NAVAL OFFICERS’ PAY

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1550, 13 May 1916, Page 4

NAVAL OFFICERS’ PAY

SALARIES CRITICISED

“ILLOGICAL AND UNJUST.”

PAYING FOR COST OF WAR

Discussing the pay of British naval officers, in the London Daily Telegraph, Air Archibald Hurd says: —I have been glancing through the last Navy Estimates —those for 1914-15—and studying (he rates of pay of various ranks. In them are shown “details of pay and established allowances” of (he navv. Sir John Jellicoe, for commanding the Grand Fleet, receives about £SOO a year less than any of the 23 Cabinet Ministers under their “pooling” scheme ; the vice-admirals are paid £2,82.9 ; and so on down the scale until we reach the commodore, with £1,2(11. All these payments are inclusive of allowances for servants and entertaining. Most of these oilicers are married, and have many household expenses apart from the necessarily high standard of disbursements which' they are compelled to make in the ordinary course of service life. What of other officers '? 1 have worked out from the navy estimate the approximate average pay and allowances for various ranks : Average pay and allowances, hank. £ Captains 730 Commanders 430 Lieut.-Commanders and limits, 251 Engineer captains 797 Engineer commanders 537 Engineer lieutenants 314 Field surgeons 503 Staff surgeons 404 Paymasters in chief 735 Fleet or Staff paymasters or paymasters 415 Chaplains 950 Space will pot permit a pause to examine these figures. The-state-ments refer not to the pay of any one otticer —-senior or junioi—but to the average of each rank, For instance, there are many junior captains, but practically no engineer captains who can be described as junior. As soon as hostilities broke out the fleet was placed on a war footing. In the ease af the House of Commons, that meant that members earned their £4OO a year more easily because I lie session* were shorter, and they sit only about three days a week, and then for fewer horn's. In the ease of naval officers it meant an enormous increase of work ; war made them prisoners—if willing prisoners—of

dutv. It also meant an increase

of risk. Many of them have already laid down their lives for their country ; many others may do so. Those who remain are confronting the enemy in time of war, and — that is the anomaly —they are having war taxation deducted from their exceedingly modest incomes its though (hey were living comfortably in their homes. Most senior officers are married : in other words, they have to suffer like civilians from the heavier cost of living. They have their normal expenditure on board ship, mid in addition the abnormal expenditure in their homes, and instead of receiving any war bonus or other allowance, they arc compelled to help pay for the war. Can it be regarded as equitable that those who are risking their all should be called upon lo make the same contribution lo the war in money as ordinary people who are living comfortably on shore—anil it may be benefiting financially from the war ! i do not think that (he nation generally will welcome the thought (hat naval officers, at such a moment, .are being penalised in this way. The jirrangement is -illogical and unjust.