6

of 1867-68, on the strength of what somebody' said the pigs' would fetch, took credit in advance for 100,0007. on account of sales. Somebody' appears to have told them wrong, for we find Mr. Corry stating in answer to Mr. Baxter, in the course of 1868, that only 637. out of the 100,0007. had been realised. One-eighth of the whole quantity has now been sold at the highest price obtainable after much inquiry and great efforts to sell judiciously. The result of sales generally has been, not only to clear the dockyards- denude them ' of stores,' says the Quarterly Reviewer-of vast quantities of useless lumber, but to bring into the Exchequer a sum sufficient to pay half the cost of the Naval Store Vote for the year. The sales of ships, stopped by the neutrality proclamation, will, it is presumed, be continued later, till the broken reed of antiquated war-ships on which reliance for defence had been placed, shall have been got rid of.

There are some minor points in the article in the Quarterly' which may yet be noticed. Of these, the story about the proposed retirement of Mr. Dundas and Mr. James has already been confuted in a very distinct manner by Mr. Childers in Parliament. The statement of the reviewer that no sooner had Parliament risen, than the assurance that clerks were not to be discharged against their will fell to the ground,' is absolutely incorrect. It could never have been applied, by any one who knew the time, to the case of Mr. Jaines and Mr. Dundas, for the circumstances which gave rise to that incident occurred in January, immediately before Parliament met.

The singular arithmetic by which the reviewer arrives at the conclusion that the net result of reductions in the clerical staff is an additional cost to the country of about 12,0007. a year,' is a specimen of the kind of data on which many like statements are founded. The reviewer says, 'The vote for the Admiralty Office in the Estimates for 1869-70 was 168,7007. The vote of the Admiralty Office in the year 1870-71 was 159,3687., showing a decrease of 9,3361.; and 'the transfer of charges from other votes amounts to 4,1067., representing a total decrease in the vote for the Admiralty in this year of 13,4427. But against the decrease in the vote for the Admiralty Office are about 25,5117. of pensions, from which, if we deduct the decrease claimed of 13,4427., we get an additional cost to the country of about 12,000l. a year.' Now the fact is that the decrease, including transfers from other votes, is in 1870-71, 13,4427. as compared with the Estimates for 1869-70, but the pension list of 24,6117. (allowing as usual for deaths), not 25,5117., is the pension list of two years'

6

growth, and not of one year as compared with another. The reduction of establishment was spread over two years' estimates, so that the true comparison is between the years 1868-69 and 1870-71, both as regards reductions and pensions, and stands thus:

32,689

The fact is therefore that a permanent saving of 32,6897. has been effected, whilst there is a temporary charge of 24,6117., showing a present net saving of 8,0787. This will of course increase annually, not only by reason of deaths of pensioners, but by the substitution of writers' for clerks' in vacancies on the establishment until the recognised proportion of 'writers' shall have been reached. At present many clerks' are borne in lieu of writers.' Extra assistance required at any time to meet emergencies will be obtained from writers' temporarily employed, and without a claim to pensions, instead of from clerks,' as stated by the reviewer. That gentleman is also wrong in his law as well as in his facts, when he suggests that clerks pensioned on abolition of office are not liable to serve again. The Superannuation Act, 22 Vict. c. 26, sec. xi., makes it an express condition of increased pension that the pensioner shall serve when called upon.

The circumstances connected with the closing of Woolwich and Deptford yards, in pursuance of recommendations from a Committee chosen from both sides of the House, have also been elaborately set forth, and if further justification were needed, it is to be found in the fact that such ships as would be included in a North Sea fleet could not by any possibility get into dock at Woolwich or Deptford. This in a word disposes of all the talk on this subject; but if further information is needed, it may be found in Hansard's Reports,' 20 March, 1868, where Mr. Graves, the Conservative member for Liverpool, will be found protesting against further expenditure on Woolwich, Deptford, and Pembroke; Mr. Corry replied that Had the motion made in the Committee been confined to Woolwich and Deptford, he would have supported it.' In

the same Report is a speech by Mr. Childers, showing how the previous Liberal Government had resolved, so far back as 1865-66, to close Woolwich; how they had ceased to buy plant and to build ships there; and how the Conservative Government which came in in 1866 reversed that policy, recommended though it was by the House of Commons, and by suddenly rushing into shipbuilding all round in one year (a course they receded from so utterly in their engagements for 1869-70 as to decide on building no ships at all) laid the foundation of that distress which has since prevailed among the dockyard men.

Into the working of a retirement and commutation scheme which had the hearty concurrence of the majority of officers affected by it, we do not propose to enter. The public cannot but approve the principle which lays it down as Admiralty law that an admiral who has not pursued his calling for ten years, a captain for seven years, a commander or lieutenant for five years, shall be considered as one who has willingly, or by force of circumstances, virtually abandoned his profession. Certainly the case of Rear-Admiral Sir John Hay, so much insisted on by himself and his political friends as proving a defect in the principle of the scheme, is one of the strongest cases possible in its favour. Surely if an officer who in his forty-ninth year has not been at sea for ten years, is considered to have abandoned the active practice of his profession, no great violence is done to the law of probabilities. It is open to question how far the decision which rejected. time spent at the Admiralty as sea time, was a right one; and we are disposed to think that as some officers undoubtedly took office and continued there under the belief that Admiralty time would count, it would have been wiser as a matter of policy, and more just to individuals, either to have allowed the office time as sea time, or to have made special arrangements to meet two or three particular cases. The eminent services of Sir Spencer Robinson, and those of Sir Frederic Grey and Admiral Eden, certainly deserved more consideration than they met with from their own colleagues, and very nearly deprived the country of one of its best administrative officers. As regards Sir John Hay's case, however, the ground was cut from under him by the offer of a flag command, which was declined, on the ground that the gallant admiral, though ready to go to sea in the event of war, preferred his duties at home in time of peace.

