HC Deb 18 March 1878 vol 238 cc1495-505
CAPTAIN PRICE,

in rising to move— "That, in the opinion of this House, the establishment of a Fund to provide Pensions for the Widows of Seamen of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, such Fund to be supported by contributions from the men themselves and partly by Government aid, would tend to bind the men more closely to the service, check desertion, and prove a salutary and economical measure; and that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the best means of establishing such a Fund; said, this important subject had for some time been brought before the attention of the Country. Great importance was attached to this matter by the late First Lord of the Admiralty, a gentleman who had at heart not only the material and personnel of the Navy, but who took a kindly interest in every suggestion for promoting the welfare of the seamen intrusted to his care. There was a proposal by the seamen and marines to establish a fund, by the stoppage of part of their pay, for their widows and orphans. The late First Lord (Mr. Hunt) sent out Papers to every ship, calling for Returns of the number of seamen and marines who would be disposed to join such a fund as this. They were to subscribe 6d. a-month, and it was hoped they might be entitled to£24 a-year for their wives, mothers, or orphans; but, on actual calculation, finding the subscription inadequate, they were willing to pay 1s. 6d., and to be entitled to £20 a-year for their widows only. With regard to the scheme which he now attempted to submit to the House, he assumed they would have 20,000 subscribers, and his only reason for taking this figure was that when the Admiralty sent out Circulars no less than 22,000 subscribers were obtained. His proposal included the idea that the Government should assist. The first thing to ascertain was the death-rate of the force which would be included in the scheme; and, after making careful calculations on reliable data, it was found that it would be 285 per annum. About one-third of these might be expected to leave widows; and, adding a margin of 25 per cent, 120 widows at the outside would be likely to come on the fund. This figure was subject to an abatement of 6 per cent on account of death and re-marriages, or the misconduct of some of the women. He proposed that the subscription should be 1s. 8d. per month—that was to say, £1 a-year for each man. There would be no difficulty in subscribing that. This would make £20,000, and if the Government would make a grant of £20,000, that would make £40,000 a-year. The first year 120 widows would come on the fund and absorb £2,400, leaving£37,600, which, with interest, would by the next year amount to £38,916, to be invested as a fund which would go on for 17 years. At the end of 17 years this would give an accumulated balance amounting to £597,526. The interest on this sum would be £20,000 a-year, so that the Government would be released from contributing further towards the fund. In the 90th year of the fund there would, it was calculated, be 2,000 widows on the fund—the maximum number—because the abatement of 6 per cent would be exactly equal to the number of widows coming annually on the fund, and then it would have reached the sum of £40,000 required to pay each widow a pension of £20. Several objections were made last year when he raised the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) submitted what might be called technical or actuarial objections, and warned the House not to constitute an accumulated fund, which was certain to prove a failure. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had been misinformed as to the rules under which it was proposed the fund should be instituted; and, perhaps, had in his mind the failure of the Merchant Seamen's Fund. But the system under which that fund was conducted was bad, and it was badly carried out. Men were allowed to join it and leave it just as they liked; but in this case, if they came on the fund they would not be allowed to leave it. Last year a Committee sat on the subject of the Police Superannuation Fund, and one of the schemes on which they reported was as follows:—It was believed, they said, that if all the members of the force could be treated as belonging to a single force, and that the fund could be raised by annual contributions equivalent to 9 per cent on the whole pay, a fund might be derived which would meet the requirements of the case—2½ per cent from the pay of the men, 2½ per cent to be contributed by the Government, and 4 per cent to be derived from the rates; and it was shown by evidence that there would be no difficulty in carrying out such a scheme, if only the entire police force could be placed under one system. With respect to his proposal, he would remind the House that it was only when the fund reached its final stage in 90 years that they would require so large a fund as £40.000; but he would provide a fund of that amount at once, and for this reason—that it would allow the Government grant to drop in a few years. The