HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "TORCH" AND "PROMETHEUS." (Hansard, 22 January 1913)

§ Major ARCHER-SHEE
I desire to call the attention of the House to a matter to which I referred on 31st October on the Motion for the Adjournment of the 573 House. It relates to His Majesty's Ship "Torch" and also to His Majesty's Ship "Prometheus." I would remind the House of the facts I then brought forward. The "Torch" is a ship of about 1,100 tons which is commissioned on the Australian station. She was commissioned in April, 1911, to cruise in the unfrequented waters of the Southern Pacific. When Captain Carver arrived from England he found the ship was in a very unseaworthy condition. The amount estimated as sufficient by the Sydney Dockyard for the repair of the ship had been stated to be £354. The Captain of the ship remonstrated, and said the amount was totally inadequate. In doing so, he not unnaturally encountered a certain amount of opposition from the dockyard authorities at Sydney. After an expenditure of a little over £1,000, the ship was sent to sea, and cruised for six months around the Pacific Islands. During that cruise he was on one occasion at a harbour in Fiji, at a crisis in our national affairs when relations were strained with a foreign power. This harbour in Fiji was the landing place of the Pacific cable. The "Torch" and the "Prometheus," both of them in a dilapidated state, were lying in the harbour at a critical time, which fortunately did not develop into anything more serious. On his way from one of the islands to Sydney his propeller dropped out of the ship.
The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill) admitted these facts in the statement he made on the 8th January. He has said also that the dropping of the propeller was not due to any defect in the ship or to any defect which should have been repaired at the dockyard, but he omitted to state that the Captain of the ship himself investigated the cause of the mishap, and found round three-quarters of the circumference a deep crack filled in with some material to a maximum depth of five-eighths of an inch. The defect was in reality the cause of the loss of the propeller. The ship was towed back to Sydney Harbour and was there inspected by the same officer who had been in charge of the dockyard and with whom the Captain of the "Torch" had had a certain amount of friction when he had remonstrated as to the condition of the ship. This officer reported to the Commander-in-Chief on the Australian Station to the effect that the ship was very clean and generally efficient, that the bedding and general cleanliness of the ship's company 574 was satisfactory, and that the marine detachment was smart and clean. But he went on to find fault with the conduct of the captain as regards the disciplinary measures taken, on the ship during the cruise. I allude to that not because I wish to go over the whole question of the dilapidations, but because I want to touch on the manner in which the Admiralty has dealt with Captain Carver and the other officers of the "Torch."
The Commander-in-Chief, on receiving the report of this officer who inspected the ship, and who has since been censured by the Admiralty, called on the captain of the "Torch" for an explanation with reference to the severe punishments which it was alleged he had inflicted during his cruise. The captain, in a long report, explained all the cases brought forward, and also said that as one of the reasons for what might have been regarded as the somewhat stricter discipline than usual the ship was in a bad state and he was obliged to work the men harder, and they had never really, from the start of the Commission, had a fair chance. I submit that the ship's company had an unfortunate beginning with the ship, and that the condition of the vessel from the outset was such that it was necessary to accept a comparatively low standard of order and discipline. The Commander-in-Chief, replying to the report, concurred that the ship's company was handicapped on commissioning by the ship still being in dockyard hands, but added that the observations of the captain—i.e., "it was, moreover, evident that the ship was not to be put in thoroughly efficient order, a fact which invited the opinion that ' anything would do"—had no justification, and was disrespectful. He added that the correspondence would be forwarded to the Admiralty with the punishment return. On receiving that report the Admiralty issued a report superseding Captain Carver, who accordingly came home, and asked that his case should receive further consideration at Whitehall.
On the I8th July he received a letter from the Secretary to the Admiralty saying:— I am commanded by their Lordships to inform you that they are not prepared to re-open the question of your supersession, which was based on matters immediately connected with your conduct to the Commander-in-Chief and to your ship's company, but that inquiries will be made of the Commander-in-Chief, Australia, with regard to your subsequent complaints against the-Dockyard authorities. 575 This officer was superseded on the ground of disrespect, and the grounds of that disrespect I have already mentioned. With regard to that, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Commander-in-Chief on the Australian station had informed Captain Carver that he had telegraphed to say that on further consideration there was no disrespect intended, and that he had asked that this officer should be retained in command of the ship. In spite of that the Admiralty superseded him. Since then the matter was raised in the House on 31st October as regards the condition of the "Torch." The Admiralty fully admitted the disgraceful state of repair in which this ship was sent to sea. They censured the Dockyard officer at Sydney and other officers, and in view of that fact I submit that the Captain of the "Torch" has been fully vindicated as regards his action in protesting against the condition of the ship. This is not a matter personal to one individual. I know that the House is rightly jealous of any question of an individual's grievance being brought before them. This is a matter which affects the whole Naval service; it is that of an officer who knows that his ship is in a thoroughly unsea-worthy condition, that if she met with a heavy gale she would in all probability go to the bottom, and who in this case objected to the condition of the ship on the ground that she was not in a state of fighting efficiency.
If officers are to be superseded and driven out of His Majesty's service because they have the independence and initiative to stand up to the authorities, and state what are the facts, then it is indeed a very bad state of affairs, and one which must be very bad for the whole Naval service. In this case it is accentuated by the fact that this officer had on no fewer than seven occasions received the thanks of the Admiralty, the Colonial Office, or the Foreign Office. I do not know whether hon. Members realise that to receive the thanks of a public depart-ment is a very great thing indeed. It is not often that a public department give their thanks to officers. During his very last cruise in the "Torch" this officer received thanks for services rendered in a punitive expedition in the Solomon Islands, where an English missionary had been murdered. He carried it out with fifty men out of a crew of 108, made a night inarch through the jungle, with the loss of only two 576 wounded, and severely punished the village which was responsible. For that he received the thanks of the Colonial Office. On the same voyage he had been down in diving dress to examine the bottom of a stranded British steamer in the Friendly Islands. For that he received the thanks of Lloyd's through the Admiralty. Two years before, when commanding the "Swiftsure" in the Mediterranean, he received the thanks of the Admiralty for having been down in diving dress and cleared a chain from the propeller, and although he was Commander of the ship he worked for ten hours under water single handed. This is the official letter that came from the Admiralty:— In reporting the clearing of the propeller Captain Thursby observed—' The chain became foul at 2 p.m. and was cleared by midnight, largely owing to the personal exertions of Commander Carver, who put on diving dress and worked single handed till it was clear, and I am commanded by their Lordships to convey to you an expression of their appreciation of your conduct on this occasion. That was only two years before, when he was Commander of the "Swiftsure." In the report on the condition of His Majesty's Ship "Swiftsure," the late Admiral Curzon-Howe, than whom I am sure no better officer ever hoisted his flag in the Navy, said:— The Swiftsure is admirably clean and ill excellent order. The inspecting officer lias never seen one cleaner for many years. The ship's company are a strong, willing and very well disciplined body of men. Great care has evidently been taken by Captain Thursby in their organisation and clothing. The late executive officer must be credited for some of these results, Commander Carver. That was only two years before this case of the "Torch." In this case the Admiralty at the time they superseded him could not have known, I believe, that the "Torch" was in a terrible state of disrepair, which they have since admitted. I do not believe if they had known that was the case, if they had received the earlier report of the Commander-in-Chief, stating that on further consideration there was no disrespect intended, they would have adopted the course which they have in this case, and I therefore ask the First Lord if he cannot see his way to ordering a new investigation of this case as regards the Captain of the ship so that an officer who has a splendid record, like this man has, shall not be superseded merely upon a Press report in a Sydney paper. That was really practically the ground upon which he was superseded—that his ship's company had been too harshly treated. There are other ships in the Navy which have lately broken down and whose conditions has been, proved to be deplorable— 577 in the case of the "Pandora" and the "Prometheus," now in dock, holes were actually corroded right through the bottom of the ships. I suggest that further inquiry should be held into the condition of these ships serving abroad. In 1871 a Select Committee inquired into the case of a ship which was nothing like as bad a case as this or the other two I have mentioned. They censured not the officers of the dockyard—not the officers of the ship, but the Admiralty officials responsible for sending the ship to sea in that condition. I therefore beg to ask that the First Lord of the Admiralty will first of all reconsider the case of Captain Carver in the light of the admissions he has made, and that he will cause a further inquiry to be made into the condition of His Majesty's ships abroad.

