The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRIJARY 18; 1857.

admitted. He now came to the elms of reserved lieu-
tenants—men who were put away out of sight. They
were 641 in number. The first 37 got 7s. per day, the
next 509 (many of whom were of 44 years' standing) got
only ea., the next 80 got 5'., and the remaining 90 got
4e. Two-thirds of the men who were placed on the lieta
tenants' list never got beyond it. The commanders, re-
tired and reserved, amounted in number to 431. Of
these the first 96 got Bs. 6d. per day, and there were 245
who got only 7s. Many other men were covered with
wounds, and as deserving as any men in full commission.
The number of retired captains was 306. Nearly the
whole of these were senior commanders, of from 30 to
50 years' standing. On receiving a step in rank an ad-
ditional sixpence was given to them. They expressed
themselves perfectly indignant at such a pettifogging
addition to their pay, which now amounted to only 10s.
ed. These men had been from 50 to 60 years in the
service, and many of them were 80 years of age. Nearly
all the payments to which he had called the attention of
the house were lees than those received by correspond-
ing ranks in the army. Another hardship on the
navy was that there was no such thing as retiring on full
pay, whilst in the Marines no less than 105 officers had
retired on full pay. Why did not the navy possess a
similar advantage ? The reason was that the Admiralty
was not a fraternal government. In the circular issued
to the retired captains offering them the additional 6d.
per day it was stated that they mast give up all claim to
Greenwich, and they were told that if they did not take
the ed. they would never get anything. If the house
should consent to the appointment of a committee, he
would undertake to submit to them a plan which would
remedy the unjust system which now prevailed. He
would recommend the Government to get as many
able seamen as they could in time of peace. If they
could man the ships with able seamen in the propor-
tion of two-thirds or three-fourths, they might in the
event of a war be spread over a large number of
ships. He thought it would be desirable to give them
a small bounty and a little more pay, and that
their wages should be advanced every seven years.
The total number of active officers in the navy on the
four lists to which he had referred was 2,169. Of that
number only 1,065 were employed, leaving 1,104 on
half-pay. The total number of officers receiving half-
pay and fulbpay was 3,880 ; and of these the number on
half-pay was 2,815. He would now briefly advert to
some of the objections which might be urged agairist
his motion. It was said that the half-pay of the army
was larger than that of the navy, because the commis-
sions in the army were purchased. But it should be re-
membered that commissions in the army were sold as
well as purchased, and that sometimes larger sums were
obtained than the commissions were worth. And it
should not be forgotten that conerdissions were not pur-
chased in the Artillery or Marines and yet the parties
retired on the same half-pay as in the army. But
beyond that he 'had examined the Army List, and
had ascertained that one-half of the assay offi-
cers had not purchased their commissions at all.
It was stated during the discussion last year that
the increase of 6d. per day would cost the country
11,0001. a-year, but the actual amount did not exceed
6,500/. The right hon. gentleman the First Lord of the
Admiralty also stated that these old officers had no pe.
culler claims. Now, he considered the expression of such
an opinion on the part of the right hon. gentleman, to
say the least of it, as very ungracious and indiscreet.
The question now before the house was one which in-
volved the efficiency of the service. By altering the
mode of forming the active list the inactive list might be
reduced, and not only would a saving be effected in point
of expense, but the officers would become more contented.
His only motive was to benefit the suffering officers of
the navy, and if the Government would promise to take
the matter into their serious consideration, be should be
content to leave it in their hands. (Hear.)
Mr. TITE seconded the motion.
Sir C. WOOD—My bon. and gallant friend has re.
peated to-night the motion which he made lest session.
I felt it to be ;my ,duty to resist that motion, and the
House of Commons agreed with me that it would net be
convenient to appoint a committee for such a purpose.
I do not see that my hon, and gallant friend has laid be-
fore the house any additional reasons for granting in-
quiry, and I am therefore relieved from the necessity of
troubling them with a long repetition of the arguments
which I felt necessary to address to them last year. My
hon. arid gallant friend really misrepresents the state of
the case when he says that every successive Board of
Admiralty think things are perfectas they find them, and
never take the trouble to make alterations. I will ven-
ture to say that, for the last 15 years—l might go back
futeher and say for the last 30 years—there has been
no naval administration which has omitted to take some
measure or another for the improvement of the condi-
tion of officers of the navy. Every successive board hs.s
made some step in that direction, and my hon. and gallant
friend will forgive me for saying it is a most unjust ac-
cusation which he has made, not only against me, but
against the right hon, gentlemen and noble lords who
have preceded me, in alleging that the Admiralty have
for years neglected the state of the navy. My convic-
tion is that the efficiency of the navy in the late war
is attributable to the great improvements which have
taken place, in consequence of its not being neglected ;
and I believe that efficiency has been proved and tested
in every rank, from the rank of admiral to that of com-
mon seaman. My hon. and gallant friend repeats the
charge that appointments are influenced by aristocratical
and Parliamentary considerations. It is impossible to
meet a general accusation of that kind. As far as I
am concerned, all I can say is that, if he will be so good
as to state any one case in which I have been unduly
swayed by Parliamentary, family, or aristocratical hal-
ence, I will frankly meet it; but, in the most unqualified
manner, I challenge him to name a single instance.