objection raised by the Government last year was a Treasury objection—namely, that the scheme would cost money, and that if they did what was required for the Navy they must do it also for the Army. Well, he would be the last to suggest that advantages should be given to the Navy which were withheld from the Army. The Services had an equal right to the advantages they received, and little enough they were. There were, however, essential differences between the two Services. The Navy was a standing service, the Army was not. In the Navy men entered, speaking generally, on the continuous system; the short-term system prevailed in the Army. But there were differences in the relations of the State to the families of the men of the two Services. The soldier's wife and family were constantly with him, and were supported, to a great extent, by the State. They were fed and lodged by the State, and his children were by the State educated. In the Navy there was nothing of that kind, and it would not be reasonable to expect there should be; but there was surely all the more need, therefore, that some equivalent provision should be made for the widows of seamen. It was contended by the men that there being a want of co-operation with them by the Government there was no inducement for them to remain in the Service. But as they conceived that if they remained their widows were entitled to pensions, they had pointed out certain sources from which the necessary funds might be drawn. Among other suggestions was one that the seamen should receive a great part of the profits derived by the Government from the savings on provisions supplied, or intended to be supplied, to the sailors on service. It was true the men found it convenient to let their rations go by, and to receive money in lieu of them, which money they could expend in the purchase of fresh vegetables and other small luxuries at the ports they entered in the course of their voyages; but, as the Government made an annual profit of some £65,000 by the transaction, they not unnaturally thought themselves entitled to a share in the profit. Then, the skimmings of the coppers were estimated to be worth £2,000 a-year, and at present it was spent in beautifying the ships. Then there were fines, amounting to between £6,000 and £7,000 a-year; but he was not sure whether some portion of that did not come from the contractors, and not from the men. In the Army the fines amounted to £90,000 a-year, of which £35,000 went back into the pockets of the men. All these were sources on which the seamen had the highest claim, because they came out of their pockets, and would justly and equitably be applied to such a widows fund as he suggested. Having thus proved that his scheme was a feasible one, and could be applied to the Navy without any injustice to the other Service, he would now proceed to prove that it was an economical one, especially inasmuch as it would act as a check upon desertion. The desertions averaged 1,000 men a-year. It was estimated that each able seaman cost the country from £200 to £400; but taking it as low as £150, there was on the year a loss to the country of £150,000. By preventing desertion they would save a large proportion of that amount per annum. The effect of the scheme which he proposed could not fail to have a beneficial effect in the way of inducing men to enter and remain in the Service. There was no more domesticated man in existence than the British sailor. He loved his Nancy Lee, and generally he had a number of female relations—wives, mothers, sisters, and sweethearts—depending upon him. Nay, he had heard that if they lost their own, they would even adopt other mothers, who looked after them when they came ashore, washed for them, mended their clothes, and perhaps, too, helped them to spend their money. So convinced was he that the scheme was a sound one that he believed it would answer to allow each sailor who had not a wife to make one nominee out of the group of his female relations. But this was no part of the scheme he was now putting forward. Such was his scheme, which might have been tentatively applied to the Royal Naval Reserve. Asking for a Committee to inquire into the possibility of this scheme and to consider all its details, he would conclude in the words of the late First Lord (Mr. Hunt) last year, who said— I think it would be an advantage to the Service if such, an inducement were held out. And then he added, with regard to the difficulties which might be raised by the Treasury— Whenever the House of Commons is ready to receive such a proposition favourably—whenever we are in easier circumstances than we are now—it is well worthy of their consideration."—[3 Hansard, c xxxii, 1806–7.] He would not say whether they were now in "easier circumstances;" but he might be permitted to express a hope that this scheme, which in its conception had been so warmly welcomed by its natural parents, might not in its infancy be cruelly strangled rather than bestow upon it that small modicum of nourishment, without which it must inevitably die.

