§ SUPPLY considered in Committee:—NAVY ESTIMATES.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,158,797, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others employed in Her Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1866.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he thought it was not fair to bring on these Estimates at that time of night (a quarter-past eleven), as several of the items would involve considerable discussion, and the money was not wanted. He had no objection to the first two items—for wages at home and abroad—but he appealed to the noble Lord to institute a proper investigation, and have a final settlement of the wages question. From different classes of workmen in the Royal yards there came constant applications for advances. The joiners were greatly dissatisfied at their rate of wages. Several of the workmen were discontented, and with great reason, for the factory men, for example, got an increase of 55 per cent in their wages on transferring their services to private establishments. The ropemakers and others were sent adrift at short notice, and without means of support for themselves and families. He asked the noble Lord to treat them all in a generous spirit. Although he represented a dockyard borough, he would not bring forward the case of the workmen if he did not conscientiously believe that it was based on good grounds.
§ MR. ANGERSTEINsaid, that he had received a letter stating that workmen in the dockyards received half-pay in case of injuries, but that in cases of sickness no allowance was made. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had, however, stated that the men received payments during sickness. He had also been informed that the hon. Gentleman's statement regarding the number of superannuated men was not fairly estimated, because the total number of workmen as 947 mentioned by the hon. Gentleman referred only to the establishment at home, while the number of superannuated men included the superannuations on the establishments both at home and abroad. The percentage of superannuations would by this means appear greater than it really was. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would explain those two points. He must say, before he sat down, that he thought that Her Majesty's Government ought to be influenced by the lucid and truthful statement of the hon. Member for Devonport, though in one point he believed the hon. Gentleman had erred, for he could not credit his statement that the Government was indebted to the artificers to the extent of £400,000 a year.
§ MR. LAIRDsaid, he did not believe that the employés in the dockyards were so badly treated as some hon. Members appeared to think. The wagest at present in Liverpool and Birkenhead were 7s. a day, and on the Clyde 6s. a day, but the average wages in Liverpool and Birkenhead did not amount to more than 24s. or 25s. a week, because a large portion of the men had not regular employment. That the men in the Government dockyards were pretty well paid was proved from the fact that some time since constant employment for twelve months certain was offered at Birkenhead at the rate of 36s. a week, and that, though the wages at the Government dockyards were said to be only 27s. a week, not one man applied for employment from the Government dockyards. The men, too, in the Government establishments were in a much better position, because they generally worked under cover and lost no time from wet weather—an evil to which the men in the private yards were constantly subject. At present the wages on the Clyde and in Liverpool were higher than they had been before, but there was every prospect that they would be reduced. He thought the constant agitation of this matter tended to do great harm in the dockyards.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, when he regarded the extravagant expenditure of the Government, he was perfectly shocked to hear hon. Members endeavouring to increase the Estimate by raising imaginary grievances for the benefit of their constituents. He believed that the duty of a representative was rather to watch the Estimates for the purpose of reducing them, and thus economizing the expenditure of public money; but no sooner was the subject of dockyards 948 mentioned in the House than some representative of the dockyards or the dockyard boroughs would stand up and maintain that some one or other ought to be paid more than he at present received. This system would almost induce the opinion that either the Government ought to possess no dockyards at all, or the dockyard boroughs ought to have no representative.
§ MR. ALBERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he must disclaim being influenced by the considerations referred to by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), because his constituents would be glad to see the Government dockyard in their borough abandoned, and that fine part of the river on which it was situated occupied by private firms. In answer, however, to the argument employed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), he might say that mere fluctuation in wages would not be sufficient to attract men from the Government dockyards, because when a man became established he would, by leaving the yard, forfeit all claim to superannuation. He believed the system of measurement employed in the Government dockyards was defective, and was a great cause of discontent, because it often happened by the men working in gangs that the worst workman received the best pay at the end of the week. They did not know at the end of the week how much they had earned. He must say that he believed himself bound to represent to the House the grievances of his constituents whenever they were brought under his notice.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the whole tenor of the debate showed how much an authoritative inquiry would conduce to the comforts of the dockyard Members. They would then be able to say to those who came to them with grievances that they were unjustifiable; or, on the contrary, that those grievances were worthy (as he believed most of them were) the immediate attention of the House. He had complaints, and appeared for the engineers, the Royal Naval engineers, the smiths, the storekeepers, the workmen in steam factories, and the artificers generally; and if the Government would grant them a Committee to inquire into their grievances it would be found that most of them had a substantial footing, though he could not but admit that some of them were brought before the House without sufficient cause. He hoped the attention of the Duke of Somerset and of the noble Lord opposite 949 would be given to the subject, as all that the men desired was inquiry.
§ MR. LOCKEasked if there was any law which obliged these men to enter the dockyards. If there was, then there ought to be inquiry, but if there was not, as the dockyards of the whole country were open to them, he did not see they ought to complain. He believed that they went to the dockyards for the simple reason that they liked it, and if they did not find the work there to suit them they could leave it. It appeared to him that hon. Members for the dockyard towns had been speaking not to the House but with an eye to a general election.
§ MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, he was glad to find that no metropolitan Member ever dreamt of a job for the benefit of his constituents. There were large sums annually voted for the maintenance of public parks and institutions in the metropolis, and he recollected that an hon. Member, not far from him, had once proposed that the whole expense of the sewage of the metropolis should be thrown on the nation. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) had, in his remarks, only noticed one class of workmen, and forgot those who were tempted to enter the dockyards when wages were high, and who were discharged in quiet, peaceful times. He could not see why, because the representatives of dockyard towns asked that justice should be done to infirm and injured public servants, they should be accused of personal motives.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought he might safely leave the question in the hands of hon. Members who did not represent dockyard towns, but perhaps it would be only proper that he should notice some of the specific complaints that had been urged. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) had expressed a hope that no hardship would be inflicted upon the officers whose offices had been recently abolished—the spinners and the measurers. It was true that the spirit of progress had pressed hardly upon individuals, and a good many spinners and measurers had been discharged, whose work was now efficiently done at a saving of several thousands a year to the public. But great care had been taken to do as little harm as possible to any individuals. With regard to the spinners, a great majority of them have been able to get employment in other branches of the service, and only a small proportion of them had 950 elected to leave the dockyards. Every consideration had been shown towards those persons which was consistent with a due regard for the public interest, and no one could be more anxious to do justice to all parties than was the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty. With regard to the other class of persons who had been affected by recent changes, those who were not fit for other works were superannuated; but as to the remainder, they were being gradually absorbed into the other departments, and until that absorption took place, which he believed would be in a few months, they were allowed to retain their salaries. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Angerstein) had referred to a remark which he (Mr. Childers) had been supposed to have made on a former evening respecting the advantages enjoyed by dockyard men when they were sick. It was a mistake to suppose that he had alluded to that subject, but he would just acquaint the House with the regulations in force for the sick and hurt workmen in the dockyards. Any man who was hurt in the execution of his duty was allowed half-pay until his return to work, but a man absent on account of sickness has no allowance. When any workman had been absent from sickness for a period of six months a special report was required, and the surgeons were directed not to allow men to remain absent for a longer period than was actually necessary. During the process of recovering strength a man was put to easy work, and when a man became ruptured in the course of his duty, upon the recommendation of the surgeon he was provided with a truss. If those regulations were fairly carried out, and he believed that they were carried out in the most kindly spirit by the surgeons of the various yards, he did not know what possible improvement could be introduced. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of his comparing the 9,600 men on the establishment receiving pay with the 3,000 men who were in the receipt of superannuation allowances. In fact, he believed he had rather understated the latter figures, as he now learnt that the total number of men in receipt of such allowances was 3,100, or rather more than 30 per cent of the establishment. The other hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons) complained that the men in the dockyards did not know what they earned, but as all men were now paid by day wages, there could be no difficulty on that account. Then came the hon. and gallant Gentleman the 951 Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) who approached the subject with courage, not to say with rashness, and he brought a whole budget of complaints from all branches of officers in the dockyard service. If the hon. and gallant Member thought it to be his duty, as the representative of a dockyard borough to say that everybody had a grievance, he (Mr. Childers) would be content to leave it to the knowledge and discretion of the House to decide how much weight should be attached to such evidence. Once a year the Admiralty gave every possible facility for the rectification of grievances. They went to the dockyards, they investigated complaints on the spot, and the representations of the men were thoroughly looked into. He trusted that the Government would be allowed to take this Vote, and that the House would hear no more during the present Session of the insufficient pay of persons employed in the Royal Dockyards.
§ MR. SEELYsaid, he rose to move a reduction of £10,777 in the Vote, on the ground that the charge for the police was more than sufficient. The amount for the police this year was £38,295, which was appropriated in two parts—one for watching and guarding the navy yards, and the other for watching and guarding the victualling, medical, and transport establishments. He was unable to state the exact appropriation for the present year, because no explanation was given; but he would recommend that in future years the appropriation would be explained. He might assume, however, that the appropriation this year would be the same as for 1863–4, when it was £19,364 for the naval yards, as given at page 5, No. 514 "Navy Ships'" account for 1863–4 leaving £18,931 for the victualling, &c, establishments. He had made some inquiries as to the expense which private yards were put to for watching and guarding. He found that at Millwall twelve watchmen were employed at a charge of £748 a year; at the Thames Iron Works ten watchmen were employed at a charge of £696, and taking a third private firm he found that altogether twenty-six watchmen were employed at a cost of £1,652. Calculating the number of workmen employed at these private yards the charge per head per annum was 2s. 6d. a man for watching and guarding. The Government, on the other hand, paid £19,364 for watching 16,964 men, or at the rate of 23s. 2d. per 952 man for guarding their naval yards; but this was economy itself compared with the charge for watching and guarding the victualling and medical establishments, which amounted to not less than £18,931 for watching 714 persons, being £26 6s. per head for the number of persons employed in these establishments. Yet they were mostly matrons, nurses, cooks, barbers, &c. The reason why he proposed this special reduction was, that in 1863–4 the Government only required the sum of £8,141 for watching and guarding these victualling and medical establishments, which was amply sufficient for all practical purposes. These police charges were not incurred in guarding from without, but from within. He believed that the course pursued was such as to damage the character and lower the moral tone of the workmen. In 1859 there was a Committee on Dockyard Economy, and Lieutenant Wise, a dockyard superintendent of the police, was examined before it. He stated that on the workmen leaving the yard of which he was police superintendent they passed between six policemen and an inspector, that about every fifth man was "rubbed down," as it was called, to see if he had any stolen property about him, and that on the average every man was searched twice a week. He would appeal to the Government to take into their consideration the expediency of doing away with what they must admit was a most degrading practice. It might be urged that it was necessary; but that was a plea which was always set up in favour of an abuse, as in the case of the free use of the lash in the army and the press-gang to man the navy. It was a degrading practice, and he ascribed its continuance to the want of competent heads of departments. In private firms, where the relations of master and servants were on a better footing, these heartburnings did not exist. He moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £10,777.