NAVY—NAVY AND DOCKYARD OFFICERS.—OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 6 August 1881)

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
said, that, though he did not wish to detain the House, he was unfortunately compelled to bring some grievances connected with the Navy before the House in that manner in consequence of the extraordinary conduct of the First Lord of the Admiralty. That noble Lord had had the unlimited pretension to refuse to receive Members of Parliament on matters connected with their constituencies. When a body of Members connected with Dockyard constituencies had wished to see him he had refused to receive them, and had therefore thrust upon them the necessity of appealing to their Constitutional privileges. He had no wish, nor had the Dockyard officials any wish, to obstruct the proceedings of the House by bringing forward their grievances, and he should not have done so but for the attitude taken by Lord Northbrook towards Members of Parliament. It might do very well in India, but it was not at all consistent with the duties of a Cabinet Minister towards the Representatives of the people. The case he wished to bring before the House was that of the old navigating officers. The old officers now found themselves completely eclipsed by a younger class of men, so that their position was becoming almost untenable, and many a good appointment to which they had hitherto looked had been taken away from them. Navigating lieutenants and staff commanders were constantly placed under the orders of officers junior to themselves, while their pay and pension were inferior to those of the newer class. Now, a commander of the new class and a lieutenant detailed for navigating duties, after 21 years' service, were entitled to a pension of £400 per annum, while staff commanders and navigating lieutenants were only entitled to £290. It was perfectly plain that if they had the power of addressing the Minister privately at his residence on these questions the House would be saved the trouble of listening to details which could be much better discussed in private than in public; and when Ministers were open to that mode of access it conduced very greatly to the quicker discharge of the Business of the House. He mentioned the matter now to call 1134 the attention of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, whose courtesy he was glad to say none of them could complain of, to it. He would also ask his hon. Friend a question with regard to the warrant officers. They suffered under a grievance which had been recognized, he thought, but not remedied. There was a clause in the Admiralty Regulations called the "other ships" clause, the effect of which was that while other officers in the Navy received the same pay whether they were at sea or on shore, the warrant officers were mulcted of £27 a-year when they were in harbour. Those officers had assured him that it was quite as expensive to live in places like Portsmouth and Plymouth as when they were at sea. He thought that matter ought to be brought before the House and the Secretary to the Admiralty in a manner as detailed as possible, because he believed that the increase that would be involved in the Estimates if those officers received the same treatment as others in Her Majesty's Service would be very small indeed, and it would render a very deserving set of men much more contented than they at present were. He should have said something with regard to the Royal Naval Engineers; but his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth had applied his mind to that question, and was about to bring it forward in Supply, when, perhaps, he might have the opportunity of saying a few words. He had no wish to detain the House, and had brought forward that question very reluctantly, only because of the manner in which he had been received by the First Lord of the Admiralty.

§ MR. PULESTON
thought this was hardly the occasion to discuss this subject, because it seemed to him it could be better brought forward when the Naval Estimates were under discussion. He joined with the last speaker in deprecating in the strongest manner the unusual course taken by Lord North-brook in refusing to receive a deputation of Members representing Dockyard constituencies. A number of Members united together, and his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver), who happened to be the spokesman on that occasion, respectfully asked for an interview with the First Lord of the Admiralty, in order to lay before him what they considered to be mat- 1135 ters very material to the public interest, and desirable that he should know. He, however, received a reply couched in the most curt language. The Predecessor of the present Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), replying to a request of some officials and others employed in the Dockyards, said he could not entertain any statement of the grievances of the officers at the Admiralty, but that a fair and full opportunity would be given to all parties employed in the Dockyards to ventilate their grievances on the occasion of the annual visit of the Lords of the Admiralty. This was perfectly satisfactory to all; but when the Lords' annual visitation came round these promises were set aside at once with a very curt reply, and the officials were not allowed to go near them, or to represent to them in any way their grievances, except through their superior officers. That course was naturally attended with extreme inconvenience, and must result in the discontent of men who should be encouraged in every proper and reasonable way.

