The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-06 00:00:00

service. These pensions were taken away in 1830, and re-
stortd in 1860, and those who became widows in the mean
time could not obtain pensions from the Treasury, the ex-
cuse being that the officers had higher pay in order to pro-
vide for life insurance. Many of these poor women were
now, he was sorry to say, in the workhouse. But what in-
surance office would insure the life of a warrant officer
going to the East or West Indies ? (Hear, hear.) They
also asked to be allowed to have admission for their sons to
the Naval School at Greenwich, and to be allowed them-
selves to have the benefits of Greenwich Hospital. Above
all, they prayed not to be liable to be dismissed the ser-
vice without a court-martial. These were some of thospe-
cial grievances. Among the more general ones ho would
mention that the returns of commissions fell far short of the
requirements of the service. Only 19 flag officers were em-
ployed out of 99; under 200 captains out of 347; and 219
commanders out of 438. He would lastly observe that un-
dertaking the duties of a Chancellor of the Exchequer was
beyond the duty of a Secretary of the Navy. It was the
duty of that Minister, he thought, to come down to the
house and let them know what was required for an efficient
fleet—what was required efficiently to man the fleet—
(hear, hear)—and what was required to obtain a class of
contented, skilful, and trustworthy officers, commanding
contented, skilful, andtrustworthy men. As to the cost he
was sure they would not grudge the necessary expenditure.
His noble friend was an officer who would be an acquisi-
tion to the administration of the service under any circum-
stances ; and when they had cleaned out the Augean stable
of the Admiralty, he was sure reductions of expenditure
might be brought about to an extent which no one who
heard him was able to calculate. If the house granted him
the committee, he pledged himself to prove every word that
he had said, and more too. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. B. COCHRANE, in seconding the motion, begged
to call the attention of the Government to the case of the
reserved captains, who had been treated in a most unjust
wanner. By a bargain in 1851, they had been induced to
place their names on a reserved, not upon a retired list ; and
then in 1856, there was another order in council which
placed them in the position of retired officers. This was a
question of only £3,000 a year, and he thought it was a
point well Worthy of the attention of her Majesty's Govern-
ment.
The question having been put from the chair,

Sit H. STRACEY said it had been his intention to have
seconded the motion of his hon. and gallant friend the mem-
ber for Portsmouth. He believed it had been once re-
marked by the hon. , baronet that naval officers were re-
markable for being discontented and for always complaining.
But wag the dissatisfaction which existed complained of
without reason He did not believe that to be the case.
There were three causes of complaint—pay, promotion, and
retirement. Tht; deficiency of the first and last, and the
want of a well-regulated r;;'stem of the second, were the
chief causes of the discontent which ;2revailed. The pay in
our navy was less than in either the Frene:: or American
navies; and the inequality of pay in ottr service per-
fectly irreconcilea;3lo with justice. The captainstrn the re-
serve and retired list had not realised the increase of rank
and pay, and the ether advantages which had been held out
to them, and when they complained to the Admiralty
they obtained no redress because there was no responsi-
bility. (Hear, hear.) Captain Spencer Smyth, to whom
the victoty of Navarino was chiefly attributable, was only
receiving 6d. per day above that of a senior commander,
without the chance of any other remuneration during the
term of his natural life. These men vitte not only disap-
pointed hot discontented—he trusted not disaffected. Many
of them were not rtien than 50 or 60 years of age, and were
just as competent for the petfetrnmnee of their duties as any
man of 35, and yet they were called upOit for the paltry sum
of fid, per day to give up their prospective stattit, Having
enumerated the retired officers who felt aggrieved, the hon.
member proceeded to consider -what would allay the dis-
content. The only means were inoteased pay and well-
regulated promotion. The last point to 'ttltiat he should
allude was the retirement which, in his opinion, should be
such as to enable the retiring officer to live like a gentleman.
If the committee were granted, he heiie'red tho means might
be found to make the navy an efficient and a contented one.
Sir F. BARING said that he would not enter upon irtnies
vant topics. There would be ample opportunity before the
committee recently appointed to examine the subject of
patronage, and he hoped that those hon. members who had
been so liberal in their assertions and accusations would go
before that committee, and show how far their accusations
were true. (Hear.) In reference to the reserved captains, harsh
language had been used, and the house had been told that
those parties had been cheated. Now, the house would recol-
lect that that list was intended to meet the case of officers
who had not the slightest chance of promotion, and if subse
quently other officers had been introduced into it, that was
never in contemplation at the early period of its formation.
(Hear, hear.) It was said that the contract had been
broken. He wrote the contrast, for the minute was his,
and the order in Council was correctly formed upon the
minute. Something had been said about an after-thought,
but he never had the slightest doubt about the construction
of the minute, and he wrote to some gentlemen, who had
applied to him to be a witness in respect to their cases,
stating that it was never intended to give them what they
claimed, and the Admiralty came to the same decision on
a perusal of the papers, and not upon his opinion at all.