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the introduction of the metropolitan police into the dockyards was a measure which had been decided upon by the Legislature, and which had been productive of great advantage. He had a Return which showed that whereas in 1859, under the loose system then in operation, only sixty-five persons had been apprehended for theft and other offences, 645 offenders had been arrested the very first year the new system came into operation. That was tolerable proof 953 that the introduction of the police into the dockyards was not a mistake. Since then the number of offences had diminished. His hon. Friend had exaggerated the case as to the number of police engaged in guarding the hospitals and elsewhere; £30,366 went for the wages of the police engaged in watching the dockyards, while the charge for watching the victualling department was £4,234, and that for the medical department £2,653. The amount he could not think was excessive when the work to be done was taken into account.
§ In reply to Mr. Alderman SALOMONS,
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the introduction of the metropolitan police had considerably lessened the number of offences and of marine-store shop dealings in the dockyards.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that he wished to vindicate the heads of dockyard departments from the taunts of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely). There were no less than sixteen post captains employed in superintending private yards, showing that their services in this respect were well appreciated in the country.
§ MR. LAIRDsaid, he thought £38,000 was a very large sum to be expended on watching and guarding our dockyards. There was a great disparity in this respect between public and private yards. He did not complain of the introduction of the metropolitan police into the dockyards, but he did complain that so large a sum as £38,000 should be expended in maintaining a police force to watch 16,000 to 17,000 men. He also thought it was great degradation for a respectable workman to be searched on leaving the dockyard, though he was ready to admit that a different system of police was required in public from that employed in private establishments. If anything would justify the high wages which were paid in the Royal dockyards, it was the degradation to which respectable workmen were exposed by being searched. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) were perfectly correct.
§ MR. C. P. BERKELEYsaid, that the police had not only to protect the property in our dockyards, but also to visit every ship lying in the docks and to guard against fires.
§ MR. SEELYsaid, that the statements which he had made as to the relative costs of watching in the Government and private yards were accurate.
§
Whereupon Motion made, and Question
That a sum, not exceeding £1,148,020, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others employed in Her Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 18G6,"—(Mr. Seely,)
—put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (2.) £72,585, Wages to Artificers Abroad.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE moved that the Chairman report Progress.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Government would not object to postpone Votes 10 and 11, and to the others he believed there was no objection.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Sir James Elphinstone.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 42: Majority 25.
§ Votes 10 and 11 were postponed.
§ (3.) £64,800, Medicines and Medical Stores.
§ (4.) £103,925, Naval Miscellaneous Services.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought that the contribution to sailors' homes should be increased, so as to aid in providing better lodgings for sailors in the principal commercial ports. He found that the Government gave only the trifling sum of £425 as a contribution to sailors' homes, and it appeared to him that they might with great advantage advance a larger sum for so admirable a purpose.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the Government had received no complaints that the sailors' homes in the dockyard ports were not in good circumstances, or that their managers were dissatisfied with the contributions of the Admiralty towards their support. The question whether the Government should assist in the maintenance of similar institutions in all the commercial ports—for the Government could not make a distinction—was a very wide one, which would require much consideration. He was afraid that the immediate effect of their interfering with these charitable institutions would be to lead many persons to withdraw their subscriptions and devote them to objects which received no assistance from the Government.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he could assure the noble Lord that sailors' homes might be extended with great advantage, and complained that the Admiralty made no provision for the education of the children of those who were employed in the dockyards.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the sum of £2,000 which was for contributions to religious and charitable institutions exceeded the Estimate of last year by £625; and this excess was mainly caused by provision for the very object which the hon. Baronet desired to see accomplished. The Director of Education had been instructed to visit all the schools in the dockyard towns, and he had prepared a full and complete scheme under which it was intended in the future to make contributions to their support.
§ MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that provision for the safety and comfort of sailors when they came ashore was not a work of charity; it was a plain duty of the Admiralty.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to inquire what was the amount of stamp duty paid by officers of the navy for their commissions.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the stamp was fixed by law at 5s.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ In moving that the Chairman should report Progress,
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that he intended to go on with the Navy Estimates after the Army Estimates on Monday, the 24th instant.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he thought that that was too early a day.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that Vote 11 would not be taken on the 24th.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported on Monday 24th April; Committee to sit again on Monday 24th April.