extension of the bounty. The noble lord has
on former occasions avowed his disapproval of the principle
of a bounty, and I think, considering that circumstance, ha
treated the subject with the utmost fairness. He admitted,
with as much fairness as if he had been one of the strongest
supporters of the bounty, that the experiment has been
completely successful, and I don't think it is presumptuous
to say that the success of that measure is in a great degree
a test of its merit. (Hear, hear, from Sir C. Napier.) I
am sure no one will deny—and the noble lord and his col-
leagues would be the last persons to do so—that, consider-
ing the state of public affairs in Europe three months ago,
it was the imperative duty of the Government to lose no
time in giving England an efficient fleet. (Cheers.) How
then, was this to be done ? The measures which the late Go-
vernment intended to introduce, and with which the pre-
sent Government, I am glad to say, intend to proceed, con-
sequent on the report of the Manning Commission, had not
been matured, and the only resources to which we could
turn were the Coastguard and the Naval Coast Volunteers.
Would it have been politic on our part to turn at once to
the last resource ? _ I do not believe any man would have
recommended such a policy. How, then, could we obtain
a fleet ? Only by offering a bounty. It happened that at
that moment, from different causes—partly owing to the
prevalence of easterly winds, and partly owing to its being
the season when the Baltic and the North American trades
were just commencing—an unusually small number of mer-
chant seamen were available in our ports ; and unless we
had adopted the principle of a bounty we could not have
turned over to the present Government 26 line-of-battle
ships and 13 frigates in a state of perfect efficiency. We
had no hesitation in adopting the principle of the bounty,
and, although I am sorry the noble lord doubts the wisdom
of that measure, my consolation is that I believe he will be
almost alone in that opinion. The noble lord says the
bounty is excessive. I told the house on a former occasion
that the bounty was certainly high beyond any precedent,
but if we had not made the bounty high beyond all former
precedent we should have failed in our object, and we
should not have succeeded in manning the fleet. I believe
that no bounty has been resorted to in this country since
1815, and it must be remembered that in the interval im-

mense changes have taken place in the general condition of
seamen, and in their rate of pay. I think, when the acci-
dental scarcity of seamen, and the high rates of pay offered
in the merchant service three months ago, are borne in
mind, very little consideration will convince the house that
it would have been perfectly useless to offer a low bounty.
In fact, if we had not offered a high bounty we should
not have been successful, and I believe that by the
course we adopted we have obtained the fleet we re-
quired. My earnest hope is that the adoption of a
sounder system, providing a steady and permanent re-
serve for the supply of the navy, and carrying into
effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission,
will prevent future Governments from being compelled to
resort, as we were obliged to do, to the unusual course of
offering a very high bounty. I now approach a state-
ment of the noble lord which I heard with great surprise,
and, so far as I understood him, with great regret, and I
am sorry that the noble lord did not furnish us with some
further explanations on the subject. He told us that a
Council had been held fo-day, and that an order in Council
was to be issued, but he did not tell us what was its object.
If I understood him rightly, the Government have made
up their minds to extend the bounty to other seamen who
were previously in the service.
Lord C. PAGET.—To a portion of them.
Sir J. PAKINGTON.—I think I have some right to
complain of the imperfect explanation afforded by the noble
lord, aril although I will not presume to censure a measure
which I so imperfectly understand, and, on that ground, I
express my opinion very guardedly, I must say I am afraid
the Government have established a precedent which may
hereafter be found most inconvenient and objectionable. I
think the noble lord's statement did not justify the course
which I understand the Government have determined to
adopt. He frankly declared that there had been no dissa-
tisfaction or discontent in the fleet. When we offered a
bounty wo were told, I believe by my hon. and gallant
friend near me (Sir C. Napier) and by other very high au-
thorities—" The certain result of your measure will be to
spread discontent and dissatisfaction throughout the fleet,
and you will be obliged to extend the bounty to other men."
