The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-30 00:00:00

eovar_landere, 33. It was net by the aey that oilitsete ;
were kept in the sereiete, tiot by the eopee of Oil eil-dna
ranee rewerae and distinctions to wlease they toelsed lea
ward throuatheut the whole of their lives.—(Cheers.)
A comparison had been made between the British and
the American service; but the half-pay in the latter was
aieher than in the former. He would not veettue any
crude suggestions on the suajeet. He did net mean to
say, as the lower class officers had been reduced, that
it might not be right to reduce the higher class also; but
it was not advisable at the present moment to press such
an arrangement, and the more he considered the subject
the snore he felt convinced that it would he a most un-
wise economy to adopt the recommendation of the Com-
mittee in this respect. He apprehended his Hon. Friend
would not divide on the question in its present shape;
but he thought it nevertheless right to state that he was
not prepared to make any alteration at present.
Captain PELHAM thought an acquiescence in the
motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose would be
equivalent tc a breach.of faith. The best remedy would
be to practise economy in the naval expenditure. Groat
reductions had already been made in the establishments
of our dockyaede, aria he believed they might be carried
much farther, espseially by adopting the system of build-
ing the smaller vessels by coutract. Great reductions
might also be made in the number of seamen employed
in the fleet. He would disfranchise every., wan
employed in the doeleyards, and would not have so many
of the Admiralty sitting in Parliament.
Mr. COBDEN observed that it was said out of doors
that whenever retrenchment was the order of the day
they always began with the weaker parties, but it would
now be known whether the House was influenced by
aristocratic prejudices, or not. The report of the Com-
mittee recommended that the number of admirals should
be gradually reduced from 150 to 100, not by dismissing
any of them, or depriving any existing admiral of his
flag, or his rank, or his pay. They would ,now see
if equal justice was to be done. But they were told
that even under existing circumstances there
was little chance enough of promotion. Now, it ap-
peared to him that the navy was kept up far the pur-
poses of war, and officers who entered the service in
times of peace must not look to promotion to the same
extent as in time of war. The service ought not to be
made the means of providing offices to serve the interests
of individuals, but should be regulated with reference to
the public requirements, otherwise they would be sub-
stituting principles of charity and benevolence in the
place of justice to the interests of the community at
large. For these reasons he would support the motion
of his Hen. Friend the Member for Montrose.
Admiral DUNDAS said the number of admirals had
been diminished. In 1816 there were 220, and now
only 150, which was not too large a number for the re-
quirements of the service.
Mr. HUME maintained that the naval service, in its
present condition, was more like a pension list than
anything designed to carry out the legitimate objects of
the public service.
Captain BERKELEY said there could not be a
greater mistake than to suppose that the navy was main-
tained for the sake of providing places for the aris-
tocracy, for most of those who had attained the highest
rank had entered the service perfectly friendless. He
knew instances in which men had served twenty-seven
years, and had ultimately arrived at the rank of rear-
admiral, with the pay of 4501. a year. Now, he should
like to see any man after the same period of service in
any public office ashore who would not be in a better
position. Let them make a just bargain with the ser-
vice if they pleased, but he protested against the breach
of faith which was involved in the motion of the Lion.
Member for Montrose.
Mr. BRIGHT denied the existence of any bargain
that a man on entering the service should be made an
admiral at some period of his life.--(Hear, hear.) It
was the strangest idea of the public service he had ever
heard. The only contract with a man on entering the
service was, that upon certain principles laid down,
either according to seniority or mJrit, they sheuld have
promotion to reach such a stage as their services and
length of life would permit.
Colonel THOMPSON could not help saying that he
was obliged to agree with the Hon. Member for Man-
chester that there could not by possibitity be any such
principle as officers claiming promotion beyond that
which was necessary for the service. He never heard
such a principle spoken of in the service to which he had
the honour to belong. He was. sure that a cornet did not
expect to be a lieutenant till a lieutenant was wanted, or
a lieutenant expect to be a captair. till there was a troop
for him. He, therefore, f•lt under the necessity of voting
with the Hon. Member for Manchester.
Admiral BOW LES supported the vote.
Mr. HUME remarked that it was the Admiralty itself
that proposed in 1830 that only one should be promoted
to the rank of admiral for every three vacancies, till the
number was reduced to 100; but the Admiralty did not
act up to that.
Sir F. 'l'. BARING said it was his firm conviction,
that if they carried out the recommendation of the Com-
mittee, it would at first be attended with an increase of
expense. He did not mean to say but that by a well-
considered scheme they could rsduce the number of ad
mirals, and effect a saving thereby.
air. CORRY aupperted the vete on the ground that
not to make the promotion would be to commit a breach

