HC Deb 31 July 1893 vol 15 cc879-81
MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the case of William Chamberlain, late a Quartermaster in the Royal Navy, who joined 19th March, 1865, and after com- pleting over 23 years' service, was, on 17th April, 1888, when within five months of the expiry of his full service period—namely, 17th September, 1888, invalided for varicose veins, and compulsorily retired on a naval pension of £26 12s. for life, of which he has now been deprived in consequence of having accepted temporary employment for a period of three months as a labourer at 17s. per week in the Royal William Victualling Yard at Devonport; whether it is a fact that, had Chamberlain been permitted to serve the few remaining months necessary to complete his full service time, he would not only have received an augmented pension, but have been at liberty to work at any time in any of the Government Establishments without sacrificing his pension; whether, in addition to his deprivation of pension, he has also been discharged; and whether, in view of the fact that owing to the cancellation of Chamberlain's pension the Government have had the benefit of his services for these three months at 6s. a week, the Admiralty will order an immediate restoration of pension, as was done in the case of one Kenyon, in July, 1892?

THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,) Dundee

My attention has been called to the case of W. Chamberlain, the circumstances of which are as stated in the first paragraph of the question, except that he had only 19 years 207 days' service counting for pension. The Regulations are absolute on the point that pensions granted for disability to continue serving cannot be drawn for any period during which a pensioner may be employed in any Naval Establishment, it being held that a man able to work and receiving wages from the Admiralty should not also continue to draw a pension granted for disability. Had Chamberlain's health permitted him to complete 20 years, he would have become entitled to a long service pension of £28 2s., and could have drawn it while employed in a Naval Establishment. His services were only required in the Royal William Victualling Yard for a short time, which terminated on the 12th instant, and payment of his pension has at once been resumed. J. Kenyon, to whom the hon. Member refers, took his discharge from the yard as soon as he was informed that he could not draw his pension while so employed.