OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 6 March 1865)

§ MR. FERRAND

Sir, in asking the permission of the House to bring under its notice the great inequality of the wages paid to men employed in dockyards, I am sorry I cannot assent to the recommendation of the noble Viscount to postpone my Motion in order that he might at once proceed with the consideration of the Naval Estimates in Committee. There are no less than 16,000 men employed in the various Royal dockyards, every one of whom, I may say, takes a deep interest in this question. The artificers of Her Majesty's dockyards constitute a body of men of the greatest value to the country, and are second to none of Her Majesty's servants in their utility and loyalty. Many of them are descended from the earliest builders and constructors of the Royal Navy. They have made repeated claims upon the Admiralty, all of which have been neglected or 1137 ignored. They, therefore, think that the time is now come for making an appeal to the House of Commons, and for having their peculiar case fairly placed before the Members of this House, being of opinion that the representatives of the people will do them justice and grant their request. Sir, these men have been now applying to the Board of Admiralty for several consecutive years, in the shape of a memorial, which the noble Lord the Secretary of the Board of Admiralty (Lord Clarence Paget) said, last Session, was most respectfully worded, and in which they put forward claims that were most reasonable. The noble Lord also at that time expressed his belief that if they would be patient, in a short period of time their claims would be satisfied and redress granted them. Well, Sir, they have waited patiently up to the present time, and no redress has been given them. They have once more memorialized the Admiralty, and again once more have their claims been rejected. I am sorry to say that this refusal of the Board of Admiralty to concede their just demands has produced a great amount of ill-feeling amongst the men employed in the Royal dockyards. I may safely say, that in these dockyards there is not one class of workmen without a grievance. I now ask the indulgence of the House, whilst I submit their case to its consideration, from a conviction that I shall be able to show the justice and reasonableness of their claims even from the admissions and sentiments of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, and the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) whilst discharging the duties of a junior lord of the Admiralty last year. The hon. Member for Halifax has almost proved my case, because he admitted that the wages of the shipwrights employed in private dockyards amounted to 7s. a day, and by piecework they generally made 9s. a day; while similar officers in Her Majesty's dockyards only received about 4s. 6d. a day. On the 14th of March last year, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) gave the House an account of a self-imposed roving Commission to inquire into the dockyards—of which he happened to be at the time as ignorant as it was possible for a man to be. He also stated that he had visited the private yards at Millwall and Birkenhead:— That in private yards day-work shipwrights, or men occupying an equivalent position, expect 7s. a day, whilst by piecework they generally make 9s.; that the shipwrights in Her Majesty's 1138 yards get is. 6d. a day, to which another 6d. may be added for the value of their superannuation. My own opinion is that while on the one hand it would be unwise to throw away the positive advantage of a moderate minimum establishment of men moderately paid, upon whom we can rely at a time of pressure, and when the labour market may offer peculiar temptations; so, on the other hand, it is well worthy of consideration, how far and under what circumstances the Admiralty may take a hint from the private yards."[3 Hansard clxxiii. 1955.] Such was the opinion of the hon. Member, and I hope that the expression of the opinion of this House will induce the Admiralty to take a hint from private yards. Now, in respect to this superannuation, I shall, I think be able to prove that instead of its being of any value to the men, to a great portion of them it is of no value whatever, and that instead of its being of the value of 6d. a day to any, it really amounts only to 3d. a day. The artificers of Her Majesty's dockyards have a most fair and righteous claim to have their wages raised, when it is considered that their pay shows a difference of 2s. a day, when compared with that of the artificers employed in private dockyards, the difference being wholly in favour of the latter. I will take the hon. Gentleman's own admission as a complete justification of that claim when he said that the shipwrights employed in Her Majesty's dockyards received 2s. a day, or 12s. a week less than those employed in the private dockyards of Millwall and Birkenhead, and thus it appears that the artificers were receiving 13s. 6d. a week—taking the superannuation not at 6d. but at 3d. per day, which is its real value—less than the same class of men employed in private dockyards. Now, I ask whether it is possible that men who are knowingly receiving 13s. 6d. a week less in the Royal dockyards than those employed in private dockyards can rest satisfied with the belief that they receive a fair day's wages for a fair day's labour. But this sixpence a-day for so-called superannuation—I insist that this should not be considered as any portion of wages at all, for the country greatly benefits by the present system of superannuation. I received the other day an able letter from a person residing in Devonport, who takes a great interest in the question of dockyard wages. I beg leave to read a few words from it, because I think that they will show better the real value of this