of faith.
Captain PECHELL complained that Captain Sir
Henry Hart, the hydrographer of the navy, and another
officer who held another appointment, had been com-
pelled to agree to their names being placed on the re-
tired list, being inf.irmed that they must either do this
or give up their app,,lntments, while a junior officer had
been permitted to bold the situation of Commissioner of
Greenwich Hospital, and was not required to place him-
self on the retired list.
Sir T. ACLANI) said it was true there was a mejo-
rity of the Committee in favour of the recommendation,
but the Chairman, who did not vote• was against it, and
that made it equal. The saving by carrying out the
recommendation would only be 10,0301. a year, and in a
great maritime country like this he did not think that
was an object to put in comparison with the just expec •
tations of the gallant men who were waiting for their

promotion.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was not in the House when
the discussion commenced, and therefore he was not
aware wrist was the precise farm of the motion, but he
imagined that in point of form it was not a reduction in
the number of admirals that was proposed by the Hon.
Member for Montrose, but that he had raised that ques-
tion by proposing some small diminution in the vote.
In point of substance, the Hon. Member wished to raise
in this Committee the question that was discussed in the
Naval Committee, where the proposition was carried for
which he (Sir J. Graham) held himself responsible, that
there should be a reduction in the number of admirals
from 150 to 100. The Hon. Gentleman the Member
fer Devon said that reduction would not be of any great
use, but still they ought to consider that it was a saving;
and the right point to which the House of Commons
ought to come was, that in the state service there
ought to be no unnecessary expense. Now he was bound
to say that his Hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone was
equally right in the aisertion that the gradual re-
duction of the number of officers on half pay in the
navy, so far as admirals were concerned, had not yet
been carried into effect by only permitting one promo-
tion le three vacacancies. The real question was whether
the time had arrived for making the rule which p: reacted
all other ranks apply to admirals. Now, it appeared in
evidence that at no time during the war was there a
greater number of admirals employed by this country
than 32, and that the number employed at the present
time did not exceed 12. Now, he was decidedly of opi-
nion that although the admiral: list must be considered
more or less as a reward for past services, yet it was a
question of degree, and they must bear in mind what were
the real wants of the service. It would not do to main-
tain either in the army or navy a very large number of
admirals or generals merely with a view to the reward
for past services, without any regard to the wants of the
public. He hoped that his Right Honourable Friend
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been misled
by a pamphlet recently published by a banker, in which
it was stated that the people of this country were
amongst the most lightly taxed of any people—that di-
rect taxation might be carried out much further, and in-
direct taxation also extended. Ile hoped the Right
Hon. Gentleman had not been misled by any of these
arguments. He (Sir J. Graham) questioned whether
the people of this country were lightly taxed. At all
events he was sure that taxation in time of peace had
arrived at its maximum, and the Right Hon. Gentleman
must be aware that either with direct or indirect taxation
there was considerable difficulty in maintaining the bur-
dens that now existed. Ile was satisfied the time bad
arrived when every practicable economy must be carried
out in every branch of the public service .—(Hear, hear.)
With respect to the army and navy, there were points
where that economy must commence; and it must com-
mence, not with the lower, but with the higher ranks of
the professions.--(Heir.) He would be the last man to
desire that that principle should be carried into effect
rashly, suddenly, or to the injury of those who had a just
claim for immediate promotion, but gradually some better
system might be introduced into the higher ranks of
both services. In time of peace 150 admirals and 270
generals were a larger number than were required.—
(Hear.) The proposition before the Select Committee
was that the number of admirals should be gradually
reduced from 150 to 100, that, as upon the death of three
captains they only promoted one, and as on the death of
three commanders, they only promoted one lieutenant,
so, on the death of three admirals, only one should be
promoted, till the number was reduced to 100 .—(Hear,
hear.) It might be said that, considering the age of the
post-captains, the probability was, if that rule were
adopted, that in a short time there would be no admirals
sufficiently young and active to undertake the important
duties of naval commanders. But the Committee had
also proposed, in order to give vigour and activity to the
higher branches of the service, that one out of every
three promotions should not go by seniority, but that,
on the responsibility of the Admiralty, officers of
distinguished merit, without reference to seniority,
should be raised to the tank of admiral; whereby the list
would derive the benefit of both vigour and seniority.
Having propounded that view in the Committee, and
having since reflected on it attentively and maintained
it, he did not hesitate to support it now, both by his
speech and his vote.—(Hear, hear.) He was decidedly
of opinion that this measure should be adopted, both
with reference to the efficiency of the service, and to the
just claims of the public, for the commencement of some
economy in this branch of the service; and that it ought
also to be extended teethe army, as a feasible and safe
proposition. The army stood on better grounds than
the navy; for though the number cf•generals was 270, a
very large reduction had been effected within a short
period, the non-effective charge having been reduced
nearly 90,0001. a year since 18-16; while in tt,e navy the
charge for the non-effective service was 88,000/. a year
more than it was in 1846. Since the termination of
the war, the reduction of the dead weight in the arm)
had been progressive and great, while in the navy it hart
been almost stationary and comparatively nothing. It was
absolutely necessary that a beginning should be made in
reducing the non-effective portion of this service, and