UNREST IN BRITISH NAVY

Taranaki Daily News, 21 September 1931, Page 9

UNREST IN BRITISH NAVY

WAGES CUTS SOLE CAUSE RECOGNITION OF HARDSHIP ACTION OF CHIEF PRAISED ABSENCE OF ROWDYISM British Wireless. Rugby, Sept. IS. In the debate in the House of Commons on the recent unrest in the Atlantic fleet, Captain W. G. Hall (Labour), who initiated the discussion, emphasised that the cause of the unrest was solely hostility to the cute in pay, which hit married men particularly hard and in his view broke the contract regarding pay and allowances confirmed by successive Governments. Letters from the men showed that they would accept any reasonable cut which did not bring tragedy to their homes. He was glad the° Admiralty acknowledged the existence of special hardships. Commander Kenworthy (Labour), claimed that Captain Hall’s speech would serve to correct the wrong impressions and sensational inaccuracies published in some quarters abroad. Sir Austen Chamberlain, who earlier in the day had made a statement giving an assurance that hard cases would be considered but that any further refusals to carry out orders would be dealt with under the Naval Discipline Act, replying to the debate, also commended the' action of the Commander-in-Chief. The action of the men, though technically inexcusable, had been mark-, ed neither by rowdyism nor disrespect. The movement had never been general, said Sir Austen, and many never deserted their duty at all. It had been profoundly distasteful to ask the navy for sacrifices as part of the payment which had been made for past, policy. Afl for the sacrifices demanded, he emphasised that naval officers had in fact suffered previous cuts not shared by the men. The present cuts only assimilated all ranks to the post-1925 rates of pay, blit he recognised that those who had undertaken financial and domestic liabilities in expectation that there would not be cuts would suffer special hardships, and the Government s final decision was that such cases should be thoroughly and quickly reached by the adjustments possible, but the Government could not allow; the policy of retrenchment to be eaten away. Sir Austen agreed that pre-1925 men might have expected their rates of pay to be secure. The only excuse for disturbing this was the existence of a national crisis, and he was sure that when the meu realised the emergency, and the cases of special hardship were alleviated, they would readily accept their share of the universal sacrifice. An appeal had been made that theie should be no victimisation for what was past. He agreed that the memory of the last few days should be wiped out. The past was past, and it A was to the interests of everybody to forget it. DENIAL OF MUTINY MADE “WAS ONLY PASSIVE RESISTANCE” INSIDE STORY FROM SAILOR. Rec. 11.30 p.m. London, Sept. 20. The Atlantic fleet has reached its home ports and the men have been given week-end leave. The majority of the sailors refused to say .a word about the events which are said to have happened when the fleet was off Invergorden. One man from H.M.S. Rodney, however", gave the inside story. He said that on Monday night many of the men who had shore leave assembled at the naval canteen to discuss the pay cuts. An officer entered and said he would not permit anything conflicting with discipline and that he intended to listen to the discussion. “We quietly picked him up,” the Rodney Bailor said, “and dropped him outside without doing him any violence. We adjourned the meeting to a football ground where we decided to ‘down tools’ on the following morning when we were due seaward for manoeuvres. On Tuesday morning we did the usual cleaning but ignored all other orders and had a sing-song instead. “It was passive resistance, not a mutiny. The ships remained in port on "Wednesday and when the officers informed us iff was the Admiralty’s intention to review the hardships every man returned to duty.”