superannuation allowance than any statement of my own. The writer says— 1139 If the Admiralty contend that superannuation is given as a compensation or equivalent for the scale of wages paid in Royal dockyards, then, in reply, I state that not 3 per cent of the men ever live to get superannuation at all. This is a fact, and can be proved; and those men who do leave the yard upon their superannuations do not, on an average, enjoy their pensions more than from three to five years. Again, when it is considered that the wages of the Royal dockyards are so much under private yards, the men, by receiving so much less wages, are actually contributing towards the superannuation fund all the years they work; and as only one man to every thirty receives superannuation the country positively benefits, as insurance companies do, by mulcting the men of their proper wages. I now feel that I am perfectly justified in saying that the artificers of Her Majesty's dockyards are mulcted to the extent of 1s.. 6d. in the £1 for this superannuation fund, because it is proved that only 3 per cent ever live to enjoy it. I will now read a few lines from the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee of Inquiry into the Dockyards in 1858. Mr. Penfold, the late Accountant at Woolwich, a very experienced gentleman, made this statement— The numbers who live to benefit by the superannuation fund amount only to about 2 per cent. Now, this is the evidence of a gentleman of a high position, and a valuable public servant. The other day I had sent to me a statement of the various men employed in Her Majesty's dockyards, together with their wages. Great care has been taken in the drawing up of this document, so that the facts contained therein should be stated correctly. If the House will allow me I should like to read it, as it materially affects the interests of 16,000 of Her Majesty's servants employed in the Royal dockyards. I am anxious to obtain the attention of the House to the case which is here disclosed, in order to elicit such an expression of opinion as will induce the Board of Admiralty to grant the request of these much aggrieved men:— Statement showing the Average Rate of Wages in Private and Royal Dockyards. Shipwrights.—Birkenhead, 7s.; London, 7s. 6d.; Falmouth, 5s.—average, 6s. 9d. in private yards, against 4s. 6d. in Royal yards. Joiners.—London, 6s.; Liverpool, 6s. 6d.; Plymouth, 5s.—average, 5s. 10d. in private yards, against 3s. 10d. in Royal yards. Smiths.—Average, 6s. in private yards, against 5s. 2d. in Royal yards. Sailmakers.—London, 6s.; Liverpool, 6s.; Bristol, 5s. 6d.—average, 5s. 10d. in private yards, against 3s. 10d. in Royal yards. 1140 Riggers.—Liverpool, first class, 5s. 6d.; second class, 5s.—average, 5s. 3d. in private yards, against 3s. 9d. in Royal yards. Ropemakers.—Liverpool, average, 5s. in private yards, against 3s. 10d. in Royal yards. Sawyers.—Average, topmen, 4s. 6d. and pitmen 4s. in private yards, against 3s. 10d. and 3s. in Royal yards. Labourers.—London, 3s. 6d.; Liverpool, 3s. 6d.; Plymouth, 3s.—average, 3s. 6d. in private yards, against 2s. 3d. in Royal yards. Bonded Warehousemen.—Country averages, 5s. in private yards, against 3s. 6d. and 3s. in Royal yards. In the Royal yards these men are under a bond of £100 for the safe custody of stores Now these men—who amount to a body of no less than 16,000, have sent me this clear and intelligible statement under the firm conviction that it cannot be denied or refuted. It discloses an inequality of wages between the Royal and private dockyards—being a state of things which it is impossible for the Board of Admiralty to justify. Under such circumstances it is idle to expect that the men thus aggrieved can perform their duty with either vigour or spirit. Upon the 4th of March last year, the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty made a statement which I will now read to the House:— He was quite aware that the artificers of Her Majesty's dockyards did not receive that amount of pay which they might get in the private trade; and that remark applied not only to the joiners but to all the artificers. He should be very glad if the Admiralty could comply with the reasonable desires of the artificers, because he knew their merits; and if they waited patiently for a short time, as the establishment was very nearly down to its proper number, a flow of promotion into it would take place which he was positive would be satisfactory. Hon. Gentlemen should remember when they talked of increasing the pay in the dockyards that they had some 16,000 or 17,000 men to deal with, and to increase it even by sixpence a day, which was no very large addition after all, would make a difference of upwards of £100,000 a year. Speaking conscientiously of the matter, there was not the least doubt that the men in Her Majesty's dockyards were not paid at the full market value for labour of that description. But then they had many advantages over the men in private yards. For instance, their employment was continuous, but in private yards shipwrights were often discharged on a wet day and received no pay. Again, the artificers of Her Majesty's yards when hurt were allowed to receive half their pay.