NAVY ESTIMATES, 1896–7. (Hansard, 18 May 1896)

* ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne),
called attention to the meat rations of marines as compared with the rations of soldiers, when on shore. The old system was that soldiers had a deduction made in respect of meat rations, and marines had a similar deduction. He found however, that some years ago the soldier was allowed a full ration without any deduction, but the ancient custom still prevailed in the case of the marines. Against that reduction he protested on Friday night, and the Secretary to the Admiralty informed him that he would inquire into the matter, and give him an answer on Report of Supply. He asked for what was only just and right. As far as he understood the military position of the army, the private soldier gets 1s. a day and 2d. deferred pay, the private Royal Marine 1651 also gets 1s. 2d. and 1d. beer money. The Admiralty must take off that 1d. and deduct it from the 4½d. All he asked was, that they should give the marine a free meat ration in the same way as they did to the soldier. The marine when on shore was to all intents and purposes under military rule, and therefore, it would not do to say that he was practically a sailor on shore and came under naval rules. This injustice had gone on too long, and now was the time to remedy it. They could not afford to have this magnificent force discontented. They were loyal, and could not make their grievances felt like dockyard employés, who could bring pressure to bear on their representatives to secure them, say, an eight hours' day or higher wages. The marines were a patient, well-disciplined body of men, and he appealed to the House and to the Government to remove any ground for the suspicion that they were unjustly treated as compared with the sister Service.

§ MR. H. E. KEARLEY (Devonport)
observed that the hon. and gallant Member's recent discovery of this matter was rather belated, as he had himself repeatedly brought the question before the House during the last four years, and had secured an assurance from the late Administration that consideration should be given to the representations made, a pledge which was carried out in the matter of clothing, as to which the late Board of Admiralty made some concession. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was not altogether accurate in his statements. He said for instance, that the deduction for meat rations was 4½d. per day; it was only 4d. But there were other deductions which altogether totalled up to 7d. per day, which was a large amount. He called attention to the representations made on the recruiting placards, that soldiers on joining the army were granted a free kit. The same observations applied to the marines, but, instead of getting a free kit, their life was a life of perpetual deductions. Not only had they to pay this ration money, but they were continually being mulcted for all sorts of items for their uniform. He thought this was very unfair, considering that their pay was so small. He wished to allude to the question of the boots supplied to the marines, a subject as to 1652 which on a previous occasion the First Lord of the Admiralty had promised him he would make inquiries. In the army, because of route inarching, each soldier was allowed two pairs of boots a year. But route marching was now carried out as extensively in the marines as it was in the army, and yet the marine only got one pair of boots. The men marched on an average 17 miles a day for six days in one week. A single pair of boots would not last long at that rate.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,. Antrim, S)
said, that the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member had been brought before the late Board of Admiralty in all its details; and they came to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that no sufficient case had been made out. There was undoubtedly a difference between the soldier and the marine ashore, but that difference was not so great as was imagined. It was difficult to make an exact comparison, because the marine was a long-service man, and the soldier was a short service man, and received deferred pay. But the actual difference in pay was from ½d. to 1d. per day. The marine ashore received as pay 1s. 2d. per day, and as beer money 1d. per day. Deductions were made for rations 4½d. per day, and for tea, coffee and vegetables 2½d. per day. That left 8d. per day. The soldier received as pay 1s. per day. [Admiral FIELD "1s. 2d."] No, the 2d. was deferred pay, and against that was to be set the marine's pension. There were deductions of 3½d. per day for tea, coffee, and vegetables, and that left 8½d. per day. For the other two terms of his service which were passed afloat the position of the marine was superior to the soldier by five-sixths of a penny. [Laughter.] That was the calculation of the actual financial value of the advantage; but there were many other advantages which the marine had over the soldier. He would ask his hon. and gallant Friend whether he was prepared to claim on behalf of the Royal Marines that they were always to be treated as soldiers and not as sailors?

* ADMIRAL FIELD
God forbid.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said that then his hon. and gallant Friend should not seize upon one special incident in the career of the marine and build upon it 1653 a contrast of the hardship of his lot as compared with the lot of the soldier. Whatever disadvantage there might be in the Marine Service as compared with the land Service it was counterbalanced by several advantages which the soldier did not possess. And despite the assertion of the hon. and gallant Member to the contrary, a sufficient number of men of admirable quality were always attracted to the Marine Service. The hon. Member for Devonport had called attention to the alleged deficiencies in the clothing of the force. He would look into the matter, and if he found that there was a substantial and bonâ fide difference between the Marines and the Army in the matter of the supply of boots he would set it right. There was nothing in the general circumstances which justified the assumption or the statement that there was anything considerable or substantial in the grievances complained of.