My hon and gallant friend eowplains very much of the
number of officers unemployed. No doubt it is perfectly
true that in the higher ranks there are more officers
than can be employed. It was a subject which occupied
the attention of a commission of military and naval offi-
cers in 1840, and of a committee of this house in 1848.
The course of promotions was checked, and the result
has been considerably to diminish the number of officers
in the higher ranks unemployed, and to facilitate the pro-
motion of younger officers, thereby rendering the effici-
ency of the higher ranks much greater than formerly.
The argument which my hon. and gallant friend has
made use of on this occasion is totally inconsistent with
the complaint he generally makesof the want of adequate
promotion, because if you considerably reduce the number
of the higher ranks which are obtained by promotion,
the inevitable effect must be that promotions must be
limited ; and, if that be so, young and deserving offi-
cers are necessarily deprived of the just reward of their
services. My hon. and gallant friend complained
last session that on the committee of 1848 there was
no naval officer. I poin'ed out that both branches
of the service were impartially treated, and no offi-
cer of the army sat on that committee. lam not
quite clear that officers are fit persons to sit upon
an inquiry of the kind. But, I remember, seven
years before a commission was appointed, consist-
ing principally of naval and military officers, for
the purpose of investigating this very question, and the
recommendations which they made were carried out.
The committee of 1848 recommended that there should
be considerable means of retirement provided to relieve
the active list of a number of officers who were never
likely to be employed, and that process has been going
on from day to day. An order in Conned, that promo-
Cons should be made at the rate of one captain for three
who retired, one commander for three who retired, and
so on, has been rigidly adhered to, except where great
services have been performed. The result is that the cap-
tains' and commanders' lists, although higher in number
than the committee recommended, are being gradually,
reduced. It is perfectly true, although my lion. and gal-
lant friend seems disposed to deny the fact, that a great
number of persons who fill the lower ranks of the service
were attracted to it by the inordinate promotions atthe
end of the war. As many as 1,000 lieutenants were ga-
zetted in one year, and I made a calculation that if every
,one had been employed the lest would have been 82
when sent to sea as commander. I need not say
more to show the utter absurdity of supposing that they
could all be employed. The naval members of the com-
mission which sat in 1840 were Sir George Cockburn,
Sir Thomas Hardy, and Sir Charles Adams—men well
acquainted with and devoted to the service. I have
only stated what those naval officers asserted. They
stated :
"It would be incorrect to attribute the inactivity of thee°
officers entirely to a voluntary relinquishment of duty on
their part, as there is no doubt that very many of them
would have been fully prepared to serve if opportunities
had been afforded to them ; but as we have shown that the
proportion of the employed to the unemployed is as small
as 1 to 11 in one class (captains) ; as 1 to 10 in a second
(commanders) ; and as 1 to 6 in the last class (lieutenants),
it must be quite obvious that any-full-pay employment must
have been quite out of the reach of a very large number."
The only rule adopted was that which the commission
recommended—that those who bad served as midshipmen
and mates during the war, who had been in action, or
gained medals should receive lieutenancies. It was the
commission that reported in favour of the long list of
lieutenants of which the hon. and gallant gentleman
complained. They said :--
"Our examination of the evidence in regard to the rank
of 'naval lieutenant' has led to the conviction that a very
large number must be considered as having obtained this
commission as a provision from the public for service in an
inferior station. They did not, of course, obtain lieuten-
ancies exempted from a liability to be recalled to employ-
ment, but to many it must have been apparent that this
contingency was remote, and they must have viewed the
position they obtained as the ultimate station they would
hold in the navy. The promotion of more than 1,010 offi-
cers to bo lieutenants in ono year at the close of the
last war would in itself furnish a sufficient proof of this."
The convenient mode of rewarding these officers and
giving them promotion was to makeb them lieutenants
and to give them the halfepay of their rank, without, of
course, a prospect of employment for the greatest portion
of that number. It has been cale,ul ated that if all these
lieutenants had been employed it would have taken 40
years before the list would be exhausted, and those at
the bottom of the list would have gone to sea as lieuten- '
ants at 55 years of age. Buy it has been proved that
where an officer has been so long on shore it is neither
for his benefit nor f r that of the service that he should
be sent to sea. The scheme for the retirement of the
admirals has at least worked this beneficial change, that
it has diminished the age of those officers who have at-
tained the rank of admiral. It used to be complained
that officers were sent to sea of an age that rendered
them incompetent to the duties of active service. What
was the remedy for that state of things ? Why, that a
certain number of officers should be i laced on the re-
served list with the rank and pay of rear-admiral, there- i
by accelerating the promotion of captains to the rank of
admiral. In 1841 the junior admiral had attained the
rank of captain 35 years before he attained the rank of
admiral. The last admiral, appointed two or three
days ago, had served 22 years, and4this was a reduction
of 13 years in the period of his attaining post rank. The
second and third vacancy will bring us down to captains
who attained that rank 20 years before they attained the