With regard to the admirals on the reserved list, it was well
known that great evils existed, which were corrected by the
arrangement now so much complained of. The benefit to the
public was, that now there were really active admirals on
the list. The admirals who were placed on the retired list
were not in the slightest degree injured, for, though they
were on the active list before, they were never employed,
and before the alteration the list was in such a state that
when he had to make his first appointment he had great
difficulty in selecting an officer, and was obliged to send out
an admiral above 70 years after all. He believed that it
would be found that from the alteration as great a benefit
had accrued to the country with sts little injury to indi-
viduals as had ever resulted from any arrangement made by
the Admiralty. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the Secretary
to the Admiralty had been told to look to the interest of the
navy alone. Now, he did not think that those who were
responsible for the naval service had only and exclusively
to look to the interest of the navy. They had also to con-
sider to a certain extent the duties of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and how far the country could bear the expense
proposed to be imposed. When the house was told that the
families of officers were in distress, and that the price of
provisions was high, it should be borne in mind that there
were other parties whose families were in great distress in
consequence of the high price of provisions, and that if they
gave to the one they took from the other. They must con-
sider the taxpayers as well as the officers of the navy.
(Hear, hear.) His own impression was that the manner in
which these cases were agitated in the House of Commons
by no means tended to the benefit of the service.
Admiral WALCOTT said, it was alleged that the officers
of tho navy were always grumbling. He therefore thought
that the interests of the country would be served by an in-
quiry, which would show whether their complaints were
well-founded or groundless. He thanked the hon. and
gallant member for Portsmouth for the able manner in
which he had brought this question before the house, but as
a committee had been granted to inquire ir.to the ad-
ministration of the navy in all its departments, he could
have wished that this subject had been referred to that
committee, and that the tune of the house had not been oc-
cupied by it on the present occasion. He challenged the
observation of the right hon. baronet (Sir F. Baring), that
officers placed on the retired list had no reason to complain.
From his own experience he asserted that they had. In
1823 he was despatched to Cuba with special orders to put
down the pirates who infested that coast, and succeeded in
effecting that object. His services met with the approba-
tion of his superiors, and he was recommended for a Com-
panionship of the Bath by the Admiralty of the day. That
recommendation had never been carried out. From 1823 to
1852 no one had more urgently or frequently besought em-
ployment of any description ; but his applications had never
been attended to. He had been treated with contemptuous
indifference and neglect by successive Boards of Admiralty.
Lord Ellenborough and Sir George Cockburn had alone
shown him any consideration. The hon. and gallant officer
denounced the conduct of the Lords of the Admiralty to-
wards him with much warmth, and with especial reference
to the right hon. baronet the member for Portsmouth.
Sir F. BARING disclaimed any intention of referring to
the hon. and gallant officer in the remark he had made.
Sir M. SEYMOUR cordially approved the motion. The
dissatisfaction which prevailed among various classes of offi-
j cers rendered it necessary that the subject should be tho-
roughly invc:t;gnted. The scheme of retirement adopted
last year by tha Admiralty was of such diminutive proper-
tions that but little advantage had been derived from it,
though he owned that it had led to the promotion of some
very able and deserving officers. A Royal Commission some
years back pronounced the officers of the navy more ineffi-
cient than those of any other service, and he feared there
was still too much truth in the statement. In several recent
instances a disposition had been manifested by officers to
retire from active service, and an unfortunate degree of
apathy and indifference pervaded the body of naval officers.
It would be necessary, also, for the committee to inquire
what constituted "sea-service," as it was sometimes inter-
preted in a manner that did great injustice to deserving
officers. He acknowledged the desire which the right hon.
baronet the member for Portsmouth had manifested when
in office to treat naval officers with due consideration, but
behaved that the prospective advantages which officers on
the retired list were led to expect had not been conferred on
them. He should cordially support the motion for a com •
mittee. (Cheers.)
Sir J. PAK INGT ON said—Before I touch upon the sub-
ject of the motion, I must be allowed to express the deep
regret with which I have heard the gallant admiral the
member for Christchurch, led away for the moment by the
warmth of his feelings, impute to me that while I held office
Walcott—" Not at all."]—I treated him with
neglect and contempt. [Admiral Walcott—" So you did."]
(Laughter.) I can assure the gallant admiral that I was
never led for a single moment to regard his services and
professional character with any feelings but those of sincere
respect. (Hear, hear.) He takes great offence with me, and
he has told the house very candidly the reason—namely,
that I did not recommend him for the order of Companion
of the Bath. [Admiral Walcott—" Nut that you did not re-
commend, but that you did not follow out the recommendu-
tion."] The etatemeut of the gallant admiral is one which