LORD CHARLES BERESFORD,

in seconding the Motion, said, there never had been a subject brought before the House which the Fleet had regarded with so much interest and anxiety as that of the Pension Fund. There were two points which, if carefully looked into, would demonstrate the necessity of establishing such a fund as that proposed. The first was the benefit that would accrue to the men, and the other was the benefit to the Service. The benefit to the men did not need to be dwelt upon. If this boon were given, it would be the greatest inducement to them to do their duty. Anybody who knew seafaring men were aware of the effect which female influence had on them, and the fact that a wife or mother would be provided for could not but have the most beneficial effect. We should lose far fewer men by desertion. At present the blue-jackets were a much higher class than they used to be years ago. He knew very many who were perfect gentlemen—he did not say by birth, but in manners and conduct; for it was that which made the gentleman. He held that by adopting this plan we might save not £150,000, but £300,000 a-year. The late Mr. Hunt had said that the desertions in the Navy were 4 per cent; but that was hardly a fair way of putting it. Men could not desert in China, nor on the West Coast of Africa. There were only two Stations at which men could desert—the Pacific and the Australian; and the desertions there were more like 20 per cent than 4. And that was the evil which this would cheek. The desertions were 1,000 a-year, and every man cost the country £300. He made that out in this way:—A boy cost £50 for two years, and if he were quick he might become a seaman in four years; if not, he would take six years. That was at least £200 more; so that it would cost £300 before a man became an able seaman. Until then he was only learning his work. Then the question arose—Where was the money to come from? The men would only be too glad if they were allowed to put by so much for their families and friends; and surely the Government ought to contribute out of the savings which they made by the men? When they joined the Service the men thought—and he sympathized with them—that they were to have so much a-day, a pension, and a ration. If they always took up their ration, the Government would be £65,000 out of pocket. As some hon. Members might not understand what was meant by "savings," he would explain that if the rations—say of beef—were charged to the seamen at 6d. per lb., and they did not take the full quantity, what was saved was credited to them at 4d. per lb. The whole ration was charged at about 11½d., and the seamen were allowed at the rate of 7¼d. for that portion which they did not take. This system was a great advantage to the Government, as it allowed smaller supplies to be sent out both in the ships and to the depots, and what the Government returned in actual cash into the Treasury ought to go to a widows' fund. The other sources from which the fund might be fed were the slush money and the sale of dead men's effects. There were many sad accidents occurring from time to time in the Navy. In the Thunderer 46 poor fellows were killed. They all knew how the Captain went to the bottom; and were it not for the liberality of the British public and the manner in which the Service came forward, there were many unfortunate widows and orphans made by these accidents who, without a shilling in their pockets, would have been thrown upon the world. Even in the ordinary run of drills and duties on board ship men frequently lost their lives. The other day, when hon. Gentlemen came down to his ship, two men were nearly killed. He knew great numbers of seamen, and had heard, he might say, of thousands, who supported their mothers and sisters. He hoped, then, the Government would take up this matter, and if they did he was sure the country would back them up. If the First Lord were to come forward tomorrow and say he wanted £2,000,000 for the Navy, the country would give it. The country always behaved with the greatest kindness to the Navy, which was a little out of sight, but not out of mind. If they were only to keep Jack and Joe, the sailor and the marine, to their sheet anchors, the desertions would be very much fewer.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the establishment of a Fund to provide Pensions for the Widows of Seamen of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, such Fund to be supported by contributions from the men themselves and partly by Government aid, would tend to bind the men more closely to the service, chock desertion, and prove a salutary and economical measure; and that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the best means of establishing such a Fund,"—(Captain Price,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Question."

MR. CHILDERS

said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite brought forward this question last year in a speech which was as worthy of him and of the House as the speech he had now delivered. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had been good enough to allude to a suggestion which he (Mr. Childers) made in the few words he addressed to the House last year. Perhaps he might be allowed to say that he had quite as much at heart the object of the Motion as the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the noble and gallant Lord who had just spoken. He agreed with them that it would be very desirable to attach seamen still more to the Service by giving some advantages to married men, and holding out inducements to them to remain in the Service, rather than put the country to the inconvenience and cost of supplying their places unnecessarily. When he was at the Admiralty, he initiated inquiries with that object, and, had he remained in office, he would have seen what could be done. One of the greatest failures of the present century had been the repeated attempts on the part of the Government to establish, by means of arbitrary deductions from pay, funds which were to be distributed among a few only of those who had been compelled to contribute to them. It was a common device some years ago to establish funds of this description, which appeared at first to work very prettily, but which after a time always broke down. The Merchant Seaman's Fund, to which reference had already been made, was a conspicuous instance of the failure of these funds to carry out the objects for which they were established. The old Civil Service Fund, formed by deductions of Five per Cents for superannuation, was another, and it had been abolished. Though a Committee of the House of Commons last year had attempted to make some suggestions for patching up the Police Superannuation Fund, he did not see that there was any evidence to show that it was likely to turn out any better than others had done. The vice of these funds was that they failed to satisfy those who contributed to them that they got a proper quid pro quo. For instance, under the present plan, bachelors would be compelled to contribute to the support of the widows and children of those who had been married. It was for that reason he had ventured to oppose this proposal last year. If the present proposal were adopted, in about 17 years £400,000 would be accumulated; and did anyone imagine that the Navy would endure this largo sum being left in the hands of the Government, out of their wages, when four-fifths of them would derive no benefit from it whatever? This was an artificial scheme, operating so to extract money from the pockets of the many for the benefit of the few, and he was satisfied that it would not work, and that if it were attempted to be enforced it would cause considerable dissatisfaction in the Navy. But, while holding these opinions with regard to the scheme of the hon. and gallant Member, he was quite ready to admit that it was desirable that Her Majesty's Government should introduce some sound system under which seamen might be encouraged and enabled to make some provision for their widows—he said nothing about the new class of mother, of whom he heard for the first time. The suggestion which he himself had made last year upon this subject was one of a very simple character, and, in his opinion, it fully met the requirements of the case. The main features were to permit every seaman who chose to do so voluntarily to agree to deductions from his wages, so as to secure for his widow a pension of £10 or £20 a-year in the event of his decease. To secure an annuity of £ 10 for his widow, a seaman would, according to the tables laid before the House last year, have to contribute, on the average, the sum of 5s. monthly—about 2d. per day. The seaman's wages amounted to 62s. per month, or, with provisions, &c., to 92s. per month, and the sum of 5s. per month, therefore, would not be too much to ask him to pay for this very laudable object. No one, however, would object to the Government making some contribution towards this object; and therefore it would be unnecessary to ask the seaman for his full contribution. For instance, some of the men would desert, and in such eases the Government would have had the benefit of the surrender value of the past contributions. The Government ought also to make some extra contribution on its part, on the ground that the establishment of such a fund would tend to check desertion. He trusted the First Lord would take the question into consideration, and that before next year he would have prepared a satisfactory scheme to carry out the object which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had in view.

