SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 6 August 1881)

§ MR. PULESTON
said, it would be convenient if the Secretary to the Admiralty would redeem the pledge he had given that he would lay before the Committee a statement as to the changes to be made in the Marine Corps. He did not know whether the scheme had been prepared; but the promise to which he referred was made in July last.

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
asked if anything had been done with regard to pensions to the widows of seamen and marines? The question was one of vital importance, and it had been more than once promised that it should be looked into. Admiral Gambier had several times submitted to the Admiralty schemes for creating these pensions, and had pointed out that there were several sources out of which they could be granted without adding to the burdens of the country—for instance, the proceeds of seamens' effects, unclaimed pay, and prize money, and other matters. Under these heads, without doubt, money could be obtained from which the unhappy widows might be granted annuities. When anything happened like the accidents to the Atalanta and Eurydice the public came forward as soon as its attention was drawn to the circumstance, and did a great deal to support the widows of the men who were lost; but nothing was ever done by the State for the widows of men who died in the fulfilment of their duty. He had been told of a case at Portsmouth, in which the widows of two men who were drowned in rendering assistance to a vessel that was lost got nothing whatever, while 1139 the widows of the men belonging to that ship, owing to the amount of public sympathy that was excited, obtained by subscription a considerable amount of money.

§ MR. MACLIVER
said, he wished to call attention to the position of the Naval Engineers, whose pay, instead of being raised in accordance with the representations made to the Admiralty, had, in some cases, been reduced.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the subject upon which the hon. Member was speaking was not relevant to the Vote before the Committee, which related to half-pay and retired pay to officers of the Navy and Marines.

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
said, he thought the pay of Naval Engineers entered into the question before the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) could, of course, speak upon the question of half-pay to these officers, but not upon the full pay.

§ MR. PULESTON
suggested that the hon. Member should defer his remarks until the Vote for Pay of the Navy was reached, when there would be an opportunity of fully raising the question.

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
hoped the question would not be postponed.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the hon. Member for Plymouth would be perfectly right in raising the question upon the regular Vote; but to do so now was entirely out of Order.

§ MR. TREVELYAN
said, perhaps he might be allowed to say a few words in reply to his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) on the subject of pensions to the widows of seamen and marines. In the first place, there were different methods in almost every Department of the State of dealing with the widows of public servants. In the Civil Service no pensions whatever were given; there were certain pensions in the Military Service, but none in the Naval Service. In that respect the Navy was so far worse off than the Army; but it was immeasurably better off than the great mass of Civil servants. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had brought forward the 1140 question of pensions to the widows of seamen and marines. With regard to that question, he begged to point out that the Admiralty would have been most willing to move in the direction indicated had they felt justified in calling upon the House of Commons to provide the enormous sum which would be necessary to provide the pensions in question. But they had not felt so justified, particularly as the seamen were the best paid class of all the fighting Services of the country. The Admiralty, however, would have been glad to establish a provident fund for the relief of the widows of seamen; but when the men were questioned on the subject, it turned out that only about 3 per cent of them were willing to contribute the amount out of their pay which would have been necessary to provide that fund.

§ MR. MACFARLANE
asked whether it was 3 per cent of the married men who objected?

§ MR. TREVELYAN
said, it was not; but 3 per cent of all the men who had been canvassed. With regard to the widows of officers, if it was found that a very small number of them gave up their pensions, it would be a matter for consideration whether the inquiry into their private means should not be given up. But if a considerable number did give up their pensions, or did not come forward to claim them at all because their incomes were large, then he thought the Admiralty would not be justified in making any change.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he believed that this inquisition into the means of the widows of naval officers did not save very much money to the State. He was rather surprised at the statement made by the Secretary to the Admiralty with regard to the 3 per cent only of seamen of the Navy who had expressed their willingness to contribute from their pay the sum necessary to establish a provident fund. Having read the Return moved for by Mr. Egerton Hubbard (late Member for Buckingham), he thought the percentage must refer only to the number of men who were willing to contribute a proportion of their pay very much in excess of what was supposed to be necessary, having regard to the various sources indicated by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). Of course, if a large sum of money was proposed to be deducted 1141 from their pay, both married and unmarried men were very likely to object; but he believed that a contribution was promised by a majority of those classes, which, taken with the money derivable from the sources named by his hon. Friend, would have produced the desired pensions for their widows, without any addition to the taxation of the country. Without refreshing his memory from the Return of the late hon. Member for Buckingham, he should be sorry to state categorically his opinion as to that subject; but he thought the Secretary to the Admiralty would find that the percentage to which he had alluded did not apply to what he would call the more reasonable proposals made in behalf of the widows of the seamen of the Navy.

§ MR. PULESTON
said, that the small percentage of the men alluded to by the Secretary to the Admiralty was probably due to the fact that no matured scheme had been laid before them on the part of the Admiralty. The general impression of the Service had been that if the Admiralty matured a scheme sufficient money would be available from the sources mentioned by Admiral Gambier to provide pensions, without calling upon the men to make any contribution at all, though an approved scheme would, he believed, have the support of all in the Service. One very strong reason for doing justice to the Navy in this respect was that it would contribute more than anything else to make the Service attractive, while, at the same time, dismissal would be regarded as the greatest possible punishment It would also contribute to putting a stop to desertion. Therefore, it was his opinion that from a purely selfish national standpoint alone the Admiralty could well afford to make this concession, and that it would be money well invested. In reference to the marines, he would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he would let hon. Members see the scheme promised on a former occasion, before the Committee met again upon the Naval Estimates. In adopting that course he believed the convenience of the Committee would be very much consulted.

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
said, he believed that no clear scheme with regard to pensions for the widows of seamen and marines had ever been drawn up by the Navy. An attempt 1142 was made to do this at one time, but it was dropped, owing to difficulties which were found to exist. But, as he had already pointed out, Admiral Gambier had stated that the different stoppages and savings would be sufficient for the purpose of founding annuities, without further contribution. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Gentleman would look into this matter, and see whether upon thorough re-examination something could not be done. It was perfectly plain that seamen were not in the same position as civilians or soldiers, because they were constantly exposed to danger. With regard to the question of pensions to the widows of officers, he thought the present practice of calling upon these ladies to make a return of their private means was not fair. He did not see why a distinction should be drawn between the poorer widows and those who were better off; and if the practice were discontinued he believed that a very unpleasant grievance would be removed.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he hoped this practice would be discontinued. His attention had been drawn to the case of a widow of a naval officer in very difficult circumstances, and one of her great troubles was the battle she had with herself every year as to how she should bring herself to sign the declaration required of her. This lady had dependent upon her two female relatives, and she stinted herself very much in order to enable them to live, and she would not be able to do this but for the pension she received on account of her husband's services. It was clear from this that the practice of requiring a declaration pressed very heavily on the minds of deserving ladies, although there might be some whose consciences were not so tender as that of the lady to whom he had alluded. Then, he had been informed of the case of another lady, whose pension had been discontinued simply because, after some years, she had had an increase in her means. It was perfectly inconceivable to him that the widow of a naval officer should be dealt with in such a manner. He trusted that this system of confidential investigation, which pressed very heavily upon the ladies in question, and was by no means useful to the Service, would be done away with.