§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill)
The hon. Gentleman was less concerned, I think, with the defects of the "Torch" than with the merits of Captain Carver. So far as the "Torch" is concerned, I have already given a full answer to the House. It has been admitted that the "Torch" proceeded to sea in May, 1911, under conditions which fall short of the standard of efficiency required for His Majesty's ships. After searching inquiry the Board of Admiralty came to the conclusion that the officers responsible could not be dealt with by court-martial, but that it was a case for administrative and disciplinary action. The disciplinary action that it was taken included that the Captain in charge received an expression of the severe displeasure of the Board of Admiralty, and was informed that but for other considerations he would have been superseded in his appointment. Secondly, the officers of the yard immediately concerned have been severely censured, and various other measures have been taken. I should like to point out that the defects which existed in the "Torch" were not due to any refusal on the part of the Admiralty to provide the necessary funds for the repair of the vessel. Every request made by the Dockyard authorities was granted in full, and if the regulations had been properly observed by the Dockyard authorities, no ground of complaint would have existed. That is the explanation I have given on the subject of the condition of the "Torch," and I have not a word to add to it. Nor do I see any need for a special inquiry such as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. But to-night for the first time 578 of the various occasions when he has raised this question he has, I think, indicated both the source of his information and the reason of his activity. They both arise from the fact of Commander Carver's supersession. It is not very difficult for me to see the source of all this detailed information of a very partisan character, and a very exaggerated character. [HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Order."]

§ Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY
Exaggeration! [Holding up a portion of iron.] Look at this piece of the "Torch." [Interruption.]

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
If the House wishes to hear what the Minister in charge of the Department has to say on the subject, hon. Members should listen as well as speak. In crowded debates when there are only a few minutes time, it is very unfair to deny the Minister the chance of making an answer. I shall go on in my own way. The duty of Ministers and others who speak on this side of the House is to make certain that they are not bullied and intimidated. [Interruption]. We have no desire to trespass unduly on the attention of the House, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to keep up a running fire of interruptions after the case has been fully stated by the hon. Member on his own side, and after the case has been listened to very attentively by others, he is simply denying the ordinary freedom and liberty of debate, and that really does not very much affect the Government. If Ministers are not to be allowed to make their statements freely and without interruption in their own way and in their own time, it will be found that the House and not the Government will suffer.
I come now to the case of Captain Carver. The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman (Major Archer-Shee) was that he had been superseded because of his independent and strong character, which led him not to submit to any defects in the condition of ships and so forth. Captain Carver was superseded because of the punishments he inflicted on the men of his crew during the period the "Torch" was in commission and under his command. The case was dealt with in the ordinary manner by the Naval officials responsible for the disciplinary conduct of the Fleet at the Admiralty. Whenever the return of the punishments came home it was clear that a perfectly extraordinary and unprecedented condition had prevailed on the "Torch." It was decided 579 according to Service opinion that this officer was no longer fit to be left in sole charge of a small ship, where he was sole arbiter of the happiness and the position of the men and boys under him.
In the quarter ending 30th September, 1911, there were 123 punishments awarded to a ship's company of ninety-five men and boys. Some of these punishments were entirely unauthorised and illegal. They included such punishments as 'being ordered to the masthead illegally, and being kept in irons and eventually deprived of badge and reduced to the second class for conduct for refusing to go; seven days' cells in the refrigerating room; two men deprived of good conduct badge for failure to obtain soundings early enough when approaching an anchorage. These were punishments affecting the whole future position of these men. I have here a list of punishments for very small offences which, not in the opinion of anyone who could be accused of considering the matter politically, but in the opinion of naval officers dealing with their own comrades in the service, are unprecedented, unusual, and severe beyond all ordinary comparison. You have got to consider officers: you have got also to consider men.
I do not wish to underrate the good qualities of Commander Carver, though I am not sure that he has not done full justice to them in the mouth of the hon. Member, but I quite recognise his dash in expeditions with natives, and that his record in many ways is a good one. But the condition of the crew, the punishments inflicted upon them, and the general methods by which discipline was maintained during this period, which are out of all proportion to any ordinary system in the Navy, clearly show that he is not a man who can be trusted to command a small ship, though possibly in other positions under superior authority, and in close touch with superiors, he might conceivably have been employed. In my experience of this House, which has extended over twelve years, I have seen a good many personal cases dealt with in 580 the House, including some in which the hon. Gentleman himself was concerned, but I never remember a personal case in which an attempt has been made to reflect upon the ordinary administrative action of the department in which any advantage accrued either to the service concerned or to the individual principally affected.

§ Mr. PRETYMAN
I only desire to enter a protest against the right hon. Gentleman in attributing motives to my hon. Friend. On the disciplinary action taken by the Admiralty I desire to make no comment. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken for his department, and stated for his department what the House is bound to accept, I that this action has been taken by the responsible naval officers who control discipline in the Navy, and I am sure that nobody in this House desires to criticise action of the kind taken to maintain the discipline of the Navy by the responsible naval officers. But I rise to protest against my hon Friend being charged for having made the very definite statements which have been proved to be true. With regard to the neglect of the maintenance of ships upon distant stations I only desire to say that I am perfectly certain that if officers on distant stations in charge of dockyards know very well that it is in the mind of the Admiralty that efficiency comes first and economy second things of this kind would not occur. When people hear that no actual demand has been made which has not been complied with that is only part of the story. The House cannot deal with officers in charge of dockyards. The House can only deal with the Admiralty. The House holds the Board of Admiralty responsible for it. I do' not comment on what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the naval officer concerned, but I do think that the House has a right to complain of the spirit in which he dealt with the complaint that was raised.