We have purposely reserved for the last place in this article the consideration of the statement in the Quarterly' that the present Government have neglected to build ships enough

t

6

*

for sea service and for harbour defence, and have wantonly
reduced the numbers of men in the fleet. We confess to having
been misled on a first perusal by the array of figures and names
of ships which make up the body of the statement. The ques-
tion is not whether in 1870 as many armoured or unarmoured
ships are required as were considered necessary in any other
year; but whether there is available in 1870 a sufficient
naval force to cope with the forces say of two other naval
Powers. The answer to this question involves both ships and
men, and is, according to our judgment, fully made in the
speech of Mr. Childers when introducing the navy estimates
last February, and in that which he delivered in Parliament
after the outbreak of the war. But, in any case, it is rather
curious to find a charge-groundless though it be-of omission
to build ships, coming from an advocate of that Administra-
tion, the head of which said on the 2nd of April, 1869, It is
'true that he had stated in a memorandum he had left at the
Admiralty that it was not his intention this year (1869–70)
to lay down any new ships, armour clads or unarmoured,'
and who divided the Committee of Supply on a motion to
reduce the estimates proposed by Mr. Childers, by the amount
necessary to commence the very ships pointed to by the
Quarterly Review' as insufficient in number. No one who
has troubled himself-and some trouble is necessary-to master
the facts and figures connected with the manning of the navy
in relation to the wants of the navy, and with the forma-
tion of naval reserves, can doubt for a moment that the
real strength of the fleet is far greater at the present moment
than it has been for years past. We should like to see
some extension of the cadre system to the reserves, and
a rule by which all officers in the reserve, and, within due
limits as to age and condition, on the retired list, should
be compelled as a condition of half-pay to serve for a certain
number of days yearly in reserve squadrons. They might.
take the places-say for a month-half and half at a time,
of the officers of the Channel fleet, and so shake off the
rust of inaction. But as regards the present effective strength
of the navy, consideration being had to the smaller number of
men required for the new than for the old class of ship; in
view of the elimination of the idler' element, and of the
rousing out of harbour ship seamen who have been fourteen
years in the service, but never a week at sea; † in view of the

* Hansard, session 1869, p. 106.

† When introducing the navy estimates on 28th February, 1870, Mr. Childers said :-'We have "roused out," if I may so call it, from

substitution of continuous service men for pensioners in certain ratings; of the deduction from ship's books of seamen really stationed on shore; and of the plans by which younger and more energetic officers and seamen are secured for active duties, the real strength of the navy is very far above the apparent strength when that is made to include the persons indicated above. But let us examine the figures.

The Quarterly Reviewer says that during the two years of reduction that have elapsed since the present Government took office, the seamen, marines, and boys of the fleet have been reduced by 5,500 men.' The number voted in 1868-69, the last year of the Tory Administration, was 66,770; the number voted in 1870-71, was 61,000. In trying to account for this difference of 5,770, without reference to questions of policy, we find on inquiry that though the number voted in 1868-69 was 66,770, there were actually borne on 1st of January, 1869, only 63,632, a number which the Tory Government themselves had found sufficient and had not therefore increased. The intention of Mr. Corry to reduce the marines by 700 was executed, and the number of seamen, marines, and boys, asked for and voted for 1869-70, was 63,000, precisely the number Mr. Corry had found sufficient, less the marines he meant to reduce. In 1870-71, the number voted was 61,000, being 2,000 less than in the preceding year. But that reduction was thus made up, 500 officers retired by the

เ

6

every corner the men who have contrived for years to evade sea ser'vice, and we have established a regular roster, by which all the men ' will be sent to sea-going ships after one year's service at home, with 'limited exceptions in certain cases of petty officers. As an example of the state of things that prevailed, I may mention that when we 'took the Channel fleet to Gibraltar there were in our flagship, the Agincourt," in all five chief petty officers, one of whom had never 'been at sea at all, having been eighteen years in harbour, and another 'had been fifteen years in harbour. As another instance, only last week, we had before us an application from four A.B.'s in home ships, 'asking permission to purchase their discharge from service because 6 they were ordered to sea. One of them had been nineteen years in the service, out of which he had been fourteen years consecutively in harbour. Another had been sixteen years in the service, without 'having been at sea at all. A third had been twelve years in the ser'vice and had never been at sea; and the fourth had been seven and a 'half in the service, and had never been at sea at all. These were all 'continuous service men. I think the Committee will agree with me that it is time to put an end to this state of things.' (Hansard, p. 926, session 1870.)