§ MR. MACLIVER
said, he was very unwilling to say anything which would seem discourteous to the First Lord of the Admiralty; but he must join in the expressions employed as to the refusal of the noble Lord to receive the deputation. The Members who composed that deputation had substantial grounds for applying for an interview, and he thought the refusal to receive them was exceedingly unwise and exceedingly discourteous to the House. He hoped at any future time, when a similar application was made to the First Lord of the Admiralty, it would be met in a different spirit. At all events, they would not be deterred by such a refusal in again pressing the grievances and complaints of men in the Service who were entitled to be heard, and whose case called for a remedy.

§ MR. TREVELYAN
said, his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had not given him Notice of his intention to bring this matter forward, and he could not answer the points raised in such detail as he would like. He could quite understand exception being taken to Lord North-brook's ship-building policy, and the manner in which he distributed ships among the squadrons, for those squad- 1136 rons were all over the world; but he was extremely surprised to hear his personal courtesy called in question. He should have said that there was no First Lord who, at greater personal inconvenience to himself, had, in the discharge of his duties, given greater satisfaction to hon. Members. He wished in some respects there were a larger House present, for he was sure that many more hon. Members would bear testimony to what he said. He should have liked to hear Lord Northbrook's account of the circumstances to which the hon. Members had referred; but he thought, so far as he could gather from the conversation, that there was an explanation to be made. He believed that the hon. Members referred to a deputation that proposed to wait upon the First Lord to represent the grievances of the Naval Engineers. He thought there was a very great deal to be said as to whether the grievances of the Engineers were a proper subject for a deputation of Members of Parliament. As the matter had appeared in some newspapers, it was a more serious thing. It was there called a deputation of the Royal Naval Engineers. Hon. Members must remember what these Engineers were, and what they claimed to be. They were commissioned officers of the Navy like post captains and commanders, and they claimed that they were not sufficiently treated as commissioned officers. As long as he was at the Admiralty, he would take care that that claim should diminish until it ceased to exist. He would ask hon. Members what they would think if deputations of lieutenants and captains in the Navy came up to London to interview Members of Parliament, and if, upon hearing them, the Members went straight to the First Lord of the Admiralty? If the same system was carried on in the Army, he would like to ask hon. Members what effect it would produce on the discipline of the Army? He was quite sure that when the naval officers began to appreciate the difference in their treatment now from what it had been they would almost be surprised that so late as 1881 they took such a course as to lay their grievances before the Admiralty. As to the warrant officers, the hon. Member must remember that the grievances of this class of officers was a recent one, and was caused by the removal of pre- 1137 vious grievances. The old grievance was that these officers got no more money by going to sea than by remaining on shore. On account of that they were divided into two classes, one being sent to sea while the other remained on shore, and the consequence was that those on shore became dissatisfied. It was, however, a matter which affected the public purse, and that must be taken into consideration in dealing with it. As to the navigating officers, he sympathized with them very much, because they were a class rapidly becoming extinct; but be did not believe practical grievances existed among them. The percentage of navigating officers who were employed now was very decidedly larger than that employed in recent years. As to their being put under the orders of junior officers, the hon. Member was, no doubt, well aware that it was always so. Masters were always in a different position, on shore especially and elsewhere, to what were called the executive officers of the Navy; but these grievances had appeared owing to the absorption of a number of officers of the navigating branch in the executive branch. It was, however, extremely important as far as possible that these senior officers should be kept to their own line, and should not find themselves placed behind their juniors. The conclusion at which the Admiralty had arrived on the whole was, that it was impossible to deal with this question otherwise than by dealing with each case separately. Beyond that which he had mentioned, he did not believe the navigating officers had any grievance which they had 10 or 15 years ago, except that grievance of the disappearance of their special line.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
wished to call attention to the objectionable system adopted by the Admiralty with reference to the pensions given to widows of naval officers. In order to check the amount of the private incomes of those ladies they were required to make a declaration, and the facts so stated were made the subject of offensive inquiries. The Comptroller and Auditor General, no doubt, had pointed out that widows in one case had an income of £550, and in two or three other cases of £200 or £250 a-year of their own. But these were very rare cases, and it seemed unbecoming that the Comptroller and Auditor General should busy himself about such 1138 matters. He would, therefore, ask whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty could not cause a discontinuance of this inquisitorial system, which was felt to be a peculiarly painful thing to many persons?

§ MR. TREVELYAN
stated that he would answer the hon. Member when the House was in Committee.