§ MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he is aware that nine apprentice fitters in 1627 Chatham Dockyard will be, on Monday morning next, forced to exchange their own branch of trade, to which they were beund, for that of shipwrights, in which they have no desire to serve; if such compulsion on the part of the Dockyard officials is legal; and, whether he has received any communication from Chatham on the subject? The hon. Member also asked, whether it is true that a fitter named "Munro" has recently been discharged from his employment at Chatham Dockyard for assisting the "fitter apprentices" in drawing up a statement of their grievances?
§ MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANSir, the facts of the case at Chatham referred to by my hon. Friend are these. Shipfitter apprentices, like shipwright apprentices, are apprenticed to the chief shipwright officer. He has been directed to employ both classes partly in the shops and partly in the ships, the object being to widen their experience at once for the benefit of the Service and for the benefit of the apprentices themselves; and this has become more necessary now that by a recent arrangement ship-fitters are allowed to compete with shipwrights for promotion to the position of foremen of the yard and constructors. Some of these shipfitter apprentices did at first submit a protest against being put to work under shipwrights; but this matter was explained to them; and on it being found that their parents and guardians, who are parties to the indenture, did not concur in the action they had taken, the apprentices were allowed to withdraw their Petition, and have expressed their regret for what they had done. I may add that if any fitter apprentice had, with the consent of his parent or guardians, objected in a proper manner to the order which has been issued, subsequently to the date of apprenticeship, the objection would have been allowed, although it would have been much against his own interest. With regard to the man Munro, I understand that the Admiral Superintendent has, on the advice of the Chief Constructor, discharged him from the Service. He was a hired man, who had been employed about two years. According to a most salutary practice, which has prevailed for some time past, the Admiralty do not interfere in such cases, but leave both the engagement and the discharge of hired men to the authori- 1628 ties on the spot, who are responsible for the efficiency and good discipline of the Dockyard workmen.
§ MR. BROADHURSTinquired whether it was a fact that the officials in discharging these men used somewhat violent language, which was altogether unfit for repetition; and, whether the officials were justified in using language of that kind?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI answered the Question as it stood upon the Paper, and I was not aware that the hon. Member had given Notice of that further Question. No Report has come to me from the Dockyard confirming the idea that any such language was used.