—[3 Hansard clxxiii 1977.] Now, I remember when the noble Lord made the statement that an addition of only sixpence a day would make an addition to the expenditure of the country of about £100,000 a year, a number of hon. Gentlemen sitting below the gangway, and 1141 who represented the Financial Reformers, cried out loudly "hear, hear." Is England, I would ask, so very depressed that she cannot afford to pay these men even an additional sixpence a day, because it would involve her in an augmentation of expenditure of £100,000? I have no doubt that in a short time we shall hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer standing at the table making a popularity hunting statement, in which he will boast of the great prosperity and enormous wealth of the country. Now, suppose the artificers of the Royal dockyards should take a hint from private yards, as the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) hoped the Admiralty would do, and seriously demand the reason why they should be paid less than those employed in private dockyards, what would be the natural consequence? You argue the question with reference to the total cost of £100,000; but I say these men are justly entitled to argue it with respect to the difference between the pay in private dockyards and in the dockyards of the country. The noble Lord, in the concluding part of his remarks last year, alluded to the many advantages which he said the dockyard men had over workmen in private yards, and among those was that their employment was continuous, while in private yards shipwrights were often discharged on a wet day and received no pay. I have made inquiries, and have been told by a gentleman largely engaged in shipbuilding that the men were very seldom discharged—that if they worked the first portion of a day which turned out to be very wet, it was optional with them to work or go—and that only occurred when the ship had not been long on the stocks, but that when it was approaching completion there were plenty of ways of employing the men under cover. Again, the noble Lord said that the men employed in the Royal yards when hurt received half-pay. The advantages therefore are equal. The same gentleman states that he knew of private shipbuilding yards in which when the men were hurt, they not only received pay when so disabled, but that their wives and families were frequently supported by the owners. These men have waited patiently since last year. They have memorialised the Admiralty, but their prayer has been refused, and they have asked me to state their case to the House. All they ask is that the Government will increase the pay of the workmen sixpence a day all round 1142 the yards, leaving 1s. 6d. a day to the advantage of the Royal over private yards. I think that is a reasonable request. So strong a feeling exists in the Royal dockyards that the men are not fairly paid that I am certain unless their grievances are redressed the public service will suffer. An addition of sixpence a day will amount this year, not to £100,000, but only to £68,660. In the borough which I represent the increase for 2,200 men employed in the dockyard of that place will amount to only £17,160. That is all that is required to enable the men to live in comfort. You ought not to forget that within the last few years every article of food, with the exception of bread, has increased from 20 to 40 per cent. Coals, cotton goods, and cloths have, moreover, more than doubled in price. In addition to this, the men complain that they have great difficulty in giving their children the education necessary for them to stand the competitive examination for Government employment. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) is perfectly well acquainted with the statements in the memorial which the artificers have presented to the Admiralty, and I do not think he will be able to refute them. No memorial could be more respectfully worded. I have said that there is not a class of workmen in the Royal dockyards which has not a grievance. The factories have been in existence twenty-five years; but the factory workmen are refused superannuation. Upon this point the Committee appointed to inquire into the economy of the dockyards remark:— That having considered the subject of superannuation in reference to the workmen of the factories, the Committee are of opinion that as they are necessarily working in combination with the men of the dockyards, it will be expedient to devise a system by which provision shall be made for the old and valued servants in the factories when incapacitated by age for further work. The Committee have come to this conclusion from the conviction on their minds that after the factories shall have existed for a lengthened period, and after a number of old workmen of merit and long service shall have been discharged therefrom on account of their age, claims for a superannuation allowance by these men would be made with a force that it would be impossible to resist. I believe that in iron ship building the destruction of clothes is much greater than what takes place in building wooden ships. The sawyers complained that they did not enjoy the 4d. a day of additional pay received by some other classes of workpeople with whom they used to rank equally. 1143 The dockyard labourers received only from 12s. to 14s. a week—less than agricultural labourers were paid in many parts of England, though their cottage rent was not more than one-third that of the dockyard labourers, who had to reside in the towns. The noble Lord tells us that the country cannot afford £100,000 for the object I propose. How can private shipbuilders afford it; and how can they build ships for you, paying their artificers 7s. 6d. while you pay your men only 4s. 6d. a day? I am sorry to think that the best men are leaving your dockyards in order to get employment in private yards. The noble Lord says that he can get as many workmen as he wishes. Yes; but do you get the same class of men at 4s. 6d. a day which the owners of private yards get at 7s. a day? I deny it. A few cling to the dockyard I do not doubt; but I believe numbers of your best men are continually leaving for private yards. I believe the statement I have made cannot be contravened. I have been requested to make this appeal by the artificers, and I have done so in the hope that other Members will help out their case so as to elicit an expression of opinion by the House which will induce the Admiralty to take their most reasonable claim into consideration.