MR. W. H. SMITH

heartily concurred in the spirit of the remarks which had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend and from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. If we could, in any way, assist the seamen and marines to make provision for their widows, we should be doing a work which would benefit the Service and the country. He could not, however, accept the proposals of his hon. and gallant Friend, who aked that the House should be absolutely committed to undertake to make some provision for seamen's widows. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), that the scheme shadowed forth in the Resolution would expose the country to very great difficulty, and he did not think it could be brought into operation without causing great dissatisfaction in the Service. In order to be successful, the scheme must apply to every seaman; but, on the other hand, the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite left it open to seamen to avail themselves of the opportunities which were offered. He wished to draw attention to the large increase in the Pension Vote, in order to show that in a matter like this we ought not to proceed without great deliberation and caution. It was true that on occasions like this Members were likely to accept in the most generous spirit proposals that were made for the advancement of the men; but when the money came to be voted, there was a certain amount of hesitation at the very large sums which they involved. There was an increase this year of no less than £31,000 on the Vote for Pensions on account of continued service. This increase was one which had been going on for some years, and which must continue. At the age of 38, after 20 years' service a seaman or marine would receive at least £30 a-year, and might receive as much as £45 a-year for life. A man was thus enabled to make provision for his widow, and had a better opportunity of doing so than most men of the age of 38. He did not urge this against the suggestion of his hon. and gallant Friend, but merely as a reason for caution in regard to any step that might be taken. Again, a seaman came on the Greenwich Hospital Fund at the age of 55. That would bring him in 5d. a-day, which would be increased to 9d. a-day when he reached the age of 65. No public servant was so well remunerated in the way of pension as a seaman, and no public servant ought to be so well remunerated. If, however, we were to grant pensions to seamen's widows, mothers, sisters, and aunts, he was afraid we should put on the Estimates a charge which would ultimately cripple the resources of the country. The arrangement as to savings was made for the advantage of the seamen themselves. It was a most perilous item of deduction from the cost of the Service, and one, moreover, on which little reliance could be placed; because on some stations there were no savings at all, while on other stations the savings were considerable. In his opinion, encouragement ought not to be offered, to any provision out of this item; because it might and, indeed, had happened, that the men might make too many savings by not obtaining the rations which they ought to take out. He trusted his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Motion. He would undertake to examine the question carefully, with the strongest possible desire to see whether a way could not be found by which seamen would be enabled to make proper provision for their widows. He would also undertake to assist in that direction. With regard to desertions by married men, he failed to see what influence the provision for widows' pensions would have upon them, as he understood the desertions took place abroad, in Australia and other parts, where men were at a distance from home; and it was, he understood, confined almost entirely to the younger and unmarried men.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, that after the assurance just given by the right hon. Gentleman, he would not press his Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.