I never felt more firmly determined—and my colleagues
completely concurred with me—to resist any such demand,
and my opinion has been justified by the result. The
noble lord has admitted, in the broadest terms, that there
has been no discontent or dissatisfaction among the sea-
men. He has told us that the Government have deter-
mined to deal generously with the seamen of our fleet. In
that principle undoubtedly I concur, but I say that we have
dealt generously with them. The noble lord has told us
that when we examine the estimates in detail we shall not
only find charges for the bounty, but for those new allow-
ances and advantages, such as clothing, bedding, and other
things, thegrant of which, I think, slows a disposition to
deal with seamenin a most generous spirit. But upon what
principle do you think it necessary to extend to men who
were previously in the service the bounty which we offered
to induce other men to enter it ? I entreat the Govern-
ment to recollect that this course is wholly without prece-
dent. I believe that there have been three occasions on
which a bounty had been given, but in no instance has it,
been extended to seamen previously engaged. The right
hon. member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) told us on a
former evening that, at the commencement of the Russian
war, the Government of which he was a member abstained
from giving a bounty to seamen. I think he did not ex-
plain why that course was adopted, but if I am not very
much mistaken, the main reason was that an Act passed
in 1835, the sth and Gth William IV., contained what I
think a very unwise clause, providing that whenever a
bounty was offered every sailor then in the fleet was to start
a new engagement for five years, and in consideration of
such new engagement was to receive the bounty. It is
quite clear that the Government of which the right hon.
baronet was a member shared the opinion I now express as
to the impolicy of that provision, for, under his auspices, I
believe in 1853 an act was passed by which it was repealed,
and the necessity of extending a bounty to seamen pre-
viously in the fleet ceased to exist. The clause to which .I
have referred, whether wise or unwise, was never acted
upon, and I fear, if the Government now introduce for the
first time what I think a dangerous principle, that you can-
not on an emergency offer a bounty to man your fleet with-
out incurring the great and unnecessary expense of extend-
ing that bounty to all men who were previously serving.
The practical result will be to deter Governments from re-
sorting to this most useful measure—one, I admit, which
ought not to be lightly adopted, but which may be most
valuable when some pressing occasion may arise. The
noble lord complained of the form of our proclamation in
regard to bounty. comparing it to a Russian ukase.
Lord C. PAGET—I meant that it was an arbitrary pro-
ceeding, being without the sanction of Parliament.
Sir J. PAKINGTON—I admitted on a former occasion
that the late Government took upon themselves a very great
responsibility, and the step was subsequently sanctioned by
Parliament. I thought it was to the form of our proclama-
tion thi.t the noble lord objected, and I was about to say
that in drawing it up we strictly adhered to precedent. I
am glad that the Government intend to introduce a bill for
carrying out the report of the commission on the manning
of the navy ; but the late Government were not open to the
accusation that has been repeatedly made against them as
to their having been very slow in arriving at a decision on
this point. I beg to say we do not in the least deserve that
charge. The commissioners reported in the month of
February, the Government had to consider their report,
and the noble lord seems to have forgotten that for a consi-
derable interval of time, there being no Parliament sitting,
it was impossible for the Government to announce their de-
cision. A few weeks only had tlapsed after the presenta-
tion of the report before Parliament was dissolved, and in
the Queen's Speech, delivered on its reassembling, there
was an intimation that this point had been decided. We
could hardly, therefore, have been more expeditious in the
matter. The noble lord alluded to the great number of
shipwrights that we added to the dockyards in order to ac-
celerate the shipbuilding operations going on, and he an-
nounced the change which the present Government have
resolved to adopt, at a cost to the country of about £lOO,OOO.
I am not prepared at this moment to give a very decided
opinion one way or the other as to the policy of what the
Government have done ; but one part of the noble lord's
,reasoning I cannot accept. He says it would be very hard
on the shipwrights that they should be turned adrift just
at the time of the short days after having been employed
all the summer by the Government. Now, however na-
tural this; feeling may be as between man and man, I must
say that in dealing with the public money you are hardly
justified in spending £lOO,OOO to maintain shipwrights
whom you don't want. The great question is, "Do you
require them or not ?" If you do, then the Govern-
ment deserves credit for employing them, and certainly
had we remained in office, and the services of these men
had been called for at the end of the six months, we should
not have hesitated to retain them. The course we took was
founded on tho recommendation of the Surveyor of the
Navy. Sir Baldwin Walker came to the late Board of Ad-
miralty and suggested that an additional force of ship-
wrights should be taken on for six months to expedite par-
, ticular works and to clear off arrears. Uponi hiii ad-