§ MR. CHILDERS

said, his hon. Friend had made his remarks in a very temperate tone, and he should endeavour to follow him in that respect, but it was his duty, speaking for the Admiralty, to ask whether this was a subject with which the House could advantageously deal. Here were 16,000 men employed in a public Department and distributed among the principal maritime stations of this country. Now, so long as the Executive Government were responsible for the management of these dockyards, and were constantly told by both sides of the House that dockyard work ought to be more economically executed, and that ships might be more economically constructed in private than in the Royal yards, was it right that hon. 1144 Members representing those dockyard towns should propose that the wages of the men employed there by the Government should be increased by this House? If that principle were carried out, if persons connected with the army were to ask for an increase of pay for the army, persons connected with the navy were to urge the claims of the sailors in a similar manner, and persons connected with the dockyards were to ask for an increase with the dockyard labourers, there really would be no end to such applications. In fact, it would become quite impossible for the Government to keep the finances of the country in order, if Parliament gave any countenance to such appeals. His hon. Friend did not appear to know much of the manner in which public work was dealt with at the dockyards. It was certainly a novel proposal to take the wages of so many different classes of workmen as much as 200 and 300 per cent, and to ask an increase of 6d. a day all round. On the face of it such a proposition was not logical, and he was sure the House would not adopt it. As his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Clarence Paget) explained last year, the increase asked for, small as it might sound, would involve a very heavy outlay. If they raised the wages in the dockyards, they must do the same in the victualling yards, and in the hospitals, and indeed generally throughout the Government Establishments. There were 16,000 men in the dockyards, and if they increased their pay 6d. a day, they must, in like manner, increase the pay of the men employed in the victualling yard and other departments. But taking simply the proposition to increase the wages of the dockyard men 6d. a day, what would be the result? Sixpence a day, including Sundays, would make £9 a year and a little more, and if given to 16,000 men would amount in the year to £145,000. Omitting Sundays, and including other departments besides the dockyards, which must of course follow, the increased charge would be nearly as great. This would form a very serious item in the expenditure of the country, and would make itself apparent in the Budget. His hon. Friend had missed the point of what his noble Friend said last year. His noble Friend said that the position of the dockyard men would soon be much improved, and already he could say that that had come to pass. Hitherto the Dockyard Establishment had 1145 been very much in excess of the proper number, and it was only this year that it had been reduced to the prescribed point. While that reduction was being made hired men had but little promotion to the establishment, but now they would be able to obtain a steady flow of promotion to the establishment without having to wait so long as would otherwise have been necessary. His hon. Friend would see by turning to the Estimates that the establishment had been reduced to the number fixed by the Order in Council of June, 1850, and in this respect, therefore, the men were placed in a very much better position. There was another matter in which their position had been greatly improved, and that was the introduction of the rule under which men were superannuated at sixty-five, and in certain cases before that age. That was not the rule until lately, and he believed nothing had done more good to the body of dockyard men than the establishment of that rule, which brought forward younger men to early promotion. His hon. Friend had referred to some of the advantages which men in the dockyards enjoyed over those in private yards, but he had made far too light of them. It was a decided benefit to the former to have superannuation, covered yards for working in, holidays when they were sick, and, above all, continuous employment. Every now and then, when business was slack, the private yards suddenly discharged their hands, whereas in the Royal Dockyards they were kept on from year's end to year's end. It had been said that only one man in thirty received superannuation on the authority of some anonymous letter; but, if the benefit was so trivial, why did his hon. Friend make it a grievance that the factory men did not receive it? The fact was that with 9,600 established men in the dockyards, 3,000 were on superannuation, including a few men belonging to the victualling yards. There were about one in four men upon superannuation compared with the number on the established list. Last year alone no fewer than 337 men were superannuated out of the established men in the dockyards, or one in every twenty-eight. His hon. Friend forgot that the benefits of superannuation were now greater than before, and the men in the dockyards would certainly be very reluctant to surrender them. The Government could not be charged with what his hon. Friend called "doing" the dockyard people out of 1146 £400,000 when they were in the enjoyment of the advantages he had enumerated. The best proof that there was no ground for the charge was that there was no tendency on the part of the dockyard men to go away. That was another point on which the hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken, as he could show by Returns he had procured. There were 9,600 established men in the dockyards. Of these only seventeen had left the service in the last three months. There were 5,792 unestablished men, who were free as air, and had nothing to retain them but the immediate benefit of their pay, and of these the total number who left in the same period was only 163. He put it to any Member acquainted with private yards whether there was not from them a greater movement of men than from the Royal yards? The pay of the men was by no means so comparatively small as his hon. Friend represented. The average pay of established men was 24s. a week, of unestablished men 21s., and of factory men 23s. The fact was that the dockyard men were excellent artificers; they were well paid and were attentive to their duties, and he did not think his hon. Friend fairly represented them if he thought they complained that they were "done" out of £400,000. He believed they were paid not indeed a high but a fair rate of wages, and he hoped the House would not countenance the intention, however good, of his hon. Friends in coming forward, they representing large dockyard constituencies, and asking the House to add £150,000 a year to the Navy Estimates, for those boroughs.