NAVY—SWIMMING—OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 11 March 1875)

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
said, that, having been for 15 years a member of the Committee of the Royal Humane Society, it had come to his knowledge that by far the greater number of seamen in Her Majesty's Navy were unable to swim. He had received a letter from a gentleman on board one of our largest line-of-battle ships, who said that when she came into the harbour at Gibraltar, it was found that, while all the officers could swim, not more than a third of the sailors could swim, and they were obliged to bathe in a sail. Such a state of things could not occur in a public school, or even in a private school. Some most valuable lives were sacrificed in the attempt to save the seamen who could not swim. It seemed to be a point of honour on the part of the officers or men who could swim, that if a sailor fell into the water, they were to jump over and attempt to save him. He had consulted with a great many Naval officers, who all agreed that there was no reason why the men should not be 1631 compelled to learn to swim. In all the preparatory Naval schools swimming was taught. The life of a seaman in the Royal Navy was the property of the State; and it was not the lives of the men who could not swim that were alone in question, but the lives which were sometimes sacrificed in futile attempts to save them. He thought it high time that something should be done in this matter with regard to the Navy.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he would refer to the different topics which had been brought before the House as briefly as possible, because he would, when the House went into Committee, have to speak at some length. The question of swimming was a very important one. He could not say what proportion of seamen in the Royal Navy were able to swim; but he could assure his hon. Friend (Sir William Eraser) that in the different training ships, swimming was taught systematically, and that in all ships on foreign stations, when the weather and climate permitted, every facility was given to the men to learn swimming. Just as, however, you might take a horse to water, but could not make him drink, so you might take men to bathe but could not make them swim. The seamen certainly showed in too many cases a great inaptitude, although he agreed that they ought to be encouraged to learn to swim as much as possible. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) he (Mr. Hunt) entirely differed from the view taken by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman thought it a degrading thing that young men should be flogged with the birch. Five of these youths, between 13 and 14 years of age, were thus flogged in the Britannia last October. If flogging was degrading, many of them who had been to public schools had been degraded in the same way, but they had survived the disgrace—if disgrace it were—and had become all the better for it. The hon. Member said that the Admiralty had taken away from the captain the power of inflicting corporal punishment; but they had specially ordered these young men to be flogged. They had thoroughly deserved it for insubordinate conduct. Fagging had been persisted in, notwithstanding that minor punishments had been inflicted; and a solemn warning was then sent down from the Admiralty as to the 1632 consequences that would follow if the practice were persisted in. In the teeth of this warning, evidently by concerted action, the offence was repeated, and at last it became a question whether the Admiralty or the cadets were to govern the ship. It was absolutely necessary that some strong measure should be taken, and the boys must either be dismissed or flogged. The hon. Member said the parents of the boys would have preferred that they should be dismissed; but he (Mr. Hunt) knew the contrary to be the case. One parent wrote that he preferred that his son should be flogged, rather than dismissed. He heard that the punishment had had a satisfactory effect upon the discipline of the ship, and that the ordinary minor punishments had since diminished in number. He had been asked to assure the House that the punishment should not occur again All he could say was, that he hoped there would be no occasion for it; but if the offence were repeated, it would be the duty of the Admiralty to repeat the punishment. It was his duty to maintain the discipline of the ship, and in dealing with young gentlemen of that age, the right course had, he thought, been adopted under the circumstances. He now came to two matters of a different character—the question of the Marine officers, so ably brought before the House by his hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and the warrant officers, whose case had been stated by his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Captain Price). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who was Chairman of the Committee on the Promotion and Retirement of the Marines and other corps, advised him not to deal with this subject until the Royal Commission now sitting on Army Promotion and Retirement had reported; and in doing so, he gave the reason why this matter had not been dealt with by the Admiralty. The grievance of the officers of the Royal Marines was very well known. It was one of the most painful parts of his duty to witness the stagnation of promotion, and it did not need the able advocacy of his hon. Friend the Member for Chatham to make him (Mr. Hunt) fully alive to the evils from which they were suffering. Anxious as he had been to do justice in the matter, he found that under the state of things existing with regard to promo 1633 tion, and retirement in the Army it would be perfectly impossible to deal with the question of Marine officers until the principles upon which the Army was to be treated were settled. He hoped his hon. Friend would see that it was from no unwillingness on his part, but simply owing to the position of affairs, that he had not been able to settle it at present. With respect to the case of the warrant officers, which had been introduced by his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Price), it must come before the House before long. Their case was deserving of consideration, and he hoped before long to be able to hold out some prospect of improvement. The present was not a very favourable time for proposing an increase in the Estimates. The circumstances of the year were so peculiar, as the House would shortly be informed, that it was a remarkably unfavourable time for putting these claims before Parliament. He trusted that this difficulty would be only temporary, and that he should be enabled at no distant period to place before the House a satisfactory proposal in regard to the claims of the warrant officers.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that when Mr. Corry informed the House that the punishment of flogging on board the Britannia was to be discontinued, nothing was said as to the power of the Admiralty to interpose on special occasions. For his own part, he objected more to the manner in which the punishment was inflicted than to the punishment itself. This particular punishment for such small boys was not altogether undesirable; but, in the present case, it was inflicted by the ship's corporal in the presence of all the other boys and of the officers. Now, when flogging was inflicted in public schools, it was not administered before the other boys. [Mr. HUNT: It was in my time.] fie believed that in the early part of his own career it used to be public; but the public flogging was discontinued while he was at school. It destroyed the self-respect of the boy who was flogged, and the flogging on board the Britannia should have been in private, as in our public schools.