§ MR. CONYBEAREI beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the fact that further discharges of smiths and other workmen from the Devonport and Keyham Dockyards are ordered; over how man weeks will these discharges be spread, and how many men will be discharged; whether, inasmuch as there is plenty of work going forward in the Dockyards, and the shipbuilding programme laid down for the year in the particular establishment affected by these discharges is considerably in arrear, there is any other reason for such discharges than the rule that the weekly expenditure must not be exceeded; and whether he can devise some alteration of the rules which should obviate the waste, and save the men the hardship of being constantly discharged, when in fact there is work for them to do?
§ * THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,) Middlesex, EalingA further discharge of Smiths (20) is ordered. These men will be discharged on Saturday next. The reason for these discharges is not on account of an excess on the weekly expenditure, but because there is not sufficient Smith's work on which to employ these men profitably; and a further reason is the adjustment of Trades, fewer Blacksmiths being required, but more labourers. I see no means of altering the rules to secure the constant employment of any particular class, consistent with the economical administration of the Dockyards.
§ MR. CONYBEAREIs it a fact that of the 19 or 20 men about to be discharged, 17 are men who served their apprenticeship in these Yards and are first-class workmen? I will further ask, whether the discharge of workmen under these circumstances does not amount to this—that the special training and education the men have received at the expense of the ratepayers will, in future, be utilized not for the benefit of the nation but of private persons?
§ * LORD G. HAMILTONWhether they served their apprenticeship in the Dockyards does not affect the matter. If they cannot be profitably employed there is no use in employing them.